Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Wicht]

What they are asserting is that you are doing certain things which the rulebooks do not themselves prescribe which mean that you do not experience the problem. And that when they do different things that the rulebooks also do not prescribe (but equally do not proscribe) they do experience the problem.

Can you give me an example of something I do not prescribed in the rules?

This isn't clear at all. Yes, the GM is in charge of scene-framing, but isn't in charge of actually choosing the antagonists in all versions of the game. (The GM in Burning Wheel is in charge of scene-framing too, but the players help choose the antagonists by choosing their Beliefs and their Relationships.)

I think it blindingly obvious that the DM is in charge of choosing antagonists in all versions of the game and the books all say so. The DM is in charge of the world and everything in it, excepting the personal choices of the PCs (and he can even have a say, via what is allowed or not allowed in game, over that). Antagonist most certainly falls under that responsibility of "everything."

If people are playing DnD or Pathfinder and not understanding this then right there is the problem and we don't have to look any further.

In sandbox AD&D, for instance, players can choose the antagonists (or at least choose which table will be rolled on to identify them) by choosing which wildernesses or which dungeon levels to enter.

They can choose where to go. I can choose what they find there. Even in a sandbox the DM determines who is an antagonist and who is not.

In some approaches to 3E, the player of a ranger can choose some of the antagonists by choosing a favoured enemy.

In 4e, a player can choose Orcus and undead as antagonists by choosing to play a devotee of the Raven Queen.

While I think there should be communication between player and DM about game direction, a player choosing a favored enemy is not equal to choosing the antagonist of any particular encounter or story. DM still does this.

Nope sorry, DM has the final say or you are, in fact, not playing the game right, that is, as it was designed to be played.

And if that's the case then of course its going to work different.

As for other dimensions of ajdudication, consider the scenario (snip)

This is not just about "a certain level of feel and talent". It is about deliberate techniques intended to provide a different game experience. For this reason, despite some similarities in their design (lifepath PC creation, skill-based character descriptions, skill advancement via use, gritty combat), RQ and BW are very different games in play.

I hope this is enough to show (i) that there can be rules in a game that set out expectations for GM adjudication, and (ii) that different rules of this sort can make a big difference in play.

Sure but the fact that a game sets out expectations for GM adjudication, or the fact that different games have different rules does not invalidate the skill of the DM in question. I'm not sure what your point is? The ability to use the rules to make the game work is somewhat a matter of talent no matter what the rules are. Rules can only go so far and then one has to apply them.

And you have lost me as to how this pertains to fighter effectiveness.

Now consider a different approach - suppose, for example, the GM decides that the animals should attack the druid PC, because s/he knows that the player of that PC is interested in a "nature red in tooth and claw" game. Or the GM has the mercenaries attack the fighter because s/he thinks that would make for a dramatic climax.

There are a range of possible reasons for making one choice rather than another. Not all GMs prioritise world simulation as you describe it, and I don't think the 3E rulebooks actually tell us which way is preferred. (Contrast Gygax, who does suggest world simulation as a priority in his discussion of running the game in his DMG.)

Of course different DMs will make different calls. But experience should help here in knowing which calls are the better calls for 1) the game, 2) the story, and 3) a simulationist feel. Ideally they should all mesh together into a pleasant whole. Sometimes a DM will pull punches however because he doesn't want to kill the PCs yet, or sometimes he will decide this factor or that makes a creature act a little out of character.

Generally though, an experienced DM should be able to make such decisions on the fly and make them in a way that makes the game entertaining.

This still proves nothing about the effectiveness of fighters.

I'll ignore the suggestion that I'm not clever enough to play D&D or similar RPGs and should be focusing on Snakes and Ladders.

I didn't say you were not clever. I was suggesting that any game more complicated was going to be influenced by game mastery. Its just a part of the nature of the beast and its silly to think that one can devise a game which does not reward system mastery and still allow meaningful choices.

Instead I'll focus on your contention that the pacing of long rests, and control over that pacing, does not speak to experience but to the art of GMing. Consider 4e: the rules leave the issue of pacing open (and I know from reading ENworld threads that different tables play it differently), but the fact that (pre-Essentials)n all players have basically the same resource recharge rate means that the timing of rests makes no major difference to intraparty comparisons of effectiveness. There are some differences: wizard dailies tend to be stronger than those of other PCs, which means more frequent rests make wizards comparatively more effective; and more frequent rests also tend to mean that defenders don't feel the benefit of their larger supply of healing surges; but these differences are not as marked as in other versions of the game where resources recharge in wildly assymetric terms.

Why am I considering 4e rests in a thread about 3e fighters?

The contrast with 3E - which has the assymetric resource recovery but not the rule for pacing rests - is very marked. Depending how any particular 3E table handles the pacing issue, the consequences for play are likely to be very significant. And by saying that it is about "GM experience" you seem to be implying what I and others have already noted upthread, namely, that the application of GM force is one important way for making 3E play smoothly.

Ah, I see, you seem to think that I handle wizards by controlling rest...

You are mistaken. At least you are mistaken if you think that I make any sort of conscious decision about it.

I do nothing to "handle" wizards or manipulate rests other than allow things and events in the game world to take their natural course. I really get sort of lost in some of these discussions. I think some people really overthink the "problem." We tend just to roll with the game. What it means to be a DM is very simple: you control the world. If you change this, you change the game.

Wicht, I'm not famaliar with your posting history in relation to 4e. Ahnehnois on this very thread is attempting to persuade people, including me, that 4e is a broken and deviant version of D&D.

Perhaps I got lost somewhere, but I was in a thread talking about 3e fighters. I have no reason to talk about 4e one way or the other in such a thread. If someone else wants to talk about 4e thats them. I don't think you will find I have mentioned it a lot.

My only point has been to say that fighters are not a problem class in 3x and especially not in PF, they do what they are supposed to do and they do it well. Its a perfectly viable option at my table.

4e is irrelevant to that point.

If you want to talk about the wonders of 4e feel free, but it proves nothing about my Pathfinder experience or my 3e experience.

 

[pemerton]

I am not suggesting that mechanics should ignore differences. But those differences can be realised in the story without making a difference to the degree of protagonism enjoyed by the players.

I don't understand how you don't see that this is a contradiction.

Given that I've seen it be true, I know that it's not a contradiction.

In the abstract, there is no general correlation between a protagonists power to change the world, and that character's degree of protagonism in a work of fiction. Hence we can have novels or films in which the President of the US, or a wealthy industrialist, is a background character, while a child, or a homeless person, is the main character.

In the RPG context, a fighter will do fighter-y things. A wizard will do wizard-y things. But there is no correlation between the doing of these things and the degree of protagonism of the player of those characters, until the effects of the doing of those things are brought into connection with the goals of the players for their PCs.

If the goal of the player, as protagonist, is to reforge the Ring of Power, then it would be a mistake to play a fighter rather than a wizard. But if the goal of the player is to serve as a stalwart defender of the common folk, maybe a fighter is a better choice. And it's pretty easy to have action resolution mechanics that will uphold that as a meaningful choice, even in the same game as the wizard figures in. The two characters will be quite different - if the fighter tries to reforge the Ring the action resolution mechanics will yield failure, and likewise for the wizard trying to gain the respect and affection of the populace - but both players can have comparable degrees of protagonism.

There are many different styles of DMing, but all of them are still styles of DMing.

But that does not entail that there is a single role for the GM. In fact, it arguably entails that there are many such roles - namely, one for each style. For instance, is it part of the GM's role to tailor story elements to fit the PCs the players have built? In my style the answer to that question is "absolutely yes", but for some sandbox GMs the answer is a wholehearted "absolutely not".

But real-world terms, concepts, and outcomes still form the basis for most of the rules.

Real world terms and conceps are the basis for most of the rules because they form most of the fiction. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the game is simulatory. The rules in Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks use natural language terms too - you have Skill, Stamina and Luck and fight with swords and shields - but nothing about the resolution mechanics in those books simulates anything in real life.

As far as outcomes are concerned, what is simulated by the to hit roll? - which represents all the blows made in a 6 second period, except for those that might be represented by a second to hit roll, and it demarcates which ones penetrate the armour and which don't, except that some of those that penetrate the armour don't actually do any significant damage. The saving throw? - which represents dodging (but doesn't change a character's position) or mental toughness (except that sometimes that is represented by INT, WIS or CHA). The damage roll? - which sometimes represents fatal damage even if the roll is minimum, and sometimes represents nary a scratch even if the roll is a crit against a 1000-hp dragon. The deduction of hit points from a character's total? - sometimes 1 hp represents the difference between full health and unconsciousness (for a 1 hp kobold) and sometimes it represents virtually nothing at all (for the full health 1000-hp dragon).

3E has a margin more simulation in its skill rules, though even that's non-existent in some cases - what does a Diplomacy roll simulate? - it simply dictates a change in outlook - or a Profession roll, which simply dictates a certain amount of money earned per weeks' work. But 3E is not the essence of D&D for me - and particularly not its skill rules.

this expectation of equal contribution, and the idea of having the fighters copy the spellcasters' mechanics, are new.

That spells and fighting can be put into the same mechanical framework is actually an idea that could be traced back at least to early 80s points-buy games. That players of fighters should contribute equally to the game with players of casters is an idea that I've taken for granted since the early 80s also, and I'm not the only one. It's been a topic of discussion since the earliest RPG magazines.

It's the difference between two neighbors doing a little landscaping and each one saying "Gee, I think I should match up with that guy's aesthetic next door so we both look decent" and two neighbors being required to make every visible component of their property virtually the same.

I have no idea what games you have in mind - I assume not 4e, since it doesn't fit your description, nor HERO or GURPS or Rolemaster or Runequest, for similar reasons.

No one is saying that fighters and wizards should play the same. They want the players of fighters and wizards to enjoy comparable degrees of protagonism.

even a level 20 fighter would still be helpless to break through a wall of force or control his opponents' minds.

Who wants a fighter to be able to do mind control? That's a hypnotists or magician's trick. As for breaking through a wall of force, I thought the 3E Epic Handbook set a DC for that.

In other words, it was balanced using a different baseline than what you're suggesting (everyone being equal all the time), and it was done so purposefully to create an aesthetic particular to D&D, and it was basically successful.

I didn't talk about an aesthetic. I talked about a set of techniques in play - stables of PCs, sandbox worlds, character level and player skill being in rough correlation - which virtually no one on ENworld uses (the only regular poster who does that I'm aware of is [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]).

So basically you're saying that these people are using the game for something it wasn't designed for, setting goals and expectations on their own, and more than that, refuse to make any accommodations or changes to either their approach or the (eminently changeable) game itself, and if it does not work the way the want, it's...the game's fault.

First, I'm almost certain that you're not playing D&D as Gygax did, and that you are using GMing techniques that he did not.

Second, people are talking about changes to the game. You're the one who's objecting to such changes, on the grounds - as far as I can tell - that the people who are calling for them are inept.

 

[pemerton]

There are a few reasons why I am a fan of complex, conflict resolution frameworks as the containment vessel for framing, mechanically resolving, and concluding certain conflicts.

The 1st reason is because the contained mechanical resolution regulates, assures, and guides; it promises a specific pacing and dramatic structure of a conflict.

<snip>

So what is my second reason that I prefer complect, non-conflict resolution frameworks to facillatate scene resolution? It utterly abrogates the need for GM-force

<snip>

In other words, the scene mechanics (n success before 3 failures, requring d12 or 5 points of stress to win/lose, ablation to 0 HPs) provide the "force", not the GM. Further, the resources are built/codified around this paradigm

Agreed.

And I find it bizarre that D&D basically invented a version of this paradigm - with its radically non-simulationist hp system for combat - but then extensions of this paradigm to other domains of conflict, which the D&D designers barely had their sights upon, are decried as contrary to the spirit of the game.

 

[pemerton]

Can you give me an example of something I do not prescribed in the rules?

However it is that you handle the pacing of rests in 3E/PF, it is not prescribed by the rules. That is a marked contrast with (for instance) 13th Age.

However you decide that monster A attacks PC B, that is not prescribed by the rules either.

I think it blindingly obvious that the DM is in charge of choosing antagonists in all versions of the game and the books all say so.

Please quote me some rules text on this.

The books make it clear that the GM is in charge of scene-framing. Where do they say that the GM gets to choose who the antagonists who oppose the PCs will be - ie that the GM gets to set the overarching story parameters for the campaign? Many published adventures make this assumption. If the 3E rulebooks actually assert it, that would be something distinctive about them - because the 1st ed AD&D rulebooks certainly don't.

Even in a sandbox the DM determines who is an antagonist and who is not.

No. First, the players get to decide where their PCs go, and hence who they meet. Second, the players get to decide what their PCs do when they meet those people.

The DM is in charge of the world and everything in it, excepting the personal choices of the PCs (and he can even have a say, via what is allowed or not allowed in game, over that). Antagonist most certainly falls under that responsibility of "everything."

The antagonists are the opposition to the PCs. In many games, including 1st ed AD&D games, the players get to choose who their PCs oppose and with whom they seek alliance - and there are reaction, loyalty and morale rules (imperfect as they are) for resolving those social encounters.

Even the claim that the GM is in charge of everyone is contentious. For instance, in every game I've ever played the players got to decide basic facts about their PCs' family and childhood, provided that it fit within basic genre and reasonableness parameters. And nothing in any rulebook that I'm familiar with contradicts this (perhaps the 3E or 3.5 DMG says that the GM gets to specify the family background of the PCs?).

If people are playing DnD or Pathfinder and not understanding this then right there is the problem and we don't have to look any further.

If people have certain practices in their own play which are not universal, and not themselves prescribed by the rulebooks, and then just assume that everyone else who is following those books is also following all those other practices, communication breakdowns will be the result.

If, in fact, 3E D&D or PF only works when certain practices not set out in the rulebooks are adhered to, it might even be a good thing if the game designers wrote down those additional requirements.

I do nothing to "handle" wizards or manipulate rests other than allow things and events in the game world to take their natural course. I really get sort of lost in some of these discussions. I think some people really overthink the "problem." We tend just to roll with the game. What it means to be a DM is very simple: you control the world. If you change this, you change the game.

Not everyone runs the game this way. It is not "natural" to all players and all tables. And the rulebooks - at least the ones I'm familiar with - don't prescribe it.

Sure but the fact that a game sets out expectations for GM adjudication, or the fact that different games have different rules does not invalidate the skill of the DM in question. I'm not sure what your point is?

My point is that there is more to adjudication than simply "skilled GMing" - skilful adjudication of Call of Cthulhu, for instance, is a very different thing from skilful adjudication of White Plume Mountain; some rulebooks even tell the players and GM what sort of adjudication is required to make the game play as advertised.

Of course different DMs will make different calls. But experience should help here in knowing which calls are the better calls for 1) the game, 2) the story, and 3) a simulationist feel. Ideally they should all mesh together into a pleasant whole.

Where in any D&D rulebook is this stated as a goal of adjudication - either by reference to these three elements (I don't myself follow the distinction between (1) and (2), for instance), or by reference to the meshing of them into a "pleasant whole". That would be something else that is not prescribed by the rulebook. Some GMs, and some groups, have different goals in mind with adjudication. In my case, for instance, my number one goal in adjudication is maintaining the pressure on the players via their PCs while respecting the outcome of the dice.

I was suggesting that any game more complicated was going to be influenced by game mastery. Its just a part of the nature of the beast and its silly to think that one can devise a game which does not reward system mastery and still allow meaningful choices.

Marvel Heroic RP allows meaningful choices yet does not reward system mastery. Classic D&D allows meaningful choices - a module like White Plume Mountain is full of them - without rewarding or requiring system master. In both cases - despite very different resolution systems - the meaningfulness of the choice resides not in the mechanics but in the fiction. Which (in my view) is the proper place for meaningfulness in an RPG (as opposed to, say, a boardgame).

 

[N'raac]

These analogies aren't very good. D&D is a cooperative game, football/baseball is competitive.

As I said, finding perfect analogies is no easy task. That said, football is a game where one team (call them the Pennsylvania Cougars, or PC's) face off against another team (call them the Outer Rockwood Chargers, or ORC's) compete, governed by a referee (Gerald Murphy, or GM). The PC's work together in their goal of defeating the ORC's, and GM adjudicates their success or failure. I realize that doesn't really sound much like a role playing game, but I think both games do rely on players and referees knowing the rules fairly well.

Have you lived under a rock with no internet for the past few years?

will save comes up 1...can no longer resist. Have you ever stopped and considered how apt your avatar is?

Regardless of my place of residence for the past few years, assertion still does not equal proof.

Well, at least SOMEONE is rolling hot on those will saves - well done!

And many people all making the same assertion does not equal proof either. For game play balance I have to rely on my experience, and in my experience I have never had a problem with fighters, nor with wizards taking over the game. I've never had problems with clerics that make everyone else obsolete. It just does not happen.

I share this experience. Does it mean those who have this experience are inept GM's? Not necessarily. However, I submit it also does not mean Wicht and I, and our groups, and everyone else who does not perceive huge balance disparities making the game "no fun"* are ignorant peasants who clearly have only the most inept play skills either.

* If these disparities are so huge as to render the game unfun, why do those who possess the skilled, insightful reasoning to identify that continue to play it?

in my experience Wizards sometimes get that awesome moment and sometimes the monster makes a save and the spell is lost. Sometimes the wizard is able to have just the right spell at just the right time, but about 2 out of every 3 games, the wizard says, "Argh, I prepared the wrong spell."

Our Sorcerer specialized in Charm and Sleep. Boy, is he effective against goblins. He also spends a lot of encounters to date (we're third level, just made and haven't played 4th, in this game) lobbing Acid Bobs and using Aid Another actions my favorite being Mage Handing a skull to obscure a flying enemy's vision).

My cleric avoids combat spells that would be useful against humanoids in favour of spells that better cover the Sorcerer's weaknesses, and I don't use general buffs when we see a dozen Goblins charging down the corridor.

if the game is not about winning then the whole argument is ridiculous. At my table when the wizard pulls off the flashy home-run effect, everyone feels uplifted because that's one for the team. When the cleric manages to buff themselves (or, more often the case at our table) everyone else, the whole table appreciates the contribution because the team is doing better. And when the fighter (fighter/barbarian in our most recent campaign) scores hit after hit after hit, doing consistent damage (and lots of it), nobody complains about them being one hit wonders because those hits are helping the team stay alive and put the opponents in the ground.

I've seen a lot more situations where the players note that the Rogue took down the Big Bad because the Fighter helped him flank, the Wizard took out the mooks so they could co-ordinate and the Cleric's buff spells resulted in hits that would have been misses, and crits that would not have been crits. Maybe that's why you and I don't perceive the power disparity to the same extent - my players don't look at that new Wizard spell or Fighter feat and say "He got a shinier treat than I did . They say "That's pretty cool - how can we use our other abilities to leverage it " In other words, they are working as a team to compete against the monsters, not as solo characters competing against each other.

Returning to baseball, that home run is flashy and impressive, but sometimes it's way more effective to bunt so the guy on third can get home.

I will admit that it is possible that 30 or so years of experience with the game factors into my lack of difficulty with the problems others claim to be having. Or it could be table style. But regardless, the fact that it is not a problem at some tables should encourage those who have the problem to be humble enough to ask if there is something they are doing wrong, or some skill they need to learn to alleviate the difficulty.

To phrase this another way, while I don't disagree we should address why other tables are perceiving significant power disparity issues when we are not, I think it is also incumbent on those experiencing such issues to objectively consider how those tables not experiencing the same issues are operating differently, and whether their concerns could be mitigated using similar techniques. Maybe there are some rules being ignored or glossed over.

Funny how no one viewing wizards as overpowered uses the encumbrance rules - on the one hand, I don't think that alone is the issue, but on the other hand, is that just a coincidence? Perhaps it indicates a game style that pays less attention to details - and there are a lot of little details in the spell descriptions, aren't there?

Monopoly house rule discussion

The vast majority of people are extremely surprised to learn that declining to purchase the property you just landed on does not pass the dice to the next player to roll. The actual rule changes the dynamic immensely. The fact that the vast majority play that way does not demonstrate that the actual rules are being followed, nor that the game designer is to blame for the fact that this rule change can extend the game considerably.

Now, I am not saying most people play RPGs wrong. If you are having fun, then its all good. But if there is a perceived problem, but there is certain subset of players who say the problem does not exist for them, then it is possible that those who have the problem are doing something in a manner different from the other group and there is an equally valid possibility that learning a certain set of skills, or approaching the game from a slightly different angle might alleviate the problem without resorting to changing the whole game.

Or that, perhaps, this is not the game for you. If you don't like long monopoly games, and you can't live with the specific rules that result in those long games, maybe you should consider a different game.

Then he should know that I'm not making assertions. There's more than enough proof on the internet.

Why are those whose internet postings agree with you considered proof, and those that disagree with you discounted entirely. There are lots of facts on the internet. There's also tons of opinion. Tell me which political party* should govern based on a full survey of the consensus which can be so clearly found on the Internet. You will find about as much consensus as to which RPG, or even which edition of an RPG** is better balanced, or even balanced at all. The fact that people voice their opinions does not turn those opinions into fact (in my opinion!)

*DISCLAIMER I: This is not intended to suggest a discussion of politics.
**DISCLAIMER II: This is not intended to suggest a discussion of relative merits of games or editions of games.

Years of theoretical and practical analysis consolidated by thousand of gamers around the world disagree with you. And existence of 4ed implies that WotC kinda does too.

Which WotC apparently cares about, otherwise they wouldn't made 4ed the way it is (more balanced [but in the process also kinda boring and bland]).

I see... so what does the decision to cease production of 4e imply that WoTC believes? Again, I really don't want to turn this in any way to an edition war, however the fact that 4th Ed did not result in broad accolades from all sectors of the gaming community, and the withering and death of its RPG competitors, suggests to me that 4ed was no more the Holy Grail of Gaming, and all things to all gamers, than any other game, or game edition, is, was or ever will be.

With the possible exception of "let's pretend", as all RPGs are merely attempts to recapture that childish sense of wonder with codified rules so we can consider ourselves "more mature".

So your experience trumps the collective experience of thousands of people? Wow.

I don't see thousands of people posting here. I do see several posting on each side of the argument. That leads me to believe that a consensus has not been reached. To suggest there is actually some objective fact to be determined is, to me, on the border of ridiculousness (and don't ask which side of that border).

Here's the things that I don't get, tho.
Firstly - what makes you so sure that the problem lies on our part or that there is no problem? A lot of people see problems. What. Are we (people that complain about the balance) all imagining things or doing something wrong? Or maybe, just maybe, it's you who simply don't see?

By the same token, what makes you so sure the problem lies on our part or that there is a problem. A lot of people see no problems. Are they all imagining things or doing something wrong? Or is it possible the problem is not inherent in the rules themselves?

Secondly - what' wrong with changing the whole game? Why are you so opposed to that? It changes nothing for people who have no problems, but helps people who do.

The fact that very few changes have changed nothing for people happy with the existing game in the course of making changes favoured by other people. Since we're using the Internet to back up our claims, may I suggest a search of the phrase "edition wars" to locate the changes that did not fix issues for some while changing nothing for those who were happy with the status quo? Now, please provide me the search term that will lead me to discussions of edition changes in any game that did, in fact, fix things for some and not change anything in a manner others believed to be a change for the worse.

Look at it this way. Someone has a car crash. They conclude that cars are fundamentally defective, and that the crashing is a natural result of driving the car. They demand that all motor vehicles be replaced with bumper cars.

How about one more analogy. Some young people play an RPG. One of them is deeply and profoundly disturbed by in-game events. He goes home, writes a note on his sadness with the game, then hangs himself by his bedsheet. Concerned groups conclude that RPG's are fundamentally defective***, and that depression and suicide are natural results of playing an RPG***. They demand that all RPG's be banned. Note that the assertion that society would collapse without motor vehicles probably holds more weight than any suggestion removal of RPG's would cause the fall of western civilization...

*** And they post it on the Internet - so it must be true!

I think that the problem wasn't the RPG, and that many people play RPG's and are, and remain, well-adjusted, productive, mentally healthy people #, and that seeking to ban RPG's ignores the actual problem.

#Internet evidence to the contrary, in my view, is an anomaly

Manbearcat has posted an extremely well written discussion of complex conflict resolution, and I don't disagree with it. I do, however, believe that it too relies on skilled players and GM's. Such a game can also dissolve into "I use my Awesome Wizardry to eliminate the threat of the Dragon - how many successes do I need?" rollrollroll I submit this reflects inept play, and not a flaw in the rule system (or game style) itself, but also that it does happen in practice.

 

[Umbran]

Please quote me some rules text on this.

The books make it clear that the GM is in charge of scene-framing. Where do they say that the GM gets to choose who the antagonists who oppose the PCs will be - ie that the GM gets to set the overarching story parameters for the campaign? Many published adventures make this assumption. If the 3E rulebooks actually assert it, that would be something distinctive about them - because the 1st ed AD&D rulebooks certainly don't.

Um, dude? How about how all the adventure and encounter design information being in the Dungeon Master's Guide, and not in the Player's Handbook? The implications of that are terribly strong, sir.

You will probably spin a line of how adventure and encounter design are not the same as choosing antagonists - and you'd have half a point. But the other half still notes that it is the GM who actually puts the monsters and NPCs in play. The players get to offer suggestions as to what elements of the game world they want to engage, but the PHB gives *NO* information or mechanics for the players to outright dictate those things in play. Players don't get to say, "There is an orc there, I attack it!"

I actually expect someone will bring up some Gygaxian prose about how the GM sets things up. But, even if they didn't, all that means is that you have a strictly logical argument that it isn't explicitly prescribed by the rules. Note how a logical argument is not the same as a *reasonable* argument. Nitpicking logic and $3 will get you a cup of coffee...

No. First, the players get to decide where their PCs go, and hence who they meet.

Wrong. The GM decides who is at the location the PCs go to. The players don't get to place the NPCs. So the GM actually decides who is met at that location.

 

[Wicht]

You know, I generally gloss over the intro to RPGs because after you've read one, you've read them all, and perhaps this is a problem for others. So let me quote from my current rulebook of choice.

The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is a tabletop fantasy game in which the players take on the roles of heroes who form a group (or party) to set out on dangerous adventures. Helping them tell this story is the Game Master (or GM) who decides what threats the player characters (or PCs) face and what sorts of rewards they earn for succeeding at their quest.

So yes, it is in the rules, right up front, that GMs determine the challenges faced by players.

Again, if you don't want to play this way, that's fine and all for you, but you are also, in a rather fundamental way, changing the nature of the game, and if you are doing that, I can see why you might have some difficulties with a number of player driven issues.

 

[sheadunne]

Um, dude? How about how all the adventure and encounter design information being in the Dungeon Master's Guide, and not in the Player's Handbook? The implications of that are terribly strong, sir.

You will probably spin a line of how adventure and encounter design are not the same as choosing antagonists - and you'd have half a point. But the other half still notes that it is the GM who actually puts the monsters and NPCs in play. The players get to offer suggestions as to what elements of the game world they want to engage, but the PHB gives *NO* information or mechanics for the players to outright dictate those things in play. Players don't get to say, "There is an orc there, I attack it!"

I actually expect someone will bring up some Gygaxian prose about how the GM sets things up. But, even if they didn't, all that means is that you have a strictly logical argument that it isn't explicitly prescribed by the rules. Note how a logical argument is not the same as a *reasonable* argument. Nitpicking logic and $3 will get you a cup of coffee...

Wrong. The GM decides who is at the location the PCs go to. The players don't get to place the NPCs. So the GM actually decides who is met at that location.

I believe he's talking about who the players view as antagonists, not who the DM chooses to introduce into the game. For instance at character creation the Ranger chooses his "favored enemy" which indicates, to a pretty large extent that any creature of that sort will be viewed as an antagonist (although the actual antagonist title may be reserved for the biggest bad of the selected creature type). The DM certainly does create and introduce the monsters, but that's different than creating antagonists. I've had plenty of players ignore Big Bads and the like who were introduced as potential antagonists for the players. They have done the same to helpful NPCs. The DM can only introduce creatures, not whether those creatures are antagonists. Hopefully the DM and players are in sync enough that the DM is only introducing potential antagonists that will be viewed the same way by the PCs. Ideally anyway. The question is though, where's it written who gets to label the creature an antagonist? Who gets to say, this creature has meaning beyond the simple encounter? Even if the DM continually reintroduces the same creature, that doesn't mean the players will respond or even particularly care about that creature (thus elevating it to the status of antagonist). Is that the DM failing or the players not playing right, according the rules? I have no idea, but I think that's what he's talking about.

 

[sheadunne]

You know, I generally gloss over the intro to RPGs because after you've read one, you've read them all, and perhaps this is a problem for others. So let me quote from my current rulebook of choice.



So yes, it is in the rules, right up front, that GMs determine the challenges faced by players.

Again, if you don't want to play this way, that's fine and all for you, but you are also, in a rather fundamental way, changing the nature of the game, and if you are doing that, I can see why you might have some difficulties with a number of player driven issues.

I don't believe he's talking about challenges. He's talking about antagonists. Those creatures that are elevated beyond the simple threat.

 

[Wicht]

However it is that you handle the pacing of rests in 3E/PF, it is not prescribed by the rules. That is a marked contrast with (for instance) 13th Age.

However you decide that monster A attacks PC B, that is not prescribed by the rules either.

Please quote me some rules text on this.

I don't really handle the pacing of rests; not as such... I sometimes roll for wandering monsters, sometimes I just let them sleep. Most often I don't make rest a real issue. I try to allow the game world to happen in a logical manner. The whole point of having a GM is that he is able to do this in a reasonable way. It is undesirable to have rules that tell you how rests have to occur because there will always be exceptions in a truly fluid RPG environment. What 3x and Pathfinder do is provide rules for what happens in different circumstances. If the PCs get 8 hours of rest, they get the benefits thereof. If they don't then they are fatigued. The possibility of fatigue indicates the freedom to consider it as a possibility.

The whole point of having a GM who can make it up as he goes along is that he has, well, the freedom to make up the story as he goes along in a manner that seems entertaining to him. If I want to have monsters bother the PCs they do so. If I think it would just be an unwelcome distraction, I don't. If I want the PCs to sweat, I can give them false alarms, the noises of wild animals, and maybe even a random encounter. If I don't, then I don't have to. That is all the nature of the game. The rules do not tell you how to handle every situation because that would be a book too long and likely not very much fun.

Now, if we accept that rest or the lack thereof can go either way, and I allow it to go both ways at various times, then what am I doing that others don't that makes our wizards less powerful? And can those who aren't doing this consider it as something they perhaps should be doing to make their game work better.

The issue, it seems to me, is not that wizards are overpowered, but that some GMs need pointers in being better GMs.