Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Manbearcat]

Then, if a player action makes a scene boring or removes the conflict, I think you'd be well justified in using the means at your disposal to either preserve the genre atmosphere you want, or add in a new element that creates the desired conflict.

"Genre atmosphere" and "player action making scene boring to remove conflict" do not comport with one another and, conceptually, the two are likely completely decoupled.

To the first part (genre atmosphere), this a product of (i) system expectations and the inherent tools to engender specific genre play/tropes and (ii) social contract. If you want high fantasy/mythic play/big damn heroes, then (to take some current genre elements) your fighters are going to be calling upon John McClain and your Rogues are going to be calling upon Indiana Jones. You aren't going to find any "HP as meat" expectations here. You aren't going to be framing situations/challenges and the evolving narrative of conflict resolution around "what can mundane, every day people accomplish". Again, "what is genre relevant" takes primacy. "What can mundane, every day people accomplish" leaves John McClain hobbled with shredded feet, out of bullets, and shot up in a vent duct. I want him mummy-walking through the rubble, mist, and chaos, utterly unrecognizable due to the beating he has taken, but pistol strapped to his back by tape so he can face down Hans with one last Yippie Kay Yay and a well placed headshot. "What can mundane, every day people accomplish" doesn't get me that and placing binding task resolution to process simulation over genre logic constrains narrative output to the point that the tropes that define the genre are impossible to have emerge through play.

To the second part, isn't all functional play (be it combat or non-combat, conflict resolution) about player(s) action removing/resolving conflict (by vanquishing foes/defeating challenges) or escalating conflict/complicating their situation (by either failing to achieve a sought end or winning but at a price steep enough to qualify as Pyrrhic)? "Player action making scene boring to remove conflict" is difficult for me to access precisely what you're visualizing. If I can reframe what you're saying I likely have something I can grasp that is central to this thread; Disparity of resource breadth/potency between players making spotlight sharing a GM-force issue rather than an emergent quality of the ruleset in play. I can always frame new conflicts, put something at stake, challenge my players. The problem I have is when its my responsibility to artificially manipulate the efficacy of a suite of resources to achieve parity. I want the ruleset to have the parity thing resolved so I can spend the totality of my mental overhead working to achieve awesome (*** by framing thematic conflict > players engaging it via PC build > resolving it via resolution mechanics > story and complications emerge > go back to step 1.). To sum up, when done effectively (via technique and ruleset that supports rather than pushing against you) there is no such thing as "player action making scene boring to remove conflict".

In the absence of the big NPCs regularly having countermeasures to most common tactics, the meaning of the word "balance" definitely changes.

Intra-class balance in Indie play is typically assumed as "parity amongst classes to resolve or reframe conflicts". Consider the unified mechanics and broad (borderline open) descriptor nature of 4e and MHRP. Here parity is well achieved but the unified class mechanics creates a battle-cry of "sameiness", "everyone casts spells or has the same powers" and the broad/open descriptor of skills/effects creates the "players will just try to justify the usage of their best skill and leverage their highest die powers/specialties for dice pools" (13th Age's background system suffers the same naysaying). However, for thematically tight "Indie" play, scenes are being framed and fictional positioning evolving such that while decision-points will be opening up, choices will also be functionally guiding future resolution options/engagement. If your intent is to "get away from snake men pursuit with pilfered idol" and you fail a ride/navigation check, some impediment (physical or otherwise) needs to complicate your path to your sought end; perhaps a gorge. Gorge is now in the way and pursuit is closing? No you have to still (i) get away (1st order) by dealing with the (ii) intervening gorge and closing pursuit (both derivative of the 1st order intent, the mechanical resolution and the evolving fictional positioning).

Classes that can leverage more profound resources and/or more broad resources have advantage over those with less profound resources and/or more narrow resources. The first class (or group of classes) will be resolving more conflicts, reframing more conflicts, or playing a more robust role in the "team effort" to resolve conflicts. Given that you're specifically focused on thematic, genre-relevant scenes that "drive play toward conflict", you aren't interested in "off-screen", world-building, rife with GM-force justifications for circumventing functional conflict resolution by disengaging the resolution mechanics. Especially not for the sake of pre-planned story or story hammered into shape by heavy application of GM-force. You're looking for story to be the emergent by-product of *** above.

If I understand correctly, your issue here is that hit points unfairly penalize the martial types?

If you're saying that spellcasters being able to bypass hp and noncasters not being able to do that is a problem, then I'm inclined to agree.

That is one part of it, but it is certainly deeper than that. My problem lies in (the heart of the discusion of which you disagree with the premise) the "agressively hegemonizing ursine swarm" who can leave the Fighter in the dust in the resolution of combat (the Fighters only theatre of conflict resolution that he is allowed to be functional in for whatever reason)...and fly...and talk to nature itself (and its component parts)...and travel through trees...and contain a forest fire with a deluge...and feed a starving village with a bounty from the earth...and assume any appearance...and change into a dire bear or a giant fire/earth/water/air elemental. Etc, etc.

I must admit, I have never seen a PF game where the wizard used an ax, though I did have that one dwarven wizard who was bonded to his hammer. That was a fun character. But the fighters were still much better fighters than he was, at least after 1st level, when the hp differential leveled off (He was a high Constitution wizard with a lot of hit-points. I think we were trying out bonus racial hit-points in that game from the Alpha or Beta playtest.)

I was taking creative license and using metaphor Sub "decapitate giant with axe" for "Spectral Hand > Shivering Touch" or "Love's Pain > Mindrape" or "Shapechange (into Dragon)" or "Gate in Solar" or "Incantrix Persist Build (for ridiculous melee potency)" or any number of summoner builds + summon monster wands with devastating buffs for summons and AoE debuffs/control effects for enemies. It is just terribly easy to dominate the threatre of combat with a few spells and a DC-irrelevant wand or two and still have plenty of utility spells available.

 

[N'raac]

This is a complete red herring. The player of an enchanter who tries to charm the Chamberlain isn't trying to create a bad experience for everyone at the table. That player is trying to engage the scene and resolve the confrontation.

He has decided that he has this one skill, so that one skill should be the solution every time. Sometimes, that one skill is not the solution. Sometimes, the means to resolve the challenge is not obvious and staring you in the face.

Of course NPCs serve as antagonists to the PCs. The key issue is the nature of the antagonism, and how it is overcome. @N'raac's example of the Chamberlain is not just an NPC serving as an antagonist to the PCs. As desribed, (i) it has no prior motivation or thematic heft (contrast: part of the thematic point of the game is to address the degradation of the nobility), and (ii) it is not amenable to being overcome via the players engaging the action resolution mechanics.

So what is the motivation of thematic heft of the PC's wishing to see the King? The fact that all of the events from character creation to arrival at the King's Court to see the chamberlain has not been spelled out in detail does not mean the encounter is meaningless, random fluff. Perhaps the theme is the Right of Kings, and of the Nobility, so the Chamberlain is, thematically, not going to let a bunch of commoners chat their way in to see the King.

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 resolution.

I'd suggest the clear math of 4e encounter design which you have described suggests that you already have a pretty clear conception of how the situation will resolve by virtue of building the encounter to a certain level of challenge. You are pretty confident, for example, that the PC's will win - you can't envision a TPK arising. When, once, it did you overrode those results to enable the characters to survive. That seems like a preconceived expectation of the outcome, and an override of the mechanics to produce it.

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."

So he is to hand the answers to you on a silver platter. OK, so let's assume he tells you exactly that. Is it true, or is he lying to get rid of you? Should the player, and through him the character, know with certainty whether his check was successful or a failure? I see no reason he should.

But I get the sense that, in your preferred game, the players should have omniscience over the entire game world. Not the game I want to play in, frankly. Let my character learn the answers through play. I am satisfied to learn them along with him, rather than play a character burning with desire to learn the secrets of the world while already knowing them as a player.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

I'm not sure I understand you here. Do you find NPCs who have justifiable in-game reasons to block your PCs frustrating? Or is it only that you find them frustrating when the DM is using the NPCs to force the PCs back "on script"? If the latter, what do you consider "on script"?

I think that, if you came into a town where the king was holed up like this, I'd have the chamberlain/castellan say, "The king is not accepting any visitors, and will not be for the near future." Then I'd make it clear that this is strange, kings do need to see visitors, so there's something up (either through an NPC or just by telling you that your PCs know this is strange in this game world). Erm, I'd probably make a reaction roll first for the chamberlain, then do the above, and go through standard action resolution if warranted by your PC's actions.

 

[Cadence]

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.

Don't the managers and NCOs have some additional authority beyond those that fall under them on the organizational hierarchy -- the ability to delegate assignments, fire, discipline, etc... ? Does this additional authority implicitly come with somewhat greater responsibility? (If not, why are they paid more?) If a manager or NCO periodically vetoes a decision of someone in the group, does that mean the rest of the group has no responsibility for the outcomes? (Of course if the group is functioning well then they wouldn't need to use that authority overtly very often.)

 

[Jackinthegreen]

/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? ;-)

This struck a chord with me. I realize entirely that you probably dislike players not having agency and likely disagree with Gygax, but in my case I loathe the idea.

The very thought that players can't have agency especially given easy access to the material is absurd to me. Maybe a nudge here and there because people can be dense at times or otherwise have a bad day, but in my eyes giving players the "illusion of agency" is tantamount to calling them sheep. I refuse to lead them along because I like players (and people in general) with a brain and a spine. The brain is mostly useless without a spine since knowledge without action gets little done in the first place while action without knowledge tends to get people in trouble.

For anyone dissecting this statement and perhaps keen on pointing out inconsistencies, do keep in mind I have a strict distinction between player knowledge and character knowledge and I do my best to let my players know they should keep in mind that distinction as they should with any kind of roleplaying. The players know the rules and plenty of other game and metagame concepts. The characters certainly don't know all of that because the game itself doesn't typically let them "break the 4th wall," although I would expect studious or intuitive characters to research commonalities and figure out some certain things binding the fantasy itself together.

 

[Cadence]

The problem I have is when its my responsibility to artificially manipulate the efficacy of a suite of resources to achieve parity. I want the ruleset to have the parity thing resolved so I can spend the totality of my mental overhead working to achieve awesome (*** by framing thematic conflict > players engaging it via PC build > resolving it via resolution mechanics > story and complications emerge > go back to step 1.).

That seems like a nice summary of what I thought you've been getting at.

But if the ruleset doesn't lend itself to balanced encounters, or if you didn't have the time and/or skill to balance it correctly, or if the dice just worked out in a way that was spectacularly anti-climactic, then sometimes you can just go back to step 1 and try again. But sometimes it kills the whole party even though they "did everything right" or it short-circuits what was supposed to be an epic battle they'd spent weeks heading towards -- in those cases it seems like many posters here would argue that awesome was not achieved.

So is the choice either:
a) switch to an easier balanced ruleset that isn't to swingy or get more time and/or better at balancing if you are already using one
b) accept that sometimes potential awesomeness will become suckiness
or
c) use forcing judiciously
?

 

[Campbell]

Don't the managers and NCOs have some additional authority beyond those that fall under them on the organizational hierarchy -- the ability to delegate assignments, fire, discipline, etc... ? Does this additional authority implicitly come with somewhat greater responsibility? (If not, why are they paid more?) If a manager or NCO periodically vetoes a decision of someone in the group, does that mean the rest of the group has no responsibility for the outcomes? (Of course if the group is functioning well then they wouldn't need to use that authority overtly very often.)

There is definitely an additional level of responsibility. I'm not really arguing for no structure or committee play (although it has its place). I still view GMing as something of a leadership position, and like any leadership position sometimes unilateral action may be required, but it's best to engage the group as much as possible. It's also important to clearly communicate why an action is being taken and to present information as upfront as possible.

I'll also add that every situation is different. Some play groups are going to consist of players that do not want to take on a high level of responsibility. I see a similar situation at the part time job I hold at my University's bookstore*. That means a more forceful leadership style is required, but also that bad actors can have a more insidious presence.

* If it helps provide some context to where I'm coming from I'm a Business Management major with an emphasis in Information Systems attending university on the GI Bill.

 

[Manbearcat]

That seems like a nice summary of what I thought you've been getting at.

But if the ruleset doesn't lend itself to balanced encounters, or if you didn't have the time and/or skill to balance it correctly, or if the dice just worked out in a way that was spectacularly anti-climactic, then sometimes you can just go back to step 1 and try again. But sometimes it kills the whole party even though they "did everything right" or it short-circuits what was supposed to be an epic battle they'd spent weeks heading towards -- in those cases it seems like many posters here would argue that awesome was not achieved.

So is the choice either:
a) switch to an easier balanced ruleset that isn't to swingy or get more time and/or better at balancing if you are already using one
b) accept that sometimes potential awesomeness will become suckiness
or
c) use forcing judiciously
?

My evolution of D&D GMing (technique development/acumen) and the refinement of my system tastes to produce my preferred style of play (for long-running campaigns) went from d (pawn-stance, gamist, 1e dungeoncrawling) to c (AD&D 2e storytelling via application, sometimes not so deft, of force) to b (3.x process sim/sand-boxing and letting the chips fall where they may...oft leading to anti-climax as you speculated) to a (switch to 4e...obviously I'm a 4venger writ large). In between there, I played Classic Traveler, Call of Cthulu, one of the Star Wars (can't recall which), Over the Edge, Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, Fate, a bit of MHRP, Dungeon World and I'll be running 13th Age soon enough.

But that is just an uninteresting autobiographical note about myself. The take-home here is that "system matters" and there is more than one way (heavy application of GM-force; Rulings Not Rules) to play RPGs generally and D&D specifically.

 

[Cadence]

This struck a chord with me. I realize entirely that you probably dislike players not having agency and likely disagree with Gygax, but in my case I loathe the idea.

The very thought that players can't have agency especially given easy access to the material is absurd to me. Maybe a nudge here and there because people can be dense at times or otherwise have a bad day, but in my eyes giving players the "illusion of agency" is tantamount to calling them sheep. I refuse to lead them along because I like players (and people in general) with a brain and a spine. The brain is mostly useless without a spine since knowledge without action gets little done in the first place while action without knowledge tends to get people in trouble.

Definitely. I think everyone here (and Gygax's statements in the 1e DMG) are against the players having only a semblance of agency.

It seems like the disagreement is over whether: (i) forcing/fuding/nudging/recalibration/permission-deaths is undesirable enough that it just shouldn't be done because it compromises the players' agency too much, (ii) that some of the things on that list can be done judiciously and others can't without compromising the players' agency too much, or (iii) that all of those things can be done judiciously without compromising the players' agency too much. Happily, it sounds like most of the posters here have found a group of players that agrees with their preference.

My statement was just trying to argue that I think Gygax is clearly in the third of those three groups. Most of the times when he brings up the DM's ability to do such things he includes a cautionary statement that makes it sounds like it should be used sparingly because he's worried about making the players just puppets.

 

[Cadence]

But that is just an uninteresting autobiographical note about myself. The take-home here is that "system matters" and there is more than one way (heavy application of GM-force; Rulings Not Rules) to play RPGs generally and D&D specifically.

That seems like it could be a nice take-home to end the thread with -- although that would probably be too tidy to actually happen without some mod-forcing. (And I appreciated the autobiographical note.)