Pitting the players against... themselves!

[green slime]

No, see, your typical adventuring party has an average of three combat-related encounters per day. (Duengon faire, wandering monster, planned encounter, in any order) The average enemy party gets just that one. Ergo, while the members of the Bad party might throw their everything into killing off the heroes, the heroes are more reserved, and less organized. This is better known as the "If I use my fireball now i'll have nothing to kill the trolls with tonight" effect. Alternately, the "Oh crap, i already used my fireball this morning" effect.

Now, I admit, the party I was in used poor tactics. We split up, each picked on a seperate target, while her NPCs chose those with the fewest hit points and dropped them first. We had no idea what these guys were (the DM would correct us if we guessed at class "It's another monk!"... (chuckling) "No, it's so much more!"

The fight took place in (where else) a tavern, so it was not possible to ever get into any kind of strategic position (never got around my enemy to flank him) And we had a bard, whose evil opposite was a pure rogue.

On top of that, this GM kept extrordinarily detailed records, so she knew not only what class and levels you had, she knew all our saves, feats, and skill points. This wasn't to curb cheating, this was to keep tabs on how to develop the Evil opposites!

Let's review:

-PC's are reluctant to use all their "x per day" abilities, NPC's can use them at liberty (since the NPC party won't have to go and fight trolls after this bar brawl.)

-PC's, even smart PC's, even PC's controlled by the smart players have the strategic abilities of a pillbug. NPC's are operated by a single "hive" mind (The GM)

-The GM knows what the PC's can do, and can (and will) build the NPC's to combat that.

-PC's 0, NPC's: 4

This sounds like sour grapes, or did the DM do a bad job?

-PC's are under no obligation to go out and kill trolls after this bar brawl: It is surely more important to survive the moment than plan for the endless myriad of possibilities? No point planning if you aren't there to enjoy it. This is why mages should hold back the big guns for the first round, sussing up the opposition, then selecting the most effective spell against a key point/NPC. Who wants to drop a fireball in a bar brawl?!?

-NPCs are controlled by a single person, yet shouldn't behave as if they are. They shouldn't know more about their opposition (the PCs) than their assets and local rumours allow, they shouldn't make decisions based on metagaming. Deciding to take out the mage first is not metagaming, provided you can see who is the mage.

-PC's should have a plan, and be organised. First option: negotiate; Second option: flee to reorganise and come back; Third: stand and take it; Fourth option: surrender.

 

[frankthedm]

Now, I admit, the party I was in used poor tactics.

Then your characters deserved to lose and die.

PC's are reluctant to use all their "x per day" abilities, NPC's can use them at liberty (since the NPC party won't have to go and fight trolls after this bar brawl.)

Were you under magic compulsion to go fight the trolls?

-PC's, even smart PC's, even PC's controlled by the smart players have the strategic abilities of a pillbug. NPC's are operated by a single "hive" mind (The GM)

Failing to use strategy delivers deserved death. If 3 to 5 poeple get rings run around them by one person, they might not be taking things seriously enough.

The GM knows what the PC's can do, and can (and will) build the NPC's to combat that.

Quite Cheesy, though evil twin plots are classic.

 

[Deng]

I was in a group that hit a mirror of opposition type thing once with Chaos versions of our huge party.

PCs know their characters better IME.

Although I think I would probably crush the 16th level group I DM if they had to face themselves. I don't really have a desire to do that though.

Yep had that before. We each had one-on-one fights with ourselves (magic items and all). In the end it was PCs 4 - Duplicate PCs 0 because we knew our abilities better than the DM.

 

[Drowbane]

Here's the problem though: A Level 5 PC-built character is, a CR 5 challenge.

FOUR level 5 PC-built Enemies is CR 9.

Do you expect a 5th level party to be able to drop a CR 9 challenge?

To drop a CR 9 challenge? Hell yes! Party level +4 is a challenge that is liking to expend alot of resources, but if the players work together they should survive. At least a few of them at least.

 

[genshou]

I've done it. The trick is to know your group and what they'll enjoy. My players invest a lot in their characters, so the other party was usually acting as more of a foil than a threat of death. They got into plenty of fights, but never ended up outright killing each other, no matter who had the upper hand at the end of the skirmish.

It gets really interesting when both parties are mostly composed of good alignment, but just don't get along (or are working for opposing employers).

 

[Bront]

Not helping was that the DM had used some 3rd party sourcebook, and my character's "Evil opposite" was an arcane monk... a 3.0 monk that cast spells as a sorcerer, and because of the way it's power was worded, it effectively had "quicken spell" for free. Getting hit by two "burning hands" spells at the start of combat is not good for any class with d8's for hit dice.

That's probably more your problem than anything else. Incorrect use of the rules, or worse, using unbalanced rules can tip the scales in what should have been an even fight.

But a PC vs equivilent NPC battle should be enjoyable and challenging.

 

[shilsen]

But a PC vs equivilent NPC battle should be enjoyable and challenging.

In theory. In practice, I've found that if I use anything more than 50% party strength, the PCs are likely to be toast. Two sessions ago I took five 8th lvl PCs down with five 6th lvl NPCs. If it wasn't for the fact that I allow use of action pts to prevent death, it would have been a TPK, and even so it ended with the PCs all unconscious and two NPCs down.

 

[Agent Oracle]

Then your characters deserved to lose and die. Were you under magic compulsion to go fight the trolls?Failing to use strategy delivers deserved death. If 3 to 5 poeple get rings run around them by one person, they might not be taking things seriously enough. Quite Cheesy, though evil twin plots are classic.

Wow, that's some agression there.

1. we had two newbie roleplayers whose greatest experience playing was Final fantasy 7, you know, where everyone stands in a line on the opposite side of the field and shoot at each other? They had no grasp of tactics or movement for the barfight.

2. No, but we had allready encountered a wandering monster that morning GETTING to the tavern, so we were under the 2nd cause "oh crap, i used my fireball allready!" And the GM was very fond of having scripted "there's an assasin at your door!" events at night.

3. Never heard of "Divide and conquer?" The NPC's had one, cohesive tactical mind behind them. we had one brilliant strategist who was unable to say more than six words at a go, one poor chess player (me), one "guy who dosn't talk until it's his turn" newbie player, and one "overly bubbly anime catgirl who never played before." newbie player.

4. less classic, more Cliche'. I mean, c'mon, it's been done on friggin' South Park.

Yep had that before. We each had one-on-one fights with ourselves (magic items and all). In the end it was PCs 4 - Duplicate PCs 0 because we knew our abilities better than the DM.

Oh, one on one fights are much easier from a tactical standpoint. No flanking, only have to deal with one attacker... no "ganging up." It becomes a game of "Can I hit him for a higher percentage of his hit points than He can hit me for this round?"