Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Cadence]

Ok, things got real busy in my life and when I come back, this thread has gotten so long I have no idea what's going on anymore...

However, seeing as a lot of people obviously have the time and energy for this sort of discussion, may I suggest that we set up an actual game to test things out?

It got hijacked by a discussion on DM forcing/fudging/on-the-fly-encounter-modification and how much of player agency that destroys (or something like that).

A few games of Fighter versus Spellcaster under different DMing styles could be fun. What scenarios would you suggest?

 

[TwoSix]

I can see how a game would work if it had the kind of approach you're describing, but I wouldn't want to play it. Then all the transparency is gone. Instead of having a world that objectively exists and is entirely the DM's creation, you have a shared canvas where anyone could paint at any time, and it's often unclear who can or should do what. At that point, the players are no longer playing their characters (and I wouldn't see any reason to attach an individual to a character) and it's more of a shared storytelling game.

I'm unclear what you mean by "transparency". (And no, I'm not intending the pun). And I would disagree about your assertion that it's unclear who can do what. That's what action resolution rules + in-game discussion about the goals of the game are meant to set.

But yes, freedom from the idea of the objective campaign world is part of the attraction. Some people like the Elder Scrolls games because they feel so real, for example. But that isn't the only valid form of video RPG. Same thing for TTRPGs.

And while it's easy to make the argument that D&D has always been a heavy DM ruling game in the past, there's nothing to suggest that a future D&D couldn't support the playstyle with a few simple modifications. Heck, I'm pretty sure I could run a low-tier 3.X game that way with a few changes.

 

[Dandu]

It got hijacked by a discussion on DM forcing/fudging/on-the-fly-encounter-modification and how much of player agency that destroys (or something like that).

A few games of Fighter versus Spellcaster under different DMing styles could be fun. What scenarios would you suggest?

Well, first we should agree on what we are going to test.

Versatility? I don't think there's an argument there. We can all agree that in a party, the spellcasters and skillmonkeys contribute more things.

Endurance? Spellcasters run off of spells and fighters off of hit points. You can recharge hit points from wands, but by the same token, a wizard could use his scrolls and/or reserve feats to keep going.

Combat ability? It is often stated that clerics could replace fighters without the party much noticing.

Durability? Wizards are supposed to be squishier than fighters, however, I can think of a few ways to even the odds.

 

[ImperatorK]

Endurance? Spellcasters run off of spells and fighters off of hit points. You can recharge hit points from wands, but by the same token, a wizard could use his scrolls and/or reserve feats to keep going.

And wands.

Combat ability? It is often stated that clerics could replace fighters without the party much noticing.

Durability? Wizards are supposed to be squishier than fighters, however, I can think of a few ways to even the odds.

But it takes time to buff up.

 

[LostSoul]

seems like good DMing to me regardless of the forcing side one is on. Is the difference that the forcing side would judiciously use fudging or over-turning RAW to maintain the consistency of the game world and to account for the NPCs place in the world as if he were a real character in that role, while the non-forcing side would have the Chamberlain fully fledged out and if they missed something in the description that led to something un-Chamberlainy happening then so be it? (Is forcing needed if one doesn't fully stat up major NPCs?)

My current theory is that the "forcing" side is working with additional/other "DM principles". I'm guessing that "Make sure everyone has a good time" and "Make sure that the PCs are challenged appropriately" are in there, or something like that, but I don't know. I'm just guessing (and that's why I ask questions).

Anyway, assuming that those principles are included, you can see how they'd conflict with the other ones I posted. It's hard to remain impartial if you want to make sure there's a challenge. Sometimes a well-placed spell turns a challenging encounter into a cake-walk.

 

[Dandu]

But it takes time to buff up.

Hence why clerics try to Persist spells.

 

[Cadence]

Actually that's exactly what is going on. Their opinion is that the DM has absolute control. My opinion (I'm not sure about the others) is that the DM controls his world, the player controls his PC. Not allowing for a Diplomacy check, when the player chooses to use Diplomacy, is infringing on that control. And I don't really care why he does it. It's not cool.

So, would you let the player try to get off the top of the Empire State Building by just jumping and using a tumble check to land with no damage? To try and cross boiling lava using swimming? To try and make gunpowder and a gun assembly line using alchemy and craft? To play a Ferengi starship captain in a game that everyone agreed was going to be set in something approaching real medieval England? To try and convert the Pope to atheism using diplomacy? I mean, those are all the PC controlling his player too, right?

If the answer to even one of them is no you wouldn't let them meaningfully try, then is it now just a question of where the line is drawn?

Funny, because I could say the same thing about your way to play, except the "shared" storytelling part (as in - it's just the DM's story and the players are just audience).

I can't decide if this is bad-wrong-fun-smearing, calling us all liars about our intent, saying we're too delusional to realize that we've reduced our players to a mere audience in spite of our hundreds of lines of arguments otherwise, or if I've completely missed the point. (EDIT: Could be I just need a nap before reading more of this thread.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm unclear what you mean by "transparency". (And no, I'm not intending the pun). And I would disagree about your assertion that it's unclear who can do what. That's what action resolution rules + in-game discussion about the goals of the game are meant to set.

I'm talking about what you call a Schroedinger's NPC. A game element that may or may not exist.

In my approach, it's clear that said character exists or does not exist at the DM's pleasure and behaves as the DM decides. It's clear that the player has no authority to dictate anything outside of his own character's decision-making.

Once you deviate from that, it's unclear how much the player can dictate. If a player wants to accomplish a particular goal, who decides the circumstances around that goal? I can't tell.

But yes, freedom from the idea of the objective campaign world is part of the attraction.
...
And while it's easy to make the argument that D&D has always been a heavy DM ruling game in the past, there's nothing to suggest that a future D&D couldn't support the playstyle with a few simple modifications. Heck, I'm pretty sure I could run a low-tier 3.X game that way with a few changes.

Sure. That's the beauty of d20. You can hack it to do all kinds of things.

But if you do that, you're responsible for the consequences. In reference to what was once the topic of this thread, if you give spellcasters the ability to dictate these kinds of terms, and don't give it to the rest of the characters, it may some problems.

 

[Cadence]

My current theory is that the "forcing" side is working with additional/other "DM principles". I'm guessing that "Make sure everyone has a good time" and "Make sure that the PCs are challenged appropriately" are in there, or something like that, but I don't know. I'm just guessing (and that's why I ask questions).

I think those make a good short summary of my additional DM principles.

Anyway, assuming that those principles are included, you can see how they'd conflict with the other ones I posted. It's hard to remain impartial if you want to make sure there's a challenge. Sometimes a well-placed spell turns a challenging encounter into a cake-walk.

I was going to just post that sometimes tweaking things up or down midstream to maintain the fun and challenge is impartial since it is always going toward that mythical sweet spot and not consistently towards the players or NPCs... but I have the nagging feeling that there is something deeper here.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

My imaginary, sandblasted, schitzophrenic, spell-fatigued chamberlain is getting a hell of a workout. It's actually become a bit of a sport for me to check the boards just to see what paces we can put him through next in his one-man crusade to succede as the poster-child for all DM styles.