D&D General Playing to "Win" - The DM's Dilemma

[Guest 7037866]

I think if this is your reaction, your motivation for using this tactic is coming from the wrong place. It sounds like this is less about playing the monsters efficiently and more about getting back at the players for a perceived slight, which is not a foundation likely to result in a very good time being had by anybody.

No, that isn't it at all. It was meant more humorously but I guess came off wrong.

I just mean that tactics the players use, like focus fire, wolf-packing, force separation, etc. can and will be used against them. If they don't like that, I don't know what to tell them other than the monsters defending themselves in their homes will use any and all means to defeat the PCs just as the PCs will use their best tactics, features, etc. to defeat the monsters.

 

[TwoSix]

I think if this is your reaction, your motivation for using this tactic is coming from the wrong place. It sounds like this is less about playing the monsters efficiently and more about getting back at the players for a perceived slight, which is not a foundation likely to result in a very good time being had by anybody.

I'm not reading it as being about retribution as much as reciprocity. If a tactic works effectively for the players, they have no room to complain of unfairness when the same or similar tactic is used against them.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, that isn't it at all. It was meant more humorously but I guess came off wrong.

I just mean that tactics the players use, like focus fire, wolf-packing, force separation, etc. can and will be used against them. If they don't like that, I don't know what to tell them other than the monsters defending themselves in their homes will use any and all means to defeat the PCs just as the PCs will use their best tactics, features, etc. to defeat the monsters.

Sure, I agree that monsters should use whatever tactics are available to them to try to achieve their goals, which in this case I would assume is protecting their lair from the invading adventurers. But, the thing is, using Wall of Force to split the party isn’t a tactic that’s normally available to green hags. This isn’t a matter of playing the monsters to win using all the tools at their disposal, it’s a matter of giving the monsters a new tool so they can win more easily. That, to me, is a significant difference.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, I agree that monsters should use whatever tactics are available to them to try to achieve their goals, which in this case I would assume is protecting their lair from the invading adventurers. But, the thing is, using Wall of Force to split the party isn’t a tactic that’s normally available to green hags. This isn’t a matter of playing the monsters to win using all the tools at their disposal, it’s a matter of giving the monsters a new tool so they can win more easily. That, to me, is a significant difference.

It's a difference, sure. But I view customizing monsters to provide novel challenges as part of the core gameplay loop for D&D type games.

Giving a monster known for spellcasting some novel spells to mix up the fight a bit doesn't faze me in the slightest.

 

[el-remmen]

I play them how I think they would act in the world and situation while attempting to fulfill their goals (either short or long term), as is relevant (or they are capable of). To me that means, I play them to win, where "winning" means achieving that goal. Sometimes that goal is killing all the PCs. Sometimes that goal is working to kill all the PC, up to a certain point after which it is too much of a risk. Sometimes that goal is simply defeating the PCs without killing them.

So for example, because the NPCs want to "win" in a recent encounter, they took the PCs prisoners rather than just kill them when they were defeated, because "winning" for these NPCs was getting the info the PCs have, and it is not as convenient to get it from corpses (though not impossible). They may still kill them, but in the meantime the PCs have a chance to escape and are formulating plan towards that end, that still may not work.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's a difference, sure. But I view customizing monsters to provide novel challenges as part of the core gameplay loop for D&D type games.

Giving a monster known for spellcasting some novel spells to mix up the fight a bit doesn't faze me in the slightest.

I don’t think it’s wrong to do that but it certainly isn’t an example of ‘playing the monsters to win’.

This would fall more under the concept of ‘creating a challenging encounter for the PC’s).

 

[Charlaquin]

It's a difference, sure. But I view customizing monsters to provide novel challenges as part of the core gameplay loop for D&D type games.

Giving a monster known for spellcasting some novel spells to mix up the fight a bit doesn't faze me in the slightest.

Absolutely! But I think it’s important when doing so to be very mindful of if it’s going to feel to the players like a fun, fair challenge.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So, personally, I wouldn’t swap a hag’s individual spells at all since they are innate spellcasters. Swapping their coven spells seems a bit more reasonable, but swapping out non-damaging spells for something like wall of force with the specific intent of dividing up the party feels against the spirit of the advice not to swap damaging spells for non-damaging spells or vice-versa. Splitting the party is kind of dealing virtual damage, by reducing the number of hit points the hags have to chew through to win each encounter, as well as reducing the damage the PCs can do in a round. I think this tactic has a very high potential of feeling unfair from the players’ perspective, so I’d be extremely hesitant to use it.

Yeah, at the end of the day, defeat-in-detail tactics are actually awfully strong; its fundamentally why short term disabling effects are stronger than they appear on the surface, and things like walls and the like don't even usually get saves.

 

[TwoSix]

Absolutely! But I think it’s important when doing so to be very mindful of if it’s going to feel to the players like a fun, fair challenge.

Sure, obviously you need to make it a fair, rational challenge. (Or telegraph heavily that the players are in way over their heads.)

I'm just wary of the mindset that I've seen of "If you're not using RAW monsters, you're not being fair." Not common, but an opinion I've seen expressed in the past.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's a difference, sure. But I view customizing monsters to provide novel challenges as part of the core gameplay loop for D&D type games.

You just need to keep in mind that it does mean the monster is, in fact, more dangerous than it says on the tin (not that from what I understand 5e CR is usually too useful in this regard anyway).

Giving a monster known for spellcasting some novel spells to mix up the fight a bit doesn't faze me in the slightest.

The kind of novel spells, however, I think matters. Swapping out a Lightning Bolt for a Fireball just changes up damage and some locational application; it might surprise a set of players and negate some prep, but fundamentally its just doing different damage. Throwing a Fireball on a caster that normally has no damage spells, let alone area effect ones is, I think a different beast and that's more what this is like.