• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)


log in or register to remove this ad

To me, it is common sense to assume that the lack of an explicit statement of what playstyle it supports means the authors have not indicated what playstyle the game supports. Should I assume it supports a game surrounding farming and marketing vegetables? Where does it say that this playstyle is not supported?

Well, considering that the game has zero mechanics to govern this, isn't that kinda like saying we should assume Chess supports Snakes and Ladders?

The complete lack of mechanics to support a particular action is a pretty big clue that the game isn't meant to do that thing. Whereas there are numerous mechanics in 3e which perfectly well support exactly the kind of thing that we are talking about. Just not outside of certain levels.


Since you have never sat at my table, and never will, I doubt you are qualified to assess my DMing style. You have indicated "helpful" equals "always gives me what I want". Is that how parents behave to children? Should we assume they are at some lower level of reaction than "helpful"? A drug addict wants his fix. He does not want intervention. Which one will a "friend" or a "helpful attitude" person provide?

I want you to remember this the next time we talk about DM's acting in bad faith. This, right here, is exactly what I'm talking about when I talk about DM's choosing the most penalizing interpretation in order to protect their precious game. The huge strawman legalese argument trying to cheese weasel out of the definition of "helpful" pretty much proves my point.

Allow me - this is the most I can highlight it for you - I hope you will be able to find it now.

Why did you ignore the next line though. The part you made extra big refers to a standard skill check. No one disagrees with that. But, a perfectly valid reading of the rules says that ANY skill check can be foreshortened to a single action with a -10 penalty. That's how English works. If the limitation applied to all checks, then the limitation would be listed AFTER the exception, not before.

But, again, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Rules are always interpreted in the least advantageous manner for the players and the most advantageous for the DM in a DM Force game.
 

Sometimes they're nicely tied in color such as the Exotic Weapon Master requiring a few ranks of Craft: Weaponsmithing.

<snip>

The Profession (Sailor) skill is detailed quite well in Stormwrack and has various rules with regards to crewing or captaining a ship, which some prestige classes like the Dread Pirate (CAd) and Scarlet Corsair (Storm) are designed around.
These are the sorts of things I had in mind in referring to "the most marginal instances", but you make a good case that they're not always that marginal!

A significant feature of 3E seems to be that it has all these additional game elements hanging of various elements of the core, which are not inherent in those core elements themselves. For me, at least, it would help the presentation of the game if the core rules said something about this: for instance, indicating that certain elements of PC build like Craft and Profession are not inherently signficant, and can be easily ignored without loss, but the designers envisage developing additional material for the game that may give them a more central role for groups that focus on that additional material.
 

It seems to depend on the privacy settings. Hussar and manbearcat don't appear, but most of the other people in the thread have it open. You're 27, I'm 35, Wicht is 40, pemerton is 41, N'raac is 47, dwimmerlied is 34, and Lanefan is 52.
By the look of it, I win.

Where's my prize?

;)

Lan-"but I still play like I'm 25"-efan
 

PCs aren't commoners.
Now here's a conceit that just plain bugs me, that PCs are somehow vastly better than the norm just because they're PCs. Slightly better, or having the chance to be slightly better (e.g. roll stats on 4d6 or even 5d6 instead of 3d6) I can see, but beyond that a boy straight off the farm who has taught himself how to use a sword should be just as playable-as-PC as a nobleman's knightly son; where both mechanically are 1st-level Fighters.

It's very much a 4e thing that PCs are already heroes by the time they start their role-played career. It's also one of the biggest flaws in that system, that one can't by RAW play one's character up from nothing...unless they've added something to the design that I'm unaware of that allows for this.
Enough people wanted balance for WoTC to make 4ed the way it is (I could have sworn I said that already).
I suspect history in the end will say *not* enough people wanted it, or at least not in the form presented, leading to PF's rise and 5e's development.

Balance, I'm afraid, cannot be forced by design; the most unbalancing thing of all is that some people are simply better players than others, and while perfect balance can probably be achieved by designing for the lowest common denominator (i.e. removing player ability entirely from the equation) that'd end up as a pretty awful game. Fortunately no edition of D&D has yet done this.

Lan-"don't get me wrong, I don't like 3e/PF either"-efan
 

This, right here, is exactly what I'm talking about when I talk about DM's choosing the most penalizing interpretation in order to protect their precious game. The huge strawman legalese argument trying to cheese weasel out of the definition of "helpful" pretty much proves my point.

Its not a strawman cheese weasel (drooooool. ahem. sorry) tho.

But, again, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Rules are always interpreted in the least advantageous manner for the players and the most advantageous for the DM in a DM Force game.

Can we take for granted that its not always the case? You might not trust everyone's integrity here, but the argument has been presented, and many of us have said that that's not a fair reflection of the way we game. And if the rules aren't always interpreted in the least advantageous manner for the players and most advantageous for the DM then this isn't a legitimate argument for the system is broken.

I get that you aren't satisfied with the playstyle you believe the 3.x rules promotes. I guess you feel that the fact that its open to abuse or may result in a sense of unnecessary player disempowerment is something you aren't satisfied with. I agree that they are valid observations; I can see how the authority might be abused, but I don't think flaws in certain people absolutely reflect a broken system, and while I am open to other arguments, I've never been convinced that its broken.

The system has put checks in place for the things that people argue are evidence for a broken system. Its there in the DM's guide. It discusses them, and I imagine anyone capable of reading the words would also be capable of divining the spirit and intent in which they are written; I think its more likely that these guidelines are forgotten. It isn't a bewildering array of checks and balances, its a plea to decide what will lead to imbalances by keeping an eye on the character's powers and taking actions to address them. It discusses ways that a DM might do this, and goes on to discuss how such actions might be perceived by the players, and the strengths and weaknesses of the techniques.

No DM who reads this stuff should be confused as to how to deal with balance problems because it does tell you.
 

Now here's a conceit that just plain bugs me, that PCs are somehow vastly better than the norm just because they're PCs. Slightly better, or having the chance to be slightly better (e.g. roll stats on 4d6 or even 5d6 instead of 3d6) I can see, but beyond that a boy straight off the farm who has taught himself how to use a sword should be just as playable-as-PC as a nobleman's knightly son; where both mechanically are 1st-level Fighters

Yeah I agree with this.
 

Now here's a conceit that just plain bugs me, that PCs are somehow vastly better than the norm just because they're PCs. Slightly better, or having the chance to be slightly better (e.g. roll stats on 4d6 or even 5d6 instead of 3d6) I can see, but beyond that a boy straight off the farm who has taught himself how to use a sword should be just as playable-as-PC as a nobleman's knightly son; where both mechanically are 1st-level Fighters.
A PC has better stats and equipment than an equal level NPC. On higher levels a PC has so much wealth that he could possibly buy a kingdom (but it's smarter to buy magic items).

I suspect history in the end will say *not* enough people wanted it, or at least not in the form presented, leading to PF's rise and 5e's development.
You guys are stating that like it's even relevant. It doesn't matter how popular 4ed is now. What's important is that *indeed* enough people wanted a balanced game that WoTC listened, but they failed by making the classes way too similar and boring in the process. Maybe some other elements were also responsible, I don't know, I didn't play it.
 

Now here's a conceit that just plain bugs me, that PCs are somehow vastly better than the norm just because they're PCs. Slightly better, or having the chance to be slightly better (e.g. roll stats on 4d6 or even 5d6 instead of 3d6) I can see, but beyond that a boy straight off the farm who has taught himself how to use a sword should be just as playable-as-PC as a nobleman's knightly son; where both mechanically are 1st-level Fighters.

It's very much a 4e thing that PCs are already heroes by the time they start their role-played career. It's also one of the biggest flaws in that system, that one can't by RAW play one's character up from nothing...unless they've added something to the design that I'm unaware of that allows for this.

By RAW, an OD&D level 1 Fighting-Man is no more an untried youth straight off the farm than a 4E level 1 fighter is. He's explicitly a Veteran. There are no rookies in the system, no raw recruits.

I have no access to AD&D or 2nd edition at the moment, but are they somehow different in that regard?
 

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.
To the best of my knowledge you have never posted an actual play thread on these boards (if I'm wrong about this, then please point me to the relevant threads which I will gladly read). And you rarely if ever give actual play examples.

I have linked upthread to multiple actual play threads, and have also given multiple actual play examples in my posts in this thread, in the interests of illustrating my preferred playstyle. It beggars belief that you could read those examples and then post the above in reply to me, given that the role of the GM in those examples strikes me as very clear and having nothing to do with "setting the entire world by random mechancial die rolls".

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.
In the sort of play that I (at least) am talking about, and I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] also, these are the same thing. What happened to Luke is simply one option the GM has for negating the failure of a Diplomacy skill check.

The dichotomy that you are trying to set up makes as much sense to me as the following: when Luke swung his lightsabre at Darth, and failed to strike him down, was that because his attack roll failed, or simply because Darth was able to parry him? The way you find out, in D&D, whether or not a blow was parried without detriment by the defender is via the attack roll. Similarly, the way you find out whether or not Jabba is unwilling to agree to Luke's terms is via a Diplomacy roll. (That the 3E Diplomacy mechanics may tend to break down when adjudicated this way is a sign that they are not very good mechanics for anyone trying to actually use them as such - which was [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s point quite a way upthread.)

Perhaps there is more to the adventure than immediate access to the King. I’m good with that, as a player.
What is this thing you call "the adventure", with which you, as a player, are good? I can't see that it is anything but a sequence of events authored, in advance, by the GM - and what you are good with is the GM using force to ensure that that series of events unfolds in play.

In the playstyle that I personally prefer there is no adventure which is something that I (as GM) expect the players to be "good with". If the players want to meet with the King, and if the action resolution mechanics yield that outcome, then that is the adventure.

There should be multiple means of resolving the challenge. I stress that this does not mean there may be approaches, even seeming obvious and viable approaches, that will not resolve this specific challenge.
The key question, to my mind, is "How do we learn which approaches cannot resolve this specific challenge?" In my preferred playstyle, we learn that via play. The PCs try an approach, the players make their action declarations, and we find out together what happens.

I don't see the rationale for the GM deciding in advance what will or won't work unless you're trying to run the sort of scenario that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] calls a "pixel bitch". Despite the pejorative label, this can be fun for a certain sort of tournament play, but I couldn't envisage it as a fulltime approach to play.

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!
Why has the GM framed the meeting with the Chamberlain if the players, via their PCs, can't actually achieve anything. What is the point? The only point I can see is colour. By saying "you would rather play out the failur of your efforts" - in circumstances in which that failure has been preordained by the GM - you seem to be saying that you simply want to experience the colour. (What else is there here but colour, plus perhaps a bit of backstory narration from the GM?)

It's fundamentally no different from playing out the repartee between PC and shopkeeper as the PC goes about buying iron spikes and rations.

For me, that sort of play has zero interest. As GM I have no interest in mere colour scenes. As a player I have no interest in mere colour scene.

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 way I read this, it reinforces that the initial meeting with the Chamberlain is a scene merely for colour, designed to let the players know that there is some mystery concerning the Chamberlain that they have to resolve before they can see the king.

If the real action is not going to start until my PC knows the Chamberlain won't admit visitors, then my very strong preference as a player would be to be told that by the GM - perhaps "Although you've been trying for some time to get an audience with the king, the Chamberlain won't admit you, and indeed gossip around town is that he won't admit anyone." Now I can start playing the game!

What we're arguing here from our play prespective is to not create scenes that have no resolution, merely because in-game logic or preplanned encounters say so. If you place a chamberlain in a room, either a) let the players talk to him or b) make the focal point of the scene why the chamberlain won't talk.
Exactly!

The players also need to recognize that the fact their first attempt doesn’t work is not a sign the GM is out to get them, but a signal that there is more to the challenge than may have first met the eye.

If getting an audience with the King were trivial, would I describe the room and ask what you do, rather than describe your arrival at the room, reception by the Chamberlain and passing through the room as you are ushered in to meet with the King? Probably not.
It puzzles me that you can't see the option that you have exluded here, especially as it is the generic approach to D&D combat. In the typical D&D combat, the GM does not simply tell the players that their PCs cut their way through their foes with no losses. Nor does the GM simply tell the players that their PCs are repulsed, each lose 20 hp, and will have to find another way of beating their enemies. Typically, rather, the action resolution mechanics are engaged and the players actually play their PCs. They might win, or might lose. We don't know in advance!

In "indie" style play the Chamberlain encounter will unfold the same way. If we go with TwoSix's (a) above, then the players declare actions for their PCs, and we see how that unfolds - maybe they get to see the king, maybe not. If we go with TwoSix's (b) above, then the focus of the action is on the PCs finding out why the Chamberlain won't talk, and the PC's declare actions relevant to that. But either way the players have a goal for their PCs, the GM is providing the antagonism, and the action resolution mechanics resolve the conflict.

I don’t think advance prep vs ad lib is a major difference that has been suggested between the two
You have misunderstood me. I'm not talking about GM prep vs GM improvisation. I am talking about what the players do when actually playing the game. In a game in which the GM has predetermined how a scene will unfold, and the players have to find the "key" (or one of the keys) that will "unlock" the scene so they can get to the next stage (eg meeting the king), then a lot of playtime gets spent on planning, trying to work out which approaches will work and which won't, and so one. The players will tend to avoid committing their PCs to action resolution, because they run the risk of failing - eg having the Chamberlain walk away - and then getting stuck unable to progress.

Whereas "Schroedinger's backstory" - in which the GM develops and reveals significant elements of backstory as part of the process of action resolution - creates an environment where the best way for the players to proceed is generally to engage and have their PCs act. And their danger of failing due to a lack of backstory knowledge is no greater than their chance of failing for any other reason - it's predominantly subsumed into action resolution.

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.
OK. So in what way, then, is ingame causal logic being upheld? For instance, how does the GM work out if you arrive in time for whatever it is you're going there for? Whether or not the person you are hoping to visit is out of town for the week visiting her sister? Etc etc.

If the answer to those questions is "By rolling on a chart, or setting appropriate odds and rolling them", then you have a prioritising of ingame causal logic over theme (this is the approach that I think would be most consistent with Gygax's advice in his DMG). If the answer is "The PCs always turn up just at the dramatically apposite time" then you have a prioritising of theme and dramatic logic over ingame causal logic.

My personal preference is for dramatic over causal logic. But there is an approach I like even less - namely, where the PCs will always arrive at the dramatically apposite time, but the GM nevertheless rolls for random encounters en route, and makes us play through them. Because those encounters are mere colour - they have no impact on the dramatically relevant question of whether or not we will make it to the city on time. Even worse again is if they are put there so that we can grind enough XP to be of the right level to do the dramatically apposite thing when we get to the city. (I don't know how big a part this is of Paizo's APs, but it is a noticable part of WotC's modules. It is in my view just about the worst approach to pacing a game that I can envisage.)

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.
What if the player has ways of accruing further bonuses - bonuses from his/her friends assistance, bonuses from the circumstances (eg the PC reveals that he knows the Chamberlain's deep dark secret; or perhaps reveals that he is the one who can lift the curse from the Chamberlain's daughter), bonuses from drinking a Potion of Eagle's Splendour, bonuses from action or hero points in those 3E variants that use them?

Resourceful players will have all sorts of ways of lowering DCs or gaining bonuses.

pemerton said:
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.
What you say is confused.

You are correct that the player has no authority to reframe the scene in contradiction to how I have framed it. (There are nitpicks here. For instance, if my framing contradicts some earlier established element of the fiction, the players are free to remind me and seek a correction. This has happened from time to time, and not always in trivial matters - for instance, on one occasion the players reminded me that the way I framed a particular interaction with an NPC had to have regard to their earlier success in a skill challenge involving that NPC.)

But this is not dictating an outcome. The player has every authority to try and introduce, into the fiction, the proposition that "the chamberlain looks happy and cheerful" - for instance via a successful Diplomacy or Bluff check (or, in 3E, perhaps a Perform check). Likewise the player has every authority to try to make it true, in the fiction that there is no one else in the room besides the chamberlain - perhaps by making an Intimidate check ("Begone, you fools and sycophants. I must speak to the Chamberlain alone!").

So can I as a player announce that my underworld contacts, very familiar with the goings-on in the Barony, have told me that the Baron is REALLY just using his niece to access his dead brother’s estate (she will conveniently disappear when the time is right, he’s seen to that!), or has this element which you have set in advance fixed and unalterable by the PC’s? Again, I’m looking to establish whether it is an absolute that anything not established clearly through play (such as whether that care for the niece is truly genuine or has all been guided by intricate estate rules), or whether some details are set in stone beforehand, and cannot later be altered.
You are talking here about authority over backstory. What resources are you, as a player, using to try and obtain backstory authority? 4e doesn't have much for this (contrast OGL Conan, which does).

I don't need to have decided what has happened to the niece, although I may have an idea about that. (But it's obviously not set in stone until it becomes revealed in play - that's the point of the Czege quote. This is different from Gygaxian play, where part of the skill of play is finding out what things it is that the GM set in stone.)

Deciding he is a Man of Action during the meal, rather than in pre-game prep, still seems like a GM decision.
Yes. What is meant to follow from that? The GM is a participant in the game. S/he is responsible for providing antagonism, including in the unfolding context of action resolution. Only you and [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] seem to have the idea that "indie" style play is for some reason GM-less, despite the fact that every game mentioned in this thread that aims at supporting such play (BW, MHRP, HW/Q, 4e) requires a GM.

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?

<snip>

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?

<snip>

You chose the initial attitude of the Chamberlain, which also has a huge impact on diplomacy’s success or failure, didn’t you?
For you there may be no difference. The tone of your posts is that you see no difference. For me there is a very significant difference - framing the scene doesn't in and of itself settle the question of whether or not the PCs can reasonably succeed. (I am not a huge fan of the "initial attitude" rules in 3E - again I think a skill challenge approach is superior - but if the players are told that the Chamberlain is not happy to see them they can attempt something other than Diplomacy, such as Bluff or Intimidate or Perform or some appropriate Profession skill (Profession - Courtier?) - whereas declaring, once the player announces a Diplomacy check, that the Chamberlain walks off before 1 minute has passed is a "gotcha". What was the player expected to do? Guess which way the GM would make the call?

Does that make diplomacy, as a whole, a bad mechanic?
I have explained upthread why I dislike this aspect of the 3E Diplomacy mechanic. I've explained in this thread that I don't really like the attitude rules either. There are other ways of handling social conflict which I prefer - complex conflict resolution mechanics along the lines of a 4e skill challenge - because they better suit my style of play.

It seems to me that this is hair-splitting semantics. In either case, you will ultimately have to set the difficulty of success, will you not?
It's not remotely hair-splitting semantics. In a skill challenge, as run by default in 4e, the difficulty of the skill checks is set by the DC-by-level charts. The challenge for the players is to find ways of engaging the fiction so as to achieve their ends. So in the case of the non-receptive Chamberlain, the challenge is to first find a way of getting him to listen.

(Skill challenges can have varying numbers of successes required. However, the "advantage" mechanic promulgated in Essentials ensures that the complexity of a skill challenge is relevant primarily not to the difficulty of succeeding at it, but to the length of time it will occupy at the table in resolution. In other words it's primarily a pacing decision, not a difficulty decision. This brings 4e's mechanics into line both with the pretty clear original intention in the DMG, and with the similar mechanics on which 4e's skill challenges are modelled.)

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?
Of course it dramatically changes the fictional positioning. Does it change the chance of success? That depends on what the players have their PCs do. Perhaps if they lead with Intimidate it might improve their chances of success!

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?
Because there is no water in the sandstorm as framed? To be honest, I barely understand the question. The fact that you can't melt a glacier with an Ice Storm spell isn't an instance of GM force either - it's just a consequence of the action resolution mechanics.

If the PC had a spell - say "Windblown sand to tremendous volumes of water" - and cast that spell before trying to swim, then obviously the situation would be different, but that does not seem to be what you have in mind.

Perhaps he should be able to Swim through the bad mood of the chamberlain and past it to the King’s chamber.
Only if the PC is a thoughteater?

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.

<snip>

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.
No. They don't show we have a preconcetion about how the scene will play out. They show that we have a basic conception of how fictional positioning, as established via scene-framing, feeds into the action resolution rules. If your PC is not in water, you can't swim. If no words are being spoken, you can't hear them. (There is an interesting question about whether or not the player of the rogue should be able to retroactively declare that his/her PC spied on the Chamberlain and learned the keywords. Marvel Heroic RP permits this, provided that you spend a Plot Point; OGL Conan does, provided that you spend a Fate point - my gosh!, OGL Conan is violating basic norms of d20 gaming as specified by some posters on this thread; 4e, by default, doesn't.)

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.
What you are describing here is sceneframing. I think I have already said, multiple times upthread, that I prefer an approach in which the GM has authority over scene-framing. If not, let me repeat it: I prefer an approach in which the GM has authority over scene-framing.

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

<snip>

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?

<snip>

You did not offer the group a choice. You offered it to one player.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.
this is a nitpicky as hell point. If the social contract (explicitly or implicitly) gives the player the right to determine the fate of their character, that is in no way an exercise of DM force. After all, at any point the players could raise a disagreement about the proposed reframe of the character's return.
What TwoSix said.

The rules say the group is to decide. In my case the group decided in the way I described: I asked the player which PC to frame into the next scene - the dead one (by implication that is going to require some backstory to bring that PC back to life - in all cases that has been worked out by me and the player whose PC is in question), or a new one? The player answered that question. The other players voiced no objection - the group has already decided that each player has prmiary authority over his/her PC, and to the extent that I remember any emotions being displayed by other players, they ranged from indifference to enthusiasm.

What more do you want as evidence of group consensus? As I noted above, we don't take votes and keep minutes.

I assume Ahnehnois’ players will similarly speak up if they disagree with a ruling he makes
Maybe, maybe not. What does that show, other than that perhaps they enjoy being GMed by Ahnehnois? It certainly doesn't show that he's not using GM force. Nor does it show that I am. Asking a player which PC he wants me to frame into a scene - the old one or a new one - is not GM force. What greater degree of choice could a player be granted within the context of a game in which the GM exercises authority over scene-framing?

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”.
Well then it sucks to be Player 2, I guess. I'm not going to slow down my game, and force everything through the sieve of action resolution, in order give the players time to work out how to play their characters. That's what they're at the table for! I would expect, if one player declares "My guy cuts down the chamberlain!" and another player thinks his/her PC would have a problem with that, then that other player should say something - perhaps "I parry", at which point the player whose PC is attacking will have to roll an attack roll with the defending PC giving the Chamberlain an AC bonus via aiding another (subject to initiative rolls to see who goes first). Action resolution is for resolving conflicts. It is not for slowing down the pace so that dithering players can make up their minds. And your post is actually the first time I've seen this particular suggestion as to the function of action resolution (the suggestion that I see most often is that it is for modelling activity in the gameworld).

To me, trust is the big one. The players need to be able to trust the GM
This is basically a red herring - or perhaps a motherhood statement. Trust the GM to do what? Until we specify a set of tasks for the GM, and the extent of authority, trust doesn't have any work to do. Would you be wise to trust me to run a Gygaxian game? I don't think so - I know from experience I'm not very good. Would you be wise to trust me to run a CoC game? Again, I don't think so - a good CoC GM is excellent at evoking colour and brining the players along for the ride, and that's not really my thing either. Would you be wise to trust me to run a 4e game? I think I'm at least capable of giving it a shot.

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).

<snip>

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.
As I've explained several times, it's GM force that virtually determines whether or not the player has a reasonable prospect of success. Hence I don't like it. And that generalises to the issue of casters vs fighters (and TwoSix in particular has made this point in some recent posts): for a certain sort of playstyle, an approach to balancing or constraing abilities that requires the GM to frame and reframe the scene so as to virtually dictate the success or failure of the player's attempt at action resolution is not very satisfying.

By pointing out that 3E Diplomacy shares that feature with 3E casters, you are not endearing 3E Diplomacy to those of us who prefer that certain sort of playstyle!

maybe All Out Defense and backpedalling will allow you to get the required minute.
From the d20 revised SRD:

A rushed Diplomacy check can be made as a full-round action . . .

You can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round.​

Total defence is a standard action in PF too, according to the d20pfsrd, but maybe Diplomacy is a free action?:

Using Diplomacy to influence a creature’s attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction.​

So maybe in PF you can pull this off.

I also noticed that Diplomacy, in Pathfinder, is a magical rather than mundane effect by one criterion that has been vociferously asserted in this thread:

You cannot use Diplomacy to influence a given creature’s attitude more than once in a 24 hour period.​
 
Last edited:

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top