Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Manbearcat]

I think your comments largely resolve the question overall. However, unlike @pemerton , 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 @pemerton , 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 @pemerton ’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.

1 - This is going to take a few days to finish up due to conflicting schedules with my players. We will probably be doing it via email. At this point I know:

- Level 14, complexity 2 social skill challenge
- Dragonborn Paladin Bahamut's Templar which means the PC will more than likely be manifesting, divine platinum wings to make a point and channeling Bahamut's voice in Supernal to improve Diplomacy and Intimidate.
- Dwarven Ranger Wyrmslayer (Thorin Oakenshield hat tip) who will bring knowledge bonus with respect to dragons
- Halfing Scoundrel (Bilbo hat tip) who will bring Resourceful Action (Action point bonus to various rolls, including skill checks) and Problem-Solver (Immediate Interrupt for ally to reroll a skill roll with a + 2 bonus)
- The entirety of the Skill Challenge will be to get to and convince the king to act or sponsor/deputize them, or grant them resources/assets/hirelings in their effort to hunt and defeat the dragon that is threatening to usurp his kingdom. The obstinate chamberlain will be merely a complication as the stakes aren't high enough with a challenge itself being to "get past him to the king."
​

The recount of the scene, and analysis, will follow in the coming days.

2 - I haven't parsed the entirety of your exchanges with @pemertonbut I would be surprised indeed to find that we aren't on the same page here. I think you might be using "rules" for tier play for "default genre logic." This may be another area where "rules" and "guidance"/"perspective"/"designer's notes" are used interchangably when they probably shouldn't. Consider 13th Age whereby the designers each have clearly different takes throughout the course of the rulebook. These are transparently meant to be conveyed as different takes/thoughts/guidance on specific techniques/mechanics/genre logic in play. But they are not rules. I think the same thing manifests with Gygax, Arneson, and Pulsipher, each having variance in their D&D ethos.


Whenever pemerton and I have discussed this issue in the past, and I'm sure in this very thread, its been pretty uniform that "genre logic" and "fiction first" rules the day in 4e. The tier system is just guidance for default genre logic. As he mentioned upthread, and as I did in my own post, you can certainly drift the genre logic up or down tiers as you like and Neverwinter Campaign Setting advocates and provides guidance/means to do just this; eg move parlays with Gods from Epic tier to Paragon and parlays with Kings from Paragon to Heroic...ditto for combat threats as NCS does - lich antagonist to heroic tier. 4e is "outcome based design". The math is transparent, the descriptors are as open as allowed. Therefore, "genre control" is a product of table agenda and social contract. However, that doesn't mean that the game doesn't presuppose a "default genre logic by tier". But at the same time, it openly canvasses guidance for genre drift by tier.

I would be shocked to find pemerton disagreeing that there are default thematic expectations and genre logic built into the tier system of 4e. But I'll let him clarify.

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.

Unfortunately this isn't GM-force. It probably requires some further breaking-down as there still appears to be confusion.

1 - "Say yes or roll the dice" presupposes:

a. 1st principles: (i) The GM is driving the play towards relevant thematic conflict at all times. Always addressing established premise. Always pressuring the PCs. Letting up only in Transition Scenes where they are regrouping or establishing assets/resources. (ii) The players are the protagonists and the world is there to express that protagonism.

b. If there is no thematic conflict (nothing relevant to theme nor nothing at risk), saying yes to a player proposition should be the default GM move/action/play. The motive isn't "what the GM wants" and the action isn't "the GM imposes upon the fiction by proxy of acquiescence to player proposition". The motive goes back to 1st principles; "always drive play toward thematic conflct" and "the players are the protagonists." Saying yes is coherent with respect to your principles. If there is nothing at risk and the proposition is player-driven, saying yes allows the game to move on, back toward conflict, and allows the players to impose their vision (not yours...your motive here is 1st principles) upon the fiction. Unfortunately the 4e PHB meant exactly this (always drive play toward conflict) but instead said "get to the fun" and basically made my gaming life a lot worse than it needed to be for the last 5 years (as edition warriors gathered their banners around that unbelievably poor, ham-handed phraseology of a 1st principle of Indie gaming).

c. Rolling dice to resolve mundane (not charged with conflict) moments of play is anathema to 1st principles. Action Resolution is resolved solely for conflict where thematic premise is challenged and something relevant is at risk. Therefore there is no "suspension of action resolution to say yes." This is because "yes" means there is no conflict where thematic premise is challenged nor something relevant is at risk. If you are framing Action Scenes that you expect players to engage with that don't inhabit the above, you're "doing it wrong." Its illustrative of poor GMing with Story Now (Indie) gaming...not GM-force.
​

I think what we keep coming back to is that some concepts are just so remote, so foreign that its difficult to digest without exposure. Just something as simple as "genre logic" at the expense of "causal logic" is jarring to folks whose entire gaming paradigm is predicated open simulation of process and coupled cause and effect.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Feel free to continue coming up with strawman examples.

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).

But, that's the point right there. That bit I underlined. How did the NPC decide that? The NPC has no existence. The DM decided that entirely on his own and forced the group to accept that decision, regardless of the mechanics in play.

In your example, the two characters are face to face (so the strawman of being hundreds of miles away doesn't apply) and the characters are very much not ignoring each other. They are very much aware of each other. But, the DM has decided, entirely outside of any input from the game, that the PC cannot, under any circumstances, influence this NPC.

There are no language issues. There are no visiblity issues. There's no barrier to communication. How clear does a situation have to be for a player to say that he wants to use a skill?

Again, this is exactly what people are referring to when they talk about DM force. The DM, in this example, has gone outside the mechanics and dictated a result. That's DM force. Anytime a DM dictates a result, that's DM force in play.

But, you still never explained why it's perfectly acceptable for the DM to rule that you cannot use a skill, but, cannot rule that you cannot attack. What's the difference? Again, same situation. No side stepping by trying to claim that the character's are physically separated or anything like that. The two characters are within each other's reach. There is no mechanical reason why Character A cannot attack Character B. But the DM declares that Character A may not attack.

Is that acceptable?

 

[Hussar]

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!

You most certainly can make that check. You just fail. The DC is so high (unless you are epic level) that you will fail. No one has claimed that the DM cannot set DC's.

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?

Fair enough and no problems. The mechanics were followed. This is standard D&D play and no DM force was required. Considering that these were 1st level PC's, I don't think you even need the -2. The -10 for the hurried check is likely enough to put it out of reach.

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.

Note, not a raging Barbarian. That would have additional issues, since Rage has its own rules.

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

Umm, no? Not being able to communicate would preclude Diplomacy as a skill. And I'm fairly confident that if I could be bothered to consult the FAQ, that would be backed up.

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

I would have no problems with that. The PHB does talk about -2 circumstance bonuses after all. Not unreasonable.

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?

But, again, you're ignoring the issue. It's not that my character will fail. That's fine. I have no problems with that. It's that the DM has dictated the results before an attempt is even made. That's the heart of the issue. Let me try and fail. That's on me. I have zero problems with failure. Failure is interesting. But being told, "sorry, no, you cannot even try" is not fun for me. It's no different than telling a Player, "Sorry, you cannot go through that door". There's no difference to me.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

What tends to happen in indie games - typically in response to the reward system - is that the characters change based on the actions they take during scenes. What's more, the DM in indie games doesn't have an endpoint in mind. So what generally happens is that the PCs engage in conflict during a scene, the conflict changes their characters - what they want and what they are willing to get it - and the DM frames the next scene based on how the characters have changed.

You could say it's linear only if you look back in retrospect and count the choices you made, and how they brought you into this situation instead of any number of possible ones. ("If only I had been able to convince the Chamberlain to let us see the king. We would not be fighting this war.")

[sblock=examples]One example from my play in Burning Wheel, a few years ago now so it's hazy: My human PC was fighting against the evil elf queen with the good elf PCs. He was captured and broken by the elf queen. My PC's beliefs & goals changed. I ended up going into battle with the other PCs, and they killed me. Though there was tension between my PC and the elf PCs, the DM didn't set that up and lead us to it.

Another example from last weekend's play of Burning Empires: One PC's henchman kidnapped the Contre-Duke's Chamberlain in the first session. (1) She tortured the Chamberlain and made him loyal to the PC. (2) (She was able to keep him in hiding from the Contre-Duke's agents.) (2a) Then she released the Chamberlain, bringing him personally to the Contre-Duke. The Contre-Duke took the PC's henchman and personally interrogated her. (3) The PC's henchman was able to convince the Contre-Duke and his interrogator that she had nothing to do with the kidnapping, and that the PC's group - the Olympi - should be granted the right to bear arms as a mercenary anvil (army) for the Contre-Duke's house. (4)

(1) In the first conflict, the PC and her henchman used an assassination attempt on the Contre-Duke to cover the kidnapping. If that had played out differently - if she had failed - none of the rest could have happened. (In fact, riots would have broken out across the world, and then the game would be quite different.)

(2) In the second conflict, the PC's henchman could have failed to sway the Chamberlain's loyalties. Would she have killed him? Or just held on to him? At any rate, she'd have to change her plans.

(2a) I think I detailed this example in a previous post. One of the other PCs had his men looking for the Chamberlain in order to gain favour with the Contre-Duke. He failed and OH CRAP I just see a potential avenue of conflict I missed in the game. Nards. (I went easy on the PC who failed and let him have another crack at the Contre-Duke (because the Contre-Duke is nominally on the PC's side, as mandated by the game's set-up); I could have - should have - had another antagonist pressure the Contre-Duke for support.)

(3) The PCs tried to have the PC's henchman interrogated by more friendly forces, under their control, but failed. This didn't change much but it did raise the stakes.

(4) The PC's henchman did well in her conflict, and got most of what she wanted.

This isn't really about "leaving breadcrumbs" as I understand it; if the PC failed at almost any point along this path, the situation would have changed. Possibly quite dramatically. (Death warrants, planetary bombardment, divorce - all possibilities...)[/sblock]

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.

Not really. "Say yes" is part of a rule that says you only roll when there's a conflict to resolve. On its own, that doesn't mean the DM's will isn't being imposed on the game's outcomes - the DM determines when there's a conflict and when there is not.

However, if you combine "say yes" with other DMing principles - provide antagonism to challenge the PC's beliefs and goals - with mechanics that limit the amount of mechanical pressure the DM can bring to bear (or "maintain the consistency of the game world", though that can be tricky and raise conflict of interest issues), then the DM is limited in how much he or she can control outcomes.

So the DM "says yes" - doesn't engage in the conflict/action resolution mechanics to resolve a PC's action - because there is no conflict here and the DM wants to 1) hold onto scarce resources to use at a more dramatic moment or 2) because it would make no sense for this NPC to challenge the PC's beliefs and goals at this moment. (Or 1 & 2. This is generally what keeps a game from being dull - focus on the important conflicts, not the unimportant ones. It also keeps the DM from imposing his or her will on the outcome, making sure that the players have agency - also called "protagonism".)

Anyway, manbearcat covers this in his post.

 

[Dandu]

[MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION], you will forgive me for asking again, but you are more experienced in the field of interpreting spell mechanics using the principal of good spell design, and I really am curious as to how you would adjudicate Polymorph Any Object.

Here are my issues with the spell, quoted from my previous post on the subject.

In that case, by use of the principal of good spell design, can you tell me how Polymorph Any Object is supposed to work? Because the text of the spell says it works like Polymorph with certain exceptions, so the hit dice restrictions of Polymorph should remain in play. However, the examples include such feats as turning a pebble, which has no hit dice, into a human, which does have hit dice, and a shrew, which almost certainly has less than 6 hit dice (Kate was never that high level) being polymorphed into a manticore, which has 6 hit dice.

Does the hit dice restriction of Polymorph remain, in which case the examples are incorrect, or can Polymorph Any Object override the hit dice restriction of Polymorph, in which case the spell is arguably being used as intended - but then what mechanic would be used to determine how many hit dice worth of monster the caster can polymorph an inanimate object or simple animal into?

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is one instance in which my interpretation of the spell makes it less powerful. Will wonders never cease?

 

[Bluenose]

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.

What a very Gloranthan scene! One which I've actually had. Of course there were all sorts of cultural and religious and mythical aspects to be taken into account, but "When Grandmother met the Uroxi" is now a favourite tale of the Deer Tail clan.

 

[pemerton]

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.

You really need to let this go. I've answered it twice already, and [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] at least once each.

It doesn't matter whether the chamberlain is a suitable encounter for 1st, 5th or 20th level PCs. Stipulate that aspect of your gameworld however you like. The point is that, in indie play, the PCs will not be framed into a situation in which their players have no resources to make a difference via action resolution. That's it.

You seem to think that's a silly way to play - I guess that's your prerogative. But there is no mystery here to unravel. No contradiction to reveal. No bubble to burst. The principle is straightforward: IN INDIE PLAY THE PCs ONLY GET FRAMED INTO SCENES WHERE THEIR PLAYERS HAVE THE RESOURCES TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE VIA ACTIION RESOLUTION.

I see no need for each scene to include a meaningful chance of achieving the goals.

I get that (especially because you haven't given any example of the "many varieties of action" that the PCs might attempt agaist the chamberlain once Charm, Diplomacy, fighting, and Fireball have been shut down). But that tells me nothing about the nature, or feasibility, of indie RPGing. It just tells me that you don't do it. That's probably why you don't have the trouble with spellcasters that someone trying to play 3E/PF in a more indie style would have!

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.

The Random House dictionary at dictionary.com gives me this:

"Ultimate" = maximum; decisive; conclusive: as in "ultimate authority" or "utlimate weapon".​

The American Heritage dictionary at freedictionary.com gives me this:

"Arbiter" = One chosen or appointed to judge or decide a disputed issue; One who has the power to judge or ordain at will.​

Putting these together, we have two options for "The GM is the ultimate arbiter of the events in the gameworld."

One is what I think [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] means:

The GM has the conclusive power to judge or ordain, at will, what events occur in the gameworld​

I hope I've made it clear that I reject this as a general characterisation of GMing, and I personally do not play in this fashion.

Another is what I think some other posters might mean:

When there is disagreement as to what event might occur in the gameworld, the GM's decision is conclusive of the matter.​

Indie play literally cannot proceed in this way. Because indie play is premised on the idea that it is the GM's job to create disagreements as to what event might occur in the gameworld - by framing the PCs into scenes where the stakes are high and they (and their players) are far from guaranteed to get what they want - and then the disagreements are resolved via the action resolution mechanics, which tell the group whether the players's intentions are realised, or whether the GM gets to narrate complications that result from failing in the conflict.

If the players succeed at action resolution, than an indie GM has no power to dictate an event in the gameworld that does not give effect to that success. Hence the GM's decision as to what might occur in the gameworld is not conclusive. Hence the GM is not the ultimate arbiter of events in the gameworld.

I think it's pretty straightforward.

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.

If that's how you're using GM force, I guess it is. That's not how I am using GM force, however, which I characterised as the GM supsending the action rseolution rules so as to directly stipulate the content of the fiction.

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.

Giving someone what they want is not leading them by a trail of breadcrumbs. It's being led by them.

 

[Manbearcat]

Thanks for the play-post and thorough elaboration @LostSoul. Can't xp.

So GMing 1st principles for Indie (Story Now) play have been laid out. I'm going to lay out 1st principles for "Storyteller", "Wargaming", and "Sandbox" (underwritten by simulation of process/causal logic) play.


Storytelling

- Never let the mechanics get in the way of good story. The rules are there only there to facilitate that good story. Make rulings that overwrite those rules, to further the end of a good story, where required.


Wargaming

- Always challenge the players (this is key) by testing their skill. Always let them decide their fate. Give them nothing. Make them earn it.


Sandboxing

- Create a living, breathing world for the players to immerse themselves within. Let them decide where they go and what they do. The world changes with or without them. Show them both.


Folks will drift and cause "incoherency" and/or the game itself will be "incoherent" (as Ron Edwards would put it), but those are the GMing 1st principles as I understand them and have applied them myself. Indie is in the above posts.

 

[Manbearcat]

Bridging the above GMing 1st principles to 5e, I hope that people can see why I perceive (i) 5e to be closest to AD&D 2e with its "Rulings Not Rules" Storyteller ethos and GMing 1st principles (and mechanically to be quite honest, up to and including lack of rules clarity) and that Mearls is an advocate for D&D as "Storyteller" play (as can easily be seen in the D&D Next podcasts).

 

[Ahnehnois]

How did the NPC decide that? The NPC has no existence. The DM decided that entirely on his own and forced the group to accept that decision, regardless of the mechanics in play.

Yes. It's called roleplaying. The NPC exists to the same extent that the PCs do, and his behavior and intentions are determined by the DM in the same way that the PCs behavior and intentions are determined by the players.

In context, the NPC decided that for whatever psychological reasons were prevalent at the time.

In my case, the NPC I wanted to negotiate with was apparently a ruthless warrior who had recently been recruited into a church and had apparently been told that I was a heathen (not exactly false), and had bought into it to the extent that he believed any words I said might be witchcraft and refused to consider them as being legitimate. I thought it was a stretch that a previously irreligious NPC could buy so hard into this, but the logic certainly holds.

However, there are many reasons why people ignore other people, even if they are aware of them and can understand them. Have you ever tried to talk to a woman who decided to give you the silent treatment? Diplo that!

In your example, the two characters are face to face (so the strawman of being hundreds of miles away doesn't apply) and the characters are very much not ignoring each other. They are very much aware of each other.

"Aware of", however, is not equivalent to "willing to engage in at least six seconds of meaningful conversation".

There are no language issues. There are no visiblity issues. There's no barrier to communication. How clear does a situation have to be for a player to say that he wants to use a skill?

Exactly my point. Who decides that? Are you suggesting that the player does? That if a player thinks the situation is clear the DM can be subverted and he can just do what he wants without approval?

But, you still never explained why it's perfectly acceptable for the DM to rule that you cannot use a skill, but, cannot rule that you cannot attack. What's the difference? Again, same situation. No side stepping by trying to claim that the character's are physically separated or anything like that. The two characters are within each other's reach. There is no mechanical reason why Character A cannot attack Character B. But the DM declares that Character A may not attack.

I did not say that. I said that both rulings were acceptable, but like all rulings, require a logical justification. I also explained that it is much easier to justify someone being unwilling to listen than someone being unable to be attacked, simply because of the nature of the actions.

Some actions, like Diplomacy, have more gray area actions than others, like attacking. Movement skills like Climb and Jump are relatively clear cut, while Knowledge requires an enormous amount of interpretation. Spot and Listen can pretty much always be used, but Sense Motive is quite unclear. Fort and ref saves are more objective than will. We're modeling reality, and some things are easier to model than others. In general, the psychological is harder to model than the physical, and thus rules on that subject require more interpretation by the DM.

But ultimately, the rules as written allow the DM to do both those things (say that an intended attack or Diplo does not happen), and to determine the validity of any actions, as the "final arbiter" of what happens.

And again, what is the converse? If the DM says "no attack", and the player says "I attack anyway". The player clearly has no recourse through the rules. It's certainly feasible to imagine a situation where the DM does this for no good reason or for some obviously bad reason, but since that would be, in your terms, a strawman, what if there is a good reason and the players simply don't know it?

What if, for example, the players have unknowingly been transported to the extraplanar realm of a deity of peace, and the plane magically prevents all violent acts? Then there's no attack, and the players have to accept it whether they know why or not, and whether there's a mechanic in any book that does this or not. Obviously, situations like these test the trust between players and DM (note paragraph on trust I quoted pages ago), but they're well within the letter and intent of the rules.