Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[TwoSix]

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.

It's fascinating how a little bit of time (and a lot of geography) can cause such disparate experiences. I learned how to play almost exclusively from the 2e DMG and subsequent books, and my only 1e exposure was from one high school friend and some CRPGs. When I went to college in 1996, 2e and Vampire were the only games in the college gaming club being played, although the TSR shutdown did cause many of us to branch out a bit. Still, the idea that the players would play a wider role in the creation of the fiction wasn't so much non-orthodox in my locale as simply nonexistent. I didn't get any exposure to the idea until the mid '00s.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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".

That's what I thought. What baffles me, then, is your implicit unwillingness to ignore any other parts of the game that don't fit with your expectations. You don't like the DM as arbiter of reality? Don't do it. You don't like CoDzillas? Ban them. The latter seems a far smaller departure to me; that's only changing one part of the PC rules rather than changing the entire paradigm for interpreting and resolving player character actions. After all, if you did that, you wouldn't be posting in this thread would you?

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.

Well that's why we're talking about it, isn't it? And as long as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] claims to go back on this fighter/caster thing, I've been saying we all play different things that may not be recognizable as the same game for just as long.

To me, though, the social contract goes beyond things that I would talk about as "playstyles". I can easily conceptualize ways that the d20 system could be revised to expand better to new genres and new creative possibilities, or to be easier to prep for or run, but do I imagine that my preferred game would be robust to changes in the player/DM dynamic? That one game could work equally well with players having control of parts of the rules as it does with a monolithic DM? No. I just don't think that's possible.

 

[TwoSix]

To me, though, the social contract goes beyond things that I would talk about as "playstyles". I can easily conceptualize ways that the d20 system could be revised to expand better to new genres and new creative possibilities, or to be easier to prep for or run, but do I imagine that my preferred game would be robust to changes in the player/DM dynamic? That one game could work equally well with players having control of parts of the rules as it does with a monolithic DM? No. I just don't think that's possible.

I tend to agree. While I think more than one game could be supported under the D&D brand, I don't think even a heavily modular game can support multiple modes of player-DM negotiation.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I tend to agree. While I think more than one game could be supported under the D&D brand, I don't think even a heavily modular game can support multiple modes of player-DM negotiation.

I'm all for more than one game under the brand. Would cater to more people, and to some extent combat the supplement bloat and finite edition lifestyle problems that we have now.

 

[sheadunne]

I can easily conceptualize ways that the d20 system could be revised to expand better to new genres and new creative possibilities, or to be easier to prep for or run, but do I imagine that my preferred game would be robust to changes in the player/DM dynamic? That one game could work equally well with players having control of parts of the rules as it does with a monolithic DM? No. I just don't think that's possible.

I think it can be, but I have yet to see it explicit in any published game. 3x/PF only lacks codified/universal rules for handing social dynamics and spell usage, in my opinion. Well, those are the biggest areas, there are many smaller tweaks that I feel are needed to improve game play all around, regardless of play-style (like a skill system that isn't tacked onto the game, but integrated from the ground up-this has been an issue in every edition of D&D 1e-4e, and only an issue if you want something other than combat to be a rules supported/focused agenda of play).

But I'm an optimist and have multiple gaming personality disorder (I like different things when I play versus when I run).

 

[Wicht]

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".

I started playing around 1982 and my first rulebook, the Moldvay Basic had that big paragraph in there entitled "The DM is Boss" (I like Boss better than god, personally). Then Gygax in the AD&D DMG talked about the ultimate authority of the DM and how it had to be used judiciously to make the game fun. My memory of "classic" D&D is a little different than yours.

 

[Wicht]

Oh please. If you're not even going to bother reading the context of a statement, why bother responding? The issue wasn't that the player was in error. That's pretty obvious. The issue is that the character standing in front of the opponent is told, "No, you may not attack".

But, hey, feel free to keep building straw men.

Ahnehnois seemed to think it was in context. There may be any number of valid reasons a DM might say such a thing was my point.

I could have added, I often tell people they have to wait until their initiative order to do anything, including make Knowledge checks. This is partly to keep the game more organized (and so I as DM don't have to listen to 5 different people at the same time) and also to better reflect the simulation of people acting, speaking and doing things one after the other. So I have people ask me, "Can I make a Knowledge check" and I will say, "No, not until its your turn." I guess you could call this DM force, but I tend to think its just good game management.

 

[Wicht]

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.

I agree. But I think the whole DM Force issue is being exaggerated as to the extent of the problem.

 

[pemerton]

When I went to college in 1996, 2e and Vampire were the only games in the college gaming club being played, although the TSR shutdown did cause many of us to branch out a bit. Still, the idea that the players would play a wider role in the creation of the fiction wasn't so much non-orthodox in my locale as simply nonexistent. I didn't get any exposure to the idea until the mid '00s.

A comment and a question.

I think part of the issue with that hardcore "GM as god" play is it depends upon the GM (i) having a pretty good story to tell, and (ii) being a pretty good teller of stories. My fond memories of playing high-force CoC games at conventions are the result of GMs running us through engaging modules, and having great skills at playing and emoting NPCs, evoking atmosphere through narration, etc. Whereas at those same conventions I remember playing an AD&D game where the GM was lacklustre, the story inherently uninteresting, and it was basically a great suckfest. (My group use to do Melbourne's ConQuest regularly for 3 or 4 years in a row. After the first year we knew to enroll in every Chaosium-sponsored event, because they had great GMs; and to skip every D&D event, because they had lacklustre modules with lackluster GMing.)

The refugees I was recruiting were leaving games where lacklustre GMs would run them through tedious, self-indulgent adventures.

Now, the question. I don't know if you read my latest contribution to "the sage of pemerton and N'raac", but there I described a series of episodes of play, all of which ensued from the player of a wizard PC wanting to find a way of speeding up spell point recovery:

An actual play example from one of my old RM games: all the PCs were wizards, and most had been built with decent meditation skills to facilitate the quick recovery of spell points. (RM is a spell points system, where points are recovered via rest and meditation can enhance rest). But one PC had been built by the player so as to sacrifice meditation skill for social and perception skills. Which meant he was having trouble recovering his spell points quickly enough to keep up. So the player had his PC go out into the shady part of town and purchase a spell-recovery drug. Which worked, but to which the PC (via the game's disease mechanics) became addicted. (Another comment: the player knew of the chance of addiction - it was not secret backstory. This is part of the idea of "overt", upfront stakes that is characteristic of indie play.)

Because the drug was expensive - something the player knew when his PC started using it - the PC quickly spent all his money on it. Which meant that he missed the annual rental payment on his house. And so ended up homeless.

Around the same time, he had another series of misadventures out in the field - in particular, being pushed off a floating disc by a demon that another PC had bound, but then lost control of in an dispel magic zone. On that particular occasion the PC was rescued by an NPC elven wizard, the agent of a rival power, who found him, invisible in the bushes at the base of the castle warded by the anti-magic. (This is an example of "fail forward". The PC has failed in his endeavour to navigate into the warded castle on a floating disc, but that results in a new complication rather than a narrative dead end.)

Despite initial suspicions, the two wizards - PC and NPC - became friends (the PC wizard, as I mentioned, was strong in social skills), then romantic partners, and this inspired the PC (as played by his player) to kick his addiction. Then the elven wizard NPC - who had abandoned her ties to the rival power in order to be with the PC wizard - got cut in two by another out-of-control demon summoned by the same other PC; and the PC (as played by his player) relapsed back into addiction.

The demon-summoning PC got sick of his companion's ineffectiveness due to the consequences of addiction, and so (i) paid an NPC cleric to cast the appropriate healing spells, and (ii) did a deal with the unhappy PC: if the unhappy PC would help the summoner PC and his allies conquer the hometown of the two, then as a tradeoff the unhappy PC would get his house back, and also a magistracy in the city (something he had long sought). The deal was agreed to, they helped in the conquest (which was adjudicated by "saying yes"), and the invaders kept their side of the bargain. So the unhappy got his house back and got his magistracy. All he had to do was betray his city at the behest of someone whose demons had nearly killed him, and had cut his only true friend in half.

Would anything like that have happened in the play culture you're describing, or could that sort of thing only be driven by the GM?

 

[pemerton]

I started playing around 1982 and my first rulebook, the Moldvay Basic had that big paragraph in there entitled "The DM is Boss" (I like Boss better than god, personally). Then Gygax in the AD&D DMG talked about the ultimate authority of the DM and how it had to be used judiciously to make the game fun. My memory of "classic" D&D is a little different than yours.

I started with Moldvay too. But when it talked about "GM as boss", I took that to be in terms of (what I would now call) setting the scene and resolving disputes over fictional positioning.

After all, the passage doesn't say "The GM is final arbiter of outcomes." It says "The DM decides how these rules will e used i the game." I never interpreted using the rules as extending to non-use and the substitution of GM fiat over outcomes: after all, the example in Moldvay of what to do when a player wants to jump over a cliff into an underground stream isn't that the GM should fiat the outcome; it's that the GM should set the odds and then let the player roll. And the instructions there are telling, in my view: they don't say that the GM should think about what would make for a good story, or even a good game. They say that "One quick way for a DM to decide whether a solution [suggested by a player] will work is by imagining the situation, and then chosing pecentage chances for the different possibilities."

This is consistent with what I said to [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION] way upthread, that I see this stuff as being about background and fictional positioning, not outcomes. My understanding of the GM's role in these terms was reinforced by reading people like Don Turnbull, Lewis Pulsipher and Roger Musson in White Dwarf; by reading Gygax's DMG (which, as I explained upthread, I interepted in the same light); and by reading Dragon and identifying bits of advice that seemed to fit with my own experiences of what made for a fun game.

TL;DR: you may have read those passages as conferring upon the GM authority as to outcomes, but I didn't. (And, for what it's worth, still don't.)