What's tactics got to do, got to do with it.

[JRRNeiklot]

Really? Are you a DM? So the solution to a player doing something the DM doesn't like is to kill all of the PCs? What if a PC uses a sword in combat instead of a spoon, couch, or whatever the DMs favorite weapon is going to be? Is that a rules exploit? (because I'm such an expert min-maxer that I know swords do more damage than spoons).

So I say the dragon should drop a couch on them instead of a barrel of oil. Not only does it suit the ridiculous nature of the problem, but it also reinforces the information that the DM is trying to get across - that his favorite weapon is a better way of fighting than barrels of oil.

I don't know where you pulled this crap out of. Are you saying that if a pc uses a sword that an npc can't? If the pcs continuously use tactics like the above scenarios, and are succsessful, word will get out. Others will use the same "tactics." They are not the only ones "brilliant" enough to devise such devious plans. How else do you think the sword, the longbow, the gun came into such widespread use? People saw how effective they were and decided to use one for themselves. As someone said upthread, when the pcs start an arms race, they LOSE. All I'm saying is what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If a tactic is useable by pcs, it is useable by others. When the players realize that if they abuse the rules, the dm is also free to do the same, that kind of crap will not go on and the game will play as intended.

 

[LostSoul]

See, this is the problem we get into.

You say that the dogs are noisy. I, as the player, say, no, I bought trained dogs that were trained to be quiet.

How do you resolve that?

The DM says, "No, there were no trained dogs in town. You can still have the dogs, but they are noisy."

If the player can't handling that ruling, then the game probably won't work. He hasn't agreed to give the DM the authority he needs to make judgement calls in the game, and that's a big feature of D&D.

The DM has the responsibility to remain impartial. He can't care if the dogs help solve whatever challenge the PCs face. He plays the world according to its inner logic, to keep it consistent and interesting.

Are there trained dogs here? This is a poor mining town struggling to get by. They do have war dogs - very handy when you're constantly under seige by goblins and kobolds - but they don't have the luxury of a specialist who trains them.

Gorm Hasag the woodsman might be able to - his dogs are well trained - but he's busy. The PCs might be able to hire him, if they pay him well enough and keep him happy.​

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If a tactic is useable by pcs, it is useable by others. When the players realize that if they abuse the rules, the dm is also free to do the same, that kind of crap will not go on and the game will play as intended.

This is not a balancing measure. The PCs get to use the tactic during every one of their battles for the whole game. A particular enemy who uses the tactic may use it for 5 rounds at most before he is defeated. This is why PCs and monsters use different rules in 4e. It's the same reason why a particular power may be fine on a level 4 monster but you'd never want a level 4 PC to have it.

Therefore, certain tactics should be restricted for PC use. It doesn't matter whether the enemies can use it as well or not.

I just use game balance as the reason and so far most players are willing to accept that. To me, it's best if the game stays at the proper difficulty level. If that means that no matter how hard people try they can't blind their enemies with a handful of flower, than that's what I'll do.

 

[roguerouge]

Oh, it very much is: your death sucks, but an NPC's death sucks much, much less. A DM I had used it as a very effective promise to limit PC shenanigans.

 

[steenan]

At some level, the rules would have to approximate or emulate reality, or many players will not be able to get into the game. For some DMs, "what happens in the real world" also has a significant bearing on what they would deem effective (or not) in their games; see the post above by Ariosto. And as I mentioned, this applies more to mundane effects, but even mundane effects can be perceived very differently by different people.

"At some level" - that I agree with. But that is a very basic level, definitely not a tactical one.
In real world, a person with a dagger and a leather vest facing ten brutes in heavy armor, wielding shields and axes, would have only one viable tactic - run for his life. In D&D, a 15th level rogue, even with no magic items, will kill ten orcs in no more than half a minute. The D&D world isn't reallistic and it's not a matter of magic.

I'm not arguing that there is no such thing as exploit. There definitely is. But you cannot call an exploit every tactic that cannot be effectively used IRL.

One thing that helps here is having works of fiction that describe the game setting and stories that take place in it. It gives much better understanding of how the world works than the rules themselves. Unless the rules and stories contradict eachother, of course, and that is quite often in D&D fiction.

 

[MichaelK]

Fill a barrel with 50 flasks worth of Alchemist's Fire

They're spending 1000gp each time on this tactic?

They'd probably get more cost effectiveness just dumping their wallet out onto their opponents head and burying them under a mound of gold.

 

[FireLance]

"At some level" - that I agree with. But that is a very basic level, definitely not a tactical one.
In real world, a person with a dagger and a leather vest facing ten brutes in heavy armor, wielding shields and axes, would have only one viable tactic - run for his life. In D&D, a 15th level rogue, even with no magic items, will kill ten orcs in no more than half a minute. The D&D world isn't reallistic and it's not a matter of magic.

As I mentioned, even mundane effects can be perceived very differently by different people. There will be those who think that nobody, no matter how skilled, should be able to take on fifteen better-armed opponents and survive. You might argue that if they feel this way, they shouldn't be playing D&D, but the point remains that if the rules of whatever game they are playing allow this, it's going to feel like an exploit to them.

Of course, even in D&D, the rogue is usually better off retreating into a narrow corridor so that his opponents can only attack him one at a time. Most people would agree that it's a sensible thing to do when you are outnumbered by your opponents, so when a rogue manages to defeat fifteen orcs by doing so, it seems less of an exploit and more of a tactic.

 

[Krensky]

I'd define a rules exploit as something that doesn't make sense until you spend five minutes explaining the math and rules that allow and still seems it shouldn't work that way in the game system.

 

[Jack7]

I don't really even understand the proposition of rules being used to resolve problems like this. I haven't had the time to read the entire thread EW (although I did read the first page) because of other demands but when it comes to tactics there is an extremely easy solution, counter-tactics.

You just do (as a DM) what anyone with any experience would do in a similar situation in real life.

1. A person or team tries a tactic or trick to employ against an enemy.

2. Assuming the party being attacked survives the initial assault, or any part of that party survives, or an observer survives to report upon it, then the party being attacked (if it has any sense) will immediately try to place thermoses in a position which allows either defense against the tactic or in one in which they can take appropriate countermeasures.

3. An attacking teams tires the same tactic or maneuver every time and soon enough word gets out and enemies adapt. Nullifying, mitigating, or countering the initial tactic. If they (the enemy) have any sense at all then they will also develop their own set of tactics to exploit the weaknesses of the other party or those of their own enemies.


The very idea that rules are needed to resolve such situations assumes that enemies are completely static in their responses and adaptations (even animals adapt their tactics when it becomes obvious normal attack methods or defense methods are inadequate, at the very least they flee an encounter, which lessens the effectiveness of most attacks), that the same tactic works all of the time or most of the time, that situational variables are likewise static, and that enemies will not counter or mitigate tactics and develop tactics of their own. But that's just not the way any combat situation or encounter ever goes unless the entitle tactics are completely and totally successful (that is they are always lethally effective in every situation the very first time they are employed). And that so rarely happens as to be the real exception to the rules of warfare and combat not the standard.

The whole idea of an enemy (or by extension the DM) needing rules to resolve what are essentially combat tactics is kinda silly to me. All the DM ever has to do is be as clever or more clever than the players, and not even that all of the time, just some of the time.

You don't have to "game-limit everything" (if a guy were slinging flaming oil at you in a street battle would you then cry out, "hey, that's against the rules, you've already done that once today - no fair!", or by observation of the earlier encounter would you not be ready with a counter-measure?) when perfectly acceptable tactical solutions are easily developed.

In a modern, real world sense, if a guy were throwing flaming oil at me I'd shoot the container and spill it on him. Let him and his friends burn awhile. I'd ignite or destroy his ammunition supply, I'd seek cover, I've employ sabotage, etc, etc. In a game sense I'd employ magic or flaming arrows, or wet leather-covered shields, or whatever was appropriate to have the same effect. For almost every attack there is an equally effective counter-measure or defense (assuming the appreciate supplies are available and if not then sooner or later enemies learn to make it so). It is a rule of nature. (Of course you can't nullify an effective ambush but what you can do is set up your own effective ambushes as a counter-measure.)

I admit I just don't understand the tendency in role play games to "rulerize" (as if that is a real solution, instead of what it really is, an avoidance of convenience of the issue, tactic, problem, or obstacle) everything when far simpler and more effective and tactically ingenious and practical and interesting (role play) solutions are readily available in almost every situation.

It is a tendency, I think, in modern RP gaming to "not think of a real solution" and instead reorganize the initial assumptions so as to (a)void real creativity and innovation. The game is trying too hard to be a game in such circumstances and limiting human capability.

I'd never tell my players they couldn't pursue any tactic or exploit they so desired, or could devise. Quite the opposite, I invite innovative cunning. But over time I would counter those tactics with tactics of my own forcing them to develop ever fresher and more clever tactics, while I do likewise.

The point is not to suppress innovation, it is to encourage, exploit, and enhance it. You want your players to become ever and always better and smarter at what they do. That encourages the DM to do the same. It's not a contest to see who can be the most static and inflexible, but who can be the most fluid, dynamic, and ingenious.

I hope the game moves ever farther away from artificially and rule contrived tactical exercises and more and more towards organic and fluid tactical genius, when it comes to combat. Hell when it comes to anything for that matter. That keeps the game from being a mere exercise in lawyering. Rules should be the last thing anyone should turn to in exploiting innovation and creativity and cunning. (Rules are by very definition often the opposite of innovation.) Cleverness isn't honed and exercised by "rulership" and artificial arbitration, it is developed and nurtured by brilliance and counter-brilliance. Crafty completion breeds a better man, not regulation (though sometimes necessary regulation may also be an obstacle that encourages further cleverness).

Well I hope I didn't just repeat what someone else has said (maybe better), but as I said, I'm typing and scan reading on my free time, which is limited lately. I hope I didn't make too may typos either.

See ya later.

 

[Cadfan]

The DM has the responsibility to remain impartial. He can't care if the dogs help solve whatever challenge the PCs face. He plays the world according to its inner logic, to keep it consistent and interesting.

But it seems as though the DM who is coming up with reasons why the war dogs available for purchase do not actually suit the players' needs is not actually being impartial, he is engineering the game world to prevent the PC from making use of the game rules.

I know that this is inevitable to a certain degree in every RPG out there, but I don't have to like it. If the rules say that I can buy a trained war dog for X at any store that has trained war dogs, and I can make use of a trained war dog in manner Y, then I'm going to be awfully frustrated as a player if I find out that actually no store anywhere useful to me ever has trained war dogs, or if I find that the trained war dogs available to me always have some additional flaw, not specified in the rules though not disclaimed by the rules, which prevents me from using them.

In general, the more of this that occurs during a game, the more the game world stops being believable and the more the game turns into a battle of logic between the players and the DM in which the DM comes up with plausible explanations for why the players' plans won't work and the players try to reason past those explanations, not as part of a problem solving exercise between the players and the gameworld, but as part of a debate exercise between the players and the DM.