Let's kill some character! Maybe.

[Killer Angel]

This thread is about DMs trying to kill a character.
Of course, not abusing their power as DM (which is entirely another matter), but in the legitimate ways during combat, using the abilities of the monsters or of the various NPCs.
After all, we "roleplay" the bad guys, and they should do their best to survive and "win" the encounter, thus killing the PCs.
(Side note: the discussion is general, so it's not necessarily tied to D&D, even if it's the more common ground of our debates).
How do you act, usually, and, most of all, how do you justify, in play, the use of some tactic, instead of others?

Example n. 1:
When our bad guys are smart, we try to eliminate the strongest menace: in D&D terms, a wizard will tend to concentrate on other casters (the main danger): once they're out, the non-casters are doomed.
But Napoleon said: I like to face coalitions; hit hard the weak point, the others will crumble.
So, why don't go for the weak PC? If his companion is at risk of dying, the caster will try to kill you or will try to save the one in danger? Killing the BBEG with a standard action is not certain, and the price of a failure can be high... and if the group begins to help the ones in peril, the bad guys have "redirect" the group's actions, thus gaining the inertia in the combat.

Example n. 2:
Smart monsters, should use smart tactics, but dumb monsters, how really stupid they are? Making a dumb creature attacking the one that damages her more, is reasonable, but isn't the only option: critters have hunter's instinct and feral efficiency in combat: why don't go for the one that seems not dangerous, trying to kill the easy prey (the bard that is buffing?).

Example n. 3:
In D&D, monsters have a CR. To play the dragon in a smart way (accordingly to his Int), does increase his CR? Or is the use of a "simple" tactic, that lower the CR?
Using the various tactics, where is the limit when we begin to be "unfair"? (I'm thinking also to Tucker's Kobolds).

And so on...


Discuss. :smallwink:

[Saya]

This really gets into the DM vs Player area, which I don't particularly like, but I will throw in my 2c.

The thing with tactics in D&D is considering the intelligence of the monster, under certain amounts, the enemy having a much better strategy then simply "Smash the first thing I see" is hard to justify and sometimes it feels a little forced.

In your example about attacking the wizard, generally if the enemies are even able to identify it's a spellcaster, (remember, some classes are actually classes that people train for, while others are more abstract concepts, so without getting into icky metagaming, the balance gets annoying). This is also assuming that the other spellcaster is the strongest enemy, as there are different types of spellcasters, so automatically going after them isn't always the smartest idea. Plus remember, as concepts in the game, the caster is not always the most dangerous, and thus, to the spellcaster run by the DM, isn't the best idea to soften up the meatshields so that your own fighters can plow through them? It's also very assumptive that the wizard is SO MUCH OF A BACKBONE THAT WITHOUT HIM THE ENTIRE PARTY IS DEAD. (which is silly).

(Since I'm tired, I'll just analyze your ex for now)

Ex 2:
Like I mentioned previously, for a lot of monsters attacking the one that hurt it the most IS the best tactic, especially if it's not particularly smart (I don't know why the one I'm getting hurt by the most is doing so much damage, or why they're not going down...). This also starts to get a little into why the monster is fighting in the first place. If it's hungry, then it's a little easier to justify it trying to attack what looks the softest (only via visual), and try to "kill" for the sake of dragging the target off for a meal (and even then, you can get into the argument that it would kill the one hurting it the most for the sake of making the pain stop, after all, leaving the one that's hurting your the most for something that's not hurting you seems really... stupid...). In the case of the players stumbling onto it's den, it really has no reason NOT to attack the one that's dealing the most hurt (unless, again, the monster gets smart enough to realize someone is buffing/healing the person, I would generally roll a knowledge to see if it's smart enough to figure this out). Generally above 3 or so int, I start giving the monster some semblance of planning.

Ex 3:
The CR system itself is very arbitrary. Once you start to get into tactics, a very good way to test the difficulty of the battle is to build your basic party of 4 (meatshield melee, offensive caster, healer, skillmonkey) and running them through the battle as if they were half prepared to face the enemy (Have some idea, but not entirely sure), and see how that turns out. If they're getting absolutely slaughtered, then the CR is not appropriate, thus adjust accordingly. Also this is a bit about understanding your players, and having some idea how they would do this. If you're a seasoned player, but your group is mostly newbies, don't expect them to do as well as your CR test "group", but at the same time, the unexpected can happen...

[Dirty n Evil]

When playing the encounter challenging the PC's, I think you hit on a crucial element... put yourself in the "bad guys' shoes". A zombie might not make a connection to the flashes of light that are zapping it from the mage forty feet away, but the individual swinging a piece of metal against its flesh is simple enough even for its half-decomposed brain to process.

This can lead to fun encounters with the PC's attempting to figure out the motivation behind the focus of a creature. Such as the water elemental viciously centering its efforts against the warrior with the flaming long sword, even going so far as to move past other threats to combat its percieved nemesis.

I think it's important to play the challenges to the PC's as though they're trying to win. The PC's incorporate tactics that make it more likely they're going to win (or at least, they do in my games), why shouldn't the villain?

However, I will admit to one thing... it's just part of my own personal storytelling philosophy, but I never go "for the kill" until the climactic encounter of an adventure. Few PC's enjoy their character killed off... but by managing matters as a DM so that PC's that fall in other encounters are just knocked unconscious, they live to fight another day. If a PC falls against a medium threat, there isn't any consolation. He rolled poorly, and luck was against him. If a PC falls against the big bad of the adventure, he died a hero who will be well remembered by his compatriots.

I'm sure you'll see that villains who aren't played smart seem far too easy for the PC's to take down - and for good reason. Because they're not using all the tools available to them. Why is the evil cleric charging out to the front lines like a fighter, rather than buffing his flunkies? Wouldn't it be truer to his actions if he were a warrior, then? If the opposite group has two spellcasters, don't just play them as mindless spell blasters... have one or the other trade off trying to counterspell the PC's mage.

Just like in real life, no one feels fufilled by a victory that's too easy. When the challenge not only requires thought but perseverence, the glories to be had afterward are that much sweeter.

[Killer Angel]

This really gets into the DM vs Player area, which I don't particularly like, but I will throw in my 2c.



However, I will admit to one thing... it's just part of my own personal storytelling philosophy, but I never go "for the kill" until the climactic encounter of an adventure.

Just to be clear: I never go to kill a character. But my monsters do.
My DM's job, is to try to kill the PCs, without succeeding in doing it (except for mere unluck or very bad moves from the players).

I'm talking 'bout playing the monsters. if you do it in a bad way (too dumb OR too smart for their INT), it ruins the immersion in the game and the players' enjoyment.