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

[ezo]

Are the hags able, in the fiction, to change up their spells as they see fit? If yes, they should do whatever they can to win. But if they can't, it would be "unfair" to swap out a tactically superior spell.
I think hags are essentially warlocks, so I would not be inclined to swap spells out willy-nilly.

According to the stat block they gain "wizard" spells, so I don't see much reason why I could not change them out.

I am limiting myself to swapping no more than half the spells, however, but just 3-4 key changes would be enough honestly.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, given the point of the OP, that is sort of insulting and demonstrates you really don't understand the concept or why "Win" was put in quotes in the thread title.

I perfectly understand. I just disagree on a more fundamental level.

The DM can always TPK the players--that isn't the point.

Wasn’t my point either. So what now?

 

[Reynard]

I'd have to move it back at least a step or two:

1. Why was the grick there? I don't mean in an in-setting sense, but why did the GM place it there (and yes, there's always a reason, even if the reason is something about verisimilitude or using a random encounter chart to force pace)?

2. Given the above, what intention did the GM have as to how that was going to work? Was a grick an appropriate encounter for the party as a whole, and the problem was the small subset of the PCs was too weak to deal with an encounter not-inappropriate for the whole party?

It was a random encounter in an environment where gricks were on the encounter list.

I don't curate random encounters or set them to the party's level. That said, in this case the lone grick was actually lower than usual but bad luck and it only being half the party got in the way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The player was quite cross.

I'd have been pretty blunt (and as I've indicated, I'm pretty sympathetic to low mortality preference these days): "Why did you think the two of you going off by yourself was a good idea? You're playing in a game where death can happen, and you should have known that, even if we try to minimize it; what you did here was maximize your risk and you're angry because something like this happened?"

 

[FrogReaver]

What sorts of tactics? Like ambushes and traps or something else. I am having a hard time understanding your concern or perspective here.

Like focus fire. That’s the only tactic I’ve explicitly mentioned thus far.

 

[payn]

Here is my upcoming situation:

Soon (in the next session or two) the PCs will encounter a Hag (green) Coven. I know by changing a handful of spells, including something like wall of force, I can separate the PCs into two groups. Even at 9th level (which they should be by the time the encounter happens), a trio of hags (at CR 5) is a Deadly+ encounter. However, if I separate the party into two groups of two PCs each, this becomes much closer to a TPK while within the hags' lair.

Certain other spell options make this almost a certainty. One PC in particular is all about survival--so he might manage to escape death if the others fall.

The party is currently in the hags' domain and the power Grannie leader has had spies watching the PCs, so they are become more aware of which PC is going to be most problematic and in what way.

Now, their is an NPC werebear which is helping the party (the hags killed his mate years ago and he as been waiting for a chance to avenge her) but they still have about half a dozen encounters to go before the reach the lair. With attrition, I doubt they will be at full force when they arrive.

Of course, they are not bound by any means to do all this. They were sent to these ruins to investigate and want to help the werebear, and are hopeful with his help they can somehow rid the land of these vile creatures.

I think the game runner mindset is what im interested in here. I mean, these tactics are pretty startight foreward in most of the examples so far. Do they always make for a good game? Thats really going to depend on how you view the game. A simulationist focus is all about reenacting a world in the way they imagine it. So, the startegy of scrying and frying is fair game. Though, someone who is gamist focus might vew it as dirty pool because clearly its not an even match. Which even application of the game rules is what supplies a good time for a person of this mindset.

 

[Reynard]

Wasn’t my point either. So what now?

Discussion may be easier if you articulated your perspective more explicitly.

 

[Reynard]

Like focus fire. That’s the only tactic I’ve explicitly mentioned thus far.

So, on focus fire specifically, I have used it and would again if it made sense. For example, the bandits armed with bows will absolutely focus fire on the wizard in the back rummaging in his satchel for bat guano.

 

[ezo]

Wasn’t my point either. So what now?

Discussion may be easier if you articulated your perspective more explicitly.

This?

 

[TwoSix]

The player was quite cross.

Don't have players who get salty about dying in a combat game?

At my tables, we would have congratulated the DM on being so ruthless.