Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Jackinthegreen]

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.

I don't think there are games where the DM doesn't actually play the creatures and such since as you said that'd mean the DM doesn't really do anything. That route is always one way for the DM to influence the course of the encounter.

However, I don't think that's what you're trying to get at, is it? One of the things ImperatorK hinted at is that some players despise DMs who have preconceived notions of how an encounter should end up. If the players don't have any say in how an encounter ends then that can be called a railroad because it means that regardless of what the players do, the encounter has a set end. That railroad issue is very heavily implied by your use of "If the DM does not decide the outcome..." One would hope the mechanics of the game itself decide the outcome, or that both the players and the DM decide or at least have meaningful contributions.

If the DM is the only one who gets to choose how an encounter goes then what are the players there for? They might as well be puppets for all the influence they can exert on an encounter.

 

[Wicht]

I don't think there are games where the DM doesn't actually play the creatures and such since as you said that'd mean the DM doesn't really do anything. That route is always one way for the DM to influence the course of the encounter.

However, I don't think that's what you're trying to get at, is it? One of the things ImperatorK hinted at is that some players despise DMs who have preconceived notions of how an encounter should end up. If the players don't have any say in how an encounter ends then that can be called a railroad because it means that regardless of what the players do, the encounter has a set end. That railroad issue is very heavily implied by your use of "If the DM does not decide the outcome..." One would hope the mechanics of the game itself decide the outcome, or that both the players and the DM decide or at least have meaningful contributions.

If the DM is the only one who gets to choose how an encounter goes then what are the players there for? They might as well be puppets for all the influence they can exert on an encounter.

You are arguing against a strawman. Naturally a good DM will allow the rules to have a major say in what happens. And the player choices should be meaningful. But in the end, the DM says when the monster dies, not the players. The DM chooses who the antagonist is. The DM determines whether or not the spells have an effect. The DM decides whether a given dice roll is good enough or not. None of this necessarily implies railroading. It is simply what the DM does. Its his role in the game.

Players decide actions. DMs decide outcomes. This should not be controversial, and it should be this way in sandbox games and "railroad" games alike. It is the core dynamic of the game. Beyond all the rules, beyond all the play styles, Players decide their own actions. DM arbitrates outcomes. Outcomes may not always end up the way the DM originally thought they should, but in the end, its his call as to what it all means. Or it should be.

 

[Luce]

The role of DM? Make it fun for everyone participating (including himself, for if the DM is not having a good time chances are neither will the players).
Now I am of the opinion that there is a lot of variation and different way to have fun. Fighter VS Magic User is not a problem seen at every table/campaign. If the party rarely goes to high levels, where magic spells are both plentiful and powerful/ If the group is very interested in RP vs. combat all the time [both can be fun for different groups]. IF the DM knows his players very well and offers each a chance to interact with the game in a meaningful way. In those and many other cases beside the problem may be nonexistent.
Let me harken to previous editions. Fighters got followers at or around 9th level. The focus of the game turned more political or at least added that element to play. Level progression was slower 2e DMG suggests 4 to 6 adventures to gain a level (and judging from the modules published in Dungeon magazine at the time that was not far off the way at least some people played). During those 20+ adventures needed for the Magic user to get his second fireball a rapport and sense of camaraderie usually developed. 10 level was considered high level (as stated in High level handbook). Magic resistance (MR) due to the low non easily replenishment amount of scrolls and wands/rods/staff had greater effect on spell users. My point is that different groups have their own ways of playing, and the fact they continue playing suggest that they are having fun.
What I have seen is change in group dynamics. During older editions the hobby was how should a put it, one one hand more reviled and niche, groups started as friends who begun gaming together and long lasting groups prevailed. Nowadays, more groups are pick up and accidental- e.g. "we met at a game shop" type. In this latter situation even a long experienced DM might have trouble picking individual eccentricities. Not saying that type of game cannot be fun, just it is much like a con game. That is RAW is much more prevalent then house rules or individual tailored plot lines. Also in those situations individual play style preferences can clash sharply. Not to mention the discrepancy in power level styles.
Ok, tangent aside. In 3e to my understanding sell casters do not automatically get access to every spell in the source material. Wizards have to both find a genuine copy of the spell (depended on the DM) and pay for scripting it in both time and money. Books can be stolen or destroyed. Divine users are a bit more problematic, but I feel justified to rule in my game that not every god grands every spell, or at least require the PC to get somehow exposed to the new spell (taught by another, find a prayer book describing it ...etc)
I am not sure that is very helpful, but wanted to add my two copper.

 

[sheadunne]

Players decide actions. DMs decide outcomes.

In my games. DMs present challenges. Players decide actions. Dice decide outcomes.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Of course they have a say, they play the antagonists. But they don't unilaterally decide, no more than you can retroactively decide that kings can move 3 squares at a time in chess.

You do see there's a whole spectrum between "The DM decides the outcome" and "The DM has no say"?

And I would say this is on topic because it's the heart of the topic! Spellcasters and warriors are balanced if the DM uses a strong amount of adjudication, or as [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] said above, the "DM decides the outcome". I agree that strong use of DM force is a very common playstyle, and was pretty much canonical in the '90s (both AD&D 2e and Vampire/Mage et al had strong statements favoring this). But there's been a pretty strong design trend away from DM force and towards player empowerment over the last decade or so, and 4e embraced many of these new design elements. (The DMG2 most specifically embraces this style.)

Now, what does this have to do with 3e? 2e is explicitly pro-DM force, and 4e is explicitly pro-player empowerment. Where does 3e lie between those two extremes? I would say the evidence is pretty strong, based on what play styles work well and what do not, as well as where it falls on the time scale of development (a game developed in the late 90s, published in 2000), that 3e responds best to a lot of DM force. Casters are balanced when the DM drives the scenario so they are balanced.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

You are arguing against a strawman. Naturally a good DM will allow the rules to have a major say in what happens. And the player choices should be meaningful. But in the end, the DM says when the monster dies, not the players. The DM chooses who the antagonist is. The DM determines whether or not the spells have an effect. The DM decides whether a given dice roll is good enough or not. None of this necessarily implies railroading. It is simply what the DM does. Its his role in the game.

Players decide actions. DMs decide outcomes. This should not be controversial, and it should be this way in sandbox games and "railroad" games alike. It is the core dynamic of the game. Beyond all the rules, beyond all the play styles, Players decide their own actions. DM arbitrates outcomes. Outcomes may not always end up the way the DM originally thought they should, but in the end, its his call as to what it all means. Or it should be.

Hang on a sec. The DM determines whether spells have an effect? For some open-ended spells yes, but the text of many spells specifically says what it does which the DM is typically bound to go along with. I would hope there isn't a DM who would say "No, you can't do that" arbitrarily when the wizard decides to cast Haste on the fighter, or the cleric who used Divine Power on himself if everything else allowed for it.

Perhaps it's a word issue here. I take "The DM makes the decision" to imply that the DM is the sole person to make the choices on those things and doesn't need to consult the rules or take into account player actions. You, however, seem to take it as "The DM has the final say." That, to me, implies that others such as the players and the rules did have a say, and the DM has the final say.

Which I totally agree with! It's Rule 0. Duh, of course the DM has final say. But that's in the context of the rules and the players and such. To me it looked like you were saying the DM can arbitrarily say "Nope" and I would call BS on that because if I'm playing there is an understanding that we're playing by the same rules. I wouldn't just say "no" to something. I would give a rules or similar reason why I don't like something because the players deserve to know what's going on.

I'm sorry if you don't get where I'm coming from on the difference between "The DM decides outcomes" versus "The DM has the final say" but I'm not sure how I can articulate it any other way right now, or in any way in which I think you might understand if you don't already.

 

[Wicht]

Hang on a sec. The DM determines whether spells have an effect? For some open-ended spells yes, but the text of many spells specifically says what it does which the DM is typically bound to go along with. I would hope there isn't a DM who would say "No, you can't do that" arbitrarily when the wizard decides to cast Haste on the fighter, or the cleric who used Divine Power on himself if everything else allowed for it.

Perhaps it's a word issue here. I take "The DM makes the decision" to imply that the DM is the sole person to make the choices on those things and doesn't need to consult the rules or take into account player actions. You, however, seem to take it as "The DM has the final say." That, to me, implies that others such as the players and the rules did have a say, and the DM has the final say.

Which I totally agree with! It's Rule 0. Duh, of course the DM has final say. But that's in the context of the rules and the players and such. To me it looked like you were saying the DM can arbitrarily say "Nope" and I would call BS on that because if I'm playing there is an understanding that we're playing by the same rules. I wouldn't just say "no" to something. I would give a rules or similar reason why I don't like something because the players deserve to know what's going on.

I'm sorry if you don't get where I'm coming from on the difference between "The DM decides outcomes" versus "The DM has the final say" but I'm not sure how I can articulate it any other way right now, or in any way in which I think you might understand if you don't already.

The DM decides (or arbitrates is perhaps a better word) all outcomes is more or less synonymous with The DM has the final say. A good DM will most certainly use the rules as a guide (and an excellent DM will know when to ignore the rules) and a bad DM will be arbitrary. The fact that a good DM has the same level of authority as a bad DM does not prove that the good DM abuses that authority. The DM does make the decisions, regardless of whether the standard he uses to make those decisions is the right one or not. i'm not saying that DM's can't do it wrong. To the contrary they can. But in the end, the call is theirs. If they mess up too bad, chances are they won't get to run a game again.

To use a baseball analogy, an umpire calling balls and strikes has a set of rules which is meant to aid in determining whether a pitch is a ball or a strike. We expect umpires to use these rules. But in the actual course of a game, the umpires call is the sole authority, regardless of what the rules say. After the game, if the umpire was a louse he can be fired. There is, also, a general recognition that the calls of the umpire will not always be 100% in accordance with the rules and that is accepted until it gets too blatantly wrong. Now one can say that the umpires power means the pitcher has no say in the matter because the umpire can call it however he wants. In the absolute abstract this might be true, but we still have pitchers that get up there and do their best to throw good pitches because they trust the umpire (mostly) to call it right.

I've had times when I tell a player, "the spell has no effect." Normally it is because the spell they used, by the rules, had no effect. It is up to the player to figure out why using their skills, or what have you. I try to be fair in such cases and consistent. Now this could I suppose, make a player think, what's the point? But it hasn't seemed to yet. Because as a DM I have built up my players trust to a degree where they figure I will make the right call.

So yes, the DM decides the outcomes. The DM has the final say. The DM is, during the course of the game, the ultimate authority and what he says happens, happens. If he messes up too badly, you get a new DM, but the new DM is going to have, if you are playing right, the exact same authority as the old DM. Its what they do with that authority that matters.

 

[Wicht]

In my games. DMs present challenges. Players decide actions. Dice decide outcomes.

That normally works, except when it doesn't. And even when the dice fall, it is up to the DM to arbitrate whether the roll was good enough or not.

 

[Wicht]

Of course they have a say, they play the antagonists. But they don't unilaterally decide, no more than you can retroactively decide that kings can move 3 squares at a time in chess.

The DM can most certainly retroactively decide or change mechanics he thinks need to be decided. What if I decide, as a DM, that on this particular piece of land, all fire based attacks do double damage. There's no rule for that, but I can make it happen if I think it should happen. Or perhaps during the witching hour of the night all stealth checks have +20 but the next day any that used this power have a -20 to stealth checks because of the wrath of the sun god. DMs can change any mechanic they feel is necessary to be changed for the moment in question. Again, as above, good DMs will use this power for the good of the game. Bad DMs will abuse it, but the authority is there and I would wager that even in 4e DMs have that authority if they want it.

You do see there's a whole spectrum between "The DM decides the outcome" and "The DM has no say"?

Sure, but in the context of Dungeons and Dragons, the DM does decide the outcome. The methods by which he makes that decision can change and most of us utilize the rules to determine the appropriate outcome and make sure player choice matters. But the DM has the final say in what happens, not the dice or the players.

And I would say this is on topic because it's the heart of the topic! Spellcasters and warriors are balanced if the DM uses a strong amount of adjudication, or as [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] said above, the "DM decides the outcome". I agree that strong use of DM force is a very common playstyle, and was pretty much canonical in the '90s (both AD&D 2e and Vampire/Mage et al had strong statements favoring this). But there's been a pretty strong design trend away from DM force and towards player empowerment over the last decade or so, and 4e embraced many of these new design elements. (The DMG2 most specifically embraces this style.)

Now, what does this have to do with 3e? 2e is explicitly pro-DM force, and 4e is explicitly pro-player empowerment. Where does 3e lie between those two extremes? I would say the evidence is pretty strong, based on what play styles work well and what do not, as well as where it falls on the time scale of development (a game developed in the late 90s, published in 2000), that 3e responds best to a lot of DM force. Casters are balanced when the DM drives the scenario so they are balanced.

If you play the game where the DM controls the game, not the player, then the game is balanced. If the players control the game, it may end up being unbalanced, but I would also postulate you are playing a slightly different game. Dungeons and Dragons has always been DM-centric. Again, the central dynamic of the game is the interaction between player choice and DM arbitration. Some might think it is between player choice and the rules, but they would be, in my opinion, wrong. The DM trumps the rules, always; and, in point of fact, that power is embedded into the rules.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In my games. DMs present challenges. Players decide actions. Dice decide outcomes.

Frankly that sounds naive to me. The DM decided when to roll the dice, and what modifiers were applicable, and what the DC was in most cases. The DM adjudicates and interprets the result of the roll.

Don't get me wrong; the dice serve an important function in adding an element of unpredictability, and it is generally true that none of the participants determine the outcome of the dice rolls. But the outcome of the dice roll is only one factor in determining the outcome of the action it's associated with, and the DM directly controls the other factors.