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.
Quite possibly. For starters, there is a clearly unfriendly, if not hostile, Chamberlain. The rules tell us that there can be circumstances (of which your character may or may not be aware) which modify the DC further. It is, by the way, a perfectly reasonable use of the combat rules to use them to slay a Dragon. This does not mean every character has a meaningful chance to slay every Dragon. The question becomes "as the characters discover the Chamberlain will not grant them an audience with the King, what do they do now?"
If the answer is "have a tantrum because the GM has set a situation where we cannot instantly get whatever we want", then this is really not a game I want to be playing in or running. For my PC, the answer is "take a step back, consider alternatives, attempt to determine why the Chamberlain seems so unusual (assuming it would be usual for him to admit a bunch of adventurers who just pop by to see the King)" or otherwise keep playing in-game. My character id not have his desire immediately satisfied. Well and good - let's work on how we can achieve that goal.
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.
We were discussing a character attempting to use Diplomacy. He can certainly attempt rushed diplomacy at a -10 penalty, however I suggest that, if there was any challenge to success using a normal check, success at a 10 penalty is extremely unlikely or impossible. So we're likely back to "you can make a rushed check, but it cannot succeed unless you can roll more than a 20 on a d20". T me, a -10 penalty is pretty substantial. Note that you don't necessarily get to see whether the Chamberlain is going to stick around for a normal check before deciding - if he stomps out 30 seconds into your non-rushed efforts, he's not popping back in to see whether you wish to try again.
I think it would be clearer if you simply tried to explain what your contention is.
That instant gratification is not essential to a good game, nor is it essential that the players be able to immediately access anything and everything they wish to access. We seem to concur that it is OK that first level characters cannot slay an Ancient Red Dragon, but not that it is OK for it to be beyond them to persuade the Chamberlain of any given kingdom to grant them immediate access to the King. You now chose to back this up with various D&D edition rules, rather than the theory behind the playstyle. I suggest that, regardless of game, an Ancient Wyrm would be considered a force to be reckoned with, such that it is not a foe for novice characters, whatever the game. But then, I don't see "grant me an immediate audience with the King" as something characters who will be challenged by a half dozen goblins or orcs would realistically expect to be likely either.
In "indie" style as I, and (in rough terms, at least) @
Hussar and @
TwoSix 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.
So I take it, then, that your answer is to refuse to frame the scene with the Chamberlain (or the Dragon). How does this work if they deliberately set out to locate and slay the Dragon? You simply refuse to frame the scenes? We have, as I understand it, established that you will not frame a scene not directly related to the stated goals of the characters. You won't frame one for a goal they can't achieve. So what happens next? The game grinds to a halt and you go look for "more reasonable" players? You say "Sure, we can do that - scrap the PC's you've been gaming with for the past couple of months so we can start a brand-new Dragon Hunt game, since I'm certainly not running it with these guys"?
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.)
So we cannot deviate from anything statted up in the game previously, but anything not statted up will be challenging yet attainable no matter what level the characters may be? The exact same task of getting the chamberlain to admit us to see the King when we op in for a visit will be 60% likely to succeed when we are wet behind the ears 1st level newbie adventurers and when we are seasoned veterans of 27th level? Or do we have to keep changing kingdoms as we advance, moving to less and less welcoming Chamberlains and Kings? Or perhaps, as we all age, the Chamberlain and the King become more grouchy and less willing to admin visitors so the challenge rises along with our ability to meet it?
Frankly, either I am not understanding the system, or you are not selling me on Indie play.
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.
Maybe this is where the big difference lies. Some of us [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION], probably others) believe the rulebooks present a framework on which we must build with interpretations, extrapolations and rulings. They are not the be-all and end-all of the game. You, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting that, since there are no rules for how difficult social challenges might be, they should all be equally difficult across all levels. So you should have a more or less equal chance to persuade a tavern barkeep to sell you a beer as you do to persuade the King name you Crown Prince, and everything in between.
An obviously absurd pair of examples at polar extremes of difficulty, but all I'm getting from your comments to date is that "The Chart" says they should have about a 60% shot at success for any social scene. I assume the Bartender will be written off as trivial, so we can just assume you successfully purchase a beer for its usual price, but there can be no social situations where the PC's don't have a decent shot at success.
Or we keep working our way through various intermediaries until we reach a point where future success is not possible, at which time I refuse to frame the next scene. Is it superior if we don't play out the scene with the Chamberlain, and instead simply make that a "transition scene"? "Well, you talk your way past the guards, and are ushered in to see the Chamberlain. Unsympathetic to your pleas, the Chamberlain has the Palace Guard escort you back out of the Palace, indicating that the King is far to busy to visit with passersby just dropping in. What do you do next?"
I don't understand what you mean by "previous result would stand". Previous result of what?
The previous roll to goad the advisor, taken directly from your example which was followed by an effort to either get a bonus causing success or a second roll, which you may or may not have allowed with no roll. And which you noted required that the player justify in terms in character which, as I read that, you had to adjudicate.
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!).
Yet previously, when we suggested the GM had to make judgment calls, you told us no, he doesn't. You also took exception to the statement that the GM is the "ultimate arbiter" disclaiming that such a thing would never happen in Indie play. Emphasis added above - the GM makes the judgment call whether the player meets the credibility test to undertake the desired action. He will have to decide whether the character under the Curse of Silence can still endeavour to use Diplomacy with the Chamberlain and, if so, what penalties he will face for the inability to speak. Just as you had to decide whether the "torn robe" comment justified a bonus, or a re-roll, and whether this automatically converted their prior failure to a success. You, the GM, making a ruling, as the ultimate arbiter - the last word - of the results in game.
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.
Flippity flop - now we're back to a discussion among the participants. Does the GM have the
ultimate responsibility you stated immediately above, or can he simply be voted down by the group (not persuaded by the group that a different ruling is more important - if the GM votes one way, not persuaded by the group, and the group votes the other way, unpersuaded by the GM, one of the two conflicting viewpoints must prevail in the game.
Which one prevails? In my and [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION]' games, the GM makes the final call. In your games, the closest we seem to get to an answer is that the GM holds ultimate responsibility for a group discussion.
Who decides?
(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.
Again, I see the GM making the unilateral decision whether the action resolution mechanics will be engaged, or whether they will not. That is GM control.
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.
Emphasis added. You just told us above that we don't want scenes merely for colour.
How far do you want me to scale this down? Am I an "Indie GM" because I don't make players roll to have their characters put one foot in front of the other, avoid cutting themselves shaving, successfully transport food from bowl to mouth using a spoon, and successfully use the bathroom facilities? I doubt any of us are playing out an extended encounter entering the city, buying provisions or securing a room at the inn unless there is some reason such activities are unusual, and relevant to the action in-game. IOW, it does not seem revolutionary to me that we don't spend an hour exchanging pleasantries at the City Gates unless there is something more to the activity than a mundane and unsurprising city entry procedure. [On this note, I recall a scenario where entry to the city cost 1 sp, but anyone singing the city anthem was presumed a citizen and admitted free of charge - "just colour", to my mind, but entertaining enough when the one character noteworthy for his frugality, burst into song, the player mimicking his cracked falsetto. I hadn't realized until today that I remember that game 15 or 20 years later, not because it was entertaining, but because that scene was clearly bad DMing as there was nothing mechanical to resolve (this predates the "perform" skill, by the way).
(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.
Here again we see the GM being required to make interpretations and rulings.
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).
I think combat has "failure" results, actually. This strikes me as the "failure is not possible" model, as the PC's always have some new option for achieving their goals. No thanks - maybe they are dismissed by the Chamberlain and need to go about this some other way. Maybe, sometimes, they must be proactive and create their own opportunities, not follow a trail of bread crumbs as the GM continually sets new scenes where they can succeed after all if they just make that roll this time.
(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).
Given that they can only "fail forward", still moving towards their objective, the only resolution appears to be PC success. Not "The Chamberlain roars in anger at your impudence to a ranking member of the King's Court. 'Take them to the Dungeon!' he yells. The guards in the room move towards you, and you can hear the footfalls of many more approaching." That means we don't get to see the King (unless e is also imprisoned in the Dungeon), so that can't happen.
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.
Yet we have seen above several examples of final arbitration by the GM. If I read "final arbiter" as narrowly as you seem to present it, the GM merely reads the players a story about the activities their characters engage in.
The GM has no power to veto their actions? Above, he had to establish the credibility of the actions declared. Where did that power go?
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).
OK, I spend an action point to make a Diplomacy check which, if successful, results in my being admitted to see the King, who has heard my compelling speech to the Chamberlain and, without further ado, names me Crown Prince and heir to the Kingdom, then abdicates in my favour." oo - I rolled a 19 - All Hail King N'raac! Or are you going to exercise GM force and interpret my actions in a different manner, such that the new content of the fiction is other than I, the player, have specified. And if so, would it have worked if I rolled a Nat 20?
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".
There are numerous actions the player can declare when meeting with the Chamberlain, as well. If the Chamberlain will not listen to them for the time required for an unpenalized diplomacy check, then that option is off the table - it is not credible within the fictional positioning. Either that is not GM force, or your decisions regarding the validity of a specific action which is mechanically possible but inconsistent with the fictional positioning is just as much "GM force".
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.
Several issues. First, while I agree the fictional positioning was there, you were still the one making that call. In this case, the call is obvious. I suspect that is not always the case. You then are the final arbiter of whether the mechanics are engaged.
Second, by saying yes, you still overrode the action resolution mechanics. Just as I could override them by calling for no diplomacy check, simply saying "The Chamberlain leaps to his feet. 'Visitors for the King', he gleefully exclaims 'Come right this way'. The Chamberlain cheerfully ushers you in to see the King." [And just as he could then present them to the King as worthies from another land, or now claim they forced their way in, even after being informed of His Majesty's strict instructions that no one is to be admitted, under penalty of death - so admittance could be good or bad for the PC's.]
Third, had the Wizard's player not taken this step, the advisor would have walked away without being goaded, correct? Would the game then have failed for want of an action point, or would it have moved forward in a different direction? It seems like you made the decision here that failure was not an option. That is a final arbitration.
Hopefully that is a reasonably clear example of how "indie" play proceeds.
It is, if the point is that it proceeds much like play in any other game. "We will try to goad the advisor into attacking" hardly seems unique to some unusual and revolutionary new playstyle.
I don't think it's terribly radical,
Agreed.
but it has some obvious features that distinguish it from wargame play (fail forward is perhaps the most obvious)
Were there "fails" above, "forward" or otherwise? I saw the players use the mechanics to succeed. Had no AP been spent, or had the Wizard failed his roll, it seems the advisor would have left, frustrating the PC's intentions. Would wargame play have been different from that result?
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).
Given we seem to have relegated storytelling play to "I will read you the story of your PC's adventures", I doubt very much that we can find a group of storytelling gamers.
As Dandu and Hussar makes clear, no one said that @
Wicht 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.
To me, fiat would indicate he changed the rules. He did not. The answer to the question was not provided. Wicht interpreted the rules to provide an answer.
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.
I'm back to "it depends" here. Have we ever used a charged item while Projected before? If the rules are now being changed, this should not be announced after the fact. Is this a game where wizards study at universities, so magic is pretty common and fairly well understood, or one where wizards are a rare breed trying to rediscover mysteries lost to the ages? The former seems more conducive to a full and detailed knowledge of how each spell will function in unusual situations, the latter less so. Perhaps our Wizard friend should make a Knowledge: Arcana check. What's a reasonable DC? It seems like the spell description covers the basics. A "really tough question" is the next step up, and that's DC 20 - 30, so I think I'd go with 29 (20 + Spell Level), or perhaps I'd call it 15 + Spell Level for spells the wizard knows. Seems like a good discussion to seek group input on.
Now, let's add an assumption that the issue came up before, and was resolve by Wicht's ruling. However, this player forgot it, or maybe wasn't there for that session. So Wicht assumes he knows, the player assumes hell get back with wishes intact, and several weeks later, the player tries to use the Luck Blade again, to be told "You used those up on the Astral Plane, remember?" The fairest answer, to me, is to allow the wizard whatever mechanic we would have allowed to "know" how the spell worked and, if he knew, let him take back some actions (even back to selecting the spell). But it's now been several weeks of play, the spell has been used a few times, the wishes changed the flow of the game earlier - it's pretty tough to just unravel. So what now?
I could argue the onus was on Wicht to re-state that charged items used under Astral Projection are used up. I could argue the onus was on the player to remember the ruling, or to ask, but if he's simply reading the text and assuming the items are not discharged, should he ask? Maybe the onus is on the player to recognize this interpretation effectively leads to unlimited wishes and ask whether he's missing something, or whether the rules should be changed. I view unlimited wishes as a pretty unreasonable result, so I kind of lean to asking before assuming it will work that way. Saying nothing and hoping to slip your unlimited wishes past the GM strikes me as adversarial play.
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.
Once the player has the spell, the same scope remains. We've already demonstrated a 9h level spell has scope for GM/Player conflict, so what level shall we make it? If we pick 13th, that probably reduces the scope quite a bit, but it doesn't leave a useful spell, does it?
Why not interpret the spell by the actual wording, fully informed by its status as a 1st level spell, rather than skipping the parts that suggest it has limitations, and that the existence of the 5th level Dominate Person indicates Charm Person is much less powerful? That seems just as viable. We also come back to the subtlety question. It would be nice to have a ruling, but I think it reasonable to consider any spell with a save not labeled "harmless" is an attack, and would be viewed as such. Would a spell that enhances the caster's own interaction rolls be different? Perhaps - but that's not what Charm Person does.
By the way, since the challenge of Diplomacy on the Chamberlain should be about a 60% success rate, should the Sense Motive roll to notice the Chamberlain or King has been charmed be similarly adjusted? Should the others have a 60% chance of noticing that, or a 40% chance (which is a 60% chance for the player to succeed in being unnoticed)?
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!
Based on what you think you're "not doing", I think you view the use of GM force very differently from what ahnehnois and I see in our games. "GM Force" seems to have been watered down a lot as this thread progressed. Apparently, just saying "OK, you can roll" means we have not used GM force, and saying "No need to roll" is not GM force provided we proceed on the basis of a success. And it's OK to have no chance of success as long as this is based on something a game designer wrote in a rule book, not something the GM decided without the proper paperwork to back him up. Looking at skill DC's, I guess I can decide it's "nearly impossible" for a bunch of adventurers to get in to see the King, so that's DC 40. Still up for that -10 penalty, since the Chamberlain is not sticking around to listen to your bizarre reasons why your rag tag mercenary band are special snowflakes to whom the usual rules of state should not apply.
