So, is your design plan based upon:
"Players are required to study the monstrous manual and form specific tactics for specific monsters beforehand"?
Okay, guess we have one of the playtester here, as none of what you've said here
have shown up on the things mentioned above. And I am only
talking about things mentioned above, not whatever is hidden in a chm or world backstory (fluff problems and crunch problems are largely separate anyhow.)
So, if you are a playtester, maybe answer me this:
>If you are suppose to be well prepared beforehand, then what happened with "直接逃跑进屋关门"?
Or, if you aren't the ones involved in the playtest, than a different question:
>How is helping somebody else justifying a problem, of which I am assuming that he is trying to solve, helping him solve the problem in any way?
Those kind of things actually make the problem worse
, by convincing people that it is not a problem and prolonging the time of not trying to solve it.
There is actually a 3rd Separate problem:
The "Subjective Creator Perspective" problem.
It might be the worst type of problem there is.
It is mostly an assumption of:
i) I am the creator, so I understand my creations in every way.
ii) People who view my creations understand them the exact same way
as I do, and exactly
as I intend for them to be.
iii) People should, therefore, easily find and create any "optimal" solutions as simple as I do.
iv) People who do not, are flawed in understanding, and/or intentionally "pretended" to be so.
tl:dr, in one sentence, the "if you don't get it you're either dumb or mean or both" complex.
This is one thing that is quite common in every creativity-related field out there.
And this thread is exactly the example of (ii), where the creator has full knowledge of his system, and automatically assumes that his players should "naturally" come up with the same "optimal tactic" he has.
In contrast, we have the actual result of the PCs literally slamming the door on the encounter.
It is a difference in expectations that is the problem here.
(As an aside: I myself am quite familiar with the Type-3 problems... Cause I've fallen into it, and for quite a lot of times too.
Gaming since 90s, making about as long, I only kinda fixed that myself a few years ago. Kinda. Sorta... Maybe? )
So, how are we gonna fix that?
Some potential choices of methods:
1) Change monster stats to be less "scary".
2) Rework the words in the rules to make it even easier to understand. Maybe a few simple flowcharts like many games have nowadays.
3) Doing playtests that fit the design criteria. (2 Players in a game designed for 3 is already not too balanced as a matter of fact, not to mention its not just a regular game but a playtest as well.
Either get 3 Players, or reset situation for two.)
4) Actually look at and use
data gather from failures. (Easier said than done.
5) Have different mindset for "testing" compare to "playing". Late-stage PTs you can have both pretty close, but early debugs will always be... Buggy.
6) Actually get unrelated people with no stakes involved can clear up the Type-3 Problems much faster... If you actually listen to them that is. (Nitpickers and flatterers, of course we always want the latter, but for the more useful ones...
7) More GMing experience. I didn't talk about the Type-1 problems because it wouldn't have happened if you've already used to these things. Again, those have almost nothing to do with systems.
That's about it.
Feel free to ignore these, like I usually said.