Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Wicht]

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.

I just tell mine that the beatings will continue until morale improves and that seems to bring them around.

That and the rack in the corner as a subtle reminder of what happened last time there was real trouble.

 

[Wicht]

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.

I see, so in your game it goes something like this: "You miss. But that's because the creature you are attacking is not really there. It is merely an illusion created to fool your character. Now, your character still does not know this, but that's what's really going on. The spell being used has a hundred foot range, which means the caster is somewhere in the room. Actually, while your character does not know this,in the interest of absolute fairness, I will share that its standing over in this spot here. The AC is 27, but unless you use a mithral weapon there will be 5 DR, but for your character to know all that, you will have to succeed at some skill checks."

See, in my game, it goes this way: "You swing with great skill, but the creature blocks with unnatural speed." And then I roll to see if they disbelieve the illusion, or some such.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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.

Never? Really?
[MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION]
No 1e DMG here, sorry.

 

[Cadence]

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.

I knew I should have brought my 1e DMG with me today. Does anyone recall what Gygax's justification for emphatically being against the players having access to the DMG? (It always seemed kind of odd to me since we rotated through DMing and so all had our own copy. I can see cases where its annoying where the DM makes a ruling and half of the players fly to the DMG mid-game to find a quote backing up their disagreement with it.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

I just tell mine that the beatings will continue until morale improves and that seems to bring them around.

That and the rack in the corner as a subtle reminder of what happened last time there was real trouble.

+1 on that.

 

[Hussar]

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).

Umm, you realize, that reading the rules, very little of that is true. First, a player can certainly choose to use diplomacy whenever he or she wishes. Secondly, the player can choose the time by either using the DM's time choice, or a doing a rushed diplo check at -10 and doing it in 6 seconds, third, outside of the "DM's friend of +2 to the DC", the DC's are actually not subject to the DM, they are pretty clearly stated in the rules.

But, right here, again, we are seeing a perfect example of DM force being applied. Thank you for presenting such a textbook example.

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.

Again, this is all textbook examples of DM force.

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, I'd agree. Nonsensical results probably aren't a good idea. Then again, if the player was actually capable of epic levels of diplomacy (a 50+ check is an epic level check), then he actually COULD do exactly what you say he can't - namely walk in a take over the kingdom. See Epic Skills for more information. If the king was already well disposed towards our PC's, that Diplo check could make him a fanatical level follower.

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.

Not quite. If I don't enjoy Calvinball, then playing with DM's who feel that DM force is the best way to play is probably not going to work for me. OTOH, playing with DM's who are much closer to simple referees works fantastically.

 

[Hussar]

Never? Really?

[MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION]
No 1e DMG here, sorry.

Yes, really.

I play 100% in the open. No DM's screen. All die rolls 100% in the open. Heck, many of the times, the monster stats are in the open as well. Sorry, don't feel the need to play, "Hide the rule" with my players. Maybe it's because my players generally know the rules better than I do anyway, so why bother.

Heck, most of the time, I ask them what happens when I do something.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

Good post. I think that goal #2 is the big determinant. For instance, I try to "stay true" to the NPCs I create, who may or may not be antagonists (depending on how the players choose to interact with them), and I try to remain an impartial arbiter of the game world (by making lots of random rolls and keeping a dedicated timeline of events). I think this gives the players a lot of agency in the game, and that agency is what pleases the crowd; it happens naturally just by following the other two goals/guidelines.

Of course, this depends on the players and their reasons for wanting to play the game. Change the player's goals and you'll start to see conflicts of interest. That's why I don't think the DM must face a conflict of interest: I think you need to combine the DM's duties + player's reasons for playing the game + specific methods of DMing to get a conflict of interest. The nice part is that, once you figure out where the conflict of interest is coming from, you can address it and resolve it.

 

[Wicht]

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".

I am unclear. If a DM abides by the letter of the rules in such a way as to arbitrate against the players, then that's DM force? So anytime the rules are against the players, the rules should be discarded, but anytime the rules are against the wishes of the DM, the DM must give in? That seems to be what you are saying. I am not sure though, that this is what you actually mean...

Since we are on Diplomacy, let me agree the rules are pretty clear. They say:

"You can change the initial attitude of nonplayer characters with a successful check. The DC of this check depends on the creature's starting attitude toward you, adjusted by its charisma modifier. If you succeed, the character's attitude toward you is improved by one step. For every 5 by which your check result exceeds the DC, the character's attitude toward you increases by one additional step. A creature's attitude cannot be shifted more than two steps up in this way, although the GM can override this rule in some situations." - Pathfinder Core, Diplomacy, pg 93.

Let us notice, as already pointed out above, that the starting attitude is a matter of DM arbitration. Moreover, if a creature is hostile, the use of Diplomacy never makes a creature friendly, unless the GM specifically chooses to override the rule. The rules as written more or less states that Diplomacy, as a skill, is subject to DM arbitration from beginning to end.

A little later, next page, we read, "Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM Discretion)." Note, that I did not add GM Discretion, it is in the rules. And it is repeated in the next paragraph, "Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion." Then the next paragraph, "The GM might rule that some topics are simply unknown to common folk."

The rules could not be more clear about Diplomacy: The DM is in charge of arbitrating its use.

Now, when players give the DM this sort of control, there is the issue of trust. The players must trust the DM. Its a big job (relatively speaking, it is, after all just a game), he needs to take that responsibility seriously. When one of my boys was practicing DMing so he could run games at a Con, one of the things I got onto him about was making arbitrary decisions just because he could and he thought the players were getting by too easy. He was abusing the power and needed to cut it out or it would not have been fun for the players. The authority to do a thing does not mean you should always do a thing, and, as Gygax noted in the AD&D DMG, as Cadence shared a few pages back, "Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon yourself the ultimate power. To become the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot be undertaken lightly , for your players expect to play this game, not one made up on the spot."

 

[TwoSix]

Maybe we can move on to a bigger question than "Your playstyle is wrong." vs "No, my playstyle is right!"?

It's pretty obvious that 3e works fine with a healthy dollop of DM force (or whatever term you want to use for [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] et al's style of play). It's also fairly obvious that 3e does not respond well to RAW based player protagonist play (as espoused by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]). Is it possible to play 3.X games in a manner that does support player protagonist play, without spellcasters breaking the game too easily?

I can't think of one overarching rule change that would support it. I have a strong belief that an E6 game would support it. I believe a Tier limited game would support it as well (using only Tier 3 classes, or only Tier 4 classes). Despite Ahnehnois's strenuous objections, I think using Tome of Battle for warrior types and thematic casters such as the Beguiler and Warmage would also work (and sounds quite fun to me!)