Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Manbearcat]

Neither did he though. We both did exactly what we were supposed to do. I stated the intentions of my character, and he adjudicated the outcome.

That's true, I don't and he can. Which is right there in the DMG, and is built into the DNA of the game. A DM will generally and accurately refer to the game as "my campaign", because it is. If I wanted ownership, it'd be on me to DM and to find some players. Most weeks, I do.

I don't think you can invalidate something that has no validity in the first place. If a player states his intention to attack, that's where his job begins and ends. He isn't playing the axe in his hand. The DM controls every component of that action; the physics of the axe swinging, the responsiveness of the opponent, the situational factors in between them, the dramatic implications of the outcome. The player has no right to adjudicate/dictate the outcome of the attack, the negotiation, or anything else he does.

Fair enough. If I was playing, and the DM said "Hey, we're switching to this new system. It's totally abandoned any notion of the rules meaning anything, metagaming is the standard way to play, and it's loaded with problems, but all the PC classes have equal ability to influence the narrative. Who's with me?", I sure wouldn't stick around to find out what that game was.

Because it's fun? To counterpoint, why would I want to play Chutes and Ladders?

I find that interpretation unreasonable and unlikely. It certainly contradicts the basic notion of how NPCs work; the DM controls them just like a player controls his PC.

I prefer to think of things like Diplomacy as DM tools. Without that, I'd have to make a judgment about NPC behavior based solely on the persuasiveness of the player's argument and the overall situation. Diplo gives the players the language to express their character's aptitude and proclivity, which gives me a basis for comparing different characters and scenarios. I can see how persuasive characters are relative to each other. That helps me make decisions. They're still my decisions.

To me, that's what the whole d20 system was about. Used to be, you'd just take the Obscure Knowledge NWP, and it wasn't really clear what that meant. How much do you know? What do you know about? Knowledge skills make that clearer. Now, you know about nature or arcana or something, which has a clearly defined scope and you have a number that says how good you are relative to other characters and the standard DCs. None of which entitles the character to know any particular fact, regardless of his roll, it just gives the DM and the player a more descriptive medium for communicating.

This whole post is basically a manifesto for D&D as exclusively an exercise in GM-force whereby PC build options and the action resolution mechanics they are synthesized with are little more than GM-side whims. Suspension of PC build relevancy and action resolution mechanics or application and legitimacy; complete GM whim. Literally all of it. From start to finish. This is straight out of 1992. If ever there was advocacy of D&D as storyteller system where PCs are along for the GM-ride, this is it. This is the Call of Cthuluing of D&D...which was what the Dragonlance AD&D 2e culture stridently advocated at that time.

When this is your position on the default play experience, and GM role, of D&D then I could understand how you sense there is no GM-force. Because there is nothing but GM-force. There is no continuum. There is no contrast. There is no nuance. There is just GM-authored play via whim/decision (informed by his agenda and exclusive access to plot/setting information) to suspend or apply the rules.

Until that post I didn't think that was your position. Literally all of your posts on this subject now make sense. And your sense that analysis of GM-force is an exercise that is antagonistic to the core D&D experience makes sense...and the label being pejorative makes sense as well.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Really? Your players don't roll damage on attacks?

Sure they do. When I tell them to.

Rules mean nothing in your game because the DM can change and veto any player action at any time.

This seems the most significant statement. The rules certainly do mean something. They're the language we use to communicate. That way, if a player wants to do something, I know what and I can operationalize it in some standardized way rather than rethinking it every time. The point of the rules was never to give players license to dictate the course of play; it's simply to facilitate understanding and quicker resolution.

But, that's not what the mechanics say. The mechanics say that if I hit a target, it takes damage. If I use diplomacy, their attitude changes.

Yes, but the mechanics don't say when either of those outcomes actually happen.

Actually, that's not true. 2e's skills actually did say how much you know. It was based on your ability score. Have the Obscure Knowledge NWP and an Int of 18? Then you know a heck of a lot of Obscure Knowledge.

Well, yes. It's just not very dynamic. Apparently, everyone with a given inborn amount of intelligence has the exact same amount of knowledge, which never changes regardless of their experiences. Seemed like a stretch to me.

Which, to me, tells me that my player will know a particular fact based on his roll. If the Knowledge skill is sufficiently high and the player rolls high enough, then the player is perfectly entitled in my game to know that particular fact.

Well, yes, but the DM decides what is sufficiently high, what amount of information is packaged into one fact, and the content and presentation of the fact. And when the skill is rolled. And whether the fact is actually true.

Rules matter to me. If the rules say X, then the players act in a certain manner regarding rule X. Which means they should be able to confidently predict whether a particular course of action will succeed or not based on the rules.

They probably matter more to me. However, I wouldn't want the player to be able to predict outcomes any better than his character can. Which is to say, somewhat, but not all that well.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But, that's what you are playing. Rules mean nothing in your game because the DM can change and veto any player action at any time.

Really? When we stick to the rules the overwhelming majority of the time, and when the GM rejects something every once in a while in a group that is okay with it because of their social contract, the rules mean nothing?

Now who is advocating One True Wayism in this thread?

 

[Ahnehnois]

This whole post is basically a manifesto for D&D as exclusively an exercise in GM-force whereby PC build options and the action resolution mechanics they are synthesized with are little more than GM-side whims. Suspension of PC build relevancy and action resolution mechanics or application and legitimacy; complete GM whim. Literally all of it. From start to finish. This is straight out of 1992. If ever there was advocacy of D&D as storyteller system where PCs are along for the GM-ride, this is it. This is the Call of Cthuluing of D&D...which was what the Dragonlance AD&D 2e culture stridently advocated at that time.

When this is your position on the default play experience, and GM role, of D&D then I could understand how you sense there is no GM-force. Because there is nothing but GM-force. There is no continuum. There is no contrast. There is no nuance. There is just GM-authored play via whim/decision (informed by his agenda and exclusive access to plot/setting information) to suspend or apply the rules.

Until that post I didn't think that was your position. Literally all of your posts on this subject now make sense. And your sense that analysis of GM-force is an exercise that is antagonistic to the core D&D experience makes sense...and the label being pejorative makes sense as well.

Great. I didn't realize I hadn't been clear.

I wasn't playing D&D in 1992, and this all derives very clearly from the 3e DMG and other books in that era. I did learn a lot about DMing from CoC d20; it's much easier to conceptualize the d20 system and how it can and should work in a modern context.

I'm not saying there's no continuum. I'm saying that D&D (at least the version that this thread is tagged with) is on one end of that continuum. Other games might be on intermediate portions of it, and that's fine. I am also saying there's a reason that a game with that approach is tops on the market, and that it's been around for a while (presumably before '92). It's a good approach. It works. It's fast, and it allows players to have clear roles.

Personally, every time I try to experiment with shared narrative control, the players push back and want a purer roleplaying experience.

I am saying that since 3e was designed this way, someone who plays 3e with a high degree of "player force", and particularly by allowing players to dictate using spells, is likely to have a very different game experience than someone who runs it as intended.

I also don't think that it invalidates PC builds or any other choices players make. Even if a player cannot predict or control the outcome, playing a wizard still produces a different play experience than playing a fighter, and trying to be diplomatic produces a different play experience than trying to fight. If anything, I think trying to create equivalency between choices invalidates the meaning of those choices.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Really? When we stick to the rules the overwhelming majority of the time, and when the GM rejects something every once in a while in a group that is okay with it because of their social contract, the rules mean nothing?

It is important that there is a rather large difference between can and should. A DM can do anything, but there are some rulings that are wiser than others. It's also important that in most cases, a consensus will form within the group on many of these issues. The DM's power is really only relevant when there is disagreement, as a measure to resolve that disagreement.

 

[Hussar]

Really? When we stick to the rules the overwhelming majority of the time, and when the GM rejects something every once in a while in a group that is okay with it because of their social contract, the rules mean nothing?

Now who is advocating One True Wayism in this thread?

Did you miss the part where I said that was perfectly fine for Ahn's group? I know it's there.

But, yes, if the DM can reject basic resolution mechanics at any point of time, simply because the DM feels that it makes the game better, with the players having no input into the decision, (and not only no input, but any vocal disagreement is actively discouraged - Ahn specifically states that he doesn't want a game where players vocally object to DM decisions), then the rules really don't mean anything.

Now, there's nothing wrong with DM Force. It's a perfectly reasonable way of playing. It's certainly grounded in tradition since many tables play this way. I want to be absolutely clear that this is not a bad thing. But, it doesn't change the fact that it is DM Force and it is unacceptable at some tables.

 

[Ahnehnois]

(and not only no input, but any vocal disagreement is actively discouraged - Ahn specifically states that he doesn't want a game where players vocally object to DM decisions)

What? Where did that come from? I certainly don't mind talking about things every now and then, as long as it doesn't bog the game down. I don't know what you're quoting here, but either you're reading that into it or I wrote something misleading.

And "no input" isn't accurate. As you've pointed out, the players' input was expressed by their willingness to enter into the game in the first place, or by leaving if they are not satisfied. Or, of course, by whatever influence they have on the DM.

 

[Hussar]

But, Ahn, here's the thing. If I'm playing in this game, I now know that charismatic characters will have their options over ruled by the DM from time to time. My actions will be invalidated by the DM whenever the DM feels that it is appropriate.

OTOH, if I'm playing in your game, Ahn, I know that my combat options will never be over ruled by you. You stated it quite clearly that there are significant differences between engaging the combat mechanics and non-combat mechanics. The players can employ the combat resolution mechanics at any time and know that the mechanics in play will not be subject to DM fiat.

So, if I'm a player, why would I not make pure combat characters all the time? Not having my options over ruled by the DM is very important to me. I do not want the DM to step into the light and simply state, "No, you can't do that" about the choices that I make. As a player, that is one of my primary concerns. I don't want this.

If I make a charismatic character, I'm going to be frustrated (how often, we don't know, but, it's going to happen during the campaign at some point) whereas if I make a combat character, I won't be. So, why would I make a charismatic character in your game?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Did you miss the part where I said that was perfectly fine for Ahn's group? I know it's there.

What stood out, to me, was the "your way makes rules not matter at all" bit.

But, yes, if the DM can reject basic resolution mechanics at any point of time, simply because the DM feels that it makes the game better, with the players having no input into the decision, (and not only no input, but any vocal disagreement is actively discouraged - Ahn specifically states that he doesn't want a game where players vocally object to DM decisions), then the rules really don't mean anything.

All I can say is that this you being wrong. There are multiple reasons why this could be the case, but I'm not going to post any.

Now, there's nothing wrong with DM Force. It's a perfectly reasonable way of playing. It's certainly grounded in tradition since many tables play this way. I want to be absolutely clear that this is not a bad thing. But, it doesn't change the fact that it is DM Force and it is unacceptable at some tables.

Not even what I'm talking about or commenting on. But, you know my philosophy on running / playing games. As always, play what you like

 

[Ahnehnois]

But, Ahn, here's the thing. If I'm playing in this game, I now know that charismatic characters will have their options over ruled by the DM from time to time. My actions will be invalidated by the DM whenever the DM feels that it is appropriate.

OTOH, if I'm playing in your game, Ahn, I know that my combat options will never be over ruled by you. You stated it quite clearly that there are significant differences between engaging the combat mechanics and non-combat mechanics. The players can employ the combat resolution mechanics at any time and know that the mechanics in play will not be subject to DM fiat.

That doesn't sound like something I would say. There is a difference between something abstract like Diplomacy and something discrete like an attack roll; there is clearly a lot more room for interpretation on the former. That's largely a consequence of the level of granularity in the system, as well as the nature of the acts being described. Fighting and talking are not a dichotomy, and their scope is not equivalent.

I can think of plenty of examples where a player might want to do something in combat but not get exactly what he wants, but it does happen less often there than with skills. If there was a skill called "combat", and you simply rolled vs a DC and the battle was over, I imagine there would be more need for the DM to make rulings on that skill.

So, if I'm a player, why would I not make pure combat characters all the time?

Because you've tried fighting one of my battles?

Not having my options over ruled by the DM is very important to me. I do not want the DM to step into the light and simply state, "No, you can't do that" about the choices that I make. As a player, that is one of my primary concerns. I don't want this.

Well, that makes you a very hard line player.

Once you define the DM as being something less than all-powerful, it's a very slippery slope. If it's your choice as to when to roll Diplomacy, for example, is it also your choice when to throw in a +2 circumstance bonus? Do you determine whether a retry is viable? Where does the player's control end?

If I make a charismatic character, I'm going to be frustrated (how often, we don't know, but, it's going to happen during the campaign at some point) whereas if I make a combat character, I won't be. So, why would I make a charismatic character in your game?

Since you're taking a hard line position on a metagame consideration, you'd probably be happier with a combat character in my approach. That's fine. Different characters attract different types of people. I do find that players who are insecure about these things swing that way somewhat. Playing a rogue is an exercise in trust. Playing a cleric is inviting extraplanar forces to screw with you. Playing a wizard is rather like being a lawyer; everything has to be cataloged and everything's up for debate. Playing a fighter, you do know what you're getting more often than not, and that is part of the appeal.

However, if you were just any player, you might well be more concerned with something other than how much granularity with which the mechanics define your actions. If you were simply concerned with getting a good outcome and didn't care how, you might be well served to make a versatile character with combat and non-combat abilities, knowing that you can try to talk your way through things or sneak around them or whatever, but that when that fails, which is sometimes out of your control, you'll have options.

Which is exactly what the character's perspective should be on these issues; he has no idea who adjudicates his actions, he only observes what happens.