De canistro textrinum

[Foxwarrior]

I think there's an implicit distinction with layers that only some people here are thinking about:

Worldbuilding. The DM makes the setting, and puts creatures with their resources into it.

Plot and Strategy. The DM may choose to have the creatures in the setting scheme or act during downtime.

Tactics Minigame. When the players actually encounter creatures, the DM chooses how those creatures react.

It's perfectly possible to sandbag in some of those layers and not others. Sandbagging in only the worldbuilding layer means you don't get to have any well-informed, intelligent, powerful, and antagonistic creatures in any important parts of the world.

Sandbagging in the Plot and Strategy layer means that the Elder Brain imagines twiddling thumbs when his minions are slaughtered en masse.

Sandbagging in the Tactics layer means that you're wasting your time on a minigame for no good reason.

[nockermensch]

You're misidentifying the problem with Lord Mistborn's position, Nockermensch. What you say implies that he'd sandbag during combat, but what he clearly says is that he sandbags only outside of combat.

I get this feeling all the time. They think spies are useless, they think it's actually hard to follow and ambush PCs, they don't consider the consequences of behaving like murder hobos.

The feel I get from games like this is something very much like that Black Marshes experiment: A most static world, where the PCs have a safe town (no-PK zone, lol) from where they can buy every magic item in existence, learn every spell and buy any creature that can be used as a familiar/mount/companion.

From there they decide at their leisure where to strike next, from a choice of isolated "zones". The survivors of PC raids don't take steps for revenge or try to alert the nearby communities of the tactics those murderous attackers used. When the crypt of doom is sacked and everybody inside killed or destroyed, the cleric that used to give orders there doesn't have friends or allies that will raise her and start to plan for the PC's downfall.

THEN, during combat time, the DM follows a script everybody agrees is badass enough for the monsters, the dice fall before everyone and are never fudged, and the fairest of the games is played.

This is fucking baffling.

[Mistborn]

I'll ignore that you had a relapse of stupid here are crushing me like the basketweaver I am. (rules expertise, system mastery, lol) and address just two points.

As for Mage Mart nice strawman there I'm sure you proud of it. In my games fuck that shit you get what magic items you can craft or pry from the enemies charred corpse.

Since your still going to be frozen fast about the Elder Brain thing. The probably also have some fucking overpowered shit in their corner as well. Why exactly is the Cleric's god just letting the Elder Brain pull that shit. Why hasn't say Pelor wiped out all the Elder Brains preemptively so the don't blow up the sun.

The Game only makes sense if you assume that high level superbeings do not have the time or resources to handle low level stuff.

Now are you done being frozen fast or am I going to have to wait for Frank to bitchslap you again.

[K]

Sandbagging in the Tactics layer means that you're wasting your time on a minigame for no good reason.

You know, there is no good reason to play RPGs other than the fact that they are fun.

This means that if the idea that the DM might be sandbagging you ruins the fun for you, then you should not play RPGs. It's never going to be fun for you because every DM choice in combat is a chance that you are being sandbagged.

Play CRPGS. Random chance will sometimes sandbag your encounters, but at least you can pretend that some of the time the difficulty is objective.

[nockermensch]

I think there's an implicit distinction with layers that only some people here are thinking about:

Worldbuilding. The DM makes the setting, and puts creatures with their resources into it.

Plot and Strategy. The DM may choose to have the creatures in the setting scheme or act during downtime.

Tactics Minigame. When the players actually encounter creatures, the DM chooses how those creatures react.

It's perfectly possible to sandbag in some of those layers and not others. Sandbagging in only the worldbuilding layer means you don't get to have any well-informed, intelligent, powerful, and antagonistic creatures in any important parts of the world.

Sandbagging in the Plot and Strategy layer means that the Elder Brain imagines twiddling thumbs when his minions are slaughtered en masse.

Sandbagging in the Tactics layer means that you're wasting your time on a minigame for no good reason.

Add a level below the Tactics Minigame and your table is golden:

My Little Fudge: Probability is Magic. When the dice fall in a way that will ruin everybody's fun, the dice suffer an accident.

I'll note that the Tactics Minigame can still be fun even when fudged (in fact, I cannot imagine it not being fudged because for some creatures, they have choices that tie in the Plot and Strategy layer, like "I'm packing and leaving. You didn't hear the last of me!") because the fun of describing badass action scenes and because unlike in fiction, you don't know exactly what will happen. (even if the thing is fudged to the point where it's a given that the enemies must lose, something that I don't condone all the time, some possibilities excluded != all possibilities excluded).

[quanta]

I specifically said that the ECL+4 encounters are a bad idea because they are supposed to kill the party 50% of the time. As opposed to GC who thinks your a basketweaver if you can't handle ECL+6 encounters.

And... now we're back to your position that there is only one correct difficulty level and it happens to be the one you play on.

Now as for the rest of the nonsense that you morons are spewing. D&D has stuff that needs to be houseruled to have a functional world much less a functional game or are we just assuming that everyone runs around with a Ring of Infinite Wishes all the time. Handle it with houserules not MTP.

I am not going to actually write out the all of the houserules necessary to make the game playable when I'm DM'ing the monsters as acting at maximum "fuck you adventuring party it's time to die" capability.

Do you know how much work that writing is? (Well it's that or throw down consistently really easy encounters).

I'm not saying I don't try to write out my key houserules, but some of them are going to be vague. Things like "don't build a diplomancer", or "don't send too many of your character's numbers off the RNG".

And for things like how certain spells may or may not be broken, it's much easier to just not have the monsters abuse certain things even if I don't mind the players having those things (often the case).

[Foxwarrior]

K: I prefer to believe that the DM just isn't very good at tactics when I have doubts.

[Mistborn]

And for things like how certain spells may or may not be broken, it's much easier to just not have the monsters abuse certain things even if I don't mind the players having those things (often the case).

This is wrong. Very wrong. If you are going to remove problematic things then it has to be symmetric otherwise you're coddling the players.

Noone using Scry and Die = not coddling

Everyone using Scry and Die = not coddling

Only the players getting to use Scry and Die = coddling

This isn't had to understand but apparently this is too advanced for some people here (probably because they're frozen fast).

[nockermensch]

As for Mage Mart nice strawman there I'm sure you proud of it. In my games fuck that shit you get what magic items you can craft or pry from the enemies charred corpse.

Since your still going to be frozen fast about the Elder Brain thing. The probably also have some fucking overpowered shit in their corner as well. Why exactly is the Cleric's god just letting the Elder Brain pull that shit. Why hasn't say Pelor wiped out all the Elder Brains preemptively so the don't blow up the sun.

The Game only makes sense if you assume that high level superbeings do not have the time or resources to handle low level stuff.

Now are you done being frozen fast or am I going to have to wait for Frank to bitchslap you again.

:D :D :D :D

Oh man, this is too just cute. What Foxwarrior said about you sandbagging outside combat is true. You play in a world where anti-bulling laws (aka: Encounter Guidelines) are codified on Reality itself. This is ADORABLE.

It's a world where dragons don't eat defenseless peasants, evil tyrants don't execute citizens, etc. People only interact violently when both parts can derive some XP from each other, is that how it works?

Oh, wait, this is not how it works at all, right? What are you really claiming, is special status for the PCs. Your PCs are the special snowflakes that can't be bullied, at the same time they adhere to a "murder, rob" ethic. Well, whatever float your boat, but I find this kind of world building disgusting. (the entire campaign is essentially an entire power trip of your characters stomping on people weaker than you and taking their money, without consequences)

Finally, I'll take the Magic Mart comment as an admission that I was spot on about everything else.

[nockermensch]

And for things like how certain spells may or may not be broken, it's much easier to just not have the monsters abuse certain things even if I don't mind the players having those things (often the case).

This is wrong. Very wrong. If you are going to remove problematic things then it has to be symmetric otherwise you're coddling the players.

Noone using Scry and Die = not coddling

Everyone using Scry and Die = not coddling

Only the players getting to use Scry and Die = coddling

This isn't had to understand but apparently this is too advanced for some people here (probably because they're frozen fast).

Oh shut up, your hypocrite. You just outright admitted you don't expect more powerful people than the PCs going after them!

[Foxwarrior]

Well, it's not symmetric if they're more powerful, now is it?

[Mistborn]

I'm going to be a useless piece of shit and make strawmen all day

I'd respond now but I'm choking on all the straw you're sending my way.

So I'm just going to assume that being frozen fast is your natural state of existence. Have you considered moving to theRPGsite I think you'd be more welcome there.

[Avoraciopoctules]

K: I prefer to believe that the DM just isn't very good at tactics when I have doubts.

There's also cases where people are just lazy or too short on time to devise interesting tactics.

On a slightly different note, I remember one game where the PCs launched a flying night raid on an enemy town and all of the townspeople instantly launched magic flares into the sky from wands that were apparently standard issue for peasantry. That caused a total game hijack where the players went out of character for a good half hour laughing at how ridiculous these people's lives must look like during the years that go by without adventurers fireballing houses from a magic carpet at night.

In that game, the town was on the shore of a lake filled with aboleths. Just like in many other games I've played in, there was some seriously dangerous stuff that could and would easily take out the party if they got close enough. There was no such thing as a level-appropriate encounter, you either targetted enemies when they were susceptible, or you stayed well clear until they were.

[K]

So I'm just going to assume that being frozen fast is your natural state of existence.

Have you ever considered the possibility that your ideas are stupid and your arguments are weak?

Honestly, I pretty convinced that you are GC and are stuck in another troll spiral.

[nockermensch]

I'm going to be a useless piece of shit and make strawmen all day

I'd respond now but I'm choking on all the straw you're sending my way.

So I'm just going to assume that being frozen fast is your natural state of existence. Have you considered moving to theRPGsite I think you'd be more welcome there.

Oh Misty, this kind of act you're pulling gets a bit sad and boring without at least one yes-man. You were the Sauron to GC's Morgoth for a while, and then GC... was banned? left? whatever.

You kind of need a Witchking of Angmar or Mouth of Sauron now to laugh with you and make play the second fiddle.

I suggest the name "Mini-Misty".

[Username17]

All I know is that if I was not holding back as a GM, I'd kill my party in every combat - I have too many advanatges as a GM when picking enemies.

If I don't pick the deadliest encounter I can think of, if I don't play the enemies as deadly as I could (startegically and/or tactically), then I am holding back and letting the players win.

This is stupid. As the MC you have the power to cheat, and not using it is not in any way equivalent to "holding back". The players know only what they can infer from what their characters can see about the monsters. This is in many cases less than what their characters should know (and why there are mechanics for players getting mid-combat hints from knowledge skills). The MC knows the entire contents of the world, as well as all the capabilities of both the monsters and the players - which is way more than any of the monsters actually know.

The MC is playing with the fog of war all the way off and is deeply familiar with the capabilities and past tactics of the other players at the table. But their actual goal in the game is to play the monsters as if they were playing with the fog of war on. To act as if playing the troglodytes as if they lacked the omniscience that they don't have (but the MC does) is "sandbagging" rather than "playing fair" is completely disingenuous.

-Username17

[K]

But their actual goal in the game is to play the monsters as if they were playing with the fog of war on.

Pretending that you can consistently do that is disingenuous.

As a DM, you already know the player's past tactics and pretending that you just accidentally didn't pick the monsters that are immune to their best tactics is not a defensible position. You did know and you didn't pick the cheezy monsters because you wanted the PCs to have a fun and fair fight.

You can try to play like the monsters are in a fog of war, but you do actually know everything. You are making the choice to not focus fire on the squishy mage even though the monsters should because you know that a PC death right then would ruin the adventure.

Maybe you make some excuse like "well, the monsters are spreading out their attacks because that's what they normally do," but having a reasonable excuse doesn't change the fact that executing the mage would have been the best tactic for the smart monsters you picked and not doing it made for a better adventure. (Frankly, I'm surprised that more DnD adventures don't end with "and then the monsters geeked the unarmored mage on round 1 and the adventure was basically over for the party.")

Otherwise, you are claiming that you can partition your conscious and unconscious mind and hide information from yourself while making perfect decisions on that partitioned information.

I'm not entirely sure why people can't handle the fact that RPGing is just improv theater randomized with game-like components and that it doesn't represent objective success or failure.

I am with you that fudging dice rolls is dumb. The randomization provided by the game-like components doesn't work if you don't let it.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

I'm not entirely sure why people can't handle the fact that RPGing is just improv theater randomized with game-like components and that it doesn't represent objective success or failure.

My guess? Penile compensation. They feel insecure about the amount of power and security and respect in their life and decide to compensate by trying to engineer a character who can take on anything in the game world without problems, even if it's something they shouldn't possibly be able to handle. MTP is a problem because it's something they can't account for and so they try to squash it out, without realizing that they could just go play some more Skyrim or Diablo if that's what they really want.

[Red_Rob]

Tucker's Kobolds, extended to higher levels, need to keep the same (or possibly worse) relative CR, Red Rob.

Generally speaking, when I have a proper BBEG character, I make them at most one or two levels higher than the party level, and neither extremely intelligent nor overly stupid.

Relative CR? You realise that the Encounter guidelines themselves say that a group that ambushes the party or otherwise gets an advantage increases their Encounter level? During a game, you don't know what is going to happen beforehand. The party could use magic to determine the enemy is there, and ambush them, or they could make a load of noise approaching and get ambushed. You don't know when designing the adventure. So, that EL+2 encounter could become an EL+3 or +4. Or it could become EL+1.

Hiding behind the CR system as if it was going to make everything fair is laughable in any kind of actually semi-plausible game. So the people saying "I design all the monsters beforehand using the EL system and then totally play on HARD MODE NO TAKEBACKS!" are either accounting for the fact this is hard mode and actually sending weaker enemies at their players, or they are sending appropriate CR enemies and the party regularly faces EL+4 or +5 encounters.

[Fuchs]

The MC is playing with the fog of war all the way off and is deeply familiar with the capabilities and past tactics of the other players at the table. But their actual goal in the game is to play the monsters as if they were playing with the fog of war on. To act as if playing the troglodytes as if they lacked the omniscience that they don't have (but the MC does) is "sandbagging" rather than "playing fair" is completely disingenuous.

-Username17

And playing your monsters with the fog of war on, and not erring on either side of the perfect point - playing them stupider than they should be, or smarter than they could be - is impossible, at least consistently. Claiming it is possible is stupid and makes you look stupid.

[Username17]

The MC is playing with the fog of war all the way off and is deeply familiar with the capabilities and past tactics of the other players at the table. But their actual goal in the game is to play the monsters as if they were playing with the fog of war on. To act as if playing the troglodytes as if they lacked the omniscience that they don't have (but the MC does) is "sandbagging" rather than "playing fair" is completely disingenuous.

-Username17

And playing your monsters with the fog of war on, and not erring on either side of the perfect point - playing them stupider than they should be, or smarter than they could be - is impossible, at least consistently. Claiming it is possible is stupid and makes you look stupid.

dude: D&D combats last for like 18 seconds. Having the monsters take plausible actions based on their limited knowledge is in fact incredibly easy. Because their knowledge of what the fuck is going on in any kind of battle is almost nothing in almost every case.

You have a crested felldrake or a griffin or some shit and it sees some humans and it jumps on whichever one is closest because in its limited experience humans are 1 hit die creatures and that fucking works. And when things start going badly, it only has a decision point or two before the battle is over. Really, all you have to do is restrain yourself from gross metagaming and roll the occasional die when a couple of choices are equally plausible sounding.

You're making it sound like you're performing a Herculean task by playing monsters to their abilities. But you're really not. You're not being asked to play chess or go or bridge at the level of a bugbear NPC, you're being asked to mimic their split second decision of whether to swing a morningstar or run away. And that really isn't very fucking hard. All the complicated shit about whether to swing high or feint to the left before bringing the morningstar across to the undefended side is just replicated by the attack roll.

-Username17

[infected slut princess]

The DM is playing the roleplaying game also.

That means the DM has to ROLEPLAY the monsters and NPCs. And there is always some ideal that would make the concept of a monster or NPC's personality complete. The DM tries to approach that ideal as best as possible.

Because of this, it is in principle possible to speak of encounters as "easy" or "hard" or whatever. A DM would be "sandbagging" if they make roleplaying choices that make the game "easier".

[Fuchs]

dude: D&D combats last for like 18 seconds. Having the monsters take plausible actions based on their limited knowledge is in fact incredibly easy. Because their knowledge of what the fuck is going on in any kind of battle is almost nothing in almost every case.

You have a crested felldrake or a griffin or some shit and it sees some humans and it jumps on whichever one is closest because in its limited experience humans are 1 hit die creatures and that fucking works. And when things start going badly, it only has a decision point or two before the battle is over. Really, all you have to do is restrain yourself from gross metagaming and roll the occasional die when a couple of choices are equally plausible sounding.

You're making it sound like you're performing a Herculean task by playing monsters to their abilities. But you're really not. You're not being asked to play chess or go or bridge at the level of a bugbear NPC, you're being asked to mimic their split second decision of whether to swing a morningstar or run away. And that really isn't very fucking hard. All the complicated shit about whether to swing high or feint to the left before bringing the morningstar across to the undefended side is just replicated by the attack roll.

-Username17

Dude, PCs face not just animals, they also deal with enemy NPCs, such as mages, clerics, and other smart and wise people. Both strategically and tactically, those opponents are not easy to play "perfectly right".

You are assuming that the GM can easily avoid metagaming without making things too easy or too hard - that is about the same difficulty as being able to play a character in an adventure you already know by heart, without playing too dumb, or too smart.

Would you assume one of your players could do that? "Hey, Frank, I already know that adventure, but don't worry, I'll not hold back, nor will I be abusing my knowledge, I'll play my character exactly as if I knew nothing more than you lot."

[Kaelik]

Look dumb shits. Just because it may be technically impossible to act only with exactly the amount of knowledge and intelligence monsters would have, that doesn't mean you can't strive to be close to it, and that said striving is worthless.

I mean, last I checked, people have stupid prejudices, but that doesn't make it worthless to even try to be not racist just because you can't be perfect.

I personally set the encounters based on how strong the party is and "hold back" in encounter design, and then I play them to the hilt. Liches do store their phylactery in weird protective places. But if a party is five Monks, I put things of much lower CR than their Party level. So this is very different from Mistborn's punish them with TPKs forever until they quit playing D&D.

But that doesn't mean I can't try to play them in game as intelligent, and it makes for better verisimilitude to do so.

[Stubbazubba]

If you really want all victories to mean something so bad, then just take the RP elements out; randomly generate locations and have the players and the DM make characters/enemies with a symmetric point-buy (or equivalent process) secretly and just start. When one side wins, you all make new characters, roll up a new scenario, and fight it out. That would actually be way more exciting, and doesn't require a performed ignorance on the DM's part. He doesn't know the extent of the PC's abilities, he is in fact playing with the 'fog of war' on, and can try his absolute hardest to kill you, and it'll be a relatively fair fight. And then your victory is meaningful. It's still not an objective difficulty, but it's a meaningful victory against someone else trying their best to kill you.

When you introduce the idea of a long-term campaign narrative and give creation, regulation and administration of it over to the DM, though, the game inherently loses the integrity of the challenge initially stipulated in the rule-set. At that point the formerly subjective difficulty is tempered further by meta-game factors which the DM is expected to account for.