Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Jackinthegreen]

Well of course the players have to choose how to react. And their action, reaction, or lack thereof helps drive the game. But the players never get to choose what is threatening them. They only get to choose whether to respond or not.

To the question at hand, the DM always chooses the antagonists, small, large and in-between. He chooses what threatens the players and what does not. And if players have not grasped this central element of the game, they are missing something rather fundamental to the game. I am actually a little surprised its even a matter of debate.

The DM might choose what he thinks would be threatening to the players, but what if they don't perceive it as a threat? Can it then still be called an actual threat? I suppose I have to ask: What do you define as a threat? What magnitude of opposition does a creature need to exert or be perceived to exert against the players to qualify as a threat?

 

[Wicht]

The DM might choose what he thinks would be threatening to the players, but what if they don't perceive it as a threat?

That's their problem; it might indicate that the DM is good at hiding his hand, it might indicate the players are thick, it might indicate the DM needs to hone his skills in presenting a threat. It does it not mean that the threat is less dangerous.

Can it then still be called an actual threat?

Yes. Of course it can. Ignorance of danger does not make the danger less real.

I suppose I have to ask: What do you define as a threat? What magnitude of opposition does a creature need to exert or be perceived to exert against the players to qualify as a threat?

These are two different questions. A threat is something threatening to in some way harm the characters or their interests. The magnitude of the threat can be varied. A dragon is much more threatening than a goblin with a pointy stick but they can both potentially harm the character. The 60 foot trap is more dangerous than the 30 foot trap but they can both be an obstacle to be overcome.

All of this is still besides the point: regardless of the level of the threat, the nature of the threat, or the PCs perception of the threat, if the DM doesn't put it there in the game, it does not exist.

 

[Luce]

Wicht: I can see you point that the DM is "in charge" (as stated in the introduction of 3.X DMG). That to me includes him determining what the PC are going to face at a given location (since he is the one populating it). However, the direction of the discussion seems to be going it seem to be regarding the question of player agency. If the PC go dragon hunting, they can reasonably expect to face dragons, right? There may be other associated creatures (kobolts, lizardman) but having made a choice the players should reasonably expect that choice to have an impact, though complications may be present (the "Yes, but..." aproach)
As far as hostile NPC, the players also have a variety of way to interact. Take social skills and magic. Diplomacy: "You know for a paladin you are decent guy. I let you live."
Intimidate: "Live and let live", Bluff :"Good catch there minion 237. I almost forgiven that I ordered you to infiltrate the church of X and report back. [Hint: He did not. ] Nice disguise by the way."
Magic:
DM: "You are attacked by a hydra. "
Two rounds latter: PC: "I am riding my new hydra into battle".
Whether it is charm, dominate or good old fashion monster empathy turning enemies into friends is not uncommon. Of course that can also work in reverse. If the players decide that the villain has a point they may end up joining him.

 

[Wicht]

Yes, the players get to choose how to interact with the threat. Nobody ever said otherwise.

That is still besides the point the DM gets to decide what the threat is. He also gets to arbitrate whether the PCs actions successfully overcome the threat.

Obviously the players are important to the game. I've had those dry spells where I had only my own imagination to game against. But I'm not sure why anyone would argue that Dungeons and Dragons, or Pathfinder, is somehow unclear on who places threats or determines who the antagonists are.

 

[ImperatorK]

That is still besides the point the DM gets to decide what the threat is. He also gets to arbitrate whether the PCs actions successfully overcome the threat.

*peeks in*

Smells of railroading.

*quickly hides again*

 

[TwoSix]

Yes. Of course it can. Ignorance of danger does not make the danger less real.

Hypothetical question: If you make a bad guy the PCs choose to ignore, will you consider TPKing them with antagonist because of it?

Again trying to reframe the point [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is making (or at least how I'm interpreting it, apologies if I totally hamfist this point!), I believe what's he saying is that there are several systems outside of D&D that use character build resources to actively determine the flow of the narrative, and thereby what sort of enemies will be encountered.

For example, in 13th Age, every character spends points to have Relationships with Icons, who are major NPCs within the setting. It is explicitly in the rules that the DM should weave his storyline around the Icons the players select, especially when the relationship dice are rolled at the beginning or end of each session and a 5 or 6 is rolled.

Another example would be FATE, by using Aspects to describe a relationship with a possible antagonist of the player's creation. The Dresden Files RPG, which uses the FATE system, has the players and DM work together in a City Creation session before the characters are created to decide what the primary themes and antagonists of the game will be.

On a slightly different point, I think there is a solid difference between an encountered enemy and a true antagonist. Antagonists are those enemies that the PCs make a choice to continue engaging with throughout the narrative. They are proactive about making choices to strengthen their hand against that enemy and to engage in activities to weaken him.

While it's easy to say the DM chooses the enemy, that's only true in the sense that the DM places the encounter. But the DM already does that for the whole world, since it's assumed that the world has millions of NPCs the PCs could encounter if they so choose. The players have to be the ones to make the active choice that this NPC matters, because they choose to engage with him. Only the places where the PCs choose to spotlight their attention has any effect on the game, and that's just as true of D&D as any other RPG. A BBEG the players choose to ignore might as well be just another Elminster, if the players have no regard for his schemes.

 

[Wicht]

Hypothetical question: If you make a bad guy the PCs choose to ignore, will you consider TPKing them with antagonist because of it?

I don't understand the question. If I have an enemy attacking the PCs and they willfully decide not to defend themselves, then yes. The characters would likely die.

If I have an enemy scheming against the PCs and they choose to ignore the threat, then yes, the PCs will suffer the full effect of the machinations, which may or may not lead to people attacking them or other unpleasantness.

If I have an enemy who does nothing in any way to the PCs then he's not really much of an enemy.

Are there other options?

Again trying to reframe the point [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is making (or at least how I'm interpreting it, apologies if I totally hamfist this point!), I believe what's he saying is that there are several systems outside of D&D that use character build resources to actively determine the flow of the narrative, and thereby what sort of enemies will be encountered.

For example, in 13th Age, every character spends points to have Relationships with Icons, who are major NPCs within the setting. It is explicitly in the rules that the DM should weave his storyline around the Icons the players select, especially when the relationship dice are rolled at the beginning or end of each session and a 5 or 6 is rolled.

Another example would be FATE, by using Aspects to describe a relationship with a possible antagonist of the player's creation. The Dresden Files RPG, which uses the FATE system, has the players and DM work together in a City Creation session before the characters are created to decide what the primary themes and antagonists of the game will be.

But I'm not talking about those systems. The point being made was that Dungeons and Dragons had no official stance on how antagonists were placed and I countered that it did: the books and the game specifically expect the DM to do it.

On a slightly different point, I think there is a solid difference between an encountered enemy and a true antagonist. Antagonists are those enemies that the PCs make a choice to continue engaging with throughout the narrative. They are proactive about making choices to strengthen their hand against that enemy and to engage in activities to weaken him.

You can define it however you want, the DM put them there or they are not there. Good DMs will play off of the PCs, to a point, but ultimately, the story that gets told is the one the DM allows to be told.

While it's easy to say the DM chooses the enemy, that's only true in the sense that the DM places the encounter. But the DM already does that for the whole world, since it's assumed that the world has millions of NPCs the PCs could encounter if they so choose. The players have to be the ones to make the active choice that this NPC matters, because they choose to engage with him. Only the places where the PCs choose to spotlight their attention has any effect on the game, and that's just as true of D&D as any other RPG. A BBEG the players choose to ignore might as well be just another Elminster, if the players have no regard for his schemes.

Never had that happen, so I can't say. Most of the time, when PCs perceive a threat they react and overreact.

 

[Wicht]

*peeks in*

Smells of railroading.

*quickly hides again*

Oh good grief!

If the DM does not decide the outcome of any particular conflict (hopefully guided by a good understanding of the rules) then what is he there for?

Are there really Dungeons and Dragons games being played where the DM has no say in outcome? If so, no wonder people are having problems with the game.

 

[Luce]

With that I agree. DM comes up with the story and cast. After which he adjudicates the players responses to the situations. I just wanted do point out that at this point, the discussion has gone tangential and people are arguing what to me seems valid but different points. To some the term antagonist get equated to villain, to others to (potentially unfriendly) NPC. Both sides have shown an justifiable reason for their position. Could we move on and get back on topic? Please?

 

[Wicht]

With that I agree. DM comes up with the story and cast. After which he adjudicates the players responses to the situations. I just wanted do point out that at this point, the discussion has gone tangential and people are arguing what to me seems valid but different points. To some the term antagonist get equated to villain, to others to (potentially unfriendly) NPC. Both sides have shown an justifiable reason for their position. Could we move on and get back on topic? Please?

Well, if there are games where the role of the DM is unclear, then it is very much on topic, as that, far more than any rules or mechanics, would account for why people thought wizards were overpowered.