Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[pemerton]

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.

Well, I personally don't play 3E/PF - in part because I would have to make these sorts of changes. (Though it's harder than that, because I like the idea of wizards, just no ones that break my game, so I would have to rework spells, levels etc.)

This is why others say that they prefer playing late 3.5 with PHB2, ToB, ToM etc. Or say that the idea that "core only" is a solution for a broken game is not true in their experience.

But I can virtually guarantee that if I started a thread putting forward these ideas as solutions for 3E/PF breaking, I'd get posters telling me that I'm wrong, and that only if I ran my game better I wouldn't have any trouble with core casters.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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.

I don't see that as a bad thing.

But I can virtually guarantee that if I started a thread putting forward these ideas as solutions for 3E/PF breaking, I'd get posters telling me that I'm wrong, and that only if I ran my game better I wouldn't have any trouble with core casters.

Maybe. I'd say there are many ways to deal with that issue.

There are innumerable reasons to ban or change things.

 

[TwoSix]

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?

Yes, I had read that story early, sounds like a fun campaign. In my experience, a plot with that level of detail would not have happened. Player-driven play of that sort simply didn't occur. The closest I saw to that was primarily intra-party conflict, which tended to be driven by character backstory considerations. Divisions within the pack were frequent occurrences during our Werewolf games, although that was never mediated by the DM or any by any sort of mechanics. In my Alternity campaign, the players chose to distrust each other based on their selected backgrounds, and engaged with various NPCs secretly (IRL seclusion with the DM, away from the rest of the group) to gain favors against each other.

But no player attempts to drive the storyline, no, beyond reaction to what the DM presented.

 

[TwoSix]

But I can virtually guarantee that if I started a thread putting forward these ideas as solutions for 3E/PF breaking, I'd get posters telling me that I'm wrong, and that only if I ran my game better I wouldn't have any trouble with core casters.

I think we already have this thread to tell us if we ran our game better we wouldn't have problems with casters!

 

[Hussar]

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.

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

Fine for you. However, for someone who actually wants to play by the rules in the game, then it wouldn't be fine. Someone like me.

The fact that you don't see a difference doesn't mean that there is no difference to be found. Simply that you are perfectly fine with a level of DM authority that I am not. To me, there is a world of difference between these two examples:

1. Angry fighter faces off with charismatic PC. Charismatic PC player attempts to talk down the angry fighter (which normally takes 1 minute) and the Angry fighter attacks. Initiative is rolled and the Angry Fighter manages to KO the Charismatic PC before he can even attempt the skill check. OTOH, if the Charismatic PC won initiative, he could still try a hurried check at -10. 100% rules validated and no one has any room to argue.

2. Angry fighter faces off with charismatic PC. No matter what the dice or the rules say, the charismatic PC cannot influence the reactions of the Angry fighter. Angry fighter is going to attack the PC no matter what and cannot be stopped from attacking the PC through any means available at the time.

And you honestly say there's no difference between the two of these? Really? You really don't see the difference here?

 

[Hussar]

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.

Well, it is true that a Knowledge check takes no time, so, strictly by the rules it could be done at any time. But, since it's outside the character's turn, there's generally not a whole lot he could do about it. While you can certainly talk outside of your turn, it is a reasonable limit to say that you cannot give detailed information outside of your turn in combat. I'd have no problems with that and agree that that's just good game management.

But, that's also fairly specific to Knowledge skills since they don't actually take an action to use. Most other skills do take an action. And thus, cannot be used at all outside of a given character's turn, if they're being used in combat of course.

But, would you decide, arbitrarily, that the player may not roll a Knowledge skill check? Sure, he might not succeed, but, would you flat out rule that no, you cannot possibly know this on a fairly standard use of the skill? Because we're not talking about corner case examples here. We're taling about bog standard uses of the Diplomacy skill. Stuff that's actually elucidated in the PHB as a proper use of the skill.

 

[Ahnehnois]

And you honestly say there's no difference between the two of these? Really? You really don't see the difference here?

Not really.

The Diplomacy skill (and skills in general) doesn't say when it is or is not possible to use it. For example, nothing in the description requires the parties to be able to understand or even see each other. This is presumably an omission because they felt that it was obvious. But in your game, a player apparently has the right to state that he is using a Diplomacy check on someone a hundred miles a way that he has no way of communicating it. Because the rules according to you say that the player decides when to use the skill, and nothing explicitly precludes this.

Of course, in the actual rules, the DM would simply decide that it is not possible to use Diplomacy without some actual communication. The examples you're discussing really aren't that different. If someone decides to ignore everything you say on principle, they likely won't respond no matter how eloquent you are; no communication occurs without a speaker and an at least marginally consenting listener. And people ignore each other a lot, especially in fantasy settings with royalty and social classes. It's not much of a reach to say that the DM has the authority to decide that an NPC simply won't interact with you. (Especially if said NPC wants to kill you).

 

[N'raac]

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:

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.

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.

I think your comments largely resolve the question overall. However, unlike [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], your comments indicate that 1^st level characters would neither be seeking an audience with the King nor seeking out the Great Wyrm to slay, as both are inappropriate challenges for such characters. His indicate that the difficulty of defeating the Great Wyrm is set by the rules, but social challenges are not. This seems a substantive difference between your two interpretations.

In both, the difficulty of the challenge comes from the chart. In yours, however, the answer to the Chamberlain appears to be “Well set it based on whatever level the characters are” from [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], where yours is based on determining the appropriate level of challenge for the desired task, from which the difficulty is derived, independent of the PC’s capabilities, just as the Great Wyrm does not become a difficult but manageable challenge for 5 L1 characters.

I look forward to the post, however its departure from [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]’s statements indicate that it will be illustrative of your style, and not his. It does seem odd to believe that there are three playstyles, each with homogenous groups, so this should not be surprising.

 

[N'raac]

Being ultimate arbiter of the fictional positioning of PC; being ultimate arbiter of any credibility tests; being ultimate arbiter of whether the player has to engage the action resolution in order to impose his/her will upon the fiction; NONE OF THESE IS THE GM BEING ULTIMATE ARBITER OVER THE EVENTS OF THE GAMEWORLD.

You seem to read the term as “the GM dictates the results of every action taken by the PC’s” I think that goes far beyond what the rest of us consider the “Ultimate Arbiter” role to entail.

In the first case it is the player who gets to decide, given his/her PC's fictional positioning

With you deciding whether the fictional positioning permits the action – Ultimate Arbiter of that decision.

I do not see any interpretation of these which bring it about that it is the GM, rather than the player, who is deciding what happens in the fiction.

To reach the bar you have set, the GM would have to write a novel, not play a game, to be the “Ultimate Arbiter”. I believe no one else sets the bar nearly that high, so you are not discussing the same term the rest of us are.

Fourth, I don't understand how the GM always framing scenes that the players can engage and push in the directions that the players want is an example of railroading, whereas the GM framing a scene in which the players cannot make any difference to the outcome in the fiction is the GM giving the players a free hand to chart their own path.

Whether the GM continually frames the scenes to enable the PC’s to succeed or to frustrate their efforts to succeed, both are railroading in a fashion. The GM is laying a trail of breadcrumbs in that each and every scene he sets is another opportunity for the PC’s to achieve their goals. There is no possibility of a scene where they cannot advance their goals. Hence, linear breadcrumb trail.

And you are trying to tell me that this is the GM exercising ultimate control over the content of the fiction in the gameworld, and over the outcome of events. That the GM "saying yes" and allowing a player to dictate the content of the fiction is an exercise of GM force.

I am stating that overriding the mechanics in favour of automatic success is no less an override than an override which results in automatic favour. Both are GM Force within the definition of the GM removing the results from the mechanical resolution system.

So yes, I definitely think we have differing conceptions of GM force. I use it to mean the GM imposing his/her will on the fiction, regardless of the action resolution mechanics. Whereas you seem to use it to mean the players imposing their will on the fiction, either via the action resolution mechanics or as a result of the GM saying yes.

When the GM “says yes”, he is agreeing to use GM force to cause the players’ desired result, which must then be his own desired result, so the GM imposing his will regardless of the action resolution mechanics. The only difference is that the GM’s will matches that of one or more players in this instance. I do not think a GM consistently “saying yes” would make for a better game than a GM consistently “saying no”, just a different version of a dull game. GM force is the GM overriding the action resolution mechanics, regardless of whether the results are desired or undesired by the players.

In "indie" play, if the GM is doing his/her job, the PCs have a real chance of realising their goals within each scene. But they are not guaranteed to do so. So the PCs don't experience instant gratification or wish fulfillment.

By contrast, I see no need for each scene to include a meaningful chance of achieving the goals. The scene with the Chamberlain may well serve only to suggest the PC’s must find some other means of achieving those goals. The difference here seems to be that one of us will tell the PC’s “There is no way the Chamberlain will admit you to see the King” where the other will play the scene out to show it, assuming that this is a Level 14 challenge attempted by Level 1 characters.

The chamberlain is different because, as I said as @TwoSix has reiterated, D&D traditionally does not lock down social opponents via defined mechanical definitions.

Contrary to @manbearvcat’s comments.

I play a system in which all challenges are, in strict mechanical terms, equally difficult across all levels (roughly speaking, at least).

All challenges, but not dragons. Perhaps better said that you will refuse to include a combat challenge having a differing chance of success, but will modify the requirements of success for noncombat challenges, rather than their nature.

Just the same as indie play breaks down if players of 1st level PCs want to go hunting Ancient Red Dragons

If their low tier characters who should be dealing with village level threats are instead off to see the King, it seems we should logically have the same breakdown. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] seems to suggest we do, but you have consistently denied it.

This is not an instance of the GM exercising authority over outcomes.

No, but only because these are not judgment calls. When the existence or absence of appropriate fictional positioning is not obvious, your arbitration of whether a given action is credible determines outcomes. Just like a GM deciding that a raging Barbarian cannot be reasoned with using diplomacy assesses that the charismatic character lacks the fictional positioning to resolve the matter with diplomacy.

My own ruling would be that you can try – but you have the usual -10 penalty if you try as a full round action, and the DC should possibly bump up a bit for being in combat as well. Those modifiers may well mean “you can try, but it will fail”. A 60% chance of success means you will succeed on a roll of 9+. A -10 penalty moves that to 19, and a 2 point circumstance modifier means you now need a 21.

There was a further aspect of adjudication - if I "said yes"

If you said yes, you overrode the action resolution mechanic, exerting GM force to achieve the result you desired, being PC success. As has been said numerous times, use of GM force is not a bad thing.

If this is an attempt to prove that I'm really ultimate arbiter of all events in the gameworld because when the players fail their checks then I narrate the consequences, that's bizarre. Yes, in those circumstances I narrate the consequences.

And thus you are the ultimate arbiter of the results.

If the players succeed then they narrate the consequences (in accordance with their declared intentions).

I thought you set a new scene with new complications, thus arbitrating the results of their success.

But for some reason you don't count this sort of player-driven stuff as "proactively creating one's own opportunities".

Failing to persuade the Chamberlain to grant us an audience with the king being followed by the players reviewing their options and deciding what approaches they will now pursue "proactively creates their own opportunities". The GM framing a new scene where the PC’s can move forward to their goal to meet the King is following a trail of breadcrumbs".

Do you mean a 7th level spell that a 13th level PC can use?

I mean a L13 spell no one can use. If someone can use it, it must eventually be adjudicated.

If your game can't handle a 13th level PC charming the Chamberlain, then I wonder why you have charm spells at all.

You can charm the chamberlain. You can also kill him. Both are hostile actions, and have potential negative consequences. You might attempt to bribe or blackmail him. These could also have negative consequences. You could Bluff, which may also have negative consequences, succeed or fail. The Charm spell modifies the target’s mind against his will – that is not a socially acceptable act.

Sure, but making the Chamberlain friendly so he will let us in to see the king strikes me as pretty much a core use of Charm. I don't see that as remotely exploitative. What else is the spell for but resolving generally peaceful, but slightly irksome, social interactions?

It is for forcefully changing the attitude of a target, rather than using one’s persuasive abilities. It is not Diplomacy – it is force.

What is the difference between "the PCs always have some new option for achieving their goals" and "the PCs need to go about this some other way"? I can't see any. So I don't understand your point.

In the former, they receive some other means to work their way in to see the King. In the latter, they may have to work out a means to achieve their goals without seeing the King, despite that being their current focus.

 

[N'raac]

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

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

The only way I can agree with that interpretation would be if it allows me to swim in a sandstorm – I can make the check when I want, not just when the GM says!

1. Angry fighter faces off with charismatic PC. Charismatic PC player attempts to talk down the angry fighter (which normally takes 1 minute) and the Angry fighter attacks. Initiative is rolled and the Angry Fighter manages to KO the Charismatic PC before he can even attempt the skill check. OTOH, if the Charismatic PC won initiative, he could still try a hurried check at -10. 100% rules validated and no one has any room to argue.

2. Angry fighter faces off with charismatic PC. No matter what the dice or the rules say, the charismatic PC cannot influence the reactions of the Angry fighter. Angry fighter is going to attack the PC no matter what and cannot be stopped from attacking the PC through any means available at the time.

And you honestly say there's no difference between the two of these? Really? You really don't see the difference here?

What if we rephrase 1 to read “Angry fighter faces off with charismatic PC. Charismatic PC player attempts to talk down the angry fighter (which normally takes 1 minute) and the Angry fighter attacks. Initiative is rolled. If the Charismatic PC won initiative, he could still try a hurried check at -10 with a -2 circumstance modifier for being in combat. This makes his required roll to succeed a 21 (or higher) so the Charismatic PC will fail.

100% rules validated and no one has any room to argue?

Well, it is true that a Knowledge check takes no time, so, strictly by the rules it could be done at any time. But, since it's outside the character's turn, there's generally not a whole lot he could do about it. While you can certainly talk outside of your turn, it is a reasonable limit to say that you cannot give detailed information outside of your turn in combat. I'd have no problems with that and agree that that's just good game management.

Emphasis added - I think Ahnehnois’ DM felt it was a reasonable limit that you could not effectively use Diplomacy in combat against a raging Barbarian. Both his limit and yours go beyond the small paragraphs we have on how the skills in question work.

The Diplomacy skill (and skills in general) doesn't say when it is or is not possible to use it. For example, nothing in the description requires the parties to be able to understand or even see each other. This is presumably an omission because they felt that it was obvious. But in your game, a player apparently has the right to state that he is using a Diplomacy check on someone a hundred miles a way that he has no way of communicating it. Because the rules according to you say that the player decides when to use the skill, and nothing explicitly precludes this.

Seems like reasonable limitations, but it seems only @Hussar may determine what limitations are reasonable.

Of course, in the actual rules, the DM would simply decide that it is not possible to use Diplomacy without some actual communication.

Or impose a penalty for diplomacy by mime – we’re only trying to change their attitude, after all.

The examples you're discussing really aren't that different. If someone decides to ignore everything you say on principle, they likely won't respond no matter how eloquent you are; no communication occurs without a speaker and an at least marginally consenting listener. And people ignore each other a lot, especially in fantasy settings with royalty and social classes. It's not much of a reach to say that the DM has the authority to decide that an NPC simply won't interact with you. (Especially if said NPC wants to kill you).

Here again, I might also rule that you only get a few brief seconds before the target tunes you out, leaving that slim -10 penalty chance. Of course, given we've also established he's hostile, I don't like the odds. What kind of Diplomacy roll are we talking about here?