Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Ahnehnois]

No one said I had to succeed. What I said was, "I use diplomacy on the chamberlain to see the king" to which the DM replied, "The chamberlain sticks his fingers in his ears and cries 'La la la I can't hear you".

And what about a more realistic example, wherein the player says that and the DM says "no" through some concrete rationale? The king is not receiving visitors right now. There is a standing policy not to receive anyone of the PC's race regardless of circumstance. The king is out of town. Etc., etc. Whatever NPC the player meets might become friendly, but might simply ignore a request that can't be granted.

What if it's a hostile kingdom, and they simply attack without speaking? They might not be saying "la la la", but a charging orc is unlikely to be listening.

Keeping in mind that these are all pretty middle-of-the road scenarios. Getting to negotiate with anyone is a privilege, not a right!

But, rolling this back to the original point of this thread, casters vs non-casters, it's extremely telling that the diplomacy skill (the only way a non-caster can mechanically affect the reactions of an NPC) get's hosed, while, a simple 1st level wizard spell (Charm Person) would get me exactly what I want without any fuss.

Barring the will save and the in-game implications of casting an enchantment on someone that is most likely illegal and will often cause any non-charmed person in the area to attack you, this seems reasonable.

This is why I talk about the disparity in power. The non-casters are at the whim of DM's who feel entitled to change the rules whenever they feel like it, while the casters can generally know that the spells they cast will be ruled upon in a fair manner.

Seems to me like we should take those spells down a notch, eh?

Or, do you simply Auto-save the Chamberlain to protect your scenario. After all, you've auto-failed the fighter for trying diplomacy, so, it should be the same thing no?

Perhaps not that, but clearly, someone who is a king in a world with D&D characters in it has better defenses than to let his designee be taken over by the whim of a low-level spellcaster. There are plenty of perfectly legitimate and rational tactics to prevent the player from abusing the rules in that way.

 

[Manbearcat]

Such is the nature of open discussion, I guess; particularly of that on the internet. In defense of the last few pages, I've found interesting ideas and challenges presented, though I don't think all of them reflect what I understand to be the core of the matter either. I could be wrong here, but I reckon that a large part of this latter discussion is about trying to work out this DM force business; its definition and scope don't at all feel resolved for me. Is DM force a dirty word? a provincial gaming technique? necessary? Are we all, in fact, using it whether we think we are or not? Is it used to dominate players, or a necessary tool to arbitrate reality?

There is an explicit definition (upthread in a few places). I just wrote some examples of what it is not. Let me break out your specific questions:

Is DM force a dirty word? a provincial gaming technique?

That depends on your frame of reference and/or current table agenda. For some game systems (AD&D 2e, Vampire, CoC) it is literally an expectation. For other table agendas (particularly hardcore Gamist and Narrative agendas; here fidelity to resolution mechanics are paramount) and systems, it is anathema.

[/QUOTE]necessary?[/quote]

In the systems I outlined above, it is generally expected. It becomes more necessary the more opaque the rule system or the more incoherent the conflict resolution archetecture(s) is. It becomes more necessary if you have players that just want/need to be "along for the ride" and they expect to just add some color to the GM's story. It becomes more necessary as spotlight sharing becomes less an emergent property of fidelity to the synthesis of the GM-framed scenes, the PC build schemes/deployable resources and conflict resolution mechanics...and more an emergent property of GM RE-framing scenes as required to assure niche-protection and to indulge other classes their requisite spotlight time. It becomes more necessary as climax, tension, and pacing are wildly swingy within the game system and/or one class/player has the ability to disproportionately (including the GM as a player here) stipulate/short-circuit these (very relevant) moving parts so as to sow discord for the table; discord meaning the overall table experiences suffers due to that class/player's singular control over those elements.

Are we all, in fact, using it whether we think we are or not?

Negative. We are not all using it whether we think we are or not. I'm very aware of what it is and I know its implications on play, the systems that expect/mandate it and I know when I leverage it. If I run CoC, I am GM-forcing my way through the few hour one-offs that we play it. My players know it, I know it. They're good little investigators uncovering the Lovecraftian horrors of a descent into madness (of which I have composed). Its all force. All the time. When I'm running Dungeon World, D&D 4e, Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, D&D 1e Dungeon Crawls, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Game, (soon to be) 13th Age, Fate, there will be no GM-force. When I ran 3.x for 9 years, there was no force. When I ran (a lot of) AD&D 2e, it was via heavy use of GM-force.

Is it used to dominate players

Are you referencing motive? If so, then no. Its deployed for the reasons I noted above. I've seen the word "capricious" thrown around. I don't think its "capricious" (it wasn't when I made use of it in AD&D 2e and isn't when I currently do in CoC) per se, but I can certainly empathize with a player on the other side of it whose expectations are that it is their right to engage the resolution mechanics and impose upon the fiction by leveraging their PC build choices...and then the GM vetoes the player's primary means of authoring the fiction.

or a necessary tool to arbitrate reality?

This, presumably, is genre establishment and/or table agenda establishment. It is not a GM-force element. This is social contract element. If the game is a heavy process-sim game, then their should be rules to arbitrate outcomes. Naturally, those task resolution rules will drown out the possibility of scenarios whereby players are aiming for "action movie physics" or "Greek Myth physics." What's more, for a coherent table, the buy-in has to be consistent and well understood. If, however, you're trying to play gritty, low-fantasy, process-sim with a ruleset that isn't built for process-simulation and adjudication by granular causal logic/real-world physics...then you may be in for a bit of disjointedness at the table. There you will really need buy-in and good communication because if your Monks can pull off some crazy free-running stuff or crazy, spider-climbing stuff (that is seen aplenty in our own, very mundane world) while your Swashbuckling Rogues have their "tightrope walk sword duels" GM-vetoed (especially if the PC build and resolution mechanics allow for this), then expect backlash and a need to recalibrate (either system or genre expectations).

 

[Campbell]

Speaking as Player: Personally for me it's not about taking the good with the bad. A GM who manipulates settings, and makes rulings to personally benefit my PC is doing me a disservice. It has just as much of adverse effect on player agency. Once the scene is framed I want my success or failure to be dependent on the informed decisions I make, the resources I have available (both fictional and meta game if applicable), and the action resolution mechanics. If an outcome is unacceptable it should not be possible within the rules of the game.

As a GM wherever possible I try to telegraph where players might have difficulties readily. The chamberlain's first sign of rude behavior should not happen after the PC approaches him and tries to parlay. If I'm doing it right he should know that the chamberlain might not respond well to social niceties. You could open the scene with the chamberlain complaining to one of his assistants about receiving too many requests for an audience from individuals of a lower station. He might just appear dour and taciturn. He might be yelling at his assistants, etc. If the PC in question has some ranks in Knowledge (Nobility) let him know what the appropriate protocol is for requesting an audience.

I also try to avoid no win scenarios. The chamberlain might not provide an audience with the king, but perhaps with enough guile he might dismissively point them to some nobles who would be willing to speak with them. Perhaps the assassin's guild the shady member of the party belongs to has done some work with the king, and could apply leverage to arrange an unofficial meet and greet at some personal cost to the PC.

I personally believe that it's important to provide information that allows players to navigate situations on an informed basis. It's critically important to provide the necessary cues before their budding socialite makes a scene in court. It becomes a conflict to engage, rather than an arbitrary failure. My role is a GM is not to decide the outcome of any scene. It's to work with the players to establish what's at stake, provide a challenge, and leave room for them to make choices.

By the way I don't think that the 3e or Pathfinder rules are poor rules. They fail to be very resilient when exposed to my play style because they require more force than I am willing to deal with on either side of the screen. They also do not do an adequate job of outlining their dependencies. My main issue is that they are not transparent in their play objectives and dependencies. I have the same issues with Old World of Darkness games - they lead players to believe they're playing one game while the GM runs the real game.

I believe if you want to market the game as an entry level game supporting a variety of play styles it should do so with very little heavy lifting on the part of the play group. If that's not your goal have the balls to say so.

The preceding was entirely my opinion and reflects my play style and nobody else's. Pemerton, manbearcat, and others have play styles which share certain features with my own. They are not exactly the same. I feel it's important to mention that because individual distinctions often get lost in these types of conversations.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

Given that the 3.x system discusses how there should be arbitration of what a character has and when a he or she has it, but wealth-by-level says you have the resources at Xth Character level, to purchase a wand of some particular spell with x charges in it, which is more correct? Who decides? Is it using force to do so?

 

[Cadence]

Recapping the definition...

The notion of "GM force" was introduced into this discussion by me, @Manbearcat , @Twosix and @Campbell . By "GM force" we mean what @Manbearcat has described about half-a-dozen posts upthread, namely, the imposition of the GM's will onto the fiction in disregard of the outcome of the action resolution mechanics.

A few pages back I asked:

So, (i) is it inconceivable that you would ever write a bad combat encounter, or (ii) would you let half the party die, or (iii) do you reserve the right to alter your pre-written encounter but have never needed to?

That generated...

I always pick (ii), because I let the players choose the combat encounters, which is nice because I don't have this massive responsibility to make sure everything runs smoothly. What I can screw up is the amount of information the players have - either through poor setting design on my part (whoops, that dragon should have left some signs of its presence/I forgot to mention the acid-melted trees & ogre bones) or miscommunication.
<snip-jump-to-next-post>
Normally, before presenting the dragon, I'd say something like "Hang on guys, I forgot to mention: [blah blah blah]. Do you still want to go through with your action?" If I really screwed up I'd ret-con things, though that's a last resort. Still, you do what you gotta do to maintain player agency.

On (ii) and (iii) together. (i) plays into this. I want the math/encounter budgeting to be tight so (ii/iii) never sees the light of day. In terms of real play, as you can see above, I let the party die even if its due to my incompetence (which it has been before as above). I couldn't fudge things if I wanted to (which I don't and I won't). My table has a very severe "gamist" bent to it. My players want to overcome challenges and they want the legitimacy of their strategy/tactics/deployed resources/synergy to be actualized for better or for ill. The numbers and dice are out in the open.

My game is not as focused on the playes overcoming challenges as LostSoul's is, so I'd be less likely to implement (ii) as you've written it. The ony time my 4e game had a "TPK", I gave the players the option of choosing whether or not their PC died. One chose that - he wanted to bring in a different character - but the others wanted to keep playing the same characters, so in the next session they regained consciousness locked in a gobin prison cell (the TPK had been at the hands of supernatural forces summoned by the goblin hexer).
<snip>
When an encounter is actually taking place, I might introduce additional forces and complications, or not, depending on how things are unfolding both mechanics and story-wise. But that is not "being final aribter of events and outcomes". It's injecting more fictional material for the players to engage.

Thank's for the detailed replies!

Thinking about it, one of the first big campaigns I played in seemed to follow (ii) when needed like @LostSoul; and @Manbearcat; discuss... it also had a massive death rate (1/4 of the party every night?) that was part of its charm and must color my views to at least some extent. There are some I've run that didn't stretch things to save the party, and it became clear to them early on that player death was not being avoided when it came up naturally (and, given that we didn't have the tight 4e encounter building, it certainly did come up).

For some others I've played in, I'm not sure if the DM was using Forcing or not. In many of the games that involved detailed character creation that impacted the campaign design and/or those where the characters had survived quite a while, I think the death rates were certainly lower than would be expected for games (1e, 2e, 3/3.5) that don't have the tight encounter budgeting of 4e.

I need to think more about @pemerton;'s response (quoted above), the additional points in #516 and #527, and read @Manbearcat;'s encounter example from earlier in this thread.

I'm thinking that when I have more time to mull it over it might be easiest to start another thread to explore them in detail. In particular I'm interested in thinking about a taxonomy of encounter running styles and just hearing what other people use and what divisions they think there are and what their implications are to players with various preferences (and not about what the rules allow or what the one-true-way is). GM forcing would be just one part of this.

For example, say we start making a Venn diagram beginning with a circle for those who write-up the encounter, and once it is written up run it through entirely according to the rules and obtained dice rolls with no modification and without resorting to any possibly-RAW-sanctioned-fudging. (This seems to be where @LostSoul; and @Manbearcat; are -- please correct me if I'm wrong).

@pemerton;'s game seems like it would fall outside this circle - death might be adjudicated into something else in spite of how the dice came up (in consultation with the players) and additional forces and complications can be added to modify the in progress encounter.

Most of the games I run would certainly fall outside that circle to varying degrees - in some games I might have ad-hoc reinforcements come in, decide an enemy NPC has an extra spell slot or potion mid-combat, adjust the hit points of the foes on the fly (up or down), reduce the rolled damage caused to a PC near death, and/or fudge a die roll if luck is making it seem like it isn't working. I also certainly don't usually have a list of required skill-check values for most things set-up in advance.

It seems like some of these aren't that far out of @pemerton;'s play style while others of them have crossed several lines (and certainly meet the definition of Forcing). I don't think I mind using most of these on rare occasions... but I'm afraid my lack of preparation time is giving me an excuse to use them far too often and that the players have an inkling once in awhile that I'm taking too much of their agency (although they haven't complained).

The setting of skill-roll-difficulties and determination of what skill rolls are possible feels to me like it falls into that somewhere. Also, the interaction of the chosen style with the general lethality/non-lethality of the game and amount of work sunk into character creation could be interesting as well.

In any case thinking about where the lines are and what the ramifications of crossing each one are seem's like something I should do more as a DM.

If someone else wants to culling out the relevant parts of the previous 564 posts and beat me to starting another thread... I certainly won't complain!

 

[Manbearcat]

Uh, what? What does it matter when this happens?

I wish I could puzzle this out and respond but I have no idea what you mean by this. No idea.

So, completely ignoring the rules?

I'll need a citation and/or clarification. The entirety of the game is about GM framing conflict-charged action scenes (or benign transition scenes), players and GMs playing out conflicts inherent to those action scenes and either the players or GM transitioning scenes. Describing the tavern, scenery, goings-on in the games opener...framing the "next morning in camp" scene...the big fight with the warlock who has just summoned a demon scene...transitioning through non-conflict during travel from one town to the mean streets of a big city where conflict is residing...the bandits on horseback galloping in on the caravan half way through the trek...this is all standard play. So again, I have no idea what you're short sentence is attempting to get at here. No idea.

What about circumventing them when there is something at stake? And who decides what the stakes are?

If you're saying "no" without consulting the resolution mechanics and disallowing the player their ability to impose upon the fiction by way of their built PC, then yes...that is GM-force by definition. If you're saying "yes" then typically it would not be GM-force...but you're typically not circumventing them and saying yes (eg Transitioning the scene) if there is something at stake. That is sort of the point of play. Something at stake > play out the conflict > find out what happens. Stakes are the an amalgamation of several things:

- Implicit player cues to GM by way of their thematic build choices.
- Overt player cues to GM by way of their explicit pleas; in character, out of character, or by way of certain system tools; eg player-devised Quests, Milestones, Tags, Beliefs/Instincts, etc.
- Emergent backstory in play or player-devised backstory.
- Players imposing upon the fiction by way of their characters in play and making specific, thematic decisions, and resolving conflicts.
- The evolution of the narrative with respect to the synthesis of all of these things.


Just fyi, while reluctant, I've spent time, given you this bit of sincerity and thoughtfulness in responding. You're not going to get another response so bear that in mind.

 

[Campbell]

Uh, what? What does it matter when this happens?

It matters a great deal to me. Character creation and actual play (AP) are completely different processes and have different requirements.

Character and campaign creation are about setting the scope of play. Nothing has been defined before they begin. They are by definition constraining activities meant to ensure that AP bears fruit. Any player (including the GM) who seeks to use them to expand the scope outside the interests of the rest of the group is doing a disservice to the group.

Personally, I tend to not exercise much authority here other than as a mediator when there is conflict among players. When I feel like wearing the GM hat I present a pitch for a campaign, then I discuss it with the group, and we revise it together until all players are happy with the results. Then we usually do group character creation with sufficient buy in. Players introduce their concepts, weave connections with the setting and each other, and work out conflicts. The goal is create a sense of game ownership for the whole group. When you share authority you also share responsibility. Multiple necks for the noose and all that.

Actual play is different though. It is necessary to know what your resources are capable of so you can utilize them effectively. Uninformed decisions are not decisions at all. As a player if I can't depend established back story, fictional resources, and task resolution then all the choices made in character creation are meaningless to me. If I can't depend on reasonable knowledge of the shared fictional space I can't position myself within it. As a GM if I'm manipulating events it's hard to be surprised by the events of play - which is most of the fun for me. This is where GM Force sits.

The primary component of my play style is focused on the here and now. The play really is the thing. Character creation is just the springboard. It's true that unsatisfactory character/campaign creation will have a detrimental effect on AP, but not nearly as much effect as feeling like my decisions in play don't effect the outcome.

Other people may feel differently, but they are not me (or my players). It is not my claim that my preferences are universal.

 

[Hussar]

And what if he changes the rules for some other reason? There are lots of reasons.

To me, it's far worse if the plan the DM has creates a bad game experience and he does nothing to change it, however arbitrary that might be.

But, that's shifting the goalposts here. The presumption has been that the player has proactively tried to see the king, and the DM is blocking it by manipulating the rules.

To be fair, as this thread has hammered into the ground, the rules explicitly state that they don't apply to the DM.

Kinda, sorta. The rules do explicitly state that the DM has the authority to change the rules. But, what is left out of that statement is the concept of "when appropriate". Which will vary from table to table. Like the sig says, the DM's authority is not vested in him by the rules, but by the players at the table.

That seems a very jaded view to me. More typically, a DM will manipulate the game in order to facilitate rather than negate player actions. And if you're going to take the good, you have to take the bad.

Why? Why should I take any bad? If it's bad, why is the DM doing it? And, to be honest, I don't want the DM manipulating the game in play that way either. If I didn't earn the success through my own efforts, I certainly don't want the DM handing it to me.

***

I do get the impetus to want to use the rules as a strict world simulator and have them enforced rigorously and consistently. That's a very difficult approach to actually play with, and a very hard line approach, but I get it. I don't do it anymore (for D&D, anyway) because I don't think it's worth the effort.

Umm, this has nothing to do with Rules As Physics. Absolutely nothing. I have no interest in games with world simulator rules, that's why I don't play GURPS. And largely why I dropped 3e as well. A rule for everything is not my idea of an ideal game.

However, I do take a very hard line that the rules of the game be adhered to during play. I loathe Mother May I gaming and refuse to play it anymore. If the rules say I fail, then I fail. If I succeed, then I succeed. We agreed to play this game before play started and that's the game I want to play.

Generally, that's why I prefer rules lighter games to rules heavy. Rules lighter games have fewer rules that cover more situations, making this sort of issue go away. Note, rules light does not mean rules absent.

 

[Hussar]

Although the rules provide a legitimate avenue for this to occur, given the situation you describe, the rulebooks, and various other sources advise against it. And noone is advocating this at all.

To be honest, it can be a legitimate technique. If your players are absorbed in the story and are happy with your gaming style and you adhere to a rule that will ruin it, that might be a little silly.

Conversely, if you are changing rules that will frustrate your players to preserve a plot they aren't that invested in, thats probably a bad idea. If you are doing it antagonistically to one-up your players, well, its simply not going to work for very long.

Here's the thing. Given that its been made clear many times that noone here is advocating the former, can we get past this?

The point you're missing though is that failure to adhere to the rules spoils the game for some of us. Breaking the rules for "story" reasons is almost always a bad idea for some of us. For some of us, the only reason a DM will do this is to preserve plot points and we simply aren't interested in that level of GM force.

So, yes, you are advocating the former, because ANY failure to adhere to the resolution mechanics in favor of ANY plot point is ALWAYS antagonistic to the players, no matter how well intentioned. In my view. For my playstyle.

 

[Hussar]

Such is the nature of open discussion, I guess; particularly of that on the internet. In defense of the last few pages, I've found interesting ideas and challenges presented, though I don't think all of them reflect what I understand to be the core of the matter either. I could be wrong here, but I reckon that a large part of this latter discussion is about trying to work out this DM force business; its definition and scope don't at all feel resolved for me. Is DM force a dirty word? a provincial gaming technique? necessary? Are we all, in fact, using it whether we think we are or not? Is it used to dominate players, or a necessary tool to arbitrate reality?

Is DM Force a dirty word? No, of course not. It's a perfectly valid, even enjoyable technique that works for a certain playstyle. It is used to dominate players (or rather to force certain actions upon the players) but that doesn't make it a bad thing at all. And, it can be a necessary tool in some groups.

Which is why we're having such a difficult time with this. People are looking at GM Force and thinking that it's a negative thing. It's not. Of course it's not. Heck, the fact that it's advocated in various levels in most versions of D&D shows that it's a pretty common technique.

However, for those of us who don't employ it, it's not a terribly useful technique for controlling LFQW. Telling us to simply use GM force to bring casters in line with non-casters leaves a very bad taste in the mouth because it's not a technique our tables enjoy. In other words, it's not terribly useful advice for our groups.