|
I ran a game for some new people, as my screening process for assembling a new gaming group earlier today, and when I asked about impressions, 3 of the five answered that it was unfair that I played goblins and orcs so cleverly.
I believe an exact quote from one guy was "They should just run at us and not use five foot steps"
What.
You having problems with players expecting mindless fights?
It's important to take into consideration the intelligence of the monsters when you are designing the encounters. In the current situation however, orcs and goblins can be expected to five foot and maneuver is fights considering their whole culture is based around warfare.
The situation would be different if the orcs had designed a clever trap requiring mechanical gears and a trigger, this would surpass their usual cleverness which might however lead them to dig a crude pit trap at an ambush site.
I always value challenging players and doing so fairly, they have the option to 5 foot in order to reposition as well. You players might have been surprised by the fact that your monster's have brains, but they should learn how to manage!
It's because the rules presented are for tactical combat simulation! I don't blame you Hama, I also can't resist playing monsters intelligently.
Players after barely surviving a fight: "Man those animated objects sure used effective small group tactics."
Me: "Thanks!"
Players: *death glare*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I don't use tactics or 5-foot steps when attacking with mindless monsters. But orcs for instance will dig a hole in the ground and fill it with spikes. And cover it with branches and leaves.
And place a tempting charge target, like a guy who has cover from ranged weapons.
Also logs tied to trees, tar pits to be set on fire, sniping, guerilla tactics etc.
I do tailor the extent and difficulty of those tactics depending on the player's preparedness.
|
|
Occasionally, I will have monsters act stupid but its more an exception to the rule. We like gloves off combat as war so my players expect a clever foe. Though some people just like encounters to be beat fests no thrills no frills. I'd say you have some screening potential one way or the other here.
|
If some monsters, even intelligent ones, are usually portrayed in your world as dumb brutes who charge without thinking, it might be a bit unfair to the characters (and thus the players) to play them as extremely careful tactical geniuses.
OTOH, that might just teach the characters a lesson about prejudice ;-)
Which should be mitigated by the appropriate Knowledge roll BTW
See... This is why I'm labeled as a "Brutal" (with a capital B, they emphasize that part) DM.
I play the goons as smart as their race/intelligence would allow them to be.
Orcs barbarians favor horde tactics, while Orc Rangers favor traps and ambush. Orc fighters find a place they can dig in, whilst Orc Warriors use lesser tactics of all three.
Kobolds, of any kind, prefer traps. These guys are really why my players both hate and love when I DM. If there's something having to do with a kobold hideout, they spend more time preparing for the eventual battle than on the battle itself.... Dunno why... A room full of pit traps with catwalks and cubby holes for enterprising trap-oriented kobolds to throw tanglefoot/burn bags, alchemist fire, acid, and other such items, among crossbows and grenades, is par for the course in a kobold warren, yes?
Goblins... Depends on the setting. In Golarion, goblins are psychotic little lemmings that focus entirely on Zerg Rush tactics. Of course, my players are now wary of taking on a Goblin den... Fireball or no, having an entire tribe of Goblins engulf the barbarian and the fighter like a massive wave of a dirty, stanky green sea, and start eating them alive... Would only work so well.
Creatures like Minotaurs would make excessive use of misdirection, and surprise charges. Mazes with hidden pathways are fun!
Dragons are easily the smartest creatures a character could face (barring the "dumb" white dragons, but even they are ruthlessly cunning). Easily using better tactics than even elven war generals.
That said... Don't overload them too much the first few times. Get them used to the fact that your foes actually THINK, make tactical retreats, ambushes, and so on. You'll have some seriously upset folk if you suddenly spring this stuff on 'em. Even saying "I play my monsters smart" doesn't drive home in most players that "smart" = "Battlefield tactics and strategy". I once lost one guy for three weeks before a mutual friend brought him back in for another shot. He loved it ever since.... Sigh, I miss my old gamer friends -_-...
As for these 3 that you aren't inviting back... Was it just because you startled them with intelligent enemies, or did they actively state something that lost them enough points to fail the test?
Hey, screening went great, three players not to invite back, and a girl who was delighted by the combat and roleplay a definite invite back.
The girls then shines most of all......
|
|
As for these 3 that you aren't inviting back... Was it just because you startled them with intelligent enemies, or did they actively state something that lost them enough points to fail the test?
Well, stating that fights should be nobody moving and just wailing at one another was a big red flag. But there were smaller ones sprinkled through the game.
One guy couldn't stop looking at his smartphone even when I politely asked him not to.
The other, i think, was high. A little.
And the third one was brazenly hitting on the girl, who didn't enjoy his advances, and he wouldn't stop till told to stop.
So yeah, I don't like either of them. Not just as gamers but as people.
Figured there was more to it, but just had to ask. I've known more than my fair share of GMs that knee-jerk at 1 thing and instantly assign people to the "Never play with EVER" pile.
All three, very good reasons. I have a rule that I ban all electronic resources at my table. You want something from the SRD, print it the hell out. This cut down on distractions ("Hold on, gotta reply to this email..."), and prevented them from scouring the web for monster stats (I use basic stat blocks for random encounters). Drugs also suck balls. And I'd have just hit the dude hitting on the girl if he was going way too far, but that's probably just my white knight syndrome acting up again.
Glad to hear you found a player. Being currently without a group myself (besides my gf), I'm always glad to hear when people manage to cobble together a good group...
So uh... What happened with that fourth person? 3 of 5 you aren't inviting back, and 1 you are. Someone's missing!
|
|
Still on the fence about the guy.
He's nice, friendly and he was on time (a big plus)
But he is also a raging manga/anime fanatic, and while I love manga/anime i can't stand otaku. Plus I know him from before, and he always plays his characters like he's in a shonen. And my games aren't that city shatteringly powerful.
Ah. Well if you want to give him a shot, just tell him your games aren't on a Dragon Ball Z/One Piece/Fairy Tail level. Something more along the lines of Record of Lodoss War, or Orphen (granted, I haven't managed to finish Orphen yet, the characters in the game weren't all that powerful). Perhaps something more along the lines of Bastard!! minus the main character (who the series admitted to basically being an epic level wizard)?
Vampire Hunter D (both movies) is pretty much around Pathfinder level, especially the first movie.
That said.... Back on topic for intelligent enemies. Figure since this is a topic about it, I'll ask here rather than make a new one.
I'm having trouble deciding how intelligent I should run my mooks in an upcoming game. Introducing a friend of ours who's entirely new to TTRPGs, who seems to think (I can't tell if he's joking at this point) that he can tank like a boss from a video game. Has the whole "Never back down!" schtick going on with his planned Ulfen Fighter.
Considering it's a 2 person party (I won't be running a party NPC if I can help it, only in 1 person parties!), I'm not sure if I want to run them as uh... As brutal as I usually do, even in lesser numbers. It's been far too long since I've run idiotic enemies too, lol. Anyone got any advice on this aspect?
|
Anyone who knows me as a GM knows I do my best to play enemies appropriate to their mental scores and background (i.e. a pack of wolves may not have high intelligence, but they are pack hunters and definitely know to flank--though solitary hunter animals don't even if you run into multiples), though for new players I will occasionally see someone surprised and/or frustrated to see enemies using actual battle tactics. Usually though, everyone's mature enough to realize that yes, this enemy is reasonably about as smart as me and should use terrain/tactics/etc to their advantage.
Of course if they're fighting mindless enemies like zombies, oozes, etc, my players know they can expect them to act appropriately, and some of my more clever players have figured out ways to use it to their advantage. My favorite example was the group fighting a necromancer type with a decently large group of mindless zombie minions. The BBEG commanded the minions to focus on one particular PC, then hid behind a wall so as to avoid attacks. The targeted PC ran into the next room and cast Create Pit in the doorway, and watched with glee as all the mindless zombies charged into the hole. I was more than willing to give that one to him.
In a recent game I was playing my wizard and it came that the situation that the encounter started with a massive group of mindless animal undead backed in a corner. Given the group composition, it seemed that letting them out would be unhealthy for the party at large so the paladin, eidolon, and my wizard with a prayer and a casting of mirror image to hold them off for the turn as the alchemist bombed them while they were bunched together.
With the information, GM saw me as the weak link and wanted to use me as a way to show the party was in danger. The enemy caster commanded the undead to attack me and then went invisible as it primed itself to sneak attack me the following turn.
Before that though, the undead got their turn. A couple that couldn't hit my character attacked other characters, then 5 foot stepped back. That was so that the two undead in front of me could make full attacks, and then 5 foot step into the newly vacated spaces. That way another undead could five foot step in front of me to take it's full attack, which opened up a clear lane for a fourth undead to charge me. The GM made it clear that this were unintelligent undead and when questioned on why/how they moved the way they did, he described them as shambling around.
That sort of playing monsters intelligently irritates me. It looked non-sensicle and stripped a lot of flavor out of them. It would have been a great reveal to find I was not dealing with run of the mill unintelligent undead or if I got the sense that the controller of the undead waa just that damn good at directing the undead, but that isn't the picture I got.
*
With that in mind, I definitely approve of playing monsters to their intelligence. Even low intelligence things can get the might be able to reasonably use low level tactics like flank, retreat and regroup.
However, I would also heavily emphasize playing monsters to their character even if doing so is a stupid decision. For example, Pathfinder Goblins are a good example of this. It is in their character to attempt the stupid, ridiculous, and idiotic even though it might not work. Mix these tactics with horde tactics and singing and that goes for a memorable encounter that makes them different from every other creature in the book.
Orcs I would play as more independent, not focusing on teamwork or caring about flanking once chance for individual glory comes in.
Kobolds may use traps, but their morale may shoot down making them more willing to retreat after their traps have gone off even if they might have a slight advantage in the combat.
Other aspects like that I can give them impression of their character on what tactics they use and which they do not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit, I think of goblins and orcs as fodder monsters, and will generally have them fight inefficiently. It's difficult for me to think that chaotic evil creatures of relatively simple mind are going to be all that tactical.
All of that changes if they have an intelligent leader though. In one of my games, the rabble suddenly organizing into militant and tactical precision would be a huge red flag.
Monsters with an organized warrior culture, those I run tactically. Although I try to tailor the level of skill to the group. I'm the kind of person that most people are afraid to play chess against, so it would be exceedingly frustrating for players if I went all out.
|
|
I'm all for playing monsters intelligently. If players can plan and use tactics so can the DMs. I have a player who is a Gunslinger who at first one shoted minor enemies until I altered them. He also makes no attempt to hide the fact he has a gun. Nor uses any defensive tactics. Then complains when the enemy targets him or his gun.
I run opposition as brave or cleverly as I think it makes sense for them to be. Bunch of city folk I could imagine as not particularly brave, fairly smart, but not necessarily great at tactics.
Hobgoblins would be brave, disciplined, clever, and tactically experienced.
Actually goblins and orcs could be a bit problematic. Depending on which books you like to read, movies you've watched, and GM's you've had they really are often portrayed as raging idiots that do blindly charge straight into the enemy fire.
.
.
...
I'm having trouble deciding how intelligent I should run my mooks in an upcoming game. ...
... I'm not sure if I want to run them as uh... As brutal as I usually do, even in lesser numbers. It's been far too long since I've run idiotic enemies too, lol. Anyone got any advice on this aspect?
Well, I wouldn't run the monsters as more stupid than they should be, but I would tend to use smaller numbers of stupider monsters for a new small group. Instead of a wolf pack that will stalk, surround, and trip them use an owlbear that will charge straight in. Or a necromancer sending in hordes of skeletons and zombies.
Then as the players get some more experience and you get a better feel for what they can handle, slowly start ramping it up..
.
Explain to the guy that this is not a video game and that he cannot tank. If he still thinks that he can, disabuse him. Hard. Messy.
Disagree. It is possible, just not automatic. You have to work at it to get them to attack you by positioning, looking vulnerable, dangerous enough to not ignore, reach tripping, etc...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monsters SHOULD be run intelligently. Unless they are literally described as mindless. Orcs and Goblins have been relentlessly attacked by the more civilized races for millennia and they are still around so YES they would have excellent tactics and good battle instructors.
Golarion goblins aren't supposed to be very practical. From AP:
"As with all goblins, the Licktoads should be presented in combat with equal amounts of foolish bravery and sadistic comedy. If the PCs manage to
critically hit a goblin, other goblins might spend their turn cackling or shrieking at the gory results rather than attacking. A goblin might try a particularly impressive but illadvised acrobatic tactic, such as attempting to run between a PC’s legs to get at someone on the other side (Acrobatics check to move through an occupied square), trying to climb
up onto a roof to jump down from above (DC 10 Climb check on the first round to get up on the roof, followed by a DC 15 Acrobatics check to leap down onto a PC — if this Acrobatics check is successful, treat it as a charge attack that leaves the goblin prone at the end of the round), or attempting to grapple, disarm, or trip PCs."
Golarion goblins aren't supposed to be very practical. From AP:
Irrelevant for those of us who don't use Golarion though ;) My world's Goblins are more like Jawas.
To be fair, it's not an illogical assumption, being we're on the Paizo forums. I'd be willing to estimate that a notable majority - at least 60% or higher - of people on this forum use Golarion. I'd wager 35% or so of the rest are divided between WotC's published settings (Greyhawk, FR, Dragonlance, Eberron, perhaps a few stragglers in the lesser-known settings), and the last 5% are split between new settings (Kobold Press's Midgard, LPJ's NeoExodus, etc.) and personal homebrews.
I suspect those numbers are off... mainly because I bet a large percentage fall into more than one category.
I don't get that. I mention that my monsters do something and someone immediately quips in that that is not how that monster works in Golarion.
I don't use Golarion. Most of us don't.
I don't think that is a statement of "You are wrong!" as much as it was a counter example. Even if you don't use it, Golarion is pretty common. So some people could easily consider it a common convention that goblins would be stupid enough to charge blindly at the party even if it is incredibly stupid tactics.
I'm not saying it is necessarily the case in this situation, but it is possible that every other GM they have had ran goblins as very nearly mindlessly stupid and orcs as so enraged and fearless that they did that. I have had several GM that played those races that way. But get in a fight with hobgoblins or elves and expect tactical geniuses.
{shrug}
On the other hand, it is also entirely possible they were a couple of dufuses that don't want a challenge. They just want the bad guys to line up so they can play wack-a-mole.
I suspect those numbers are off... mainly because I bet a large percentage fall into more than one category.
Oh I wouldn't be surprised. Like I said, it's an estimate at best.
I'm with Hama. Many of us, especially those who have been around for a long while, run homebrews or heavily-homebrewed versions of previously published game worlds. And even those GMs who use Golarion as a setting have the prerrogative to adjust or modify the content of the published material in order to create their own vision of Golarion. Nothing is set in stone, and players should not take it that way.
Besides, I also share the opinion of Hama and others regarding how a GM should run monsters. I for one consider basic fighting maneuvers such as 5-foot steps, flanking and the like more as preservation instincts and natural cautiousness than bona-fide tactics. Goblins and orcs are perfectly aware of the dangers of running stupidly across the battlefield. Even animals have certain innate awareness of danger, though their instincts often push them into fight or flight mode.
The real problem comes when GMs do the opposite, playing mindless or hopelessly dumb monsters as tactical geniuses that profit from advantageous terrain or gang up against the wizard before he can cast spells (i.e. metagaming).
When I run, I try to adjust to the intelligence level, tactical acumen or survival instincts of the creature, and select its actions fairly. Completely mindless monsters such as oozes or zombies attack the nearest target, or pick one randomly if they are similarly close. Ogres are dumb, but generally not enough to not concentrate fire on the most dangerous foe. More intelligent or tactical creatures use more advanced strategies and fight intelligently. And so on…
I'm sure the vast majority of GMs do something similar, and I've never met a player with the expectations of Hama's new players.
What's the point of the counter example? Plus what if I want to run my Golarion goblins intelligently?
I'm certainly not saying you can't. In fact I do run goblins at least a little bit intelligently. Say somewhere better than a wolf, but not as good as say veteran human troops.
My point, as I said, is that they may have expected the goblins and orcs to use brute force unintelligent tactics because that is they way they have always seen it in the past.
I don't know them or you and I wasn't there. All I've got to go on is the 12 word quote you provided. From some GM's I've had in the past, that would be a perfectly reasonable expection.
Comedic goblins? The Golarion writers play too much Magic the Gathering.
Comedic goblins? The Golarion writers play too much Magic the Gathering.
...or played Warhammer 40K. Or read the hobbit. there are quite a few sources of comedic/maniacal/sadistic goblins...
I think I recall hearing that the Gremlins movies were a big influence on how goblins were rebooted for Golarion.
I haven't seen Gremlins since I was a kid. Gave me nightmares. I don't much remember beyond that.... I have more clear memories of Puppet Master than Gremlins xD.
That said... I typically run homebrew worlds... Though when I do run Golarion, I run a totally bastardized version that keeps the core concepts intact, but still different enough to warrant the stuff I do.
|
Wolves know how to use a hunting pack and flank. Wolves have an Intelligence of two. Goblins straight from the Bestiary have an Intelligence of ten (and a Wisdom of nine, which is arguably the "common sense" statistic).
Obviously, this isn't to say that goblins need to be smart or use any sort of tactics in battle, but they are definitely capable of making informed decisions, and especially of five-foot stepping.
Monsters SHOULD be run intelligently. Unless they are literally described as mindless. Orcs and Goblins have been relentlessly attacked by the more civilized races for millennia and they are still around so YES they would have excellent tactics and good battle instructors.
Or they breed like rats.
You know, those creatures seen as pests and enemies of humanity for millennia that we haven't wiped out despite our best efforts. If we can't eliminate them, I doubt fantasy world humans could eliminate goblins & orcs. Both are quite willing to live in filth infested warrens that few humans would willingly go near, both feed on the scraps and refuse of civilization, and both reproduce rapidly. While rats are far from stupid, they don't use any kind of real tactics aside from "hide!" and "dash!", but they do fine for themselves.
If Orcs and Goblins had excellent tactics, we'd be speaking Orc/Goblin and not Common.
As Scythia suggests, they breed like crazy, and while goblins are weaker (yet even more numerous), orcs come with stronger builds.
What's the tactical difference between fighting a troop of human (or elf) soldiers, vs. an equal size troop of orcs?
Monsters SHOULD be run intelligently. Unless they are literally described as mindless. Orcs and Goblins have been relentlessly attacked by the more civilized races for millennia and they are still around so YES they would have excellent tactics and good battle instructors.
Or they breed like rats.
You know, those creatures seen as pests and enemies of humanity for millennia that we haven't wiped out despite our best efforts. If we can't eliminate them, I doubt fantasy world humans could eliminate goblins & orcs. Both are quite willing to live in filth infested warrens that few humans would willingly go near, both feed on the scraps and refuse of civilization, and both reproduce rapidly. While rats are far from stupid, they don't use any kind of real tactics aside from "hide!" and "dash!", but they do fine for themselves.
Except rats are tiny things that can live happily in areas we can't reach. Goblins and Orcs are much much larger. A real world equivalent might be wolves and wolves survive by avoiding human lands. As humans expand we tend to wipe out any enemies we find and wolves have been hunted out of existence in many areas. In my own state they had to import wolves from other wild areas to help keep the deer population down, since we hunted down all our native wolves.
Orcs I usually run as a prmative culture often borrowing ideas from Klingons. Goblins I run as cowardly but cruel. Very different than the brave Golarion goblins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group expects enemies to act intelligently and make strategies.
Though, they don't like playing Golarion much. You see, goblins hate writing and the wizard pulled out his spellbook while the group was negotiating with a tribe of goblins...
Tuckers Kobolds.... Read the story.
As GM, I try play enemies intelligently. No one of them would suicide themseves at players weapons. Though I allow them sometimes make fatal mistakes and brainfarts.
Also, fighting with the players to their death is rarely their first interest.
Once players infiltrated castle ruled by ruthless monster. When alarm went off, he stayed playing on his throne, because he had guards for that. But when his spy told him that players made deal with his lover to assassinate him, he raised everyone on the castle and chased the players on to their camp, leading himself the raid. In the end, he was killed by his own servants, when they saw him weakened and took the opportunity to get ride of him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except rats are tiny things that can live happily in areas we can't reach. Goblins and Orcs are much much larger. A real world equivalent might be wolves and wolves survive by avoiding human lands. As humans expand we tend to wipe out any enemies we find and wolves have been hunted out of existence in many areas. In my own state they had to import wolves from other wild areas to help keep the deer population down, since we hunted down all our native wolves.
Orcs I usually run as a prmative culture often borrowing ideas from Klingons. Goblins I run as cowardly but cruel. Very different than the brave Golarion goblins.
Orcs and goblins will live in places humans don't find as accessible (cave networks to take advantage of darkvision), or places humans don't want to go (sewers, or other nasty places).
Rather than wolves, I'd think coyotes. Coyote are opportunistic, they'll scavenge, and most notably they've learned to live amazingly well among humans. During the era of expansion and development in the U.S., coyote populations dipped, as humans encroached upon their habitat, and disrupted their way of life. Now, they can be found over nearly 3/4th of the continental U.S., and even in suburban communities. They learned to live off of us. What we throw away, they can eat. What we leave unwatched is theirs to take. They can move around mostly undetected even in postage stamp lawn areas. They're animals, how much more effectively could human (or near) intelligence creatures with opposable thumbs adapt to live in the cracks?
Edit: the Klingon like orcs idea is interesting. I had an Orc society in one game that were organized as a samurai like culture. I built them as a player race though, so different stats and more lawful neutral by inclination.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: the Klingon like orcs idea is interesting. I had an Orc society in one game that were organized as a samurai like culture. I built them as a player race though, so different stats and more lawful neutral by inclination.
I based mine off the Jaegermonsters from Girl Genius. Boisterous, violent, prone to mayhem, and incredibly chaotic, but not necessarily evil.