Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

I can just imagine him now in therapy trying to figure out what the difference between what HE wants and what other people want is.

 

[Wicht]

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.

Don't forget possessed.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

That's what negotiation is for. Plus, the ability to manipulate the scene is often mediated by character resources. See FATE points in FATE Core, for example. You can spend one to gain a benefit based on the Aspects of the scene (Aspects being the driver of most of FATE's mechanics). The DM can also attempt to complicate your life by compelling you based on your character's Aspects, but must grant you a FATE point if you accept the complication.

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.

And, in coming full circle, many people's problem with 3.X is that spellcasters are granted those abilities by RAW, and must be remediated by either Rule 0 or focused non-neutral scene framing. Which is to say predetermined counter-measures, or focused enemy attention based on the presence of the spell effect, not necessarily the effects. And remember, in enshrining an objective campaign world as the ideal, it's not trivial to determine where those countermeasures are coming from. You can't just put them in ex post facto. Not saying it's not doable, but it often requires your world to be reshaped around D&D spell assumptions. I mean, just as an example, how do you stop a mid-level druid from destroying towns with Control Winds? Is it tacit social contract, Rule 0 as to the spell effects, or an in-game countermeasure?

 

[Jackinthegreen]

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.

The Swim skill has very specific uses, as do the other mechanics you referenced. Swimming through a sandstorm is not possible, as per the rules. Likewise it's not possible to use Listen to somehow Listen to the cosmos and hear the words that would persuade the chamberlain and it's definitely not possible to Great Cleave through his attitude because Great Cleave can't even work in that context. Why on earth would you even suggest such nonsense when it's clear as day they don't work like that? Are you trying to counter someone seeming unreasonable with your own unreasonable statements?

The rules and action resolution mechanics are not part of GM preconception.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

From traveling to multiple king's foyers, to dungeons, to raging sandstorms, this guy is pretty much Carmen Sandiego.

 

[Wicht]

Not saying it's not doable, but it often requires your world to be reshaped around D&D spell assumptions. I mean, just as an example, how do you stop a mid-level druid from destroying towns with Control Winds? Is it tacit social contract, Rule 0 as to the spell effects, or an in-game countermeasure?

You don't stop druids from doing it, anymore than you stop a wizard from blasting up a tavern with fireball, or a rogue from trying to steal the crown from the king's head in the middle of the throne-room, or the fighter from hacking up a dozen bar-maids. Rather, any PC that does these things is going to have major in-campaign consequences, and NPCs that do it define themselves as villains. And, likewise, players that insist on continually acting villainous and petty in my heroic games will eventually be discouraged from playing with us.

 

[ImperatorK]

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?

Of course (after asking him "Are you sure you want to do that?"). And depending on his Tumble check he might even succeed (but more likely he'll die, although at higher levels he might survive the fall).

To try and cross boiling lava using swimming?

Sure, as long as he has fire immunity or high enough resistance, or enough hp to survive it.

To try and make gunpowder and a gun assembly line using alchemy and craft?

If there are rules for it and I'm using said rules, sure.

To play a Ferengi starship captain in a game that everyone agreed was going to be set in something approaching real medieval England?

If it happened during the game, the NPCs and other PCs would simply think he is crazy. But it more of a "pre-game" thing and thus of no relevance.

To try and convert the Pope to atheism using diplomacy?

Not sure if that's a Diplomacy check, but yeah, if he makes the DC (which will most probably be veeery high).

I mean, those are all the PC controlling his player too, right?

You mean "player controlling his PC"? Yeah (except the Ferengi example, that's a player creating his PC inappropriately to the game that he agreed to, i.e. a jerk or an idiot).

 

[Wicht]

The Swim skill has very specific uses, as do the other mechanics you referenced. Swimming through a sandstorm is not possible, as per the rules. Likewise it's not possible to use Listen to somehow Listen to the cosmos and hear the words that would persuade the chamberlain and it's definitely not possible to Great Cleave through his attitude because Great Cleave can't even work in that context. Why on earth would you even suggest such nonsense when it's clear as day they don't work like that? Are you trying to counter someone seeming unreasonable with your own unreasonable statements?

The rules and action resolution mechanics are not part of GM preconception.

To counter, the Diplomacy skill has very specific uses and the rules place very specific restrictions on its use. Our point is that using these restraints is not representative of arbitrary or capricious DM force anymore than not allowing Swim to be used in a desert is. The absurd is merely being used to illustrate that point. Players may not always be privy to all the factors that would or would not make Diplomacy a viable option in any particular scene, nor, some of us think, should they.

 

[Dandu]

You don't stop druids from doing it, anymore than you stop a wizard from blasting up a tavern with fireball, or a rogue from trying to steal the crown from the king's head in the middle of the throne-room, or the fighter from hacking up a dozen bar-maids. Rather, any PC that does these things is going to have major in-campaign consequences, and NPCs that do it define themselves as villains.

Unless you do it to the enemy, at which point you're a hero.

 

[TwoSix]

You don't stop druids from doing it, anymore than you stop a wizard from blasting up a tavern with fireball, or a rogue from trying to steal the crown from the king's head in the middle of the throne-room, or the fighter from hacking up a dozen bar-maids. Rather, any PC that does these things is going to have major in-campaign consequences, and NPCs that do it define themselves as villains. And, likewise, players that insist on continually acting villainous and petty in my heroic games will eventually be discouraged from playing with us.

What if they're villages and towns of the evil enemy country?