Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Ahnehnois]

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.

In other words, you ignored the part you disagreed with.

Which is fine for you. Oddly enough, here's another example of someone ignoring the part of the game they don't like:

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!)

Problem solved!

 

[Ahnehnois]

Actually, the quotes you provided don't state that. They state that the DM should not change the application of character abilities, but, instead, should change the nature of the challenges faced.

The DC of a check is a challenge, as is the actions of an NPC.

But, that's not what you're doing though. All you are doing is duplicating the vicissitudes of the real world as you see them. Everything, from front to back, is just your vision. There is no room for anyone else's vision since you insist on your vision taking front seat. You might through a player a bone from time to time and allow his vision to come in, but, it's always from the position of authority.

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.

Yes, that's what I'm doing. I'm exercising my authorial and directorial vision. We're perfectly happy with the game that results. as [MENTION=128]Mishihari Lord[/MENTION] notes, there are upsides to doing this. It would be impossible to explore the story from the character's perspective without these strict limitations on the player's ability to control the narrative.

 

[Hussar]

Y'Know, since we're quoting books here, let's see what the 3.5 PHB has to say.

What Characters Can Do[/b]

... Skill Checks
To make a skill check, roll a d20 and add your character's skill modifier. Compare the result to the Difficulty Class of the task at hand.
An unopposed skill check's success depends on your result compared to a DC set by teh DM or the skill's description (See Chapter 4).

Funny how right there I can, as a player, make skill checks whenever I want, not when called upon by the DM.

Additionally, I wonder how Ahn's approach to DM's calling for skill checks interacts with the Take 10 and Take 20 rules. After all, it's the player who declares that.

I'd just like to point out that I hate the fact that I had to go back and try to read the 3.5 PHB again. Who in the world thought that 6 point type on dirty yellow backgrounds would be a good idea? I think I just made my eyes bleed.

 

[Hussar]

The DC of a check is a challenge, as is the actions of an NPC.

Yes, that's what I'm doing. I'm exercising my authorial and directorial vision. We're perfectly happy with the game that results. as [MENTION=128]Mishihari Lord[/MENTION] notes, there are upsides to doing this. It would be impossible to explore the story from the character's perspective without these strict limitations on the player's ability to control the narrative.

But, these limitations are entirely outside of the character. The reason you are disallowing the skill check is because you (in the example case - the DM you were playing under) decided that his interpretation of events is the only valid one. Don't you find that jarring? I mean, you, the player, in interpreting the scene, obviously thought you had some chance of success for your action, otherwise, you wouldn't have tried.

And, I notice the example has now RADICALLY changed. It went from the DM simply deciding that you cannot use your skill to a more detailed version where the resolution mechanics were used as written. In the real example, I wouldn't have any problems actually. The DM in no way invalidated any player choices. He followed the mechanics and no fuss, no foul.

Which is very, VERY different to how you presented the example pages ago. The DM didn't decide anything. He played the game that everyone agreed to play. Why would you think that I would have any problems with this. I'm not even sure why you claimed to have a problem with it in the first place, even if you didn't take it up with the DM. This is classic, textbook play, exactly by the rules.

Which is what I've advocated all the way along. Play the game that's on the table. All your quoting of DM authority and ability to change the rules is entirely irrelevant. The DM in your example in no ways exercised any authority, nor did he change any rules in the slightest. Sounds like a great DM for me.

 

[TwoSix]

Which is fine for you. Oddly enough, here's another example of someone ignoring the part of the game they don't likeroblem solved!

In fairness, it's not particularly fun to run combat, since my main concern is not accidentally killing everyone without having 1-shot kills of the monsters (which have both happened). The complaint that high level 3.5 is "rocket tag" is a particularly apt one. So my problem isn't solved so much as "papered over".

 

[Ahnehnois]

But, these limitations are entirely outside of the character. The reason you are disallowing the skill check is because you (in the example case - the DM you were playing under) decided that his interpretation of events is the only valid one. Don't you find that jarring? I mean, you, the player, in interpreting the scene, obviously thought you had some chance of success for your action, otherwise, you wouldn't have tried.

No. His interpretation is the only valid one. My reaction is a result of me not understanding the psychology of the NPC, and me not being able to control the passage of time. My only disagreement is that I had expected the NPC to be more amenable to talking than he was. But that expectation was derived from information the DM communicated to me, which was not and never will be complete. The action is playing out in his head, not mind.

And, I notice the example has now RADICALLY changed. It went from the DM simply deciding that you cannot use your skill to a more detailed version where the resolution mechanics were used as written. In the real example, I wouldn't have any problems actually. The DM in no way invalidated any player choices. He followed the mechanics and no fuss, no foul.

I don't see how it changed. The longer we talk about it, the more specific my description becomes. As it played out, enough real-world time had passed and enough in-game talk had happened before this incident that I expected to have some in-game time pass and to have the dialogue that I voiced be included in the fiction that unfolded, which is not what happened.

Regardless, even if the situation had played out such that I had more time, tried to talk, and the DM simply said "the NPC ignores you", that would have been fine. And not meaningfully different, AFAICT

 

[Ahnehnois]

In fairness, it's not particularly fun to run combat, since my main concern is not accidentally killing everyone without having 1-shot kills of the monsters (which have both happened). The complaint that high level 3.5 is "rocket tag" is a particularly apt one. So my problem isn't solved so much as "papered over".

Sure, but aren't we all "papering over" something? As you pointed out a while back, I ignore or change aspects of the game I don't like, the role of the DM is simply not one of those things for me. Another group might change the social contract radically but use all the PC creation and action resolution rules as written (which is what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] claims he's done). If it works for you, great. If it doesn't, do something differently.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Funny how right there I can, as a player, make skill checks whenever I want, not when called upon by the DM.

That's a very strained reading of it. I see that it tells a player how to make a skill check, but is silent on when he can or cannot do that. I don't see anything nearly as definitive as all that text I copied above. It doesn't say "a player is the final arbiter of when his character's skills are used" or "a good player only uses his skills when there is a logical explanation".

Additionally, I wonder how Ahn's approach to DM's calling for skill checks interacts with the Take 10 and Take 20 rules. After all, it's the player who declares that.

And the DM who decides whether it is possible under the circumstances or not. As with everything else, the player may declare his intention, but the DM makes the decision.

With these rules, though, it's more often DM-initiated. If a player tries something over and over again, I'm inclined to say "why don't you just take 20?". And if you think about it, for every action that the player takes and there isn't an explicit die roll for, the DM is either mandating a take 10 or dictating the result. You can tie your shoes without rolling a Dex check or say hello without rolling a Cha check for precisely that reason.

 

[pemerton]

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).

I started GMing for my university group in 1990. The five of us in that group met as players in a 2nd ed AD&D game, but after two or three sessions sacked our GM for railroading and reconvened under my GMing. The game was Rolemaster. The players were D&D players, raised on 1st ed AD&D, plus one had a bit of RM experience. (I had played one session, loved it, and bought the books and taught myself the rules so I could GM it.)

So for us, the idea that GM force could be pretty toxic was well established.

The next year, I recruited a couple of further players for the group were also seeking refuge from excessive GM force in a 2nd ed campaign.

The idea of "GM as god" was never one that I got from the AD&D books I'd read. (I never learned about the 2nd ed text until I visited the Forge over a decade later - I used to play 2nd ed but relied on my 1st ed rules knowledge plus general familiarity with AD&D practices.) And it was certainly widely enough doubted that I was able to build one of the longest-running uni groups out of refugees who wanted a different sort of play experience.

This isn't contesting your experience, of course. Nor your claim - which I agree with - that 1989 didn't just turn up unheralded with a brand-new set of GMing advice. I'm really just reiterating the point that playstyles were diverse back then, too, and in all my exposure to D&D - rulebooks, magazines, messageboards, usenet etc - I've never seen any generally shared assumption that the GM is god. Playstyles have always been diverse.

In other words, you ignored the part you disagreed with.

I ignored the part that I assumed to be a legacy intended for some other playstyle. The game advertised itself as "back to the dungeon", and I took this seriously, and so ran it more-or-less in the spirit of classic D&D (I ran Castle Amber for around 6 or 7 6th level PCs) - which is not based around "DM as god".

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, but aren't we all "papering over" something? As you pointed out a while back, I ignore or change aspects of the game I don't like, the role of the DM is simply not one of those things for me. Another group might change the social contract radically but use all the PC creation and action resolution rules as written (which is what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] claims he's done). If it works for you, great. If it doesn't, do something differently.

I think the issue is we've had decades of discussion where things like creative agendas, playstyles, and gaming goals aren't talked about clearly, because people have so many unstated assumptions about the "right" way to play. We're only now getting to the point where we realize that despite the fact we're playing D&D, many of us are barely playing the same game at all. Heck, there are many posters here who still have issues with the idea that fun D&D for them isn't fun D&D for somebody else. And since D&D is still a big deal in the gaming community, we all have some vested interest in hoping that D&D reflects and supports our preferences.