Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[TwoSix]

[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.

You should probably stick with the long-winded posts then, as opposed to making concise statements of willful misinterpretation.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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.

I concur.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I almost wish I could go back 10 years and post this in CharOp. It's an argument for the converse of the Oberoni fallacy! You're arguing that since Rule 0 is part of RAW, the RAW must assume to include it and use it to balance the game, thus rendering balance arguments pointless. I should link this post to some other forums and see if any heads 'splode.

 

[ImperatorK]

Does that include where he points out your vastly overstated definition of "friendly"?

Could you not use my post as some kinda "gotcha" argument against him? He got it wrong, but that doesn't really invalidate his point, because even just "Friendly" attitude makes the chamberlain quite helpful. He'll advise, offer limited help or advocate for you, which is more than enough.

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.

And I think you are intuiting "I won't play with a DM who uses this kind of DM Force" to always mean "I won't play with a DM that doesn't make everything go my 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.

 

[Ahnehnois]

And I think you are intuiting "I won't play with a DM who uses this kind of DM Force" to always mean "I won't play with a DM that doesn't make everything go my way". There is a world of room between the two.

Given the hard line stance some people have taken against this perceived "force", I don't think there is any such room.

For example, if you think that a player has the right to simply say "I'm using Diplomacy", roll a check, look up the chart, and tell the DM how to play his NPC, I don't think that there's a lot of middle ground on that. The answer, according to the rules and the rest of us, is no.

 

[ImperatorK]

You like railroading and using DM fiat to negate player options, I don't. That's really all there is to it.

 

[Wicht]

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).

Its incredibly telling to me that you assume every single reaction that the world has is ALWAYS negative to the players.

The chamberlain was an example of "what if it does not work," not an example of what happens every time.

The text for charm person, in PFRPG, does not say that the charmed person sees you as his bestest friend, rather it says,

This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as freindly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

This spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. 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 creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

So no, the spell does not make the creature more than friendly, it explicitly makes them friendly. And a charmed coward is going to still behave differently than a charmed warrior, because it will not want to do more than it would normally do. Its just that the creature always gives your arguments the benefit of the doubt, short of actual violence towards it.

 

[TwoSix]

Given the hard line stance some people have taken against this perceived "force", I don't think there is any such room.

For example, if you think that a player has the right to simply say "I'm using Diplomacy", roll a check, look up the chart, and tell the DM how to play his NPC, I don't think that there's a lot of middle ground on that. The answer, according to the rules and the rest of us, is no.

We're quite fortunate that outside of hyperbolic misinterpretation of certain statements, no one believes that.

 

[Wicht]

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.

Long story short, the idea of player-driven play, where the DM always says "yes," if possible seems like not much fun at all for me as a DM. I like DMing, in part because I like the world-building. The Chamberlain is either crazy before the PCs arrive or he is not crazy. A botched roll on the part of the PCs resulting in the Chamberlain being possessed is a foreign sorta concept to me, but seems exactly what I mean by saying the consequences come from within the mechanics (ie. a botched roll) instead of the story-line (a demon trying to take over the kingdom via driving the Chamberlain crazy).

I think PCs are more awesome and interesting when they do awesome things and make interesting choices, not merely because the mechanics dictate they are awesome.

 

[Wicht]

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 you simply assume that anyone playing a game with a DM driven world must be making the same mistakes?