[Closed] Is it wrong to play monsters in an optimal & deadly fashion

[ShadeRaven]

This is a circular argument that'll never end because even looking at RAW and RAI, there's still interpretation involved.

A Me vs. Them GM is playing a valid game and has every right to play it that way. Same as a theater of the Mind style GM. Etc.

Heck, even look at how people interpret simple things like Attribute Scores. In one thread here, I was constantly being told that an INT of 7 made someone literally the dumbest person on earth. And here we have people saying an INT of 8 makes them quite capable of tactically playing with maximum efficiency. I have no idea what either of them think of an INT 18 character, or even higher.

I would say the bottom line is that input as to how the game is playing should take into account these reports (from TPK fests by killer GMS to walkovers by soft-touch GMs). See where the mean is, trying to do the best job of narrowing the gap between the extremes with rules updates, and go on.

There is never going to be a point where either side here is going to relent on how their interpretation isn't the right one, at least for them. It's wasted space and time out here and literally does nothing to improve the future of PF2.

[graystone]

dragonhunterq wrote:

"Typically most will ignore" being interpreted as "none will ignore" is a bad faith interpretation of the rules - full stop.

Typically most monsters never meet a PC, only the minority that are in adventures... SO every monster they meet will be atypical. "Typically" makes the statement functionally useless IMO. A straight up suggestion 'hey, we find a lot of people find it more fun if you don't attack them when they are down so consider that when playing out encounters' would be more informative than the "typical" sentence.

[Zamfield]

In answering the original post, I would say it is wrong to play monsters in a way more optimal than their mental stats would indicate. It would be wrong to play monsters of a chaotic alignment with optimal teamwork. It would be wrong to play evil monsters by having them knowingly passing up a chance to be evil.

That said, there is not enough detail on monster behavior, motivations, or tactics given in most of the monster descriptions that I’ve seen. But I wouldn’t characterize every creature as automatically vicious either.

As for the other thread that lead to the question of this thread, I was constantly surprised that whenever the rules were indecipherable by the GM, they were discarded or ignored to the detriment of the PC party, but not the NPCs. I wouldn’t consider flat out ignoring inconvenient rules or ruling them against the PC by default as cause for redevelopement of core systems.

But by no means is that feedback invalid! Clarity or lack of it needs to be documented. Playing without assuming knowledge beyond the written page is providing valuable information because this next edition of the game is hoping to attract people that do not have any prior experience.

[ENHenry]

graystone wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

"Typically most will ignore" being interpreted as "none will ignore" is a bad faith interpretation of the rules - full stop.

Typically most monsters never meet a PC, only the minority that are in adventures... SO every monster they meet will be atypical. "Typically" makes the statement functionally useless IMO. A straight up suggestion 'hey, we find a lot of people find it more fun if you don't attack them when they are down so consider that when playing out encounters' would be more informative than the "typical" sentence.

“Most creatures a PC meets are atypical just because they met a PC” is a VERY tenuous argument. However, I think this is one as someone said upthread that will not be easy to resolve because it involves table play style and table social contracts, rather than game rules. It would be like in a table wargame if there were two sides evenly matched, with fog of war rules, etc. but the Referee was also one of the two players and ignored fog of war, morale, etc. “to give the other player a good challenge.” Some players welcome such a challenge, others call it very unfair and not playing to the intent; it’s more about table expectations.

[Jhaeman]

My approach is this:

If creatures in Golarion who are knocked out in combat tend to stay knocked out for the duration of combat, that becomes common sense in the world and I'll run NPCs and monsters with reasonable tactics accordingly.

If creatures in Golarion who are knocked out in combat tend to jump back up six seconds later and start fighting again, that becomes common sense in the world and I'll run NPCs and monsters with reasonable tactics accordingly.

[Disk Elemental]

Midnightoker wrote:

So the 7 INT manticore was played at human level intelligence (3 points different to an average commoner) and that's still valid?

7 Intelligence is Human level, 10 is merely the average--however this is a facile argument. I find your quibbling over Int scores to be wildly nonconstructive, especially when the tactic used amounted to "be high, shoot spikes."

Midnightoker wrote:

I am not even close to the only one with this viewpoint. I am not attacking this person, all I am saying is they are not playing by RAW or the way most people play (both true).

You've repeated this accusation at least three times, but have never explained it. What printed rule from the Core Rule Book is being violated?

The truth is, it doesn't matter whether you like how the game is played or whether you agree with the philosophy, because a playtest is a fundamentally different beast from a beer and pretzels weekly campaign. The purpose of a playtest is to play by RAW, and to do everything in your power to put the system through its paces--And I despise the number of personal attacks and straight-up bad faith engagement on the part of the community, in response to someone doing that.

The fact that the developers have gone so far as to legitimize this bullying by dismissing the criticism is frankly baffling.

[Jason Bulmahn]

Colette Brunel wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

If you want to play your foes all as ruthless beasts, that is a call you can make. I am not sure that is a play style I find palatable, but if that is what you and your group enjoy, then more power to you. As for wether or not your reports are valid, your surveys are a part along with everyone else's. You are one extreme.. and that is ok. Our spreadsheets account for that.

Your playtest results are valid, but to be honest, I am not sure I am going to making any significant changes to the game based on a rather harcore approach to NPC tactics.

Could you please clarify what you mean? The playtest results are valid and are taken into consideration along with everyone else's results, and yet no significant changes will be made based on any results that stem from an extreme GMing style?

How is it possible that results can be valid, yet not taken into consideration for changing the game? How would Paizo even discern if a given set of survey results stemmed from a hardcore GMing style?

Results come in a spectrum. If everyone gave us the exact same result, we would know that something was amiss.

Your results come from one end of the spectrum. We have plenty from other parts, and a few from the opposite end. In that way, your results matter. I might take action to try and shift my end points, but I'll get better results trying to move the middle.

Do you deserve more guidance on what a monster should and shouldn't do, to reign in tpks? Probably, but I'm not going to set down hard and fast rules to service only that position. The flexibility is more valuable to me from a narrative sense than preventing the abuse that can be curved with softer guidelines.

You've helped illustrate a problem and for that you have my thanks.

[Colette Brunel]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Results come in a spectrum. If everyone gave us the exact same result, we would know that something was amiss.

Your results come from one end of the spectrum. We have plenty from other parts, and a few from the opposite end. In that way, your results matter. I might take action to try and shift my end points, but I'll get better results trying to move the middle.

Do you deserve more guidance on what a monster should and shouldn't do, to reign in tpks? Probably, but I'm not going to set down hard and fast rules to service only that position. The flexibility is more valuable to me from a narrative sense than preventing the abuse that can be curved with softer guidelines.

You've helped illustrate a problem and for that you have my thanks.

Very well. Does this mean I should try to get back into the swing of writing reports, then, or should I not bother if my GMing style is too extreme and thus likely to be ignored?

[Jason Bulmahn]

Colette Brunel wrote:

Very well. Does this mean I should try to get back into the swing of writing reports, then, or should I not bother if my GMing style is too extreme and thus likely to be ignored?

Your reports have shown us some pain points in the system that have been useful.

I think where we get off the rails is lengthy arguments about your style. You've decided to play this game in hardcore mode. A lot of folks are not comfortable with that and feel challenged by the results. It can cause a lot of strife.

As for whether or not the full reports are worth your time, that's up to you. We read a lot on here and we learn things from all of them. Understand that we might not be moving the game to suit your playstyle, but that doesmy mean we wont notice other things, or take other lessons. Only you can decide if that's worth your time.

Might I suggest tagging your posts "hardcore" to ease some of the misunderstanding.

[Colette Brunel]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Your reports have shown us some pain points in the system that have been useful.

I think where we get off the rails is lengthy arguments about your style. You've decided to play this game in hardcore mode. A lot of folks are not comfortable with that and feel challenged by the results. It can cause a lot of strife.

As for whether or not the full reports are worth your time, that's up to you. We read a lot on here and we learn things from all of them. Understand that we might not be moving the game to suit your playstyle, but that doesmy mean we wont notice other things, or take other lessons. Only you can decide if that's worth your time.

Might I suggest tagging your posts "hardcore" to ease some of the misunderstanding.

Very well. I will try to get back into the swing of writing reports in time. For example, here is an update for the first part of The Mirrored Moon. It is not a long update, but it is an update.

[Sara Marie]

Closing this thread.