Free Will and Story

[Starfox]

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?

This seems like a classic case of sandbox/storytelling conflict. And I believe the general response is that both are valid playstyles.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This seems like a classic case of sandbox/storytelling conflict. And I believe the general response is that both are valid playstyles.

I don't know. My games are pretty sandbox-y. Even sandboxes need someone watching over them. It is true that both are valid paradigms.

 

[Hussar]

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).

Because it's not specializing for the wizard? I mean, Fly and Invisibility are both pretty bog standard spells and not exactly eating up a whole lot of resources. Arcane Eye, AFAIC, is a basic spell that every wizard should be bringing out. Why? Because, as a scout, in 3e, it's flat out better than the rogue can ever hope to be. I mean, true, I need to have Darkvision to go with it, but, then again, so does the Rogue. At minimum, I get 2100 feet of exploration out of this spell with zero risk. That's a heck of a lot better than hoping the rogue doesn't botch his stealth check or doesn't meet anything with scent or tremorsense.

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.

See, this? This right here? This is what I'm talking about. The DM is disallowing spells, not because the player did anything wrong or outside the rules, but simply because the DM "changes the spell on the spot" to create a more "reasonable" effect.

I believe this is exactly what I'm referring to. See, N'raac, it's not about ignoring the game mechanics at all is it? The player here is playing exactly by RAW and RAI. There's no ambiguous language here. The player used the spell in exactly the way it was intended - to blind large crowds. And the player gets screwed over because the DM doesn't approve of his carefully constructed encounter being trashed by the caster. How do you explain this? The player hasn't done anything wrong, yet, his spell is being changed by DM fiat for no other reason than the DM disapproves.

Yeah, again, no thank you. Playing Mother May I is not an experience I ever want to repeat.

 

[Hussar]

This seems like a classic case of sandbox/storytelling conflict. And I believe the general response is that both are valid playstyles.

I disagree. For one, sandbox is not the opposite of storytelling. Sandbox is the opposite of linear.

It's the difference between vesting all of the authorial control in the game in the DM or sharing authorial control between the DM, the rules and the players.

 

[sheadunne]

It's the difference between vesting all of the authorial control in the game in the DM or sharing authorial control between the DM, the rules and the players.

In the latest game I'm running I turned all authorial control to the players and they're self regulating. It's great not to have to concern myself with rules, dice rolls, or control. I just describe the narrative and let them do their thing. Not sure how well that would work in D&D but in my home brew it's fantastic.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The player used the spell in exactly the way it was intended - to blind large crowds.

It's worth noting that this likely wasn't the intent. The spell is about revealing invisible or concealed things. The blinding is a side effect, one that was probably put in as a nod to "realism" and that whoever wrote the spell clearly underestimated.

Do you really think that overpowered abilities are intended to be so? No one's defending Glitterdust as a well-written spell. Out of several hundred (or thousand, going beyond core) there are going to be some spells that don't work as intended. You seem remarkably forgiving of mistakes in your game of choice (of which there are many, by any measure), is it so strange to you that DMs and players are willing to accept and deal with the rates of error in games with better editing but higher (and riskier) aspirations?

And the player gets screwed over because the DM doesn't approve of his carefully constructed encounter being trashed by the caster. How do you explain this?

No, not because his encounter is trashed. Because the spell itself is inappropriate. The encounter may or may not be trashed, and that isn't really the point. Sometimes encounters are trashed for good reasons and you let it play out and move on. Other times it exposes a flaw in the system, and you have to decide how to deal with the flaw.

The player hasn't done anything wrong

...and isn't being treated as if he has. He's not getting punished (though you seem to be implying that), his actions are being adjudicated by the person whose job description it is to adjudicate them.

Playing Mother May I is not an experience I ever want to repeat.

Your loss, I suspect, disregarding that ridiculous term. But there are plenty of games out there for you regardless.

I mean, Fly and Invisibility are both pretty bog standard spells and not exactly eating up a whole lot of resources. Arcane Eye, AFAIC, is a basic spell that every wizard should be bringing out.

But why would he if he has someone else to do similar functions? Assuming the wizard has a regular party of companions, it makes sense for him to learn spells that expand upon or complement the other characters' abilities. Trying to replace them is not a logical goal, regardless of whether it is possible or not. It makes the party as a whole less powerful because the wizard is wasting resources that could be used elsewhere.

BTW Arcane Eye is one of those spells I don't know if I've ever seen anyone choose. I couldn't even remember what level it was, and I'm a 3e encyclopedia.

 

[sheadunne]

It's worth noting that this likely wasn't the intent. The spell is about revealing invisible or concealed things. The blinding is a side effect, one that was probably put in as a nod to "realism" and that whoever wrote the spell clearly underestimated.

Disagreement point. Blinding is the intention of the spell, the invisibility part is the side effect. Read the description, Blinding comes before the invisibility. The spell is intended to blind creatures and since it does that with glitter, it also happens to outline invisible creatures.

Do you really think that overpowered abilities are intended to be so? No one's defending Glitterdust as a well-written spell. Out of several hundred (or thousand, going beyond core) there are going to be some spells that don't work as intended. You seem remarkably forgiving of mistakes in your game of choice (of which there are many, by any measure), is it so strange to you that DMs and players are willing to accept and deal with the rates of error in games with better editing but higher (and riskier) aspirations?

Blinding creatures in a 10' radius certainly isn't overpowered. It would blind, what, 4 people in the crowd?

But why would he if he has someone else to do similar functions? Assuming the wizard has a regular party of companions, it makes sense for him to learn spells that expand upon or complement the other characters' abilities. Trying to replace them is not a logical goal, regardless of whether it is possible or not. It makes the party as a whole less powerful because the wizard is wasting resources that could be used elsewhere.

One could argue that the rogue is wasting skill points taking abilities that clearly the wizard is more suited to accomplish. It goes both ways. I'm not sure what spells your used to having a wizard have, but any wizard worth his weight in gold, doesn't take damage spells. They're a waste of resources. Buffs, debuffs, battlefield control, utility, those are the types that make the wizard great, fireball and scorching ray are a waste of spell slots.

BTW Arcane Eye is one of those spells I don't know if I've ever seen anyone choose. I couldn't even remember what level it was, and I'm a 3e encyclopedia.

Arcane eye is okay (4th by the way), but once you get prying eyes, the game gets really fun. Greater Prying Eyes makes me smile just thinking about it, but it's 8th so doesn't come up as much as I'd like, unless I have the resources to by a scroll of it early on.

Basically what I'm getting at is that the martial characters fight the narrative the DM places in front of them. The casters fight to change the narrative. 5 Orcs appear and attack. The fighter says I attack them. The Wizard says, they don't attack anyone, they fall asleep instead.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Disagreement point. Blinding is the intention of the spell, the invisibility part is the side effect. Read the description, Blinding comes before the invisibility. The spell is intended to blind creatures and since it does that with glitter, it also happens to outline invisible creatures.

I'm going to file that under "agree to disagree".

Blinding creatures in a 10' radius certainly isn't overpowered. It would blind, what, 4 people in the crowd?

10 ft. radius, not diameter. It could be a lot more than four targets. In any case, the Blindness/Deafness spell at the same level affects only one target and doesn't reveal invisible creatures. To be fair, it is permanent, but that isn't all that relevant in combat situations. I think Glitterdust is just too powerful for its level. It's a tangential point anyway. There are spells that are overpowered, and simply changing them during play is something DMs can/should do.

One could argue that the rogue is wasting skill points taking abilities that clearly the wizard is more suited to accomplish. It goes both ways.

That it does.

Arcane eye is okay (4th by the way), but once you get prying eyes, the game gets really fun. Greater Prying Eyes makes me smile just thinking about it, but it's 8th so doesn't come up as much as I'd like, unless I have the resources to by a scroll of it early on.

I see Divination as a pretty popular prohibited school. And those are pretty high level; don't often get up there. I bet they're nice though.

I'm not sure what spells your used to having a wizard have, but any wizard worth his weight in gold, doesn't take damage spells.

The last PC playing a wizard was an evoker who mostly took damage spells. Magic missile remained his most cast spell up through 6th or 7th level. Him being a PC in my game, his net worth in gold was probably greater than his body weight.

I also see a lot of transmuter/conjurer "support mage" types and a variety of esoteric casters, but certainly, IME the most popular reason to play a wizard/sorcerer is for the damage dealing spells.

Basically what I'm getting at is that the martial characters fight the narrative the DM places in front of them. The casters fight to change the narrative. 5 Orcs appear and attack. The fighter says I attack them. The Wizard says, they don't attack anyone, they fall asleep instead.

I think that's a bit of an overstatement. Even to the extent that it's true, I don't it as a bad thing. Players play fighters because they want to kill orcs. Players play wizards because they want to play trump cards. Why not give them what they want?

 

[Dwimmerlied]

I'm not sure what spells your used to having a wizard have, but any wizard worth his weight in gold, doesn't take damage spells.

What spells does my wizard have? Fireball and scorching ray . One of my players has scorching ray, and as soon as she gets the opportunity, I can guarantee fireball will be taken. I have an illusionist character who picks spells that allow her to perform trickery. That's her schtick. These characters might not be worth anything in your esteem, or that of some internet community folk, but they still make for great characters

 

[sheadunne]

I think that's a bit of an overstatement. Even to the extent that it's true, I don't it as a bad thing. Players play fighters because they want to kill orcs. Players play wizards because they want to play trump cards. Why not give them what they want?

I suppose it goes back to the question, how many times do you take back fighter damage because it's overpowered? Do you cap damage and say anything over that is too much? Do you limit crits because they killed the bad guy too soon?

DMs traditionally take it personally when their narrative is under attack. Since casters are primarily the ones impacting their narrative, they get the brunt of retaliatory meta-game actions, as you yourself described by changing spells in the middle of the game, after the player had spent in game resources on it. We've all done it, some of us have just gotten tired of it from both sides of the table. Why not let player narrative elements run wild? Where's the problem other than it impacts our story which we shouldn't be attached to anyway, because it's the players' story not ours, we're just there to help them reach their goals through challenging and interesting scenarios. If they want to bypass one with a clever spell, more power too them.

Now we just need to give martials the same opportunity to shine!