Free Will and Story

[pemerton]

Tthe idea that the Cortex approach, while emphasizing metagame elements, is simpler and more coherent is important

Simpler I would agree on. More coherent I'm less sure, unless you're meaning to point to (and put pressure on) the disconnect in 4e between combat and non-combat (skill challenge) resolution - because I agree that this is one of the weaker parts of 4e.

But 4e also has trad wargame-y elements - like positioning in combat, for instance, as a distinct mechanical dimension rather than just another element of the narrative - which are pretty fun if you're into that sort of thing. It's not incoherent to combine these trad elements with "modern" design, I don't think.

 

[pemerton]

Mastermind

<snip>

At any point during a scenario, you can reveal yet another well-placed resource.

In MHRP this is done by spending a plot point if the GM rolls a 1 in his/her dice pool.

But unlike some of the examples I mentioned upthread, I don't think that this plot point expenditure is flexible between the player doing something and the PC doing something. In this case I think it is obviously the player who is spending the point; whatever the PC may have done, s/he did that much earlier in the fiction than the point at which the plot point is spent.

 

[Starfox]

In this case I think it is obviously the player who is spending the point; whatever the PC may have done, s/he did that much earlier in the fiction than the point at which the plot point is spent.

Which in my experience goes down much better with my players, who feel that alienated when they are expected to sit in the director's chair - they want to play their character and possibly agents of that character - they do not want to god-mode.

Oddly perhaps, but as a DM I don't have much problem with my players god-moding and suggesting plot developments. It is the players who have a problem with this. This sensitivity varies, but most of them share it - both those who have played in campaigns that are very conservative about god-moding, and new players without such a background.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Well, this thread certainly got away from me. It is no longer about the original topic in the slightest.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Simpler I would agree on. More coherent I'm less sure, unless you're meaning to point to (and put pressure on) the disconnect in 4e between combat and non-combat (skill challenge) resolution - because I agree that this is one of the weaker parts of 4e.

I think it's also worth noting that fairly soon we'll have 13th Age, which feels like it's also going to be experimenting in this territory.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

I'm kind of torn about this. I hate the Mother May I game. I've played with too many DMs who change things on the fly. On the other hand, I like playing games where one character doesn't dominate. I like knowing that my ability to swing a sword is equal in value to the group to the Wizards entire spell list.

If a spell is completely overpowered as the spell in question is, I'd probably have more fun if the DM changed it. On the other hand, if I was the player of the Wizard in question I'd be completely pissed off. I chose to take a spell that was legal in the book and suddenly it's changed to something else. However, if this was done between sessions and I had a reasonable chance to change my character to compensate for the change, I don't think I'd have a problem with it.

I'd also be perfectly ok if an action I wanted to take was declined by the DM if I knew the DM was doing it to make the game better. I'd rather have a DM tell a player they aren't allowed to kill the rest of the party in their sleep than have to roll up a new character because someone was being a jerk.

 

[billd91]

I think that anyone who thinks that any refereed role playing game isn't, at a fundamental level, "Mother May I" is fooling themselves. There may be lots of structure that sits in top of it, but if you can't get along with and trust your GM and other players, none of that will make the game better.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION], [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] - as a GM who has had to nerf/rewrite overpowered spells (esp in RM, where not all the books are equal in quality/balance), I've always tried to do it by getting the player on board and discussing how a balanced alteration/alternative can be arrived at. Sometimes the player has suggested nerfs. Sometimes a player has been very wedded to the broken version, and I've backed off.

 

[sheadunne]

I think that anyone who thinks that any refereed role playing game isn't, at a fundamental level, "Mother May I" is fooling themselves. There may be lots of structure that sits in top of it, but if you can't get along with and trust your GM and other players, none of that will make the game better.

You're probably right. I don't game that way anymore though. Players agree to a rule set and we game. No changes. No asking. If you want to do it, go for it. Why do I care what you're character is doing, it's your character. However, it required a great deal of change for the players. We're taught as gamers to game a certain way and its difficult to break that. If the rules are ambiguous, it's up to them to figure it out, I don't need to concern myself with it. I find that the players are much harder on themselves than I would ever be.

Now that said, D&D doesn't lend itself easily to that experience. That referred part is built heavily into its assumptions. But other systems do lend themselves more readily to it, but usually this is done through creating systems to counter or change the GMs narrative rather than create a joint shared narrative experience.

Players get anxious when you ask if they hit and they say yes and then you ask them, okay, what happened?

Or you ask them to describe the tavern they just entered or what the villain looks like.

It's a very different experience

 

[Hussar]

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

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.

See, that's the point though. The spells are overpowered in your opinion. ((Now, I'll say that I likely agree, but, that's not the issue)) But, since you're wearing the big daddy pants, only your opinion matters. If the player disagrees, he's out of luck. You believe that changing the rules when the DM feels its appropriate is something a DM should do.

I do not.

That it does.

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.

A 4th level spell is pretty high level? That's a 7th level wizard. That's the beginning of mid-range for 3e.

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.

And, given this experience, I would say that this is why you don't see a problem with casters. After all, evokers are the weakest of the 3e casters. Which brings me back to the point I made earlier that much of your opinion is based on the fact that you have never really had to face players who dig deeply into the system.

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?

Because it can get to the point where the wizard is playing trump cards every single encounter.