Ok, the PC's know that the king is not seeing anyone and meet the chamberlain who tells them the same. The PC's charm the chamberlain successfully. Do they get to see king?
To me, it brings to mind the scene in Return of the Jedi when Luke charms the chamberlain to see Jabba the Hutt. And, look at the results. The chamberlain is blamed ("Weak willed FOOL!") while Luke gets exactly what he wants. Well, not exactly since I don't think he wanted to be dropped in with a rancour, but, he DID get to see Jabba and make his demands.
He did. He made his offers to Jabba – and Jabba refused. Now we have to interpret what happens on screen in game mechanics terms. Did Luke’s Diplomacy skill fail, or was Jabba simply unwilling to agree to Luke’s terms, ignored his words and sent him to the Rancor.
So let’s assume that the PC in question was fully successful in several Diplomacy efforts to even be admitted to see the Chamberlain before he was presented with a situation where the target simply will not be converted to the PC’s way of thinking by a Diplomacy check – he will not listen for enough time for Diplomacy to be effected. I suggest this is not because he has been granted blanket “diplomacy immunity”, but because he simply will not listen long enough to get beyond that -10 penalty, and the DC at that penalty, with any and all other modifiers (known and unknown to the players) puts any success out of reach.
Where my problem is is that EVERY chamberlain will be "immune to mind effecting". Every time the players try something that isn't specifically, and clearly delineated by the mechanics (and even sometimes when it is) they will get stopped in order to protect some nebulous concept of "Genre atmosphere".
Will there be times when skills don't work? Sure, no worries. Swim checks don't work in the desert after all. But, I think it's far more telling that many here seems to be presuming bad faith on the part of the player. Using charm is abusing the game? He's going to make the "scene boring to remove conflict".
I’m sure you and I have had this discussion before. It is unclear to me how you can, in one breath, assume complete bad faith on the part of the GM (if one Chamberlain is immune to diplomacy then everyone will be immune to diplomacy), but in the next breath suggest that everyone is inappropriately assuming bad faith on the on the part of the player. Why do players (even players who say “if, even once, the GM refused to allow my Diplomacy skill to work, I would pack up my bags and walk out’) get the presumption of acting in good faith, but the DM is always presumed to act in bad faith (“let him get away with not letting me roll diplomacy just once and the entire world will be immune”).
Problem is some players are utterly incapable of maintaining this divide, particularly when things get dangerous in the game. Where possible, player knowledge should equal character knowledge.
The king thing is a good example. When they get to the palace (and has anyone said yet why they need to speak to the king?) player knowledge and character knowledge should be the same as to what response to expect - e.g. if it's known the king doesn't like visitors the characters and thus players will (or should) either already know this or be relatively easily able to learn it. But if it's unknown (or uncertain, or even random) how the king will treat any particular set of visitors, neither the players nor characters should know what to expect.
Also, the reason for the rejection may well be something hidden. Example: the party has in it a Dwarf, the king is deathly afraid of Dwarves, but for diplomatic reasons this has to be kept a deep secret. All the party knows in-character is they're getting rejected time and again for no obvious reason, and the players have no reason to be told anything more until-unless they somehow gain this information in character.
As a player, I definitely find such play more immersive. As a character, my PC sees that the Chamberlain has rejected our entreaties. Do I know why? No. So I’ll look to what resources I can use to obtain that information.
I don’t want to be told that “Normally, the King loves receiving visitors from far off lands, like yourselves. But the King has been acting erratically for weeks, and the Chamberlain is afraid he’ll be executed for treason if he allows anyone in to see him, or even comments on his unusual behaviour. This is similar for everyone close to the King, so no one really knows that the King’s behaviour has changed markedly. Unknown to anyone, an evil Enchanter is visiting his dreams every night, and has convinced him that soon, he will be visited by a group of demons disguised as an adventuring group who will kill him and swallow his soul, so he must admit no visitors. And that’s why your Diplomacy fails. But, of course, your characters know nothing of this.”
I want to use the characters’ skills and the players’ ingenuity to work out what the problem is, and develop an approach to solving it, in actual play. It seems like [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and I are on the same page in that regard. Others, clearly, are not.
No real disagreement here. I think part of the problem, again, is failure to actually read what the spells do and how they work, and recognize their limitations as well as their benefits. That is exacerbated by the fact that these spells don’t see nearly as much use as lower level spells do. That also means the group is less likely to have reached a consensus as to the interpretation of any ambiguities.
The point about charming the chamberlain isn't that the player wants an auto success. That's not the issue. The problem is, the non-caster has one option for getting past the chamberlain (at least one that has any chance of success, I suppose he could try to kill his way to the top
) and that's diplomacy. The casters get everything the non-casters get, plus they get the option of spells.
I would rephrase that the non-caster has only one option (interaction skills) to be immediately admitted to see the King. However, I don’t believe it is necessary, or even beneficial, for the non-caster (or the caster) to be able to obtain immediate access to the King. Perhaps there is more to the adventure than immediate access to the King. I’m good with that, as a player. This is the kind of thing that happens in the source material as well – our expectations are not met, and we have to figure out what to do next.
Could they kill their way in? This is where I as GM may seriously consider packing up my books and walking. Probably as a player as well. “Well, I’m frustrated that I don’t get exactly what I want precisely when I want it, so I will stop playing my character as a rational, thinking being and take a stupid, violent action to disrupt the game”.
Could they sit on the steps of the palace and moan and whine because things didn’t work out as they expected? Sure. But that’s not exactly the actions of a protagonist to me.
So maybe they should take stock of what they know, what resources they have and what options they can take next. Did we believe the King typically receives motley adventuring crews like ours? If so, maybe we need to Gather Information around the town and find out what has changed. If not, then we weren’t too bright with that initial approach. That’s not to say many of my characters wouldn’t try it anyway because they DON’T KNOW the protocols, so getting dismissed by the Chamberlain is what it takes for them to discover the King doesn’t receive walk-in commoners. As a player, I don’t expect to see the king, but the character I designed might just think that way.
But the game is, to me at least, about challenges. The challenge just morphed from whatever I wanted to see the King about to figuring out how to see the King. Well and good – a new challenge has been added. Let’s address it.
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.
I am asking precisely the question I asked – is your group always in consensus, or are there occasionally decisions which need to be made so we can move on? That doesn’t mean the GM dictates their every action, but it may certainly mean that he decides whether we first follow the Raven Queen followers on their activity, returning to the other two, then spending some time with the chaos follower, and decides when to jump between them.
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)."
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.
OK, so you and one player made the decision that, according to your quote, was up to the players as a group. You offered the one player a choice, not the group.
Again, I don’t find that a bad approach. But it is an override of the rules you have quoted, and you have stated repeatedly that you follow those rules, and do not override them.
I’m unclear if you are you asserting that the group has delegated that decision making power to you*, so you can then share it with the player of the deceased character? Well and good, but I submit that is quite similar to Ahnehnois’ group delegating him the authority to make decisions in other areas for the good of the game. If deviating from the words written in the rules is “GM Force”, then the GM deciding to provide a choice to the player which is not a choice given him by the rules as written is “GM Force”.
*Ultimately, no one in the group possesses any actual authority that is not conferred on them by the group as a whole, so whatever the rules say about decisionmaking power is valid only to the extent the group accepts it as valid.
I don't see any ambiguity there.
Nor do I.
The rules indicate that it is not a GM thing but a group thing.
Ok, then the group should make the choice. Still with you.
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.
You did not offer
the group a choice. You offered it to one player. You assumed that the others would speak up if they did not agree (and I assume Ahnehnois’ players will similarly speak up if they disagree with a ruling he makes), but you specifically redirected the choice from
the group (as provided by the rules) to
the player (not what the rules say), and yourself in that you took it upon yourself, as GM, to extend the choice.
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.
In several comments before you provided the rules quote, I believed the choice rested with the GM (hence granting you the authority to delegate that choice to the player). You have since quoted the 4e rules that state it is a group decision, which you took out of the group’s hands and gave to the one player.
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.
I’m not discussing “win/lose”, gamist theory or gygaxian play. I am saying the rules said the decision of what happens on a PC death is a group decision, and you transferred that decision making power from the group to the individual player. In other words, you deviated from the rules as written. I’m not suggesting such a deviation was a bad thing. I think it was a good approach, and I accept it is a good approach in your group, and accepted by them. That does not change the fact that it is not the approach provided by the rules, so there is a GM Force aspect. What the rules say and what the GM did are not the same.
Framing the scene would be something along the lines of "You enter the antechamber. You see the king's chamberlain standing there as you hoped, but he looks impatient, angry even."
OK. Player A says “no he doesn’t – he looks happy and cheerful. And there is no one else in the room besides the Chamberlain, so no one will know if we use Charm spells on him.” I submit the player lacks the authority to change the scene in this manner. The GM has the power to set the scene, including the mood and attitude of the Chamberlain and the presence or absence of others in the room.
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.
What mechanics did you use to set the Chamberlain’s presence, the others who are in the room, or the Chamberlain’s mood? ANSWER: none. You already had to decide whether the Chamberlain was there or not; who, if anyone, is there with him; and what his mood was. Why is it such a stretch to extrapolate whether he is, or is not, willing to listen to the PC’s diplomacy attempt for the required minute?
Which differs from the fiat of the Chamberlain’s mood, his age and race, his general outlook on life, and the people in the room with him how, exactly? Setting the scene is largely “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.
The player had to choose whether to attempt diplomacy, intimidation or a bluff (or any of a number of other actions). Why is it such an imposition for you to extrapolate from the Chamberlain’s attitude whether he is, or is not, prepared to listen to their entreaties? Why is that such a magnitude of difficulty greater than the initial decision that he is in a poor mood and not wanting to receive the PC’s at all?
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.
You chose the initial attitude of the Chamberlain, which also has a huge impact on diplomacy’s success or failure, didn’t you? Does that make diplomacy, as a whole, a bad mechanic? If the entire world can be set by random mechanical die rolls, then let’s just play ChartMaster and dispense with a GM at all. The GM’s role is, in part, to make decisions outside random rolls, set scenes that will be interesting, and not random, and make decisions just like this one.
How are these not examples of GM preconception as to how the scene will play out?
How is not allowing the player to use the Swim skill to swim through a sandstorm not an example of GM preconception as to how the scene will play out? Perhaps he should be able to Swim through the bad mood of the chamberlain and past it to the King’s chamber. Should the Rogue be able to use his Listen skill to hear the exact words which would persuade the Chamberlain to let them in to see the king, then repeat them? Perhaps the Fighter’s Great Cleave feat might carve through the Chamberlain’s poor attitude, making him cheerful instead, so he happily admits us into the Royal Chambers.
These are all clearly ridiculous approaches, of course, but they are also approaches that we have a preconception against them being the manner in which the scene will play out. To the cut scene issue, is it better if we don’t describe the room at all, but rather say "You enter the antechamber. You see the king's chamberlain standing there as you hoped, but he looks impatient, angry even. He is clearly in no mood to listen to any entreaties, and any efforts you make are dismissed as he summons the Guards to remove you. You now find yourselves back on the street." Seems a perfectly legit cut scene if success is impossible, but as a player, I would rather play out the failure of our efforts. Call me crazy!
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).
Now the diplomat wants his normal chance to influence the King to name them as Heroes of the Realm – and get on with it – the smell of scorched flesh is making me nauseous. Have his chances of success been altered at all by their approach?
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.
But no player is initially saying No. It is only a couple of rounds into the battle, as the Chamberlain lies, beaten and helpless, that Player 2 considers his character’s moral conflict. It is the description of the activity which leads him, only in mid-scene, to NOW say “NO”.
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.
I disagree. The fact that weeks of travel, several shopping trips and extended R&R are not detailed does not remove them from causal logic. It merely means they were not played out. “You travel for several weeks, mostly down well maintained roads which become better and better patrolled as you get closer to the capital. You now find yourselves standing before the gates of the city.” is pretty common in the games I’ve played. If there is something relevant happening in the travel time, then it may get played out in more detail, but I don’t know many games where we check for wear and tear on the horseshoes every four hours.
"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.)
And these are no different in most games, “Indie” or otherwise. But since nearly anything is possible, please tell me how I use Swimming to get past the Chamberlain to see the King.
I find it utterly remarkable that you read @
Hussar '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.
Where I see no reason that the players, on first meeting the Chamberlain, know the precise reasons he is unwilling (or unable) to admit the PC’s to see the King, but might have to actually work that out in play – leveraging their resources via the action resolution rules to change the fiction, but not in the first manner that springs to their minds as the eacy and obvious approach.
"...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.
I prefer that as well.
Let’s say I find diplomacy overpowered. It’s pointed out to me that, first, it actually requires a minute or more to engage a diplomacy roll (no, I say, they can always make the roll whenever they see fit), that retries do not generally work and even a success cant generally be improved on with another check (no, they can just keep trying and roll any number of time to gradually move anyone to Helpful, I decide – it only says a retry
may do more harm then good, after all). Oh, and I interpret “helpful” as “loyal unto death”, since he “will take risks to help you”
Then I whine and moan that my game is ruined because the players just solve everything through diplomacy – it’s overpowered and it’s all the game designers’ fault. It wasn’t the game designer who chose to interpret every word on the page in the manner most favourable to the user of diplomacy – it was me.
It is not “GM Force” (overriding the action resolution mechanics) to rule that not everyone will listen for the required minute, that some actions (like securing an audience with the King when walking in off the street) will require a greatly increased time, that you cannot build success on success by a series of rapid rolls, and that “helpful” does not equal “sock puppet”. It is reasonable interpretation of the rules that does not overpower the ability.
FWIW, I also see nothing that says Diplomacy cannot be used in combat – talking down a dangerous opponent is quite consistent with the source material, as is being able to defend oneself (normally through pure defense, not attacking) while working to calm the opponent down. Should there be a penalty for “diplomacy in combat”? Sure. It probably bumps the difficulty up an order, so that’s generally a 5 point increase in DC on the DC examples table, so it’s a 5 point penalty (also consistent with Charm Person to some extent – probably another 5 point issue if you attack while debating). Tack on another 10 for trying to use the skill in a single round, and the likeliness that the target is Hostile, and it’s pretty difficult – but maybe All Out Defense and backpedalling will allow you to get the required minute. And it certainly is dramatic!
