Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[pemerton]

I haven't parsed the entirety of your exchanges with pemerton but I would be surprised indeed to find that we aren't on the same page here.

<snip>

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

<snip>

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

I don't disagree at all.

[MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] seems not to appreciate that in 4e monsters are built on a DC-by-level chart just as much as social encounters are. He also seems to be assuming that is inherent to the game as such that a given challenge has a given level, whereas a key conceit of 4e's design is that there is flexibility in associating a given mechanical level of challenge with a given ingame "difficulty" or thematic/cosmological/dramatic heft.

Default 4e would place the Chamberlain encounter somewhere in the Heroic tier, because by Paragon kings and princes will hobnob with the PCs directly.

The Neverwinter Campaign Setting powers up the fiction relative to the mechanics, so that mechanically (upper) Heroic PCs are, in terms of the default 4e approach, engaging in Paragon-tier events within the fiction. As I noted upthread, the point of this is to allow a greater story scope in fewere levels of play. A concrete example can be seen in Aboleth stats: the default Aboleth dominator in the MM is a 17th level elite controller; whereas the Neverwinter book has a 7th level controller Aboleth dominator. You wouldn't use both these creatures in the same campaign: the point of the Neverwinter one is to power up the fiction relative to the mechanics in the way I've described.

This is an actual example that illustrates the hypothetical possibility the two of us mentioned earlier, of working up a less-than-30th level monster to play the fictional role of Ancient Red Dragon to use in a campaign where (for whatever reason) the group wants to play at a mechanically lower level but with fictionally higher-powered themes.

Contrasting both with default 4e and Neverwinter, the Dark Sun Campaign Setting powers down the fiction relative to the mechanics, so that mechanically Epic PCs are finally ready to confront the Sorcerer-Kings. Whereas in default 4e PCs of that level are ready to confront the lords of Hell and the Abyss.

 

[pemerton]

I think characterizing them as resources for D&D players is misleading. After all, the DM determines how much of those resources the players have (typically by determining things like starting level and ability score allocation methods, but this is where the literal rule zero comes in to play).

But many D&D groups - including, by the evidence provided on these board, many 3E/PF groups - allows the players to choose race and class, and have group consensus over starting level and build points.

The DM also determines when and how they are used.

Well that's precisely what we are discussing. Not everyone runs the game this way. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], who's been playing D&D for a long time, was shocked when he realisd how literally you meant this assertion. That on its own should be enough to show that your approach is not any sort of universal default.

these games are built completely differently.

<snip>

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.

I don't know how much weight you intend to put on this consideration, but for me at least it is very striking
[MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] has mentioned multiple times upthread that a player driven game relies upon the players not being absurd. And [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] (I think it was) suggested that one way to get the players to take responsibility is to give them power. (And this is an approach to encouraging mature behaviour that some people at least think is applicable in wider contexts beyond playing RPGs.)

I have never GMed a game with the sort of personality mechanics you describe. Yet with my playing group I have not had a problem of players wanting to play psychopaths. (Nor have I ever had players who want their PCs to stay in taverns hitting on "hot elven chicks".) Because generally that makes for a boring game.

My players have played a wide range of PCs, from vicious manipulating power-hungry characters who would be villains in standard fantasy fiction (eg the wizard PC who manipulated his drug-addicted "friend" into joining him in conquering their home town; to a paladin so committed to the welfare of the mortal world that he turned aginst the gods and their ancient pacts that would doom that world; to a heroic younger son of a samurai family who saved the world, got the girl, and pledged his family line to maintaining the integrity of the gate keepin the voidal entities at bay.

Conversely, I personally could think of no approach to running a game more likely to produce players whose PCs are psychopaths with no ambitions that transcend self-interest and no concern but for what they can take by force from others, than one in which their attempts at diplomacy, and peaceful negotiated resolution, are routinely vetoed by a GM because it's not yet time, in the story, to make friends with this or that person. (Treating combat mechanics as more reiable than social mechanics would tend to reinforce this, at least in my experience.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

I have never GMed a game with the sort of personality mechanics you describe. Yet with my playing group I have not had a problem of players wanting to play psychopaths. (Nor have I ever had players who want their PCs to stay in taverns hitting on "hot elven chicks".) Because generally that makes for a boring game.

Color me skeptical.

That being said; it's a word that I'm using to describe the players. If the players are acting in a collectivistic manner, then the topic we're talking about (relative power between the classes) either changes massively in tenor or becomes completely irrelevant. If the players are acting selfishly, then it becomes more important. As has been chronicled here and elsewhere, it takes quite a bit of targeted effort to make a wizard or cleric in this game that's even useful, let alone overpowered.

There are very few people who can or will try to create the internet phenomenon known as a "CoDzilla" and run it as a character in good faith during a game, or who will try to generate infinite wishes or pick out obscure polymorph forms or what have you. I think it's fair to characterize a player that does that as being subversive or antisocial in nature. In my experience with such people, that behavior in the game correlates pretty well with real-world megalomania and manipulitiveness and deceptiveness.

Conversely, I personally could think of no approach to running a game more likely to produce players whose PCs are psychopaths with no ambitions that transcend self-interest and no concern but for what they can take by force from others, than one in which their attempts at diplomacy, and peaceful negotiated resolution, are routinely vetoed by a GM because it's not yet time, in the story, to make friends with this or that person. (Treating combat mechanics as more reiable than social mechanics would tend to reinforce this, at least in my experience.)

I don't know whether you're targeting me specifically with that statement, but it's a really bizarre idea that lacks perspective. I suppose that if I or any other DM behaved in that way, it might have an effect like that, but I've never heard of such a thing happening. You seem to be inferring a great deal from one example.

I suspect that the players' behavior is typically determined by things more tangible than diffuse differences in mechanical interpretations of rules.

More to the point, I think power corrupts. The thing that encourages people to behave the worst is by giving them power.

Since we're playing in an imaginary world, everyone's power is pretty much infinite by default, so the way to counteract that is to either have a DM who places a lid on everyone else (and is himself limited by the need to please everyone enough to keep them in his game), or by having a narrativist mechanical system for attaching consequences to behavior.

***

I also think that this quote really misrepresents important thematic ideas common to the underlying fiction. Combat is supposed to be easier than diplomacy. The nonviolent way is hard. A good character chooses it not because it's the easy way, because it's the right way. If it succeeded reliably, everyone would be doing it. A brave hero (among other character types) attempts diplomacy with the understanding that it may fail, and that it may never have a legitimate chance to succeed. These are all ideas that exist independently of game mechanics, but are represented rather well by the mechanical example we've discussed.

 

[Lanefan]

I agree that the result is the same. But, as we've seen many times, how we get there is important. Because, you're right, if I try and fail, there is effectively no difference. But, since I cannot EVER succeed, that's the difference. The DM has arbitrarily decided that I will not succeed, no matter what.

OK, what if the "authority" making that decision isn't the DM at all but the written adventure she's running? You-as-player will not (or certainly should not) know the difference between a) the DM arbitrarily assigning a DC 75 to the Dip. check required to get by the chamberlain and b) the written module stating "the chamberlain will not willingly allow the PCs to speak with the king under any circumstances as he knows the king is planning to assign the party to raid the keep that houses the chamberlain's secret ... (etc.)" - to the PCs the end result will (or should) appear exactly the same.

And I also pose this same question to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] as on the surface it appears that in his game the DM is not allowed to have any secrets at all.

Lan-"if the game had no mystery it would also have no point"-efan

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]
An interesting practical take on it. It's not uncommon that I'll have players roll checks that I know have no chance of success, or where the task they are trying is meaningless (a Knowledge check for a fact about something that doesn't exist, for example) simply to make sure that the players don't acquire metagame knowledge about the story.

By comparison, simply saying "No, this NPC is not interested in talking to you, don't bother rolling Diplo", you're being more transparent with the players and probably saving time, but you're also showing your hand to some extent.

It is important to manage the players' experience of the game, as well as the characters'.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] - I have zero problems with having a zero chance of success. I've stated that quite clearly more than a few times.

But, how do I know I have zero chance of success before I make an attempt, presuming of course, that I'm not trying something ridiculous like using Diplomacy from 100 miles away or using Swim in a desert? If I make the attempt and fail, fair enough. There's many reasons why I could fail.

That's not the problem. My problem is that the DM has flat out ruled that I cannot even try in the first place. If you'll go back and look at Ahn's example of the angry fighter, all my criticisms went straight out the window once he revealed that the situation was 100% rules kosher. The DM used no force whatsoever in the example. None. The situation was 100% above board and I would have zero problems at all. I'm actually a little surprised that Ahn said that he had reservations about the situation at all. After all, there was nothing in that example that wasn't covered expressly by the mechanics.

More to the point, I think power corrupts. The thing that encourages people to behave the worst is by giving them power.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page127#ixzz2hxPav4hE

Now, reread that statement and apply it to DM's and you'll see where my issues lie.

 

[pemerton]

Color me skeptical.

<snip>

I think power corrupts. The thing that encourages people to behave the worst is by giving them power.

Since we're playing in an imaginary world, everyone's power is pretty much infinite by default, so the way to counteract that is to either have a DM who places a lid on everyone else (and is himself limited by the need to please everyone enough to keep them in his game), or by having a narrativist mechanical system for attaching consequences to behavior.

My experience is that the participants' power is not infinite. Their desire is to have a pleasant time playing a fantasy RPG; and their power to do that is confined by such things as their knowledge of the rules, their good relationships with other players and the GM, etc.

Players who (for instance) have their PCs go nuts, kill everyone in the village and rob them are no different from GMs who have 1st level PCs enter towers guarded by ancient dragons, or who declare "Rocks fall, everyone dies." They're not contributing very much to the play experience, and either leave the game or correct themselves.

Combat is supposed to be easier than diplomacy. The nonviolent way is hard. A good character chooses it not because it's the easy way, because it's the right way. If it succeeded reliably, everyone would be doing it.

I'm not sure I agree with you with respect to the fiction: negotiation is sometimes seen as morally harder than combat, because it requires forsaking honour and vengeance, but I'm not sure it's actually harder.

Nor am I sure that combat "succeeds reliably" in fantasy fiction. For everyone but Conan in the Conan stories, combat seems a pretty bad choice. Even in LotR, combat doesn't really succeed reliably. For instance, the Battle of Pelenor Fields was only one because Aragorn brought the Army of the Dead, and that was a diplomatic victory.

As was discussed in this thread, I prefer that the choice of peaceful or violent means reflect the players' views, in their play of their PCs, as to whether or not violence is morally warranted, than that they reflect choices about mechanical efficacy within the game. (See especially around post 23.)

OK, what if the "authority" making that decision isn't the DM at all but the written adventure she's running? You-as-player will not (or certainly should not) know the difference between a) the DM arbitrarily assigning a DC 75 to the Dip. check required to get by the chamberlain and b) the written module stating "the chamberlain will not willingly allow the PCs to speak with the king under any circumstances as he knows the king is planning to assign the party to raid the keep that houses the chamberlain's secret ... (etc.)" - to the PCs the end result will (or should) appear exactly the same.

And I also pose this same question to pemerton as on the surface it appears that in his game the DM is not allowed to have any secrets at all.

First, I don't run modules in that way. So I see no difference between GM and module-writer - as I play, it is the GM who is taking material and ideas from the module and actually putting them into play. To put it more bluntly, if the module writer authors a crap scene or a railroad and the GM then implements that, the upshot is on the GM.

As to mystery, I discussed this a bit upthread:

I don't think the indie style is especially well suited to traditional mystery play, precisely because the withholding of information that is part of standard mystery play is deprotagonising of players for the reasons I've already mentioned.

An interesting evolution in indie style around this very point can be seen in a debate between Jonathan Tweet and Robin Laws in the Over the Edge rulebook - Tweet talks about techniques for keeping secrets from players, and Laws talks about the benefits to play of having everything out in the open at the table even if the characters don't know, such as possibilities like irony, or ingame unknown but at-table appreciated interlinks, and generally everyone just having a good time laughing at the troubles their and others' PCs are getting into.

And flipping it around - I don't think it's a coinincidence that CoC - the paradigm mystery game - is seen as a poster child for high-quality GM authority, GM force, non-player-driven RPGing.

Now all of the above said, there are techniques that you can use for mystery or intrigue RPGing in indie style, as TwoSix indicates;

In indie-RPGing intrigue-style play, the GM makes up the details of the intrigue as opportunities accompanying player (and PC) success, or as complications accompanying player (and PC) failure. So although, in the fiction, the PCs are discovering things, at the table the players are not discovering something worked out by the GM in advance (at least, not worked out in detail). The GM might have general parameters in mind, or these might be set by some other considerations (past revealed backstory, for instance; or genre considerations), but the details emerge in play, and their function is to keep the players on their toes and spur them to keep going.

(In this approach, there probably won't be many GM-introduced red herrings; these are supplied by the players' own changing speculations about what might be the truth of the situation, most of which turn out (retrospectively) to have been red herrings as the possiblities are narrowed down by more and more backstory becoming solidly established because "revealed" (ie narrated into the shared fiction) as part of the process of resolving action resolution. (Of course, this takes us back to "Schroedinger's NPCs" or, more generally, "Schroedinger's backstory". Keeping the backstory loose and flexible until it is actually solidified via narration is a pretty common "indie" technique.)

For actual play examples of GMing mysteries and intrigues in indie-style, see these three threads.

I have also talked about my concerns around secret backstory changing the fictional positioning in ways the players can't anticipate. I'm not a big fan of this. Typical examples are things like the Chamberlain secretly hates clerics of St Cuthbert, one of the PCs is wearing a holy symbol of St Cuthbert, and so the Chamberlain is hostile for no reason that the players can easily fathom. (The example of the duke who can't be intimidated, that I discussed 5 or 10 posts back is another instance of this.)

I don't regard this as completely out of bounds, but I think (i) that the presence of the secret backstory creating fictional positioning that the players are unaware should not be determinative of the scene's outcome in-and-of itself (so the Chamberlain shouldn't just walk away because of his Cuthbert-hatred); and (ii) that the players should have the chance to uncover the secret backstory, and therefore potentially change their PCs fictional positioning in response to it, via the ordinary action resolution mechanics as they are engaged in dealing with the scene (in the duke example we see the possibility of an Insight check - not the most sophisticated way there ever was of handling this sort of thing, but better than nothing).

The three threads linked in the quote above give examples of secret backstory being used in play, and how I handle the balance between "big reveals" and giving the players the information they need to meaningfully and effectively engage the scene.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=29398]That's not the problem. My problem is that the DM has flat out ruled that I cannot even try in the first place. If you'll go back and look at Ahn's example of the angry fighter, all my criticisms went straight out the window once he revealed that the situation was 100% rules kosher. The DM used no force whatsoever in the example. None. The situation was 100% above board and I would have zero problems at all. I'm actually a little surprised that Ahn said that he had reservations about the situation at all. After all, there was nothing in that example that wasn't covered expressly by the mechanics.

You seem to be very hung up on minute mechanical details and/or their philosophical underpinnings. I'm more concerned with the outcome. There are many things that are within the rules that shouldn't happen, and many things that aren't in the rules that should.

In any variation of this example, we're talking about an exercise of discretion. The DM is deciding whether or not the player's desired outcome can or will occur. What rules justification he uses, whether it's not allowing a check or not allowing the time to make it, seems pretty trivial to me.

Now, reread that statement and apply it to DM's and you'll see where my issues lie.

Yes, I see that angle.

The upside is that concentrating the power also concentrates the responsibility. If the DM does something wrong, he can be held accountable for it by the players.

Conversely, any kind of abusive play generally assumes a lack of responsibility on the part of the player.

 

[Ahnehnois]

My experience is that the participants' power is not infinite. Their desire is to have a pleasant time playing a fantasy RPG; and their power to do that is confined by such things as their knowledge of the rules, their good relationships with other players and the GM, etc.

Players who (for instance) have their PCs go nuts, kill everyone in the village and rob them are no different from GMs who have 1st level PCs enter towers guarded by ancient dragons, or who declare "Rocks fall, everyone dies." They're not contributing very much to the play experience, and either leave the game or correct themselves.

True enough. But I don't see how a fairly obscure means of analyzing the system (comparing the usefulness of level advancement in different classes) is relevant with players who display that type of responsible behavior. If their desire is to have an enjoyable game for all, they'll steer clear of the charop boards and just create sensible characters that don't exploit infinite wish tricks, and everyone will be happy.

I'm not sure I agree with you with respect to the fiction: negotiation is sometimes seen as morally harder than combat, because it requires forsaking honour and vengeance, but I'm not sure it's actually harder.

Nor am I sure that combat "succeeds reliably" in fantasy fiction. For everyone but Conan in the Conan stories, combat seems a pretty bad choice. Even in LotR, combat doesn't really succeed reliably. For instance, the Battle of Pelenor Fields was only one because Aragorn brought the Army of the Dead, and that was a diplomatic victory.

I'm pretty sure that even though there was a negotiation component to solicit the allies, it was still a combat victory. I think it's fair to say that if we were running this in D&D, any attempt by men, elves, or dwarves to negotiate with Sauron or his minions is exactly the sort of thing that the DM would decide cannot succeed. There is not a lot of time spent talking with the enemy in Lord of the Rings.

That also ignores all the many battles they fought beforehand.

And I don't see that I said that combat succeeds reliably. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't; the only point here is that it's generally easier than diplomacy in the short term.

 

[Wicht]

Lan-"if the game had no mystery it would also have no point"-efan

I'm with you. A little mystery spices up the game.