Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Ahnehnois]

In a lot of games, mine included, saying you want to use Diplomacy on someone is met with crickets...I mean, ok, so...WHAT do you SAY to the Chamberlain? That line of dialog will lead to the same mechanic, but if its completely silly, the reaction should be adjusted.

For a player to simply say "I use my Diplomacy to convince the warden to help me" is roughly equivalent to a player saying "I use my hit points to survive this battle".

 

[Hussar]

I always looked at D&D magic as being rather like Star Trek technology. It seems like it would solve every problem, so to have any kind of story you have to think beyond the basics and imagine what would and could happen if this stuff were real.

If you look at Star Trek, virtually every single problem IS resolved with technology.

No. I'm going to represent the world in a rational way, and the players will behave rationally. No manipulation needed.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...s-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page60#ixzz2gxLKHF1T

Rational to who? To you as the DM? To the group as a whole? I've got a pretty strong feeling that it's the former much more than the latter since any disagreement by the players slams into the wall of Rule 0 and DM's Authority.

So, it's "rational" that my diplomacy using character, who is actually capable of epic levels of diplomacy, will have his options blocked by fiat because the DM decides that it is so? To me, that's not rational, that's Mother May I. Can I do this? Well, I don't know. And I can't know because the DM hasn't asked me for a check, so, I cannot actually do whatever it is that I want to do because the DM will not allow me to engage the task resolution mechanics.

If it works, there will probably be negative, natural consequences down the line.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...s-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page60#ixzz2gxMB4J9n

Why? Why is that "probably"? The player has used bog standard abilities of his character but, because he's done something the DM doesn't like, he gets slapped with the DM Stick of Authority? I mean, he succeeded. He tried to do something and it worked. But, because the DM has already decided, "No, you Shalt NOT DO THAT", the player's simply going to get punished down the line.

So, of course your players don't try things like this. Of course you don't have issues with the disparity in power levels. You've changed the game to the point where the players know that any choice they make will be negated unless pre-approved by the DM. Do something the DM doesn't approve of? Well, guess what, you're going to get slapped down.

What baffles me to no end is why players put up with this. This heavy handed, railroady, overbearing style that just punishes any creativity and forces players to conform to an incredibly narrow interpretation of the game. It was precisely this sort of thing that made me start DMing in the first place. I was so sick and tired of DM's c-blocking the players at every turn.

Good grief, if I wanted to play an RPG with these kinds of limitations, I'd stick to Baldur's Gate.

 

[N'raac]

OK to distill some of the posts since my last comment, it appears we wish to restrict the term “GM Force” to the GM altering or overriding the game mechanics in the course of play. So banning certain spells, or stating up front “Diplomacy works like this in my games” is OK. I’m still unclear when the GM can make such changes without it being GM force – eg. is “That works” while in play, with an email after the session saying “I am changing that spell”, use of GM force, or is it OK to ban/alter a rule after the game has started?

It also seems agreed it is not GM force to implement a table consensus. So if three players say “Yes, Teleport should take a full turn to cast”, and one player says “No, I want my standard action Teleport, I am again curious which is GM Force:

1. The GM agreeing with the three players, with whom he agrees, that Teleport will be modified.

1. The GM disagreeing with the three players, but acquiescing to the modification because the vote is 3 against 1, player votes only.

1. The GM disagreeing with the three players, but acquiescing to the modification because the vote is 3 against 2, player and GM vote.

1. The GM refusing to allow the change, whether or not he agrees with it, because 1 player disagrees. That is, GM Veto is forbidden, but Player Veto is mandatory.

Let us assume there is not explicit or even implicit social contract governing how such issues are to be resolved – in the past, there has never been an issue not resolved by 100% group consensus.

Added from below: In my games, it is rare for any GM to rule unilaterally that a rule is changed. It is typically by consensus. When it is not, it is because a group discussion has lead to no consensus other than “Each GM will have to make his own call on this”. If, by group consensus, GM force is granted to the GM on a specific issue, is it still “GM Force”, or has it become “group consensus”?

I don't think it's fair to describe what @N'raac suggested (the ear-plugging chamberlain) as "arbitrary". Presumably N'raac has a reason - something like "for the good of the story". It's just that it's a reason that Hussar doesn't agree with.

In fairness, it is an extreme example, probably in response to a player extreme. Let us assume, instead, that the Chamberlain simply refuses to listen to the PC for the one minute required for diplomacy. He dismisses them. If they don’t leave, he walks away. If they follow, the castle guards block their path and/or he tells them to remove them from his presence. To me, the Chamberlain is refusing to allow their attempt at diplomacy, quite with the rules, by not allowing that full minute to exercise the skill.

BTW, I agree with your “the moat returns you to shore” example – unless there is something in game that causes this (there are water elementals in the moat who push swimmers back to shore, for example). You discussed the adding of additional challenges – is the addition of the water elementals a legitimate additional challenge? If not, why not? The wargame would say no, assuming they were a spur of the moment GM addition.

I wasn't - I was suggesting that there is a difference between telling a player when s/he builds a PC "You know that I don't use the PHB Diplomacy rules in my game", and vetoing or overriding a Diplomacy check in the course of actual play.

But there is also a difference between (a), (b) and (c) above, yes. The first is a veto. The second - at least as I would utter it at my table - is a statement of the game mechanical possibilities (and it encourages the player to look for a bonus, eg by offering the chamberlain a bribe). The third strikes me as deceit, and I tend not to prefer that in GMing.

Why are you assuming the third is the GM lying? When I typed it, I envisioned that possibility (I won’t lie in that regard), but just as much the approach that the GM permitted the player to make the roll (his PC has no way to know success is impossible), and advised him of the result. I probably should have split (c) into both possibilities. May we assume, going forward, that the Chamberlain has always been immune to diplomacy attempts the PC is capable of, for whatever magical (perhaps he is Dominated by another) or mundane reason (perhaps he has been persuaded by an excellent diplomacy check by someone better at it than the PC, and the required opposed roll is 3 higher than the PC gets when he rolls a 20).

That's not an instance of GM force, though - that's just applying the action resolution rules. (If the PC's weapon has a 500 yard range, of course, then it's a different matter. I don't know how 3E handles maximum ranges, but in 4e, B/X and AD&D I don't think there is any non-magical ranged weapon with this sort of range.)

Then the diplomacy check failing because it is impossible under the action resolution mechanics, or never being allowed because the Chamberlain will not listen for the required minute should be equally “applying the action resolution rules”, and not “an instance of GM force”, should it not?

In my game, I have two PCs who wholeheartedly serve the heavens, two are devotees of the Raven Queen, and one who is a chaos drow with an uncertain relationship to the Primordials. The tension between them is increasing. Its resolution, one way or another, is likely to be the climax of the campaign. It's not my job as GM to unilaterally step in and pick a side or veto one group of players.

Agreed. It is, however, your job to run the game. So let us assume that Group H and Group R decide they cannot work together any more, and CD goes his own way as well. Each indicates they wish to recruit some replacement party members and continue their plans.

Does the campaign split in three, and you run three separate games? Do all three get run as a single game? Do we have to choose one group to follow and abandon the other two, and who makes that choice, assuming each player vehemently wishes to follow his or her character? Let us assume time is a limited resource – you will not be able to play three times as often to accommodate all three “campaigns”.

I've never said that GM force is a bad thing that should be expunged, nor that it does not play an important and valuable role in your games

Repeated solely for emphasis, as I think the assumption it either is a bad thing, or is perceived as one, causes a lot of discussion that’s not overly useful.

It is you and @Ahnehnois and @Wicht who seem to be trying to persuade me, however, that it is a significant feature of my game also;

I think there is a lot of definitional maneuvering to remove “what I do” from the definition of “what I don’t like”. In my games, it is rare for any GM to rule unilaterally that a rule is changed. It is typically by consensus. When it is not, it is because a group discussion has lead to no consensus other than “Each GM will have to make his own call on this”. If, by group consensus, GM force is granted to the GM on a specific issue, is it still “GM Force, or has it become “group consensus”? ”? I’m copying that to the top of this post.

and hence that I am wrong to look for different sorts of solutions to issues about caster/fighter balance.

I’m not sure we haven’t drifted far from that topic, but let’s apply the logic again. From the “GM Force” definition, it appears to be neither banning troublesome spells or modifying them, whether or not with group consensus. Neither is it any change made with group consensus. Changing the rules on the fly is not what I, or I think anyone else, is suggesting as a solution. It is reasoned interpretation of the words of the rules, in a manner which may not favour the broad power the spellcaster player attributes to his spells. Charm Person has become a focus of this, and let’s chat about that below.

However, I question how it is superior for the game rules to change to correct a problem some perceive and others do not, and inferior for the gaming group to modify the rules to suit them. I think that’s really what both the various rules quotes and the posters claiming “GM is the final arbiter” are really getting at – the GM has great power, and it is to be used responsibly to enhance the fun of the game.

You are the one who introduced the example of a GM vetoing a players declaration of a Diplomacy check by saying - without regard to the Diplomacy check result - that the Chamberlain sticks his fingers in his ears and says "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!" I am 100% with @Hussar that I would leave a game in which that happened. In my view that is antagonistic GMing of the worst sort.

I am saying that the diplomacy check is never made, because [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s character is unable to meet its preconditions – that is, he is not able to speak with the Chamberlain for the one minute required (without invoking the GM discretion, but still RAW, fact that “In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase.”).

No. The 4e rules leave it open to narration what happens at 0 hp - death or unconsciousness.

Open to whose narration? Is it up to the player to decide, or the GM? Who makes the final decision if they do not concur. Not in your game, but by the 4e rules themselves. It seems like this may well be an instance where the rules are giving way to the GM’s discretionary arbitration.

No. The player has determined whether or not the PC will come back to life.

Did the rules provide this choice to the player, or did you exercise GM discretion to offer the choice?

I have adjudicated the relevant fiction. For instance, the first time the wizard died I asked the player whether or not he wanted to keep playing the PC. He said that he did want to, and that he thought there was something at the place where he had died (a ruined Nerathi watchpost) that he would be sent back by the gods to reclaim. I decided what exactly that thing was - a sceptre which, a little later in the campaign, I decided was a shard of the Rod of 7 Parts.

So what game mechanic caused him to rise from the dead? I’m seeing GM discretion applied here to override the death of a character.

This is a typical example, at least in my gaming experience, of shared authority over backstory, and shared authority with the players in determining what events occur within the game's fiction. I was not the "final arbiter" of this shared fiction.

Weren’t you? Would the PC have come back from the dead if you refused to allow it? Would he have returned if you and that player so desired, but the other four players (if I recall the count correctly) all said “NO – death should be final – the action resolution mechanics have spoken, and they should not be overridden”? In other words, there was a decision made that the character would not remain dead – the question is not just “who made that choice”, but “by the rules as written, who had the authority to make that choice”? Delegated authority remains authority of the delegator.

Because it's fun? As I've already indicated in posts upthread, I'm not running a Gygaxian game, or really a wargame-y game at all.

I’m not arguing it’s not fun. I doubt anyone exercising GM force by any definition, in any way, shape or form, is doing so to make the game “not fun”. I am arguing that you made a choice to deviate from the 4e mechanical encounter guidelines (which I think is not in dispute) on the fly (again not in dispute) unilaterally, not by table consensus (is that in dispute?) thereby overriding the action resolution results, which dictated the PC’s had defeated the encounter as drafted under the 4e guidelines. To me, this meets with the definition of GM Force provided. The fact you are using it for a purpose other than balancing fighters and spellcasters doesn’t change that fact. Nor does the fact you added more opponents rather than beefing up the existing ones, or fudging die rolls. As GM, you exercised GM force to alter the game in progress.

Again, I am not saying that was a bad thing to do, but I am saying it is exercise of GM force, contrary to the claim you do not exercise GM force.

Of course it's force - it's GM authority over scene-framing. It's also very different from changing hit points in the course of a battle - it's not interference with action resolution (and thereby with the players' attempt to make it true in the fiction that a certain foe is defeated).

It’s not? It seems like interference with action resolution – the players had defeated their opponents and could reasonably now expect to proceed to the objective this encounter was preventing them from achieving. Instead, additional forces arrived, interposed between them and the goal that, based on the results of the action resolution mechanics, they should now have been able to seize. It seems a very “micro” focus to insist that, because your changes were not directly to one specific opponent, they were not “GM force”.

How is continued addition of more enemy forces ultimately different than those waves in the moat that continually wash the swimming fighter back to his side of the moat? Would it be OK if, instead of waves in the moat, we added a bunch of Moat Monsters with Grappling skills to continually catch the fighter and fling him back to his side of the moat? That’s just adding some more opponents to increase the challenge, and the fun, isn’t it?

I think you are drawing a very fuzzy line whose only definition is that what you do in your games must remain on the “non-GM force” side of the line. I don’t think that is done maliciously, but it does seem to suggest you perceive exercise of GM force negatively and do not wish to be perceived as exercising it, contrary to your statement that it is merely a matter of playstyle.

It's not a question of equality. It's a question of resources. What resources do the playes have to make the cavalry turn up? In 4e the answer to that question is "Not very many" - that's just the way the game is built.

But the rules apply no specific resources (or limits on the resources) of the GM, do they? This seems to be the exact “RAW permits GM Force” assertion presented in prior editions.

And if playing BW, then the players absolutely would be entitled to make a Circles role, and I as GM would be obliged to adjudicate that within the confines of the rules.

But you are adjudicating the results, as I read the above, and not applying results prescribed by the action resolution mechanics. Once again, it appears the results fall more within your control than that of the players. Being unfamiliar with the specific mechanics, I may be incorrect, however I’m not seeing the players now being able to determine, without your consent, that they have succeeded and now achieve their desired goal. You hold the power to adjudicate this.

Strawman. Nobody suggested a game in which Diplomacy never worked. What we have suggested are 1) situations where diplomacy will not work, and 2) the fact that the rules are pretty clear (especially in PF) that Diplomacy is subject to DM discretion from beginning to end.

I also find the assumption that the fact a specific tactic or ability will be unable to succeed in a specific circumstance can attribute only to GM unfairness quite off-putting. It does highlight, however, that the game falls short if players’ trust in the GM is absent.

If [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] consistently added more opponents until the PC’s were overwhelmed and slain, would that be a good use of the power afforded him as GM? Clearly not. It is within his power as GM – he has stated that adding more opponents to the challenges is perfectly legitimate. But he must use that power responsibly, to make the game more fun for all the players. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], you seem to assume the opposite GM behaviour, that he is simply out to make the game no fun for you if any situation arises where your resolution mechanism of choice is not the solution.

How much fun is it for a player focused on melee combat if every challenge must be solved by social skills? So maybe some challenges should not be readily resolved with the abilities your character has chosen to focus upon, but should require the skills of others (such as, perhaps the character with high info gathering abilities who can determine a means to either overcome the Chamberlain’s resistance or circumvent his control over the king’s schedule). Maybe it’s just not SuperDiplomat’s turn in the spotlight.

Perhaps there is some valid, in game reason for the behavior, all according to the rules, which make this occur and the person that throws a temper tantrum and storms out will not have the pleasure of finding out what the reason is.

Precisely. For me, I would assume this is the case until and unless it becomes clear that the GM is determined not to allow my diplomacy skills to be relevant to resolution of important challenges. If this is the result pretty much every time I use my skills for something more than getting the barmaid’s attention, I’m probably out the door too. But I don’t expect my one skill will resolve a significant portion of the challenges placed before us (or, better phrased, that it will be suited to resolve a significantly greater portion of those challenges than the skills and abilities of any of the other PC’s).


I find the immediate assumption that the GM employs chicanery each and every time my first effort turns out not to be a viable solution insulting to the GM.

Actually, no. What I am in effect saying is that when the DM decides to arbitrarily change the rules, simply to protect his precious scenario and force the players into prescribed paths, I have no interest in playing,

We sat down, as a group, and agreed to play with these rules (whichever these rules happen to be) and the DM has basically stepped back and said, "Nope, these rules, that we all agreed to, don't apply to me".

It seems like you are asserting the rule that diplomacy takes at least one minute, and sometimes much longer, should not apply to your character. In other words, you are stepping back and saying that you should not be required to meet the requirements of the Diplomacy skill in order to use it to resolve a challenge.

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".

If the DM did, in fact do that, I most certainly would leave the game.

If your insistence that every situation could be resolved by a diplomacy check had brought me to the point I felt it necessary to role play the chamberlain in this manner, for that reason alone, I’d have to ask why you were still at the table to begin with.

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.

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. Heck, you, N'raac, have talked at length about how clear interpretations of the spell effects makes for a better game. I cast a Silent Still Charm Person on the Chamberlain and he fails his save. Do I get to see the king or not?

OK, first, if it’s Still and Silent, it is a third level spell, not a first level spell. Second, by the rules, it requires one standard action, so it is clearly faster than your desired efforts at diplomacy. Third, it is an attack – plain and simple – which will be viewed negatively if found out. And if magic is abundant, Detect Magic spells on the chamberlain on occasion seem perfectly reasonable. Sense Motive also works, although the DC is pretty high (although probably in the same range as, or higher than, say, persuading a Chamberlain to grant an immediate audience with the King after a minute or so of discussion).

Second, Charm Person does not transform the Chamberlain into your sock puppet. It makes him Friendly towards you. This is another one of those “hey, let’s assume power far beyond that suggested by the spell” situations.

He is friendly. He will certainly try to help. If your friend asked that you let him into your workplace after hours so he could rummage through some confidential files, would you do that for him? Would you admit him into a board meeting so he can chat with your boss for a few minutes? How about just giving him your secure laptop so he can download a few files (or letting him keep it – just say someone stole it from your car and they’ll get you a new one, after all).

You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.

“Obviously harmful” – need that be a threat to life and limb, or does a threat to the Chamberlain’s continued engagement in that capacity count? Will you risk losing your job to help “your friend”? What if losing your job means being reduced from a noble of the court to a beggar in the street?

I can also see a situation where a friendly attitude may make it less likely you get to see the king. It’s for your own good – if he admits an ill dressed, rudely mannered commoner such as yourself, he can claim you forced your way past, or lied about an urgent message from another nobleman. You, however, will be executed. Maybe you’re more likely to get in if you FAIL the diplomacy check. “Fine – the rude little bug wants to see the king, we’ll let the rude little bug go see the king – and watch him be crushed underfoot, an appropriate end for any rude little bug!”

And this whole game of trying to find equivalency in DM power is laughable. We've already stated that the DM has total control over the game world, barring a few, generally fairly minor, exceptions. Of course he does. That's not what GM Force refers to. GM Force refers to DM's actively changing the rules in the middle of the game for the purpose of delineating specific actions to the players.

IOW, starting your campaign in Waterdeep is not an example of GM Force. Telling a player he can't play a Cyborg Ninja is not an example of GM Force. An example of GM Force is any time, during play the GM over rules the resolution mechanics of the game.

So if his notes say “the Chamberlain cannot be persuaded, whether by magical or mundane means, to admin anyone to see the king”, that’s no longer GM force? He did not, during play, overrule the resolution mechanics.

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.

Agreed 100%. “That’s what it says in the module” is no excuse – the GM runs the game, not the module.

In the name of clarity, I'm going to throw out a quick list of things that are NOT examples of GM-force:

- GM saying "yes" and/or allowing players to circumvent mechanical resolution where there is little to nothing at stake, no driving conflict at hand, and the GM wants to push the game toward the conflict; eg "yes, you make it through the gate with little harassment from the watch, and you arrive at (sought location) by sundown...there is fresh blood pooled on the steps...the door is ajar."

Why is it not GM force to override the action resolution mechanics in favour of the players? This seems another restriction over and above those already implemented. “GM Force” has become very narrow indeed once we apply all of these restrictions, and I don’t think they would prevent many, if any, of the “rein in the wizard’s power” suggestions that have been made in this thread.

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.

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.

It always seems that the PC’s of “overpowered spellcasters” are allowed to use their spells as they see fit, generally very broadly interpreted, but no one else is allowed to use magic in any way, shape or form if it would interfere. A simple Detect Magic is pretty easy to spot even Stilled, Silent Spells in use. Could a King not have a few L1 spellcasters on payroll, always around with Detect Magic in use (very easy in Pathfinder, where it can be re-cast at will)?

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.

Actually, your presumption has been that the GM is manipulating the rules. Your presumption tends always to be that the GM will use, or abuse, the rules with the sole and exclusive purpose of frustrating you, so whenever an action you wish to take does not carry the desired results, the GM is abusing his power.

Mine has been that the rules clearly say you need a minute to converse with the Chamberlain in order to use the Diplomacy skill, a full round action if you deliberately rush and take a -10 penalty to the roll, and possibly much longer for certain tasks. Absolutely nothing requires the Chamberlain hear out your request for an immediate audience with the King.

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.

The rules also generally say that players should accept the GM’s interpretations and rulings. To me, this implies giving the GM the benefit of the doubt that he is, in fact, following reasonable rule interpretations for the good of the game. It seems to me that you are very reluctant to follow the spirit of those various statements in an array of rule books.

Yes, the GM has a responsibility to use his authority wisely and well, to make the game fun for everyone. But what about the player’s responsibility to play the game, give the GM some benefit of the doubt, and not whine and moan at every rule call or adjudication that goes against him? Frankly, I don’t think that a player who constantly assumes the GM will be unfair and unreasonable, challenges rule calls left right and center, and packs up and storms out if he does not get his way has any claim to moral high ground.

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.

The game we agreed to play provides that your diplomacy attempt requires a minute (or more, maybe lots more) of communication with the target. It provides that very low level spellcasters can Detect Magic (such as a Charm spell on a Chamberlain).

And that is without getting into issues of GM adjudication or interpretation, much less rules –sponsored GM override of the rules.

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.

So if there are no diplomacy rules in the rules-light game, is it now OK for the GM to rule that the Chamberlain is deaf to your pleas for an audience with the King? Or does it just mean he has no basis to deny you the audience with the King?

Likewise, Charm Person might get the chamberlain to side with the PCs, but he still would not necessarily let the PCs in if the king had told him on threat of death not to, because Charm Person does not, by the rules, cause a creature to act against their own self-interest.

Wicht, Wicht, Wicht…when we read the actual rules, and apply common sense interpretation to them, we depower those poor, hard done by spellcasters. We wouldn’t want that, would we? Then we could not complain about how overpowered spellcasters are, and where would the fun in that be?

Oh wait…OK, carry on!

f Charm Person was an evil spell, then why doesn't it have the Evil descriptor? I mean, it's not like WOTC was shy about slapping that on stuff. Animate Dead is an Evil spell by the mechanics. Charm Person is only an evil spell if the GM has decided (ie GM Force) that it is. Considering that burning someone to death (Fireball, Burning Hands) or Disintegrating them are not considered Evil spells, I'm not sure that Jedi Mind Trick is.

So are you OK casting that Fireball in the middle of the town square, killing dozens and burning half the city to the ground, or is it possible that there are evil uses of spells which are not, by their very definition (like animating the corpses of the dead), evil?

Could we focus on what rules specifically are perceptually ignored, which can give the spell casters an edge?

Not an easy topic. In general, it’s the specifics of the spells. Charm Person is paraded out as though it makes the target into the caster’s sock puppet. Teleport’s mischances and actual requirements are conveniently never invoked (after several threads, I am still waiting for the spell that readily allows study of a distant, unknown area for an hour; the world goes into stasis if we decide to rest in a Rope Trick and, of course, we conveniently ignore that statement suggesting bags of holding and handy haversacks create a problem within its confines).

I did like the suggestion of one poster that, if the fighter goes ahead and acts as a point man, he can perfectly describe the area beyond, and its contents, so the wizard can safely stay around a corner and cast his spells with precision accuracy into the area the fighter looks into.

Diplomacy isn't a spell in the first place. In a lot of games, mine included, saying you want to use Diplomacy on someone is met with crickets...I mean, ok, so...WHAT do you SAY to the Chamberlain? That line of dialog will lead to the same mechanic, but if its completely silly, the reaction should be adjusted. Personally I love it when PCs say hilarious

to nobles. Diplomacy gives knowledge of protocol and a fat bonus to the reaction. Am I a terrible, tyrannical DM?

Perhaps. I would say “yes” if what you say to the chamberlain is judged based on the player’s own oratorical skills. If it is judged by what is actually requested, and what specific facts the PC bring into the argument, without assessing how persuasive the player’s speech is outside the basic facts and the nature of the request, then that is what I would expect.

I don’t make players show me how they acrobatically move through a 15’ area to be permitted to use that skill, so I fail to see why a player must demonstrate their persuasiveness to be permitted to access the persuasion skills their character spent character resources on.

Charm Person on the Chamberlain....huge can of worms there. If he makes the save, all hell could break loose. If it works, there will probably be negative, natural consequences down the line. Is that crushing the spellcaster's crystal balls? Obviously not.

[MENTION=29760]Luce[/MENTION] – the assertion that spells have no negative consequences later on is another good one. “Oh, no, he should awaken from being Charmed perhaps wondering why he did that, but there should never be any negative consequences. No one should ever be offended to having their mind ensorcled.”

 

[N'raac]

So, it's "rational" that my diplomacy using character, who is actually capable of epic levels of diplomacy, will have his options blocked by fiat because the DM decides that it is so? To me, that's not rational, that's Mother May I. Can I do this? Well, I don't know. And I can't know because the DM hasn't asked me for a check, so, I cannot actually do whatever it is that I want to do because the DM will not allow me to engage the task resolution mechanics.

To me, at least, it is rational that characters with epic levels of ability will face challenges that are not easily brushed aside with their epic levels of ability, but which are themselves epic challenges. Is it GM fiat that PC's face challenges more or less appropriate to their levels, and an encounter with half a dozen orcs, so challenging at 1st level, just doesn't happen at 21st level? Go ahead and roll. That does not mean the DC can't be your bonus + 50, though.

Why? Why is that "probably"? The player has used bog standard abilities of his character but, because he's done something the DM doesn't like, he gets slapped with the DM Stick of Authority? I mean, he succeeded. He tried to do something and it worked. But, because the DM has already decided, "No, you Shalt NOT DO THAT", the player's simply going to get punished down the line.

Maybe the Chamberlain is offended by having been Charmed. Perhaps the King has a negative reaction to his court officials being subjected to enchantment right here, within his own palace.

Would you suggest it is inappropriate that there be consequences because the Fighter doesn't like the Chamberlain's attitude, so he beats him within an inch of his life, strips him and hangs him upside down from the chandelier? He's just using his bog standard character abilities!

If a PC is Charmed, and gives his New Best Buddy all his worldly possessions because he's such a nice fellow, and besides he said be would bring them right back when he's done with them, are the PC's prohibited from taking any action against that wily Enchanter later because he just used a bog-standard ability afforded him as an NPC with a Wizard level?

 

[MJS]

If you look at Star Trek, virtually every single problem IS resolved with technology.



Rational to who? To you as the DM? To the group as a whole? I've got a pretty strong feeling that it's the former much more than the latter since any disagreement by the players slams into the wall of Rule 0 and DM's Authority.

So, it's "rational" that my diplomacy using character, who is actually capable of epic levels of diplomacy, will have his options blocked by fiat because the DM decides that it is so? To me, that's not rational, that's Mother May I. Can I do this? Well, I don't know. And I can't know because the DM hasn't asked me for a check, so, I cannot actually do whatever it is that I want to do because the DM will not allow me to engage the task resolution mechanics.



Why? Why is that "probably"? The player has used bog standard abilities of his character but, because he's done something the DM doesn't like, he gets slapped with the DM Stick of Authority? I mean, he succeeded. He tried to do something and it worked. But, because the DM has already decided, "No, you Shalt NOT DO THAT", the player's simply going to get punished down the line.

So, of course your players don't try things like this. Of course you don't have issues with the disparity in power levels. You've changed the game to the point where the players know that any choice they make will be negated unless pre-approved by the DM. Do something the DM doesn't approve of? Well, guess what, you're going to get slapped down.

What baffles me to no end is why players put up with this. This heavy handed, railroady, overbearing style that just punishes any creativity and forces players to conform to an incredibly narrow interpretation of the game. It was precisely this sort of thing that made me start DMing in the first place. I was so sick and tired of DM's c-blocking the players at every turn.

Good grief, if I wanted to play an RPG with these kinds of limitations, I'd stick to Baldur's Gate.

You are grossly misunderstanding, or arguing against something that isn't there. I have no idea why you're saying any of this to me. Reality check?
A PC uses Charm Person to gain entry to the King. You haven't even touched on what happens if the Chamberlain makes his save. We'll skip that.
But, ok, it's a campaign game, right? So think it through. What happens when the charm wears off? That's all I'm saying. It may be many sessions down the line when it comes to light. There could be trouble as a result. I look at it as a plot point given by your PC, and you think I'm cockblocking you?
It's not as if your PC will be tossed in jail, end of story. In fact the whole mess would be a lot of fun, and caused soley by your actions. The Chamberlain is mightily pissed, and pressing charges. Now the party Paladin is annoyed with you. And the Thief stole some while you were gabbing with the King. This is AWESOME. None of this could happen in Baldur's Gate!

 

[N'raac]

I think this thread should be closed. The topic has been officially exhausted. It is beating a dead horse with a stick.

I think those that are finding useful discussion in the thread should be permitted to continue discussing matters and those who are not (even if they started the thread) should feel free to ignore the thread if they do not find its ongoing contents valuable.

By what authority do you “officially” declare the topic exhausted, by the way?

 

[Ahnehnois]

If you look at Star Trek, virtually every single problem IS resolved with technology.

And caused by it. There's always some reason why it doesn't work, or it gets used in some nefarious way.

Rational to who? To you as the DM?

Well, generally by consensus, but yeah. What are the alternatives? Rational to some game designer?

I've got a pretty strong feeling that it's the former much more than the latter since any disagreement by the players slams into the wall of Rule 0 and DM's Authority.

Again, that sounds more like you being jaded than you having any knowledge of how other DMing styles work. What from anything you've ever read on these boards would suggest that the player/DM relationship is not about consensus-building?

So, it's "rational" that my diplomacy using character, who is actually capable of epic levels of diplomacy, will have his options blocked by fiat because the DM decides that it is so?

Yes. Pretend for a moment, that you were the most charming person in the world. If you asked to see the President of the United States today, could you? Bill Gates? The joint chiefs of staff? The head of a random corporation? Unlikely. If you did somehow find a way into their company, would they listen to you? Do anything that you wanted them to do? Beyond unlikely.

People can be manipulated, but it takes more than that.

Can I do this? Well, I don't know. And I can't know because the DM hasn't asked me for a check, so, I cannot actually do whatever it is that I want to do because the DM will not allow me to engage the task resolution mechanics.

All that does is put you in the character's shoes. The character may understand that he's more eloquent and persuasive than average, but he certainly can't control the outcomes of his conversations that discretely, any more than you or I can.

Sometimes it's fairly cut and dry. For example, if a player tells you he's trying to scale a wall, there aren't a lot of reasons that wouldn't require a Climb check, and the implementation is pretty clear cut. But when it comes to social skills and knowledge skills, it's rarely if ever that clear what the relationship is between the character's decision-making and the mechanical resolution of its outcomes.

Of course, if you're chatting away and you have persuasion on your mind, it's not wrong to pick up a d20, look at the DM, and say "Diplomacy?". DMs are busy people after all, and sometimes it is helpful for the player to take a metagame perspective for a second and try to engage the DM to engage the mechanics. Given that this sort of interaction is the basic currency of the game, I don't understand why you think it requires a derogatory nickname.

What baffles me to no end is why players put up with this. This heavy handed, railroady, overbearing style that just punishes any creativity and forces players to conform to an incredibly narrow interpretation of the game. It was precisely this sort of thing that made me start DMing in the first place. I was so sick and tired of DM's c-blocking the players at every turn.

Good grief, if I wanted to play an RPG with these kinds of limitations, I'd stick to Baldur's Gate.

Frankly, that sounds to me like what you're advocating. My players can play anything they want and do anything they want, as long as I approve of it. Yours apparently have to stick with an "incredibly narrow" set of rules and strictures.

As you've pointed out, your approach requires that the rules are agreed upon by everyone in advance. Mine requires that the players accept that I am in charge. In practice, are players more amenable to agreeing to follow a hackeyed ruleset, or a person who is (hopefully) their friend? Given the choice between the two, the DM is far more flexible, far more amenable to the players' specific concerns, and very likely a far better source of rulings than the rulebooks themselves. Players don't just put up with it. They beg for it.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Something to note with regards to diplomacy is that there is often a vast difference between a player's capability and their character's. Requiring someone to actually be persuasive while roleplaying their character might be too much to expect, especially once we get into superhuman territories of skill past 6th level. Being able to use those skills simply with the action resolution mechanics and not needing player input beyond determining the character's stats and abilities is, in my eyes, one of the successes of the game because it allows the player to play something that is beyond their own limited scope.

Though I definitely agree diplomacy as written has issues since having set DCs against pretty much any target is just begging for abuse. Rich Berlew summed it up quite nicely in my eyes.

One of the things the 3.5 DMG says is that PCs stepping beyond their bounds and trying to take over should face consequences. In the case of the chamberlain to the king, using Charm on him even successfully will bring about consequences if the king is any kind of powerful enough to exert influence and keep himself safe, which one would tend to assume he is since the PCs want to talk with him in the first place. And as noted, I certainly wouldn't call it unreasonable to say that the chamberlain wouldn't or can't grant the party an audience with the king since he almost certainly has specific orders about who might be allowed to have an audience and when.

It might be possible to use Charm Person to make the chamberlain do something he ordinarily wouldn't do, but that requires both a Charisma check and the chamberlain not perceiving the likely consequences of allowing an audience with the king if he has orders not to as "obviously harmful." If "obviously harmful" is only interpreted in the sense of physically harmful then it might work since one would hope physical harm wouldn't befall the guy for disobeying orders, but there is also the interpretation that harm might befall his livelihood and thus his well-being if not now then at some point in the future.

I would probably recommend one not be so quick to judge whether the GM is railroading or otherwise using "force" simply because something doesn't go as planned. With regards to the chamberlain one does have to think about his motivations. That's not to say it's a good idea to just say he sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "LALALA I can't hear you!" since if he's so immature I highly doubt he'd be trusted with that position in the first place, but a reasonable response from a reasonable person such as saying "The king cannot see you now, nor today. I can only tell you that he has urgent matters to take care of that are surely more important than yours if you are looking to me for an appointment. Come back tomorrow and it might be sorted out." should not be met by anything more than minor annoyance by reasonable players who aren't so focused on their own matters that they can't see something might bigger than their issues might be going on. It wouldn't exactly be hard to spin those lines into something that intrigues the players too, so something good can come from it even if it's a bit of an obstacle. Good players will hopefully see that if one door closes, another opens even if it takes a little bit to see that. And good GMs can segue the party through those opening and closing doors so that it feels smooth.

 

[Wicht]

So, of course your players don't try things like this. Of course you don't have issues with the disparity in power levels. You've changed the game to the point where the players know that any choice they make will be negated unless pre-approved by the DM. Do something the DM doesn't approve of? Well, guess what, you're going to get slapped down.

What baffles me to no end is why players put up with this. This heavy handed, railroady, overbearing style that just punishes any creativity and forces players to conform to an incredibly narrow interpretation of the game. It was precisely this sort of thing that made me start DMing in the first place. I was so sick and tired of DM's c-blocking the players at every turn.

Good grief, if I wanted to play an RPG with these kinds of limitations, I'd stick to Baldur's Gate.

Limitations?

The whole point of having the DM be the final arbiter, instead of the rules, is that it expands possibilities beyong anything dreamed of in a rulebook.

You seem to have some misconception, despite the outright denials offered, that we are all talking about railroading our players. To the contrary, I think most of us are describing a situation in which we are attempting to have the world react to the choices of the players. The rules do not cover all the variable reactions possible to the sundry choices players make. Such a rulebook would be impossibly thick. Rather, we facilitate the game by using the rules to point us towards what seem to be logical and plausible outcomes in a vibrant, changing, fantasy world.

You come across as having had very bad experiences with DMs that were heavy-handed and some of your reactions are almost visceral, so much so that you seem inable to grasp the idea of all-powerful DMs who do not abuse their authority, are mostly on the side of the players, and utilize the rules to keep the game in check without stepping all over the creativity of their players.

 

[ImperatorK]

Charming the chamberlain might not get the PCs access to the king right away, but the chamberlain is friendly towards the caster, so why can't he help them some other way? for example go and present the PC's case to the king and ask him to make an exception? Or maybe give them access to the king's adviser or right-hand man? Maybe he can help with their problem? Charm Person doesn't have to give automatic success on everything, but it also doesn't have to mean that the DM says "no".