Free Will and Story

[Starfox]

On a tangent, the rogue in 3e is arguably the single most skill starved class in the game. 3e rogues gain 8+Int skill points - with that 8 matching up to the 8 thief skills in AD&D. However the fighter gains 2+Int skill points and doesn't have any equivalent to thief skills in prior editions.

Astute observation - I agree completely.

Because if there ever is an in character conflict between the fighter and the wizard the fighter wins.

Did you get this wrong, did you mean the wizard wins? Because that's how an open-ended conflict would turn out in most cases. In an arena duel, the fighter actually has a good fighting chance - especially if there are any rules at all.

<anecdotal>In a 2E game we ran here, my character (ranger) challenged a party member (wizard) to a duel. Basically the wizard had once chance - win initiative and hope I failed my save against being turned into a newt. I didn't. After that, the wizard was toast.</anecdotal>

I think a fighter could best a wizard in an arena duel in most any edition of DnD. in 3E trough trips like readying, grapple, and so on, in AD&D simply because casting in melee was so very difficult. But a duel is a very special case.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Why do 4e-style metagame mechanics defeat the point? They give players of martial PCs additional metagame resources to balance their lack of in-fiction magical resources.

The "conventional" D&D approach is that the character affects the game world, and the player controls the character, and has absolutely no other influence. The point of metagame mechanics is to give players the ability to affect the game world, distinct from the abilities of their character.

Thus, a true metagame mechanic has nothing to do with the character. It is not dependent on what class or level the character is, and the character is not aware of or in control of them. That's why I gave the plot point example.

What you have in 4e is some conventional, some metagame, and no clear distinction between the two. One power might be clearly metagame (i.e. something that the character cannot do), and another might be an ability of the character. Thus, no one really knows what a lot of the rules even mean. Certainly, for diehard fans its easy enough to rationalize these mixed in-game/metagame rules, but that lack of transparency and all the consequences thereof are kind of a problem for the rest of us.

And, of course, the implementation is problematic because it isn't very good. As [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] noted, your fighter is not as simple as it used to be, and your wizard is not as interesting. A very small amount of design space is split into an enormous volume of often redundant powers, there's a needless and complicated resource management scheme, the terminology is confusing, and the actual effects of these powers just aren't very interesting or dramatic. Some of which is subjective to us, of course, and all of which are separate to this whole in-game/metagame issue.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So, a player who is given the ability to radically alter the narrative of the game, uses those abilities in a non-DM sanctioned way and he or she is a problem player?

Yes. I mean that's a slight oversimplification, because we're assuming that the DM is competent and everyone trusts him as such, but yes. Is there some controversy here?

I mean, if I am only allowed to use spells in such a way that my DM is happy, then why doesn't the DM just take control of those spells?

So the player can participate. Just because the DM has "final cut" as it were, does not mean that the players' ideas don't contribute. It's very unlikely that a DM could be as creative by himself as the group is as a whole.

Why give options only to then fence those options in?

Are you suggesting that players should be given options and not fenced in? That the DM should be stripped of his power completely and that if a player says he does something within the rules, the answer is yes? As a DM, I'm kind of insulted by that. It's not "fencing them in" or "DM fiat". It's just "DMing". I have final say on absolutely everything that happens in my game, and it's my job to execute that power in a way that produces the best experience for everyone.

I mean, my nature bunny ranger gets jumped over because the wizard casts teleport, and that's okay because it's for the group? My information gathering rogue gets entirely nerfed because the casters can gather information 10 times faster and more accurately than I can, and that's okay because it's for the group?

Yeah, pretty much. Those cases are rare enough.

You guys have a really strange definition of balance.

In that it focuses on the game as it is actually played at our table rather than a set of theoretical constructs published in a book?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Did you get this wrong, did you mean the wizard wins?

Correct - and corrected.

I think a fighter could best a wizard in an arena duel in most any edition of DnD. in 3E trough trips like readying, grapple, and so on, in AD&D simply because casting in melee was so very difficult. But a duel is a very special case.

Depends on what level in 3e. And who wins initiative. At first level Sleep is Save or Die to a fighter - and likely to have around a 2/3 chance of success if the wizard gets to cast it. On the other hand the fighter is likely to have a 2/3 chance or so of cutting the wizard in half on their first swing. It's about even really.

However Giant In the Playground gamed it out at a higher level. More to the point they gamed it out at level 13 wizard vs level 20 fighter. It ended up about even - but only because the fighter was carrying more equipment than Iron Man and not functionally very different from a level 20 Commoner with the same amount of equipment. And the rules of the arena (no pre-buffs) favoured the fighter.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

In short 3.X D&D should only be played by shiny happy people holding hands.

Despite the derogatory description, its a good way to play.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Despite the derogatory description, its a good way to play.

Not disagreeing. It's actually the way I normally play D&D - PvP is very rare. But it's another constraint on D&D 3.X that was new as of 3.X, isn't (so far as I am aware) implied by the rules or the genre and further limits the game by using local gentlemans' agreements to fix the flaws in the rules.

 

[Hussar]

Yes. I mean that's a slight oversimplification, because we're assuming that the DM is competent and everyone trusts him as such, but yes. Is there some controversy here?

So the player can participate. Just because the DM has "final cut" as it were, does not mean that the players' ideas don't contribute. It's very unlikely that a DM could be as creative by himself as the group is as a whole.

Wow, no thanks. I get permission to participate because I managed to make the DM happy? No thanks.

Are you suggesting that players should be given options and not fenced in? That the DM should be stripped of his power completely and that if a player says he does something within the rules, the answer is yes? As a DM, I'm kind of insulted by that. It's not "fencing them in" or "DM fiat". It's just "DMing". I have final say on absolutely everything that happens in my game, and it's my job to execute that power in a way that produces the best experience for everyone.

And viking hat DMing is certainly one style.

Not my style certainly, but one style.

If the player is doing something that is perfectly acceptable by the game, I, as DM, should NEVER say no. That's not my job. Yeah, I'm not interested in this style of gaming anymore. I'm a big boy. I'm perfectly capable of making decisions on my own without having the DM oversee each and everything I want to do, just to double check my actions.

I have zero interest in playing in this type of game anymore. To me, you come off as a total powertripping DM who is only interested in railroading your players into dancing to whatever tune you have in mind. No thanks. Heck, that's the reason I like to gravitate towards games with shared narrative control.

Yeah, pretty much. Those cases are rare enough.

In that it focuses on the game as it is actually played at our table rather than a set of theoretical constructs published in a book?

It may focus on the game that you play, but, it certainly doesn't on mine. Watching the casters completely take over the game was not fun for me. And I watched it happen every single time. Didn't matter if I was a player, DM, playing a caster or a non-caster. It happened every single campaign.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Are you suggesting that players should be given options and not fenced in? That the DM should be stripped of his power completely and that if a player says he does something within the rules, the answer is yes? As a DM, I'm kind of insulted by that. It's not "fencing them in" or "DM fiat". It's just "DMing". I have final say on absolutely everything that happens in my game, and it's my job to execute that power in a way that produces the best experience for everyone.

I don't know about the rest but that's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is not only that the player says they do something within the rules the answer should be yes unless there is hidden in-game information (in which case no is still within the rules), but that if the player says that they do something plausible outside (as opposed to against) the rules, the answer should still be to say yes or roll the dice.

And as a DM I do not see this as being stripped of my power. I still have nigh on absolute power over the setting and if I want to create a parade of blue elephants dancing down the street out of thin air I can create a parade of blue elephants dancing down the street out of thin air, and my players will treat them as if they were real or their PCs will get trampled. I'm honestly shocked by the idea that I need any more power than this. And to me as player or DM, the best experience comes from all the PCs engaging with the world on their terms* (or occasionally on the terms of the NPCs they've annoyed) and although individual sessions might be more fun if the DM overrides things I'm soon going to get bored of the campaign from either side of the screen.

Yes, I do put my money where my mouth is. For the game two sessions ago I prepared what would (and will) be a short investigation followed by a fight on top of the Lightning Rail (Eberron campaign). The first session I threw in what was meant to be a mysterious clue to the ongoing arc-plot. Something appearing, watching, then vanishing. And dropping these in repeatedly to make them paranoid. My players proceeded to roll natural 20s every time they were looking at the minor clue (I barely exaggerate. They managed four natural 20s in the session, all on perception checks). With the result I was improvising like mad and they gained quite a few clues as to what is going on on a wider scheme before eventually reaching a dead end. The last session I ran was meant to be the same investigation, and I gave them a few clues - but rather than looking for the supply side (as I pointed them at) they chose to look for the demand. With the result that rather than the flamboyant fight on top of the lightning rail I'd planned, they ended up in a rather incendiary fight in a match factory (that is now, not unsurprisingly, a pile of rubble) that I invented on the spot. The match factory having been brought in because it entirely fitted the narrative (what would you want slaves for in a city? The jobs no one wants to do because they are dangerous and disfiguring. Like making matches.) And I had the matches before I even knew there would be a fight there - without the PCs heading off in the "wrong" direction I'd never even have thought of the fight in the match factory.

And to me that is DMing. Taking everything that the players do, building on it, expanding it, and building round it and dancing so I almost always appear one step ahead. My players are there to play their characters, not my vision of their characters. And if ever any game told me to strip the players of their control of the limited aspects of the gameworld they actually do control (i.e. their characters) I would put it back as being not fit for purpose. I control 99% of the game world. Why would I need to take the last 1% away from the players?

* Influenced by any considerations within the fiction, of course.

 

[N'raac]

To be fair N'raac, what you advocate here is a possible solution to casters having so much power. The DM deliberately screws them at every opportunity because the options given to them in the rules are too powerful. Every orc tribe knows the counter to rope trick camping, every single place is warded against teleportation and scrying. On and on and on in an arms race that the DM will automatically win because the DM doesn't have to follow the rules.

Why is it that when I say "reading the spell and following the rules laid out", you reply with "screwing over the spellcaster at every turn"? I think the player who refuses to play within the written limits of his character's abilities is the one screwing over the rest of the players, GM included. Those who suggest actually READING and FOLLOWING the spell's rules are not "screwing over the wizard" any more than ruling that a Fighter does not automatically put an arrow through the wizard's eye socket, killing him instantly, because he has Far Shot and he's far away.

Teleport requires you have a good idea of the location you are teleporting into. If you do not have that, you are either at risk, or it is impossible. It can transport a limited number of people/creatures. It can travel over a limited distance. If you ignore those limitations, then you are adding to the wizard's power over and above the game rules, and screwing over the non-spellcasters.

Me, I'd rather resolve these issues in the mechanics.

Start by following the mechanics as written, then.

You agree that there is a problem here. If there was no problem, then you wouldn't be bringing up solutions.

The problem is "ignoring what the rules say". The solution is "reading and following the rules". Does "every Orc tribe know how to deal with a Rope Trick"? That depends on how you interpret the term. First, the characters are what, 7th level, to access that spell? Seems likely that orc tribe, if it's a real threat, has some spellcasters of its own. One good Knowledge Arcana check, or spellcraft check, or just having the spell himself, means someone in the tribe knows how Rope Trick works.

But maybe they lack all that. What do they do when marauders attack their home, then withdraw, then attack again? Do they take no steps to defend their home, or do they bolsters their defenses, set traps, set alarms so they can engage the marauders in a wave of overwhelming force rather than be picked off a few at a time, or so a group can stealthily follow the marauders back to where they came from and see them climb up that rope? Or, if they're getting picked off and can't come up with any way to defend themselves, pack up and leave. 8 INT is not suicidally stupid - the orcs should have at least the tactical savvy of that 8 INT fighter - and a large tribe presumably has some smarter and wiser orcs who can speak up.

The problem can easily be just as much that spellcaster who insists on all the strengths, and none of the limitations, of his spells. Just like those old 1e players who insisted that Create Water can be cast inside an opponent's lungs Or worse, if he's arguing he need not have any prior insights to the location we're teleporting to despite the specific words in the spell description.

Should every area be teleport-warded? How much effort does the Wizard put into safeguarding his own home base? It seems reasonable for others to take similar precautions (less if they are comparatively reckless and more if they are comparatively cautious).

I think thisc is far more a matter of perspective and mindset than anything else. So the wizard (or cleric or other? caster) has the power to change some of the narrative. So what? Are they doing it for their own selfish reasons? Are they party mavericks causing trouble for their fellows by going off on wild tangents? If not, if those powers like teleport, passwall, scry, overland flight, knock, rope trick, wind walk, astral spell, plane shift, and all that are being used in the party's interest collectively, who cares who wields that ability? It's being used as a party resource - the whole group exploits the change in the narrative.

That's generally more the way our group tends to play - leverage all resources and make the team as a whole better. The arcane spellcaster is a powerhouse, but he's fragile? Then it's my job to protect him - act as defense so he can unlimber the hurt. The rogue can do massive Sneak Attack damage? Then I'll forego my full attack in favour of sucking up an AoO to put him in flanking position.

And if it is just a single player popping off those abilities without using them to further the group's goals, then what you probably have is a problem player who would cause trouble even if everyone else in the party had the same abilities.

So, a player who is given the ability to radically alter the narrative of the game, uses those abilities in a non-DM sanctioned way and he or she is a problem player? Why not just not give the abilities in the first place. I mean, if I am only allowed to use spells in such a way that my DM is happy, then why doesn't the DM just take control of those spells?

Again, you jump from "lone wolf not acting in the party's best interests" to "DM doesn't like it so he smacks the character down". billd91 can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's referring to a player who's not playing as part of the team, not the GM smacking down the PC's because they use their abilities. If my character doesn't want to be teleported, he just has to not be in contact (direct or indirect) with the teleporter. If he REALLY doesn't want to be teleported, perhaps a melee response to that hand reaching out to touch him, or an attack of opportunity when he starts casting that Teleport, is my answer.

Why give options only to then fence those options in? And the only reason to fence those options in is because the options are too powerful in the first place. And you see no problems with this?

Why ignore the limitations only to complain that the spells, without those limitations, are too powerful?

I mean, my nature bunny ranger gets jumped over because the wizard casts teleport, and that's okay because it's for the group? My information gathering rogue gets entirely nerfed because the casters can gather information 10 times faster and more accurately than I can, and that's okay because it's for the group?

Or the wizard can get us to the edge of the Mysterious Forest, but it's risky to try to teleport into the unknowns inside it, so he gets us to the point where my Ranger can take over with guiding as we search for our elusive goal. I've never seen a party find the mundane info gathering options useless, but maybe your GM is one of those guys who refuses to give skills the same "as written" power that spells get, or better yet wants to resolve all mundane matters by "role playing", so your +21 Gather Info does not in any way help you find the right guy or ask the right questions.

Also, if player choose mostly on concept, but some concepts don't work out that way at the table - for instance, suppose it turns out that a flying invisible wizard really is a mecahnically better stealth option than a thief or ninja - then some players are going to have a compromised play experience simply in virtue of the concept they preferred.

I would definitely count this as an instance of "compromised play experience".

I'm back to synergies and shared gaming. If the Ninja is super-stealthy, why is the wizard focusing his spell selection on stealth, rather than a resource the party does not already have? We're starting a new game with a sorcerer specialized in enchantments and charms. At L1, Sleep is pretty deadly against those Goblins, so my character shouldn't waste spells on goblins - hold them for the creatures immune to sleep (like that Quasit that is not subject to sleep and can't even be hurt by Acid Splash, so the sorcerer gets his sling out).

In short 3.X D&D should only be played by shiny happy people holding hands. Because if there ever is an in character conflict between the fighter and the wizard the wizard wins.

Who starts the conflict? Is this "to the death"? Why doesn't the fighter kill the wizard in his sleep, rather than wait for him to wake up and take his Kill Warrior spell suite? And what prevents PC's from resolving issues by discussion rather than a fight to the death? If the fighter and the wizard can't get along, maybe they actually behave like real people and stop working together, rather than duel to the death. Or maybe they recognize that they have more in common than they differ, and they compromise because they can achieve more together than apart.

If we allow a game style where the wizard carries a portable hole full of scrolls, presumably enchanted so the right scroll always pops right into his hand, no one ever tries to challenge him while he's getting that portable hole out and rummaging through it for the specific scroll he needs (or just smacks him while he reads it), never being constrained in either wealth or time to prepare them, it's never pointed out that portable holes mix poorly with rope tricks, and the game is always structured so the party can pull back and rest whenever, for however long, and as often as they choose, with no negative consequences, then the wizard seems a lot more powerful. That's not my experience.

And that's before we consider why enemy wizards don't get all the same advantages. Only PC's ever figure this stuff out, for some reason.

 

[Ahnehnois]

What I'm suggesting is not only that the player says they do something within the rules the answer should be yes unless there is hidden in-game information (in which case no is still within the rules)

I think the answer should usually be yes, but the DM still has the final say. There are occasional exceptions. For example, a player might say something in-character that his character does not know (metagaming), perhaps unintentionally. The DM might say that the character does not and will not speak the problematic information, if this is important to the game.

A more common scenario is if a player declares an action that would be nonsensical for the character, because the DM has decided certain information about the setting, but has not told the players yet. For example, the players walk into a room, the DM describes a demon within the room. The players say they attack and start making dice rolls. The DM might disallow (or at least put on hold) those actions until he describes other threats in the room that might make the players reconsider.

And, the DM might simply disallow actions he doesn't like. For example, you get that one problem player who says "I kill the other PCs in their sleep and take their stuff". That can very likely be done within the rules, but that doesn't mean the DM allows it and you move on. Rules don't really cover those types of scenarios; there's clearly more that needs to be done here.

To bring the magic element into it, if a player says he scry/teleports and assassinates the king, the answer is very likely no. Does the DM bother to consult the rules for methods of teleport blocking, etc.? Maybe. Maybe not. (I don't think I've ever really rationalized my teleport blocking. I just say it's blocked and the players accept it as logical in the context of the world.) If a player uses Glitterdust on a crowd of people, does it blind them all for a round a level? No. Since that is overpowered, the answer is no. The DM changes the spell on the spot, and creates a more reasonable effect, which then becomes the standard. Ideally, that doesn't happen too often, but it is a part of the game.

When there is a reason for the DM to be doing these things, the player will often (but not always) agree, and the result will be consensus.

but that if the player says that they do something plausible outside (as opposed to against) the rules, the answer should still be to say yes or roll the dice.

In general, I think that is a good approach. There is a large distinction between having the power to adjudicate the players' actions and actually exercising it. The DM should be trying to encourage and facilitate the players, and saying no only when necessary for the game as a whole.