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

[Guest 7037866]

Sticking to a point I was never married to and ignoring the one I was isn't the good look I think you believe it is.

Changing goal posts isn't the good look you probably think it is, either.

So, let's drop it??

 

[Thomas Shey]

Changing goal posts isn't the good look you probably think it is, either.

So, let's drop it??

Insisting I was moving the goal posts when I dropped something casually about a broader topic and clinging to it like a tick is insulting. But apparently that's okay, because you know how to read my mind. Even though I indicated three cycles back in this exchange that was a bad bit of phrasing.

So I think I'll solve this a different way.

 

[Guest 7037866]

Ah... the "I'll post a response quoting you and then block you" ploy...

EDIT: I'm glad you see you reconsidered. Don't worry, I can let it go.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I try to play the monsters according to their nature. Within that bound, I do try to have them play to win - against opponents who they believe to be much weaker than the PCs actually are. If the monsters had an accurate understanding of how tough the PCs were, their immediate reaction would be to flee at once, or if that wasn't practical to make a doomed last stand. Or to surrender and later attempt to escape when the PCs weren't looking.

Rarely, the monsters will understand how tough the PCs are, and will do those things. Most of the time, however, they fight to win against the much weaker party that they can beat - and discover briefly and too late that the PCs are not that weaker party.

 

[Steampunkette]

Do I play monsters to win? Depends on the goal of the monsters more than anything else.

If the goal is to kill the party, I do not play the monsters to win. I play the monsters to make their best choices for their own continued survival -or- their best chances to hit as hard as possible, and act like it's a sliding scale with a Zero Sum game.

That means the kobold who deeply hates the party will do everything up to and including sacrificing his own life in a blaze of murderous glory to deal as much harm as possible to the party, throwing caution to the wind. You will almost never fight in a situation where most of the enemy group is like this at my tables. When you do, it's a sincere threat of a TPK.

But it also means that if they're more interested in surviving the fight they'll take cover out of the gate and let players escape if it means not getting killed, themselves. Sometimes you'll fight in situations where most of the enemy group is like this. It's entirely possible for the party to "win" this fight by walking past/walking away. However if you play incredibly foolishly and stay beyond a reasonable point, this can result in a TPK. (Especially if 1 or 2 party members drop. Then the baddies will be emboldened by their success and start coming out of cover)

The BBEG and their most loyal lieutenants will be in the middle of that sliding scale and try to balance their own survival against killing the party. The Lieutenants can be cowed or baited into falling into one of the other two categories, though, of course. And if they're not, this is the most dangerous fight to be in.

But.

In the BBEG/LT fight, you're liable to survive because most of my villains are VILLAINS rather than just killers. So expect to wake up tied to the death ray for a monologue you mostly ignore as you try to break your bindings and escape. Or in the Rancor Pit for the entertainment of the BBEG's minions as you fight their "Favorite Pet". Or you'll be "Allowed" to witness the villain's triumph in some way that gives you one last chance, weakened and weary, to struggle against the dying of the light and be the heroes you're meant to be.

If the goal is to Break, Steal, or Kill the MacGuffin, then yes I will play to win. Enemies will fight tactically based on what they're aware of in order to achieve their goal. And once they achieve it will try to survive the situation up to and including fleeing. If the MacGuffin is portable, this can and has turned into a game of football with long passes to open receivers to get the MacGuffin away from the party.

(I have run, and enjoy, games where one of the party members -is- the MacGuffin that needs to be strapped to an altar under the red moon for a sacrifice when the stars are aligned)

Honestly... the way to get a TPK in my games where you -just- get TPKd and there's no chance for survival is when you're badly prepared for a random encounter with, like, bandits or something, and you really piss them off during the fight to the point they start stabbing downed PCs... and then you stay and fight to the last instead of giving them what they want and running away.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Every DM has their own perspective on this question: do you play the monsters to win?

In 5E? No, because D&D isn't a wargame, and 5E is particularly bad at being a wargame. It's asymmetrical and monster-wise, its poorly-balanced (albeit a masterpiece of balance compared to 3E, where CRs were actively misleading).

4E was a weird exception here because it almost was a sort of skirmish game, and importantly, it was insanely better balanced than any other edition of D&D, and its CR-type system was wildly better at pegging what would happen. It's a bit weird because PCs were actually less balanced than 5E, but monsters were so much better balanced it more than made up for it. Also the heavy tactical nature of combat meant it was more fun in that case to play it more like a wargame in combat unless it was getting truly silly. Everyone got more out of it.

I try to play the monster according to its nature.

Yeah this instead.

This a ROLE-PLAYING game, again, not a wargame. My experience is that perhaps the majority of DMs forget this at times, and have monsters behave suicidally or just irrationally. Usually suicidally, and a lot of the suicidal behaviour is in the name of making encounters "tougher" or similar nonsense. Most humanoid monsters should not be fighting to the last unless they're cornered, for example. Most "predator"-type monsters should not be fighting to the last if they are fast runners or can fly or if the party backs off. But a lot of DMs just wanna get that extra bit of wear-down in, so insist these cowardly goblins or whatever will definitely keep fighting when literally 60% of their number got absolutely vapourized/blendered in round one of the combat.

To me that's shenanigans. Use insane fanatics or undead or whatever if you want monsters that fight to the death. Role-play the monsters and their tactics.

A Red Dragon might have layered defenses and centuries worth of combat experience to use against the party.

It might, but beings like are also arrogant, foolish (high mental stats never stopped anyone being a fool) and importantly, it might not have faced any real serious challenges for decades or even centuries, and thus become lazy and lackadaisical in a very human way. Especially as Reds aren't exactly disciplined or hard-working.

A Red Dragon that's had people trying, quite hard, to kill it for say, 50+ years is going to be a nightmare. That absolutely will have layered defenses and attack in a careful controlled way with multiple exit strategies and so on. But one who has been unchallenged or even catered to for centuries may barely even remember what a real fight is.