D&D 5E Intelligent creatures: DM vs Players inevitable.

[Corpsetaker]

This is a topic that has come up in our 5th edition games and I know it's something you try and stay away from but I find that it is inevitable when it comes to playing intelligent creatures. Their strategy is limited to what I do with it and if they are playing creatures that are highly intelligent then I will play them to the best of their abilities. I've always hated the stereotypical dumb, super genius who makes all these dumb mistakes.

I will be the first to admit that it does become a little adversarial but I don't see how it can be avoided.

Any of this happen in your games?

 

[Rhenny]

I get what you're saying. In a way, I don't like playing the ultra-intelligent villains because I feel like I know more than they would about the party, but they would know more about the world than I do (or it is too much of a pain to figure out what they would actually know about the party).

Generally, when I play very intelligent foes, I try to pre-plan a few different contingencies and I try as best as I can not to act on information that they would not have.

For me, most of the really intelligent villains have great escape plans and they usually get others to do their dirty work. They become recurring villains as such.

 

[Sunseeker]

Smart creatures play smart, but they also play to their style, so smart predators still act like predators. I don't see this as antagonistic, I see this as giving the players a better experience. Few people take pride in beating up zombies. As [MENTION=18333]Rhenny[/MENTION] mentions I try to pre-plan a few "tactics" for my foes, things they'll do regardless of circumstance, or things they'll do only in specific circumstance, and I try to avoid making "genre savvy" villains.

 

[Oofta]

Well, despite what my childhood dog thought of me, I am not a genius. So if the group is fighting a genius, it's ok sometimes to use a little knowledge they wouldn't normally have. After all Sherlock Holmes could always tell that someone had been having an affair because of the way they put on their shoes or something. It's even ok to bend the rules now and then.

However, that doesn't mean that a genius has no flaws or that they can outright break the rules. Is overwhelming pride their weakness? A poor choice of minions? A secret love of chocolate bunnies? Only you know, but there should be multiple chances for the PCs to learn what they are.

Other than that, if you can give some specific examples, it might help.

 

[Shiroiken]

I generally run creatures the way their intelligence dictates, with their background and personality adjusting details. A dumb creature that has successfully used a tactic (or has survived against said tactic) knows of it and will adjust to it (either using it or defending against it). A smart creature might have a weakness based on their personality (for example, a genius misogynist might underestimate a female character).

With genius and super-genius level npcs/creatures, I've used a harsh (but effective) tactic. I am not a genius, nor is anyone in my group, so I know that a genius is likely to come up with anything we could. Therefore, I've had NPCs prepare defenses against ideas that my players discuss before engaging. I've also had them use knowledge based on out-of-character conversations during battle, unless it is impossible for the NPC to be aware of it (for example, if the PCs have a magic item the NPC doesn't know about). This was very successful in a social game I used to run (L5R), but I've found it less effective in D&D (unless you're obvious about it).

 

[happyhermit]

I don't really have a problem separating the two any more than I would writing a story. I just put myself into their shoes and consider what they know, what their motivations are, what their flaws are, and go from there.

I don't like geniuses who make stupid mistakes either, but regardless of their intelligence they might do thing for other reasons ie; fear, anger, lust etc. Are they also wise?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I think there is a line, when playing to the intelligence of a creature, which stepping across means choosing smart & not as much fun over smart & fun, and as a DM I choose never to step across that line under any circumstances.

Usually, this means the difference between me playing an enemy that is using available strategy in order to achieve victory, and me playing against my own players.

It all comes down to seeing those choices that are antagonistic (to the players) and being able to choose another thing that is also smart of the NPC to do. For example, when it comes to an unconscious but not dead party member: It is smart to intentionally strike the downed character so that they can't rejoin the fight; It is also smart to identify the still standing character that is capable of returning the downed character to the fight and attempting to prevent them from doing so - not as smart as killing off the downed character, sure, but still plenty smart and also more fun because it heightens the tension by leaving the uncertainty (the question: will the character die, or will the character rejoin the fight?) uncertain for a longer period of time, while giving the players something they can engage with and overcome in the moment (rather than later via returning from the dead).

Also, having known a significant number of people with "genius" IQ, I know it is extremely common that such people have complete blind spots for certain kinds of things, and actually make what others might call "dumb mistakes" far more often than people with IQ in the "norm" do - if for no other reason that because they were so busy thinking of all the complex this and thats of a thing that the obvious either slipped their mind or was thought of and refused because "...it can't be that obvious, can it?"

 

[ExploderWizard]

Always remember that intelligence isn't the same as omniscience. Your villain may have the former and use it to make very good plans but only the DM has the latter.

And as others have stated, a high intellect isn't an immunity from personality flaws. A mad genius might have an IQ off the charts but he or she is still mad.

Even perfectly sane brilliant logic can fail vs the illogical.

 

[iserith]

I don't play to Intelligence - that's just a modifier to die rolls in my view. I play to the monster or villain's established goal and I play as hard and fair as I can to have the monster of villain achieve it. It's on the players to stop that monster or villain.

I don't see this as adversarial - it's just setting the difficulty for the challenge.

 

[Jer]

I don't see why it has to become adversarial between the players and the GM to play an genius-level NPC. I telegraph that they're up against Moriarty/Lex Luthor/Dracula (or the off-brand equivalent) and everyone knows to be on their toes. So long as it's obvious that it's not me vs. the players but rather this evil genius against their characters everything is good.

Also IME you have to use super-genius characters sparingly. Even in long-running serial fiction you tend to only get a few super-geniuses who outclass the protagonist showing up. If every villain who shows up in a game is a super-intelligent badass who kicks their butts up one side of the street and down the other, then the players are going to start to think that you're out to get them instead of putting obstacles out there for them to have fun. If most of your villains are on par with the PCs - or even outright stupid (lots of villains in fiction are just stupid, as are most real-world criminals) - then the occasional super-genius NPC will be a fun challenge instead of seen as yet another attempt to hose the players.