Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Ahnehnois]

Sure. That is all fine. That is no problem at all. Those are all principles of a certain mode of play (one I'm quite familiar with and have GMed aplenty). But that isn't the only mode of play.

True, but it is the mode of play described by the books of the game this thread is about.

It's also pertinently the only mode of play that allows the players to play their characters without metagame restrictions while still allowing a balanced game.

 

[Wicht]

In classic D&D play of the sort that Gygax describes in his PHB, the GM desn't distribute information. The GM designs a setting with stuff in it that the players might benefit from knowing about. It is up to the players to then acquire that information (eg via detection spells).

Once you are talking about the GM distributing information via scenes, dialogue clues etc - hugely important for CoC play, for instance - then I think you are well into the domain of storyteller play. It is predominantly the GM who is driving ingame events, in virtue of the information that s/he reveals. Dispensing that information, and making sure the players have access to it (eg The Alexandrian's "3 clue" rule), also becomes quite important to pacing.

Sometimes I feel like we are not actually speaking the same language. To me, your first sentence is nonsensical. There is no other way to really describe it. No matter what playstyle you utilize, of course the DM distributes information. In some styles, he distributes information rather freely. In others, he holds things back until he feels the time is ripe. Either way, the players only know the details of any scene, room, monster, treasure, etc. because the DM gives them that information. Otherwise, what is the DM there for? Your assertion is strange. And even when the players use detection spells, is it not the DM who then gives them the information they glean through the use of those spells? If you, as a DM, are not, in some way, distributing information to the players, you are superfluous and the game you are playing is not, in point of fact, Dungeons and Dragons. I don't know what it is, but it is some other game where everyone just makes up whatever they want without stricture.

I also keep getting this feeling like you have an idea about Gygax and his playstyle that doesn't actually mesh with the full context of his particular game, nor with the full text of the books he wrote. Gygax was very much a DM in control. Consider the story of Erac's Cousin...

Gary Gygax's son Ernie originally had a character he called "Erac", in addition to other well-known characters Serten and Tenser. Later, he created a wizard who, due to a personal issue as part of his backstory, refused to reveal his name, simply referring to himself as "Erac's Cousin". Gary Gygax knew that Ernie liked the Barsoom stories of Edgar Rice Burroughs, and at one point, whisked Erac's Cousin off to a very Barsoom-like Mars, where the inhabitants refused to let the wizard use magic. Erac's Cousin was forced to become a fighter instead, and learned to fight proficiently with two weapons simultaneously. Eventually he was able to teleport back to Oerth, but when he acquired two vorpal blades, co-Dungeon Masters Rob Kuntz and Gary Gygax decided he had become too powerful, and lured him into a demon's clutches. The demon took him to an alternative plane that drained the magic from the vorpal blades, destroying them.

I can't help but notice the rather heavy hand of a DM who refused to let a wizard use his spells, threw him from world to world, and then proactively destroyed that character's signature weapons. I also notice a rather large amount of "story-telling."

Which is to say, everytime you appeal to "Gygaxian Play," as some sort of classic standard, the game you describe seems like some weird caricature of how I understand classic Dungeons and Dragons to have actually been played (and how I tended to play it).

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Sometimes I feel like we are not actually speaking the same language. To me, your first sentence is nonsensical.

You're not thinking about it the same way so of course you're going to think it's like a different language, plus you might be a bit locked into one way of thinking to see it from another perspective. What @pemerton means is the difference between player-driven obtaining of information and GM-driven information. To some there are worlds of differences between the players actively engaging the mechanics to obtain information versus the GM simply giving it out without the players actually doing much to go after it. Obviously not everything is going to be player-driven or GM-driven (I would really hope that if a GM narrates the PCs going into a tavern that he'll add some descriptions of various things such as how many people are in it and perhaps the general mood of the place is), but there are styles of play that lean more towards either one.

One of the points comes down to engagement: How much engagement do you want from your players? How active do you want them to be, and as a GM are you facilitating that activity if the game's expectation is more engagement through the game mechanics?

For me at least, as a GM I kind of need the players to engage a bit more and ask questions because my memory is all over the place. It's like sets of doors opening and closing, and I can't always control when they open or close. Having players engage me more helps all of us since them asking about stuff means I can create a more detailed and interesting world for them that I otherwise might not be able to.

It's a bit of an issue when playing though because I'm not always going to think of using Search or that sort of thing unless I've specifically built my character to have a good handle on that. Queues from the GM help me on that.

 

[Wicht]

You're not thinking about it the same way so of course you're going to think it's like a different language, plus you might be a bit locked into one way of thinking to see it from another perspective.

I understand that we are looking at it from different perspectives. But that first sentence is still nonsensical.

What [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] means is the difference between player-driven obtaining of information and GM-driven information. To some there are worlds of differences between the players actively engaging the mechanics to obtain information versus the GM simply giving it out without the players actually doing much to go after it.

I don't know about "world's" of differences, but sure, some game tables handle information distribution differently than others. That's a given. In my particular games, there is a certain level of information that the players get merely by "being there" and then some they have to work for, roll for, or deduce. It should, I think, in most normal D&D games, be a balance.

But in a game where the player actively searches for information, and finds it, it is still the DM that must distribute the information. There is no other valid way, in Dungeons and Dragons for a PC to obtain non-PC information (that is information not created by themselves or another PC) except through the DM. Let's say a player used a Detect Magic spell. Is it not, in the normal course of events, going to be the DM who then shares the information concerning what is or is not magical? This sharing of information is a distribution. To say it is not is to alter the meaning of the word.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I understand that we are looking at it from different perspectives. But that first sentence is still nonsensical.

I don't know about "world's" of differences, but sure, some game tables handle information distribution differently than others. That's a given. In my particular games, there is a certain level of information that the players get merely by "being there" and then some they have to work for, roll for, or deduce. It should, I think, in most normal D&D games, be a balance.

But in a game where the player actively searches for information, and finds it, it is still the DM that must distribute the information. There is no other valid way, in Dungeons and Dragons for a PC to obtain non-PC information (that is information not created by themselves or another PC) except through the DM. Let's say a player used a Detect Magic spell. Is it not, in the normal course of events, going to be the DM who then shares the information concerning what is or is not magical? This sharing of information is a distribution. To say it is not is to alter the meaning of the word.

You're getting hung up on the words and not the person's intent and meaning behind them. Yes, the person might be altering the meaning of the word from what you know it as in the given context. And? At that point it's probably better to say "This is the meaning I know the word to have. Are you using it differently? If so, please explain further. Perhaps using different words that mean the same thing to you would work?"

 

[Wicht]

You're getting hung up on the words and not the person's intent and meaning behind them. Yes, the person might be altering the meaning of the word from what you know it as in the given context. And? At that point it's probably better to say "This is the meaning I know the word to have. Are you using it differently? If so, please explain further. Perhaps using different words that mean the same thing to you would work?"

As I was the one who first used the word in the conversation, do I not get to choose how I meant it when I used it? I would think that before telling me that "DM's don't distribute information," as I meant it, it would have been more sensible for the one responding to first make sure they understood what I meant before contradicting me (that is, to do what it is you are telling me I should do). But now I find myself being corrected for having corrected the understanding of the person who first corrected me for the proper use of the word I chose to use because he decided to redefine it after I used it?

To be clear...
The word distribute (a verb) means to share, or give out. All sharing is a form of distribution.
That is the accepted dictionary definition of the word. No matter what the mechanics or style of a DM sharing or giving out information, all games utilizing a DM have a DM who in some shape or form shares or gives out information. Thus all DM's distribute information by the definition of the word distribute. To say that some types of sharing is distribution and other types of sharing is not distribution is nonsensical, akin to saying that some water is wet and some water is not wet.

 

[N'raac]

Of course you're not. But I see APs as a pretty central example of storyteller play. The GM (drawing upon the authored material) sets the "BBEG" from the start, and the basic storyline for the campaign is specified in advance.

Why can't the player group select the AP? They have now selected the theme of the game and the BEG (even if they don't know who the BBEG is). They then design PC's based largely on the Players' Guide which they likely read in deciding to choose this particular AP, which provides them with the guidance to build PC's thematically linked to that AP.

Now, that's less player designed than a game where the GM creates everything from scratch, so it's a point on the continuum. But I doubt that you are custom designing each and every being and creature the PC's interact with from the ground up to maximize thematic relevance. I rather suspect you are using standardized write-ups from, say, a Monster Manual, NPC's with the same spells and abilities written up in a PHB product, etc., so that is also a point on a continuum.

What happens in the chamberlain scenario if the wizard PC first uses ESP to scan for the king's magic-detectors, before chancing a Charm spell?

Depending on the nature of the detectors and the rule of the spell, they either find them or they do not. The GM determines this, so by your comments, I believe you would say he controls the flow of information. I would say rather that he adjudicates the flow of information based on the information that exists to be found and the manner in which the players locate it. He has already determined whether that ESP spell is needed - it may be common knowledge that the three fellows in orange robes come from the Wizardry Guild and there are always three of them at Court to detect for magic, in which case no spell is needed.

I'm not 100% sure I follow this contrast between combat and non-combat problems. Who decides that a problem is combat or non-combat? If it's the players, then they can deploy whatever resources they think are appropriate.

Is getting past the Chamberlain to make a case to the King a combat or a social problem? I suggest the King will not graciously receive a group of brigands who burst in covered with the blood of his loyal courtiers. But let's take that further. Your job is to ensure each scene is challenging, right? So the L14 PC's face an appropriate challenge convincing the unarmed, unarmoured,78 year old Chamberlain to allow them an audience with the King. If they turn this into a combat encounter ("I waste the Chamberlain with my crossbow", does he suddenly morph into a Hulk like being to provide a L14 challenge? Do guards that were not there before suddenly appear? Do we see the concept of Calvinball? Or is killing the Chamberlain simply a failure of the social challenge?

Or must matters now work out that the Chamberlain was a traitor, and his death results in the gratitude of the King for the PC's rooting out the traitor, when all the players really did was get frustrated and take a stupid out of character action, because they may only fail forward?

I'm not sure why you use phrases like "flash of clairvoyance" or "player omniscience" - I've given pretty detailed discussion upthread of secret backstory and its relationship to scene framing and action resolution (including via discussion of the duke example in the 4e DMG). There is no conflict between secret backstory and "indie" style. But there is conflict between resolution turning on secret fictional positioning which the players can't discover and act upon, and "indie" style.

So why can't the players' first step in discovering the secret backstory be a visit to the Chamberlain which flies in the face of their expectations? They have discovered something - that all is not right in the King's Court and that the Chamberlain is somehow involved - which plays to that secret backstory which, presumably, is thematically relevant.

It's a bonus. It's not free - the players spend a resource to get it (namely, stuff on their equipment lists). In 4e the rule is that 1/10 the cost of an item of the PC's level is a +2 bonus - for 5th level PCs, that would be +2 for spending 100 gp.

If the bribe was paid but the skill check nevertheless failed, that is when discovery might kick in. Or another option would be to allow the PCs to turn a failure into a success at the cost of being discovered by a 3rd party.

Why can't they succeed and be discovered, or fail and have the bribe go unnoticed? Why is that inconceivable? Isn't it your job to turn the heat up when they succeed (not when they fail) to maintain a challenge?

If the players' goal in the scene is to meet the king, and an obstructionist chamberlain is one of the obstacles they have to work around, that could be interesting. Working around that obstacle might include enchanting the Chamberlain, or bribing him, or distracting him, or anything else that seems fun and feasible. It wouldn't include having no choice but to give up, exit the situation, and go out on a backstory hunt to find a way of dealing with the Chamberlain. At that point we have a GM-driven game (the focus of play is the chamberlain, who was introduced as an important story element by the GM), not a player-driven game (the players cared about the king, not the chamberlain).

In any case, the PC's wanted to see the King and the GM-created chamberlain is an obstacle in attaining this goal. Your differentiation above seems to me less about whether the chamberlain is an appropriate and thematic challenge and more about the level of difficulty and effort required to resolve the challenge. It's not about theme - it's about speed/pacing.

Huh? The roll succeeding or not is a rules issue, not a GM decision. And the consequence was set by the player, not the GM. To me, this is a matter of some importance.

Oh, good - I, the player, set the consequences. Very well, if I succeed, the Chamberlain grants us an audience to the King, who names my character Crown Prince. If it fails, he grants an audience, but the King only rewards us with a barony and a fortune in precious jewels. Such is his gratitude because we removed a stray cat from a tree outside the palace.

You're not going to override my Player Agency, are you? Again, point on the continuum, not binary switch.

I don't follow this. I'm not sure who you are envisaging "tossing out scene ideas", nor what exactly think the process is.

You’ve said you will not frame a scene the players cannot succeed in. You therefore would not frame a scene with a Dragon the characters cannot defeat nor, by extension, a Chamberlain they cannot persuade. So the players ask to see the Chamberlain, and you refuse to frame the scene. They believe they could enhance their fame in the kingdom to better their odds of seeing the King by slaying the dragon, but you won’t frame that scene. So they now need a third scene to suggest. If you, the GM, just pick the scene, what became of their player agency?

DMs and players can have a variety of different goals and preferences of different strengths. Some people have very narrow and specific preferences, others can enjoy a variety of styles. IMO calling someone a "good DM" isn't an absolute, it's a subjective measure, generally with respect to how closely the game he or she runs matches the ajudicator's personal preferences. Some DM skills may be transferable to different game styles, but conversely instincts good for one style may be detrimental to another.

The degree to which DMs facilitate player goals is a strong litmus test for game style. Some DMs don't pay any attention to player goals, and so don't facilitate them. There may be DM provided plots to follow, or a sandbox world to explore, so player goals based on those elements may be viable.

Other games may make player goals of primary importance in play. This doesn't necessarily mean it's all wish fulfillment, as the appropriate player goals for this sort of play are likely different to viable goals in more DM-driven games. Players may want their PCs to struggle to achieve something and fail. Goals in such a game may be very personal, such as the evolution of PC personality due to deals made or broken, and sacrifices made or refused

In my experience most games fall somewhere between these two stools. Players get a limited amout of personal plot.

This gets at an issue I’ve been considering for a few days now. We keep discussing “Indie”, “Storytelling”, “Wargaming” and now “Sandbox” playstyles, but I don’t believe there are four styles we can cram everything into. I think there are a lot of different aspects to style. You note above a continuum of player-centricity to the plotline. I think Indie demands a high degree, but the others can have a higher or lower degree. Storytelling can be based around PC goals, as can wargaming. The PC’s pursue their goals as they see fit in Sandbox games, for sure. Sandbox and Indie are more differentiated by whether the world focuses on their goals or whether they must sort out the opportunities that will best attain their goals from less relevant opportunities.

The above can lead to differences in pacing and scene framing between game styles based on the different goals being pursued.

Two more aspects, to me. Pacing of any style can be faster or slower. I mentioned above whether scene framing guarantees the PC’s what they want. Even NPC proactivity can vary - in some sandboxes, the NPC’s are active behind the scenes, while in others they wait in stasis until the PC’s take an interest in their part of the world. Similarly, in [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]’s example, the PC turned NPC shows up as an advisor, so he has been proactive behind the scenes while in other games he might not reappear unless sought out by the PC’s.

In totally DM-plot games, the DM can focus strongly on scenes relevant to the plot, to facilitate player chances of advancing the plot. The DM may or may not shortcut scenes irrelevant to the plot.

Another continuum – are there side quests and distractions, or does the game proceed linearly, always flowing directly to the next relevant resolution?

I don’t think any of the four posited playstyles inhabit some unique location on any of these various continuums, although I do think some styles have points on some of them that they cannot occupy. But I don’t believe any of the styles can be simply defined, either. Example: [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] will frame the “see the King” challenge at any level, where [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] defines it as a challenge for early teen levels. Is one of them not playing an “Indie” game?

Is information read out by the GM, or learned in play? Does the GM bring the tavern to life with NPC occupants the PC's interact with, or just tell them flatly what their Gather Info check learns? Do the players decide what intel to seek, or does the GM read them the info they find? Again, I don't think all Indie games will answer the same way, nor that there would be no overlap between Indiel and other styles' answers.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

As I was the one who first used the word in the conversation, do I not get to choose how I meant it when I used it? I would think that before telling me that "DM's don't distribute information," as I meant it, it would have been more sensible for the one responding to first make sure they understood what I meant before contradicting me (that is, to do what it is you are telling me I should do). But now I find myself being corrected for having corrected the understanding of the person who first corrected me for the proper use of the word I chose to use because he decided to redefine it after I used it?

To be clear...
The word distribute (a verb) means to share, or give out. All sharing is a form of distribution.
That is the accepted dictionary definition of the word. No matter what the mechanics or style of a DM sharing or giving out information, all games utilizing a DM have a DM who in some shape or form shares or gives out information. Thus all DM's distribute information by the definition of the word distribute. To say that some types of sharing is distribution and other types of sharing is not distribution is nonsensical, akin to saying that some water is wet and some water is not wet.

And thus we have even more context for the big question. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], how exactly are you using "distribute"? Would you care to change your wording on that or elucidate further? While I agree with your meaning that there's definitely a difference between player-driven information and GM-driven, I definitely wouldn't have used the words you did to describe it.

 

[pemerton]

DMs and players can have a variety of different goals and preferences of different strengths

<snip>

The degree to which DMs facilitate player goals is a strong litmus test for game style. Some DMs don't pay any attention to player goals, and so don't facilitate them. There may be DM provided plots to follow, or a sandbox world to explore, so player goals based on those elements may be viable.

Other games may make player goals of primary importance in play. This doesn't necessarily mean it's all wish fulfillment

<snip>

In totally DM-plot games, the DM can focus strongly on scenes relevant to the plot, to facilitate player chances of advancing the plot. The DM may or may not shortcut scenes irrelevant to the plot.

In sandbox-type games the DM may deliberately try not to edit scenes, so as to avoid railroading them

<snip>

In a more player-centric game, the DM may focus on scenes relevant to the agreed-on goals on the game, and downplay scenes irrelevant to those goals.

This all seems right to me. (But no XP yet, sorry.)

I've seen a lot of scenes where the players waste game time and resources pursuing the impossible because they don't know its (currently) impossible and the DM is unwilling to just come out and tell them that.

This is the sort of thing that doesn't appeal to me at all.

 

[pemerton]

To some there are worlds of differences between the players actively engaging the mechanics to obtain information versus the GM simply giving it out without the players actually doing much to go after it.

Agreed. That was a big part of my point.

No matter what playstyle you utilize, of course the DM distributes information. In some styles, he distributes information rather freely. In others, he holds things back until he feels the time is ripe.

But in a game where the player actively searches for information, and finds it, it is still the DM that must distribute the information.

I don't think that the semantics of "distribute" are very important to this conversation. "Distribute" is sometimes, but not always, synomyous with "provide". It is sometimes, but not always, synonymou with "share". For X to share things with Y tends to imply that they were X's to begin with. For X to provide something to Y is perhaps less likely to carry the same implication.

What I think is important is the notion of "distributes information freely" vs "holds things back until the time is ripe". To me, that implies that the GM is driving the game. It also implies that the GM has in mind some sort of preconceived sequence of events, such that within that sequence the time may or may not be "ripe".

Consider a fairly typical dungeon - say the Haunted Keep in Moldvay Basic, or the ruins and underground complex in the AD&D DMG. What would it mean for a GM to "distribute information freely" vs "hold back until the time is ripe"? Either the players decide to have a PC detect magic, or they don't. Either the players look in the stream and noticed the calcified structure, or they don't. The GM's role is to provide the information to the players that they, via the fictional positioning of their PCs, are entitled to. If you want to describe this as the GM distributing information, that's fine. But it's not the GM deciding when or how to distribute information. The GM is obliged to distribute the information to which the players are entitled. There is no choice about it.