Instant Friends

[Majoru Oakheart]

After all, as has been argued, once you introduce strict mechanical benefits to a power's effects, you take away the open-endedness that those of us who love the power love about it. Gone is the encouragement (really, need) for players to find creative situations to use the power in; in its place, you've given carte-blanche for the DM to immediately quash any creative but non-mechanical uses for the power.

I may be in the minority here, but I don't find ANY need at all for players to find creative situations to use a power in. In fact the entire concept of using powers in "creative" ways always sends a shiver up my spine. Mostly because it is the same as the phrase "finding ways to abuse a power" in my mind.

It always brings to mind memories of using a high level spells like Slay Living or something and having an enemy need to roll a 4 or higher(in 2e) to survive and thinking "What was the point in casting that spell anyways? It almost never works." Meanwhile, the next player casts a grease spell followed by a burning hands spell in the same combat and the DM rules that due to "creativity" the enemy dies with no saving throw as he's burned to death in the resulting ultra-hot inferno.

And IMHO, "creativity" should never cause one power to have more effect than a power that you can't get until you are 10 levels higher. In my games, I will not allow someone to use a 1st level power to kill 10 30th level enemies without a die roll simply because someone came up with a "creative" idea. Although, some DMs will. I don't think a game should be designed that way, however.

Unfortunately, due to the open endedness of this power, it can easily exceed the effect of powers quite a few levels higher than it.

To insist that adding mechanical benefits to Instant Friends would make the power better is to insist that school of thought A is flat-out wrong.

I don't see how peaceful coexistence isn't the preferable solution here.

I'm in complete agreement here. I don't think the two ideas can peacefully coexist in the same game. That's why I don't like this power. It is a Type A idea stuck in the middle of a game whose philosophy is 98% Type B. It doesn't belong there and causes disconnect.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Allow me to break down these two schools of thought further.
A: Social encounters don't need a mechanical method of resolution
B: Social encounters need a mechanical method of resolution

Just to explain (b) to someone's who's pretty clearly (a):

When you have rules for a thing, this encourages many players to do the thing, because they have confidence in the results.

When you lack rules for a thing, this discourages many players from doing the thing, because they cannot predict the results.

Confidence trumps DM flexibility for me because DMs don't generally need to be told that they can do whatever they want to do, but players generally need to be told what they can mostly expect from using their abilities.

Peaceful coexistence would be great, but unfortunately, these are all in the same silo. There's a lot of potential for an unprepared DM to be met with an unexpected ability here. That doesn't seem like something you'd want in an introductory product, and it seems like something you'd want to find a different niche for (something like rituals, which can be more open-ended by design). There should be a way for DMs in A to avoid having players accidentally pick powers that are B, and vice-versa.

But I get that WotC was nodding at the old school styles with this.

 

[Gradine]

I completely disagree that 4e is designed "98% for Type B" players. Combat has been made more tactical, yes, and the skill system is more streamlined, but 4e is no less capable of open-ended roleplaying than its predecessors, which I feel were definitely more slanted towards "Type A" play.

What's been missing from 4e, and what Instant Friends attempts to bring back, is spontaneous spellcasting of a non-combat variety. Instant Friends obviously wouldn't work as a ritual because of the ludicrous 10-minute limit on rituals; something I always felt was a flaw with that system for this very reason. As a power, it signals the return of spontaneous spellcasting as a roleplaying device. Obviously this excites me to no end; one power (or a handful, if more are to come) are easy enough to ban from your game.

I say this knowing full well that Instant Friends isn't necessarily without precedent. That this power is so viciously attacked while others such as Disguise Self or Cantrips get a free pass is beyond me. This is one of a dozen reasons why the "4e is 98% Type B" theory is full of holes. There were already tools in place for players to get creative and use their imagination with; and creativity and imagination are the whole point to the game in the first place. Again, I cannot wrap my head around a play style that would stifle and deny such creativity in its players; that the opposite is routinely encouraged in the DMG and other DM materials is final nail in the coffin of the theory that this is the playstyle 4e is primarily designed for. As such, a power like Instant Friends is perfectly consistent with 4e's game design. I'm not saying it's perfect for your game; it's most assuredly not. But 4e is as much as game for Type A players as it is for Type B players. This is indisputable.

I weep for any table in which the DM's first reaction to something new is "How can my players abuse this?" I do this without assigning blame to any single individual, but it is a viewpoint I have seem expressed on this board from time to time and it never fails to perplex me. A game that is primarily a competition between DM and players, in which one side constantly looks for a leg up on the other; this is not nor has ever been the game I play. Moreso than a game that discourages creative problem-solving in its players, this is a style of play I cannot understand how people find fun. And while I can find at least some merit in the former, and see it as a logical point from which to argue game theory from; I will not credit any merit to the latter. The player that seeks to break elements of the game is quite simply not playing the game right, and this is a problem that should be directly confronted. I will not understand nor condone DMs who allow themselves to get caught up in a rules "arms race"; if such behavior becomes so tolerated that it impacts the very culture of the game then the entire table is culpable in my opinion.

I hope you'll forgive the soapbox rant, but I had a point to it. The point is: the "right" player can break any element of the game given access to right kind of combinations (access that is built into the game as "levels") and the "proper" attitude. That such a player represents the norm or even common is, in my not-so-limited experiences, just plain wrong. And I'm not talking about power-gamers or character optimizers; these are an admittedly more common sight. The power-gamer or charop-er is primarily concerned with "winning" the game (and as such is likely to avoid primarily non-combat abilities anyway). The type of gamer you talk about is primarily concerned with breaking your game. Again, that any table would tolerate such an attitude (or the behavior that springs forth) is beyond me. Such a sight is blessedly rare, though I do not envy you if that has not been the case for yourself. Still, the idea that Wizards or any game manufacturer should bend their game design around defending against such a creature is utterly preposterous. Denying the wrong sort of player access to a tool that they could use to break a game is an absolutely horrible reason to deny quality players access to a tool that encourages and enhances their creativity and imagination.

DMs should not expect game design to save them problem players. In the hands of any group playing the game the right way, there are simply not issues with a power like Instant Friends. The on-the-spot adjudication may not mesh well with your style of game, and that's okay too. But getting rid of anything that could possibly be abused is not the solution to abusive players; teaching your players not to abuse or finding new players is.

This is last time I'll address how overblown this power is. It is not any more powerful or effective than other utility powers of its level. You have my sympathies if you are struggling with an abusive player who might try to convince you that it is, but they are wrong. I'm not saying I don't see how it could be interpreted as such, I do, but it is quite clearly the wrong interpretation. It is your responsibility as DM to adjudicate the effects of the power fairly. If that is not something that you are not comfortable with, or something that you simply do not enjoy, then do not allow the power. This is perfectly acceptable. You do not need to blow the power's effects way out of proportion to make a point.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What's been missing from 4e, and what Instant Friends attempts to bring back, is spontaneous spellcasting of a non-combat variety.

Well, according to a lot of posters here, there's already plenty of this type of power out there. I'd have to largely agree. IF may be on the far end of the bell curve, but there's similar powers throughout the books.

One part of my complaint on it -- and powers like it -- is that they should not just be "utility powers." I am absolutely in favor of noncombat spontaneous spellcasting (heck, one of my big complaints about 4e is that every character contributes the same way to success when they're not fighting something), but I don't think utility powers are the place for it, when there's also utility powers like Shield.

Even if I'm okay with the existence of open-ended powers like this in the game (and you make a persuasive case for a big tent), it's still a design problem if they ask you to choose between that and something that will actually give you a solid bonus for something every time. Because if I'm a DM of type A and my player picks a power of Type B, it's going to suck for one of us. Also, the other way around. There's gotta be a way to make the distinction clear, so you can minimize the strife here.

 

[Gradine]

Well, according to a lot of posters here, there's already plenty of this type of power out there. I'd have to largely agree. IF may be on the far end of the bell curve, but there's similar powers throughout the books.

One part of my complaint on it -- and powers like it -- is that they should not just be "utility powers." I am absolutely in favor of noncombat spontaneous spellcasting (heck, one of my big complaints about 4e is that every character contributes the same way to success when they're not fighting something), but I don't think utility powers are the place for it, when there's also utility powers like Shield.

Even if I'm okay with the existence of open-ended powers like this in the game (and you make a persuasive case for a big tent), it's still a design problem if they ask you to choose between that and something that will actually give you a solid bonus for something every time. Because if I'm a DM of type A and my player picks a power of Type B, it's going to suck for one of us. Also, the other way around. There's gotta be a way to make the distinction clear, so you can minimize the strife here.

I'm actually with you so far on this one. In a perfect world there'd be a system somewhere between utility power and ritual that would be a good fit for powers such as this. Of course, since they probably won't be creating a brand new spell system from scratch, and they won't for some reason remove the "10-minute rule" from the ritual system, utility powers are the only alternative. And they aren't a bad fit, per se. It's not like there aren't plenty of non-combat utility powers. I suppose the only other reasonable alternative is to attach such a power to a feat, but I'm not sure how well that'll go over.

Believe it or not, I actually have a great deal of faith in humanity. I believe, for instance, that most players are smart enough to know what to expect from their DMs and base their character choices appropriately. If I'm a Wizard, and my DM doesn't use minions, I'm probably focusing more on control and less on AoE spells. And in the case of a new DM, new player, or new material, I'd expect the DM to make their opinion clear on the subject. And if a player does end up taking a power with them that will see limited to no use due to the DM's preferences (such as Instant Friends), I'd imagine that power'd only be a problem until the player gets to retrain it. Hell, I'd gather a sensible DM'd let swap it out at the end of the session, not necessarily out of the goodness of their heart, but also to spare themselves the headache of potentially having to adjudicate the power (possibly several times) because the player's trying to get their money's worth out of the power before leveling up.

I'm not saying Instant Friends is a great power for every game. I'm just saying it's a great power for many games. Which is true.

Sometimes I just let myself get on a roll.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Allow me to break down these two schools of thought further.
A: Social encounters don't need a mechanical method of resolution
B: Social encounters need a mechanical method of resolution

To insist that adding mechanical benefits to Instant Friends would make the power better is to insist that school of thought A is flat-out wrong.

First of all, Instant Friends /is/ a mechanical method of resolution, it's just a bad one.


Secondly, School of Thought A is, indeed, flat-out wrong.

Well, if any part of the intent of having resolution systems is to enable players to play characters with abilities different from their own, it's wrong. If you're doing RP on the level of a highly immersive LARP, maybe it's fine. Y'know, the kind where duels are resolved by hitting eachother with PVC weapons.

If a player wants a half-orc character who wields a huge greataxe, do you require he be strong enough to swing around a huge greataxe? If a player wants to be a wizard able to cast arcane spells, do you require him to read up on Crowley? Probably not. That's what all your characters stats and class abilities and all those resolution systems are for.

If a player wants a half-elf character who is glib, charming, confidence man, do you require the /player/ have the social skills of a Frank Abagnale Jr?

If you subscribe to School of Thought A, yes, you do.



Or have I radicially misunderstood what you meant by "Social encounters don't need a mechanical method of resolution?"



Sorry to get all judgemental, there, but that's one of those things that annoys me, I probably saw more of it than was really there.



Final Thoughts on the issue:

A similar back-and-forth was going on on the WotC boards about the new magic item system. One thing it finally boiled down to for me that seems aplicable here, too.

There are some rules that creative/skillfull/experienced players and DMs find 'constraining' and dislike or overrrule quite a lot, and other rules that folks like that find 'open' and conducive to creative solutions. Instant Friends might well be one of those.

Conversely, for slightly less superlative DMs and players, who maybe have a little more tension at their table, or not quite the level of system mastery to make judgements on the fly, sticking to a solid ruleset is comforting and leaves them free to exercise their brand of creativity without constantly worrying if changing or getting all creative with something might cause them problems later. For this sort, a power like Instant Friends could be problematic.

Thing is, given a 'stiffling' power, the former sort of players have the skillset to decide to houserule the power into a less stiffling form, to simply step outside the box and go their way. They may be a little grumpy about it, and look down on the pleb who had the audacity to take up column inches with such a thing, but it's not killing their game or their fun. The latter sort, OTOH, when failed by the rules they trusted to give their game a firm foundation, are at something of a loss. At best, they may, after a bad experience or two, ban the offending power, making whoever was hoping to have some fun with it resentful. At worst, they could roll with it, since 'it's the rules' and let it really distort their campaign, until they just decide 'this game sucks.'


So the question is, who do rules need to be written 'for?' The gamers who don't really need them, and use them as a starting point from which their imaginations take wing? Or the ones who actually use them prettymuch as written, with the (perhaps overly hopeful) expectation that following rules will keep their games flowing in a balanced, reasonably trouble-free way?

 

[Gradine]

I should avoid hyperbole in the future.

Or just word what I'm saying better.

I misspoke; I apologize. Obviously having some mechanical backing to resolve social situations is necessary, even preferable. Instant Friends actually constitutes such mechanical backing. Skills count also. Not every player is particularly glib. The ones that I know, anyway, tend to avoid playing the party face. They still do a fair amount roleplaying besides.

Here's what I'm saying. The way that me and my friends play the game, not every social encounter is a skill challenge, and not every important conversation requires skill checks. As such, there are three types of social encounters in our games:
A: Skill Challenges
B: Unstructured, undetermined number of skill checks
C: Pure Roleplaying
I say "pure roleplaying" for lack of a better term; obviously we roleplay during all three scenarios. I'm sorry if that sounds like LARPing to you; to me it sounds like the whole goddamn point of the game.

You know what, now that I think about it, I didn't misspeak at all. Social encounters don't need a mechanical method of resolution. They help, and most should have them,but they aren't required in every instance.

The way Instant Friends is worded gives me, as the DM, the ability to determine exactly what impact the use of the power has given any number of factors including exactly what kind of encounter it's being used in. As a DM, I like this. I'm glad to see more abilities along these lines being introduced through Essentials. If you don't, don't use them. Not every aspect of the game is going to mesh with every playstyle. Wizards acknowledges this, which is why they encourage the use of houserules. I highly doubt these kind of open-ended powers will ever become so pervasive as to be non-ignorable.

Ultimately, this is a complete non-issue. Ugh, and I was done with this thread three pages ago.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm actually with you so far on this one. In a perfect world there'd be a system somewhere between utility power and ritual that would be a good fit for powers such as this.

I know the Essentials line skipped Rituals entirely, so I think WotC hears the cry for "We need to re-format Rituals," but hasn't quite figured out how to do it yet. I bet it's in the pipes.

You know what, now that I think about it, I didn't misspeak at all. Social encounters don't need a mechanical method of resolution. They help, and most should have them,but they aren't required in every instance.

I think WotC probably agrees with that. And most DM's probably find truth there, too.

For me, rules are only involved when there is a challenge to overcome -- a chance of failure, in other words.

But rules should be involved whenever there is a challenge to overcome. At least, a challenge that the players would like to have fun overcoming.

Because using the rules as tools to overcome a challenge is a satisfying experience. It's exactly what happens in combat. It should be what happens in challenging noncombat situations, too.

As it is, the skill challenges don't quite do the job in a way I find satisfying ("okay, everyone roll their best skill over and over again until we hit some arbitrary success number!" -- it's kind of like a combat made up only of melee basic attacks from one side), and I'd look forward to a system where something like Instant Friends can make a solid mechanical contribution to overcoming a challenge without invalidating the challenge.

I get that other DM's (especially those used to a more old-school style) are fine with spitballing all the noncombat scenarios, or just need quick-and-simple resolution mechanics because most of the rest of it they can wing easily. I wouldn't want to take that away from 'em.

I just don't think the other group is being served very well, either by skill challenges or by effects like Instant Friends or Disguise Self. There's a gap here that WotC should be filling.

 

[MrMyth]

Substantially the same limits, there are difference from ed to ed. For instance, in 1st Ed you couldn't get a charmed caster to, say, make an item for you, even if you did suply the materials - with Instant Friends, you could. In 3.5, you could make the spell nearly irresistible - in 1e and 4e, you can't - in 1e, it would be darn near worthless by high levels, since saves became so trivially easy to make, it would have been replaced by higher level spells with similar or greater effects and a save penalty (still pretty unlikely to work).

Like I said, I don't have any actual experience with anything that early to really draw upon. But looking over the posted versions from earlier in the thread, the Charm spells seem long-lasting and made it pretty easy to get someone to hand over their possessions, while the Friends spells seem much shorter in duration and focused more on just increasing someone's natural reaction to the caster.

I mean, the big abuses of the power, in my mind, have always been the ability to basically enslave personal servants, or easily use the power to claim someone's valuable possessions. I don't see any limits preventing that in earlier versions of the power. I do in the current version.

If there are "substantially the same limits" on those abuses, what are they?

That's not saying they don't exist. That's saying you believe they won't come up in a meaningful way. Two very different things. Maybe I'm more a 'Murphy's Law' kinda guy, but I think, in any system (game, SW, mechanical, business process, whatever), if you design in failure, you'll experience failures. (And, even if you do everything humanly possible to design /out/ failures, you'll experience failures, just fewer of them).

Let me, perhaps, rephrase that. The power isn't flawed because the flaws and failures you are concerned about already exist independently of the power. And that, in my opinion, you can't remove those possible problems from the system without codifying and limiting the game to an extent that would introduce a ton of much more serious issues.

I think theres a definite thread of elitism in this whole discussion. I'm like "well, not everyone out there is all that bright, so there could be problems." You're like "well, anyone like that deserves those problems." We're /so/ superior! ;P

Dude, not cool. I know you've got a smiley there, I know you are including yourself somewhat in that sentiment, but putting words in my mouth like that really isn't cool, especially when it is a sentiment I really disagree with.

I'm not saying, "Anyone who can't figure out these rules deserves to have their campaign screwed up." I'm saying, "Anyone who has issues develop from this rule was already likely to run into similar issues with many other elements of the game."

I've given examples of other possible issues in the game. I've asked how you would address them. You've haven't addressed or acknowledged those questions. That's fine - I'm not trying to win a debate here, I'm just trying to share my reasons for my opinion of this power. But if you aren't willing to acknowledge those points or those reasons, I'd really appreciate it if you didn't instead portray my point as something else completely.

I like that 4E has a game that is accessible to new DMs, and that can be run without needing a DM to already 'know the hidden rules' and be skilled at navigating issues presented by problem powers. I don't think this power changes that, and you do - fair enough.

But saying I don't think this is a problem power is very different from saying I think that problem powers are fine because good DMs can work around them.

 

[MrMyth]

I may be in the minority here, but I don't find ANY need at all for players to find creative situations to use a power in. In fact the entire concept of using powers in "creative" ways always sends a shiver up my spine. Mostly because it is the same as the phrase "finding ways to abuse a power" in my mind.

Here's the interesting thing - prior to 4E, I felt very similarly. Creative power use equalled abusive tricks, in my mind. Either finding loopholes in the powers themselves, or the ability to have a character's power in the game based on how well the player could fast-talk the DM.

In 4E, on the other hand, I've been a fan of creative power use, and encouraged it. Thanks, largely, to page 42 - having a chart with simple guidelines that provide a mechanical way to reward creativity, in a fashion I know won't unbalance the game... is pretty awesome.

A player wants to set grease on fire and watch the enemy burn? I check the level of them or their power on the chart, possibly require a skill check or attack to make it happen, and then apply the bonus damage the chart indicates. Or a player wants to use a power in a creative fashion during a skill challenge? Maybe that gets them a free success, or bonuses with certain skills, or other benefits in the challenge.

And its true the rules aren't absolutely codified here. More importantly, perhaps, they could stand to add a bit more general guidance to them overall. It is, in some ways, more of an art than science. But it is addressed in the books, and the guidelines are there. For me, that makes all the difference.