Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[ImperatorK]

ie. actively risk his life to protect you, a bit beyond a "Friendly" reaction).

That's not actually true.
Friendly - Wishes you well - Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But, it's incredibly telling to me that every single reaction that the world has is ALWAYS negative to the players.

What makes you think that's the case?

 

[ImperatorK]

What makes you think that's the case?

Uh... everything in this thread? I mean, you call it abuse when Charm Person is used exactly like intended.

 

[Hussar]

Look, all this back and forth is great and all, but, the bottom line is, your solutions won't work for me.

I've been told, repeatedly, that I should interpret the game in a fairly specific way (choose rule interpretations for casters which are strictest (or pretty close to the strictest) interpretations possible), choose to play the in-game fiction in such a way that it disadvantages casters as much as possible (always target the caster whenever possible in combat, always have any caster actions come back and bite them on the ass, limit item creation, etc) and generally act in a manner which is toxic to my table.

While it's 100% true that it would resolve the caster/non-caster imbalance issues, it would also result in me not having any players. My group simply would not stand for this level of DM Force. Mostly because the entire group consists of very experienced DM's (I mean, good grief, I've been gaming for 30 years and I'm the third most experienced gamer in a group of 7) who know the mechanics very well and would not stand for this level of DM control over the game.

I want to play the game where I don't have to stand over the players and constantly monitor them. I don't want to be the hall monitor. I want there to be a much greater degree of parity in the authority at the table between the players and the DM because that's what my group enjoys.

So, while your advice might be 100% spot on for you, it's not going to help me at all.

 

[Hussar]

What makes you think that's the case?

Uh... everything in this thread? I mean, you call it abuse when Charm Person is used exactly like intended.

Yeah, I really got to go with ImperatorK here. This thread and every single thread like it? Every time someone steps up and tells me that they use the game world to limit power, it's always the same - every single reaction of the game world is in opposition to the players.

And, having seen players come from these tables over the years and then come to a table like mine where the world does not actively oppose them at every opportunity, they're utterly shocked and take a great deal of time to figure out that no, they don't have to treat everything as a Monkey's Paw and couch every single action in several subclauses of lawyerese.

I had two players, years ago, so shell shocked by other GM's, that they actually tried to spend over an hour wording a simple Commune spell. After about half an hour, I just broke in and told them the answers they got. They were almost upset that I didn't force them to screw around for the rest of the session because they wanted to phrase the questions exactly so.

So, yeah, I've seen this time and time again.

 

[TwoSix]

It sound to me like you think consequences for PC actions should always come from within the mechanics, not from within the storyline. Some of us do not see much of a difference.

Could you expand on what you think this difference is? If you mean that consequences (defining them as a reframe puts the PCs in a more challenging or less advantageous position) are created based on a negative roll within the action resolution (such as a 6- in Dungeon World), then yes, our style would generate consequences only from that. Basically, the court wizard who notices magic would be something you add to the scene if the character drastically failed their enchantment spell to befriend the chamberlain. Likewise, making the a chamberlain a cursed individual who can only babble nonsense could also be a result of a failed Diplomacy or Negotiation check of some sort. Such a curse would give the characters another avenue of possibility to explore.

Long story short, for player-driven play, don't set the scene before the players arrive. I know there's years of orthodoxy that says "Oh, the campaign world totally functions without the PCs, it's like it's really there!" is the defacto best way to play. Player-driven play doesn't give two figs about that. The campaign world is there to be a stage for the PCs to be awesome and interesting.

 

[N'raac]

[I like the headings, so I’m recycling them.

Distinguishing social and table dynamics from GM force

You are talking here about how a table agrees to the action resolution rules of the game. This is not really relevant to any discussion of GM force - we are not talking here about GM authority over introducing fiction into the game.

I’m speaking to the initial suggestion that Spellcasters are overpowered in general, and that Teleport is overpowered specifically. It was suggested that the different playstyles address that issue in differing manners, with GM Force not being appropriate in every case. However, GM Force has now been so narrowed in scope that it’s not really the solution anyone actually seems to be using.

At many tables, the GM decides. At others, there may be a vote. Group consensus is great, but my recollection is that studies of various decision making styles indicate, while this is the best method for achieving buy-in, only about 1/3 of decisions will ever reach consensus, and those take a lot of time to get there. I don’t want multiple game sessions of time devoted to “should we alter this one spell because it is a poor fit in our game and, if so, how?”? I want to play the game.

One decision theorist suggested that a single decisionmaker for minor decisions, hearing the arguments and deciding, and a consensus approach for the most significant decisions, is a solid approach. In an RPG context, I suggest “significant decisions” are on the level of game system and campaign tone, not individual spell effects. This reminds me that one term for GM/DM/Referee has also historically been “Judge”, who hears the arguments and renders a decision.

You frame this matter completely differently from how it would occur in my group. In particular you are framing it mostly as an ingame issue. Whereas for me it would first and foremost be a real-life issue. At that point we are probably talking about the campaign coming to its end - the end being the severing of all bonds between the forces of heaven, the forces of death, and the forces of chaos - and my role as GM would be to come up with some fitting situation for playing out that endgame.

The only player consensus in the situation I framed was that none of the players wish to end the campaign. They all want it to proceed, and they all want to continue playing their characters. They cannot reach consensus as to how this will be accomplished. How does the issue get resolved? Or does it not get resolved, and the campaign simply ends, unresolved?


Distinguishing social and table dynamics from GM force

I don't really understand the question - it presupposes that I have a certain power to refuse something, and then asks if I exercised that power would the thing nevertheless have happened. The answer seems to me obviously "Of course not - if I did have a veto, and I exercised it, then the thing I vetoed would not have been part of the fiction." But where does the assumption come from that I have that veto?

Again, your post said “I gave the player the choice”. This clearly indicates you could deny the same choice. As the GM, you have chosen to pass the choice to the player, but I don’t see what required this, nor have your further comments altered that. Let’s go over those:

When I ask a player whether or not he wants his PC to come back to life, and then discuss with him and work out the details of how this might happen, that is a cooperative contribution to the creation of the fiction. What would have happened if I'd simply proceeded to narrate events as if the PC was dead in a final way? Would the player have asked about ways for the PC to come back? I don't know, because it didn't happen like that, but it strikes me as highly possible. In which case the same sort of conversation about what this new suggested fiction might look like would have to take place.

Again, each of these statements sets you as the ultimate arbiter. YOU ask the player; YOU could simply proceed, but THE PLAYER must ask – he cannot make the decision. Again, I submit that the fact you decide to delegate your authority does not mean you lack that authority – it is merely the manner in which you have decided to exercise it.

There seems to be a deeper presupposition going on here, too, namely that having a character die is a "loss" condition for the game.

If nothing has been lost, why is there a desire to return the character to life? The norm in my games is not to punish the player with a weaker character. That serves no purpose. But we have lost the opportunity to resolve that character’s story threads, plots and themes. And the player has lost the opportunity to play that specific character, with his background, history and personality. He could choose to surrender that by moving his character out of the game and bringing in a new one. Character death was not his choice. And I don’t see where your comments indicate the decision of whether he gets to choose whether that character death is, or is not, binding and permanent is his. Quite the contrary, your comments indicate the decision is yours, and you choose to share that decisionmaking power with the player.

Now I'm not going to kick out from my group a player whose PC dies. For a hundred and one reasons that wouldn't even begin to make sense. Therefore, that player is going to keep playing. Therefore, a PC of the same level, and under the control of that same player, is going to continue to be part of the game. Therefore, what reason is there for it not to be the same PC?

Some reasons were actually provided in your quote from the 4e rules, I believe. Let’s hit those later. But I’m not arguing the death should, or should not, be final. I am arguing that, by the rules, the power to make that decision rests in you, the GM. You can delegate that authority, which you choose to do as part of your game style, but it is not the rules of the game that provide the choice to the character – it is your modification of those mechanics. It is, to me, GM force – the death dictated by the action resolution mechanics are overridden by your authority as the GM.

The only reason can be a story reason. And given we're talking, to a significant extent at least, about the story of the dead PC, we're talking about a story in which the player has the primary interest and hence should exercise the primary control. My job as GM is simply to facilitate that, and to apply mechanical consequences (namely, applying the cost of a Raise Dead ritual to the party's notional treasure allocation for that level, and imposing resurrection recovery penalties).

Seems like that first aspect is very much a storyteller motive. And, again, I am not arguing against delegating the choice to the player. I am arguing that it is you, in your role of GM, who decides to delegate that choice – the game mechanics themselves do not put this decision in the player’s hands.

Here is the relevant text from the 4e DMG p 30:
When a character does die, it’s usually up to the players as a group to decide what happens. Some players are perfectly happy to roll up a new character, especially when they’re eager to try out new options. Don’t penalize a new character in the group. The new member should start at the same level as the rest of the party and have similar gear.

The rules say the players as a group. Your description says you and the specific player made the choice. Have you not, then, deviated from the rules in removing the decision from the group as a whole and placing it entirely in the hands of the single player? Again, I’m not asserting this rules deviation is a bad choice. I am, however, asserting that the rules did not generate the result you wanted (player gets the choice), so you are overriding those rules (“I gave the player the choice”).

You might want to discourage players from bringing a clone of the dead character in as a “new” character, adding “II” to the character’s name or altering it slightly, but otherwise leaving the character unchanged. It’s obviously artificial and interferes with the players’ sense of the fantasy world as a believable and coherent place. On the other hand, copying a character might be fine depending on the style and seriousness of your game, and it does keep the game moving forward with no delay. [There is then discussion of the Raise Dead ritual and of epic abilities that allow PCs to return to life mid-combat.]

I note the one thing it does not state is “if you’re going to allow the clone character, why not just override the death of the original character”. In fact, nothing here says the character death should be overridden or reversed, only how the new character should be addressed. Does the discussion of the Raise Dead ritual suggest the player of the fallen character should have the authority to unilaterally have that ritual applied?

I don't see anything there giving the GM authority - it refers to "the players as a group". And it expressly says that the proper response is a table decision. Nothing that happened in my game is at odds with anything I read there.

You told us above that YOU gave the player the choice. You as GM, not the players as a group. The exact same way, I believe, that Ahnehnois would decide, for the group, whether the specific PC could be returned to life.

First, the characters in question died. There was no issue of the action resolution mechanics being suspended.

They died? I thought they woke up in a goblin jail cell. Most dead people don’t get incarcerated and wake up, do they? The result of “death” has been overridden to “taken prisoner”. As I read your comments, you as GM made that decision. How is that not GM Force?

Second, in D&D to bring a dead PC back to life doesn't even require GM improvisation! It's been an inherent part of the game since Men & Magic.

As have requirements like an intact body and an actual spell being used. I didn’t think that was what happened based on your comments – and if it was, why didn’t the goblins raise all the PC’s?

Third, if the group decision as to how to respond to PC death had been different, we probably would have done things differently. But it wasn't.

You consistently refer to “the group” as though they are always in 100% consensus. Is that, in fact, the case? Is it inconceivable that “the group” may not agree? Perhaps it is – many of us have the good fortune to have a group of like-minded players, often because the non-like minded characters get frustrated and leave, hopefully finding a group more fitting to their playstyle.

I suggest that, if some players want the result – death – to be overridden, and others want it to be binding, then someone must make a decision. Who makes that decision? Or must we suspend any game play until a consensus is reached, however long that may take? Let’s assume a less like-minded group, which results in a search for consensus looking a lot like threads like this one J

The Chamberlain

That is GM force. And I personally do not like the rule that it is grounded in - because the GM has to fiat an answer to a player's action declaration ("I get him to talk to me for a minute") before the actual action resolution mechanics can be invoked.

I thought GM force was limited to overriding the action resolution mechanics? Can a PC enter combat when the target is a continent away? The scene framed is one of a Chamberlain who refuses to listen to the PC for the required length of time allowing Diplomacy to be entered into. Would you allow this same player to apply Diplomacy in combat? If not, why not? Should he not get the same -10 penalty if he is prepared to undertake a full-round action? I agree that option should be available to the PC – it’s tough for the Chamberlain to avoid a 6 second peppering of the PC’s words.

Then why did the GM frame a scene involving the chamberlain? If the GM thought it was time to give the fighter a bit of airtime, why not have the PCs attacked by assassins on their way to the palace? A GM who frames a social scene, and then nerfs the attempt by the player of the diplomatic PC to engage that scene, strikes me (to borrow a phrase given currency upthread) as an inept GM.

If social success against the Chamberlain is impossible, I suggest this has not been framed as a social challenge. Perhaps it is an information-gathering challenge, as the players must determine what steps they could take to win over the chamberlain, or circumvent him to get to the king, rather than a social challenge which can be resolved with a single roll, however good.


It has been suggested diplomacy is a poor choice for this discussion. While I feel it is a mechanic which is suitable for discussion, I do find it problematic in that there is no possibility the PC can lose. In combat, he can be overpowered and captured or killed. But PC’s are immune to diplomacy. So the same player who tells me even the most stubborn, hostile, unwilling target can be persuaded to undertake the most unlikely actions with a single roll of the dice in a minute or less will also tell us that, no matter how persuasive the Chamberlain is in return, the attitudes of the PC’s will not shift one iota as PC’s are immune to interaction skills. I suspect this ability to avoid any stakes offered on the PC side makes this mechanic problematic for Indie play as well.

Authority over situation, and action resolution

You have not correctly restated what @Manbearcat said. He referred to "say yes or roll the dice". That is, the player declares an action for his/her PC - say "My guy cuts that annoying chamberlain down". A GM who is GMing a "say yes" game then has two options. S/he can either agree with the player - that is, step aside and allow the player to exercise authority over the content of the fiction (the Chamberlain is now dead, and the PC is standing there bloody sword in hand); or, s/he can invoke the action resolution rules (in D&D that would be init, attack rolls etc).

This is not "overriding the action resolution mechanics in favour of the players". It is much more narrow than that. It is using the action resolution mechanics only when two participants at the table can't agree that a particular suggested contribution to the fiction should in fact be part of it.

It is overriding the action resolution mechanics. Those mechanics say “killing the chamberlain requires rolling initiative, rolling to hit, rolling damage and continuing to do so until the chamberlain is reduced to death” (-10 hp in 3.5, -CON in Pathfinder).

To me, it is a sensible override where there is no chance the chamberlain can defend himself or survive, so it’s not different that overriding the mechanics to mop up those last couple of goblins, but that does not make it any less an override. Perhaps another player’s character is grappling with his conscience, and while “OK dead Chamberlain” does not afford him the time to consider, the player would see the Chamberlain hit once, then fall on a second strike, then intervene before the killing blow could be struck. In that case, the override was a poor choice and should not have been implemented. I trust you would agree that, if there would be such a conflict relevant to one or more of the characters, the Chamberlain should not simply be declared dead.

In 4e, the player of the character who delivers the "killing" blow is entitled to decide whether the result is death (or dying, in the case of PCs) or unconsciousness.

OK – then isn’t you passing the choice from the goblins you direct to the players an abrogation of this rule? If not, why did one Goblin not share the desire to take live prisoners?

I asked previously - 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

It seems from your comments that, in some cases, the table decides by the book, yet you give individual players the choice, overriding the book. In others, the choice falls to you, but you choose to delegate it to the players, individually or as a group. In other words, these rules do not perfectly support your playstyle, so you alter the rules.

Sure. The player can fight them - and thereby not get pushed back to the bank.

Certainly – they are invisible in the water, and consistently take exactly the same action of hurling the PC’s back to the bank, then Readying an action to do so again. There are two dozen of them. It is still functionally impossible for the PC to swim across the moat. And the players may well perceive this as GM dickery, rather than an actual “challenge” in the moat.

I’m not saying it’s good or bad GMing. I am saying it seems no different, to me, than the moat that inexplicably pushes the PC’s back to their side of the moat, and can certainly appear identical in game.

I favour a game in which the GM has primary authority over scene-framing, because I think that is the best way to put pressure on the players, and putting pressure on the players via their PCs is what makes for fun in an RPG, in my experience at least.

I suggest that a chamberlain unswayed by diplomacy and the magical moat are both capable of being part of a scene framed by the GM.

GM force, as it came up in this thread, is primarily about action resolution. Telling the player that there are water elementals in the moat doesn't settle any questions of action resolution.

Why do they need to be told? Do we also tell them there is a invisible assassin in the room?

The first sentence is wrong, because the sentence under the second "snip" is true. That is, 4e does not impose any limitation on the GM in the context of scene framing, and hence injecting additional opposition into the scene is not in violation of any rules or guidelines.

So it is OK to add the water elementals or the stubborn chamberlain, is it not? Both inject additional opposition to the players’ goals.

As to whether this is interfering with action resolution - it depends very much what is done. For instance, your example of endless inserting water elementals into the moat, so as to make it impossible for the fighter to cross, strike me as interfering with action resolution.

I thought putting water elementals in the moat didn’t settle any questions of action resolution. Would it similarly be improper for the GM to frame a scene where the party stands on one side of a gorge and its enemies on the other, wide enough that the fighter will clearly fail any effort to leap to the other side?

Burning Wheel Circle mechanics and other mechanical matters


I’m not qualified to discuss BW mechanics (or 4e mechanics, really).

My strong guess is that the rules-lite games that @Hussar is playing have generic resolution mechanics for handling all sorts of conflict, including social conflict. So he, playing his PC, would deploy some relevant skill or descriptor (Diplomacy, Likeable Fellow, whatever other relevant thing might be written on the PC sheet) and then there is some fairly simple dice system for working out whether the GM says "Yep, that works", "Yep, that works and now here's the complication" or just "And now for some complication as things unfold not quite how you hoped . . ."

I believe it is also possible to oppose such rolls. To use HeroQuest, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] can certainly have a Likeable Fellow ability, and the Chamberlain a much stronger “Stubborn as a Mule”, or “No time or tolerance for commoners” trait, backed up by “Zealous defender of the King’s privacy”. How does this come to resolution? The chamberlain is deaf to the character’s requests, and the wheel has come full circle.

Using GM force to control spellcasters

There are no "duel of magic" rules in D&D. So the GM declaring "The king has a mage Detecing Magic on you" isn't an invitation to the player of the wizard to engage in action resolution - if it was, it could be kind of fun, as the player tries to get off their sneaky charm spell without being detected. Success would mean that they get it off; partial success would mean that either they get it off but are detected, or are not detected but don't get it off (different systems could make this players or GM's choice); failure means they don't get it off but are detected.

We started this discussion off with the question whether fighters and spellcasters are unequal in the game. How is the spellcaster with Detect Magic different from the large group of guards which deter the fighter from hacking and slashing his way to the king? Sometimes, magic is not the solution. Sometimes, combat is not.

But D&D's rules being what they are, the GM declaring "You are detected by the king's diviner as you try to charm his Chamberlain" is simply the GM reframing into a scene in which the PC wizard is now a known villain at court. That's not the sort of framing that I'm interested in, for instance, except in pretty specific circumstances, because (i) it doesn't leave the player a lot of viable room to move within the fiction,

You seem to leap to this conclusion. It does not give him a viable means to immediately succeed in his chosen goal. Just as the fighter lacks a viable means to immediately succeed in his chosen goal. It does not mean either could not undertake alternative means to achieve their goal, only that a complication (the chamberlain) has been added, and a means of dealing with that complication must be undertaken.

and (ii) it is framing the player direct into a deprotagonising loss - it's very similar to the "And you all wake up in prison stripped of your gear".

If that followed an attack on the King’s chambers in which the PC’s were defeated by the King’s Guards, I don’t see them having grounds for complaint. Isn’t this more or less the fate of your Goblin-captured party?

As a consequence following naturally from some earlier failed action resolution that's fine - but as a reframe simply in response to the player declaring an action, before that scene has even been allowed to play out to success or failure, it strikes me as very heavy handed. And deprotagonising of the wizard player.

Just as I would expect PC’s to be aware the King has guards, the fact he likely has spellcasters should also be known. If the players seem unaware of this casual knowledge their PC’s would possess, then they should be advised before any action declaration is final. If I as GM fail to do so, it falls on me to make it right, even if that means unwinding a previously declared action (eg. “Had the enchanter known it is routine for nobility to have spellcasters paid to detect magic, would you still have cast the spell? No? Then we’ll back up and he does not cast it.”

My response to this is similar, and again focuses on protagonism - what is the point of letting a player build an enchanter PC if they can't use their signiature abilities? Or, even worse - what is the point of letting a player build an enchanter PC with the hope of playing a sophisticated social game, and then punishing them in ways that they wouldn't be punished if they were running the same enchanter through dungeon crawl 101 (because you can just kill the random orc or lizard man once the charm spell wears off).

I think there is a lot of room between “this ability is always useless” and “this ability is a I WIN button. Isn’t that the problem levied against spellcasters? I would like to think the GM and player established some common ground for socially acceptable use of enchantment spells before the player committed to his character construction so he knows whether or not he can use those abilities in social challenges.

But again, this is the heart of the issue – if the use of diplomacy is subject to being blocked, or failure, why is the Charm spell permitted automatic success?

For these sorts of reasons, my very strong preference is instead for charm and similar spells to be integrated into the social mechanics. 4e does this with its Suggestion and Spook spells (use Arcana in lieu of Diplomacy or Intimidate respectively; the mage in my game had a Charm cantrip that gave the same ability for Bluff). And in one of my Rolemaster campaigns we adopted a similar approach.

Well and good – but last I looked, we weren’t discussing those systems. We were discussing the power of the spellcaster in 3e, where the Charm spell is an enchantment, does allow a saving throw and is, to many of us at least, an attack – not a socially acceptable means of making friends and influencing people. Nor should it be as or more potent than Diplomacy, and usable in as many or more situations, without requiring a greater investment of character resources. That is the crux of the question posed by this thread, is it not?

And would a scheming, plotting enchanter whose use of such enchantments is neither ethical nor legal not be an equally valid character?

And as you can see this has nothing to do with what is "realistic" within the setting. It's about framing PC build elements in such a way that they conduce to, rather than impede, the desired play experience for everyone at the table. Knowing more-or-less what sort of play experience I desire, and in many cases being able to see whether a given build element will conduce to or impede that experience, I can then work out what sorts of mechanics I want in my game. I'm not suffering from GM ineptitude; I'm just making rational choices.

Excellent – but that does not, to me, mean that the 3.5 mechanics cannot give rise to an enjoyable play experience, or that this relies on unreasonable GM interpretations, or GM override of the rules, under its mechanics. The fact that you want the player to be able to use Charm Person in a social context cannot be taken in isolation. The player that views the spell, or the skill, or whatever, as an automatic “I WIN” button is, in my view, taking a very liberal interpretation of the rules. A more realistic interpretation is not, in my view, “GM Force” – it is what the rules say. It is not GM Force (based on the definition of overriding the mechanics) for the GM to enforce the restrictions and weaknesses of various abilities, specified in the rules. Quite the reverse, it is the player who is attempting to override the mechanics and the GM who is enforcing them.

I don't recall any one saying that this is, in general, superior. However, it is superior for me to have solutions designed by designers who are better designers than me. I worked out my GMing style on my own, initially under the influence of the mid-80s Oriental Adventures, but I didn't work out how to theorise, and thereby better develop and apply, my style on my own. I learned by reading the games and commentary of good designers (Ron Edwards, Vincent Baker, Luke Crane, Robin Law, and others, plus of course the 4e designers).

As set out above, I don’t believe you are simply following the rules as laid out in 4e. I think you are overriding them where you feel it would be appropriate to do so. And I think you would be equally capable of overriding rules as needed in a 3e game, although if you find the 4e mechanics preferable, then I see no reason you would not continue to use them. But the suggestion that any game mechanics system will be perfect for a wide group, requiring no interpretations (or none that differ from every other group) and no rule overrides is not, in my view, a correct one.

Correct. I want a game in which a wizard player can play with full protagonism and yet not break the game. Telling me that by curtalining protagonism in various ways isn't helping me with that.

So does that mean the Evoker must be able to Fireball the king’s guard to get in to see him, and consequences for such actions deprotagonise that character? I don’t think it does, but you are clearly setting limits on the use of his abilities, just as “Charming the Chamberlain carries negative consequences” sets limits.

And N'raac, N'raac, N'raac - which is it? Are Hussar and I and others trying to play the same game as you, but inept at it - as you sometimes seem to assert or imply?

I find a measure of intellectual dishonesty when every criticism of the very liberal rules interpretations, commonly ignoring the rules as written, which render wizards “clearly overpowered” is met with the claim that the poor wizard is being picked on and not allowed to use his abilities reasonably.

If I remove or ignore the restrictions placed on spellcasters and their spells by the rules as written, I should not be surprised that I have changed the balance of power. At that point, I need to change other rules in order to restore that balance of power. However, the argument (not YOUR argument) seems to be that we must allow the most liberal interpretations of each spell as can be imagined, fail to enforce any rules which would limit the spellcaster’s power and then accept that the fact that, if we ignore the rules, the game becomes unbalanced must mean that the rules are the problem. The refusal to read the rules as written, and take them as a whole, exaggerates any power disparity that might actually exists, and serves only to obfuscate any real issue.

Or are you trying to show that we are deluded - that we think we're trying to play a different game, but are really just trying to but failing to play the game you are playing?

I think we have become somewhat schizophrenic in our discussion. There are some discussions addressing differing playstyles, and how or whether the rules accommodate them, and how this might be solved by different editions or baseline assumptions. You are focused on that discussion.

There are others discussing whether the 3.5 rules, exactly as written, without modification for playstyles, create a power disparity which cannot be resolved. That discussion lead to my comment on the fact that those claiming this huge power disparity appear to resolve every rules ambiguity in favour of the wizard, then ignore some much less ambiguous rules to favour the wizard some more, then complain he is overpowered.

Really? Which of the following two is typical DMing?

They can't both be typical, because they are contradictory. Either the GM has a plan, and therefore has a responsibility for making sure it doesn't create a bad experience; or the GM doesn't have a plan, and hence has no such responsibility.

So which one is your game – one with no plan, or where you have no responsibility? I think you can have no specific plan as to the direction the game will go, and still be focused on making the game fun. To a large extent, that is driven by the concept of failing forward. Sometimes, that concept may require rules overrides (such as “the goblins take the PC’s prisoner instead of letting them bleed out”). It is not contradictory to focus on ensuring a fun play experience without having a preconceived storyboard on how that fun play experience will specifically unfold.

The first asserts that thematic relevance is the key criterion for framing a scene and introducing an obstacle. The second implies (and N'raac has elsewhere in this thread asserted, both in general and by reference to particular considerations like encumbrance) that a key criterion for introducing and adjudicating obstacles should be ingame "realism" - the causal logic of the gameworld. (See @Manbearcat 's post 2 or 3 above this one for more elaboration of the distinction between thematically-driven GMing and "realistic" or procedurally-driven GMing.)

They can't both be typical, because doing one precludes doing the other.

So it is impossible for the Chamberlain to be thematically relevant and realistic? I disagree. When you choose complications in your game, are they just tossed in without consideration of how they fit in with the game world? If there is no relevance to the Chamberlain, then it should be a simple matter to bypass him, but I would expect he would turn up in the King’s court, and not in a dungeon crawl through Goblin warrens.

I don't see how this can be true if it is also true that the GM has no preconception as to how a scene will resolve. Either the GM has a plan, and imposes that; or the GM has no plan, and events unfold via the interaction of player action declarations, action resolution mechanics, and GM adjudication where required. In the first case, the GM is the final arbiter but there is preconception; in the second case, their is no preconception and no final arbiter.

If the GM adjudicates where required, he is the final arbiter. The matter is adjudicated. The GM can adjudicate the success or failure of the PC’s actions with no preconception of whether they will succeed or fail. He can even have a plan for what will occur if they succeed, and what will take place if they fail. He does not have to have any stake in which result will occur to have plans in place for both.

Are you saying that you just toss an encounter in front of the PCs with no context and no conception of what will come next? Are you just making the entire game up as you go along?

What you are describing here could practically be a textbook description of the context for and consequences of deploying GM force. This is 100% the sort of play in which I have little to no interest. I want my players to "run rough-shod over the campaign world" - to tread the jewelled thrones of the earth under their sandalled feet, just as Conan did. If that sort of protagonism makes the game break, then for me that's a problem with the game, not with my players or my GMing.

Then why have action resolution mechanics at all? Why should the PC’s ever face the possibility of failure?

The worst examples of “storyteller mode” is the GM simply reading his novel of the PC’s successes and failures, and the manner in which they are accomplished, to the players. But the worst example of “PC Protaganism” is nearly identical, as the player reads his PC FanFic, dictating what occurs and how. When the players can simply dictate their successes or failures (“I have Diplomacy +x so any refusal of the Chamberlain to let my PC see the King and then use his diplomacy again to get whatever my PC wants is unacceptable and I’ll take my ball and go home if that happens!”), there is no game. That, if I read Wicht correctly, is “players running rough-shod over the campaign world”.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This thread and every single thread like it? Every time someone steps up and tells me that they use the game world to limit power, it's always the same - every single reaction of the game world is in opposition to the players.

In other words, every time we talk about players who are trying to create a bad experience for everyone at the table, we also talk about how easy the solution is.

If anyone ever started a thread about players who can behave, you'd see it differently then. Most of the time, players try to do things that aren't abusive, which creates a rather different dynamic.

Look, all this back and forth is great and all, but, the bottom line is, your solutions won't work for me.

I think they would if you tried them (and generally understood them). But we certainly can't make you.

 

[N'raac]

But, it's incredibly telling to me that every single reaction that the world has is ALWAYS negative to the players. The chamberlain refuses to be budged. The use of a spell is always going to have negative consequences. Every interpretation will always be the most restrictive possible (to the point where Charm Person only gives a Friendly reaction - which it actually doesn't. The charmed person sees you as his bestest friend and will fight for you - ie. actively risk his life to protect you, a bit beyond a "Friendly" reaction).

That's not actually true.
Friendly - Wishes you well - Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate.

Yup - "Helpful" is a step above "friendly" - they will take risks to help you. Even here, some interpretation is required - how great a risk, for example.

Yeah, I really got to go with ImperatorK here.

Does that include where he points out your vastly overstated definition of "friendly"? And the spell is specific in its instruction to "treat the target’s attitude as friendly". You get opposed CHA checks to issue orders, but "An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders" although "it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing".

This thread and every single thread like it? Every time someone steps up and tells me that they use the game world to limit power, it's always the same - every single reaction of the game world is in opposition to the players.

I think you are intuiting "things do not always go the players' way" to always mean "things never go the players' way". There is a world of room between the two. It's unfortunate you seem to have encountered the latter with enough frequency that you assume it. It does not mean it is the situation at everyone else's game table. But it also does not mean spells must be interpreted entirely to the players' favour either. Commune, for example, mandates that

"The answers given are correct within the limits of the entity’s knowledge. “Unclear” is a legitimate answer, because powerful beings of the Outer Planes are not necessarily omniscient. In cases where a one-word answer would be misleading or contrary to the deity’s interests, a short phrase (five words or less) may be given as an answer instead.

The spell, at best, provides information to aid character decisions. The entities contacted structure their answers to further their own purposes. If you lag, discuss the answers, or go off to do anything else, the spell ends."

Perhaps a better answer would have been to advise the players you aren't going to actively try to screw them over (the spell does not indicate any desire to do so - contrast Contact Other Plane!), so how about we curtail the legalese, and proceed with short questions, with the commitment that, if you think the answers you get are unfair, we wipe that casting out and you can instead have the spell back to use your legalese approach.

 

[N'raac]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I think Wicht covers much of my point more concisely. Like him, I do not perceive a focus on making the game challenging and enjoyable requiring a preconceived script. I also don't perceive a challenge between the PC's and their desired goals as deliberate obstructionism on the part of the GM, but as part of the challenge, and the fun.