Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Wicht]

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".

If you insist on reading into things, I can't stop you. But a DM holding things back until the time is "ripe" might just mean that he doesn't tell them that a sword is magical until someone cast detect magic. There are apparently some DMs who feel that withholding any information from the players for any reason is bad DMing. But it might also mean that a vital clue to the mystery of who killed Lord Bigvault isn't revealed until the third act of a particular session because the person holding the clue is unconscious. Regardless of the style of any individuals game, DMs are going to typically keep some things to themselves until they feel that events, rules, or character choices warrant the information being shared.

Is not telling the players that a sword is magical until they cast a spell an example of the DM having a preconceived sequence of events? Just so we are clear.

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.

I am not sure what your point is here... Do you really think anyone is arguing that a good DM will not provide the information that the characters are entitled to via their valid in-game choices? Even in a more story-driven game, this is the case.

And even when the characters make valid choices, the DM still has to decide what amount of success is warranted by their actions. For instance, using detect magic, what items are in range, shielded, etc.

There is no choice about it.

Now all that being said, this is just silly. Of course the DM has a choice. Just because one choice is wrong doesn't make it a lack of choice. DMs do, after all, have free will.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

I have explained above why I would not run this scene - namely, because it does not give the players any opportunity to affect the fiction. It is simply for the dispensing of backstory.

Is your question "Why doesn't pemerton want to frame scenes that are simply for the dispensing of backstory?" In which case, the answer is because (i) I find them boring, and (ii) they don't actually give the players a chance to play the game - all the players can do is soak up the backstory and thespianise their PCs.

If you see that as an issue of pacing, fine. To me it's an issue of whether or not we're actually playing the game. A scene that (i) contains conflict, but (ii) cannot be affected by the players via their PCs, is (iii) one that I'm personally not interested in.

Why can't they succeed and be discovered, or fail and have the bribe go unnoticed?

They could fail and have the bribe go unnoticed. Having the bribe be noticed is just one possible complication - though personally I think one of the more interesting ones. As to why they can't succeed and be discovered - because having your bribe be discovered means that you haven't succeeded!

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.

No. If the players want to see the chamberlain, I frame a scene where meaningful things can happen. What exactly that might be depends on the details and context of play, plus prior revealed backstory. If all we're talking about is an audience with the king to plead a case, I don't see any particular reason why that should be controversial. In the real world, after all, all sorts of people historically have had all sorts of audiences with kings.

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.

The players generally don't get to set the consequences of failure. I thought I had stated that pretty clearly upthread.

In establishing the goals for success, I think I might have mentioned earlier upthread the idea of the genre credibility test. I don't think the action you're declaring in your example passes that test in just about any game I can think of (unless its deliberately humorous or absurd). A more realistic example would be - "Because we saved your lands from the dragons, make us nobles and bestow wealth upon us." And that strikes me as quite feasible.

A lot of your attempts to prove that indie play is impossible seem to turn upon assumptions about players and GM having radically different conceptions of genre, general thematic orientation of play, etc. In my personal experience this doesn't normally happen, and where there have been miscommunications they can quickly be ironed out. Maybe it's a been a bigger problem for you, and that's why you find player-driven play hard to envisage? In any event, as [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] mentioned upthread, having everyone more-or-less on the same page as to genre and general thematic orientation is a presupposition of "indie" play proceeding smoothly.

in pemerton’s example, the PC turned NPC shows up as an advisor

What example was that? The only advisor I remember mentioning was the baron's advisor, who was an NPC. I have had a few PCs over the years become NPCs as players leave the group or the country, but I don't recollect mentioning any of them in this thread.

pemerton will frame the “see the King” challenge at any level, where Manbearcat defines it as a challenge for early teen levels. Is one of them not playing an “Indie” game?

I replied to this two or three times upthread. So did [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]. Your description here is quite wrong.

You also seem to be confusing particular features of default 4e (which was what Manbearcat was referring to when he suggested that dealing with a king might be low-to-mid Paragon) with other 4e variants (I've mentioned two upthread - Dark Sun and Neverwinter, one of which reduces story scope relative to mechaanical level and the other of which increases it) with indie RPGing more generally.

 

[N'raac]

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.

Yet there are still differences in how the GM will distribute information. Some will, for example, discuss the calcified structure in the stream because the players are exploring the room, and there is a presumption they will then look in the stream. Others may require them to specify they are looking in the stream. Still others might include it in a basic room description. Game style. In some games, the players want to control all minutia, so the GM can't decide they moved far enough into the room to look into the stream, or that their looking around the room includes even getting close to the stream.

And this is, of course, before we add a potential for success or failure. Tack on Perception/Spot/Notice checks and we now have to decide when such checks are available at all, what are their DC's (do I get a normal DC check from the entry point of the cave, a heavily penalized check or no check at all?) and at what point is no check required.

The GM is the interface between the players and the world their characters inhabit, but this is another role where the GM must adjudicate.

 

[N'raac]

I have explained above why I would not run this scene - namely, because it does not give the players any opportunity to affect the fiction. It is simply for the dispensing of backstory.

Is your question "Why doesn't pemerton want to frame scenes that are simply for the dispensing of backstory?" In which case, the answer is because (i) I find them boring, and (ii) they don't actually give the players a chance to play the game - all the players can do is soak up the backstory and thespianise their PCs.

I suspect some would refer to "thespianise their PC's" as "role play their PC's". "Role playing" is an equal part to "game", in my view, so an opportunity to role play is typically welcome. However, if the GM refuses to frame a scene where my character is frustrated by his inability to attain his desires, then we never get to role play how my character deals with such frustration.

There is also a difference between a monologue "dispensing backstory" and playing through the attainment of knowledge of backstory, in my view. The latter was part of the game, not a GM recitation or email, so it tends to stick better, at least in the games I've played.

Finally, you seem to approach the scene from the perspective that, unless the PC's can achieve their stated goal to see the King, nothing they do can have any meaning. I disagree. They can gain knowledge of the situation (backstory or current events). They can meet other NPC's - unless the room is utterly empty of all but the PC's and the Chamberlain (which would make that Charm spell a lot less risky since no one but the target will see them cast it). They can form a framework for future interaction - do the frustrated PC's nevertheless treat the Chamberlain with the respect due his age, wisdom and office, or do they berate him, mock him and /or try to intimidate him to get access to the King? He will likely not forget their actions once they have resolved whatever issue is preventing an immediate audience with the King - if they were rude, they may still be sent on their way. If they were respectful, they may gain an ally in the Chamberlain. Perhaps that diplomacy check actually DOES have an impact - he is friendly (or friendlier) but he cannot act upon it immediately. Perhaps it has no impact on the Chamberlain, but deeply moved one of the guards, or one of those Detecting acolytes, who later approaches the PC's with valuable information or an offer of assistance. These are all ways the players' actions can have an impact - just not an immediate one. It seems like the main hallmark of indie play being espoused is not whether the players can have an impact, but the immediacy of that impact and/or their knowledge of that impact.

Doubtless, I will now be accused of retrofitting these aspects onto the original scenario. On the boards, perhaps (though I never saw the scene as one suited merely for a monologue from the Chamberlain). In a real game, probably not - the scene would have been set out in detail already - but perhaps some modification on the fly would occur - "Wow - a great diplomacy roll capping off some really good role playing - that should have a positive impact somehow, now what could happen - maybe nameless Detect Magicker B is swayed".

If you see that as an issue of pacing, fine. To me it's an issue of whether or not we're actually playing the game. A scene that (i) contains conflict, but (ii) cannot be affected by the players via their PCs, is (iii) one that I'm personally not interested in.

You assume only one conflict possible, and that the only way the players can affect it is by immediate resolution in its entirety. I see a broader scope. If you don't see that as an issue of pacing, fine.

They could fail and have the bribe go unnoticed. Having the bribe be noticed is just one possible complication - though personally I think one of the more interesting ones. As to why they can't succeed and be discovered - because having your bribe be discovered means that you haven't succeeded!

If they got in to see the King, their bribe succeeded. If their bribe did not go unnoticed, it was their attempt at concealing it which failed, not their attempt to see the King. Again, I think you focus in on narrower possibilities.

No. If the players want to see the chamberlain, I frame a scene where meaningful things can happen. What exactly that might be depends on the details and context of play, plus prior revealed backstory. If all we're talking about is an audience with the king to plead a case, I don't see any particular reason why that should be controversial. In the real world, after all, all sorts of people historically have had all sorts of audiences with kings.

You seem to go back and forth from framing the scene or refusing it. We're now back to "the L1 characters can see the Chamberlain and have a meaningful opportunity to see the King as a result". Will you frame them into a scene with that Great Wyrm they were very interested in, or is that still off-limits, as decided unilaterally by the GM?

The players generally don't get to set the consequences of failure. I thought I had stated that pretty clearly upthread.

You seem to think you are much more clear than you are. You've sometimes suggested the consequences of failure rest in the hands of the GM (which means he is the ultimate arbiter of those consequences, by the way) and other times made statements like the one I responded to, being:

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.

You even acknowledge the portion I emphasized as a matter of some importance. The consequence, to me, sounds more like the consequences of a failed roll than a successful one (those tend to be rewards, not consequences).

In establishing the goals for success, I think I might have mentioned earlier upthread the idea of the genre credibility test. I don't think the action you're declaring in your example passes that test in just about any game I can think of

While I could contrive one, I can agree it is difficult to envision, and would be an unusual game. That said, who is the ultimate arbiter of whether it meets the genre credibility test? I think it is the GM. I also think that my players demanding I live by the consequences they have set is about equal in reasonableness as the expectation the GM will, whenever given any leeway, always rule to the detriment of the players (not your issue, but certainly the assumption seeming to underlie the [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] model).

What example was that? The only advisor I remember mentioning was the baron's advisor, who was an NPC. I have had a few PCs over the years become NPCs as players leave the group or the country, but I don't recollect mentioning any of them in this thread.

That's the advisor I was thinking of - sorry for the error. I must have conflated them working with him in the past with a former PC someone mentioned in another discussion. In any case, the point stands - he did not enter the stasis chamber after leaving the PC group, but worked behind the scenes to become an advisor to the Baron and, based on your comments on the likely results had he not been goaded into battle, building his own armies.

I replied to this two or three times upthread. So did @Manbearcat . Your description here is quite wrong.

You say you will frame the Chamberlain scene for L1 characters. He has stated he considers it a poor scene for such characters, and is framing a scene for L14 characters as illustration. Which one is "indie play"? I suggest both are, and in both the GM is making the ultimate decision of what level of characters this is an appropriate encounter for. If you consider that wrong, please indicate how and why it is wrong. As I've said repeatedly, I don't play 4e, and I'm not planning on digging through those books to find the chart in question to figure out which of you is "more 4e", nor am I remotely qualified to assess which of your approaches is " more indie".

 

[Hussar]

Swimming upthread a few pages 'cos I've been busy.

I've been accused a few times now of presuming bad faith on the part of the DM. Let's unpack that a bit more shall we? I was told by various people in this thread that using certain strategies are a primary method of limiting caster power. That because these DM strategies were in play, the casters were kept in check.

How am I assuming bad faith on the part of the DM when I point to the use of these strategies precisely to limit caster power? If these things aren't being done to limit caster power, then why are they being done at all? If the purpose of these strategies is some sort of world building method, then fine and dandy. But, that's not what we're talking about is it? We're discussing methods and reasons why caster power disparities don't appear in some games.

So, when N'raac, for example, highlights very restrictive interpretations of spells, isn't the point of those restrictions to limit caster power? The opposite is not a wide open spell. And N'raac is not acting in bad faith in creating those restrictions. He's deliberately attempting to limit caster power. Now, personally, I wouldn't do it, because it's far too much rules lawyering for me. And, since it's the DM doing the rules lawyering, the player can never win the argument.

Or, when we talk about the chamberlain, the DC is being set high because the DM is attempting to limit the power of a diplomancer character, not because he wants to build a world. This is being done as a balancing mechanic. Again, there's no bad faith on the part of the DM. Now, again, I don't like it, because I find it way too heavy handed and a very poor fix for a system. I'd much rather adjust the system than spackle over the issues.

I don't assume bad faith on anyone's part here. You are doing exactly what you stated you wanted to do - limit caster power and restore balance between characters. Fine and dandy. My issue is that your fix is worse than the problem. It's far too heavy handed for me.

 

[Hussar]

No one disputes that getting in trouble for offering (or paying) a bribe; or charming an officer of the king's household; or drawing swords in the king's palace; might naturally cause trouble. But equally they might not. How do we work out whether or not these natural consequences come home to roost? In "indie" style, these consequences are inserted by the GM as results of failed check in order to preserve and consolidate genre and them while also complicating the players' attempts to impact the ingame situation via their PCs.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page134#ixzz2iGcMGW31

Actually, where my problem lies is that getting into trouble is being offered as a balancing technique. If it is a balancing technique, for it to work then you must get into trouble every time you do it, otherwise, it's not a balancing technique at all. At best, the player games the system and gambles that this time the consequences won't come up. At worst, the DM decides that it's too much of a pain to determine which time things fail and it becomes the old saw of "On any given overland journey, the party will have one and only one random encounter".

How can something be a balancing technique if it only comes to light sometimes? How do you determine how often it needs to come into play in order for it to be balancing? Does the penalty for when "trouble" does occur offset the advantages for when it didn't?

 

[N'raac]

Swimming upthread a few pages 'cos I've been busy.

I feel your pain...

So, when N'raac, for example, highlights very restrictive interpretations of spells, isn't the point of those restrictions to limit caster power? The opposite is not a wide open spell. And N'raac is not acting in bad faith in creating those restrictions. He's deliberately attempting to limit caster power. Now, personally, I wouldn't do it, because it's far too much rules lawyering for me. And, since it's the DM doing the rules lawyering, the player can never win the argument.

I read the spells and interpret them accordingly. I don't believe my interpretations are "highly restrictive". Rather, I believe many of the less restrictive interpretations arise due to ignoring or downgrading statements within the spell description. The suggestion, for example, that Rope Trick's note about extradimensional spaces within other extradimensional spaces means "oh, if you do that for 75 years, you'll probably come down with a disease", rather than being intended as a legitimate restriction on the ability to bring bags of holding, handy haversacks, etc. into the rope trick space renders the words meaningless. Suggesting that "Hey' I'll let you out of my spell if you serve me for the rest of my life" constitutes a "reasonable" service that " the creature can complete though its own actions" so I get a slave for life is not a reasonable read of the spell description, but a dismissal of more text than it retains.

I don't assume bad faith on anyone's part here. You are doing exactly what you stated you wanted to do - limit caster power and restore balance between characters. Fine and dandy. My issue is that your fix is worse than the problem. It's far too heavy handed for me.

When you say "every interpretation will be the worst case imaginable for the player", that strikes me as an assumption of bad faith. When you are willing to accept the GM followed the rules only when this is categorically proven, that also strikes me as an assumption of bad faith.

 

[Hussar]

If you insist on reading into things, I can't stop you. But a DM holding things back until the time is "ripe" might just mean that he doesn't tell them that a sword is magical until someone cast detect magic.

But, in this case, he's not actually holding anything back. The player is looking for the information and will not receive it until such time as the player character detects magic. The DM, in this case, is under no obligation to tell the player that the sword is magical until such time as the player steps up and casts detect magic.

However, once the player does cast Detect Magic, the DM is obligated by the rules to tell the player that, yes, the sword is magical. A DM who lies to the player in this case is considered a bad DM by pretty much everyone.

There are apparently some DMs who feel that withholding any information from the players for any reason is bad DMing. But it might also mean that a vital clue to the mystery of who killed Lord Bigvault isn't revealed until the third act of a particular session because the person holding the clue is unconscious. Regardless of the style of any individuals game, DMs are going to typically keep some things to themselves until they feel that events, rules, or character choices warrant the information being shared.

But, again, we go back to spells. There are any number of mind reading spells in D&D. If the PC's cast on on the clue holder in Act 1, shouldn't they gain the information? Isn't the DM now obligated by the rules to give this information to the players?

This gets back to my problem with how you guys balance casters. Because I have a very strong feeling that the answer to the above question is, "Well, does it make casters too good?" Since we're manipulating the game world and cherry picking rules interpretations, then the answer should almost always be no. If the spell is used in Act 3, then fine, no problems. But, if it's used earlier, that would upset game balance and it must be prevented.

Is not telling the players that a sword is magical until they cast a spell an example of the DM having a preconceived sequence of events? Just so we are clear.

How? Unless the DM forces the player somehow to cast Detect Magic, in what way is the DM preconceiving a sequence of events? Maybe they never cast it and throw away the magic sword unknowingly. Maybe they cast it later on, but it would have been really useful in that fight with a were-rat. There's any number of sequences that can play out here.

I am not sure what your point is here... Do you really think anyone is arguing that a good DM will not provide the information that the characters are entitled to via their valid in-game choices? Even in a more story-driven game, this is the case.

No, it isn't. Not according to those in this thread. Skills are vetoed and DC's set impossibly high to prevent skill abuse. Spell uses are either vetoed or seriously curtailed to prevent spell abuse. The players won't get the information because the game has been stacked to prevent them from learning who killed the duke too early.

And even when the characters make valid choices, the DM still has to decide what amount of success is warranted by their actions. For instance, using detect magic, what items are in range, shielded, etc.

Now all that being said, this is just silly. Of course the DM has a choice. Just because one choice is wrong doesn't make it a lack of choice. DMs do, after all, have free will.

True. But, the DM's are obligated by the rules. Oh, wait, in some people's games, they aren't are they? The DM is the final arbiter of all rules, so, no there is no obligation in those games.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Or, when we talk about the chamberlain, the DC is being set high because the DM is attempting to limit the power of a diplomancer character, not because he wants to build a world. This is being done as a balancing mechanic. Again, there's no bad faith on the part of the DM. Now, again, I don't like it, because I find it way too heavy handed and a very poor fix for a system. I'd much rather adjust the system than spackle over the issues.

At least in my take on this example, it has very little to do with the PC at all. The DM has a certain conception of the culture in general or the royalty in particular, or some plot point in mind, and the PC is acting in a way that disrupts that. From a DM's perspective, the simplest thing to do when you're not ready for a player action is to say no and file it away for later. When in doubt, say no.

You could look at it as the balance of the characters vs the world; saying that the characters shouldn't be relevant relative to a king (unless they're very high level, perhaps). Between-character balance is probably not the issue here, even if that may be affected by the outcome of this scenario.

In general, between-character balance is something I would very rarely think about during a session, because it's so rarely an issue. If it becomes one, it's usually a sign that the rules are not being followed, rather than that there's a problem with the rules. This is more the kind of heady philosophical topic one debates online, rather than a practical imperative to adjudicate specific in-game actions. Balance is probably the easiest thing for a beginner DM to achieve, rather than some of the other big ideas in gaming.

I don't assume bad faith on anyone's part here. You are doing exactly what you stated you wanted to do - limit caster power and restore balance between characters. Fine and dandy. My issue is that your fix is worse than the problem. It's far too heavy handed for me.

Okay, but what's your fix? I'm guessing some of us would find it rather heavy-handed as well.

True. But, the DM's are obligated by the rules. Oh, wait, in some people's games, they aren't are they? The DM is the final arbiter of all rules, so, no there is no obligation in those games.

The rules are tools for the DM to use to influence or control the players, and the notion of a final arbiter is written in to them. The idea of a DM being obligated to do anything by a tool is nonsensical.

 

[N'raac]

But, again, we go back to spells. There are any number of mind reading spells in D&D. If the PC's cast on on the clue holder in Act 1, shouldn't they gain the information? Isn't the DM now obligated by the rules to give this information to the players?

I would say yes, and further that if the adventure was not designed with consideration of these spells then it is poor adventure design. That doesn't mean "they are all immune to mind reading magic", it means taking that magic into account. Once again, however, I can't interpret "mind reading magic", but the specific spell. Detect Thoughts, for example, requires three rounds to read surface thoughts and the target gets a save.

The save is meaningless if we have a prisoner, as it can be cast again. In other situations, that save could mean the difference between success or failure, and the GM should have an adventure that stands up if the save fails. However, it also doesn't mean the PC can access every memory the target has - it reads surface thoughts. Here, I rather like the idea of a Bluff check being used to cause the target to think about a specific issue, but that's not in the RAW.

Since we're manipulating the game world and cherry picking rules interpretations, then the answer should almost always be no.

OK, in what way does the above not suggest bad faith on the part of the GM. We're not world building, but manipulating. The GM does not make reasoned interpretations, he cherry picks. And the answer is pretty much always "no" to anything the player might attempt. That may be your experience. It is certainly resulting in a presumption of bad faith.

No, it isn't. Not according to those in this thread. Skills are vetoed and DC's set impossibly high to prevent skill abuse. Spell uses are either vetoed or seriously curtailed to prevent spell abuse. The players won't get the information because the game has been stacked to prevent them from learning who killed the duke too early.

Again, we get any high DC being arbitrary to penalize the players - it could not possibly be part of the game. Is it equally bad faith on the part of the player to max out CHA, max out Diplomacy, and take various feats and magic items to result in an incredibly high Diplomacy DC, or is that just a "good character build"? And again, suggesting the game is stacked presumes bad faith. Is it "stacking the game" to set a combat encounter against creatures of an appropriate power level for the PC's, or should it still be three goblins against a party when they reach 20th level, to avoid "stacking the game"?

True. But, the DM's are obligated by the rules. Oh, wait, in some people's games, they aren't are they? The DM is the final arbiter of all rules, so, no there is no obligation in those games.

I think you again conflate two concepts with your presumption of bad faith. The fact that the GM makes the call to interpret the rules ("final arbiter") does not mean he gets to ignore the rules, nor that his calls are based on screwing over the players rather than interpreting the actual rules as written and applying them accordingly. Except, of course, if we presume bad faith on the part of that final arbiter.