Fellow DMs, what is your style regarding controlling monsters in the field of battle?
Do you pound players for all their CR's worth without hesitation, or you adjust the usage of different abilities and attacks depending on how your players are doing? Do you play every monster tactically, or have less intelligent ones simply go bananas? Do you stick to what the stat block says, or use the monster in different ways (although still keeping the limits in the actual capacities of the creature) in order to adapt to the situation, such as making innovative uses of certain skills and abilities?
|
I'm pretty big on running the monsters to their fullest. If they can flank, they flank. If they need to withdrawl, they withdrawl, whatever. Very occassionally I'll break this rule and make them do something less mechanically sound but there's always a reason.
Often, though, it's like -- one orc will assume a PC doesn't have Combat Reflexes, for example, and end up giving it an extra AoO, but after that, the other orcs don't make that mistake. That kind of schtick.
I will, though, almost always focus on an appropriate PC for attacks. If there's a Paladin, for example, in the party, and my guys are devotees of Lamashtu, they're going after that Paladin. They're not gonna say, like, well there's 5 of them and five of us so we'll just go one-on-one. Nope. All of my attacks will go to that one PC. And if he falls, I will have one of the monsters use a full round action to coup de grace the fallen PC.
I'm not at all a fan of the standard "Well there's 6 PCs so I'll roll a d6 to see who I attack".
Also, If a PC starts looking hurt -- I'll focus my attack on him. Just like how PCs focus their attacks (intelligently) on one monster until it falls then go after the other.
Also, if a PC shows he can heal party members -- I go after him. As a result, my PCs get really good at their own tactics. And if a PC does fall, and that PC is one who the monsters are going after -- the Players do a great job of saving their comrade from the coup de grace.
All this being said, though, I will also have NPCs betray each other if it seems like they should -- character-wise, or withdrawl, or surrender or whatever.
|
I run the monster for how he best fits the encounter. If that means using all their abilities, so be it. If it means only using 1 or 2, then sure. I prefer memorable and fun encounters over every encounter might be a PC's last encounter.
After all, what's the point to the campaign if all the DM is ever trying to do is "fairly" kill the PCs.
I always try to play the monsters according to type and relative intelligence. A hill giant, for example, is too stupid most of the time to leave the frontline combatants and smash the wizard in the back - he might not even realize that all the heat conmes from the puny figure's fingertips.
Intelligent opponents are a p. in the a. for my group. They set up ambushes, surprise the characters and use their own tactics against them. It all depends on their listed abilities and stats.
And yes, sometimes an opponent simply gives up and runs or begs for his life.
I dunno, ask one of my players sometime how I do it and let him throw some hate at me. ^^
|
|
Well, for the record, PC death is extremely rare in my campaigns. A PC may fall pretty often, as in, go to neg HP, but is pretty much always back in the fight in the next round or so.
It is true, though, that just about all of the encounters I design are "final-fight" -like fights.
See, I'm not so great at taking the time to design lots of little fights, say, EL= APL-2, followed by a good, EL= APL+1 fight. I don't have the time for that kinda prep and I don't like it.
Thus, my fights tend to all be EL= APL+3 or +4! But then, the PCs rest after every fight -- there's typically only one per session along with several hours of roleplaying.
Making EL= APL-2 encounters is a big weakness of mine as a DM. I try to focus on my strengths as a DM.
|
|
I had a group of dinosaurs attack the party recently....
Consider this kind of thinking about encounter tactics "borrowed" for my personal use. Great thinking, Rez.
Of course, I probably won't get a chance to use it much, like I said, I pretty much only design tough fights -- never any random encounters or such. Still, I love the idea.
|
|
Keeps things fun and allows the story to progress with out an adversarial DM-vs.-Players feeling.
I was faced with this for the first time a few years ago -- a Player with the "DM vs PC" mentality. I'd heard others' stories about those kinds of atmospheres but hadn't been cursed with anyone in any of my games that treated roleplaying like that.
It was a new Player to join my group and even though I was told he had a track record of not being the funnest gamer to have at your table, allowed him to join, letting him know we didn't do things like PC vs PC stuff.
I think I handled it very well: I cheered the PCs when they got a good hit on my monsters; I talked about my monsters in 3rd person and encouraged the PCs to win. It was like, I was rolling for the monsters but routing for the PCs. When my NPCs hit the PCs I asked my Players how bad off they were, HP-wise, it really created an atmosphere that the new guy was unfamiliar with. He loved it -- I totally converted him from an alledgedly piece of crap Player to a really good team-player / roleplaying gamer.
How a monster acts in combat depends on a number of factors: intelligence, environment, and situation, among other things.
For example, most animals will not fight to the death without extenuating circumstances. Mothers protecting young are more likely to do so. A hunting animal is more likely to simply flee to lick its wounds if it has the chance to escape. If cornered, it will fight to break free. If I want an animal to fight to the death, there will be circumstances to explain the behavior, like a druid using a pack of wolves to attempt to extinguish the PCs, or a bear maddened by the poisoned arrow of a hunter.
Intelligent beings will do whatever is tactically available, much like the players characters will.
I play my "monsters" according to their intelligence first (ie: critters act like critters, and thinkers act like thinkers).
From there I go to set up and circumstances (ambush vs. random encounter vs. ambushed themselves). Depending on what's going on, they're either likely to attack as planned (ambush - maybe w/traps, etc according to intellect), maybe a 50/50 shot of attack or run (depending on what's being encountered randomly, and where), or full-defensive and confused (if they're on the receiving end of an ambush from PC's).
Beyond this, back to the other thread, my "monsters" and/or "enemies" in general all have 1 thing in common - THE DESIRE TO LIVE! This, of course, is modified by descriptions of individual critters, etc. Things with that Ferocious will attack until dead (intelligent or not), unintelligent things tend to get hurt, bad, and want to run the hell away - same w/sentient beings. If it's looking bad, they look for the exits.
The key for me is that I let PC's get the full experience for defeating any fleeing enemies, so run and chase, or let 'em go, it has NO impact on the xp awards for the PC's, and they know this ahead of time. It helps to keep the focus on the game vs. THE GAME (ie: xp, otherwise known as "kill it ... and take it's stuff!"). I set up my games around the idea of a realistic world and making the enemies act "within reason" is what is needed to keep that fair. It lets PC's live longer (as ransom potential, questioning purposes, or any other thing that might be "reasonable" for the enemies to do with them at the moment if they lose an encounter vs the TPK situation - capture and escape become options with "reasonable" enemies).
So ... yeah. "Reasonably self-interested, and fully self-preservationist" kind of rules the way I run my bad guys - according to their general descriptors, etc (ie: good luck trying to convince hobgoblins to run from a fight!).
|
Fellow DMs, what is your style regarding controlling monsters in the field of battle?
Do you pound players for all their CR's worth without hesitation, or you adjust the usage of different abilities and attacks depending on how your players are doing? Do you play every monster tactically, or have less intelligent ones simply go bananas? Do you stick to what the stat block says, or use the monster in different ways (although still keeping the limits in the actual capacities of the creature) in order to adapt to the situation, such as making innovative uses of certain skills and abilities?
I guess I role play my monsters depending on their intellect, inclinations, alignment etc. I've had monsters withdraw to better tactical positions, I've had monsters with low wisdom go berserk by being taunted by PCs.
I've also had monsters cutting deals with PCs for reasonable terms, and if my PCs cut deals with LE monsters, they will in the main abide by it, but not always, because like PCs and unlike Outsiders they can run the gamut of alignments.
Sometimes monsters and my PCs encounter each other, size each other up and decide to not engage in combat due to doubts on both sides as to whether they can successfully take each other out.
I tend to be looser on CRs in my game. There are times when the PCs know they are outgunned. I always make sure that they have some escape opportunities in these cases, but it keeps them on their toes. It stops them thinking in metagame (Our GM wouldn't put a group of creatures we couldn't beat against us, would he?).
Our group likes to role play, solve mysteries and play politics. They don't go for monster bashing day by day, it tends to bore them. Not that they don't have their moments when a good slashfest is in order. They expect me to be inventive and its very tiring. I'm all for running published adventures that are about more than just fighting the bad guys because sometimes I run out of ideas. Paizo seems to be working along that road with their published adventures. This is good.
Anyway that's how I like to run a game.
I make sure to sometimes have enemies with fear spells include the paladin.
I make sure that enemies with disease abilities target the monk and the paladin.
The rogue with poison darts shoots the druid first.
The two toughs flank the rogue or barbarian with uncanny dodge.
Enemies seek out weak opponents and provoke attacks of opportunity to get there.
Generally speaking, though, I make Knowledge: Religion checks at DC 15 to see if they'd know a paladin is immune to fear or a monk and paladin are immune to disease, or Knowledge: Nature DC 20 to know a druid is immune to poison.
It's just nice to have the PC know his strengths are targetted just as often as his weaknesses.
It also depends on the enemy. For weak fighting forces like thugs or goblins, people take five-foot steps into flank and then attack the person adjacent to them they're not flanking, move to deny charges or make single attacks they know they can't hit. For strong forces like armed elite guards or hobgoblins, I'm General Patton.
|
|
A piece of advice: just because you, the DM, know something it doesn't mean that your NPCs know it as well. Having bad guys reasonably mistake things the PCs have/don't have can work wonders when running a campaign. It lets a PC shine here or there, making them feel special. It also evokes a sympathy when the bad guys make mistakes that they have made in the past. But above all it adds to the feeling of 'realism' (as much as you can have it in a turn based game with magic and dragons) and I cannot recommend such more.
Excellent advice. It's easy for a GM to get to know his players actions and then pass such metagame info on to his monsters and NPCs who wouldn't necessarily know these things, unless they had encountered the PCs before and seen them do it, and even then the monster needs the intelligence to remember. My monsters make mistakes. Even some of my clever bad guys get outwitted by my players. I don't do cut-scene actions, where the bad guy laughs evilly and then exits stage center left. If I want a bad guy to escape he will either send in his minions and leg it or he will use some exit he knows that the players don't. However, they still have a chance to stop him and that's just tough for me. The mage casts a spell that immobilizes said bad guy, or the rogue found the secret exit by scouting beforehand and the PCs have rigged up a surprise for the exiting fiend. Why not? Unexpected changes keep a GM on his toes
If my NPCs see someone decked out like a wizard and another that looks like a monk they are going to assume each is how they appear. Just as much as your PCs would. Now when the guy with the sais starts casting spells and the one with all the wands that you grappled flurries on you... well then the jig is up. But 'oops' moments like that can be fun for all when done right.
-James
I might give the monsters a small perception check to the disguise if they were very intelligent or it looked kind of wrong, but it would be at least at DC30.
Great ideas nevertheless.
I try and key the tactics to the stereotype of the monsters, allowing Dragons and other brainy types to lay traps, etc. Pack hunters and the like behave as they should (great description above). Kobolds are trap happy and fighting them is an exercise in trap disarming under crossbow assault.
Templating the monsters can change how I work the encounter. I recently ran a Tank version of a Wyvern (boosted defenses, pathetic flight) as a counter to my stock Flyby/sting tactics (They've been hunting Wyverns for a bounty offered by the local BBEG in order to get into his confidence.).
The most annoying 'DM' <cough/gag> of recent years ran his stock goblins as hive-minded Grenadier Guards that knew each player's abilities.
|
|
The most annoying 'DM' <cough/gag> of recent years ran his stock goblins as hive-minded Grenadier Guards that knew each player's abilities.
That really sucks. The GM is as much of a role player as his players. Besides I don't get any kicks out of TPKs when my players did everything right and I just GMd it badly. I have done this from time to time and I take no pleasure in it. It was bad Gming on my part and it spoiled the game. The pleasure in GMing is seeing how your players deal with the challenges and how they role play their characters. This is one of the reasons I introduced the house rule of fate points (A Warhammer RPG concept).
If my PCs play a great game and role play well then they are awarded Fate points. I do it sparingly but it can help to offset bad GMing on my part because they can use these to avoid TPK situations. The great thing about fate points is that it encourages players to stay in character and by doing so enhances the story telling experience.
It also keeps players from metagaming and pulling rules and arguing them for hours. They know I am not infallible and they know that I will be fair. If they do stupid things that lead to TPK then so be it.
To me fate points are a sort of divine Grace given by higher powers that take an interest in the heroes, but they should be used sparingly.
|
|
Generally speaking, though, I make Knowledge: Religion checks at DC 15 to see if they'd know a paladin is immune to fear or a monk and paladin are immune to disease, or Knowledge: Nature DC 20 to know a druid is immune to poison.
That's great the NPC makes the check to know that paladins are immune to fear but the NPC doesn't know that the paladin IS a paladin.
When I used to judge for LG back when it was around I would always make sure to have each player describe what their character looked like so I would know what my bad guys would see.
Now if my bad guys saw them act then they could make knowledge checks, spellcraft and the like.
-James
This is why I love the skill and feat system.
I am a big fan of the "Well Explained Bad Decision."
Basically, I make the baddies REAL tough so the fights aren't boring, but I try to think ahead of time how I can justify cutting the players a break if things get dire. Maybe that Lamia Matriarch likes to toy with her victims? Maybe that abyssal abomination doesn't regard the character as a threat?
Players sometimes make poor decisions, NPCs should as well. Of course, having the rationale planned out ahead of time helps you decide when to give the players a break and when to kill them mercilessly. If you know the reason a player might get a break, and the conditions for that break aren't present when the killing blow is dealt, you can kill the PC with a clean conscience. I don't enjoy it (too much), but it has to be done for the game to have an appropriate sense of risk.
Every monster is different. And not all monsters are "monsters" when you get down to it.
One thing they all have in common is a desire to survive. OK, so a few constructs and undead may not have a desire to survive, but almost everything else does. Even oozes and such have basic survival insticts.
Another thing they all have in common is a full knowledge of all of their abilities. For example, wolves never forget to trip a foe because it's their very instict to try to trip. Always. The same holds true for every monster in the book and every NPC villain I create. Even the most unintelligent creature, construct, plant, whatever, has its natural attack forms and comes built-in with the instict to use them all to their fullest ability.
Those are two universal truths.
As far as intelligence goes, the smarter baddies can use terrain, ambushes, traps, magic, equipment, etc. Stupid baddies don't think about such things, or when they do, they often use them poorly. Unintelligent baddies just use their natural, instinctive abilities.
Most living things will run away from a losing fight. Unfortunately, this game system makes that impossible unless the fleeing party is significantly faster than the enemy. An orc cannot run from a human. Ever. (Unless the human is encumbered by heavier armor or gear). So, things will try to flee before death, unless flight seems hopeless within the game mechanics.
Intelligent living things will also try to surrender or bargain their way out of a lost battle unless they have a compelling reason not to (for example, maybe they work for someone who will kill them anyway, or maybe they're just so full of rage or hate that they refuse to back down).
I believe it is up to me to use the monsters to the very best of their abilities but yet to make their behavior and their choice of actions seem appropriate to each situation.
This can be deadly. Many creatures will fight to a TPK. Zombies never take prisoners unless there is a necromancer right there on the scene forcing them to. Bears would rather eat a dead PC than take a live prisoner. So would gelatinous cubes. Etc.
Which means that when I have to pull punches, sometimes the only way to do it is with "bad luck" on my die rolls...
I dislike single-opponent Big Bad encounters since if things do get bad, it's obvious when you fudge. Also, they tend to skew really fast one way or another and are difficult to balance.
Yeah, I can speak to that. However, knowing the potential fudges ahead of time can give you descriptive ideas that make you and the players feel better about the fudging. If you find yourself in this corner some time, definitely try it. I'll emphasize that my favorite part is knowing when a fudge is actually out of the question...
Generally speaking, though, I make Knowledge: Religion checks at DC 15 to see if they'd know a paladin is immune to fear or a monk and paladin are immune to disease, or Knowledge: Nature DC 20 to know a druid is immune to poison.
That's great the NPC makes the check to know that paladins are immune to fear but the NPC doesn't know that the paladin IS a paladin.
-James
True that. I generally assume each player has a "look" or feel about them-- the guy with the bow in the back with the panther could be a ranger or a druid, and the full plate bruiser with a sword and shield could be a fighter or a paladin. It's not until they see abilities or the lack thereof that they spring their reactions.
Like I said-- I've surprise rounded paladins before and had shadow demons cast cause fear on them, since they looked indistinguishable from a fighter, ranger, barbarian or eldritch knight. The laughs around the table were satisfying enough after the paladin called down the smite on that unfortunate demon and laid him low in one round.