Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Wicht]

So you are saying that 3E/PF cannot do Gygaxian sandboxing? Because that is a playstyle in which the GM is not the final arbiter of events within the game.

You're understanding of Gygax's philosophy of play and my understanding are very different. I think Cadence demonstrates quite well from the DMG that Gygax believed that the DM was the final arbiter in the game Gygax designed.

Gygax believed that the closer one adhered to the framework of the game, the better the game would represent a true test of the player's skill, a philosophy I happen to agree with. Gygax also believed that there would be times the DM would need to go beyond the rules and that the DM had the authority and power to do so. I agree with that also.

As I posted earlier, and I don't think the quote or the thought therein is original to me: "A bad DM ignores the rules completely, a good DM uses the rules, and a Great DM knows when not to use the rules."

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't think that every DM plays this way, nor do I think that you've described a conflict of interest. (I think you're close, but not quite there. You've left out something very important.)

If anything, there's really three goals that are at odds. One, directly controlling and roleplaying antagonists, two, crowd-pleasing, creating a positive experience for the players, and three, being a neutral adjudicator of the game reality by adjudicating the rules. All of those are generally goals of DMing.

It is possible to abrogate those endeavors under certain circumstances. For example, it is possible to be purely antagonistic to the players and make no explicit effort to create enjoyment on their part (which can in itself be rewarding). It's possible to take a detached view of antagonists; to not roleplay them so much as to use them arbitrarily to create challenges, or to not create any true antagonists and to engage the players in other ways. It's possible to ignore any notion of in-game reality or consistent and logical rules and simply make decisions about what happens on a detached narrative level. All of these are explicit deviations from the full range of possible goals, but they happen.

And of course, while those are discrete goals, they won't always be in direct conflict. Only sometimes.

Trying to design a game where those aren't all potentially in conflict though, is pretty hard to imagine when you have an all-powerful DM.

 

[Hussar]

An antagonist is someone threating, or acting against the interest of the PCs. If the PCs want to antagonize the king, then I guess they can choose to act as if a protagonist was against them.

And if they choose to think the wolf eating their faces is a friend, then I can't help them.

But the DM is under no obligation to make a character friendly if he does not want to. He gets the final say in who is actually acting against the PCs, regardless of their perception.

That's not entirely true though. The Diplomacy rules in 3e, for one, would seem to say thjat the players can certainly make a character friendly. Of course, since we're talking about casters, the casters have a boat load of additional options for making a character friendly.

All of which obligate the DM into making a character friendly. Unless, again, you subscribe to the school of "screw the caster" which means that every charm becomes a Monkey's Paw and the players simply give it up as a bad job.

 

[Wicht]

Trying to design a game where those aren't all potentially in conflict though, is pretty hard to imagine when you have an all-powerful DM.

Bwah-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Haa!



sorry, not sure where that came from

 

[Hussar]

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.

I generally find it works best when the rules arbitrate whether the roll was good enough or not. I do not enjoy Calvinball.

 

[Wicht]

That's not entirely true though. The Diplomacy rules in 3e, for one, would seem to say thjat the players can certainly make a character friendly. Of course, since we're talking about casters, the casters have a boat load of additional options for making a character friendly.

All of which obligate the DM into making a character friendly. Unless, again, you subscribe to the school of "screw the caster" which means that every charm becomes a Monkey's Paw and the players simply give it up as a bad job.

Leaving DM vs. Rules powerplay arguments aside, there is some middle ground there no? And even the rules, as written, talk about factors that might mitigate Diplomacy use, or affect spells and their effectiveness. One does not have to be overtly hostile to the players, regardless of class, to rule against them. Not every effort to make friends and win over enemies will always be effective, nor should they be, imo. Just because the players want a thing to happen a certain way should not be a guarantee that they happen that way.

 

[Wicht]

I generally find it works best when the rules arbitrate whether the roll was good enough or not. I do not enjoy Calvinball.

Should the players always be privy to all the rules that might be in play at any given time?

The player might think the roll was good enough, but the DM must arbitrate whether it actually was or not. Most of the time, granted, according to the rules.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I generally find it works best when the rules arbitrate whether the roll was good enough or not. I do not enjoy Calvinball.

With regards to Diplomacy, even the rules make it clear that the DM determines the initial attitude of the creature, the time it takes to make a check, and the creature's actual behavior.

Moreover, the DM also determines whether a creature is willing to even sit around for however long the Diplomacy check takes, and can apply any modifiers to the check and the DC he likes, and determines when a Diplomacy check is called for in the first place (as opposed to another skill, an untrained check, or no check at all).

And, on an even more distant level, the DM determined how the character was created and had direct control over several parameters (level, ability score generation method, treasure allocation, etc.) that influenced the character's Diplomacy modifier, and determined where the character was, and created the NPC in question and determined what the NPC was doing and that he was accessible to the player, and determined what actions the NPC could perform if he had a certain attitude, as well as what actions he will perform given that attitude.

It's not like a player can just pick up a d20 and say "I Diplo a king...ooh a 50, he's friendly now and will do whatever I want. I rule the kingdom!"

Even by a very literal reading, I don't see how the rules arbitrate anything. They simply provide a framework for the DM to arbitrate it. And there's nothing wrong with modifying or deviating from that framework as well.

And, as has been covered elsewhere, if you don't enjoy Calvinball, any game that has a DM or DM-like role is probably not going to work for you.

 

[Hussar]

I think the ref is the better analogy. Note that this was in response to the statement that:



I submit that, if the umpire is inept, then the game of baseball will not work properly. I believe your statement matches my own - the problem is the ref, not the rules. That is, the game design does not fail when the DM is inept - the DM fails.

EIT: Of course, I posted this before reading ahnehnois' response, which mirrors my comments above.

So, again, we're back to, "It's not the rules, it's YOU". Really? That's the direction you want to take this?

Me, I'd chalk things up far more to the following:

1. DM's ending campaigns in the low double digit levels and rarely, if ever, proceeding past about 13th level.

2. Players who, because of the high degree of DM force in effect, have self moderated their own characters to reflect the fact that any attempt to rise up will be cut off at the knees.

3. A complete inability to recognize either 1 or 2 as the primary reasons why these issues don't happen in a given DM's game.

 

[Hussar]

Leaving DM vs. Rules powerplay arguments aside, there is some middle ground there no? And even the rules, as written, talk about factors that might mitigate Diplomacy use, or affect spells and their effectiveness. One does not have to be overtly hostile to the players, regardless of class, to rule against them. Not every effort to make friends and win over enemies will always be effective, nor should they be, imo. Just because the players want a thing to happen a certain way should not be a guarantee that they happen that way.

And, right here, this is what people are talking about with DM force.

The mechanics are pretty clear. If the player rolls high enough, the character's attitude is changed and will outright become helpful.

But, force DM's will simply interpret "helpful" in such a way that it pretty much leaves the NPC's actions unchanged and unchangeable. The DM will, while possibly adhering to the letter of the rules, simply adjudicate in such a way to negate any possibility of success. All the while justifying his or her actions by appealing to some notion of "this is the way the world is" and "this is what a DM is supposed to do".

Should the players always be privy to all the rules that might be in play at any given time?

The player might think the roll was good enough, but the DM must arbitrate whether it actually was or not. Most of the time, granted, according to the rules.

Yes, absolutely. There is never any good reason to hide rules from the players. The only reason to hide rule information from the players is because the DM doesn't trust the players and that's a dysfunctional table. If the only way the DM can get what he wants is by hiding rules, the game has already failed to be a game I want to play in.