Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Wicht]

Well yes, but by and large we are talking about "the" game rather than "my" game. And in any case, I've played starting with a very literal interpretation of the 3.0 core rules under quite a few DMs,

I am currently playing Pathfinder. I do think it an improvement over 3.5, but I never had an issue with 3.0 or 3.5. Just because something can be improved does not mean it is broke.

 

[N'raac]

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.

Who decided that the NPC was initially Unfriendly or Hostile? Who decided he is the Chamberlain and can grant an audience with the King? The GM sets the challenges the PC’s face – I don’t think this is news.

How clear does a situation have to be for a player to say that he wants to use a skill?

“Want” and “can succeed” are entirely different.

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.

I don’t see the huge difference you seem to in “don’t bother rolling” and “go ahead and roll – you got a 20? Sorry, that fails.” If you are asserting that the GM should not say “Mysteriously, you cannot speak to the Chamberlain – your feet refuse to approach and your voice dries up” then I agree that is not appropriate (unless there is some in game cause for this as well). Your character can stand still and recite poetry while the Orcs attack – but he seems less than likely to win, or even survive, the attack.

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.

Again, I don’t see how “the DC is so high you cannot succeed, but go ahead and roll” is markedly different from ““the DC is so high you cannot succeed, so don’t bother with a roll”. There is the issue that your character would not know he cannot succeed, but that issue also exists when you roll a 20 and the GM says “oh, too bad – it failed”, unless the GM makes the roll in secret.

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.

I’d generally expect a -10 to put success in any real challenge out of reach, but based on @permerton’s 60% success chance, -10 would leave a 10% chance of success.

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.

Animal empathy is like diplomacy – does that mean it fails if you don’t speak Bear? I think it would impose pretty severe restrictions, though – you certainly can’t ask to see the King! But can’t a dog’s mournful eyes soften the heart and make the target more friendly to the dog?

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.

OK, again, I don’t see how a GM setting a DC at a level where you need to roll higher than a 20 to succeed (with all bonuses you can muster” has not dictated the results before the attempt is made, but if rolling dice makes you happy, be my guest.

OK, what if the "authority" making that decision isn't the DM at all but the written adventure she's running?

To me “blame the module” is bad GMing. The author is not running the adventure – you are. The module may say “DC is impossibly high” or “Diplomacy against the Chamberlain cannot succeed”, but I as GM chose to keep that, so the result is my responsibility.

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.

Agreed. The player, and the character, knows (at most) that their most impassioned efforts fail.

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.

That seems part of “indie style”. And that means I am not interested in “indie style” as portrayed.

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.

Yet rolling a 20, you DO know. Should that metagame knowledge also be removed?

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.

Let me tell you my problem – you assume bad faith on the part of the GM. Why do you need to be shown the mechanics back up the GM? Why must he prove he acted in good faith? I would also say that, if every possible use of Diplomacy which would be relevant (not just fluff) has a DC that precludes success, that is no better than saying “You can never use Diplomacy”. It’s actually worse – in the latter case, I would not waste character resources to be good at something that will never work. That does not mean it has to work, or even be a possible solution, every time. If I wish to befriend the King and his Court, my massive dpr does not help – they are dead, not friendly.

When we get told “players will subordinate their desires to the shared narrative’s best interests”, and “the GM will always abuse his power so make him prove he’s playing by the rules”, I perceive that as a double standard at best.

Further, if combat skills only solve combat problems, and social skills solve both combat and non-combat problems, now the combatant is truly worthless. A balance of challenges is preferable to me.

I still think "trust" is a red herring too, as it doesn't actually tell us what the GM is expected to do.

Why do we trust the players to prioritize the shared narrative if this is the social contract, but not trust the GM to follow the mechanics if that is the social contract?

But, it was precisely arbitrary and changing the rules. Go back and read the example. The PC's want to see the King, so they talk to the Chamberlain to get an audience. The DM arbitrarily sets the DC so high that they cannot succeed.

I thought you were OK with a DC so high you could not succeed on a social challenge, yet now it is arbitrary, and any possibility of reasons you do not perceive up front is ‘after the fact justification. What changed?

Stick to the original situation. Nothing special going on. No special circumstances. Nothing in the background. Just what the situation says - the PC's want an audience with the king and talk to the chamberlain to do so.

I think you view this in reverse. The fact that the PC’s cannot persuade the Chamberlain (assuming they would normally be able to, based on their fictional positioning) screams, to me, that something special IS going on – there must be some special circumstances, something in the background, something which is preventing their success. This does not mean the player must be told what that is, nor that the PC has a flash of clairvoyance to explain it.

Any use of a spell to is automatically subjected to either the most restrictive interpretation possible under the rules, or, barring that, manipulating the game world (using charm gets you killed by random bar maids) to punish the players.

I suggest there is a great deal of ground between “I get the most positive interpretation possible, ignoring any restrictions even when written directly, and there are never negative consequences to my actions” and “Any use of a spell to is automatically subjected to either the most restrictive interpretation possible under the rules, and/or manipulating the game world to punish the players.”

Again, the GM is assumed to act in bad faith, always, but players are assumed to act in the utmost good faith, always. Why?

I read the example and assume the DM, in good faith had a legitimate reason for a high DC. You read the example and assume it was arbitrary. What we are saying (or I am saying at least) is that there might be reasons why some things don't work (legitimate reasons, multiple scenarios, et.al) and it doesn't do any good to start slinging around derogatory terms without trying to see the other side. If a DM says, "no that won't work," or more likely, "Roll... no he is not listening," or,... "Before you can get your words to come out, he is turning away from you," then there is a possibility, however remote it might seem to you, that the DM is merely doing his job. And some of us (me) don't really like the whole, "Say yes, or roll," mentality. Sometimes I just want to say, "No, that's not going to work, try something else."

“Say yes or roll, but be aware your roll may not have a possibility of success” sounds OK.

Charm is a perfect example. I have never disallowed Charm or had a problem with it in game. It works just fine, as written. About half the time, when it is used, it fails, for whatever reason (saves mostly) and the other half, it makes someone friendly. Its never been a game breaker for me. Nor have any PC wizards using it in my games ever been killed by barmaids, arrested by guards or any such thing. Of course my players tend not to be stupid enough to try and use it on possible friends in high places.

Exactly – if you don’t want to be hunted by the King’s Guards, maybe mind control of citizens and nobility should be avoided as much as burning villages to the ground.

Your continued insistence on assuming bad faith on the part of DMs other than yourself is a bit grating.

Repeated for emphasis – I am not the only one who sees this.

Whether in a dungeon, a town, or a palace there's going to be times when things just don't work the way the PCs might be expecting them to. This is good, in that it reflects real life where things sometimes don't go as expected for no obvious reason.

Bingo

Not necessarily; the steps that need be taken are just different. Instead of ripping down walls the PCs need to - dare I say it - use some diplomacy (or chamr spells, whatever) with the servants, or listen for rumours and tales, or simply hide (if possible) and watch which picture the chamberlain hides the money behind.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] – a series of actions possible to deal with the obstinate chamberlain. In my view, they need not be actions which can immediately be taken in the scene with the chamberlain to immediately succeed. Retrench and try a different approach to achieve the goal, rather than expect the King’s Nephew to be attacked outside the palace so you can defend him and get to see the King.

And again, mystery. As a player I want and expect there to be things I don't know - I'll either eventually get the information or I won't - as that's just part of life. As a DM my stories are (usually) built around things people at least in some part don't know - an example: earlier in my current campaign I ran a series of 5 adventures - in the first one the party finds the long-dead bride of Ares and learns they have to track down several items to build some sort of Torch; those represent the next 3 adventures. Not until the 5th adventure with the PCs already on site and way back in time do the players/PCs realize their real mission is to use this Torch they've built to kill the bride whose corpse they found! <full write-up is here as most of part 2 of the adventure logs, if anyone's interested>

A great example – and the reason I am not interested in the “Player Omniscience” indie style seems to presuppose. If that is a prerequisite to Indie style – AND I AM NOT SURE IT IS – then I want no part of Indie style.

 

[TwoSix]

Well it could, but it doesn't have to.

I do get the feeling that some of us here have had very bad experiences with DMs and that is coloring this debate.

Good systems help average DMs run good games. Bad systems require a good DM to run an average game, and a great DM to run a good one.

Not that I'm not isolating any system as being good or bad, simply that game design does matter.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Good systems help average DMs run good games. Bad systems require a good DM to run an average game, and a great DM to run a good one.

Not that I'm not isolating any system as being good or bad, simply that game design does matter.

I don't think that's true. I think the quality of a game derives more from the people than the system. Trying to get an average DM to run a great game is like trying to get an average athlete to play in the NFL. If the talent isn't there, it doesn't mean the game is broken.

I'd look at it more the other way around. A bad system makes it difficult for a DM to run a decent game, while a good one lets him achieve his potential more easily.

 

[TwoSix]

A great example – and the reason I am not interested in the “Player Omniscience” indie style seems to presuppose. If that is a prerequisite to Indie style – AND I AM NOT SURE IT IS – then I want no part of Indie style.

Yea, I would say that Lanefan's adventure is not a good fit for indie style. Notice how you can explain the whole plot line without any indication of what the players want to do or what their goals are? Why do they even care about the bride of Ares or the Torch? A "Find the Macguffin" adventure works poorly for indie style, although the GM can certainly frame finding a macguffin as a response to a character's aims. After all, if one of the characters is a devout worshipper of Ares, and his god's anger over his wife's death has brought the region to war.... Well, then, now we're getting closer to indie style.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't think that's true. I think the quality of a game derives more from the people than the system. Trying to get an average DM to run a great game is like trying to get an average athlete to play in the NFL. If the talent isn't there, it doesn't mean the game is broken.

I'd look at it more the other way around. A bad system makes it difficult for a DM to run a decent game, while a good one lets him achieve his potential more easily.

Isn't that pretty much exactly what I said? A good game raises the floor, a bad game lowers the ceiling. A great DM can run FATAL and make it work, but the game will never be good. You can run 4e as a pure dungeon delve and it still won't be terrible, although it certainly isn't singing yet.

Note A: Good and Bad is a continuum, not binary. I consider most DMs to be average, neither good nor bad.

Note B: I'm already anticipating the rebuttal that 4e also lowers the ceiling for a good DM because something something.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Isn't that pretty much exactly what I said? A good game raises the floor, a bad game lowers the ceiling. A great DM can run FATAL and make it work, but the game will never be good. You can run 4e as a pure dungeon delve and it still won't be terrible, although it certainly isn't singing yet.

Note A: Good and Bad is a continuum, not binary. I consider most DMs to be average, neither good nor bad.

Note B: I'm already anticipating the rebuttal that 4e also lowers the ceiling for a good DM because something something.

4e might lower the ceiling with a "Good DM" because the DM uses a different style than works best for 4e? But I would assume you're talking about GMs who are playing the way the specific game works best with.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Isn't that pretty much exactly what I said? A good game raises the floor, a bad game lowers the ceiling.

Not exactly. I don't think a good game raises the floor. I don't think a game can ever overcome the limitations of the people playing it.

Note B: I'm already anticipating the rebuttal that 4e also lowers the ceiling for a good DM because something something.

I think the DM is the floor and the ceiling. The game determines how hard it is to get to the ceiling or how easy it is to be at the floor. I'm sure it's possible to run 4e well, I just wouldn't want to try. The amount of work I'd have to do just to avoid a revolt from the players is prohibitive, let alone to get it to my standards.

 

[N'raac]

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.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] – are you good with in-game “You cannot arrange a meeting with the Chamberlain, no way, no how”, or out of game ”you can’t persuade him so I’m not framing the scene”?

My sense is that you would rather meet the Chamberlain, discover you cannot succeed, and then seek alternatives in character. As a player, that would be my preference.

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.

Did the roll succeed? The GM concludes and that decides the issue.

I find the continued efforts to restrict the definition falls well within that Calvinball realm.

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.

Exactly – let us use our resources, even if our use will not generate success. While I am sure it’s not [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]’s intent, it seems like tossing out scene ideas until I hit one we have a shot at success in is “Mother May I” gaming, to at least the same extent as having to ask if I may use my skills.

Upthread I talked about the idea of fictional positioning established via "secret" backstory, which means that the players are deploying their resources with a less than thorough understanding of how resources + fictional positioning are likely to lead to an outcome.

The duke who can't be intimidated is an example of that phenomenon.

But it has two interesting features that are worth noticing. First, the GM's notes for that scene also indicate that successful use of Insight reveal's that the duke cannot be intimidated. So the secrecy of the backstory is only provisional - it can come to light, and the players gain full knowledge of the ficitonal positioning (ie that this is a man who won't be intimidated by them). Second, the failure is only 1 of 4 needed to fail the challenge (the example was written using the old 8/4 rule rather than the errata-ed 8/3 rule). So the GM is not determining the overall outcome of the scene.

So why is a Chamberlain who cannot be persuaded to allow you to see the King so appalling? I suspect because you can’t get to see the King. You can, perhaps, gather intel on the Chamberlain or make other contacts in the course of the scene. At a minimum, you now know something is up with the Chamberlain and can decide how best to investigate this. If such a scene is impossible in Indie Play, then to me that is a weakness in the playstyle.

The use of Charm Person to deal with the chamberlain has nothing to do with charop, for instance. That is just the player of an enchanter PC using his/her resources to play his/her PC in accordance with a completely uncontentious conception of what it is that enchanters do (namely, enchant). Yet we have already seen in this thread that that is an action which gives rise to balance concerns, countering responses from the GM, etc.

It has nothing to do with balance. It is an effort to magically influence the target’s mind. It is an offensive spell with a saving throw. It’s easier than diplomacy, and may carry some benefits diplomacy would not. But it is also riskier, and carries potentially more serious consequences.

Let’s say instead that the chamberlain is greedy and we offer him a bribe to get a bonus. Is there no risk that will be discovered, even if successful, with negative repercussions against the characters, or is it just a free bonus?

If the GM pulls out "special measures" - like the king's own diviners to protect the chamberlain from Charm spells, or the replacement lizardman guard to get in the way of Magic Jar - then from the players' point of view, in my style of play, this is a type of ad hoc punishment for good play (@Manbearcat's Calvinball). If the player holds back him-/herself, then s/he is no longer going all out to bring his/her PC into contact with the fiction. S/he's voluntarily forfeiting the ability to deploy resources. For me, at least, this is insipid, and turns the player into a type of co-GM and the character into some sort of half-way thing between PC and NPC. That has little attraction for me.

To me, those complications are natural outgrowths of the strengths and limitations of the spells. It is no more Calvinball than your addition of more opposition when the PC’s overcome the immediate challenge, and quite reasonably could be interpreted as less so.

I contend that most of the spells as written, invisibility, charm, magic jar, are not, imo, game-breaking. They work just fine and create some interesting solutions to problems. They do not, of themselves, unbalance game play, nor do they make other classes obsolete. Groups in which this happen, have, imo, a different problem than the mechanics, or they are failing, in some way, to fully apply the mechanics.

Agreed. This binary “either it works perfectly every time (and wizards are overpowered) or you are adversarially Calvinballing the player by enforcing the weaknesses, not just the strengths, of the spell” is an annoying approach.

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.

Agreed. And I find it especially problematic coming from the same playstyle that suggests all players will act in good faith to the shared narrative to then suggest a GM adjudicating a challenge would most likely be acting in bad faith.

 

[N'raac]

Yea, I would say that Lanefan's adventure is not a good fit for indie style. Notice how you can explain the whole plot line without any indication of what the players want to do or what their goals are? Why do they even care about the bride of Ares or the Torch? A "Find the Macguffin" adventure works poorly for indie style, although the GM can certainly frame finding a macguffin as a response to a character's aims. After all, if one of the characters is a devout worshipper of Ares, and his god's anger over his wife's death has brought the region to war.... Well, then, now we're getting closer to indie style.

There you go - how hard was it to fit the issue into PC backgrounds. All we need is a link to Ares (or change the deity to someone there is a link to), and we are off to the races. Linking the adventure to the PC's is hardly, however, unique to Indie play.