Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Jackinthegreen]

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.

Different games might fare better with different approaches like that. In terms of 3.5, I've noticed there are definitely some standard magic items that are heavily implied to be assumed and thus become "regular" gear, but there are also a few more circumstantial items that fit the bill for something so nicely that I can definitely see giving them out as rewards if not for "skilled play" then for going on a quest or otherwise putting a lot of effort and resources towards getting.


On the topic of some player-driven stuff versus a DM's "preconceived notions," I was once in a group playing a cleric with the Air domain. The party was captured and basically turned into gladiators and crap. During one of the matches there was magical fog in the arena. Naturally, I had my cleric use Control Winds to move the fog off. The DM got this look on his face that plainly said he not only hadn't foreseen this, but he was pissed off and didn't like how I had "ruined" the encounter. Even when I pointed out that, according to the rules on various fog spells, a strong or severe wind would disperse the fog in one round and since the Control Winds spell lasted for 10 minutes per level and didn't need me concentrating on it unless I wanted to change it, the fog should disperse and wouldn't be coming back for a while the DM was like "No, the fog comes back immediately."

That's what I'd call a preconceived notion. I suspect [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] would have at least been irate at that point (if not before since us getting captured was indeed BS) and probably even walked off by then. Luckily I didn't have to bother with that table for much longer because they stopped inviting me. At the time I was a bit dismayed, but now I realize the DM was full of himself and I dislike being around people with that kind of outlook.

 

[pemerton]

On the topic of some player-driven stuff versus a DM's "preconceived notions," I was once in a group playing a cleric with the Air domain. The party was captured and basically turned into gladiators and crap. During one of the matches there was magical fog in the arena. Naturally, I had my cleric use Control Winds to move the fog off. The DM got this look on his face that plainly said he not only hadn't foreseen this, but he was pissed off and didn't like how I had "ruined" the encounter. Even when I pointed out that, according to the rules on various fog spells, a strong or severe wind would disperse the fog in one round and since the Control Winds spell lasted for 10 minutes per level and didn't need me concentrating on it unless I wanted to change it, the fog should disperse and wouldn't be coming back for a while the DM was like "No, the fog comes back immediately."

That's what I'd call a preconceived notion. I suspect [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] would have at least been irate at that point (if not before since us getting captured was indeed BS) and probably even walked off by then. Luckily I didn't have to bother with that table for much longer because they stopped inviting me. At the time I was a bit dismayed, but now I realize the DM was full of himself and I dislike being around people with that kind of outlook.

I don't know that I would have walked away - everything else being equal, it is polite to see out the session - but I would have to have some very good reason to come back to this game (eg good friends playing it and I'm enjoying their company).

I think I may have mentioned upthread that I started my uni group by kicking out the GM and starting my own campaign. The GM's "heavy-handed" GMing was not as bad as what you describe here. I can't remember all of it, but some of it involved kobolds not being able to answer even simple questions under interrogation because being played as imbecilic, despite (per the rules) having average intelligence.

 

[pemerton]

Different games might fare better with different approaches like that. In terms of 3.5, I've noticed there are definitely some standard magic items that are heavily implied to be assumed and thus become "regular" gear, but there are also a few more circumstantial items that fit the bill for something so nicely that I can definitely see giving them out as rewards if not for "skilled play" then for going on a quest or otherwise putting a lot of effort and resources towards getting.

In 4e (at least, pre-Essentials), this distinction is at least roughly captured by the distinction between ordinary items and artefacts.

And I agree with you that there could be lots of good reasons, in different systems and with different playstyles, to take a range of different approaches to different items within the same game. Even back in the Gygaxian days, I get the impression that plenty of groups allowed purchasing scrolls and potions rather than having to "earn" them, but may not have taken quite the same approach to a Staff of the Magi!

 

[TwoSix]

I think I may have mentioned upthread that I started my uni group by kicking out the GM and starting my own campaign. The GM's "heavy-handed" GMing was not as bad as what you describe here. I can't remember all of it, but some of it involved kobolds not being able to answer even simple questions under interrogation because being played as imbecilic, despite (per the rules) having average intelligence.

And let's face it, most of the time you can tell that the DM is avoiding giving you the information the NPC would obviously have because it would ruin the next part of his game. If it was a case that the kobolds had already been established as being dumb as dirt, the table feel of the encounter would be totally different.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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

I read your reference to "the adventure" - and the idea of challenges which have been planted and are "germane" to that - and I wonder what exactly it means.

And this is not an attempt to trap you, or turn your words against you. It's a genuine curiosity - because I think I know what it means, but am not 100% certain.

I don't know how well you remember the closing pages (before the appendices) of Gygax's PHB. But in them he talks about the players getting together ahead of the session, planning out which room or rooms in the dungeon they will hit - or, alternatively, planning a scouting expedition whose aim is not to hit any rooms but rather to note possible targets for future sessions - and then choosing appropriate PCs from their stable of PCs, equipping those PCs appropriately, and so on. And Gygax notes that, once play is underway, the GM will do his/her best to distract the players from their goals (eg via wandering monsters and tricks & traps), but the players need to do their best not to be distracted.

In this sort of play, what is "the adventure"? There is a pre-planned location, but it is the players who are choosing the basic goal for the session, and the GM is providing antagonism - often in accordance with fairly strict rules around exploration, timekeeping and wandering monster checks - in opposition to that goal.

Or, to shift to a rather different style of play (my own - which is not very Gygaxian): in the session I described upthread, to which I provided a link for more info, the players initiated an investigation of Orcus cultists, I followed their lead and narrated into being a hidden Orcus temple, and out of that followed a sequence of events that led rather unexpectedly to the PCs bringing ruin upon the citadel of their duergar allies. What was "the adventure"? There were PCs with goals; and there was a setting with some known elements (including recently-defeated Orcus cultists); but there was no pre-planned "adventure" - no sequence of events through which the players were intended to take their PCs.

I don't really like total off-the-cuff DMing if I can help it.

You are correct to link "indie" style to improvisation. The GM has to be ready to improvise, at a minimum, outcomes to conflicts and then new conflicts that build on those outcomes. Possibly also antagonists. Possibly also allies. Possibly also environments. This is why the techniques for games intended to support this sort of play include robust support for this sort of improvisation. (In 4e, this can be seen in things like: charts to quickly build level-appropriate monsters; charts to build level-appropriate traps; charts for level-appropriate DCs and damage; guidelines on adjudicating unexpected manouevres in skill challenges (better handled in DMG2 than the DMG); a thematically strong but not-too-convoluted default cosmology that makes it easy to identify and clearly frame new antagonists; etc.)

One thing that 4e has not much of, but that other games intended to be played this way have more of, is mechanical devices to offload the improvisation onto the players - eg on a successful knowledge check the player gets to dictate the relevant backstory; on a failed check the GM gets to dictate it, in a fashion that will be in some way adverse to the players' desire for his/her PC in the particular situation.

 

[pemerton]

And let's face it, most of the time you can tell that the DM is avoiding giving you the information the NPC would obviously have because it would ruin the next part of his game. If it was a case that the kobolds had already been established as being dumb as dirt, the table feel of the encounter would be totally different.

Completely agree. It was an obvious device to roadblock us and railroad us.

 

[Wicht]

I read your reference to "the adventure" - and the idea of challenges which have been planted and are "germane" to that - and I wonder what exactly it means.

And this is not an attempt to trap you, or turn your words against you. It's a genuine curiosity - because I think I know what it means, but am not 100% certain.

The answer would depend on the style of adventure one is going through. In a more classical dungeon adventure, the adventure is centered on exploration, discovery, and survival. Challenges tend to be those which test the players ingenuity, their skill in battle and their "skill" as players. At the same time, there tends to be a cover story of character background and motivation and clues or developments germane to character growth or story advancement is interspersed among the other things.

While Gygax's proffered playstyle was often focused on advice for how to deal with dungeons as dungeon explorers, I think it would be a mistake to think his characters did not have motivations or that his stories did not have plot. Many of the classic published modules were thin on plot but that is not because Gygax discounted plot, but rather because he tried to offer products easily molded to a variety of plots, as in Keep on the Borderlands or Expedition to Barrier Peaks. While it is true that the players choose the goals for the session, the DM, in Gygax's mind, has already offered goals for the adventure. The sessions are merely building blocks in which the players attempt to fulfill the greater goals developed by the DM in backstory.

There has been a movement in recent years, and I mostly approve of it, to focus just a little more on plot and a little less on exploration in published adventures (a move which actually started under Gygax's supervision with other classic modules), but this does not necessarily denote a move away from Gygaxian play for some of us, just a reframing of priorities in print publications. I still present an overarching plot to my players, provide a set of possibilities and then let them (mostly) plan on making their own plans on how to deal with the rooms in the dungeon, or the characters in town, or where to go next. The framework of the game for me remains very close to what it was in 1e.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Again, a DMing style that is not advocated anywhere in the DMG (any edition) and a DMing style I would never follow. Nor would I play under.

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.

Then why are you bringing it up in a character balance thread? The whole point of this discussion is character balance. If you're not interested in character balance, don't care about it and rarely see it, then how in the heck is this a solution for anyone who actually does see this problem?

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

Note really. Stay within Sweet Spot 3.5e D&D (1st to about 11th level). That generally solves all of 3e's balance issues. Considering the vast majority of groups out there profess to play in the sweet spot, I doubt I'm alone in that.

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.

Wow. Really? Control the players? No thanks.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
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.

It's pretty difficult to see it any other way when EVERY SINGLE hypothetical always, 100% of the time, is the most restrictive or penalizing example that can be brought up. We cannot use our high level wizards to kidnap a frigging lizard man because of the hoops that some DM's bring up to jump through. We cannot charm the Chamberlain because now he has 3 pet wizards (just how rich is this setting anyway) making sure than no spells are cast in court.

Every single example that gets brought up is met with stonewalling by DM's. If these hypotheticals aren't meant to be methods for balancing casters against non-casters, then what the heck are you bringing them up for? This thread is about class balance. If you freely admit that all your examples are not actual illustrations of typical game play, then how can I possibly use them to help my game?

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.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page137#ixzz2iMWCMQsJ

You might not, but, I suggest you read some of the other posts in the thread. When taking a Heward's Haversack into a Rope Trick destroys everything inside the 'Sack, that's DM's Fiat to thwart casters since that interpretation doesn't actually appear in the rules. The rules say it's "hazardous" but that's it. But, N'raac interprets that to mean that a second level spell can destroy any and all magic items. Funny how all the complaints about using lower level spells to cast higher level spell ignore that little tidbit. I can destroy an artifact with a minor magic item and a second level spell, according to N'raac, but, hey, that's not "thwarting" casters at all.

On and on and on. I'd argue otherwise, except for the fact that in every single thread like this one, it always goes the same. Someone claims that the imbalance is there and that it's built into the rules. The edition defenders suddenly leap to the bulwarks to claim that there is no problem with the system and then go on to provide example after example after example where the DM chooses the most penalizing restriction he can get away with and then claiming that there is no bad faith in these interpretations.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Then why are you bringing it up in a character balance thread? The whole point of this discussion is character balance. If you're not interested in character balance, don't care about it and rarely see it, then how in the heck is this a solution for anyone who actually does see this problem?

What solution?

Note really. Stay within Sweet Spot 3.5e D&D (1st to about 11th level). That generally solves all of 3e's balance issues. Considering the vast majority of groups out there profess to play in the sweet spot, I doubt I'm alone in that.

Oh, that solution. Well, that's kind of built in to the game, seeing as how you're implicitly supposed to start at level 1. High-level play certainly has its problems. I wouldn't place class balance at the top of that list, but there are definitely problems, foremost the sheer bookkeeping and resource management.

But yes, there's a good reason why E6 exists.

Wow. Really? Control the players? No thanks.

You understand what a referee is, right?

As far as I'm concerned, the main point of having a rules system and a social contract associated with it is to provide a basis for saying no to things. It's an imaginary world. Anything is possible, unless someone or some rule says it isn't. And sometimes there are good reasons to say it isn't.