Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[pemerton]

double post deleted

 

[Ahnehnois]

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.

I think that's misleading, though. A player in my game has a lot more autonomy than with some of these "player force" people. They can make whatever character they want, and make whatever in-character decisions they want. I have control of everything that isn't that, but given the (universal) conceit that the player characters are the center of the story, they end up having quite a bit of responsibility for determining what ultimately happens.

The difference is not that they are peons, but that their responsibilities are clearly defined. They're each responsible for one character, not for some metagame halo of events loosely surrounding that character.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

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

"...the exercise of GM "force" (I'm hating this word) to arbitrate (not necessarily constrain) action resolution, as well as fairly apply the rules of the system ensure the problem never arises in the first place..." would be a more correct interpretation, in my opinion.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

But have we had any of those DM's post in this thread? There seem to be two class of posters in the main at the moment, 4e DMs who appreciate a ruleset where the players have as much say as the DM in the unfolding campaign world, and those of us who are satisfied with some form of 3x.

I guess I'm actually one of these people that haven't posted yet. I believe that "3.X provides them with a weak base to support classic D&D play, because they don't feel that the game should require houseruling to the extent it does to support their classic dungeoncrawl or LotR style wilderness trek."

However, by the same token I've switched away from 3.5e for this very reason. However, I don't appreciate 4e because players have as much say as the DM in the unfolding campaign. I like it because the DM has MORE say into the unfolding campaign.

 

[Wicht]

I guess I'm actually one of these people that haven't posted yet. I believe that "3.X provides them with a weak base to support classic D&D play, because they don't feel that the game should require houseruling to the extent it does to support their classic dungeoncrawl or LotR style wilderness trek."

However, by the same token I've switched away from 3.5e for this very reason. However, I don't appreciate 4e because players have as much say as the DM in the unfolding campaign. I like it because the DM has MORE say into the unfolding campaign.

So what are you playing now?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

So what are you playing now?

I'm no longer running either 3.5e or 4e. My game converted over to Numenera. Before that we were playtesting D&D Next and I'm currently playing in a biweekly D&D Next game.

Though the last game we played before we started the playtest was 4e. I was running it.

 

[Wicht]

I'm no longer running either 3.5e or 4e. My game converted over to Numenera. Before that we were playtesting D&D Next and I'm currently playing in a biweekly D&D Next game.

Though the last game we played before we started the playtest was 4e. I was running it.

So you are actually a data point confirming my suspicions, that most of those unhappy with the 3.x dynamic have moved on to other systems.

I do believe there are a few playing PF though they might prefer something else, but I do not think PF is dominating the market because the majority of its players are unhappy with it. Just the opposite.

 

[Hussar]

I think that's misleading, though. A player in my game has a lot more autonomy than with some of these "player force" people. They can make whatever character they want, and make whatever in-character decisions they want. I have control of everything that isn't that, but given the (universal) conceit that the player characters are the center of the story, they end up having quite a bit of responsibility for determining what ultimately happens.

The difference is not that they are peons, but that their responsibilities are clearly defined. They're each responsible for one character, not for some metagame halo of events loosely surrounding that character.

But, according to you, they cannot make "whatever in-character decisions they want". Using the chamberlain example, the player states, "I want to see the king. I talk to the chamberlain and try to convince him to let us in." Not an unreasonable course of action IMO. But, unless you call for the diplomacy check, the player cannot go any further. The player actually can't talk to the chamberlain until you allow him to.

In my game, the statement would be: "I want to see the king. I talk to the chamberlain and try to convince him to let us in. ((Roll)) Diplomacy 22, do I succeed"?

I think that's a fairly significant difference.

 

[TwoSix]

I couldn't disagree more.

The campaign world is what it is, and in player-driven play the players do what they like within it; as opposed to DM-driven play where the DM leads them by the nose. But in either case there is way way more to the game world than just the PCs; either that, or you're using a woefully incomplete setting.

Lan-"has anybody ever posted the stats for "strawman" as a monster?"-efan

You're using "player-driven" and "DM-driven" to mean different ideas than I was. You're using "player-driven" to mean a sandbox/hexcrawl game, and "DM-driven" to mean a Dragonlance style scenario track. (I'll avoid the R word. )

I was using "DM-driven" as a shorthand for DM-force Rule 0 based play (DM force seems unnecessarily antagonistic, even if it wasn't intended as such originally), and "player-driven" as shorthand for player-protaganizing scene based play. (a la 4e, FATE, Dungeon World, etc.) And in that style of "player-driven" play, a developed campaign world is wholly unnecessary, although it can be included by the DM if desired.

Note that I'm not saying you're playing wrong, or anything like that! I did say the developed campaign world is pretty much considered D&D orthodoxy, and is for good reasons. It's just not a necessity for every style of play under the sun.

 

[TwoSix]

So you are actually a data point confirming my suspicions, that most of those unhappy with the 3.x dynamic have moved on to other systems.

I do believe there are a few playing PF though they might prefer something else, but I do not think PF is dominating the market because the majority of its players are unhappy with it. Just the opposite.

No, I'd say Pathfinder is pretty much the zenith of the crunch-heavy 3.X paradigm. And it's giving a whole lot of people exactly what they want. I mean, I'm running a PF game right now, although that's my group's preference, not mine personally.

I do think there's a contingent of relatively casual gamers who could play and quite possibly prefer a narrative based game but simply lack exposure to those games.