Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mpwylie" data-source="post: 6968076" data-attributes="member: 6802655">Good post.  It really is a playstyle issue from what I can see.  Me personally, I feel it is my job to evaluate each group I DM for, evaluate what they like and how they play, then design a campaign/encounters that fit each group using the base system and tools they gave us in 5e.  What does that mean?  Well My main group is optimized, they play at a very high level tactically, and I have given them magic items.  So when I design encounters for that group, I add HP to the monsters to mitigate the fact that they all have magic weapons, I select monsters for their abilities or when I need a certain monster for the theme I apply class templates over the top for the added abilities.  More or less, with the group at lvl 19, I make sure my monsters have abilities/spells that put them more on a level playing field with the PCs.  Then for that group I play those monsters highly tactical.  Still in a way that is reasonable, but I play them in a more optimal way.  My PCs are optimized and playing optimal tactically, so my monsters must be optimized and played optimally. If my group comes up with an exceptionally good plan, I let it work, if they don’t, I play the monsters to challenge them.  Sometimes the group plans well and steamrolls, sometimes stuff goes sideways and they barely make it out alive or blow all their resources to win.  This is fun for them and me.  I am a DM that always wants my players to win and to shine, so I play the monsters for each encounter that challenges them but is winnable.  I literally plan my encounters around the idea that, Today I am going to built it in a way for the caster to shine,  next session I build it for the melee to shine,  sometimes I make it for the ranged guy to shine.  That is the amazing thing about 5e,  I can do that.  I can go from one session with the Monk being the hero, to the wizard, to the barbarian. Sure it takes works,  but isn't that why I am the DM? Conversely, another group I DM for are a bunch of newbs, not optimized, no magic weapons, and barely know the mechanics.  They role play in and out of combat and don’t look for the best thing to do, but rather the most fun thing to do.  For this group, I use stock monsters, I play then tactically stupid most of the time.  The CR system generally is spot on for them, the "math" is perfect!  This group is very much the target for the base game and the base game works very well for them.  Sure, I still can’t stand my monsters around like they are retarded, but base monsters are enough to allow me as they DM to kill the party or let them win easily just by how I play the bad guys.  It really just comes down to that,  as a DM you have the power to make your game what you want, you wanna run 1-2 encounters a day,  then add some legendary monsters,  you wanna give your party tons of fun magic items, add HP, monsters, or class templates to your encounters,  you are running a game for seasoned veterans,  then play your monsters like seasoned veterans.  Stop crying about a broken system and start being a DUNGEON MASTER.  Start looking at your monsters and planning how to play them with the numerous abilities they get instead of just having them stand around and attack random things.To me, this is the beauty of 5e.  Sure, there are things I would have done differently, things I would have tweaked the assumptions for.  But in the end the base game works and I have the freedom and ability to mold it to my playstyle.  If they made changes to the game, it could work better for me and my main group, but it would likely not work as good for the newbs they are trying to attract.  I think they assumed that the hardcore players and ones that have experience with other editions would also have the intelligence and knowledge to mold the system to their own game. I guess that was their biggest flaw,  expecting the people DMing their games be smart enough to make it work.</blockquote>

Verification