GMing Demonic NPCs

[Alexander_Damocles]

N N 959 wrote:

James McTeague wrote:

CDG'ing out of natural tactics is something that should be okay

None of these creatures are real, they have no "natural" tactics other than what the author provides them with.

Between every two points there is another point. Every NPC action in a RPG can be justified through some rational. Ergo, it is never necessary to CDG a character. There is always some way to justify not doing it as part of the NPC's motivation or the attendant circumstances. So why does it need to be an option? It doesn't.

More to the point, the net value of that technique and others like it used against players is unquestionably a negative for PFS. If you can choose between three pieces of art to put on your front lawn, and one of them pollutes the environment, choosing that option is socially irresponsible.

Great GMing/authoring is not creating a situation where the players accept a CDG as a logical conclusion, it's in telling the same story where the players feel that a CDG was never an option for the NPC.

That is certainly your opinion. In other areas of PFS play, that may not be the predominate opinion. Further, your argument that there are reasons for NPCS to not do something doesn't quite work for me. There is always a reason to justify not having the NPCs attack, or cast spells, or move. Just because there is a reason, doesn't mean they'd follow through on it. I think CDG should be on the table, but rarely if ever used. Same with damaging equipment, etc.

[David Bowles]

Sundering is at least reparable. It's just another way of beating $$ out of the PC, just as having to pay to get rid of status effects.

Permanent destruction of equipment and death are the two most deleterious effects to stick on a PC. Of the two, death should be far more common because the NPC action efficiency issues (mucking around with equipment is not really winning the fight most of the time).

[N N 959]

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

There is always a reason to justify not having the NPCs attack, or cast spells, or move.

So if you agree that the GM and certainly the author always has a choice, then the question you have to ask yourself is what decisions maximize the enjoyment of your players and which undermine it over the long term. And you aren't answering this question for a home game, but for the Society. You're making a policy for an organized play environment.

The question is rhetorical. But I offer it as someone who definitely believes that character death is crucial to the health and integrity of the game and someone who does not believe in fudging dice.

[Care Baird]

*starts including "and Coup de Graces every chance it gets" in all future scenario tactics*

[John Compton]

Care Baird wrote:

*starts including "and Coup de Graces every chance it gets" in all future scenario tactics*

*Worriedly looks through the turnover for The Confirmation*

[Caderyn]

David Bowles wrote:

Sundering is at least reparable. It's just another way of beating $$ out of the PC, just as having to pay to get rid of status effects.

Permanent destruction of equipment and death are the two most deleterious effects to stick on a PC. Of the two, death should be far more common because the NPC action efficiency issues (mucking around with equipment is not really winning the fight most of the time).

Actually with a creature with a strong single attack (20-30 points), good reach, combat reflexes and a tightly clustered party you could probably sunder every weapon/holy symbol/component pouch in the party in the first round of combat thus giving the creature a significant boost to its action economy as most of the PC's first round will be trying to find their backup weapons if they even have any.

Also all NPC's should be entering encounters with the intent to win NN, because if the NPC is not fighting to win the battle then why have they stayed and not just run off costing you loot?

The GM should not be using his metagame knowledge to know the NPC has no chance to win and thus focus on tactics that will not win the encounter but will make further encounters more difficult, unless that is the NPCs goal in the scenario such as a Golem who's job is to sunder all weapons made of X material and then all other weapons it can see.

This means if the cleric brings a person to positive hp either the cleric or the PC is going to be eating a full attack if the creature can do so generally when I am running the creature it is a full attack into the cleric which usually ends up with them dying or in the case of paladins using heroic defiance to just be unconscious rather than dead (as for some reason when creatures average 20 damage+ per hit they tend to drop people to 1-4 hp then -16 or lower on the next hit).

Some creatures will actually complete full attacks on fallen creatures like pouncing tigers and some will not such as trained fighters who feel that the later attacks are better put into another PC who is in reach to win the combat.

Every NPC should have character and this should be represented in the tactics used, if the authors tactics lines are missing/completed I will continue with tactics that make sense given the motivations of the creature as listed within the scenario.

[N N 959]

Caderyn,

I appreciate the thoughtful response. At this point, I'm going to end my discussion on CDGing, PC taxes (in the form of weapon destruction), and tactics with a similar impact on PC's.

I think there is still much discussion to be had on Chris' original question: How does one convey the evil that is unique to demons? I think it is a very good topic for forum discussion and I'll hope to pick up some tips as some of the GM heavyweights offer suggestions.

Chris, John, Walter, et al., thanks for indulging me.

[Matthew Morris]

John Compton wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:

Comment on disclaimer. When you have 4 and 5-star GM's who do argue from experience, then damn straight I'm going to ram that experience down their throats when they start making comments on high. Also don't forget some people get insulted when you put them on equal footing. I make mistakes, but I don't pretend that my own experiences give me some great insight.

Not saying every GM does, just saying that it can't be both ways "I'm a 5 star GM, listen to me!" and "Don't say I'm influencing things jsut because I have 5 stars" are exclusive.

[Matthew Morris]

David Bowles wrote:

Make recurring named demons appear in the scenarios. I think you are trying too hard to make Babau_001 something it just isn't.

GMs aren't responsible in any way if the written tactic states to focus down PCs one at a time until they are *dead*. I still, however, find permanent equipment removal to be excessive unless indicated by the author.

I think this works for every villian though. Tancred? Who hasn't played through all the scenarios and hate that guy? If you've played all four of The Devil We Know, you HATE <redacted> by the time you're done. Likewise in that group, you have an 'oh crap!' moment when the guy you killed in pt 1, comes back undeader than ever in pt 3.

Generic murder fiend Babau_1 is just an encounter. A Babau who leaves a trail of bodies each missing an ear is memorable. A succubus who dominates Barbarians, (and only barbarians) is going to be remembered.

It also builds for 'oh crap' moments. If you've fought a babau who has improved dirty trick and likes stabbing at your dangly bits (if you're a guy) to impose the staggard condition in 5-99 Groin Attacks of Golarion, and he got away. Then you fought him again in 6-99 Testicles in Taldor when you play 6-100 in Neutering in Nidal and the fist corpse is missing dangly bits, you're likely going to go 'Oh crap'.

[Matthew Morris]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Fighting a Balor on a bridge over lava.

Paladin is handing it to the Balor with his +3 Evil Outsider Bane Holy Greatsword.

Balor disarms Paladin, and then grapples him, subsequently pinning him (with the -20 because he doesn't want to have the grappled condition) and proceeds to destroy the rest of the party with the Paladin's sword as the Paladin gets to watch.

Then, staring into the Paladin's Eyes, the Balor sneers and drops the sword into the Lava right before biting his face off.

I see a major difference here, since the Paladin can do something. Maybe not much, but he can. There's a chance at getting that sword back. The Balor didn't disappear for two rounds and the Paladin could do nothing but look sad.

To me, that's a major difference than "Disarms, disappears, destroys weapon, comes back, laughs."

[Finlanderboy]

Everyone has something to learn from everyone. Even bad examples are good learning experiences.

SO anyone that refuses that has less to learn. Be it 0 stars or 5 stars. I know I picked up a fe things sitting at chris mortika's table and I rules lawyered him a few times with obscure rules.

[Chris Mortika]

Heck yes! Finlanderboy knows his rules about the Withdraw action.

[Matthew Morris]

Finlanderboy wrote:

Everyone has something to learn from everyone. Even bad examples are good learning experiences.

SO anyone that refuses that has less to learn. Be it 0 stars or 5 stars. I know I picked up a fe things sitting at chris mortika's table and I rules lawyered him a few times with obscure rules.

Which is why I usually shut up if I think the ruling at the table is off, then ask later. I know I make mistakes, I've the ex-wives to prove it. :-(

[Finlanderboy]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Finlanderboy wrote:

Everyone has something to learn from everyone. Even bad examples are good learning experiences.

SO anyone that refuses that has less to learn. Be it 0 stars or 5 stars. I know I picked up a fe things sitting at chris mortika's table and I rules lawyered him a few times with obscure rules.

Which is why I usually shut up if I think the ruling at the table is off, then ask later. I know I make mistakes, I've the ex-wives to prove it. :-(

Well if you are at my table let me know right away. I do not want to cost a player for something I do wrong.

[David Bowles]

Some mistakes can be let go. Others need to be challenged.

[Finlanderboy]

David Bowles wrote:

Some mistakes can be let go. Others need to be challenged.

I woudl rather know. Knowledge is an intrinsic value for me.

[Matthew Morris]

Finlanderboy wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

Some mistakes can be let go. Others need to be challenged.

I woudl rather know. Knowledge is an intrinsic value for me.

Me as well.

OTOH, I'd rather not bog down the table arguing if (to use a recent example) All DR applies to spells that do piercing/bludgeoning/slashing damage (which is correct, per SKR) or only typed damage reduction (like DR 5/slashing) I remembered it incorrectly, but didn't argue (much) and went on. If I'd been right, I'd have mentioned it after the game.

Then I got annoyed that it's not been clarified outside of the forums. Now if a bad ruling kills my character, that's different.

[David Bowles]

Incorrect rulings that neuter character concepts for five hours aren't cool, either.