Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[pemerton]

But that's not rule by DM fiat. That's negotiation of fictional positioning by the player and the DM. That happens in pretty much every RPG ever.

<snip>

Just as a generalization, you might see pretty much every difference in RPG playstyle rising from either a desire for either more or less player-DM negotiation in different phases of the game.

Good post, can't XP.

3.5 is pretty explicitly built around the assumption of "DM in charge" play, with players relegated to purely actor stance considerations.

But [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] is talking about much tighter constraints than actor stance.

Actor stance doesn't tell you whether or not players or GM have authority over making an action declaration true in the fiction.

Does the 3E DMG have the same text as p 18 of 3.5? My copy is not ready to hand.

 

[TwoSix]

Is there anyone who doubts that Hussar would be critical of this approach to GMing?

I think [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] is making the contention that Hussar's playstyle is unsupported by the text of 3.5, particularly the DMG. I find the quotes he supplied earlier fairly convincing, although I'm sure there's room to parse the particulars, as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] evidently did.

If the question is whether or not 3.5 can be veered to support indie/narrative playstyle, I'd cautiously say yes, but it's not particularly amenable to it. I'd either take a red pen to a large portion of the spells section, or excise the Tier 1 and 2 classes, or have a blithe unconcern for any sort of balance issues. (Which is how I run PF now!)

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I humbly suggest that relaxing just a little bit and trusting the vision of your players will result in a more enjoyable game for everyone.

I can't speak from the point of view of his players, of course, but for me, really, really no. I game to explore the world of someone else's imagination. I don't need a game to explore my own, and I'm so accustomed to it that someone else's is far more interesting. Authorship and exploration are in a sense opposites, and I find that they don't mix well.

 

[TwoSix]

But [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] is talking about much tighter constraints than actor stance.

Actor stance doesn't tell you whether or not players or GM have authority over making an action declaration true in the fiction.

True, but [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] in particular is a stickler for that strict actor stance/immersionist viewpoint where the player's total purview extends to the tip of his character's sword. The only DM information to the player is the character's assumed sensory input, other than things like hit point attrition which lack a way to be communicated in a sensory manner. It's pretty much what I think of as the "DM as holodeck" approach.

And to be fair to Ahn, he also doesn't like the facets of 3.5 that break this approach, like barbarian rages per day or Vancian mechanics. I'll give him props for consistency, even though his game preferences are diametrically opposed to my own.

 

[TwoSix]

I can't speak from the point of view of his players, of course, but for me, really, really no. I game to explore the world of someone else's imagination. I don't need a game to explore my own, and I'm so accustomed to it that someone else's is far more interesting. Authorship and exploration are in a sense opposites, and I find that they don't mix well.

A salient point. I think we should assume that many of us have creative agendas for our games that are either orthogonal or completely opposed. The bigger question is whether a single ruleset can or should support multiple agendas, or whether the fracturing of the larger D&D community was in fact inevitable.

 

[pemerton]

to be fair to Ahn, he also doesn't like the facets of 3.5 that break this approach, like barbarian rages per day or Vancian mechanics. I'll give him props for consistency, even though his game preferences are diametrically opposed to my own.

SUre. As always, I find myself utterly baffled as to why he does not play Runequest, which you can even download for free from here.

 

[TwoSix]

SUre. As always, I find myself utterly baffled as to why he does not play Runequest, which you can even download for free from here.

Perhaps because d10s are not true platonic solids and thus unworthy of being the centerpiece of the resolution system?

Or network effects, or system inertia, or something else boring like that. That's usually how these things get decided.

 

[pemerton]

I find the quotes he supplied earlier fairly convincing, although I'm sure there's room to parse the particulars

For what it's worth, here's my take:

Originally Posted by DMG p. 6

When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. That doesn't mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you're the final arbiter of rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so the players don't rebel[.]

Originally Posted by DMG p. 13

Player-DM Trust: Players should trust the DM. Trust can be gained over time by consistent use of the rules, by not taking sides (that is, not favoring one player at another's expense), and by making it clear that you're not vindictive towards the players or the PCs.
...
If this degree of trust can be achieved, you will be much more free to add or change things in your game without worrying about the players protesting or scrutinizing every decision.​

I read this as primarily about (1) credibility testing, especially in circumstances where task resolution is key becaue there are no non-combat conflict resolution rules, and (2) adjudicating some of the simulationist aspects of outcomes, especially when these interfact oddly with fictional positioning (eg the famous "stick head in bucket of what to restor self to 0 hp" trick).

I know from experience that this sort of stuff comes into play running vanilla narrativist Rolemaster.

Originally Posted by DMG p. 13

Good DM Management: A DM who carefully watches all portions of the game so that nothing gets out of his or her control helps keep the game balanced. No one character should become significantly greater than the others. If this does happen, the others should have an opportunity to catch up in short order.
...
When temporary imbalances do occur, it's easier to fix them by altering challenges than by altering anything about the PCs and their powers or equipment.​

This I read as saying that the solution to PC growth/reward imbalances (in a system that has no inherent way of managing these systematically, as 4e does) is to tackle it via scene-framing.

When I was running narrativist RM I tended not to do this - items are less important in RM than D&D, and we dealt with PC imbalances via errata/revisions.

This is probably the aspect of 2nd ed-ish GMing that, as a GM, I like the least. When I think about framing for a given PC I want to do that in terms of fiction, not in terms of correcting for imbalance.

Originally Posted by DMG p. 18

Determining Outcomes
You're the final arbiter of everything that happens in the game. Period.

Originally Posted by DMG p. 18

DM Cheating and Player Perceptions
...
Do you cheat? The answer: the DM really can't cheat. You're the umpire, and what you say goes.​

If this stuff is in the 3E DMG, then when I read it I just passed over it as legacy rules text that no one really intends to be taken seriously by all groups. I just assume it's in there to keep those who like it happy.

I think [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] is unusually literal in his interpretation and application of these passages. (I mean, [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] has been round the D&D block a few times, and look how shockd he was when he finally worked out what sort of game Ahnehnois is advocating as the standard.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

So, what's the "good, logical" justification for disallowing your Diplomacy check to calm down the angry fighter?

The enemy declared his intention to attack. The PC spoke out attempting to negotiate. The enemy won initiative, attacked, and floored the PC before he had a chance to act. This isn't even an example of disallowing the check; it's simply adjudicating the passage of time in such a way that made it impossible.

So, how is stripping your character of his skills following this bit of advice?

As far as I know, my character still has his Diplo and Bluff ranks, and has used them in plenty of other circumstances when it was more feasible.

Regardless of what you think of it, this post by [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] is perfectly apt:

I won't say it happens all the time but it happens..., especially with novice players. "I attack the orc with my longsword!" "You can't, its thirty feet away and up on a ledge. You could try and climb up there, or you could try and shoot it with an arrow..." "Oh, yeah, right... Um, I'll try to climb up there..."

It happens pretty often actually with players just learning to visualize the game and understand the mechanics.

And then there are times where an effect keeps the attack from happening... "I attack with my longsword!" "Roll a fortitude save first... No, sorry, your character is repulsed by the abomination before you and becomes violently sick.

Or, "I shoot the orc with an arrow!" "Really, I don't know, there are thirty people between you and it. I don't think your character can actually see it at the moment well enough for a ranged attack with a bow..."

I've never had a player quit in disgust over it either. Normally they accept the ruling and we move on...

The DM didn't decide that the character has no skill or no desire to attack (or diplomacize, or whatever). He simply determined that it was unfeasible for that action to occur under the circumstances.

The DM telling you that you can't use Diplomacy because the opponent is uninterested in talking is no different than him telling you that you can't use the sleep mechanics because there's a battle going on and it's too loud for you to sleep, or saying that you can't use Knowledge (Dungeoneering) to learn about a mind flayer cult because that cult has peen a perfectly guarded secret since its inception, or that you can't use Swim because your character is not in the water.

Pardon? Really? Where does it say that? Show me a single quote in the 3.5 skills section where it states that DM's determine when diplomacy checks are made? When I read the rules, they are talking to the player, not the DM. That's why the rules are in the PHB after all and not in the DMG. They are for the player to decide. The DM can, and should, alter the chances of success based on the situation, but, no, you are flat out wrong if you think that the rules tell you that it's the DM's call for when skill checks are made.

I see nothing in the skills section that says the player determines it. As far as I'm concerned, that mountain of text in the DMG applies to everything; I see no basis for a special exception for skills.

That being said, check out this text from the 3.5 PHB:

What Characters Can Do
A character can try to do anything you can imagine, as long as it fits the scene the DM describes.

Difficulty Class
...
The DC is a number set by the DM (using the skill rules as a guideline) that you must score as a result in order to succeed.

Practically Impossible Tasks
...
The DM decides what is practically impossible and what is actually impossible.

Again, this is not ambiguous.

In my situation, the action I wanted to take did not fit the DM's scene; in his mind, the NPC was already attacking by the time I got around to declaring my intention to talk. If more time had passed, I could have spent an action talking, and he would have been free to declare the task of negotiating with a raging berserker practically impossible (well within reason) or even actually impossible (still within reason), or set a DC that I could not have even come close to making while using the rules as guidelines.

And no one is claiming that DM's have no role. Of course the game of D&D needs a DM. However, it doesn't mean that the DM gets to arbitrarily rewrite the rules to suit himself.

Sure it does. Do you want me to copy the entire section of chapter 1 in the DMG where it talks about doing that?

Now you're contradicting yourself. The DM flat out disallowed you from influencing the game using standard mechanics. He flat out said that you may not do something specifically allowed for. He is violating the advice in the DMG in which you put so much stock.

Not true. He adjudicated the situation well within the rules; the rules make it clear that Diplomacy takes time and there's no requirement that the NPCs do nothing during that time; he even rolled initiative and used the rules for time and actions as presented. He also was well within the advice in the DMG; there's a perfectly logical explanation: NPC wasn't interested in talking.

Who's talking about marketing? I want the game that's best for me, same as you want the best for you. The only difference is, you keep telling me that I'm playing the game wrong.

You're might be playing 4e right, but it sounds like you were playing 3e "wrong". Or at least, like you completely ignored the DMG (and apparently the PHB) and ran the game in a very different way than it was written. I'd rather leave the value judgement out of it.

And, thus, we're back to the issue of DM force. Which is perfectly fine. You prefer an unrestricted DM. Fair enough. You have no problems with the DM invalidating player choice. Again, fair enough. But, again, I have to come back to the idea that if this is the solution to fixing caster imbalance, then the cure is worse than the disease. This sort of 2e inspired play is not the way I want to play D&D.

2e is D&D too. I understand that you don't want what 3e (or 2e, or PF, apparently) is offering, but I don't understand why you're posting in this thread at all if that's the case.

I agree that the result is the same. But, as we've seen many times, how we get there is important. Because, you're right, if I try and fail, there is effectively no difference. But, since I cannot EVER succeed, that's the difference. The DM has arbitrarily decided that I will not succeed, no matter what. That's far, far different than the player attempting and failing.

I question the use of the word "arbitrary". In this much harped-on example, it is not at all arbitrary; there's a clear logical justification that would make perfect sense if you stripped out the game mechanics and explained it to someone who doesn't play D&D. One guy tried to talk, the other guy literally cut him off before he had the chance.

An arbitrary exercise of discretion would more like be the other example you gave: a player declaring an attack and the DM deciding it doesn't happen. Is that within the rules? Yes. Is he within the guidelines? Not without some logical justification.

 

[TwoSix]

I think [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] is unusually literal in his interpretation and application of these passages. (I mean, [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] has been round the D&D block a few times, and look how shockd he was when he finally worked out what sort of game Ahnehnois is advocating as the standard.)

That may certainly be true. I've seen Ahn advocate for it before in threads regarding the Tome of Battle, so it wasn't a surprise to me. Plus, when you start out in a gaming environment where the only games being played are AD&D 2e and Vampire, the "DM as God" concept is pretty hard to ignore. My own exposure to the local gaming community during high school and college, as well as the nascent online communities of the time, was that the "DM force to make the story go" was the convential wisdom of the time (the mid to late 90s).