Dandu
First Post
Profession (Sailor) is a wonderful skill. Covers everything from singing to wooing women to adventuring to piracy and even sailing.
-
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.)
- Thread starter cross ofth carpenter
- Start date
Hussar
Legend
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
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.
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
Dwimmerlied
First Post
Its not a strawman cheese weasel (drooooool. ahem. sorry) tho.
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.
Dwimmerlied
First Post
Yeah I agree with this.
ImperatorK
First Post
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).
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.
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?
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".
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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!
Exactly!
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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!").
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.)
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.
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?
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'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.)
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!
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.
Only if the PC is a thoughteater?
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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!
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.
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:
