Community

Oct 5, 2009 -- 2:42PM, smerwin29 wrote:

Oct 5, 2009 -- 1:42PM, Dragon9 wrote:

I don't think there's anything perceived about it.  It's the internet, it's a forum... it's full of trolls unhappy about something that just want to vent at the designers without giving any sort of constructive criticism.  You can't get away from them. 

Sure you can.  Engage the "Ignore" function early and often. 

I am trying to grow a thick skin. Most people that at times really irritate me at times do offer good insights in the game. I have seen few true trolls (people who have absolutely nothing worthwhile to add to a discussion) around here.

Oct 5, 2009 -- 8:24PM, Stafir_Ortnev wrote:

If I found a DM looking at me and asking me what I plan to do on my next turn and planning to counter that action specifically

But that isn't what was said. The question asked for general tactics. I gave a few examples of how I would answer (haven't heared about whether it woyld be sueful info to a monster).

It is useful if people lwt go of the hy[erbole introduced in the thread and look at what was intended. You may still disagree with that approach, but at least we would not be dealing with comments on a statement that wasn't made.

Gomez,

who has one ignore so far. Thick skin is fine, lack of people that  try to stab holes in it is better :P

Oct 6, 2009 -- 7:26AM, gomeztoo wrote:

I suggest we stop trying to put words in people's mouths, or make personal attacks.

There is no reason to be hostile towards Graham*, especially as I have not seen him suggesting any of the behavior he has been acussed of.

I've generally been recusing myself from this discussion, in part because I know some of the participants personally.  I do think that several folks have been ascribing motivations to Graham that simply aren't there.

As I see it, all he's saying is that he, as a DM, doesn't feel that he can accurately run extremely high-intelligence monsters, and he'd ask for the players' help in that regard.

I'll note that I do know Graham, and have had him as a DM a number of times in the past few years.  I've found him to be engaging and imaginative, and in *no* way a "control freak", as his comments here have led some of you to believe.

Oct 6, 2009 -- 7:26AM, gomeztoo wrote:

 

*) except for his goatee, of course  (yes, I am interjecting levity in a serious message. I am that good.)

It's an old picture; he hasn't had the facial hair for a few years now.

Almost any comment with "I would walk" should generally carry the attached statement "if what I think is true were actually true and nothing else led me to believe otherwise."

I've read enough posts by Graham to be pretty sure that most players would talk about the situation rather than walk. Graham seems like a very reasonable person. Posters, let's give people the benefit of the doubt, or at least check out their other posts before you cast judgment or throw +3 sling stones.

On the topic at hand, how to play super-dumb creatures is generally the easier task, but still can be debated. The best example off the top of my head is the Bladerager Troll. The MM2 says "A bladerager troll attacks the most physically menacing target, but quickly switches to the enemy that appears to be doing the most damage or hindering it the most. It doesn't employ concerted tactics beyond dealing as much damage to its enemies as possible." The int is 3.

But, look at creatures with low Int and you will see very different powers. A colossus has Int of 3, but a mound of cool powers including interrupt and ranged that seem to call for tactical use. A bebilith has an Int of 5, but uses slowing tactics and moves around constantly. Again, begging for smart tactics. (In contrast, the Dretch has int 5 and it says they are incapable of tactics but can be directed by a leader). The Neldrazzu has fairly complex tactics at Int 7.

So, in general, many creatures with a low int seem to be described as lacking tactics, but not all. The DM has some room to interpret various creatures, even with a low int.

Higher Int is tougher. A Human Dread Assassin has an int of 18, but lacks a tactics section and the powers are not really so much 'smarter' than monsters with a low Int. Silver Dragons have huge ints, but are described as employing straightforward tactics (the tactics are surprisingly non-tactical!).

At some point, you have the indesputably smart things (not that dragons shouldn't be!), such as mind flayers, liches, rakhsasa mages, etc. And yet, reading the tactics for a lich.... underwhelming description. But, the DM in me wants to ignore that. These are iconic nemesis! They plot for decades and centuries! What to do?

And that's where we get to the RPGA issue. We end up with a DM making their judgement call as to tactics. I'm all for that. It is well within the rules to juice up or down your tactics. But, how do you represent that nemesis, that genius? You are not necessarily any better at figuring out the tactics for a mind flayer than a Bebilith!

In an RPGA game, I will make a few calls for leniency if I do something dumb. If I trigger something that I should have seen coming, or if I move and then realize that I should have attacked first... I'll ask for or even state I'm taking a do-over, citing their genius and my stupidity. Players sometimes groan, but I have yet to have an objection. Most players know that it is a difficult task, especially in a climactic battle.

I haven't considered asking players for some information, but I might if I felt the monster had an opportunity to learn about them beforehand. For example, if the ranger has the ability to take melee OAs with his bow attack... they might know that. If they have heavy resist to something. Etc. I think asking players for information will put them on edge. Abstractly, away from the table, they might understand it. But, asking them what they are planning is hard. For one, the game is fluid. You are often planning your turn during someone else's turn, and then changing what you do when someone else does something that causes a tactical shift. For another, forcing that communication can take time. General intent (what target everyone will focus upon, for example) might work. Similarly, you could ask for character sheets and make a note of something like defenses, as an abstract representation of what a nemesis has learned, making their attacks more accurate. There are a lot of possibilities here if you work with the players and explain where you are coming from. But, in general, I personally prefer for the adventure to instruct DMs on this rather than to see great table variation.