Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Ahnehnois]

IN INDIE PLAY THE PCs ONLY GET FRAMED INTO SCENES WHERE THEIR PLAYERS HAVE THE RESOURCES TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE VIA ACTION RESOLUTION.

However, in D&D play, there is no mechanism that provides for this, and only general recommendations that it happen regularly but not always.

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.

Well, that's why I keep emphasizing the DM and am posting this in a thread tagged 3e/3.5 talking about 3e/3.5 play. In that context, my definition is straight out of the book, regardless of what motivations you attribute to the authors.

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.

Yes, which is why these games are built completely differently. Players have resources that they don't have in D&D. They also have considerations that they don't in D&D. Typically, there's some mechanism to encourage them to act in a non-psychopathic way that rewards them with metagame resources if the player does something that moves the game forward or acts in accordance with genre expectations. That's why there's a distinction between D&D and those games, and why D&D works poorly to that end unless you really change it a lot.

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

True, which can be a good or bad thing.

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.

Which, in a D&D context, is basically what's happening all the time. The rules are a model of reality, and the DM does not sit down and play through every action that happens offscreen in the history of the world by rolling every conceivable check that could be justified. Nor does he generally use the rules for on screen action; it's de rigeur, for instance, to simply say that the players travel from one location to another one without rolling for anything along the way. In fact, it's normal to play out simple interactions without rolling Charisma checks, or for the DM to disseminate common or plot-advancing knowledge without Knowledge checks. It's not even uncommon for a DM to look at the final straggler in a battle and say "eh, you mop 'em up" and move on, without rolling the requisite attacks and damage.

Almost all actions occur without engagement of the applicable action resolution rules. It's an exception when they are engaged. And it's something that is completely the DM's choice.

As the DMG explains, the action resolution rules are there for the DM to engage when he chooses; he's advised to call for a roll only when the results are in doubt, the results are meaningful, and the situation is dramatically interesting. If the rules are the lens through which we see the game world, the DM is the cameraman. And that's largely what DMing is about: picking the interesting moments and using the rules to zoom in on them.

 

[Manbearcat]

However, in D&D play, there is no mechanism that provides for this, and only general recommendations that it happen regularly but not always.

This is not true. What pemerton is speaking of is a system-neutral technique; it is "mechanism" (I'm not sure how you're using that word) irrelevant. Different * mechanics will interface better with scene-based play (rather than open world exploration) but (i) framing scenes and (ii) having outcome depend on PC resource deployment meeting action resolution mechanics is only system-relevant if (a) there are no PC resources to deploy and (b) there are no action resolution mechanics (or they are opaque).

* PC resource schemes/encounter budgeting premised upon scenes/encounters rather than a zoomed out adventuring day or campaign, XP/benny (plot point et al):compication (immediate or latent) economy.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This is not true. What pemerton is speaking of a system-neutral technique; it is "mechanism" (I'm not sure how you're using that word) relevant. Different * mechanics will interface better with scene-based play (rather than open world exploration) but (i) framing scenes and (ii) having outcome depend on PC resource deployment meeting action resolution mechanics is only system-relevant if (a) there are no PC resources to deploy and (b) there are no action resolution mechanics (or they are opaque).

* PC resource schemes/encounter budgeting premised upon scenes/encounters rather than a zoomed out adventuring day or campaign, XP/benny (plot point et al):compication (immediate or latent) economy.

Fine, look at it that way. The point is that in a typical D&D game (or potentially in any number of other games), situations often arise that the player has no meaningful ability to influence. Whatever choices he previously made may be subverted or made irrelevant. That's a style too, and it's an important style with a lot of benefits.

The only style? No. But, as you point out, certain mechanics work better with it than others.

 

[Manbearcat]

Quick addendum to above post. Should read: it is "mechanism" irrelevant (rather than relevant). I'm sure people following along could have figured that out but I didn't want there to be any confusion.

 

[Nagol]

Fine, look at it that way. The point is that in a typical D&D game (or potentially in any number of other games), situations often arise that the player has no meaningful ability to influence. Whatever choices he previously made may be subverted or made irrelevant. That's a style too, and it's an important style with a lot of benefits.

The only style? No. But, as you point out, certain mechanics work better with it than others.

And the meeting the chamberlain that's been discussed is only being framed because of player insistence -- we are going to see the chamberlain to arrange a meeting with the King!

Meeting may be within the PCs ability, but having the PCs manage to hit their self-defined success criteria may not be.

Nor does the meeting need to be "indie-play" irrelevant -- perhaps there are other aspects to the meeting the PCs can make a difference (such as detecting a hidden truth) and/or discovering an alternate path to their objective. Having those possibilities doesn't mean they are broadcast to the players and receiving "No I won't schedule such a meeting. Stop bothering me." may be irrelevant to the ways the PCs could have made a difference, but failed.

This scenario suffers somewhat from the same player-view centrism as did the rising a centipede across the desert. Just because a player doesn't recognise the relevance doesn't mean there is no relevance.

 

[Wicht]

[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.

I haven't had internet at home for a few days, so sorry for not responding to your original post.

My interpretation of the text is that Polymorph any Object has no HD restrictions at all. The balancing mechanism given in the spell is duration of the spell, not HD. Casters should be able to use Polymorph any object to make any creature or thing into any other creature or thing. But the more radical the change, the shorter the spell lasts. The examples given were also used in the PFRPG rules, which did make some changes to Polymorph spells, not only for balance, but for clarity, and I think are meant to mean that there is no HD restriction in place (though PF mostly got rid of HD restrictions anyway with their polymorph school of spells). Interestingly, Polymorph any Object was left more or less alone in the changes when the changes were made.

I will say that where I think the 3.x Polymorph any Object spell text falls down is in the mental attribute discussion. The PF rules are much clearer in this regard, and better imo.

There is no question that people can make mistakes when designing spells, or writing text, and polymorph is one area where I think it did need some cleaning up, and it got it in PF. But the HD question isn't really, imo, a problem with the spell, once you understand that the examples override the HD restrictions of 3.x Polymorph.

 

[Imaro]

I have a quick question concerning the issue of GM force that has been touched upon in this thread by a couple of people... Doesn't 4e, implicitly if not explicitly, give the GM just as much leeway to use GM force as any other version of D&D? I mean the most blatant example that I can think of to back up my assertion is the fact that a DM has the power in 4e to declare a skill an automatic failure... isn't this deciding the outcome through DM fiat?

 

[TwoSix]

I have a quick question concerning the issue of GM force that has been touched upon in this thread by a couple of people... Doesn't 4e, implicitly if not explicitly, give the GM just as much leeway to use GM force as any other version of D&D? I mean the most blatant example that I can think of to back up my assertion is the fact that a DM has the power in 4e to declare a skill an automatic failure... isn't this deciding the outcome through DM fiat?

I don't have the 4e books in front of me, but sure, I believe it's in there. 4e isn't explicitly trying to be a narrative/indie game (although the advice in the DMG points towards it). It's just a lot easier to steer in that direction than 3e is.

An indie game of 4e would never have the skill check be declared an automatic failure.

I think an important nuance to the indie playstyle is that when the players are ceded an amount of narrative authority, that also grants them a level of narrative responsibility. Many of N'raac's examples are based on the presupposition that the players will be trying to advance their character's interest ahead of the interests of the shared narrative. It's the responsibility of the players to not frame their goals and intentions in a way in which fictional positioning cannot be respected and from which no conflict can arise. To extend a metaphor a bit, if the DM frames the characters into a frying pan, the players are supposed to get the characters out of the frying pan and into the fire.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think an important nuance to the indie playstyle is that when the players are ceded an amount of narrative authority, that also grants them a level of narrative responsibility. Many of N'raac's examples are based on the presupposition that the players will be trying to advance their character's interest ahead of the interests of the shared narrative. It's the responsibility of the players to not frame their goals and intentions in a way in which fictional positioning cannot be respected and from which no conflict can arise. To extend a metaphor a bit, if the DM frames the characters into a frying pan, the players are supposed to get the characters out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Which is kind of important in this context. If you used that approach with 3e, it would suggest that a character with access to advanced magic (or any other powerful ability) and partial authority to dictate its use has an obligation to do so in a way that maintains a certain level of balance and narrative cohesion.

 

[Imaro]

I don't have the 4e books in front of me, but sure, I believe it's in there. 4e isn't explicitly trying to be a narrative/indie game (although the advice in the DMG points towards it). It's just a lot easier to steer in that direction than 3e is.

An indie game of 4e would never have the skill check be declared an automatic failure.

I think an important nuance to the indie playstyle is that when the players are ceded an amount of narrative authority, that also grants them a level of narrative responsibility. Many of N'raac's examples are based on the presupposition that the players will be trying to advance their character's interest ahead of the interests of the shared narrative. It's the responsibility of the players to not frame their goals and intentions in a way in which fictional positioning cannot be respected and from which no conflict can arise. To extend a metaphor a bit, if the DM frames the characters into a frying pan, the players are supposed to get the characters out of the frying pan and into the fire.

You know it's always been my contention (against the opinion of many of 4e's proponents on this board) that 4e is not as clear or transparent about what type of game it is trying to be as many claim it is. Many people claim it has a more focused design then previous editions but I just don't see that. I think the fact that the advice points towards a narrative game but then you have rules that seem contrary to that idea often makes both running the game and discussion of the game unclear at times.

I can get behind the "responsibility" idea... but if D&D is trying to be a game for the masses, is that really the primary way to go. Personally I know what I would have done with narrative authority when I was younger, exactly what N'raac's examples are pointing to... I mean the 4e basic set was ages 10 and up, so this is an honest question to everyone... would your average ten year old really be able to both comprehend and enjoy a play style where they have to put the interests of shared narrative before their own character's interests? From my experiences with younger players I would say no (at least not without VERY strong guidance), but I am curious to hear what others think...