Monsters like a challenge!

[Sigurd]

If all your monsters are stupid you deprive the kids of a smart foe and leave no room for a truly stupid one.


S

 

[Benimoto]

If all your monsters are stupid you deprive the kids of a smart foe and leave no room for a truly stupid one.

When it comes down to it, in basically every monster encounter, the monsters have to be fairly stupid to even start a fight to begin with. And, as mentioned upthread, it's hardly the worst advice possible. It advises you that monsters like to be aggressive and hit PCs.

To be honest, I've had tables full of what you would think would be reasonably intelligent adults act as though they were following this advice all evening. It can't be all that bad.

 

[Fifth Element]

If all your monsters are stupid you deprive the kids of a smart foe and leave no room for a truly stupid one.

But what if you just apply the advice to this adventure, which is intended to be the very first one for the kids? There's nothing that implies all monsters have to behave this way.

I may try running this game with my kids (8 and 5) and see what they think about it. They've never played D&D before, but they know their mother and I play and would certainly be interested.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Maybe it's just because it's Friday afternoon, but WTFAYTA?

PM me if you like.

 

[Doug McCrae]

On the other hand, I can't help thinking that it's unrealistically bad tactics.

Focused fire isn't a realistic tactic because hit points aren't real. It's a pure metagame tactic.

 

[Celebrim]

Focused fire isn't a realistic tactic because hit points aren't real. It's a pure metagame tactic.

That is true, but forcing someone face attacks from multiple directions and attackers is a realistic tactic.

And against intelligent foes, obvious attempts to 'focus fire' will result in the attacked creature fighting defensively (and those creatures not engaged fighting more recklessly) and various other countermeasures.

 

[Doug McCrae]

That is true, but forcing someone face attacks from multiple directions and attackers is a realistic tactic.

That's a fair point, like a pack of wild dogs bringing down a zebra.

 

[TheNovaLord]

it sounds wierd but:

if one kiddie is being attacked lots, and one not so much, they will feel left out, and maybe feel they arent liked!!!!

when you get to our age , you dream of the day the GM decides not to attck your character at all!!!!

 

[Umbran]

I'm sick of the way our society treats our kids like they're so fragile that they'll die in a stiff wind. Kids can and must be able to handle adversity, because life is full of it and you can't avoid it all.

This isn't about treating kids as if they are fragile. This isn't about teaching them to be able to handle adversity. This is about playing a game with them.

Challenges should be challenging, with both the chance of failure and success. Unless the kids in question are budding Ender Wigginses, in their very first game an adult is gong to be able to smear them, tactically speaking. It should be no contest - akin to sending an adult dragon after 1st level characters. An adult should be able to beat six year olds with the equivalent of kobold and and a roll of duct tape.

To keep it from being too tough, to keep the kids interested and engaged, you'll have to use things that are either weak, or dumb, to begin with. Kids will learn fast, so you can jack up the power and intelligence of monsters quickly.

But, if you tromp on them the first time out, they're apt to decide you're a big no-fun meanie, and your game is stupid and also no fun. What's the point in that?

 

[Dausuul]

So, what do you think of this advice? Applicable in most games? Okay when you're playing with 6-year-olds, but not something you would follow in a game with adults? Bad even when you're playing with kids? Something else?

I certainly would not follow such advice in a game with adults. Classes that have low hit points have them for a reason; they're supposed to have other stuff that makes up for it. Steering damage away from them is unfair to the people who have "paid" for their superior hit points and are now getting hit more often. It's also unrealistic; any halfway intelligent monster is going to go for the squishy wizard over the armored fighter, unless the fighter stops it somehow. (It's not so much a question of focused fire as it is effort for payoff. If you were facing a guy in street clothes packing a machine gun, and a guy in Kevlar and riot gear packing a nightstick, which would you go after first?)

With an adult DMing for kids, I think it's not a bad idea. Adults have a tremendous advantage over kids in terms of tactical sense. Advice like this is essentially bringing an adult DM down to a level where the kids can reasonably compete.

If it's a kid DMing for other kids... nah, wouldn't recommend it. Don't want to inculcate bad habits in budding DMs.