Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Mishihari Lord]

I like the immersion of mechanics. I think I posted about this upthread. If my PC is meant to be manipulative, I want to feel this in mechanical resolution. If my PC is meant to be steadfast, I want to feel this in mechanical resolution. (In 4e, dwarves are hard to push and to knock over. In combat, they play as steadfast. It's nice design that supports my immersion within the fiction.)

That's interesting. "Immersion" and "mechanics" are two words that usually don't go together. What you're talking about here sounds a lot like what's usually referred to as "associated" and "disassociated" mechanics. The interesting bit to me is that I hadn't realized that my dislike for dissociated mechanics was that it impinged on my immersion, I thought of it more as an aesthetic preference. On reflection though, the two seem to be very much related.

In general, I'm with Ahnenois on this one. (I'd imagine this comes as a surprise to no one. ) If I have to think about the mechanics my immersion goes *poof*. I prefer to interact with the game fiction as much as possible and let the DM handle the fiddly bits.

 

[Bluenose]

So how does that fit with worldbuilding? Do the DM and the players collaboratively build the world, its history, its peoples etc.^ before the campaign starts? I ask this because most of the backstory can come from a world's history and cultures, which not all characters might know much about.

Sometimes the world-building takes place during play. The dwarven kingdom of Eldrenmur (from my campaign world) developed in exactly that way. Initially there was nothing there except the existence of the kingdom, and a huge proportion of what exists now came out of the interaction during play of two people playing dwarf characters from there. The Unification War that broke out somewhat later was player-created too. And the result was largely influenced by what a group of interfering PCs did, to take this back towards the "How PCs affect the world" tangent.

 

[ImperatorK]

Anyone reads Darths & Droids?

 

[pemerton]

"Immersion" and "mechanics" are two words that usually don't go together.

<snip>

If I have to think about the mechanics my immersion goes *poof*. I prefer to interact with the game fiction as much as possible and let the DM handle the fiddly bits.

For me, the mechanics are the way whereby I interact with the game fiction. And if they don't align with the "flavour text" (what I called the colour in my earlier post) then for me the game breaks down.

For instance, if the flavour text says that my fighter is strong, but the mechanics deliver results that present my fighter as weak (eg I can't lift rocks, knock down doors, etc) then I don't have any immersion. The game has just become some arbitrary nonsense because there are two inconsistent fictions - the fiction of the flavour text, and the (conflicting) fiction generated by the resolution mechanics.

What you're talking about here sounds a lot like what's usually referred to as "associated" and "disassociated" mechanics.

I don't think so. There is nothing "dissociated" about a 4e dwarf's resistance to forced movement and being knocked prone. It is because they're short, stocky, and rooted to the earth.

My point was that, for me, it is also a mechanic that reinforces the flavour text of dwarves as steadfast and resolute. That also relates back to my earlier reply to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] about liking the personality of characters to be mechanically expressed.

 

[Ahnehnois]

"Roleplaying" I take as meaning "playing your character". "Metagaming" I take as meaning referring to or drawing upon considerations that do not exist within the gameworld as experienced by the PC, but are mechanical or other devices that matter at the table, or story elements known to the player but not within the ambit of the PC's experience.

Okay. You don't see the contradiction even in those basic definitions?

Understood in that way, I know from personal experience that metagaming is not antithetical to roleplaying and can in fact support it. The example is one I posted in a thread a bit like this one a couple of years ago now. The paladin had been turned into a frog by an NPC hexer. There were the usual jokes by the other player as they moved their token past the frog-token on the map during their turns of the combat - "Look out! Don't squash the frog", "Is it a frog or a toad", etc, etc". Then the effect ended as per the rules of the game. The paladin player's turn came up, and he had the PC advance on the hexer, saying something along the lines of "I'm going to defeat you in the name of the Raven Queen!" (This sort of stuff is the PC's default threat during combat.) The hexer (played by me, as GM) replied "I'm not scared of her or you - I already turned you into a frog!" And the player replied in character, without missing a beat "And she turned me back."

That is roleplaying - playing the character, and particularly the character's religious convictions. And the player was able to do that because the mechanics themselves did not tell us why the spell ended. They simply imposed a mechanical rule - the effect ends - and left it for the table to nominate the fiction, the ingame causal explanation. Which this player did. That is metagaming - drawing upon considerations that do not exist within the gameworld but are mechanical devices (ie that the effect must end, according to the rules), and upon story elements not within the ambit of the PC's experience (namely, the workings of the Raven Queen in relation to her followers and the hexers they might findt themselves fighting).

The way I read this example, it's not really metagaming in any meaningful way. The character may not understand why the effect ended, so he just made up an explanation. That explanation is somewhat illogical but has no impact on gameplay as I understand it.

I can think of a variety of more pertinent and typical examples of what metagaming is and why it's bad.

Furthermore, a system that limits the player to considering only the subjective experiences of the PC actually makes this impossible, because (except in very rare cases where the GM plays a god as a divinely intervening NPC) the PC never has direct experience of the workings of the divine, unless mediated via clerical magic.

I don't really understand what the point of this is. In most D&D worlds, I expect that "the divine" includes outsiders that regularly appear to the PCs; the Monster Manuals are invariably full of these things. Frankly, I think a D&D character would have an interesting answer to the question of how many handshakes he is from Asmodeus.

 

[N'raac]

First, only you and Ahnehnois - both of whom seem to have little familiarity with indie play - characterise it as involving "shared narrative". I have not used that phrase, and I don't believe that @TwoSix , @Manbearcat or @Jackinthegreen has either.

I think an important nuance to the indie playstyle is that when the players are ceded an amount of narrative authority, that also grants them a level of narrative responsibility. Many of N'raac's examples are based on the presupposition that the players will be trying to advance their character's interest ahead of the interests of the shared narrative. It's the responsibility of the players to not frame their goals and intentions in a way in which fictional positioning cannot be respected and from which no conflict can arise. To extend a metaphor a bit, if the DM frames the characters into a frying pan, the players are supposed to get the characters out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Emphasis added. In fairness, I had thought the term arose more frequently than it did.

Second, as TwoSix's most recent post shows, it is the "indie" players who are pointing out that certain rulesets cause balance issues because when pushed hard by the players they break down. It is you - the non-indie player - who is saying that player forbearance can contribute to play balance. Which may well be true for you, but in my view is not true in indie style (for the reasons that TwoSix gives).

I would not use “player forebearance” (the player chooses not to use his character’s abilities to their full effect) so much as a player understanding that unbalanced results are bad for the game, so let’s ensure abilities have a reasonable, comparable measure of utility. That includes reading spells in context, and not assuming the best, or the worst, possible results of any perceived ambiguity.

There's a contingent of roleplayers who don't feel talking in a funny voice does a whole lot to really define a character. Other people feel differently. It's nothing to feel put-down about when people don't necessarily like what you like. (Although @Aenghus makes an excellent point about the slow loss of a gaming community that reflects one's personal preference.)

Why is “thespianise” equated to “speak in a funny voice”? Playing in character, demonstrating his beliefs through his actions, and providing (or not sharing) information consistent with your player’s personality, rather than providing a background sheet from an author’s perspective, do not require “speaking in a funny voice”. Again, the concept is being dismissed out of hand in your comments.

"Roleplaying" I take as meaning "playing your character". "Metagaming" I take as meaning referring to or drawing upon considerations that do not exist within the gameworld as experienced by the PC, but are mechanical or other devices that matter at the table, or story elements known to the player but not within the ambit of the PC's experience.

Understood in that way, I know from personal experience that metagaming is not antithetical to roleplaying and can in fact support it. The example is one I posted in a thread a bit like this one a couple of years ago now. The paladin had been turned into a frog by an NPC hexer. There were the usual jokes by the other player as they moved their token past the frog-token on the map during their turns of the combat - "Look out! Don't squash the frog", "Is it a frog or a toad", etc, etc". Then the effect ended as per the rules of the game. The paladin player's turn came up, and he had the PC advance on the hexer, saying something along the lines of "I'm going to defeat you in the name of the Raven Queen!" (This sort of stuff is the PC's default threat during combat.) The hexer (played by me, as GM) replied "I'm not scared of her or you - I already turned you into a frog!" And the player replied in character, without missing a beat "And she turned me back."

Nothing set out above seems “indie-unique”. It is not necessary that the Raven Queen have turned the character back, nor does that aspect have any bearing on game resolution. The PC’s beliefs are role played in his belief that “luck” on his part is “divine guidance” by the Raven Queen. True or false, the results will be the same. Why did she “let” him be turned into a frog in the first place?

Furthermore, a system that limits the player to considering only the subjective experiences of the PC actually makes this impossible, because (except in very rare cases where the GM plays a god as a divinely intervening NPC) the PC never has direct experience of the workings of the divine, unless mediated via clerical magic. Having played religious PCs in the past, I am actually very aware of how process-simulation mechanics in conjunction wtih an instance upon this sort of non-metagamed RP actually make it very hard to maintain sincere religious belief on the part of the PC, because you are never able to confidently affirm that you have had experience of the divine directly in the world (except for clerical magic).

I’m going to leave this one alone. It strikes me as carrying far too great a potential for crossing over into a real-world religion discussion which cannot end well.

This isn't true for my group. If the two PCs have different personalities, then this should be reflected in their PC build - and a game that doesn't have that degree of "heft" in its build rules is therefore not a good fit for my group.

When I played Rolemaster it was very effective for this. For instance, you look down the PC sheet of a demon-summoning wizard and see a high Lie Perception (=Insight) skill, a high Duping (=Bluff) skill, but other social skills all pretty mediocre - and you can tell that this guy is a manipulative bastard with a heart of stone. (As indeed he was.)

Compared to his wizard friend whose Lie Perception and Duping are find, but so is his Seduction, his Bargaining, his Pleading, his Public Speaking, his Interrogation, his Intimidation. This is someone with a huge personality, gregarious, able to dominate any social situation he finds himself in.

So two gregarious, socially skilled characters, and two manipulative characters, cannot be different in any other way. A high Insight and Bluff could be a manipulative bastard or a charming con man (and nothing precludes a “heart of gold”). The fellow with vast social skills could be a ruthless, manipulative bastard caring about nothing but his own rise to, say, political power. An inability to have a personality beyond the mechanics strikes me as a flaw in a role player. Certainly, I look to personality and ask “what kind of skills would this person learn”, but a cold-hearted ruthless bastard out solely for himself could pursue that with many different skill sets.

And none of those characters need a "funny voice" to be effectively role played.

 

[Manbearcat]

Nice writeup.

Would that it wrote itself...takes 20 minutes to run (at most) and 40 minutes to post. if only I had an assemblage of online, intrepid heroes to play-by-post and help scribe the ballad! Next time I'm enlisting you and @Campbell!

the PCs in my game recruited the soldiers in Phaevorul (P2 Demon Queen's Enclave) as allies, they got a minor action "boon" that let them call in an AoE from their archers, with a level-appropriate attack for a few d6 damage. It's a nice way to handle this sort of thing.

Having absolutely zero backstory with this one, that was the first thing that came to mind. Fictional positioning being a contingent of archers camping outside the lair, moving in the PCs wake through the lair, PCs give a signal (perhaps a horn) and archers assemble on the (lair equivalent of) ramparts and let loose a volley as a single-use consumable boon.


I'll post the analysis of the above from a:

- Wargamer table agenda/mechanics etc (1eish)
- AD&D 2e/CoC Storyteller
- Process sim/causal logic sandbox (the way I ran 3.x)

The Wargamer angle is pretty simple. The aesthetic is typically that the regard for the fictional positioning and genre constraints is subordinate to defeating challenges; hence the murderhobos phenomenon. There are several instances in that Skill Challenge of usage of sub-optimal skills due to coherency of fictional position.

The Storyteller and process/sim sandbox one will be a lot more nuanced and require a more lengthy post.

 

[N'raac]

Whereas, for me, the purpose of a rules system and a social contract associated with it is to facilitate resolving any action which the DM or players initiates in the game world. Sometimes, sure, that resolution will be "that's not possible". Fair enough. But, more often than not, it's, "Well, let's see what happens shall we?"

Which is not how you are presenting your game. You have already decided what will happen. The Chamberlain will not let you pass. That random woman in the bar will not talk to you. The lizard man will always have someone come looking for him when he disappears for a couple of hours. etc. etc.

Once again, you seem to mistake “can happen occasionally” with “will always happen”. All of these items seem perfectly in keeping with “Sometimes, sure, that resolution will be "that's not possible". Fair enough. But, more often than not, it's, "Well, let's see what happens shall we?" If it’s not, then I agree we have a bad game. I doubt Ahnehnois reads his players out the game events from a pre-written script, and he’s the strongest proponent I see for any form of “predestination”.

To me, the only reason we have mechanics is to determine what happens when the outcome is in question. And, by "in question" I mean by anyone at the table, not just the DM. That woman in the bar might not be terribly friendly, sure, and if some average Joe with no ranks in diplomacy walks up, most likely he'll be rebuffed. But, my character is analogous to James Bond. How often does Bond get flat out turned down? True, I'm sure it's happened, but, by and large, a player playing James Bond should reasonably expect success when trying to pick up a woman in a bar.

Sure. And a failure means he should know something is unusual. Let’s turn that around – make James and the woman at the bar both PC’s. Now, the D&D model says James fails if the other PC says he fails. But maybe this would be better resolved through both of their mechanics, whether hers is a blanket immunity or a substantial resistance.

Note, the archons were in response to the "constructs" comment from Wicht. Most of which cannot fly, and many of which lack a ranged attack. And, invisibility is not broken by summoning spells.

My comment was to your “improved invisibility” phrasing. Standard Invisibility is broken by attacking, which does not include summoning. Greater invisibility (which is the renamed Improved Invisibility) is broken by neither. Now, are you carrying that L6 summon spell in case of constructs, or are you carrying other spells that work better against non-constructs? Wizards can do many things, but not all at the same time. And they seldom get to stop combat so they can rest for the night and change their spells.

And there it is. Now wizards must shout at the top of their lungs in order to cast spells. Hrm, hearing in battle is a -10 to Listen checks. There's no reason that I can't whisper, which is DC 15, so DC 25 to listen. Oh, and I'm 50 feet away, so, that makes the DC 30 (note, I can be further away than that if I wanted to be). Listen is not a class skill for a fighter, which means that his Max Rank is 8 and it's unlikely the fighter has more than a +2 for Wis. IOW, he's got a 1 in 20 chance of hearing the wizard. Even with normal speaking, that still means a 50/50 chance of hearing, still forcing a 50% miss chance.

Emphasis added. JC has covered the rules well and thoroughly – you are ignoring the actual rules, which require you to “speak in a strong voice”, NOT whisper. Again, let’s ignore any rule that provides a disadvantage to the Wizard, then complain about how overpowered he is.

But, yup, let's interpret the rules in the most punishing way possible for casters.

Let’s actually read the rules and not discard all the ones that are not in the caster’s favour.

So, where is it written that putting a bag of holding in a Rope Trick destroys magic items? Hazardous could simply be a d4 damage. Random effects. Various other things could happen. But, no, "actually reading the spells" means that magic items get destroyed.

While I’d like it better clarified, I think “hazardous” bespeaks real danger, not a minor nuisance. But let’s keep interpreting the rules in the manner which most overpowers spellcasters. I like the Pathfinder structure that removes the hazard in favour of shutting down the ID space within an ID space. You can haul your Haversack into the Rope Trick, but its contents are no longer accessible while within. Sounds like not a big deal – unless the spellbook you need to study was in there. Can you climb a rope with the book in your hands?

 

[N'raac]

@Manbearcat, there’s a lot in your play summary post, and it’s a nice example. It’s tough to have a thematic encounter as a one off, so I suspect this is a tough Indie scene from that perspective (eg are the baby, the fire drakes, etc. part of an ongoing theme, or random additions?).

What I do find is that we have lost the original theory that the Chamberlain is highly reluctant to admit the characters to see the King. He really doesn’t seem very difficult or even challenging to circumvent. Skimming back down the play report, I see six successes in a row – no failures. Basically, the entire scene seems like shared storytelling, rather than three players and a GM.
It seems like a fine play session, sure, but it doesn’t seem like the PC’s had any risk of failure. They didn’t really seem challenged by any of the challenges, and I certainly didn’t see the stubborn, strong-willed Chamberlain unwilling to allow the PC’s an audience with the King.

To (ab)use @permerton’s recent comments, the mechanics seem inconsistent with the description of the Chamberlain.

 

[TwoSix]

That's interesting. "Immersion" and "mechanics" are two words that usually don't go together. What you're talking about here sounds a lot like what's usually referred to as "associated" and "disassociated" mechanics. The interesting bit to me is that I hadn't realized that my dislike for dissociated mechanics was that it impinged on my immersion, I thought of it more as an aesthetic preference. On reflection though, the two seem to be very much related.

Oh boy, now that we have "disassociated" in the mix, this is pretty much a greatest hits version of some of the previous threads on these topics!

In general, I'm with Ahnenois on this one. (I'd imagine this comes as a surprise to no one. ) If I have to think about the mechanics my immersion goes *poof*. I prefer to interact with the game fiction as much as possible and let the DM handle the fiddly bits.

To me, that creates an interesting contradiction of choosing one of the most mechanically crunchy games on the market to preferring to ignore those same mechanics when you're at the table. It would seem like a rules-light game would fit those preferences better.