Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Warbringer]

That's not force.

Of course it is.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Of course it is.

It is literally impossible to DM without doing what I'm describing.

 

[Warbringer]

It is literally impossible to DM without doing what I'm describing.

Specifically, from you post

"And even as a DM myself, I went with it without thinking twice, even though I disagreed and thought that my character's abilities should be used, because he was DMing and that's his business."

That is force... By consent to the DM style, sure, but force non the less.

 

[Hussar]

If you fail only due to a low roll, then you had a chance to succeed. If you fail, even rolling a 20, you had no chance to succeed. If you will fail, even if you roll a 20, I see no difference between letting you roll, then telling you that your attempt failed, and telling you that your attempt failed from the outset.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page105#ixzz2hfm7mkw0

If I'm in a situation where I cannot succeed, even on a 20, there's something seriously wrong with the game that no amount of DM force is going to correct. Again, we're not talking about bizarre corner case examples. We're talking about a standard example that's actually elucidated IN THE PLAYER'S HANDBOOK. Trying to convince the chamberlain to let you see the king is right there in the PHB as a perfectly reasonable use of Diplomacy.

There's going to be some pretty strange things going on if the DC for this check is 21+the diplomacy bonus of the PC's.

And, as far as reading the rules goes, I've already shown you that you are flat out wrong here. It does not take 1 minute to make a Diplomacy check. Diplomacy checks can be made in 6 seconds at a -10 to the check. The additional time requirement does not apply to the Hurried Check. That's why the rules are written that way. The rules do not allow for the DM to extend the time requirement for a Hurried Check. Which brings us back full circle to DM's Force. Granted, Rule 0 certainly grants the DM authority to change the rules and he is within his rights to do so. But, again, it's not a bad player for expecting the rules agreed upon to be actually used in the game.

 

[Hussar]

So what are we arguing? First, we have the assertion that the Wizard autowins pretty much every challenge. When the response is that the rules provide checks and balances that reign in the caster, we are told that actually applying these rules clearly makes us adversarial, and neuters the wizard to the point there is no enjoyment to be had in playing such a character and he would clearly wish to change characters. This suggests that the wizard is either utterly useless or omniscient and omnipotent, with no possible middle ground. I find that difficult to credit./snip

No one is arguing that a caster autowins every challenge. That is a strawman that has been fabricated to somehow prove that casters aren't overpowered. The point being argued is that casters have access to so many more options when presented with challenges, that their contribution towards resolving challenges outweighs the contributions made by non-casters to an objectionable extent.

To a large extent, I agree. Spells become more potent, and more diversified, at higher levels. The players and GM tend to have less experience dealing with them, which exacerbates the problem.

That said, "does Charm Person make you a sock puppet" deals with a first level spell, and our Dragon Discussion hovered around L10, and we didn't have any consensus on either of those, really.

I also find the discussion of multiplying item usage through Astral Projection a bit enlightening. When an individual GM (Wicht) suggests a ruling which is balanced (the power of the original item is eroded by use of an astral duplicate), numerous posters suggested he was inappropriately restricting the power of the spell, contrary to the rules. But when the same ruling appears in an "official rulebook", it is now gospel truth and the issue is debated no more. Do we really need every unreasonable result, every possible permutation and combination of dozens of books, and every possible corner case spelled out in an official ruling?

Aren't the same people who accept that book as resolving the issue complaining that the authors of the earlier book (possibly the same people) are idiots for including the possibility in the first place? I get to stay overpowered until someone persuades an "official source" to fix the problem - no such judgements are to be permitted by the individual GM. Yet pretty much every edition has been cited as giving the GM power to interpret and adjudicate the rules. When THAT rule is followed, we are suddenly "not playing by the rules". Why?

Again, you are arguing against something no one is claiming. No one is saying that Wicht's ruling is wrong. It's perfectly fine and would work. What's being argued is the fact that Wicht's ruling is not actually supported by the mechanics, and that is what the fundamental issue is with casters. The fact that you have to go above and beyond the mechanics so many times to keep casters in line. Not that this or that spell is broken or that DM's can't change the rules.

The issue is that DM's have to go outside the rules in order to make things work is essentially proof that the mechanics need work.

 

[Hussar]

In an odd development, I was playing instead of DMing this past week. I was playing a charismatic character, came upon a situation where I thought I should be able to talk my way out of a fight, but the DM decided not to roll the Diplomacy check and rule that the raging warrior in front of me wasn't interested in talking.

And even as a DM myself, I went with it without thinking twice, even though I disagreed and thought that my character's abilities should be used, because he was DMing and that's his business.

That's not force.

Just because you agree with it doesn't make it not force. The DM changed the rules, without any prior consultation, because he thought it would make a better game. You opinion was not asked for, nor was it even considered.

Now, you're perfectly fine with that and no problems. But can you not see why a player might not be fine with that?

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure why, but I'll assume my communications have been unclear.

It's not making sense for me because I don't understand, if the players want to play a dragon-hunting game of the sort you've described, why they have made 1st level PCs.

The problem wouldn't come up at my table, because if they wanted to play dragon hunters either they'd be playing 1st level PCs and I'd use smaller dragons (like [MENTION=4826]Ranes[/MENTION] talked about) or if they wanted to hunt big dragons then they'd be playing higher level PCs.

All the players agree that their characters, as is, should be able to persuade the Chamberlain to let them see the King, so the scene must be set, and they must be able to persuade the Chamberlain to let them see the King. All the players agree that their characters, as is, should be able to hunt down and slay a Dragon, but it is clearly obvious that their expectations are ridiculous - their characters simply do not have the ability to succeed. One must be framed to afford them the opportunity to succeed, but the other clearly cannot. Yes, I find this inconsistent and confusing.

I think it would be clearer if you simply tried to explain what your contention is.

In "indie" style as I, and (in rough terms, at least) [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] and others are articulating, takes it as a core premise of play that the GM will not frame the players' PCs into scenes where the action resolution mechanics cannot be invoked to make a meaningful impact on how the fiction unfolds. It follows from this that a GM will not frame the PCs into a chamberlain encounter in which no meaningful mechanical impact (eg via social resolution) is possible; and that the GM will not frame the PCs into a dragon encounter in which no meaningful mechanical impact (eg via combat resolution) is possible.

You are the one who posited a scenario in which the players of 1st level PCs want to play hunters of Ancient Red Dragons, and asked me how I would deal with it. And my answer was - I wouldn't have to because it wouldn't come up! If we wanted to play a dragon- hunting game, we would build PCs of the mechanically appropriate level.

In giving that answer, I am assuming that by "Ancient Red Dragon" you mean that monster as it is mechanically defined in every edition of D&D I'm familiar with, namely, one of the higher level monsters around. If you simply mean "creature that has the story label Ancient Red Dragon, but has whatever stats the GM opts to give it" then of course I can use a lower-level fire-breathing dragon and label it an Ancient Red Dragon. The Neverwinter Campaign Setting takes this approach, packing a full range of story elements from heroic (in story terms) to paragon (in story terms) into the mechanical space of Heroic tier; and its reason for doing this is to provide mechanical simplicity (in 4e lower level PCs are mechanically easier to play than higher level ones) and more rapid pacing (fewer hours of play are needed to progess the scope of the story from heroic to paragon if the paragon opponents have been mechanically downgraded to mid-Heroic tier).

To the best of my knowledge there is no D&D mechanically-defined story element, "Chamberlain", statted up in a way comparable to the Ancient Red Dragon, in any of B/X, AD&D, core 3E or 4e. (Maybe some 3E or PF supplement defines such a thing?) Therefore, when playing a game of courtly intrigue, as opposed to a game of Ancient Red Dragon hunting, there is no particular level at which the Chamberlain by default is or is not a viable opponent. (I don't personally know of any edition of D&D that has ever applied challenge levels to courtly intrigue in the way that various D&D monsters have default mechanical definitions that rougly correlate to their fictional potency as D&D story elements.)

If you are now positing the contrary - eg that in the system you are playing the players need 5th level (or whatever) PCs to be viable in the world of courtly intrigue - then I have the same question as I had about the dragon, namely, why if the players want to play a courtly intrigue game would they be turning up with 1st level PCs?

The Chamberlain discussion has basically posited that the players must be able to succeed in their objective, to persuade the Chamberlain to let them in to see the King. The possibility that the Chamberlain will not hear them out (ie will not permit them sufficient time to get that unpenalized diplomacy skill) or will simply be stubborn enough that the DC to persuade him is outside the PC group's capability, or that the Chamberlain will not do so, regardless of the level of success, or because allowing them in would cause his harm - all elements possible under the rules - are all dismissed as inappropriate. The scene cannot reasonably be set in such a manner, we are told. The PC's must have the possibility of immediate success, transitioning the scene with the Chamberlain to a meeting with the King. We cannot pre-set the Chamberlain's abilities such that success is not possible - this would be having a preconception of how the scene will play out.

But the outcome of a Dragon encounter can be pre-defined, for some reason.

Who said that? I said that if you have 1st level PCs trying to hunt an ancient red dragon something strange is going on. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has said the same thing as me. That is, neither of us would run a game in which the player are both (i) playing hunters of ancient red dragons, and (ii) playing 1st level PCs.

why is it impossible for the potential to persuade the Chamberlain to be at a higher level than the PC's have currently achieved?

<snip>

The difficulty to persuade the Chamberlain is somehow inextricably linked to the abilities of the characters, and will vary with "The Chart" to always be so, but the difficulty in combating a Red Wyrm is fixed and absolute.

]4e is like every other edition of D&D with which I'm familiar, in associating particular combat stats (and levels) with particular monsters (though levelling up or down is quite easy); and in not setting any level-based stats for social encounters.

I don't think that is a distinctive oddity of 4e; I think it's pretty standard across all editions of D&D. (At least all the ones I know). But if you are playing a game in which social encounters have "objective" levels assigned to them by the rulebooks, then the same considerations apply as to dragon hunting, namely, if the players are playing 1st level PCs, and have goals for their PCs that they are trying to pursue, why is the GM framing scenes for them that involve meeting chamberlains whom they can't influence? This is somewhat analogous to inviting the players to take their 1st level PCs into a dungeon where the entry hall is inhabited by an ancient red dragon.

Conversely, if the players are playing 1st level PCs and want to deal with the Chamberlain, why is the GM framing the Chamberlain as a 5th level challenge? (Because it's not like there's a D&D rulebook that tells you Chamberlains are, by default, 5th level, at least as far as I know.)

If you fail, even rolling a 20, you had no chance to succeed. If you will fail, even if you roll a 20, I see no difference between letting you roll, then telling you that your attempt failed, and telling you that your attempt failed from the outset.

Sure, if there is no way to gain bonuses or to have other players spend resources to give you bonuses (eg as per the rule I mentioned above).

This goes back to the question of why the GM is framing the PCs into a situation that the players cannot afffect. It is not the same as "rocks fall, everybody dies", because the PCs remain alive within the fiction and hence able to be framed into new situations. But as I've mentioned earlier it seems to be simply for the purpose of the players experiencing some colour and/or learning some background as the GM decides what the actual ingame events are. That is generally not my cup of tea, gaming wise.

It defines the outcome, without invoking the action resolution mechanics, to be the exact outcome the player described. The outcome has been decided. The GM also had the choice not to agree, so the GM has decided not to invoke the resolution mechanics.

<snip>

I thought that, had you determined the credibility requirement was not met, that would mean there was no second roll. That is, the mechanics would not be engaged, the previous result would stand and the outcome would therefore be determined.

I don't understand what you mean by "previous result would stand". Previous result of what?

Here is the basic procedure of action resolution in "indie" play (many variants across games and tables are obviously possible; this is a basic, abstracted summary):

(1) GM frames scene/situation/encounter/challenge (these can be treated as synonyms when we're talking at this level of generality), in which one or more PCs is present. If the scene does not present stakes (i) that the player(s) care about, and (ii) that their PCs are, within the fiction, connected to, and (iii) that they can have a meanintful chance of resolving via using the action resolution mechanics in the playing of their PCs; then the GM has already failed the first main job for an "indie" GM.

(2) Player declares action for PC.

(3) The GM has ultimate responsibility for applying the credibility test to action declaration - this relates in part to fictional positioning (eg You can't talk to the Chamberlain, remember - you're under the effects of a Curse of Silence; or You can't charge the dragon - it's in the air and you can't fly); in part to reminding people of the mechanical parameters of the game (eg Do you have some power or ability that lets you maim your targets? If not, then the best you can do is to daze the dragon, or knock it prone, as an improvised action); and in part to reminding people of the genre parameters of the game (eg No, you can't flap your arms and fly up to charge the dragon - we're playing heroic fantasy D&D, not Toon!).

Most of the time this does not come up because players declare actions having regard to their PC's fictional positioning and having regard to mechancial and genre paramaters. If it does come up, then the participants discuss what action delcaration is feasible given these various considerations.

(4) Once we have an action declared which satisfies the credibility test, we now know what the PC is doing in the scene. Note that by declaring the action the player is already adding to the fiction (eg I talk to the Chamberlain; or I draw my sword and charge the dragon). Furthermore, the declared action, if successful, will further change the fiction in some way which realises the goals of the PC (and of the player) (eg I persuade the Chamberlain to take us to the king; or I injure the dragon so it can't fly away).

(5) The GM then decides whether or not to "say yes". If the GM says "yes", then the player's action declaration takes effect, and the fiction changes in accordance with the player's intent. If the GM does not "say yes", then the action resolution mechanics are engaged.

Typical reasons for "saying yes" are that the stakes in the scene are very low (James Wyatt gives an example in the 4e DMG of guards at a gate asking the PCs about their business in town), or that the GM cannot think of anything interesting and engaging that would follow from failure. In the former case, it may well have been viable for the GM not to frame a scene at all, and just frame things at a scene which does involve high stakes conflict (eg You enter town after dealing with the gate guards, and leave your horses and packs at your inn. Now you find yourselves at the palace where you are hoping to persuade the Chamberlain to grant you an audience with the king); but sometimes you want to frame the scene for colour reasons, or you misjudge and think there might be more of interest than there turns out to be - in which case "saying yes" ensures that pacing does not get bogged down in pointless action resolution.

The latter case is more likely to arise as a scene is unfolding, and its interesting potential has been exhausted; or it has reached some sort of crescendo which demands framing a new scene.

(6) If the action resolution mechanics are engaged then resolution takes place, then either the player succeeds, and the fiction is changed in the way desired by the player and signalled via the action declaration; or the player fails, and the fiction is changed in some different way worked out by the GM consistenly with the mechanics and in response to what the player was having his PC attempt.

In this second case "fail forward" applies: therefore, whatever content the GM adds to the scene either amps up or complicates the conflict without shutting down all options for the player in the scene; or, it sows the seeds of a new scene into which the player's PC can be framed. The GM's choice among these options will depend heavily on how the mechanics work (eg in 4e the mechanics tell you when to keep the scene open, and when to close it; if you were running 3E in this style the combat mechanics have this feature, but the GM would have to use his/her own judgement as far as non-combat resolution is concerned).

(7) If the scene is still open, because there is some unresolved conflict and the PC is still active in it, then return to (2) and apply (3) in light of the new fictional positioning. Otherwise, return to (1).​

Now that I've posted all that, let me say that - just as with the dragon and the chamberlain - I'm puzzled as to what your contention is.

My claim, quite a way upthread, was that (A) this is a perfectly viable approach to RPGing, which can be used playing 3E just as much as 4e (though in some ways 4e is better suited), and which I myself have used not just playing 4e but also playing AD&D and Rolemaster; and (B) this is an approach in which the GM is not final arbiter of events that occur within the gameworld. The reason for this is that (1) ensures that the players will want to change the fiction, and have the mechanical resources to do so; and (5) + (6) establishes a procedure by which the players can impose their will upon the fiction, by having their declarations of actions for their PCs take effect in the gameworld without the GM having any powr to veto the fiction changing in that way.

It seems to me that you are trying to contend that the approach I have just described is really one in which the GM is the final arbiter of events in the gameworld, even though the two alternatives, after the player describes an action for his/her PC, are either: player is arbiter of new content of fiction (if GM says yes); or player and GM use action resolution mechanics to work out which one of them is arbiter of new content of fiction (if Gm says "roll the dice"). In the former case it is the player, not the GM, who specifies the new content of the fiction. This is not GM force. And the latter case is not GM force either, nor the GM as final arbiter, because whether the GM or the player gets to specify the new content of the fiction turns on the outcome of the action resolution mechanics (typically, a dice roll; sometimes, mechanical fiat - eg the player spends an action point and is therefore able to take an extra action).

Alternatively it seems to me that you are trying to content that the GM is the final arbiter of events in the gameworld because of the GM's role in the credibility test. I don't agree with that either: there are any number of actions a player can declare for his/her PC that will be credible within the agreed mechanics, genre and fictional positioning at the table, and it is the player rather than the GM who gets to decide which of those action is declared; and then gets to proceed to the stage of "say yes or roll the dice".

You made the decision whether the requirement was met, that decision determined whether the mechanics would be invoked, and failure to invoke them would set the outcome. In this instance, you exercised your discretion to permit the mechanics to be used - but this was based entirely on your arbitration of whether the credibility requirement had been met.

I think that you are misunderstanding the events of play, the rules, or both.

The rules that we use in my game state the following:

A secondary skill check may assist another PC’s check . . . by granting a +2 bonus to a subsequent check

. . .

If another PC fails a skill check, you may spend an action point to make a secondary skill check as an immediate interrupt, in order to assist the failed check​

In the episode of play concerned, the player of the fighter had rolled a skill check which, if successful, would be the 12th success (thereby meaning that the skill challenge goes the players' way) or, if unsuccessful, would be the 3rd failure (thereby meaning that the skill challenge does not go the players' way). The fighter replied to a remark from the advisor with a rebuke, using not the advisor's real name (Paldemar) but his given name among his goblin hordes (Golthar) - we resolved this as an Intimidate check. The check failed by one, so the skill challenge was over, but a failure - I described Paldemar/Golthar standing up, pickin up up his staff from where it leaned against the wall behind him, and walking towards the door of the Baron's hall.

Then the player of the wizard invoked the above rule, and spent an action point. The wizard added to the fighter's rebuke "Golthar, have you fixed the tear yet in your robe?" - this was a reference to the fact that the PCs had, on a much earlier occasion, found a bit of the hem of Paldemar's robe that had torn off in some ruins when he had had to flee from gelatinous cubes (and those same gelatinous cubes had been a topic of conversation earlier during the dinner, and the PCs, especially the fighter, had demonstrated how they had succesfully fought against them).

The aim of the player, in doing this, was to retrospectively grant a +2 bonus to the fighter's check (that is the significance of "as an immediate interrupt" in the statement of the rule), thereby making it a success rather than a failure, and thereby achieving a successful goading of the evil advisor into attacking the PCs in the baron's hall. The player did not need my permission to do this - he crossed the action point of his character sheet and made the action declaration. (I think it's obvious that no issue around genre credibility or fictional positioning is raised by that action declaration.)

The only decision I had to make was whether to require a skill check, as the rule states; or whether to "say yes" and thereby allow an automatic +2 to the fighter player's check. As I said above, I couldn't remember when I made the actual play post, and still cannot, whether I "said yes" or required a die roll. If I did say yes, it will have been because I did not have any idea about what to do to avoid an anti-climax, in play, if the check failed and therefore the evil advisor walked away rather than be goaded.

In either event, the +2 was achieved (ie if I didn't say yes, then the player made a successful Intimidate check) and therefore the players (and their PCs) got what they wanted out of the skill challenge: the advisor was goaded into attacking them. The next scene framed was therefore the combat scene, following on immediately from the skill challenge (in ingame time; in the real world there was the break between sessions).

Hopefully that is a reasonably clear example of how "indie" play proceeds. I don't think it's terribly radical, but it has some obvious features that distinguish it from wargame play (fail forward is perhaps the most obvious), and also some obvious features that distinguish it from storytelling play (steps (1) and (5) through (7), perhaps also (4) if you play at a table where the players need the GM's permission to declare actions for their PCs).

 

[pemerton]

they violate the maxim of "Story Now" we are presented with under the "Indie" model as presented. Just as an encounter with a courtesan, rather than the desired Chamberlain, is dismissed by the "Indie model" posters.

This is basically correct. Both violate stage (1) of the basic sequence of play in my post above this one.

I also find the discussion of multiplying item usage through Astral Projection a bit enlightening. When an individual GM (Wicht) suggests a ruling which is balanced (the power of the original item is eroded by use of an astral duplicate), numerous posters suggested he was inappropriately restricting the power of the spell

No one is saying that Wicht's ruling is wrong. It's perfectly fine and would work. What's being argued is the fact that Wicht's ruling is not actually supported by the mechanics, and that is what the fundamental issue is with casters. The fact that you have to go above and beyond the mechanics so many times to keep casters in line.

To use Astral Projection as an example, no one in their right mind would have let it be played straight, but some would have used the 3.0 MotP rules to balance it (assuming they had the book), some would have just had it make nonmagical gear (as, I believe, was the effect in a previous edition of D&D), and I personally would have just banned the spell outright.

As Dandu and Hussar makes clear, no one said that [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] was inappropriately restricting the power of the spell. Rather, they said that his solution was not implicit in the spell text or rules and had to be imposed via fiat.

From my point of view, one key test would be when the GM tells me that using a Wish from my Astral Luckblade costs me a real charge. If not until after, in game, my PC has used the Wish, I would regard that as highly adversarial GMing.

Player charms king and declares ownership of kingdom, and it's the rules that are broken. DM refuses access or has the kingdom ban spellcasting, and he's using too much "force".

Why not just make Charm a higher-level spell? That strikes me as the easier solution, with less scope for player/GM conflict over what counts as reasonable use.

It is literally impossible to DM without doing what I'm describing.

And yet, like Achilles making it to the end of the stadium, there are referees of D&D games out there not doing it every day of the week!

 

[pemerton]

Chainmail, Basic, and 3e didn't have gender differentiation that I can recall, 1e had a marginal cap on Fighter exceptional strength and no other gender differentiation.

Are you talking about humans only? In 1st ed AD&D female halflings are restricted to 14 STR while males can go to 17. I can't remember, but I suspect that female gnomes and elves cannot have exceptional strength.

 

[Nagol]

Are you talking about humans only? In 1st ed AD&D female halflings are restricted to 14 STR while males can go to 17. I can't remember, but I suspect that female gnomes and elves cannot have exceptional strength.

I was thinking of humans. All the demi-human races have differing Strength maxima for females in 1e.