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?
There is no algorithm that I'm aware of for resolving conflict where the parties can't agree. Maybe the campaign ends. Maybe it limps on. Maybe a solution emerges, or is negotiated (isn't the problem you're putting forward a pretty classic "Battle of the Sexes"?). I can't see how the GM has any sort of "final arbiter" role when the players can't agree on what sort of game they should play. The players aren't children. I can't make them do something they don't want to do.
You consistently refer to “the group” as though they are always in 100% consensus. Is that, in fact, the case?
Are you suggesting that my group is secretly riven by conflict that they do me the courtesy of concealing? In which case I'll ask that you refrain from making pejorative judgements about people you don't know and indeed have almost certainly never met.
If you're telling me that other groups can't agree, and so need the GM to bully them into conformity like a Hobbesian sovereign, then all I can say is that (i) I feel sorry for them, and (ii) don't ever ask me to organise a social outing with them.
They died? I thought they woke up in a goblin jail cell.
<snip>
isn’t you passing the choice from the goblins you direct to the players an abrogation of this rule?
I was not talking about the PCs who were taken prisoner. I was talking about the PCs who died and came back to life at the behest of the Raven Queen (and in one case other gods too). For the PCs who were knocked unconscious and taken prisoner, issues around rules for death and the like have no bearing.
your post said “I gave the player the choice”. This clearly indicates you could deny the same choice.
You're reading too literally. I'm not drafting documents here, or even a formal essay. I quoted you the relevant 4e rules text on dead PCs. My table followed that text. The decision was not unilaterally mine.
If you want a more formally accurate wording, how about along these lines: "I asked the player whose PC had died if, in the next scene that I frame, he wanted me to frame his dead PC into it somehow, or would rather have me frame in his new PC (which would obviously require him telling me something about that new PC)."
I am arguing that, by the rules, the power to make that decision rests in you, the GM.
Let me requote from p 30 of the 4e DMG:
When a character does die, it’s usually up to the players as a group to decide what happens.
I don't see any ambiguity there. The rules indicate that it is not a GM thing but a group thing. I offered my player a choice - do you want your old PC or a new PC to be framed into the next scene? That is not GM force - the player can't participate in the next scene unless some PC or other is framed into it for him to play.
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?
Perhaps you take minutes of your games. I don't. What was said by the other players? I can't remember. If they had thought it was cheesy I'm sure they would have said so. I treat the absence of objections in this sort of situation as a sign of consensus. It's a D&D group, after all, not a political party meeting.
N'raac;6197376 it is not the [B said:
rules of the game[/B] that provide the choice to the character – it is your modification of those mechanics.
This is doubly confusing. First you are talking about the choice of the character - as if this was an infiction thing - whereas I'm talking about an out-of-game choice that is
really taken by real people - namely, which PC should be framed into the next scene so that my player can participate in that scene. Second, having quoted you the rule that says "when a character dies, it's usually up to the players as a group to decide what happens" you are trying to tell me that the rule confers authority upon the GM.
If nothing has been lost, why is there a desire to return the character to life?
Because the player wants to play D&D, with his friends, and to do that needs a PC. Which one? In this case, the player prefers the dead one to a new one. My point was that PC death in 4e as I play it - unlike, say, in Gygaxian play - is not a loss condition. Nor is gaining levels a win condition. (Whereas in Gygaxian play it clearly is - only skilled players will have high level PCs.) The game is not oriented to winning and losing - it is not what I called, upthread, "wargaming" play. (In Forge terms, I am not running a gamist game.)
Seems like that first aspect is very much a storyteller motive.
Huh? I've said the only reasons for or against including the dead PC in future scenes are story ones - would it be silly, cheesy, has the PC's arc come to an end? And I've said that the player, having the primary stake in the PC's story, should be the one to make that call. That has nothing to do with "story teller" play, which - as defined by me upthread when I introduced the term - is about the game playing out the GM's conception of what the story should be.
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.
Let's put to one side that your reference to "overriding" is confused, because you are not distinguishing between me choosing what happens to people whom my monsters drop to 0 hp - as per the 4e combat rules in the PHB - and me asking a player whether or not he wishes me to frame a dead PC into a subsequent scene, and then narrating the requisite background details to support that within the fiction of the gameworld.
You are also presupposing that any given encounter is a social encounter, or a combat encounter, or a something else encounter. That presupposition has no foundation. Will the players fight Calaystryx or negotiate with her? I don't know. They started by fighting. Then she tried to open negotiations, and there was a tentative response from one player's PC. But the other PCs kept fighting. Did I have a view as to which way it should go? No. I thought negotations could be interesting, and had ideas about where they could lead. The fight was fun too. Either way the game keeps on going.
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.
So why, then, are the players having their PCs try this? Presumably because they want to challenge that thesis. And why is the GM, then, framing and adjudicating the scene in such a way as that can't happen? Presumably because the answer has been prewritten? If the answer was an open question, that the GM
wouldn't be framing and adjudicating in this way. The actual play of the game via action resolution would tell us.
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.
That's not really framing a scene in the sense that those who talk about scene-framing play are talking about. That's narrating a cut-scene!
Framing the scene would be something along the lines of "You enter the antechamber. You see the king's chamberlain standing ther as you hoped, but he looks impatient, angry even."
I set out in some detail why I don't like a rule which requires me, as a GM who has framed that scene, to now decide whether or not the player makes a check at full bonus or a -10 penalty due to an absence of mechanics for deciding whether or not an NPC will listen for a minute. It's sheer GM fiat - as in, it seems to me to go like this:
Player: I start talking to the Chamberlain, explaining why it is so important that we meet the king. I am putting on my most courteous manner so as not to upset him anymore than he already is. I make a Diplomacy check.
GM option 1: Before you can finish you entreaties, the chamberlain storms off. You can make a roll at -10 if you like, to try and persuade him to hear you out.
GM option 2: The chamberlain listens with barely-concealed impatience. Make your check.
Depending on whether I, as GM, choose option 1 or option 2, the chances of success for the players can change pretty radically. It's in my view a bad mechanic. A skill challenge system would be much better - then as GM I can go for Option 1 or Option 2 but it doesn't dictate the chances of the players' success (though it does change the ensuing fiction) - if I as GM go for Option 1 then the player makes a Diplomacy check at the normal chance but if it fails the Chamberlain storms off and now the players have to bring new skills to bear to get to see the king; if I as GM go for option 2 then the player also makes a Diplomacy check, and if it fails the Chamberlain lashes out impatiently and changes the fictional parameters of the social interaction. So I as GM can go with whichever fictional direction seems cool at the time without dictating to a very large degree whether or not the players get what they want for their PCs out of the scene.
Would you allow this same player to apply Diplomacy in combat?
Yes. My players use Diplomacy all the time in combat situations.
Sometimes, the means to resolve the challenge is not obvious and staring you in the face.
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.
How are these not examples of GM preconception as to how the scene will play out?
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.
What limits have I set on the fireballing mage. If the fireballing mage wants to kill the king's guards and thereby make his way into the king's throneroom, go for it! That doesn't strike me as very different from when the PCs in my game killed all the goblin guards and then made their way into the goblin king's throneroom (where they killed him too).
To use HeroQuest, Hussar 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.
That is action resolution, though. And HQ has advice on default DCs (based on the pass/fail cycle) and the player also has resources - namely, hero points - to spend on bumps if s/he really thinks it is important enough to see the chamberlain.
That's not an illustration of GM force in action resolution.
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).
Well that is why 3E and PF are not "say yes or roll the dice" games. Though I suspect they could be played that way without great damage, and indeed with the potential for improvement for some, perhaps many, groups.
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.
Yes. Perhaps you are not familar with "say yes or roll the dice" as a technique. It means that you only invoke the action resolution mechanics if there is a disagreement, among the participants at the table, as to whether or not a proposed element can actually be introduced into the fiction - ie someone is not saying yes.
In the scenario you are describing someone is not saying yes. Therefore the dice have to be rolled.
So it is impossible for the Chamberlain to be thematically relevant and realistic? I disagree.
Like [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION], you are not stating back here what [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and I said. I said that it is, in practical terms, impossible to have action resolution that both (i) proceeds according to ingame causal logic, and (ii) ensures that thematic concerns are always front and centre. This is because (ii) requires frequent disregard of the details of (i). For instance, it requires handwaving travel in many cases, shopping in many cases, the details of how a room is searched in many cases, the details of resting and recovery, etc. And thereby substituting genre logic for causal logic.
"Realism" and "verisimilitude" are red herrings for this particular issue, because nearly anything is possible (especially in a fantasy game), and hence even the most contrived scene framing can often be made plausible within the fiction by the proper deployment of background and framing narration. (Example of genre logic trumping causal logic in fiction: the hobbits meet Aragorn at Bree at precisely the time they need him to help them avoid the Nazgul; example of genre logic trumping causal logic in D&D: the PCs arrive at the temple just as the sacrifice is about to take place.)
Why do they need to be told? Do we also tell them there is a invisible assassin in the room?
In my game, when a PC is attacked by a water elemental in a moat and pushed back to the bank, I would tell the player. At that point, the player can invoke the action resolution rules (probably some part of the combat rules, but perhaps something else like the rules for jumping) to try and defeat or circumvent the water elementals.
So it is OK to add the water elementals or the stubborn chamberlain, is it not? Both inject additional opposition to the players’ goals.
<snip>
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?
You impute to me the view that it's OK to add endless water elementals to block a PC from crossing the moat, and then you express puzzlement that I reject the view you've imputed to me - you might therefore infer that the imputation was wrong. In particular, there is a big difference between (say) two water elementals, and endless water elementals.
More generally, I don't understand the point of your cross-examination sytle. Are you seriously interested in how I run my game? If so, read some of the actual play threads I've linked to upthread. Are you wondering how I judge how many water elementals is enough for a challenge but not so many as to be deprotagonising? I rely upon my own judgement and experience, plus the guidelines in the 4e DMG for encounter budgeting, level-appropriate DCs, how big a cliff to use for PCs of a given level, etc.
There are no express guidelines for what sort of gorge is a good size to use (though there are guidelines on depth of falls), but I'm pretty sure I could work it out if I had to. You might be interested in the map attached to the OP in
this thread, as well as the actual description of how I used it in the post, to see what sort of geographic layout I thought made for a challenging encounter for 18th level PCs.
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.
<snip>
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 your comment here seems to be agreement with what I, and several other posters, have been saying for many pages now - namely, that the exercise of GM force to constrain action resolution can deal with the problem; but for those who do not like that particular technique, there is likely to be a balance issue between 3E fighters and 3E casters at least once we get into mid-to-high levels.
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?
I frame the PCs into situations that I think will engage the players, as dramatically interesting and also mechanically engaging. (Enjoying the mechanics is an important part of 4e that differentiates it from a rules-lite game; luckily theme and mechanics tend to be mutually reinforcing, at least in my experiene of 4e.)
Subsequent scenes are framed in light of what happened earlier. And yes, quite a bit of it is made up as we go along.
Then why have action resolution mechanics at all? Why should the PC’s ever face the possibility of failure?
<snip>
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.
I don't know about the people you play with, but the people I play with want to play a game in which their PCs confront challenges that are engaging to the players, which they can have their PCs tackle by deploying their resources in accordance with the action resolution mechanics of the game. The process of doing this produces changes in the fiction, which feed into new framed scenes, which are resolved similarly.
The action resolution rules are there to provide a game. The possibility of failure contributes primarily to dramatic pacing - also anticipation and other similar dramatic devices.
I get the sense that, in your preferred game, the players should have omniscience over the entire game world.
I find it utterly remarkable that you read [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s posts in this way. All he is aksing for is that the GM frame scenes which make it clear to the players how they can successfully leverage their resources, via the action resolution rules, to change the fiction.
that does not, to me, mean that the 3.5 mechanics cannot give rise to an enjoyable play experience
Enjoyable for whom? No one is denying that you have enjoyable play experiences. But obviously those who find balance issues that they have to work around aren't in the same situation as you.
or that this relies on unreasonable GM interpretations, or GM override of the rules, under its mechanics.
Unreasonable for whom? No one is suggesting that you find your GMing approach unreasonable. But others may not like it. It's almost as if diffent people like different things! Or are looking for different experiences from their play of RPGs!
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.
Not everyone who likes different things from you, or who reads the rules differently from you, or who applies them differently from you, is intellectually dishonest. Often they just like different things and read the rules differently. Given that there is, in practical terms, nothing at stake in reading the rules differently (quite different from statutes or contracts, say) it's practically to be expected that different people will read, and apply, the rules differently.
And it's also natural that different people will like different things.
But at least in 3rd edition, they still feel that Rule Zero (or we could even call it the common sense clause) is fundamentally useful, and should be implemented.
