Post/Author/DateTime	Post
NewtTon 01-14-05, 05:27 AM	That's right, my fellow players, you know it too. 2nd edition was crap, but still, it made Dms to use their imagination, and roleplay the game like it should. Now, the used-to-be-good DMs just stare at the grid, and wonder how they can win the game, because they play CHESS. Yes, you all know what I mean. They ponder the movements of even the most idiotic monsters with great care. And you know why? Nobody wants to lose a game of chess! It freaking personal defeat. Ever played chess? You know it hurts to lose, because the guy who beat you, is considered smarter than you. And boy, don't we all know, who are always striving to look 2 times smarter than they really are? Bullseye. You know, I really have to think about those damn "house rules". Let's see; you take a huge group of smart and distinguished people, with great resources and experience in gaming. Then you put them at the same table FOR YEARS, to build and plan a game. Then they playtest it for another 6 months or so. Finally the product gets published, and ta-daa, they guy named Joe the DM from wherever, decides that he has high enough IQ to change the rules made by his superiors. And what are the changes? Downgrades, for PCs, of course!! Why? It's a b*tch to lose a chess game. It hurts to re-adjust your own evaluation of your own intelligence. Should I say downgrade it? Hey players, ever been denied a corebook prestige class? A magic item you could afford? Weapons? Feats? Spells? Of course you have. You cannot win a chess game against your DM. Bad things start to happend. Hey, in comparison, how many times have you seen/heard a houserule/downgrade whipped at MonsterManuals? Almost never. Why? It would be like sawing your king or queen in two, and losing your advantages. Losing a chess game, for gods sake! So, there you are, staring the grid, while great adventures are happening somewhere else. Checkmate. DMs are adviced not to post to this, all your whinings have already been heard, but then again, why change the tune? Players, gimme some :mad:
anders 01-14-05, 05:36 AM	ok, when I read the first lines of your post, i thought .. hey yes... But then your point sort of sank... Like the Titanic. And at then end i was like wtf????
Count Arioch the 28th 01-14-05, 05:42 AM	<pops some corn> this might be interesting. :whatsthis
EvilPenguinKing 01-14-05, 05:53 AM	So... What your basically saying is your annoyed that DM's use grids and play the game like chess nowadays? As a player and (once-in-a-bluemoon) dm, I ask you this; What kind of games are you playing in? In the last five years, and *thinks* in about seven different groups, we've only ever used grids, maybe, a total of four times. Those cases were more for reference, and one massive battle on a pirate ship. Honestly I think your not playing right, there's no true 'winning' if your not having fun. It doesn't really sound like your even trying to roleplay or create a story. Just :twocents: from an EvilPenguin, g'day.
Mr. Wilson 01-14-05, 06:02 AM	I disagree on all counts. Having played through the horrible mess that was 2nd Ed, I find 3E or 3.5E a much more thought out and <gasp> logical game. I see this as more of a DM problem with your own DM then with the system. If you play with a DM who only cares about "winning", then it wouldn't matter would edition you were playing, the PC's lose. The DM will win because he or she can just throw bigger, more powerful creatures at the party until the PC's die. If you have a DM actually using tactics more advanced than what a low INT creature/monster should use, bust him on it in a friendly manner not at the game table, where he or she is likely to take this as a threat to his or her skills as a DM. Offer advice, don't whine and complain. Or, better yet, run a session or two as DM and correct the problem yourself by playing the monsters as the dumb creatures they are. Hopefully, your DM will get the hint. If all else fails, find a new DM. Perferrably one who does not see the gaming as a "Me vs. Them" situation. Though personally, I like playing in me vs. them games sometimes, as it makes defeating the bad guys that much more enjoyable. And yes, I'm one of those DM-Player hybrids, so I guess my opinion should only count half that as a "true" player. :P
EvilPenguinKing 01-14-05, 06:15 AM	The 'Me vs Them' mentality is good if controlled. Example, last game I ran, I used a Nekomata (from Oriental Adventures), and used the tactics they suggest, which was all good. Honestly, after the first round, I could have slaughter the players as they were all unconscious, aside from the mage (who was being tossed around like a rag doll), eventually they recovered and defeated it. Most were badly injured but still victorous, making their rewards so much more satisfying to them. Yet there's still that satisfaction for me to see them nearly have their asses handed to them *grins* In the end, I controlled the mentality and allowed them victory, but of course at a cost. They had fun with it, therefore it was a successful game. Edit: I'd also like to add they took the creature down in one hit, had a reason for mentioning this, but I can't remember what it was anymore :thinks:
Asciiman 01-14-05, 06:41 AM	I'm a DM who does the Me vs Them mentality during battles. You have to. If your monsters are not playing to win then you are cheapining the experience. But despite this, they always win. So maybe I don't do a Me vs Them. But I'll tell you one thing, I won't go easy on them if the moster wouldn't. So playing to defeat your players can be a ton of fun for everyone, as long as you understand that in a Me vs Them, it is more of a Monsters vs PC's, not DM vs PC's. As long as you can see a differance between them, then it is all good.
al29902 01-14-05, 06:55 AM	It sounds like this guy is like a player that I have in every game I DM (because he lives across the street from me!). Anyway, he's a great player, and he's about to try out DMing, and I seriously hope he does a good job at that. But anyway, in the last campaign we did (we tend to do shorter campaigns, so this one lasted about four months, although we did play multiple times a week, because there were only three of us COUNTING me, the DM), he used to get really mad at me whenever his character got hurt badly or, as did really happen once, died. He didn't get that the MONSTER hurt him, not me. I was only conveying what the monster would actually do. The monster wouldn't pull its punches, so why would I make it pull them?
Razoreface 01-14-05, 07:03 AM	As a player and (once-in-a-bluemoon) dm, I ask you this; What kind of games are you playing in? Exactly the opposite of the ones I've played in! Every group I've ever played in used maps, before D&D it was hexmaps, which I like a lot better, but has nothing to do with it. AD&D it went to grids. And 90% of the players I've been with, sit and argue tactics endlessly, and will point out, out of character, when a move is tactically bad, and to take it back. I've never seen a DM get that kind of benefit. And just so you know, the guys who write games are nobody's superiors. Except for their subordinates, who will probably tell you that the guys don't act like they're superior. They're game writers, and so is every decent DM. A guy working for WotC as a designer and a guy who's been DMing since AD&D was minted, they're both game designers. Good DMs, and a game designer will tell you this, will sometimes say no to some items, some classes. They change monsters. And if you know the monster and you expected it to be what you know, you shouldn't be doing that, that's called metagame thinking. Maybe your DM sucks bad, but he'd probably still suck if he was reffing a game of MtG or Vampire.
Palin the Wizard 01-14-05, 07:30 AM	Pfffft. What a load of crap. A DM should never pull punches on the players--unless the enemy in question WOULD pull punches. The DM provides a challenge for the players to overcome. That challenge should be, y'know, a challenge, rather than a cakewalk. And honestly--chess? Couldn't you have found an analogy that was just a bit better?
Count Arioch the 28th 01-14-05, 07:38 AM	He's forgetting that in 2E, not only did DMs actively screw over the players constantly, the rules where so vague that it was hard to tell if he was doing it on purpose, or if that's what the rules actually said.
Mootilator 01-14-05, 07:49 AM	Crap, this kind of argument could be made against any versions. The DM's Guide encourages the story telling, fun aspects of the game so I hardly think that it is the GAMES fault. If there are DM's that are making the game be about the miniatures, then they are simply bad DM's that do not read the friggin' manual. Also, it must be noted that some folks might LIKE the "chess game" you speak of...it might be fun to them and that's great. Crud I hate these threads that isolate tiny aspects of the game and the gaming communuty and paint the entire hobby with the problems they describe. Sheesh.
Thorak 01-14-05, 08:07 AM	A point-by-point refutation; That's right, my fellow players, you know it too. 2nd edition was crap, but still, it made Dms to use their imagination, and roleplay the game like it should. Now, the used-to-be-good DMs just stare at the grid, and wonder how they can win the game, because they play CHESS. The chief difference being that, in chess, each side is equally playing to win. In D&D, there's no way to "win". Everyone plays to have fun. If your DM is that concerned with winning, perhaps you should find a less antagonistic DM. Yes, you all know what I mean. They ponder the movements of even the most idiotic monsters with great care. And you know why? Nobody wants to lose a game of chess! It freaking personal defeat. Ever played chess? You know it hurts to lose, because the guy who beat you, is considered smarter than you. And boy, don't we all know, who are always striving to look 2 times smarter than they really are? Bullseye. I don't know what you mean. Every single DM I have ever played with, even in 2nd edition when we toyed our own grid system to make things a little easier, has always roleplayed the enemies. Are they stupid orcs without a lot of organization? Then they're gonna charge in pretty heedlessly. Are they kobolds? Then they're going to hang back and be cowardly. If your DM isn't doing this, the problem lies in your DM, not the system. You know, I really have to think about those damn "house rules". Let's see; you take a huge group of smart and distinguished people, with great resources and experience in gaming. Then you put them at the same table FOR YEARS, to build and plan a game. Then they playtest it for another 6 months or so. Finally the product gets published, and ta-daa, they guy named Joe the DM from wherever, decides that he has high enough IQ to change the rules made by his superiors. And what are the changes? Downgrades, for PCs, of course!! Why? It's a b*tch to lose a chess game. It hurts to re-adjust your own evaluation of your own intelligence. Should I say downgrade it? Houserules aren't all bad. Does your monk have proficiency with unarmed strikes? (and don't debate this here, we don't need to derail the thread, start a new one) Then your DM houseruled in your favor. And the system, despite being made by intelligent and experienced people with a lot of playtesting, is hardly without errors or issues that could use correcting. Most of the posts on these boards wouldn't exist if that were so. Yes, after years of playtesting with testers in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more issues are going to be found than just in 6 months with a relatively handful. Hey players, ever been denied a corebook prestige class? A magic item you could afford? Weapons? Feats? Spells? Of course you have. You cannot win a chess game against your DM. Bad things start to happend. Hey, in comparison, how many times have you seen/heard a houserule/downgrade whipped at MonsterManuals? Almost never. Why? It would be like sawing your king or queen in two, and losing your advantages. Losing a chess game, for gods sake! 1> Only if the DM didn't have them in his world, or my character couldn't meet the flavour requirements, like there not being an assassin's guild to become an assassin in. You did notice that the PrC section in the DMG suggests that DMs not allow all of them, right? 2> Magic items? Maybe in your world merchants who can afford +10 magical items have nothing better to do than wait around for adventurers with hundreds of thousands of gold to come around, and have entirely complete stocks filled with every item imaginable. In my DM's world, in every game I've played, they thought that concept was more than just a little bit ridiculous. 3> Weapons? Feats? Spells? Nope. Can't say I've been forbidden from using anything there. 4> How many times have I seen the DM downgrade something in the MM? Many times. I've seen the DM critical fumble, then roll a 1 to confirm, and then roll a 1 a third and fourth time, and decide that this meant the big enemy in the fight had reared up to roar at us, smacked it's head on the ceiling, and was now unconscious. So, there you are, staring the grid, while great adventures are happening somewhere else. Checkmate. DMs are adviced not to post to this, all your whinings have already been heard, but then again, why change the tune? Players, gimme some :mad: If your DM sees the game as a game of chess, where's he's black to the PC's white, then your DM has problems. While they should be controlling the NPCs as if the NPCs are fighting to win to the best of their abilities, that doesn't mean he should be letting the NPCs use tactics they wouldn't normally think of. It's just as bad for a chaotic band of unorganized orcs to have an intricate and highly tactical battle plan as it is to have the mindless gelatinous cube decide to ooze past the front ranks to attack the wizard behind just because the wizard is weaker. Metagaming is bad, regardless of whether you're the DM or a player. So yes, metagaming antagonistic DMs are bad. That hardly describes all DMs, nor does it even describe what 3.X encourages.
Ricky 01-14-05, 09:36 AM	<pops some corn> this might be interesting. :whatsthis Pass some of that popcorn over here, if you don't mind. <Getting comfy on couch> :) I've been a DM for 20 years now (:eek: ) and I don't play the way your DM plays. Sorry to disappoint you, NewtTon.
Phrennzy 01-14-05, 09:52 AM	It sounds to me like the OP is the kind of player who wants to win D&D, and is upset that he can't (not understanding that there is no winner/loser in the conventional sense), and so blames the DM. :thumbsdow
Ilium 01-14-05, 10:09 AM	Pass some of that popcorn over here, if you don't mind. <Getting comfy on couch> :) I've been a DM for 20 years now (:eek: ) and I don't play the way your DM plays. Sorry to disappoint you, NewtTon. Bah! Not enough blood. Everybody's giving reasoned and cogent responses to an obviously inflammatory post. I'm leaving. :D On topic: I've played and run a lot of games in a lot of systems. Many were good, some were terrible. In no case was the quality of the game the result of the game system.
Ricky 01-14-05, 10:20 AM	Bah! Not enough blood. Everybody's giving reasoned and cogent responses to an obviously inflammatory post. I'm leaving. :D I prefer to think of us as being the spectators at the Coliseum, rather than being the gladiators themselves. :)
DM_Erik 01-14-05, 10:21 AM	This is a classic case of a troll.. I mean cmon.. who would whine like a baby on the WOTC boards about winning D&D... I hope your not for real man, cause I wouldn't touch your kind of player with a 10ft pole.. D&D is a game, not chess, not RISK.. there is no loser, no win... Only players having fun (yes the Dm is a player, but with more job to do)...
Kolakuba 01-14-05, 11:52 AM	No one I know play DnD like it was a game of chess. And stop whining about not being able to take every PrC that you like. PrCs are OPTIONAL!! If your DM doesn't allow every PrC you come dragging to the gaming board, that's probably because the PrC would screw up the campaign he has used hours and hours to prepare (with his imagination by the way), not because he is scared of "losing" the next battle. OMG.............
Ozryk 01-14-05, 02:09 PM	Like the first response, I'd say I agreed with how initially started his rant (it kind of degenerated from there). I really think combat has become more and more mechanical as the editions have changed, and I started with basic. In the current edition, combat is now taught to be a series of specific mechanical techniques and counter-techniques on a grid instead of a descriptive action sequence that the DM should flourish upon. It pushes more 'game' than 'story'. But thats my preference for a game, others like the more mechanically tactical part of it. But that being said, I like 3/3.5. I think its clear, consise and fair. But as it is, it pulls power away from the DM, and places them in the rules on a general level. I'm not saying this is true in every game, its just made to be this way now, but there are DM's that do things their own way.
Aricandor 01-14-05, 02:36 PM	Meh. Not all DMs are tactic-maniacs even with animals. I'm not afraid to lose battles on the grid, since my players know that if I got a copy of each of their characters and my and their copies were to slug it out I'd win. If the DM creates a group of rivalling adventurers at similar levels it'll usually get ugly. Especially since my group has about zero grasp of tactics. They all charge in, roll the dice and hope they win :D Last lession learned: Do not grapple a purple worm Next: Buy ranged weapons. A blue dragon will teach them that :) Anyhow, anyone judging smartness from a D&D battle (using the argument "it's like chess") will be very disappointed. Why? You never roll any dice when playing chess. 'nuff said.
Bane 01-14-05, 02:43 PM	As a DM running a new campaign, I haven't had combat since the first session, and that was only because the players didn't coordinate with their characters. One of the PC's ended up being in the town guard, two others were in a thieves guild, and one was a cleric/wizard going for True Necromancer. The town guard PC ended up attacking the thieves in an attempt to bring them in (they hadn't actually committed any crimes that his character knew of), and they beat him down through the use of good tactics. Then they looted him and traded his body to the cleric/wizard in exchange for healing, who then donated the body to the necromancy division of the local guild so they would waive his fees for the year. They all got roleplaying experience, although the guy who was playing the guard hasn't been to a single session with the rest of them since then. But I'm going to help him learn how to roleplay effectively and help him make a new character that will mesh with the party, and run him through a couple solo adventures to help him learn the rules a little better and get him the experience he needs to match the other players, then reintroduce him into the group. Point is, the only thing I did in that combat was referee and keep track of initative and die rolls, and a little bit of combat description when special things happened. Since then, I have used my combat grid to draw floor plans when they enter buildings.
Phrennzy 01-14-05, 03:08 PM	D&D is TOTALLY chess! I mean, how many chess traps do you find in dungeons? How many covers of Dragon magazine had chessboard artwork? D&D IS chess. It's just not as boring.
MrkGrismer 01-14-05, 05:09 PM	I've been playing since AD&D came out, and I've seen GMs that turn it into a competition, regardless of the rules system being used. This is actually common enough that many RPGs put it in the big list of Dont's. But it has never been a matter of the rules, but the individual GMs. Some people just don't understand that the person running the opposition forces (red team leader) is there to present a significant challenge for the blue team to overcome, and act as a referee.
Razoreface 01-14-05, 09:12 PM	Once, I was playing chess and I moved my rook and the square I moved it to fell out! The other guy was like har you failed your spot check, you are teh loze! :weep:
Gilgiga of the Hunt 01-14-05, 11:03 PM	Is there a reason we get one of these threads about once a week? Seriously if you don't like battle maps don't use them. We don't. You just gotta think spacealy not to hard. Personaly I've never felt like we were playing chess. Well except that one time when the evil mage asked me to play chess for my life. But whatever man. And it never hurts to lose chess man. I've been playng chess sense I was very little, and never won a game until I stoped playing against my uncle. It's not an insult, it's an exprence. That coment right there show's this guys a little petty twirp. Or at least really POed at his DM right now. As for DM's who pull punches. . . God I wonna die! Our DM not only does he horrifcaly metagame aginst us, change NPCs builds (entire class, Samuri from Ranger all becuase I wanted to try the dramatic intitive rules from OA :rolleyes: ). But after all that he pulls his punches and fudges rolls so he dosen't kill us :confused:
Kalanth 01-14-05, 11:45 PM	. . .In the current edition, combat is now taught to be a series of specific mechanical techniques and counter-techniques on a grid instead of a descriptive action sequence that the DM should flourish upon. It pushes more 'game' than 'story'. But thats my preference for a game, others like the more mechanically tactical part of it. I tend to disagree here, afterall, each edition was really just a serious of numbers vs. numbers, and the action was left for player and DM to describe and imagine. Nothing has changed about that in 3.0/3.5, just that the number of possible actions has increased beyond what it once was. I for one embelish on every attack, and over embelish on critcal failures and success. As for the main purpose of the post, I would hope that the DM puts more thought into combat. I went for so long without a single preplanned action or even reading a monster in advance (resulting in a lot of surprised WOWs when combat was over or the action would have no longer resulted in much). I feel terrible when I kill PCs, but it happens. Heck, last night I killed two lvl 10 PCs in two sepearte encounters. The first was victim to an Iron Golems breath attack (rolled a perfect 16 in total after the second round effect, sending him to 0 Con <though it would have been -4 if you could actually go below 0>), and the second PC, he died at the end of an epic battle with a vampire on the roof of a burning building. Once the fire got to intense for the building to take any more, it collapsed in and the character was not able to get off in time, therefore going down into the rubble and being engulfed in flames. What makes it real bad? I put forth penalties for ressurection in addition to the standard penalties, I send minions of one of my Gods after you for defying death. Does this mean I am a bad DM? I thought it ment I added flavor and intreage to my world.
Shemeska the Marauder 01-14-05, 11:50 PM	Never used a grid in my life. Don't use minis. Half the time there's no combat in a given game session. IMHO anyone, players or DM, who approaches the game as something to 'win' needs to go play warcraft or diablo. Oh, and I couldn't actually find a point in the first post.
Falkus 01-15-05, 12:53 AM	A DM should never pull punches on the players Just to interject here, actually, he should, in one way. The DM has knowledge concerning the PCs that many monsters could not be expected to know, so he should play them to full of their abilities with the knowledge THEY would have on the PCs, not what the DM has.
Kursk 01-15-05, 01:32 AM	Hey players, ever been denied a corebook prestige class? :uh-huh: Please, at least read the books before posting something like this. I swear, children today are illiterate. :looloo:
Judging Eagle 01-15-05, 01:59 AM	Depends how combat heavy or how important exploration of an area is. Personally, I think that the battlemat, or just any old 1-inch grid helps to adjucate how far something can move in relation to something else (Orge that has it's buddy die to the party and tries to run off since they're obviously too tough; he didn't make it, the rouge and the ranger had been flanking from opposite sides and got good shots on him; and I was already fudging his HP to see if he'd be let run away by the players, but he wasn't and I had him fall to the ground). Inspecting an abandoned keep or fighting the militia that guards an area of farms, or defending a village from multiple attackers from multiple directions really does benefit from a grid of some kind. That way you can get a good sense as to whether or not the wizard's spells can reach all the way across the village, or how soon can the monk run from one group of NPC guards or what is the overlapped threatened region that the PC and NPCs can target with their bows. All those sorts of questions are best left to a battle mat. At the very least, using some minis helps establish where a combatant is in relation to everyone else ex: DM: "the ogre swings at you Player X" X: "Uh, uh, I'm singing my Inspire Courage song behind the saftey of the enlarged Fighter, and slightly to the right of him as well" A city adventure with no combat whatsoever is best left just like that, all talking with the DM and the players. Usually with the DM using sheafs and sheafs of notes for the stats and notable members of the city to have an idea as to what the PCs could buy or who they could meet. Chess, isn't D&D; unless in your version of chess your knights can become queens, you have to navigate around corners and through doors, your bishops can bring your rooks back from the brink of death or your kings can use the leadership feat to get more pawns and an extra Queen to help him out. >_>
HomebrewedMonster 01-15-05, 02:20 AM	grids are great, they speed up combat, and there is less "I was over there" arguements. As for your DM he's metagaming, its his job to play the monster to their intellegence. Two bears won't try to flank, they'll just blindly attack. But two wolves would because they are pack hunters. Trolls understand how to hide, but don't realize being 8' tall hiders them. A pixie knows how to annoy the crap out of a party and never being seen. It sounds more like your DM is metagaming his best options, although from a stand point when you are the DM and are playing a creature with an intellegence much higer than yours, say a Great Wyrm, they can do the chess calculation in their head in about 2 seconds. If I were you I'd probably hate the grid too, but my DM doesn't do that and I find combat on the grid more fun than without it.
Dazmiuth 01-15-05, 03:05 AM	I've been DMing since 1st edition and I have never let my pc's beat me. One time, I killed the whole party 6 times in one session (mwuhahaha). My favorite thing is to only let them use a 25 point buy, and then give my babies, um, i mean monsters at least four ability scores above 18. I WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, and for some reason, I usually have to find a new group after every game.
Draco Strang 01-15-05, 04:24 AM	Originally posted by NewTon: Yes, you all know what I mean. They ponder the movements of even the most idiotic monsters with great care. And you know why? Nobody wants to lose a game of chess! It freaking personal defeat. Ever played chess? You know it hurts to lose, because the guy who beat you, is considered smarter than you. And boy, don't we all know, who are always striving to look 2 times smarter than they really are? Bullseye. Are you forgetting that there are no dice in the fine game of Chess? They're what really determines the winners and losers in this "glorified chess game" that you make 3.5 out to be. Sure, tactics are all well and good, but the best battle plan in the world won't help if you aren't hitting your opponent.
weretouched 02-09-05, 11:40 PM	i never pull my punches when my pc's and monsters/npc's fight its to the death mostly :D never use a grid we have good enough imaginations to figure it out from my definitions. we do a good mix of roleplay and combat, i award experience that i think they should get when they get time to use it of course. although atmited we do sometimes write a basic map on scratch paper for larger fight for quick reference. sometimes my players get angry at me i do like to play the spellcasting foes mostly... being a caster pc when i play :mage: spellcasters being smart use tactics the only one of our 3-5 players using tactics is the rogue and sometimes the fighter.
digoraccoon 02-10-05, 08:59 AM	As DM for my group, I've only seen fun and enjoyment for the most part in the 3.x D&D. We all like the grid board because it makes it easier to play out combats (no more problems keeping track who was where). Tactically, we've all role played our characters well. Both PCs and my NPCs don't always use the best tactical moves. Attacks of Opportunity happen often and there's nothing more fun then watching one of my players incur an AoO from a dragon to dive at his dying friend with a cure potion to stablize him (and succeed).
Mister Mayhem 02-10-05, 01:08 PM	Heh - if I wanted to "win" - ie, wipe out the average party, I sure as heck wouldn't need to abuse the rules to do so. All I'd need to do is to stop reminding them to use their combat skills and special abilities. Heck, the real challenge for a good DM is *not* killing the PCs, whilst making it *appear* as if you are trying your darndest to do so...
On_the_wings_of_TPK 02-10-05, 03:24 PM	And I thought my party whinned a lot when they died. Well in my last campaign I think I used the monster manuals like 3 times. I have a thing for dragons always have always will. I do house rule a lot, mostly just to set the tone of the campaign. If I want something more high powered I'll allow better feat progition and more magic into the campaign. In the latest one that I'm working on (hopefully to be completed in aproximately 1 year.) I entednd to divid what is avaible into cultural regions spread through out the relm. This means temporarily banning classes in the PHB. I have never looked at D&D as chess game. Although now that you bring it up that may make a cool challange or trap of some kind. Yaa I powergame a lot, but i also use what tactics are apporait for the character. If I'm a player with only piercing damage and I'm fighting something with DR 10/bludgeoning i keep using my primary attack untill it becomes clear that my attacks are ineffectual. Then I switch. The same goes for me DMing. Animals will 9 times out of ten not attack unless provoked, or they intend to eat the party. Mostly when i DM I use custom made NPCs. They tend to be more the merc style of NPC and use basic military tactics. Dragons are smart and use eveything they have to its best potential. Dragons are feared! the half orcs on the other hand tend to charge and swing with a really big weapon, even if someone is bracing against the charge.