Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Lanefan]

To me, I don't see the point of adding to all this corner case stuff. The players want to see the king. They talk to the Chamberlain to see the king. Straightforward. But the DM doesn't want the players doing that, so, he c-blocks the group by fiat. Pure DM force. And then the DM justifies himself afterwards by saying that there's some in game rationale for why things don't work.

Yeah, no thanks. If you don't want me to do something, just tell me. I'm a big boy. I'll accept that. Being frustrated by DM's trying to protect their precious scenarios is far, far more common, IME, than not.

This sounds, on the surface, like a case of player entitlement gone wild.

Just because the players (I can only assume in character) decide they want to speak with the king does not and should not automatically mean they will be able to, now or ever. And if that's the quite legitimate tack the DM takes then it's up to the DM to come up with an in-game rationale as to why you're not getting that audience. What you suggest is an out-of-game resolution where the DM straight-up tells you it's not gonna happen; so much for immersion.

And yes, sometimes as a player (and-or character) you're going to run into insurmountable roadblocks in the game, and have to learn the hard way (usually by repeated attempts using different methods) that you're not going to succeed. Using the king example: you speak with the chamberlain, he tells you in the politest of terms to buzz off; then you charm the chamberlain and he gets you to the throne room door where the guards tell you not-so-politely to buzz off (and look sideways at the chamberlain as well); then you try to break into the palace at night and end up thrown in jail. Eventually you'll learn your only chance of meeting the king is to do something heroic enough that he rewards you...

Lan-"the gov'nor of givin'er"-efan

 

[Hussar]

I think that game world used to limit power was a legitimate and deliberately engineered power check, given that wizards were designed in this way, "great power, great risk" kinda thing. If its a question of using it every single time to frustrate characters, that's not condoned by anyone here. But its not. Its a question of should its fair application be completely ignored.

No, it shouldn't be completely ignored. But, the application doesn't work for me in the first place. When you start going down the road of "Magic should make a workable world" it's a rabbit hole from which there is no escape. For me, it doesn't work because there's always a "but what about..."

And, for me, it requires way, WAY too much work.

 

[LostSoul]

This sounds, on the surface, like a case of player entitlement gone wild.

Just because the players (I can only assume in character) decide they want to speak with the king does not and should not automatically mean they will be able to, now or ever. And if that's the quite legitimate tack the DM takes then it's up to the DM to come up with an in-game rationale as to why you're not getting that audience. What you suggest is an out-of-game resolution where the DM straight-up tells you it's not gonna happen; so much for immersion.

And yes, sometimes as a player (and-or character) you're going to run into insurmountable roadblocks in the game, and have to learn the hard way (usually by repeated attempts using different methods) that you're not going to succeed. Using the king example: you speak with the chamberlain, he tells you in the politest of terms to buzz off; then you charm the chamberlain and he gets you to the throne room door where the guards tell you not-so-politely to buzz off (and look sideways at the chamberlain as well); then you try to break into the palace at night and end up thrown in jail. Eventually you'll learn your only chance of meeting the king is to do something heroic enough that he rewards you...

Lan-"the gov'nor of givin'er"-efan

This post vexes me. "Just because the players (I can only assume in character) decide they want to speak with the king does not and should not automatically mean they will be able to, now or ever." That is the only bit that I really understand.

Is it player entitlement to expect the DM to impartially present a game world in which you can make rational decisions for your PC?

Should the DM decide the one and only way for PCs to reach their goals?

Should the DM decide that what he wants to happen will happen, make sure it happens, and then come up with an in-game reason for that outcome after the fact?

I can't tell if you're suggesting these things, or not.

 

[Cadence]

In the sort of game play that I very strongly prefer, the GM has no conception of how the situation will resolve that is independent of the process of action

Ok... I feel like this must be overstating things, but I can't pinpoint where:

Won't a skilled DM in 4e have designed the encounter so that they will roughly know how weakened a party of experienced players will be after engaging in it and have the danger the party will be in so well predicted that there are rarely surprises? Thus, no conceptions about how the encounter will work out are needed -- the most crucial conceptions will have been built in.

But 1st ed AD&D is not written as a DM-driven game. Have a look at Gygax's discussion, in the final pages of his PHB before the appendices, of what is involved in preparing for an adventure. That's not about DM-driven play

... In other words, nothing in 1st ed AD&D points particularly towards GM-driven play, ...

The 1e PHB has things that show the players have some control... but being able to buy equipment outside of the session and plan in advance how to deal with the threats revealed last time doesn't seem to be on the same level as what is given to the DM. "When you build your campaign you will tailor it to suit your personal tastes. In the heat of play it will slowly evolve in a compound of your personality and those of better participants". The players are there to "learn the wonders and face the perils you have devised for them." "They begin as less than pawns..." And the DM is warned that players "will attempt to take the game out of your hands and mold it to his or her ends. To satisfy this natural desire is a death warrant to a campaign...".

And even in the PHB there are things such as "Details as to your appearance, your body proportions, and your history can be produced by you or the Dungeon Master." After mentioning that the DM builds the world the players are told they can "help immeasurably by participating, by letting the referee know that you appreciate his or her efforts, and by playing well and in a sportsmanly fashion." "THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN. ... the players add color and details..." When designing their characters "[t]he Dungeon master may have restrictions as to which races are allowed..." And the player isn't even the final decider in their equipment, for when purchasing them "[a]s in most dealings, the buyer should always beware. Things may be as they appear or they might be otherwise."

/partly tongue-in-cheek/ Given that the DMG also says the players shouldn't read it... aren't the contents of the DMG and PHB also consistent with Gygax only wanting the players to have the illusion of agency? ;-)

 

[Wicht]

I can't tell if you're suggesting these things, or not.

No, he's not. He's saying that some things should be off limits until the players earn it.

 

[Cadence]

Thing is, I do understand your way of doing it. I've done your way for years. Throughout 1e and 2e and early 3e, I certainly played this way.

The solution may be easy if your players are amenable. I and my players no longer are. My players are not out to abuse things. Never were. That's why I implicitly trust my players to make the game better and don't feel that it's my job as the DM to do that. I supply the scenarios and adjudicate the rules. I don't have to play hall monitor on their actions to make sure that they stay within the limitations that your DMing style creates.

Just let me know if this is intrusive, but I'm curious about what led to your switch in styles and how it worked... have you posted more details about it elsewhere? If not, what led to the switch if you all had been happy with (or at least using) the previous for years? Was it a gradual evolution or an epiphany? Were all the players equally on board? Were there shocks with the increased death rate (that you mentioned in another thread)? Do you still handle the rest of the campaign/DMing the same (e.g. beyond the encounter resolution part)?

 

[Hussar]

More gradual change with an epiphany. I just became more and more disillusioned with games where the hand of the DM is so visible. It's typically very obvious when the DM has decided, a priori that a given action simply will not work because the DM doesn't want it to. As a DM, I don't want that level of control over the game and as a player, I constantly chafe at the restrictions.

One of the biggest reasons I switched from 2e to 3e was because I grew increasingly unhappy with Mother May I gaming, where the players are beholden to the DM for far too many things. 3e was great, IMO. It took all this authority from the DM, wrapped it up in nice, well written rules that were very clear and moved the DM from Game Designer to Game Facilitator. I no longer had to ad hoc rules on the fly whenever the players tried fairly common actions.

4e takes that approach even further by having rules which are, by and large, crystal clear, written in a style which makes the game very, very transparent. So, by and large, I have the players telling me how things work, because they know the mechanics and know the intention of how the game should work. In the two years we've played 4e, I can only think of one time the DM had to step in and make anything resembling a fiat decision which wasn't completely supported by the mechanics.

IOW, playing in a group of 7 experienced DM's means that we all know how the game works and the idea that the DM has to keep things going is alien to us.

 

[LostSoul]

No, he's not. He's saying that some things should be off limits until the players earn it.

Assuming Lanefan is saying that, what does "earn it" mean, who decides that, and how is it decided?

My style would be to handle the reclusive king in one of two ways: 1) Write it up before the king comes into play. He's terrified of the hag in hex 01.09 who put a curse on him, saying that the next stranger who comes to visit him will spell his doom, so he's gone into hiding. Then I'd play that out at the table, probably with a combination of 2) Make a reaction roll when the king comes up in play, and since I got a "Extremely Hostile, no dialogue possible" he's not going to talk to them. (The combination would see me making reaction rolls for all the other NPCs that I didn't detail before they came into play.)

At this point I'd role-play the NPCs as I see them (maintain NPC integrity as a subset of maintaining the integrity of the game world) and engage the action resolution mechanics when they come up.

 

[Hussar]

Just to add to Lost Soul's point. Sure, if it's established that diplomacy won't work, then fine, no problems. But, I was assuming in the example, that no further information has been forthcoming. The players try diplomacy and it just doesn't work. Why not? Well, you have to investigate.

But, the thing is, for me, this would established as a non-starter LONG before the players got to see the Chamberlain. Or, if it wasn't, the chamberlain himself would state in game why it wasn't possible. "No, you can't see the king because he has ordered, on pain of death, that no one will visit him."

But, by and large, I would never set up the scenario like that simply because it's so frustrating to the players. They are taking pretty logical actions that are actually specifically listed as possible actions in the PHB and the DM is throwing up roadblocks. Sure, it might be logical, but, at the end of the day, very often it's the result of DM's having a very strong idea of how the game should play out and the players are deviating from script.

Not my way of playing.

 

[Campbell]

I am deeply skeptical of the contention that command and control leadership is the most effective way to manage a group, especially a small group. Not only does it fly in the face of most quality organizational research coming out of places like the Harvard Business School, it is also contrary to recent business success stories like Zara and Costco. Cross functional teams, distributed decision making, and increased autonomy are becoming the norm - not the exception. It also flies in the face of the effective managers and NCOs I have known. When you invest in people, communicate with them, and promote a sense of ownership you might be surprised by the results.

In my experience bad actors thrive in an environment where they do not bear any real responsibility for outcomes. It's easy to trot out that overpowered build of the week or to be just 'playing your character' when the group dynamics are such that you have no accountability for impact of your decisions. When you are forced to own your decisions it's not so easy.