Staple Spells Used against Genre Conventions

[jodyjohnson]

Normally I want my players to win or at least have fun losing.

For a while our game was sliding towards "smart" play rather than "role-playing" and certainly not sticking to genre (rather than heroic it was efficient).

What was really bothering me as a DM is to see spells that belong in the game and can be fun taken to their logical and efficient end - basically spells used against the conventions of the genre.

Examples:
Sleep/Hold spells followed by CDG.
Entangle vs. Melee brutes followed by cutting them down with ranged attacks.
Baleful Polymorph as a Save or Die (moreso in <3.5)
Curse/debuff in order to kill
Bless/buff in order to kill faster

Basically every spell becomes another tool to kill something as efficiently as possible. It just doesn't leave much variety in the story.

The trend lead me to institute a nebulous concept known as "fairness" by which the majority of creatures abided whenever they could - making the exceptions more remarkable.

For example ...
- Immobilization spells are to be used to avoidance, preparation, or positioning.

- Lethal weapon use is not to be combined with non-lethal (i.e. going lethal after building a pad of non-lethal when subduing creatures)

- Cursed or severely limited creatures are made so in order to avoid killing them (slow, blindness, exhaustion, etc.) except in the cases where it is necessary to bring the opponent down to the party's level (usually meaning that the effect isn't all that limiting).

- You don't bring a greatsword to a bar fight.

- No blindsiding. Warning should be given although not a lot of warning (and maybe the warning is implied).

- Avoid un-beatable combos; scry and teleport are allowed but not Buff/Scry/Teleport.

Is this too heavy handed?

 

[barsoomcore]

Yes.

The reason your players are maximising efficiency rather than heroism is because YOU are rewarding them for it. If you want them to play more "heroically" (however you care to define that) you have to reward heroic play.

Straight D&D does NOT do this. It rewards the methodical, efficient butchery of all creatures one encounters. The more you kill, the more XP you get -- and XP is the currency of value in D&D. To combat this you have to either alter the mechanism by which XP is awarded and/or create other currencies of value for your players.

For example, Action Points (as in Spycraft or Grim Tales) reward characters for taking critical hits. Now, suddenly, getting smacked really hard is a GOOD thing. It makes players less inclined to avoid any and all hits.

Of course, you can simply tell your players they're capable of taking particular actions, no matter how possible or reasonable those actions might be. And if you think there's simply been a confusion over the TYPE of campaign you're trying to run, you should certainly tell them so. But in my opinion (since you asked), what you are proposing will only make the game less fun for your players, since it arbitrarily restricts the options they logically ought to have access to.

 

[Rel]

But in my opinion (since you asked), what you are proposing will only make the game less fun for your players, since it arbitrarily restricts the options they logically ought to have access to.

Ditto. Or at least it would make the game less fun for me.

 

[Darkness]

I'll play devil's advocate for a second...

Sleep/Hold spells followed by CDG.

What happens if they don't do this?
What would you prefer them to do and what happens if they do that?

Entangle vs. Melee brutes followed by cutting them down with ranged attacks.

Do the melee brutes try to surrender when entangled?
Do they call the PCs cowards?
Do the PCs have any honor?

Baleful Polymorph as a Save or Die (moreso in <3.5)

What do you mean by Save or Die? Also, if they're polymorphing their enemies into toads or something similarly harmless, that's perfectly in genre.

Curse/debuff in order to kill

What would you prefer they use these spells for?

Bless/buff in order to kill faster

Praying to your deity to give you strength in a fight is in genre. Dunno about wizards but I think it's okay. Also, what would you prefer them to do with these spells instead of what they're now doing with them?

 

[rounser]

Do the melee brutes try to surrender when entangled?
Do they call the PCs cowards?
Do the PCs have any honor?

I think you've struck paydirt here. If the NPCs never give a sucker an even break, why should the PCs?

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

The reason your players are maximising efficiency rather than heroism is because YOU are rewarding them for it. If you want them to play more "heroically" (however you care to define that) you have to reward heroic play.

[Followed by some more absolutely excellent advice!]

This deserves to be read over and over again, because it's absolutely correct.

It's harder to think of ways to reward and encourage "good" behavior than it is to just forbid specific "bad" behavior, but believe me, it's worth trying.

If you're sick of combat being an exercise in ruthless, brutal efficiency, the trick is to find out why they feel they have to play it that way, and then stop letting that be a useful strategy. You could, for example, reduce the lethality of combat. Or just reduce its overall importance to the game. You might stop using faceless, interchangeable monsters and enemies and start using only named NPC opponents that the player characters interact with in other settings as well. Perhaps you could try eliminating ALL experience awards from combat, and just hand out story XP awards instead, with bonuses for good roleplaying. Maybe you could reduce the penalties for failing in combat: D&D assumes that losing the fight means that you're dead, but what if the default punishment for failure was something more interesting?

You could even do the unthinkable, and ask your players why they're doing things that way and what they think would encourage them to try playing the game your way instead. (You know, instead of just complaining about it on the internet to people who will never, ever be gaming with you. )

--
there may be a stick, but it's the carrot that really gets the donkey moving
ryan

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Personally, I reward ruthless efficiency and do everything in my power to encourage it. Inefficient or tactically inept characters simply will not survive more than a session or two of combat in one of my campaigns.

Facing four orcs with four characters? The orcs will be stronger, tougher and better fighters, or else I wouldn't be using them against the party. They're rather slow-witted, though; the PCs can beat them with clever tactics. Those tactics may boil down to sneaking past, sniping from a distance, getting flanking and sneak attacks, or rolling a boulder down on the orcs' camp and picking off the survivors in the confusion.

Facing a dragon? The dragon is stronger, tougher, more magically adept and it's also smarter. It's so smart, in fact, that to play it realistically I'm quite willing to use out-of-dragon knowledge to represent just how bloody brilliant it is (hint: very). If the PCs don't bring their best tactics, specialized equipment and a whole lot of guts, they'll all be killed. If they do bring all of that, only some will.

If I don't feel like putting the PCs in a situation where one or more of them absolutely will die if they don't pull out the stops to maximize their effectiveness, then I'll pose social or skill-based challenges instead, which I'm perfectly happy to do.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Normally I want my players to win or at least have fun losing.

For a while our game was sliding towards "smart" play rather than "role-playing" and certainly not sticking to genre (rather than heroic it was efficient).

What was really bothering me as a DM is to see spells that belong in the game and can be fun taken to their logical and efficient end - basically spells used against the conventions of the genre.

Examples:
Sleep/Hold spells followed by CDG.

I have never seen these spells used in any other way, unless there was a good reason why capturing the enemy was necessary. So it's simple:Make capturing the enemy necessary.

Entangle vs. Melee brutes followed by cutting them down with ranged attacks.

Frankly if you don't do this, you're an idiot. The spell will not keep people tied up forever. Unless they surrender once they're entangled, then duh people will try to deal with them.

Baleful Polymorph as a Save or Die (moreso in <3.5)

What other use does it have? Again - if you make capture more important than killing, you'll see less squishing of the poor guy afterwards, but apart from that... it's a save or be taken out of the fight spell.

Curse/debuff in order to kill

So, what, you expect people to give their target a -2 to saves just so they can then NOT force them to make saves? Again - if critters surrender or flee once crippled with blindness or the like, you won't see the combat happening afterwards.

Bless/buff in order to kill faster

Basically every spell becomes another tool to kill something as efficiently as possible. It just doesn't leave much variety in the story.

The trend lead me to institute a nebulous concept known as "fairness" by which the majority of creatures abided whenever they could - making the exceptions more remarkable.

For example ...
- Immobilization spells are to be used to avoidance, preparation, or positioning.

So, what, if you meet a single opponent and you paralyse him, you've all got to wait until he's unparalysed before you can kill him?

Because you can't just leave him there - he'll come after you again in a few minutes.

- Lethal weapon use is not to be combined with non-lethal (i.e. going lethal after building a pad of non-lethal when subduing creatures)

Frankly - who cares. Beyond that - first you want your PC's to be less bloodthirsty (no killing paralysed or crippled foes), then you try to make being less bloodthirsty the harder option. Make up your mind.

- Cursed or severely limited creatures are made so in order to avoid killing them (slow, blindness, exhaustion, etc.) except in the cases where it is necessary to bring the opponent down to the party's level (usually meaning that the effect isn't all that limiting).

Slow is certainly not a fight stopper. Neither is exhaustion or fatigue. Blindness may be, depending on the creature.

In any case - what the hell are the party supposed to do if you just have the monster slog through it regardless?

Scenario *Cast slow*. "Well, that's sorted, let's walk onto the next room while the spell wears off, so we're assaulted from in front AND behind".

- You don't bring a greatsword to a bar fight.

This sort of thing is entirely your fault. A greatsword in a bar fight means that instead of civil disorder, your PC's should be suffering a murder or attempted murder rap. Beyond that, drawing the thing should either
a) Quieten everyone down a whole lot - they were just having a friendly brawl, not a fight to the death.
b) Escalate the thing into a fight to the death that goes both ways.

- No blindsiding. Warning should be given although not a lot of warning (and maybe the warning is implied).

Why? If you play NPCs who never surrender, then there's little point in not killing them as efficiently as possible.

If the NPC's are as likely to surrender as fight, then your PC's can avoid 50% of fights by negotiating instead of sneaking, which means not blindsiding someone comes with a nice benefit.

- Avoid un-beatable combos; scry and teleport are allowed but not Buff/Scry/Teleport.

BST doesn't really work. Scry takes an hour to cast, may fail etc etc. Scry/buff/teleport is usually more likely, and even then it's not foolproof. Essentially if the bad guys are THAT susceptible to SBT, then they were never a challenge to your PC's in the first place.

Is this too heavy handed?

Yes.

Instead of giving your PC's reason to act the way you think they should, you're asking them to remove their brains and act like morons.

The fact that they're treating the game like a tactical wargame should tell you that you're doing one of the following. Ask them which, and then adjust.

a) You're playing the monsters as though they're just there to die. They're sufficiently bland that the PC's want combat over and done with quickly.

Solution - make your monsters into NPCs, not just cardboard cutouts to be knocked down. If you think the monsters are all gonna die, have them surrender. Give creatures important information the party needs. Have monsters ask the party to surrender. Have monsters let the party past. Award experience for monsters that the PC's successfully negotiate with, kill or threaten. Put real-world consequences in place for fights (PC's kill someone in a tavern brawl using a greatsword? The watch comes after them. PC's kill a man in the street - even if he attacks first? Have his brother come looking for them etc etc).

b) You're making encounters tough enough that the PC's feel they must do this sort of thing to survive.

Solution - tone it down a bit. Throw in some easier fights.

c) Your PC's LIKE this type of play.

Solution - get used to it, quit GMing, or make the other aspects of your campaign compelling enough to win them over to your point of view.

Don't say "hey guys - for the purposes of this game, act like you can't think".

 

[jodyjohnson]

The reason your players are maximising efficiency rather than heroism is because YOU are rewarding them for it. If you want them to play more "heroically" (however you care to define that) you have to reward heroic play.

The carrot approach. I'd love to use it if I had the time. However, it would take years for the players to get it.

The behaviors the players were exhibiting have been ingrained for years (if not decades). I simply told them that I would expect them to practice "fairness" and that I would have my villains practice it too (most of the time).

I'm not going to resort to Pavlovian behavior modification when I can plainly communicate what I'm looking for.

Straight D&D does NOT do this. It rewards the methodical, efficient butchery of all creatures one encounters. The more you kill, the more XP you get -- and XP is the currency of value in D&D.

Yes and no. The DMG clearly says that overcoming challenges gains you XP. Killing just seems to be the most common means of overcoming the challenge.

It's not the rules, it's a mindset focused on one aspect of the rules.

And if you think there's simply been a confusion over the TYPE of campaign you're trying to run, you should certainly tell them so.

The "fairness" idea section gets a full page in my House rules which is now several campaigns old. And honestly they've been following the principle of it more and more.

But in my opinion (since you asked), what you are proposing will only make the game less fun for your players, since it arbitrarily restricts the options they logically ought to have access to.

Arbitrary? It's completely modelled after real world conventions about war and interpersonal conflict. (Although modern conflict seems to be gravitating towards 'guerilla/terrorist' style tactics - which are smart because they work.)

 

[jodyjohnson]

Re: Hold/Sleep > CDG

What happens if they don't do this?
What would you prefer them to do and what happens if they do that?

Usually I intend to have them surrender or flee.
Mechanically, the target can't act so the player can't tell what they are going to do, and thus press their advantage - against a foe they have already overcome.

For me it's the equivalent of making a threat and then carrying it out before you see the response (Stop or I'll shoot! Bang!) Or using tranquilizer darts instead of bullets and then decapitating the disabled targets.

Re: Entangle/Web/Grease/etc

Do the melee brutes try to surrender when entangled?
Do they call the PCs cowards?
Do the PCs have any honor?

First let me clarify that in situations where the party is at a disadvantage in straight up melee I'm fine with them evening the odds by switching to missile combat (i.e. vs. a collossal vermin or giants).

I try to run my combat so that any foe that understands that it at a significant disadvantage will try to surrender or flee. Under entangle fleeing is usually not an option.

Bringing up cowardize and honor at least hints that these tactics have some bearing on the heroism of the party.

Re: Baleful Polymorph

What do you mean by Save or Die? Also, if they're polymorphing their enemies into toads or something similarly harmless, that's perfectly in genre.

I'm referring to turning an opponent into a toad and then following up with a lame sequence of killing the toad. (I swack the toad, he tries to hop away, AoO, chase down the toad and strike, how away, AoO, etc.)

Using Baleful Polymorph as Save or Defeated is not equivalent to Save or Be at Extreme Disadvantage followed by death.

Re: Buffing and Debuffing

What would you prefer they use these spells for? Praying to your deity to give you strength in a fight is in genre.

This was unclear. I mean buffing and debuffing to excess. Basically when it reaches the point where the PCs are near invulnerable and their foes ineffective. This area is perhaps the least defined but at the same time it's usually enough to just let resource management (spells/day) solve the issue.

For example, they were 5th level fighting normal Orcs. The fighter was Enlarged, Bull Strength, Bard Songed, and then Hasted. They were destroying the orcs before Haste came out.

They were overkilling the mooks so bad that I made the end boss run away because it was so obvious to him that there was no contest.

End result: no challenge, and no resolution with the end boss (orc chief), no reward.