While this is true and GM's should do as the campaign designers intended (within reason) it is still good to discuss the situations from a balance prospective. It helps everyone understand the game better.
If it's the stat block that tell you how to play the NPC, then yes, balance IS the stat block. It's the ENTIRE stat block, including those instructions.
Overlooking, of course, the 85% chance that this is a reference to someone you don't feel the need to mention by name.
He's still got a point. The DM ruined the game by making it some "me vs them" tactical combat instead of running the game how the stat block says they should act.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So for those of us not privy to the dirty details, is this actually a personal thing because a party wiped when the opposition was played... intelligently?
'get 'em' is a move action. There isn't any reason the boss wouldn't also fire.
So is it a personal thing, or a complaint about badly balanced encounters that can yield TPKs if the enemies aren't played stupidly and suboptimally?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So for those of us not privy to the dirty details, is this actually a personal thing because a party wiped when the opposition was played... intelligently?
'get 'em' is a move action. There isn't any reason the boss wouldn't also fire.
So is it a personal thing, or a complaint about badly balanced encounters that can yield TPKs if the enemies aren't played stupidly and suboptimally?
Conversely, plenty of people are stupid and suboptimal, so I don't have a problem with stat blocks spelling out exactly who is and how.
|
So for those of us not privy to the dirty details, is this actually a personal thing because a party wiped when the opposition was played... intelligently?
No clue. It's a valid complaint if the Int -2 (ie: Int 6 or 7) opposition (or the otherwise tactically unskilled opposition) was played intelligently, though. They're not intelligent, so playing them intelligently is metagaming of a sort a GM should not engage in.
'get 'em' is a move action. There isn't any reason the boss wouldn't also fire.
There is if he's also moving to cover and trying not to draw attention. ie: if he's a coward. Which sounds like the situation here.
So is it a personal thing, or a complaint about badly balanced encounters that can yield TPKs if the enemies aren't played stupidly and suboptimally?
Encounters are, in fact, partially balanced by enemy tactics and how tactically skilled those enemies are. Not all will be equally so and making them that way is actually really inaccurate from a realism perspective as well as potentially unbalancing.
Now, by the same token having all enemies always act like idiots is also stretching suspension of disbelief past the breaking point. And even Int -2 enemies will probably start firing at the melee guy after he guts one of them in a single swing...but if they by default split targets they should do that until evidence demonstrates it's a bad idea at the very least.
Conversely, plenty of people are stupid and suboptimal, so I don't have a problem with stat blocks spelling out exactly who is and how.So for those of us not privy to the dirty details, is this actually a personal thing because a party wiped when the opposition was played... intelligently?
'get 'em' is a move action. There isn't any reason the boss wouldn't also fire.
So is it a personal thing, or a complaint about badly balanced encounters that can yield TPKs if the enemies aren't played stupidly and suboptimally?
Well the stat block says they are supposed to be somewhat stupid...to not have them act that way IS metagaming playing in a sense. They aren't supposed to be tactical geniuses and to have them be that way regardless sort of screws the PCs over in a way the adventure wasn't meant to be. I'm one of those players and would be DMs who actually thinks deeply on the consequences of changing things. If I change something well how does it affect everything else? If this badguy who is supposed to be an idiot is suddenly a genius, well how does that affect his use of abilities? A lot is the answer.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It think it's also worth looking out that a creature's intelligence score isn't a great guide for combat specific behavior. A dumb bandit is much more likely to be smart in combat than a smart college professor.
|
|
It think it's also worth looking out that a creature's intelligence score isn't a great guide for combat specific behavior. A dumb bandit is much more likely to be smart in combat than a smart college professor.
This is fair enough, though I wouldn't think low Int bandits would do really complex tactical stuff, I was mostly just using Int in my example as shorthand for whether good tactical choices made sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a big fan of 'enemies could easily win but don't because they have make bad decisions' encounter design.
As a player I tend to think tactically. The 'chaos of combat' is realistic, but turn-based combat on a grid isn't. My PC tries to make the best choices, and I act on the assumption that enemies will do the same.
So my problem wouldn't be that the guy with the plasma axe gets cut down by focused fire; it's that the guy with the plasma axe shouldn't be charging forwards in the first place. Why gamble your life on the hope that your enemies are idiots?
|
The proper path is a middle ground IMO. GMs need to remember this isn't PF and while there the melee guy had almost always decked himself out to avoid being hit, here in SF the mechanics are different. All of the level appropriate enemies will hit even a defense focused character as often as not. So focus fire turns from an ok tactic and one the player may encourage as they absorb and ignore hits that would harm the rest of the party, into a way to kill anyone. So those tactics need to be attended.
At the same time, if the melee character closes with two or more enemies and threatens them when no one else does, well for some of them to elect to ignore the sudden close threat is a bit too much. Or if everyone else on the team is in some form of cover, but the soldier choose to hold still to full attack. To this extent players also need to learn not to provoke the enemies into focusing on them.
GMs should follow tactics unless they're suicidely stupid, or clearly don't work. Players should make sure they don't turn focus fire into the only real option. It's a two part system, which I think people will get better at as we move from a PF mindset to a SF mindset.
I'm not a big fan of 'enemies could easily win but don't because they have make bad decisions' encounter design.
Think of it more as
'enemies will probably lose, but could, over the course of their loss, disproportionately drain the resources and endanger the life of one player's character over the others, and, to the degree that it doesn't strain credulity, they shouldn't, because it's not fun.'
This is a very good point. A player should should also bear a certain responsibility in not getting focused. If there's a bunch of guys with guns shooting at you guys, running through the gap and getting every baddies attention in the process is stupid. Pull out your backup gun and shoot at people with the rest of your party. Or try to work your way around and flank the baddies so that hopefully you have some soft cover if nothing else (real life use of the word flank not the in game mechanic).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not remember a single occurrence of seeing even incredibly smart opponents actually act on their survival instinct and flee rather than make the stupid suicidal decision of staying in combat with the murderhobos we call PCs
Unless the scenario specifically calls for it
You would think that trying to hurt the PCs is the only reason for their existence :-)
Granted, that was not in SFS
|
|
This is a very good point. A player should should also bear a certain responsibility in not getting focused. If there's a bunch of guys with guns shooting at you guys, running through the gap and getting every baddies attention in the process is stupid. Pull out your backup gun and shoot at people with the rest of your party. Or try to work your way around and flank the baddies so that hopefully you have some soft cover if nothing else (real life use of the word flank not the in game mechanic).
It's a two way street. If three bad guys are bunched together, a level one solarion with a taclash and solar weapon could close with them and make all of them either do nother or have to run away at least. It's a very powerful option and a tempting one. The bad guys should in that situation pull a melee and deal with that particular player even if their tactics say they try to stay at range and split their focus, the player has made themselves a very important target and invalidated the tactic temporarily.
It's also reasonable to assume some communications, they have comm units same as the players, and they've probably worked together before. So some coordination is reasonable.
At the same time, they've worked together before and have tactics they've used and default to. Those tactics have, despite being less than ideally optimal, in theory worked for them before. They're going to use them unless there's a definite reason to do something else. Maybe they're used to fighting much weaker opponents, so splitting fire lets them end the fight faster, except that PCs take more than one shot to drop, so they don't work as well. The GM shouldn't just change those tactics because they know they could do better against this group.
If we're throwing anecdotes around,
Once a week, I get together with a club and shoot nerf guns at each other (map is made of cardboard box stacks). Usually, one of three things will happen
1. You're dying too quickly to do anything
2. it's predominately 1v1 engagements
3. Somebody you know is really good is on the field, and they will get at least half of all shots aimed at them. (they usually still beat you back by themselves anyway).
So, a group of untrained university students are capable of focus firing when they need it.
Granted, a nerf gun delivers its payload to its target only slightly faster than USPS...
I've participated in a similar activity, and, upon reflecting on how it could be improved, I thought, I just wish I were paintballing.
What they need to invent is paintballs that dissolve cleanly 5 minutes after being exposed to air...
If we want to get into technicalities, most often we as players are the ones behaving unrealistically. I mean why would my group of spacehobos all focus on one guy at a time? Are we playing our ROLE, or are we ROLL playing? In combat I usually see/play the latter. I'm not advocating that players all of the sudden start playing stupid, (though the suicidal dwarf/barbarian troupe can be quite entertaining) but if the GM focuses fire on a character who is an obvious threat to the baddies (and who has taken actions to make it obvious) is that really so bad?
I'm not a big fan of 'enemies could easily win but don't because they have make bad decisions' encounter design.
As a player I tend to think tactically. The 'chaos of combat' is realistic, but turn-based combat on a grid isn't. My PC tries to make the best choices, and I act on the assumption that enemies will do the same.
So my problem wouldn't be that the guy with the plasma axe gets cut down by focused fire; it's that the guy with the plasma axe shouldn't be charging forwards in the first place. Why gamble your life on the hope that your enemies are idiots?
This! This! 1000 times this!
Don't put enemies in and then tell them to use obviously stupid tactics.
Perhaps IRL you wont use optimal strategies, but this is a game not real life. If players get an unlimited amount of time to think through their strategy and decide the best course of action, then NPCs should get the same treatment.
If you're using NPCs that when played to equal level of competence as PCs and this leads to a TPK of the player party then you're using NPCs that are too powerful.
Or the GMs job is to create an awesome world and story. Those gangers that only care about their own hide should fight differently than the marines with an objective. They can have the same stats, the same amount but they will be different. If you play them each optimally then they become the same thing. If you want to pit your wits optimally against another person then you should be playing a wargame, not running an RPG.
Pretty much this. Life isn't fair, and there's no reason for encounters to have equal numbers or firepower on each side, so I don't see a reason for them to have equal tactical acumen.
|
|
A tactics section for an encounter is important to help set the tone for a group of enemies.
For Paizo, the first ever fight in the first ever AP they wrote for their setting (Rise of the Runelords) had goblins in large enough numbers they could probably TPK the group. But that combat is described as so chaotic some of the goblins kill themsleves in their enthusiasm for chaos.
I can see cultists fighting to the death (fanatics), I can also see gang members doing the same (you'll never take me copper!), but other times surrender or fleeing is always an option. Unless the tactics section says "will fight to the death" then those other two are on the table for the DM.
Having the boss of a crime gang surrender when all his mooks die also makes sense sometimes. I'm thinking of the accountants in the movie Untouchables here. Surrounded by psychotic murderers, they were all bravado and tough talk. The moment the tough guys got killed, they turned to jello and folded like a deck of cards.
So it's less about what makes sense to you as the coldly impartial DM or the far removed from danger player, and more about telling the story of the enemy you're facing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or the GMs job is to create an awesome world and story. Those gangers that only care about their own hide should fight differently than the marines with an objective. They can have the same stats, the same amount but they will be different. If you play them each optimally then they become the same thing. If you want to pit your wits optimally against another person then you should be playing a wargame, not running an RPG.I'm not a big fan of 'enemies could easily win but don't because they have make bad decisions' encounter design.
As a player I tend to think tactically. The 'chaos of combat' is realistic, but turn-based combat on a grid isn't. My PC tries to make the best choices, and I act on the assumption that enemies will do the same.
So my problem wouldn't be that the guy with the plasma axe gets cut down by focused fire; it's that the guy with the plasma axe shouldn't be charging forwards in the first place. Why gamble your life on the hope that your enemies are idiots?
This! This! 1000 times this!
Don't put enemies in and then tell them to use obviously stupid tactics.
Perhaps IRL you wont use optimal strategies, but this is a game not real life. If players get an unlimited amount of time to think through their strategy and decide the best course of action, then NPCs should get the same treatment.
If you're using NPCs that when played to equal level of competence as PCs and this leads to a TPK of the player party then you're using NPCs that are too powerful.
I didn't say run NPCs as 100% optimally, or running every group the same. But when I see obviously bad tactics...just no. I'm not doing it.
As for HWalsh's scenario. Goblins are pretty damn stupid, and maybe they should be run the way you're suggesting. But it shouldn't take much tactical acumen to take cover and wait for you enemy to come to you. Does this make the hallway a killing field for the PCs? Absolutely. Should the players recognize this? Hopefully. If they don't perhaps it's time for a lesson. Why do I say this?
Because there are (or at least should be) alternatives. Go around to a different hallway. Go down the air vents and come out behind them. Use some sort of mobile cover to get down the hallway without being torn to shreds. There are plenty of intelligent options that don't require you to walk down the Killing Field, even when the enemy is being played semi-intelligently.
Or throw smoke grenades
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RPGs don't really try and recreate reality. At best its an attempt to model the world of James bond or star wars - where multiple villains armed with submachine guns are no match for a hero with a tray.
In my opinion, Starfinder in particular seems much closer to space opera than to hard SF. I think it works best to embrace that theme rather than try to carve out some bits of 'realism' in a universe where spaceships can instantly stop and spin on the spot.
I think there are better games for pseudo realism. Starfinder spaceships have chasms in them you can swing across and hordes of bad guys to be mowed down by outgunned yet plucky heroes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HWalsh, you've missed Claxons point here.
Good game design presents multiple options to tackle a problem rather than one.
Your Sierra example is perfect for this. They only provided one answer with no other way to progress so it became a stumbling block for people, many of whom gave up.
If you're going to present a corridor kill zone for the players to be forced to travel down without multiple ways to appraoch it, that is bad game design.
You have mitigated this somewhat by making the goblins crazy and self destructive though.
You can't present the goblins as crazy and self destructive in one part, and then go on in another post and suggest it's bad tactics to leave other avenues open for the players to approach from. That's counter intuitive to what you're trying to paint the goblins as.
This is the perfect scenario to make sure you got something available that the players can hack (lighting, defence systems, presssure release valves etc), or have moveable cover like crates, or present a maintenance system that a drone or Ysoki could move through.
It would be bad tactics to not close off the alternate hallways though.
It would be bad ship design if you could actually crawl into the ship vents. After all, in real life you can't do this in buildings (despite what movies say).
It assumes there is some mobile cover, and if there is mobile cover, why are the enemies leaving it around so that their trap fails?
The problem with "intelligent options" is that, ultimately you run into linear thinking puzzles.
For those not up on their Game Design terms, the term "Linear Thinking" puzzle refers to the classic Point and Click Adventure Games that were popularized by Sierra Online (and Lucas Arts as well) for the PC genre.
Often in these games the player had to come up with an "obvious" solution. This obvious solution was, of course, thought up by the designer/programmer (they were one and the same often in those days) and... Well... Isn't always so obvious.
For example:
Going through the vents - I, as a player, know that vents aren't actually large enough to do that. So I don't think about that as an option. It is not an obvious solution to me because I have enough real world knowledge that it isn't something that enters my mind until the game tells me that it is possible.Mobile Cover, as well, isn't usually a thing. Unless it is made obvious that we have some method to do that, either through someone having Gravity Shield and becoming Graviton Attuned, or a spell or some such, it isn't something we are going to see that often.
To you, those are both obvious solutions, to me they aren't realistic and aren't something I am going to think about.
That is because linear thinking puzzles, on the whole, rely on the designer's perceptions.
In the case of one of the most (in)famous ones in a Sierra game, the player runs into Rumplestilskin, he asks you his name, so of course you guess Rumplestilskin. That is incorrect. You get the clue, "Think backwards."
Which, obviously, means you want to spell out: Nikslitselpmur.
That is incorrect.
What the designer thought was "Obvious" was to reverse the alphabet so A=Z, B=Y, C=X etc etc, then spell the name out forward with the reversed alphabet.
I am sure designer Roberta Williams thought that this was an obvious clever solution. I missed it. Almost everyone I know missed it. I only know it because I begged my parents back in the 1980's to call Sierra's 1-900 hint line. (We didn't have the internet back then.)
So, it is a good idea to not ever assume that anything is common sense, because sometimes what is common sense to you, may not be common sense to others.
It wouldn't be optimal to not also close off alternative routes, but that would also require time to do so. Time that the NPCs probably don't have. Especially not if the PCs ahve just broken down the door, surprised you, and now you have to make the best of the situation with 4 guys. The don't have the numbers to go close off alternative routes and stop the PCs from going down the main entrance too. As to why there is cover left behind? It could be any number of reasons. Unless the enemy was expecting the PCs in the immediate future it actually seems very likely that stuff would be laying about that might be useful as cover. And if you had stated that this was a trap, I missed it. You didn't really outline that part of the scenario, you also didn't mention what lead up to it either. So there are a lot of possibilities.
As for vents not being the correct size in real life...that literally has no bearing here in a fantasy game. Don't make assumptions about real life and bring it into the game.
And you're whole point that this is a linear thinking puzzle...well no. Just look at the first post after mine, it suggested smoke grenades. A great way to make it through the gauntlet, and a very obvious one.
My point is players should have options, and just because the enemy has done something intelligent (like retreat to a hallway and use cover to kill the players if they decide to charge down it like idiots) doesn't mean the players can't win. You just need to give them options so they don't have to do the obvious dumb thing. Just like you shouldn't have NPCs do obviously dumb things.
HWalsh, you've missed Claxons point here.
Good game design presents multiple options to tackle a problem rather than one.
Your Sierra example is perfect for this. They only provided one answer with no other way to progress so it became a stumbling block for people, many of whom gave up.
If you're going to present a corridor kill zone for the players to be forced to travel down without multiple ways to appraoch it, that is bad game design.
You have mitigated this somewhat by making the goblins crazy and self destructive though.
You can't present the goblins as crazy and self destructive in one part, and then go on in another post and suggest it's bad tactics to leave other avenues open for the players to approach from. That's counter intuitive to what you're trying to paint the goblins as.
This is the perfect scenario to make sure you got something available that the players can hack (lighting, defence systems, presssure release valves etc), or have moveable cover like crates, or present a maintenance system that a drone or Ysoki could move through.
Thank you Wrath, you get what I'm saying.
You can replace the goblins with humans, and you'd say that doing what you're suggesting the goblins do would be quite stupid. And waiting for the PCs to stumble down the hallway is a smart(er) move.
If the PCs don't do something smart they're going to take a lot of damage, possibly even die. It's dumb to just go down the hallway, but as long as your provide alternatives the party can encounter enemies that aren't dumb but also doesn't result in a TPK either.
There's also the problem that 'IRL' getting shot usually removes you from combat. Most people stop fighting after being shot, usually to get treatment for their wound.
In Pathfinder and Starfinder, you typically don't stop being a threat until you go unconscious, which usually takes significantly more than 1 successful shot to accomplish.
There's also the problem that 'IRL' getting shot usually removes you from combat. Most people stop fighting after being shot, usually to get treatment for their wound.
In Pathfinder and Starfinder, you typically don't stop being a threat until you go unconscious, which usually takes significantly more than 1 successful shot to accomplish.
Starfinder combat is a lot like shooting each other with Nerf guns, right up until the last shot. And even then it's not that bad most of the time.