Sauce for the gander....

[Rasyr]

Earlier today I was talking with my boss, showing him the maps I had made up for use in the games that I will be running on Saturday as the Game Day in DC. Anyways, the conversation kinda got side tracked at one point and one topic led to another and I ended up describing an encounter that my players had back when I was GMing D&D (shortly after 3.0 came out).

For this encounter, the PCs were ambushed by Kobolds. Kobolds who acted intelligently and used teamwork. They ended up severely wounding several characters (the only one with healing abilities was unconscious from damage) before the PCs took out enough of the Kobolds that the rest ran away (the PC were never in melee range). One player later referred to that encounter as being mugged by Kobolds.

As we were discussing the encounter, my boss said something to the effect that players rarely like it when the bad guys act as intelligently as players do, or when a GM uses the same thing on players that players use on NPCs.

Then later on, in another thread, somebody made a comment on how players would not like it if an NPC were able to use Bluff or Intimidate or other skills like that on their PC just like the PCs use those skills on NPCs.

This got me to thinking and wondering and brought up a few questions.....

1) As a player, would you like it the NPCs could do the same thing to your character as your character could do to the NPCs with these types of skills?

2) As a player, do you get upset if the monsters use tactics against the party (such as co-ordinated ambushes, etc.).

3) For the GM, have you ever had an NPC use these types of social skills on a PC? And if so, what was the player's reaction?

I guess that is enough for now.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

3) For the GM, have you ever had an NPC use these types of social skills on a PC? And if so, what was the player's reaction?

I do it all the time. I don't TELL them "Oh, so-and-so's using Intimidate. Be scared," though, I describe the things they are doing and make them...well, intimidating. Even if its a lowly Kobold, it can act in a way to push the PCs around and worry them(a Kobold that gets away with that in my games is worth worrying about).

Bluff is the same way, as is Diplomacy. Its all in what the players are told.

My players, of course, know I use the skills against them, but its not something that's discussed in game. We just go on and keep RPing or whatever. They don't seem to have any problems with it at all.

 

[Roudi]

1) As a player, I imagine my character to be in a living, breathing world, of which my part is one of many. Thus, I would expect NPCs to be able to do the same things I am able to do, within reason. NPCs ought to Bluff me when they have something to hide, Intimidate me if they think they can, make the same daring Jumps I do in pursuit of me, etc. Anything less feels like a videogame.

2) I rarely get upset at monsters/enemies using "intelligent" tactics against me, if they are reasonable tactics for said opposition to attempt. I admit, in one instance I witnessed my girlfriend's character slaughtered in a single round by a devious combination of a distracting illusion and an invisible assassin who snuck up behind her. I admired the tactic, but I think it was ill applied in that case (she wasn't a combat-oriented character, and I wondered why the assassin targeted her instead of a more martial party member).

3) I always exercise the full extent of the game system when handling PC-NPC interactions. Most of my NPCs frequently have secrets to hide from the PCs, and it can frustrate the players a bit when the NPC Bluffs so well as to sufficiently convince their characters of honesty. Still, while my players do get a little frustrated, I find that they are eager to continue with the game in order to discover the secrets they know exist.

 

[Lee's Fortune]

Well said Roudi!

Quite simply it is boring to be in a campaign where your character has little or no chance of kicking the bucket. The more 'realistic' the campaign, the more fun it is for me. I guess I'm saying I prefer status-quo?

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

1) As a player, would you like it the NPCs could do the same thing to your character as your character could do to the NPCs with these types of skills?

it depends on what those things are and how much fun they are to roleplay.

How good would a typical bond film be if bond were as likely to get shot and killed as the myriad mooks he is shotting with his pistol who are firing submachineguns back at him.

Ok, its a short film then, as he likely doesn;t survive the opening splash action scene.

Want your 8 bucks back?

2) As a player, do you get upset if the monsters use tactics against the party (such as co-ordinated ambushes, etc.).

not at all.

I might get upset if the Gm sets up a killer "lets humble the players" scene under the guise/excuse of "but the monsters are intelligent"

or put another way, As GM would you be upset if before you throw a 10th level guy at our 10th level party you had to play that 10th level guy thru his levels of advancement instead of just statting up this week's challenge?

really, PCs and NPCs are different things with vastly different purposes in the game. The goose and gander argument is really more like apples and warp driven starships.

3) For the GM, have you ever had an NPC use these types of social skills on a PC? And if so, what was the player's reaction?

Social skills used against PCs are IMo best handled as PERCEPTION skills, they adjust what the characters see and hear and percieve and thus what info the party gets.

A character with good bluff is described believably, with elements of truth in his lie to make it seem plausible, while a bad liar is twitchy and nervous and looks away at the wrong times.

a character with good intimidate is described as more powerful than he is.

a character with good diplomacy is descibe more likeable and friendly.

and so on...

the use of the skill is not to DICTATE the PC actions, anymore than the use DICTATES the NPC actions when they are the target. It just makes them likely to go this way or that way. This is easily handled with "perceptions".

 

[Eosin the Red]

Let's see -- social skills are done through in character DM conversations.

Killer tactics get used when PCs KNOW they are going against someone rumored to be highly skilled. Unless they have heard of the group before chances are they aren't dumb butniether will they capitolize on every error or opening.

I have the good for the gander rule on game breaking issues.... want to use poison that only paralyses on a successful save but kills if the save is failed? Fine but expect and equally lethal poison to get used on you at some point in the future.

 

[JustKim]

1) As a player, would you like it the NPCs could do the same thing to your character as your character could do to the NPCs with these types of skills?

I think that I would, but sometimes things like that feel inappropriate. A good comparison is fear effects, if something has an ability to frighten your character and you don't think it should frighten them, it can feel inappropriate.

2) As a player, do you get upset if the monsters use tactics against the party (such as co-ordinated ambushes, etc.).

No, I don't, but sometimes folks go too far. Giving a CR 11 dragon mage armor and shield spells so that even the combat monster can only hit it on a 20 is not cool. Yes, it's a smart thing for a dragon to do, but it is not fun to be completely ineffective. Sometimes this is a thin line and while I'd like to think I don't cross it as a DM, others disagree.

3) For the GM, have you ever had an NPC use these types of social skills on a PC? And if so, what was the player's reaction?

No. Frankly my group is pretty NPC hostile. If a DM tips their hand on expectations with an NPC description, many players will immediately defy that expectation- for example, rolling their eyes at an NPC who is supposed to be beautiful or nitpicking an NPC who is supposed to be wise. Telling players how to react to an NPC is about the last thing I want to do.

 

[lordcloaker]

I dont mind smart NPCs, I think its very good in fact. I once made a big encounter for my party and I made every single NPC from scratch and made up tactics and ideas of how they would work. It was a deadly encounter but my players had a blast and still talk about it every now and then. The only type of tactics that bothers me are super combos to kill one character. I have a DM that once made an encounter that was made to kill the paladin and it was so obvious that it kind of took the fun from that session, since the paladin couldnt do anything (surprise round with 3.0 haste and they won iniciative, so another round with haste - something like 4 attacks from each NPC). I dont approve that kind of action, unless its a villian that knows the players or something like that.

 

[delericho]

I try very hard to always play NPCs/monsters to the limits of their capabilities and character. So, when the PCs invade a kobold lair, they will find the kobolds to be extremely devious, but also cowardly. When they face a dragon, they're going to face a very different challenge.

I do not inform a player how his character should react to something. In fact, even when domination magic is involved, I try to avoid taking control of the PC away from the player. I do, however, expect my players to have their characters react appropriately, and my players are aware of this, and generally do so. (On occasion, I have had to mention to players that, while dominated, their character would act differently than they are playing him, but such cases are rare.)

I also do not generally set the NPCs up specifically to take down one or more PCs, and don't tailor the NPC tactics to counter the PC's favoured tactics in advance (although an intelligent opponent is, of course, likely to change his tactics to suit as an encounter goes on). The only exceptions to this are where an NPC logically would do such a thing, as in the case of an NPC who has spent months studying the PCs ready to take his revenge. Even then, the attack doesn't come out of nowhere - the players will be aware that there is some danger, provided they've been paying attention.

Finally, I don't just play NPCs to their strengths, but pay attention to weaknesses as well. I've deliberately had NPCs miscalculate in the heat of battle and provoke attacks of opportunity, because they aren't hardened warriors, or are mindless undead, or whatever. I've had NPCs use cool-looking but suboptimal tactics because they are too arrogant to consider that they might lose, and so on. Not every opponent is as deadly as he could be. (Plus, dice hate me, so my NPCs are rarely as deadly as they could be )

Where Bluff is concerned, one of three things happen. Either I'll make a secret Sense Motive roll for the PCs, and then inform the players that "something about this doesn't ring true", or quite often my players will ask to make Sense Motive checks, or (if we forget either of the first two options), I just describe the action and let the players draw their own conclusions.

Where Intimidate is concerned, either the mechanical effects of the Intimidate skill are applied (for the demoralise use of the skill) or I just describe the NPC as being particularly menacing. My players generally pick up on this, and have their characters react accordingly.

In all things, my goal is to challenge the players and their PCs, not the 'beat' them. I'll play enemies to the hilt, to be sure, but the game is more fun for everyone concerned, myself included, if the PCs win most of the time. Besides, if I really wanted to 'win', I'd just send an army of Invisible Stalker assassins or equivalent against them. 'Cos, as DM, I don't have any shortage of those.