Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[N'raac]

This is just incorrect (and its got a lot of company in that post). You're working considerably hard at this but I swear, as the word count is increasing, the accuracy of the assessment of the differences in the two playstyles in total, and in the component parts, is decreasing. There is so much going on in each and every post to achieve any clarity. Compounding errors in understanding is the fact that there is far too much incorrect extrapolation of fundamental issues inherent in the analysis, or a conflation of multiple, incorrect (or A Bridge [WAY] Too Far) extrapolations or reductions to the point that all meaning is lost.

We need to break out component parts and examine them. Building an edifice on a wobbly foundation dooms the whole project.

Sure - let's break it down.

Simple things like:

- DMG information (such as market price of a ritual/magic item) as metagame information for GMs to create functional/balanced/of-level challenges versus information for GMs to world-build.

- Objective DCs that connote a living, breathing world to satisfy immersion/sandbox requirements versus subjective DCs to satisfy functional scene-based play where the GM is expected to frame the PCs directly into of-level, thematically relevant action/conflict.

See, that last one I felt I was starting to grasp when we got "Dragons always have fixed difficulty; Chamberlains always float to the level of the characters". That pretty much eliminated my comprehension.

Just those two differences alone bring about an extremely different playstyle/GMing orientation and subsequent table experience. This follows from "Rulings Not Rules" versus "Say Yes or Roll the Dice."

With the above in mind and with respect to the quoted bit at the top, would it be helpful if I posted an play example of how the above scene would manifest in 4e or Dungeon World or 13th Age (you pick) and you can take a look, read my analysis/breakout, reorient your thoughts accordingly, and then post commentary? Given your clearly conveyed preferences, I will say, that I suspect that you will not like the playstyle dynamics that it engenders. However, I will also say that it is unfortunate because in reading your posts, I get a sense that you would likely be a very good GM for any of those systems.

Let me know and I'll put the effort in to create a play example of "The Obstinate Chamberlain" scene in one of those 3 systems.

Not being familiar with any of the three, I'm not hugely biased towards any one of them for example purposes. While 4e is likely the one using the most comparable terminology, I'm not certain whether that is an advantage or a drawback to the presentation. Perhaps use of 4e, with a commentary on how this is differentiated from the perceived "storyteller" and "wargame" styles might be the most potentially illuminating. [Oh, and if they are offering to perform a service for the kingdom, these 1st - 3rd level adventurers bravely offer to slay the vile Ancient Red Wyrm which has troubled the Kingdom so - may as well link in exactly how that also ties into Indie play while we're at it...]

 

[N'raac]

"Deities and other beings who rule a planar realm can prevent a gate from opening intheir presence or personal demesnes if they so desire. "

That's from the spell description. I believe it is also 'relevant text'.

Manual of the Planes describes the Elemental Plane of Air as being divided into realms ruled by caliphs and grand caliphs. Ergo, each of these rules a planar realm.

So, other than resolving 9th level spell abuses, what does the Manual of the Planes do?

 

[Ranes]

It entertains me a great deal. Though it appeared in the days of 3.0, it was updated to 3.5 soon after the 3.5 core came out (I provided a link to the update earlier in this thread). It's also referred to and indeed recommended in the 3.5 Planar Handbook and 3.5 Fiendish Codex I.

 

[N'raac]

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], I think much of the problem on this thread has been proponents of the so-called "Indie" style presenting it in counterpoint to abuses of other styles, with proponents of other styles then looking for the points where "Indie" style might be poorly implemented and administered. With that in mind, a similar scene in all three models practically needs to be presented with a similar level of GM skill applied, and the assumption that the GM in all cases is either not out to screw the players over, or that he is, and vice versa.

When the GM is presented as a blackhearted villain out to stymie every effort of the players in one style, but a noble game leader working hard to ensure the enjoyment of everyone at the table, perhaps save himself, in the poster's preferred style, that bias overshadows any objective point being made.

 

[Manbearcat]

Sure - let's break it down.

Great! I'll work on this in the next bit. But before I do so, I'm going to need to assure frame of reference at fundamentals is calibrated. As below:

See, that last one I felt I was starting to grasp when we got "Dragons always have fixed difficulty; Chamberlains always float to the level of the characters". That pretty much eliminated my comprehension.

Since you want it presented in 4e terms, I'll answer these questions with respect to that edition:

1 - The dragons themselves (eg the ones in the manuals) have a fixed difficulty with respect to age; eg an Ancient Red Dragon is a level 30 Solo Monster while a Red Dragon Wyrmling is a level 5 Elite. Therefore, if the premise of the game is to resolve a conflict where a major (or the primary) antagonist is one of these creatures, it is understood that the game's level should inherently follow. The tiers Heroic, Paragon, and Epic carry with them thematic, genre underpinnings that mandate that the GM's primary responsibility is to challenge the PCs with genre-relevant conflict that they can engage with and resolve. The subjective DC and math-by-level architecture of the system allows for this to be performed in a fully open-descriptor manner. It is outcome based design rather than process based (eg 3.x). For instance, here is the GMing process at work:

DMG1 p 46 breaks out the genre conceits/constraints of each tier of play. Let us assume the PCs have worked their way through the Heroic Tier. By the end of the Heroic Tier, the PCs should have:

- Achieved fame and legend that may help them or haunt them.
- Saved villages, steadings, settlements and other stakes on that level.
- Explored haunted crypts, fought savage gnolls, leagues of orcs, cultists, ghouls.
- Possibly slain a Hydra, a powerful Young Dragon or an Adult White Dragon, Kraken, Ettin, or Troll King.
- Maybe even seen the other side and returned from the dead with the Raise Dead Ritual.
​

After that, Paragon Tier will include much more grand designs and much deeper powers. If the stakes involve entire Kingdoms/city-states, this is where PCs should be facing obstinate chamberlains reluctant to allow their kings audience/council with the PCs. The PCs will have incredible power that, as they move their way toward the end of the tier, only a few in the world will possess. They are no longer shackled tot his plane, they can hold an entire horde off at a pass, they can come back from the dead without much trouble...almost (but not quite) routinely shaping existence to their will. By Epic tier, they can do the latter. By the end of Epic tier, they are truly Gods among men.

Not being familiar with any of the three, I'm not hugely biased towards any one of them for example purposes. While 4e is likely the one using the most comparable terminology, I'm not certain whether that is an advantage or a drawback to the presentation. Perhaps use of 4e, with a commentary on how this is differentiated from the perceived "storyteller" and "wargame" styles might be the most potentially illuminating. [Oh, and if they are offering to perform a service for the kingdom, these 1st - 3rd level adventurers bravely offer to slay the vile Ancient Red Wyrm which has troubled the Kingdom so - may as well link in exactly how that also ties into Indie play while we're at it...]

Now that you have a rough, very abridged, version of the genre conceits/constraints of 4e by tier, take a look at this. This is the math that 4e GMs use to construct and resolve their scenes/challenges. One issue right quick with respect to your quote directly above. Again, an Ancient Red Wyrm is a level 30 Solo challenge. This is an end game, region dominating/threatening, probably only of its kind in the world Epic Tier antagonist. If you want the Paragon Tier analogue, the Adult Red Wyrm is a level 15 solo and a fitting challenge/threat to a kingdom. Now, due to 4e's open/broad descriptor nature and its subjective challenge, its outcome based design, we can certainly move the Ancient Red Wyrm to the Paragon tier just as a reskinned Adult Red Wyrm. As pemerton mentioned before, Neverwinter Campaign Setting advocates for drifting tier conceits in just such a fashion. However, make no mistake, it would be drifting tier/genre conceits.

So, with that said, do you want:

1 - Adult Red Wyrm threatening the kingdom.

2 - Ancient Red Wyrm reskinned as Adult Red Wyrm.

3 - The scene to be foreshadowing the portents of the absolute end game, where the PCs will be pitted against an Ancient Red Wyrm.

You pick and let me know.

I am going to frame this as a level 14, Complexity 2, social challenge for level 14 PCs. Reviewing the math of the GM cheat sheet, it will include Easy DCs (15) for any support actions and 5 Medium DC (21) must be successfully passed and 1 Hard DC (29). As below:
[h=1]Skill Challenge Complexity[/h]

Complexity	Successes	Advantages	Typical DCs
2	6	—	5 moderate, 1 hard

I'll get a hold of my players and we can work up 3 quick characters with different suites of resources and do this tonight. It will probably take 40 minutes all told. I'll then write this up later tonight or tomorrow. I hope this post and the playtest scene will be illustrative.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Or, you know, the DM knows that by creating a scene with a barbarian, he opens it to being resolved a bunch of different ways and doesn't assume that some don't work. If you want to argue the DM chooses by not choosing, I'm not going to get into that, but that line of argument always resolves itself into "There's only one actual way of playing". The DM renouncing scene determination authority to always follow the rules mechanics doesn't mean it's the same type of play simply because he could get the authority back. That's like saying a vegetarian is simply a carnivore who hasn't eaten any meat yet. The whole point of the division we're discussing is the spectrum along where "the DM simply creates a scene to see what happens" versus "the DM creates a scene to advance or illustrate a storyline point or create flavor." Saying "But ultimately the DM chooses everything" obscures fundamental differences between playstyles.

Well, fine. If you want to look at it that way. Some people playing D&D use the social structure as intended. The players play, the DM DM-s. Others alter the structure and move responsibilities. The players play and self-DM to some extent, and the DM does only part of the DMing. The latter style is a move towards an "indie" or "storygame" philosophy.

The point here is that the role of the players and DM is far more fundamental to the game experience than things like classes or spells. If you alter it, you have to be prepared for consequences. One of those consequences is likely to be that the balance of the game gets screwed up. Another is that the balance takes on a different meaning when the player of a single character can dictate the laws of the world and the behavior of other characters in addition to his own.

None of which is to say that you can't or shouldn't run a game that way if it works for you. Merely that the game under discussion was not made for that.

*Also, unrelated note, it's "vegetarian is simply an omnivore who hasn't eaten any meat yet". People get this wrong all the time. The idea of a carnivorous human is ludicrous.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat , I think much of the problem on this thread has been proponents of the so-called "Indie" style presenting it in counterpoint to abuses of other styles, with proponents of other styles then looking for the points where "Indie" style might be poorly implemented and administered. With that in mind, a similar scene in all three models practically needs to be presented with a similar level of GM skill applied, and the assumption that the GM in all cases is either not out to screw the players over, or that he is, and vice versa.

When the GM is presented as a blackhearted villain out to stymie every effort of the players in one style, but a noble game leader working hard to ensure the enjoyment of everyone at the table, perhaps save himself, in the poster's preferred style, that bias overshadows any objective point being made.

I understand. I think its difficult conveying preferences without it either being, or appear to be, derision toward a playstyle that is either at odds with, or at least on the opposite end of, the continuum.

Most of us have played every style out there and we have just changed tastes as years go on. It doesn''t mean that games we've left behind were crap. It just means that our preferences have changed. The more thoughtful the person involved, the more refined their analysis will be as to why those preferences may have changed. Refined analysis sometimes comes off as a threat, unfortunately. Further, sometimes the analysis is indeed a threat.

Beyond that, there has been a great deal of ire focused on the Indie/Story Now playstyle simply because it was borne out of a "orthodox/establishment fatigue." Its inevitable and natural for the orthodoxy or establishment to be annoyed at a counterculture. In fact, its basically inescapable. That doesn't make the orthodox crap nor does it make the counterculture enlightened. That gets decided in the arena of ideas and the fundamental experiences that both sides bring to bear.

And I can say personally, that I have taken artillery fire from 1e proponents when I switched to 2e as being soft. I took artillery fire from 2e proponents when I fiddled around with Skills and Powers and owned Complete Book of Elves (OMGHERESY) for being a munchkin. I took flak from both when I moved to 3.x because it inverted Thaco/STs etc and was too fiddly and a boardgame, etc. Then, I took flak from everyone when I started playing Indie Games roundabouts 2004. Then I witnessed more derision than I have before when I moved to 4e as I found out I was no longer playing RPGs because it was just a "tactical boardgame linked by freeform roleplaying." So trust me mate, I've been there. And a lot of what you're sensing from probably @pemerton, @Hussar
, @TwoSix, and myself is either "OMG how many times and in how many ways do we have to do this" or it may be residual 4venger "bunker mentality", insofar as it is truly present in our posts, resulting from the above.

It would be a thousand times easier if we could just run a few sessions together to get the various, sometimes subtle/sometimes not so subtle, distinctions between the playstyles in play and out...but alas, we have to settle for this medium.

Regardless, our preference and our analysis of the distinctions between the games doesn't mean that you, Ahnenois, and Wicht don't run great sandbox D&D 3.x games. I'm sure you do, I'm sure your players have a great time. It would be absurd to assume the antithesis given how stridently you defend your playstyle or attempt to analysis the distinctions at hand.

I think, when I finish with that social challenge that I outlined above, I'm going to break out the systemic and technique differences and extrapolate the table dynamics should the same conflict components be applied to 3.x process-simulation based play.

 

[Wicht]

Does casting Wish take more than 1 round per caster level, or are you referring to other text in the spell? If so, please provide a citation.

I agree, first of all, that Gate, does not in and of itself equate to capturing a Noble Djinn, therefore no wishes from that angle. From the angle of the spell itself:

If you choose to exact a longer or more involved form of service from a called creature, you must offer some fair trade in return for that service. The service exacted must be reasonable with respect to the promised favor or reward; see the lesser planar ally spell for appropriate rewards.

Again, I am using the PFSRD, but the spell is essentially the same, excepting the switching of gold for xp. Bolded sections are the relevant quotes and make me feel secure in thinking wish granting free of charge is not what the spell is going to get you.

 

[Wicht]

Incidentally, I was taking my son to buy shoes today. He's 16, fairly familiar with the PFRPG rules, and has tried his hand at DMing. I had not discussed the thread with him prior.

I asked him what ruling he would make in regards to the Astral Projection and Luck Blade scenario. After about 15-30 seconds of thought he said confidently that the use of the item in the astral plane would drain the charges from the sword in the material plane. Interestingly, his analysis of why was metaphysical, not mechanical, as he posited the copies are really just projections of the real thing. But the ruling was the same, without any prompting.

I thought I would ask my other kids later (individually) and see what ruling they would come up with.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, fine. If you want to look at it that way. Some people playing D&D use the social structure as intended. The players play, the DM DM-s. Others alter the structure and move responsibilities. The players play and self-DM to some extent, and the DM does only part of the DMing. The latter style is a move towards an "indie" or "storygame" philosophy.

The point here is that the role of the players and DM is far more fundamental to the game experience than things like classes or spells. If you alter it, you have to be prepared for consequences. One of those consequences is likely to be that the balance of the game gets screwed up. Another is that the balance takes on a different meaning when the player of a single character can dictate the laws of the world and the behavior of other characters in addition to his own.

Sure, I agree with this. 3e is terrible for narrative/indie games. I think other posters may disagree with the "as intended" portion, but my own experiences put the "DM as rule-0 maestro" playstyle as the overtly stated intention from 2e onto the bulk of 3e, and that playstyle expectation didn't magically appear whole cloth in 1989. I'm reasonably sure narrative assumptions were and will continue to be a minority viewpoint in the RPG community as a whole.

None of which is to say that you can't or shouldn't run a game that way if it works for you. Merely that the game under discussion was not made for that.

Again, I readily agree 3e is a terrible game for narrativist play, as it relies so heavily on process-simulation assumptions of play and not on genre assumptions.

*Also, unrelated note, it's "vegetarian is simply an omnivore who hasn't eaten any meat yet". People get this wrong all the time. The idea of a carnivorous human is ludicrous.

Further pedantry. Most humans are carnivorous, as "carnivorous" is primarily defined as an "animal that eats meat from other animals", although that excludes carnivorous plants from the definition. Animals that feed exclusively on animal flesh are defined as obligate carnivores, while those who subsist on both are facultative carnivores (mostly meat) or omnivores (relatively equal for both), although the ratio of animal to plant material consumed by either group isn't strictly defined. Also, "carnivore" is a common term within the vegetarian/vegan community to refer to those who do consume animal flesh. And yes, this invites more argument re: the gish thread, so we should spin this off if you wish to continue.