You make the call: Spreading the Pain

[fuzzlewump]

Bottom line...it it okay to sacrifice the fun of a single player in order to do the tactically smart thing?

It's okay to set an unchanging challenge and have the players react to it as they will. Pulling punches cheapens the challenge in a way. Be sure to buy healing potions and survivability items and don't be afraid to run for it. As long as the dm's intentions are good and clear ( ie not clearly trying to "screw" you for no reason) success in a combat challenge and fun is in the players hands.

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

If you, as a DM, have already chosen to use stunning monsters in back-to-back combats, then in my opinion you've already made your mistake.

Stuns are ok in moderation, but overused (which is a pretty low threshold: I think that stunning a given character for 2 rounds in the average fight is probably too much) they're just fun suckers. Note: I don't consider a single save-ends stun to be breaking this rule - a party has plenty of ways to remove save-ends effects, even if none of them are leaders, so it adds tension. Multiple save-ends stuns however is definately a violation.

If the best tactic for your monsters is to overuse stun, then rebuild the encounter so it's going to be fun.

Being KOed is different. As others have pointed out, it was terrible tactics on your party's behalf to wake you up immediately before the monsters go, and mind-blowingly bad tactics to do it twice in a row.

In fact, if I were you, I would have refused to accept the heal.

Well, delaying for tactical reasons like that is somewhat outside the box for our group, we admittedly made that mistake.

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

It's okay to set an unchanging challenge and have the players react to it as they will. Pulling punches cheapens the challenge in a way. Be sure to buy healing potions and survivability items and don't be afraid to run for it. As long as the dm's intentions are good and clear ( ie not clearly trying to "screw" you for no reason) success in a combat challenge and fun is in the players hands.

Well, I'm obviously in the minority here.

The DM definitely wasn't trying to 'screw' us...but the encounter as written was over-kill considering we only had 4 players (our 5th, and the defender couldn't make it that night). Ironically he was pulling his punches for the first half of the combat.

He's a new DM and didn't realize that two of the main attacks were basic attacks...and the monster got three of those each turn. For the first five rounds or so, he was only doing one attack per round, where it should have had three. He also ruled that we got to choose which at-will we used when hit (it was similar to a dominate)...so of course we were using basic attacks.

So we should have been getting hit by 3-times as many attacks, taking damage, and then using our best at-wills against each other.

Once I did point out that 'basic' attacks for the monsters were those icons with the circles around them, she started dropping us one per round.

The healing she got (90 hps worth) from the minions was brutal...and the fact that the portal into the room was one-way until she was defeated made escape impossible.

It was only by sheer luck that any of us survived that encounter.

Anywho, I'm starting to repeat myself, so I think I'll finish here.

Thanks for the responses folks.

 

[LostSoul]

AS, in your group, who determines when the PCs face an encounter? How is that determination made?

 

[Jhaelen]

So, just to be clear...

If you believe that the tactically smart thing to do is stun-lock one of the players for the entire combat...that's okay, despite the fact that that player is going to have zero fun at all?

Let's then pretend it's the same character for all three combats in a session. Is that still okay?

The former: sure. The latter: nope. If in every encounter keeping the same character out of the game is both the strategically best option and the option the opponents are most likely to take, then something wrong with either:
- the DM's encounter design, and/or
- the degree to which the pc's optimized in relation to the other pcs

The DM should strive for a variety of encounters. Applying the same tactic in every encounter should not be the road to success, neither for the monsters/npcs nor for the pcs.

 

[Pickles JG]

Well, I'm obviously in the minority here.

I am with you broadly. I try to spread stun & annoying effects around but focus fire damage as much as possible. Parties tend to have decent ways of mitigating damage (er healing) & less so for conditions. I genreally do not pick on PCs from one encounter to the next (except by chance or because the Barbarian ALWAYS leaves himself open to it by charging off alone). Doing so can feel very metagamey as it can really pressurise healing surges, so it's good when it happens in the natural course of things.

It actually focuses the minds if PCs are near to death while being stunlocked or even daze locked is often mostly just frustrating.

I have been "decontrollerising" encounters I have been running from modules & upping damage output too.

 

[Imperialus]

Enemies should fight as smart as they can to the limits of their ability. For example, playing Shadowrun right now and the guy playing the team mage knows that if he's going to start casting spells he damns well better make sure that he is in cover because any halfway intelligent opposition is going to do their damndest to shred him as soon as he outs himself as a mage. There have been a few times that this has been 'unfair' but I'm pretty careful planning my runs so that the opposition is a threat, not overwhelming but if the players are stupid, someone's gonna die.

 

[Maximilia]

It all comes down to whether or not the GM and the players are having fun. Being stunned once sucks, but you get out of it. Being chain stunned or dominated really blows and sucks the fun out of the encounter for that player. So, I'm more of a "spread the pain around" GM... to a point. If it's a smart creature they're going against, then I try to do what's most tactically sound for that creature. That should be your boss fight, IMO. Run of the mill encounters you can fudge a lot for what the enemy does, whether it's smart or not.

The White Wolf games I ran in the past were brutal, but the players entered them knowing that I took the gothic-punk aspect of that world very seriously. It was a dark, horrible place...but it was also a horror game. The D&D games I've run in the past and present, I make more light-hearted. The players in those games are heroes, and they all deserve a chance to shine.

tl;dr--Depends on the kind of game you're running.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Here is my thought:

I challenge your underlaying assumption is that a KO'd or Stunned PC = Player has no fun.

Why?
Well, because the Player in question doesn't:
- help another player set up for thier next round
- help the DM manage the combat
- assist in speeding up combat (moving miniatures, researching rules, kibitzing..)
- refill the chips/drinks
- etc...

and instead just sits there mourning thier inability to do anything.


I think there are Players out there that will not have fun when thier PC is unable to do anything.
I do not think its the GMs job to scrub all non-fun events from the game world to enable these kinds of players.
I do think its the GM's job to present a challenging, entertaining setting in which the Players run thier PCs and have fun.

So.. No, even when Stun lock sucks or when the Paladin gets KO'd by the Mages Sleep spell and stays out for the entire encounter... its up to the player to stay engaged.
{its a 'You can lead a horse to water' sort of thing}

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Here is my thought:

I challenge your underlaying assumption is that a KO'd or Stunned PC = Player has no fun.

Why?
Well, because the Player in question doesn't:
- help another player set up for thier next round
- help the DM manage the combat
- assist in speeding up combat (moving miniatures, researching rules, kibitzing..)
- refill the chips/drinks
- etc...

and instead just sits there mourning thier inability to do anything.


I think there are Players out there that will not have fun when thier PC is unable to do anything.
I do not think its the GMs job to scrub all non-fun events from the game world to enable these kinds of players.
I do think its the GM's job to present a challenging, entertaining setting in which the Players run thier PCs and have fun.

So.. No, even when Stun lock sucks or when the Paladin gets KO'd by the Mages Sleep spell and stays out for the entire encounter... its up to the player to stay engaged.
{its a 'You can lead a horse to water' sort of thing}

Even though you're somehow right I don't fully agree with you You can do something while you're stunned b/c the RL you is not stunned. Therefore, as you said you can "manage" as things meanwhile. But you probably don't play D&D to "manage" other things, you probably play D&D b/c you want to play that char.

There is no problem if you happen to be stunned for 1 round or b/c you failed to save for the 3rd time. But if your DM piles action denial effects on you b/c he can it sucks.

When I DM I try to spread the hurt around. Even if focus fire would be the most efficient tactic all the time it is no fun for the player that always gets the focus fire.