Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Manbearcat]

I replied to this two or three times upthread. So did @Manbearcat . 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.

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".

1 - I've read the 3.5 DMG again and I'll work up a post here about a few various issues that I have with some contentions that are being put forth (and some agreements).

2 - My players and I ran the chamberlain/king scene last night and I'll post the results and some analysis in the coming days.

3 - Relevant to the above: I don't know why this is still unresolved but I'm going to try one last time to put this to bed.

A: "Indie play" has nothing to do with the pace or the default thematic implicatons/tier of 4e. "Thematic tightness/focus" generally is a specific feature of "Indie play". But 4e's pacing of D&D thematic content, with respect the "very D&D" level-game, is orthogonally related. "Indie play" has many features (of which I've gone through several above) such as, but not limited to, "say yes or roll the dice", "focused thematic premise(s) that game seeks to address", "players as protagonists with focus on-screen", "resource schemes/means, techniques and conflict resolution mechanics meant to empower players to impose their will upon the fiction, up to and including generating setting content", "GM generating content/complications/adversity that is immediately relevant to the focused thematic content and/or premise(s) being addressed."

B: 4e is a "subjective, broad (borderline open and can be used as open if you just want to use the math and then refluff as you wish) descriptor game." You can, as you wish, move thematic content up and down the tier (Heroic, Paragon, Epic) continuum. In fact, as has been mentioned multiple times, NCS provides an in-depth tutorial on how to contract all of the Heroic and Paragon tier into just the 10 levels of Heroic tier play. You could go even further if you wish; eg go the 13th Age route and contract all of the 3 tiers into just 10 levels. It would be absurdly easy to do and the game is built (the tight, explicit math and the refluffable thematics) to do just that. Its why you see many 4e hacks into various genres. The engine is so slick that it is easy to do.

However, there is a default (that, as above, can be drifted at your discretion) thematic guidance to the tiers. DMG p146-7 lays out the general thematic guidance for the Tiers of play. 4e DMG 2 p 176-185 lays out Paragon tier themes. Dungeon magazine has articles galore on this. The default is for Heroic to be villiages/steadings > baronies/duchy and crowns/monarchies at the end of the tier and into the beginning Paragon. Specifically in Paragon Tier is outlined "Crowns and Thrones" as a Paragon theme. Epic it is other-planar; exarchs, demon lords, gods, primordials, et al. For the most part, it just tries to give players an idea of the pacing for a 1-30 campaign, the scope and gravity of their influence and the threats they will face. This is absolutely driftable, contractible, etc at players' discretion (with some overhead required for the handling of related thematic material).

The DMGs provide an extremely low resolution (intentionally) accounting and provide broad themes. There is no forbidding the drift of appealing to a King at 1st level. There is just broad thematic guidance that regales the players of the inherent default expectations of tiered play. Appealing to Kings at 1st level (or even 30th), doesn't mean you're "doing it wrong" and it certainly doesn't mean that you are or are not playing "Indie Style".

Of note, there are multiple Character Themes (meant to thematically assist in guiding the Heroic Tier of play) that are tied either directly or indirectly to a King.

Of personal note, I have had my PCs (in the present game) appeal to a leader whose sway would be that of a great monarch at the end of the Heroic tier of play.

Can we stick a fork in this one now? Its well done.
​

 

[Ahnehnois]

The DMGs provide an extremely low resolution (intentionally) accounting and provide broad themes. There is no forbidding the drift of appealing to a King at 1st level. There is just broad thematic guidance that regales the players of the inherent default expectations of tiered play. Appealing to Kings at 1st level (or even 30th), doesn't mean you're "doing it wrong" and it certainly doesn't mean that you are or are not playing "Indie Style".
...
Can we stick a fork in this one now? Its well done.

I'm the one who originally raised this example (who knows how many pages ago). And yes, I think that horse has been beaten enough.

The reason I raised was to provide an example of a player trying to manipulate the mechanics to force an outcome that he does not have control over. It raises pertinent points: the DM, not the player, decides when a check is appropriate, what the numerical parameters of the check are, and what the in-game implications of the results are. The Diplomacy skill does not grant the player the right to do anything in particular or exert even a modicum of control over an NPC, it simply establishes the character's baseline competence whenever the skill comes in to play and gives the DM a tool for adjudicating social situations.

But it's easy to come up with a hundred other examples that explicate the same issues, perhaps more clearly.

 

[pemerton]

DMs are going to typically keep some things to themselves until they feel that events, rules, or character choices warrant the information being shared.

This seems to me equivalent to saying that "The Chamberlain won't talk to the PCs until events, rules or character choices warrant that outcome." It is true, but uninteresting, because tells us nothing about what constitutes a sufficient warrant. Whereas it is the nature of the warrant that is what differs across playstyles.

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.

It's true that I took "the time is ripe" to be referring to "plot" consideratins, not rules considerations.

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.

Agreed.

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.

Now we seem to be back in the language of "plot" rather than rules. Unconsciousness is hardly an obstacle in most versions of D&D - the PCs cast a cure spell, or use some sort of mind reading ability, or cast Commune or Contact Other Plane.

I don't know of any technique in D&D for enforcing the idea of "first act" or "third act" other than GM force.

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?

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.

What Hussar said. What is the preconceived sequence of events?

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.

This is my whole point! In classic dungeon play, this is worked out in advance. Skilled play then involves working around these obstacles to recover the secret backstory. But in urban/intrigue play, it is obvious that all this cannot be worked out in advance. Thus, casting Detect Magic is not in fact a device for the players to discover secret backstory; rather, it is a device whereby the players make the GM author some new backstory. "Indie" and "storyteller" take different views about how this authoring of new backstory is to take place.

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.

DM's are obligated by the rules.

Hussar understood my meaning. I had hoped it was fairly clear that I meant "The rules leave the GM no choice."

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.

Yes.

 

[Wicht]

But in urban/intrigue play, it is obvious that all this cannot be worked out in advance. Thus, casting Detect Magic is not in fact a device for the players to discover secret backstory; rather, it is a device whereby the players make the GM author some new backstory.

I don't think that this is obvious at all, unless you mean something other than what you are actually saying. Why can I not, in an urban adventure, place traps, obstacles, and treasure just as I would in a dungeon?

And I most certainly can plant clues in an intrigue play that the players must use their abilities to uncover, same as in a dungeon...

While I can ad-lib things (isn't my chief talent as a DM, but I can do it), I much prefer to plan contingencies in advance to advance the plotline (assuming there is one) and such contingencies should most certainly take into account the actual abilities of the PCs (or if doing it commercially, the potential abilities of anyone that might play through the adventure.

This gets to a sore point with me about assertions some in these parts are making... namely that I (or some others) are constantly seeking to assert DM fiat in an attempt to nerf, weaken or otherwise thwart spellcasters. I take a little bit of umbrage at that, firstly because its not actually the actual contention, and secondly, because I try my best not to write or DM that way.

In point of fact, when writing adventures, it is lazy design to try and limit player abilities in order to not have to deal with them. This is not to say that some writers or DMs don't attempt this route, I am certain they do. Now, there might be times when an adventure should have elements that prevent or thwart one particular avenue of reconciliation or completion, not to be a pain, but to force players to stretch and think outside the box, as it were. But by and large, challenges should be designed with the full capabilities of the PCs in mind.

If I can make an appeal to personal authority, I wrote and cowrote the module Coliseum Morpheuon, which is a high level PFRPG module (and well reviewed too), so I know somewhat of designing for high levels (indeed all the actual adventure writing in that book is my work). When writing the module, it was a design guideline that there was to be no attempt to try and nerf any ability in any encounter but rather each encounter would demand that high level characters would have to utilize absolutely everything in their ability to overcome the challenges. I think, regardless of level, this is a good design principle. Do the players have access to fly? Then rather than try to prevent the players from flying, the designer should try and incorporate challenges in which flight might sometimes be necessary. Do the players have access to mind-reading. Then the DM should create challenges which require the PCs use this.

Now I can see someone saying that such a philosophy only makes the spellcasters more central to game play, but its not so. Rather it assumes that spellcasters are one facet of what a group has access to and thus incorporates it. Likewise good adventure writing should include tracking opportunities, locks to pick, foes that are better fought with a sword than a spell (certain constructs for instance), undead for the clerics to have fun with, diplomacy opportunities, plenty of knowledge checks (including engineering, local, and nobility), swimming opportunities, climbing opportunities, and the like. That is a good adventure design includes a wide variety of challenges and if done right, then it is true that the casters might use spells to overcome some of them, but it is doubtful any wizard or cleric will have spells suitable to overcome all of them at the same time. And when the spellcaster does not have the right spell, the fighters and rogues are always going to be there to pick up the pieces.

Now, that being said, a couple of other things...

What is the preconceived sequence of events?

1) Player does not know if a sword is magical. 2) Player cast detect magic. 3) Player learns the sword is magical.

That's normally how I preconceive that situation as unfolding, but I am willing to allow that, as you feel a good DM should have no preconceptions about these things you might have some notion that it could unfold differently.

I had hoped it was fairly clear that I meant "The rules leave the GM no choice."

Well, thats not 100% accurate, but I can mostly agree that a good DM should stay within the framework of the rules as much as possible and not try to cheat the players of fairly won or earned knowledge.

 

[Wicht]

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?

There are too many variables to answer that question? Who is the unconscious witness? Have the players successfully identified him as having a clue? Have they tracked him down? What spell?

This gets back to my problem with how you guys balance casters.

I don't think you really understand how I "balance" casters, no offense. Your comments seem to illustrate that you do not.

Because I have a very strong feeling that the answer to the above question is, "Well, does it make casters too good?"

The fact that you even think this would be a primary, secondary or tertiary consideration reveals your lack of understanding of my thinking in this regards.

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

Your assertion of cherry picking lacks evidence. Provide some or stop making the accusation please.

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.

Please reread my original quote. I mentioned player choices making the reveal of such information warranted.

Again you assertions lacks evidence and demonstrates you are not actually arguing against anything I am saying, you are just throwing around assertions of bad DMing and making a variety of mistaken assumptions because you are assuming things not actually being said.

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.

You are again making assertions that are not, as I perceive them, borne out by the actual conversation. Most of us are tossing out hypotheticals of possibilities rather than any illustrations of typical game play. That you would assume the hypothetical to be the norm illustrates your continued assumption of bad faith on the part of other DMs and their interactions with their players.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

1) Player does not know if a sword is magical. 2) Player cast detect magic. 3) Player learns the sword is magical.

That's normally how I preconceive that situation as unfolding, but I am willing to allow that, as you feel a good DM should have no preconceptions about these things you might have some notion that it could unfold differently.

That "sequence of events" isn't anywhere near as meaningful as actual story and campaign event sequences that the DM could or could not have planned out. However, there might be some play where the magic sword might be revealed to be magical if the players haven't used Detect Magic on it. I'd probably just say it as an aside if they went to sell it or something, assuming a shopkeeper who isn't in the business of keeping information from clients.

"Let's see, some boots, a nice cloak, a magic sword..."
"Hang on, the sword's magical?"
*shopkeeper looks at them quizzically*
"Uh, yeah, it is. Didn't cast Detect Magic on it, did you? Well, no worries, I can identify its properties for you if you'd like, though that service will cost you a few coins."

 

[pemerton]

1) Player does not know if a sword is magical. 2) Player cast detect magic. 3) Player learns the sword is magical.

How is that a GM's preconceived sequence of events? It all turns on step (2) and that is under the control of the players, not the GM.

I don't think that this is obvious at all, unless you mean something other than what you are actually saying. Why can I not, in an urban adventure, place traps, obstacles, and treasure just as I would in a dungeon?

And I most certainly can plant clues in an intrigue play that the players must use their abilities to uncover, same as in a dungeon...

What happens if the players have their PCs cast Detect Magic and start scanning the tavern, the marketplace, and the streets at the good end of town for magic items? The GM has to tell them what they detect, and typically that will not have been worked out in advance.

When we think about this within the broader dynamics of play, it is (at least in my experience) often an attempt by the players to instigate a certain sort of adventure - in effect, to have the GM frame their PCs into a chance to acquire magic loot by robbing from some unsuspecting victim. Or, if we make the detection Detect Evil or Know Alignment, then it's an attmempt to instigate a different sort of conflict.

Another example from my current 4e game: the players had their PCs take a bit of down time, and in that time the player of the paladin decided to have his PC try and track down the identities and activities of some Orcus cultists the PCs had defeated. In the context of this particular game, this was much like a random scanning with Detect Magic or Detect Evil - that player trying to instigate a particular sort of adventure.

The way in which the GM reponds to these sorts of attempts at instigating adventure is pretty central to different playstyles. In my own case I decided to say yes, and framed the paladin (with the party ranger-cleric in tow) into a scene in which he had followed up various leads and ended up at a shrine to Orcus hidden in a cave in the hills outside of town. The actual play commenced when I told them that they could see some sort of opening at the back of the cave, and they decided to start descending the stairs.

there might be some play where the magic sword might be revealed to be magical if the players haven't used Detect Magic on it. I'd probably just say it as an aside if they went to sell it or something, assuming a shopkeeper who isn't in the business of keeping information from clients.

I think this is a modest but nice illustration of different approaches.

If you're playing in the style advocated by Lewis Pulsipher, and by Gygax in his PHB and DMG, then if the players go to sell a magical sword without realising that it is magic that is their tough luck - part of the skill of play is identify magical items!

But in other approaches to the game, the GM will draw the players' attention to magical items that have been placed. At which point the idea of magic items as "rewards" starts to become less relevant - at a minimum they are no longer rewards for skilled play in the Gygaxian sense.

For instance, in my 4e game I simply point out the magical items to my players after they inspect them during a short rest (or sooner than that on a successful Arcana check). This is because, in this game, magic items aren't a reward; they're a component of PC-building.

 

[Wicht]

That "sequence of events" isn't anywhere near as meaningful as actual story and campaign event sequences that the DM could or could not have planned out.

I just wanted to clarify as I keep getting told that I must have a preconceived idea of how things will turn out but am not quite sure where the boundaries for this sort of offense are drawn.

 

[Wicht]

What happens if the players have their PCs cast Detect Magic and start scanning the tavern, the marketplace, and the streets at the good end of town for magic items? The GM has to tell them what they detect, and typically that will not have been worked out in advance.

Eh, okay, I can see winging that, though the answers would likely be noncommital (you detect a few items here or there, though nothing stands out) if I had not planned anything specific. But most of the time, there will be things planted in a well defined urban setting germane to the adventure. As said, I don't really like total off-the-cuff DMing if I can help it.

When we think about this within the broader dynamics of play, it is (at least in my experience) often an attempt by the players to instigate a certain sort of adventure - in effect, to have the GM frame their PCs into a chance to acquire magic loot by robbing from some unsuspecting victim.

I am guessing I am playing with a higher quality of player than you are in regards to moral fiber. Its not often a problem.

Still and all, if the players are trying to rob an unnamed NPC, then I will do a quick determination of what was in the pocket. Robbing someone with magic items however is going to be far more challenging than robbing a townsman of a few coin. But I see your point.

But... There are still challenges planted in a well designed urban adventure very similar to those planted in a dungeon, albeit with different window dressing.

 

[TwoSix]

I just wanted to clarify as I keep getting told that I must have a preconceived idea of how things will turn out but am not quite sure where the boundaries for this sort of offense are drawn.

It's not an offense, it's just (say it with feeling!) "not indie".