Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Wicht]

Simple: you cast Dimension Door.

Then why not just cast dimension door to get into the vault in the first place?

Seriously, you are suggesting that because you can use a 5th level spell (lesser planar binding) and a 4th level spell (Dimensional Anchor), perhaps with a 3rd level spell (magic circle against evil) to do what you could do with a single 4th level spell (Dimension Door), that somehow the 5th level spell is too powerful?

Not to mention that using the 5th level spell in this way has imperiled your PCs life and soul. And that a 9th level wizard that does this has used all of his top tier spells to get into and out of a single vault.

 

[Wicht]

elfgame style?

What is an "elfgame style?"

Saying that raising the challenge due to successful and strategic play remind one of Calvinball seems more metaphorical to me. I don't find it any more meanspirited than saying that fighter dailies ruin roleplaying because immersion. It's simply pointing out that one group might not favor one of the goals of roleplaying to the extent that another group does.

But the chamberlain example was not an example of being "arbitrary" or "changing the rules." So the term is inapplicable in any event.

"Calvinball" is a derogatory term meant to imply that some people wants to just change the rules as they go along so that they always win. Firstly, nobody is arguing for this, so the term is being misused. Secondly, it is meant to be insulting, so people should stop using the term if they wish to be constructive. Insulting someone and then saying that you are just being "metaphorical" is rather juvenile.

 

[TwoSix]

I've read more than one DnD book describe NPC's as the DM's characters, so I am not sure why anyone would think it was otherwise in a traditional D&D game. It is pretty normal for DMs to invest the NPCs, especially named NPCs, with full agency.

So have I. The 2e Complete Book of Villains is an example I remember that had an impact on me and how I ran games for a long time.

However, doing so does not of itself make the DM an antagonist of the player nor does doing so mean the DM now has as his goal the advancement of the NPCs.

I would define "playing a character" to mean that one has an investment in the character's development, and that the character has goals beyond "be played at this session". While an NPC may have goals, the DM doesn't have investment in their advancement, since the DM can advance them at whim. Not every RPG has character persistence and development, certainly, but most do. (Contrast story games like Fiasco.)

Additionally, while the DM is not the antagonist of the players, NPCs who develop and oppose the PC protagonists are pretty much antagonists by definition, right? And nothing I've seen suggests your playstyle isn't driven by NPCs with agendas who have "behind-the-scenes" machinations that impact the PCs. The whole living game world concept? Stuff happens "in game world" driven by NPCs "in game world" that are then observed and then acted on by the PCs? So why wouldn't "antagonist-driven" play be a solid descriptive term?

 

[Wicht]

So why wouldn't "antagonist-driven" play be a solid descriptive term?

Eh, I guess its one way to put it. I thought at first you were suggesting a DM vs. Player sort of style, which while sometimes fun, is not my default style.

 

[Wicht]

I would define "playing a character" to mean that one has an investment in the character's development, and that the character has goals beyond "be played at this session".

Again, eh... The character might have goals but that is different than being invested in the character, which is I think, actually a poor thing for a DM to do. I don't see those two as necessarily related. I would not do the first but almost always try to do the second with major NPCs that might be recurring characters.

 

[TwoSix]

What is an "elfgame style?"

"Elfgame" is a term that gets thrown around a lot when the participants involved in these discussions get too heated. "Remember, we're arguing about a game where we play a bunch of elves."

But the chamberlain example was not an example of being "arbitrary" or "changing the rules." So the term is inapplicable in any event.

"Calvinball" is a derogatory term meant to imply that some people wants to just change the rules as they go along so that they always win. Firstly, nobody is arguing for this, so the term is being misused. Secondly, it is meant to be insulting, so people should stop using the term if they wish to be constructive. Insulting someone and then saying that you are just being "metaphorical" is rather juvenile.

You can't "win" Calvinball, so that isn't what is meant. Certainly not by me, at least. I'm referring to constant reframing of rules and stakes that accompanies a game move that pushes the game into the player's favor, which is the heart of Calvinball play (and I've read every single C&H strip, so I feel comfortable generalizing.) In general, I think it's bad game design to reward smart play (which is what good spell selection is) by making things harder than they would have been if you had played poorly. (By memorizing Amanuensis 17 times.)

Now, I admit the example of the king's diviner is a tricky one, as it does seem like something that fits not only into the gonzo Tippyverse that RAW 3e play leads to, but into a more low-key medieval fantasy that many people aspire to. A world with magic available in stores would certainly see a lot of that magic flow to individuals with power. I think it's more of a general aversion to the DM's "Gotcha", which is something that happens all the time when you're younger. And let's face it, without a good improv DM, you're going to see a lot of flop sweat when you charm the BBEG that was going to be a big boss fight.

 

[TwoSix]

Again, eh... The character might have goals but that is different than being invested in the character, which is I think, actually a poor thing for a DM to do. I don't see those two as necessarily related. I would not do the first but almost always try to do the second with major NPCs that might be recurring characters.

Which is why I said "DMs DON'T play characters." They run them, but they don't "play" them.

 

[Wicht]

I think it's bad game design to reward smart play (which is what good spell selection is) by making things harder than they would have been if you had played poorly.

But this begs the question that the DM changed things merely because the spellcaster was doing something the DM didn't like. It ignores the more plausible explanation that the DM was adjucating in fairness as a valid reaction in-game to the player's choice. Again it is an accusation made in bad faith, assuming bad motives on the part of the DM. And its still meant to be somewhat insulting.

Now, I admit the example of the king's diviner is a tricky one, as it does seem like something that fits not only into the gonzo Tippyverse that RAW 3e play leads to, but into a more low-key medieval fantasy that many people aspire to. A world with magic available in stores would certainly see a lot of that magic flow to individuals with power. I think it's more of a general aversion to the DM's "Gotcha", which is something that happens all the time when you're younger. And let's face it, without a good improv DM, you're going to see a lot of flop sweat when you charm the BBEG that was going to be a big boss fight.

I will agree that younger players are more likely to play "gotcha" games. I will also agree this is generally a bad game style.

I think we have all already shown we are each past that point of our game career. So it is an irrelevant point in the discussion. Its not what I am advocating, I don't think I have seen anyone else advocating it in the last 50 pages as a viable way to deal with casters.

 

[Wicht]

Which is why I said "DMs DON'T play characters." They run them, but they don't "play" them.

Using your definitions, I can agree with you for myself, I guess. But I also would guess that some more theatrical, improv sorts of DMs would disagree with you.

 

[TwoSix]

But this begs the question that the DM changed things merely because the spellcaster was doing something the DM didn't like. It ignores the more plausible explanation that the DM was adjucating in fairness as a valid reaction in-game to the player's choice. Again it is an accusation made in bad faith, assuming bad motives on the part of the DM. And its still meant to be somewhat insulting.

If I mean to be insulting, believe me, I won't couch it in anything. Our discussion has earned you more than enough respect that you'll get open scorn, not subtle derision (my speciality!)

I don't assume bad motives; I simply assume bad playstyle assumptions, overreliance on modules (and difficulty in adapting them) and lack of improvisation skills. In other words, an average DM, not a bad one.

One of my (other) problems with DM driven play is the necessity of a good to stellar DM to make it run properly. I know a lot of DMs take it as a badge of pride that DMing is hard work, and they're one of the few and proud that can really do it well. I just prefer a system where even a novice to average DM can run it just fine, and further DMing skill just makes it that much better.