Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[TwoSix]

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.

Well, the fire drakes tied into the Ranger PC's paragon path choice of Wyrmslayer. And the sacrificial baby was added in by the same player, so there may be a rationale there. It could easily be a method of raising the stakes of the encounter, and explaining why the chamberlain had no desire for the PCs to be there. (Most people don't want to be seen feeding babies to dragons, after all.)

And the chamberlain only relented after almost being eaten by dragons, and his baby-tribute ploy being averted. Since we're at "kingdom in crisis" mode here, why not pass off the PCs to the King at this point, especially since the King had obviously signed off on the plan?

Also, as [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] pointed out, getting a 6-0 result on the skill challenge was unexpected. I'll assume the characters had a 22 in the relevant stat (18 base, +4 at 14th level, a solid assumption for 4e since the skill checks were all based on primary or secondary stats for the characters in question). That makes their base skill chance a +18 (+5 trained, +6 stat, +7 levels). With a DC of 25, and a hard DC of 29 used once, we'd expect a baseline of 2 failures. Only the deployment of character resources (action points and character abilities) prevented these failures on several occasions.

 

[Manbearcat]

@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.

What you're seeing there is:

- PCs framed directly into a scene with conflict whereby the chamberlain is adversarial to them being there (we haven't even broached the subject of the king at that point).

- However, his obstinance is not set in stone. He is predisposed toward adversarialism with the PCs and wanting them gone, but ultimately, his malleability/ultimate position on the PCs (their legitimacy as protagonissts and right to audience with the king and ultimate support) up for grabs via mechanical resolution. To that end:

A: The Paladin speaks (literally) with the divine voice of Bahamut, cowing the chamberlain.

B: PCs successfully read the anxious chamberlain, expose the situation, and put him in a spot due to the macabre nature of the ordeal he is overseenig.

C: The drakes arrive immediately thereafter, putting him into a further spot as the drakes enragte at the impudence and lack of fealty on display here.

D: Within the nested combat skill challenge, the PCs (i) save the chamberlain (the most important part), (ii) lay easy waste to the drakes thus proving their mettle, (iii) take measures to ensure that the remaining drake will be discinclined toward retribution against the chamberlain/kingdom.

At that point the chamberlain's disposition is determined...by the marriage of mechanical resolution and the fictional positioning.
The stunning success of the Skill Challenge is extremely anomalous (my PCs succeed at maybe 3 of every 4 and I've seen a "flawless victory" perhaps 3 other time). Lots of things could have changed:

- The actual complicating event on the portico balcony could have been different and thus the decision-points and evolution of fiction would have been starkly different.

- Failures could have been accrued in multiple, key areas that would have changed things.

- The Paladin could have failed his Endurance check which would have meant a gravely hurt chamberlain and thus opened it up for a possible Heal effort by the Ranger or Paladin in the future which would have again changed the fictional positioning and possibly the overall results.

- The PCs could have failed the nested skill challenge in total which would have meant a failure in the overall challenge, but more importantly, a chamberlain who is neither obstinate nor receptive...but rather dead!

- The PCs could have lost the skill challenge overall which could have meant any number of things depending on the aggregate fictional positioning to that point; eg refusal by the king to help or refusal by the chamberlain to even see the king. That could have led to a physical confrontation or the PCs resolving themselves to save the kingdom despite the lack of sponsorship fromt the king.

In summation, what you're seeing is exactly what we've been talking about; (i) GM framed conflict with a lack of fixed, preset fictional positioning, (ii) player resource scheme that empowers everyone to express their thematics and protagonism and impose their will upon the fiction by (iii) deploying resources to mechanically resolve an evolving narrative...(iv) establishing backstory and setting the formerly malleable fictional positioning.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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.

I don't think it's so much a choice. If there were a hundred equally popular, available, and well-known rpgs, who in their right mind would choose any version of D&D? There aren't. And once you've internalized the tropes of D&D, they become unobtrusive and easy to ignore (and changes to them become extremely noticeable).

 

[Abraxas]

An Obstinate Chamberlain, a Forlorn King, and 3 Dragon-slaying PCs walk onto a portico

I'm curious what the PC skill modifiers were for the various rolls made.
Would you be so kind as to post them?

Also, when one player determines what is present in the game world (the baby in your example) how do you deal with the situation where that determination doesn't work well with 1) another player or 2)with the game world as established by the players so far?

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm curious what the PC skill modifiers were for the various rolls made.
Would you be so kind as to post them?

Also, when one player determines what is present in the game world (the baby in your example) how do you deal with the situation where that determination doesn't work well with 1) another player or 2)with the game world as established by the players so far?

Hey Abraxas. Sure, when I get home tonight I'll post the relevant stuff for each character (and I'm fairly sure I can reconstruct the rolls from memory...we played a full session of our normal game after that but I think I can pull them out of there.)

To be honest, I was somewhat disappointed with the way it turned out. The most fun I generally have is generating complication/adversity from failures and seeing where the PCs take us after that. And I enjoy the setbacks of a lost Skill Challenge and seeing what happens afterward.

I was actually expecting the player of the Ranger was going to generate a trunk with all manner of Tiamat cultist paratphenelia and the PCs just walked in on the preparations for a seance to summon an Aspect for guidance or some such (with the chamberlain is the cult leader). Tribute was the easy guesss.

As far as your last question, to be honest, that hasn't really come up with our group. We've played a lot of games with heavy player authority to generate content/create backstory so I suppose we're just synched to that end. The way I would handle it is just to make sure that genre conceits/constraints are calibrated, table-wide, before play begins. @ mentioned a genre credibility test against which fictional positioning is measured. That is pretty much the way its done. The same would reply for thematic archetype or backstory test. For instance, one easy rule of thumb is that the players have thematic insurance. I cannot frame them into a scene/conflict that is problematic for the archetype they've carved out (eg a master thief who is framed directly into a conflict with a merchant lord and his guards after he has gaffed his effort to break into the vault). The same "insurance" applies PC to PC. In the "credibility test" framework, you can sub PC thematic archetype and backstory as well.

If for whatever reason, a player introduced content that is truly incoherent with respected to established continuity/backstory, we'll sort it out as a table and resolve toward coherency. If this were a table with people I didn't know and a player willfully, belligerently (and repeatedly) violated coherency, I'd have sort them out and offer them the door. If its just a case of lack of proficiency, I'd (we, as a table rather) work with them until they became good at it (just like anything else). However, with clever players and GMing, its amazing what you can do to mesh new, seemingly incoherent, content with established backstory/continuity and make it work.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Nervous, pacing chamberlain

<snip>

The players are escorted through large, open double doors into the chambelain's pacing presence. He immediately protests vociferously to the contingent of guards that let them in and begins berating everyone involved, including the PCs, shooing them away.

<snip>

The chamberlain, now looking the part of awed, afraid, and dreadfully anxious attempts a mumbling, incoherent response while looking over his shoulder out toward the open balcony and then back around the room. His nervous eyes meet the halfling Rogue momentarily. "I'm chilled. Lets speak inside..." he says.

<snip>

The chamberlain looks back at the stalling Ranger who is making his way over to the covered object. The chamberlain moves in hastily, beginning to protest, saying "No, no, don't touch that, no…guards…do something”...

<snip>

The chamberlain blanches in horror.

<snip>

As a rattled drake flies off (poorly), an equally rattled chamberlain beseeches a guard contingent to bring the king.

The chamberlain starts out nervous and pacing, and tries to stop the PCs uncovering his secret. Then, when the PCs drive off the drakes he calls the king. [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] interpreted this the same way I did - the crisis having reached its climax, the chamberlain hands the problem to the king.

That strikes me as a pretty typical way to run this sort of scene - I've certainly experienced it in my own game - the intervention of the PCs pushes things to a crescendo, which means that matters escalate above the paygrade of the flunkies, and the real movers and shakers get called in. I think this fits with my conception of D&D as gonzo high fantasy. It doesn't have as many resources to do subtle/gritty fantasy (for instance, look at the PCs [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] described - they are not subtle agents, but include a living exemplar of the god of heroism and draconic glory).

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.

I don't understand why 6 successes in a row makes it not 3 players and a GM. I've run combats in which the players get six hits in a row. I don't see why non-combat should play out any differently. (If the PCs teleport in and kill their enemy in one surprise-round nova, does that mean its "shared storytelling" rather than 3 players and a GM?)

Here are the key parts of the post:

The Dragonborn Paladin draws upon the power of his god, Bahamut (Daily Prayer of Bahamut's Voice and Initimdate): "Do we look the part of petulant nobles or squabbling landowners. We are here on a divine quest. The platinum dragon has an interest in this kingdom's liberation...and he will be heard."

<snip>

The Rogue wants to know why he is so nervous and the player voices that he believes that they may have interrupted something that they probably aren't meant to see (this is a player cue). He passes the Easy DC of Insight and passes a+ 2 to the Ranger. He wants to know who and where he looks as he moves toward them trying to usher them out of the room. I tell him that he subtley nods to a ranking guard and his eyes pass over something that is covered, which is slightly obscured by a pillar. The Rogue issues an overt nod to the Ranger who is nearest the object.

<snip>

A pair of guards move to intercept the Ranger but a successful Athletics (and the drop on them with the + 2 from the Rogue) yields another success. He gets there first and pulls the cover off.

<snip>

the Rogue saunters over and picks up one of its dislodged scales from the floor. He pulls a (useless) scroll from his belt and in the same ancient tongue, he threatens the drake with a powerful geas ritual of nslavement should the drake play a part in any retribution against the people of the city. He spends an Action Point and uses Resourceful Action (+ 5 due to roll), ensuring success.

<snip>

The Ranger incredulously condescends (tactfully) to the king, assertively describing the ecology and behavior of the Red Dragon...that it dominates everything in its region until there is nothing left to dominate...at that point it will grow tired and malicious...torturing or devouring its prey once the tribute runs out.

<snip>

The Rogue piles on by comparing the Red Dragon in behavior to a demon, making a comparison to a demonic overlord who would just as soon pluck your legs from your body to savor the scream as it would put you to work.

<snip>

“I understand the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few… but this (pointing at the tribute) madness cannot be allowed to continue. The Platinum Dragon gave to me a dream of this place. It is manifest destiny that we have come. Join our cause and let us rid your people of this enslavement and you of this ignoble burden.”

That all looks like bog-standard action declaration to me, then resolved via skill checks and GM narration of the consequences based on the declared goal. How else would you expect a social encounter to play out and be resolved?

The only bit that is shared storytelling that I can see is the player of the ranger getting to nominate the reveal under the cloth. I generally don't run my game that way, and found it interesting to see a scene played out where the players exercised that sort of authority.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm curious what the PC skill modifiers were for the various rolls made.
Would you be so kind as to post them?

I answered the second question in the above post so here are the characters skills and deployed resources (in order with no accompanying fiction):

1 - Bahamut's Voice Daily Prayer. Effect: Until the end of the encounter, you can speak Supernal as if you were a god or angel, such that any creature that has a language can understand your speech. In addition, you gain a +5 bonus to Diplomacy checks and Intimidate checks while speaking Supernal through this power.

Intimidate: + 7 (L) + 6 (AM) + 5 (TR) + 2 (R) + 5 (BV) = 25 vs Medium DC 21 and rolled something in the mid-range.

2 - Insight: + 7 (L) + 3 (AM) + 2 (F) = 12 vs Easy DC 15 (secondary skill/support action for Ranger) and rolled something mid-range.

3 - Athletics: + 7 (L) + 3 (AM) + 5 (TR) + 2 (F) + 2 (^)= 19 vs Medium DC 21 and rolled high.

4 - Endurance: + 7 (L) + 3 (AM) + 5 (TR) + 2 (TH) = 17 vs Medium DC 21 and rolled a 5 so right near the number. A failure here would have changed the future fiction quite a bit. A subsequent failed Heal check (with no one trained - I think the Ranger had a 15 though with background and theme) to stabilize/admin first aid would have meant a dead chamberlain.

5 - Acrobatics: + 7 (L) + 5 (AM) + 5 (TR) + 2 (R) = 19 v Medium DC 21 and rolled a 7 I believe.

6 - p42 Weapon Attack: + 7 (L) + 5 (AM) + 3 (P) + 3 (ENC) + 2 (PS) + 2 (F) = 22 vs of-level AC 29. Roll initially missed with a 3 but player deployed Dragon-Slayers Action for a reroll and hit.

7 - Religion: + 7 (L) + 2 (AM) + 5 (TR) + 2 (B) = 16 vs Medium DC 21 and rolled a 5 so right on the number.

8 - Success accrued in the primary Skill Challenge for the victory in the Nested Skill Challenge.

9 - Bluff: + 7 (L) + 4 (AM) + 5 (TR) + 2 (TH) + 5 (RA) = 18 > 23 (player deployed resourceful action) vs Medium DC 21 and rolled...something that wasn't a negative 3...I don't recall...mid-range I think but I don't believe I paid any attention.

10 - Nature: + 7 (L) + 4 (AM) + 5 (TR) + 2 (PP) [+ 2 (PS) on reroll] = 18 vs Hard DC 29 initially missed as the player rolled a 7. Rogue deployed Problem Solver, giving him a reroll with a + 2. Ranger rolled a 13 on reroll.

11 - Diplomacy: + 7 (L) + 6 (AM) + 5 (TR) + 5 (BV) + 2 (^) = 25 vs Medium DC 21 and rolled something low-mid.

 

[Manbearcat]

That strikes me as a pretty typical way to run this sort of scene - I've certainly experienced it in my own game - the intervention of the PCs pushes things to a crescendo, which means that matters escalate above the paygrade of the flunkies, and the real movers and shakers get called in. I think this fits with my conception of D&D as gonzo high fantasy. It doesn't have as many resources to do subtle/gritty fantasy (for instance, look at the PCs @Manbearcat described - they are not subtle agents, but include a living exemplar of the god of heroism and draconic glory).

Yeah. It struck me as a pretty run-of-the-mill social encounter. My guess is that most 4e GMs would look at it and say "yup, looks pretty familiar!"

I would have liked more conflict. If the Paladin would have failed his Endurance check to protect the chamberlain, and then a subsequent Heal check would have failed, that would have been an interesting turn of events.

And no, 4e is not about subtle agents. To that end, as much as I love the 4e incarnation of the Fighter, I think the 4e Paladin may just have the most thematic punch to it and the perfect marriage of mechanics. Its really a great class. Abilities such as Bahamut's Voice or Platinum Wings is truly awesome. I rather wish one of my players was a Paladin so I could see it in play more often. I know you enjoy playing Paladins. If you didn't live in Antarctica or on the moon, you could be channeling the voice of your god in my game!

Further, in light of the thread, it would have probably been most constructive if I ran the scene with a Fighter and a Wizard. I can easily enough extrapolate how things would have gone but it would have been a good example of how the two can stand on the same ground in furthering the successful resolution of a social scene.

That all looks like bog-standard action declaration to me, then resolved via skill checks and GM narration of the consequences based on the declared goal. How else would you expect a social encounter to play out and be resolved?

Yup. Bog-standard.

The only bit that is shared storytelling that I can see is the player of the ranger getting to nominate the reveal under the cloth. I generally don't run my game that way, and found it interesting to see a scene played out where the players exercised that sort of authority.

Part of the reason that I use that technique is because its fun for me to have to take a newly contrived scene element and adjust/improvise in real time. I just personally enjoy that. Secondary to that is that my players enjoy it, it gives them autonomy to explicitly cue me and impose upon the fiction. Tertiary to that is that I'm lucky to have 3 extremely creative, fast-on-their-feet players (which helps combat move swiftly as well).

I honestly don't remember the last time that I could say that a scene wasn't better for usage of such a technique.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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?

Yup. I hand it to my friend and he chucks it up to me after I climb up. Are you really saying this is a serious limitation?

And, if these are meant to be means by which we restrict caster power, which everyone here is claiming that it is, then it has to be true every time. A restriction that's only true when the DM feels like it isn't really a restriction is it? The Chamberlain is charmable except when he's not? NPC's can be diplomatized, except when they can't?

((And, BTW, how is a Summon Monster 6 spell not effective against pretty much anything? Against constructs it's fantastic. But, good grief, I can summon a Bralani which gets Charm spells - nicely effective against that fighter, or a Giant Constrictor Snake with Improved Grab and a +23 Grapple check - Goodbye Mr. Fighter))

If these are restrictions on caster power, they have to be done every time, or now it's Mother May I. Can I use these character abilities? Well, I don't know. Maybe I can or maybe I can't, it's out of my hands. Depends on how the DM feels at the moment.

Can you explain how an occasional restriction counts as a balancing mechanic?

 

[Manbearcat]

Going to do the analysis of the above play-post with other agendas/systems in the coming days. I'm also going to do a post on the 3.x DMG and the agendas that it promotes, its level of coherency with respect to its design ethos, what it has to say about "default DMing" and what it has to say about many other things in this thread (mostly about GM-force and, yes, Calvinball). Most of it is going to be disputing positions taken in this thread on the aforementioned issues. However, that is going to take me more than a few days, so I just want to post something right quick to get it out of the way; a retraction and an apology.

@N'raac has asserted that default 3.x implied setting asserts a thriving "magic item economy" where magic items have basically been turned into commodities. I didn't read much about the setting stuff in the DMG and didn't follow a lot of the nebulous advice as I found the 3.x DMG a pretty poor book back in the day, I had my GMing style, and I knew what I wanted to do with the ruleset and what principles it was built around. In reviewing the 3.x DMG Campaign section, it is extremely clear in multiple entries there, that N'raac's take on the default is orthodox and my own is deviant (although I still hold that it makes plenty of sense as I've used it throughout all of my campaigns). 3.x process-sim nature, "there's a rule for everything" and granular setting components that are spurred by in-world association and internal consistency make it clear that all of the magic item creation rules/costs/etc are part and parcel to a thriving "magic as commodity" world; they are not metagame tools for the GM. I remember now that this was one of the facets of the game that turned many-a-grog off (among other things).

Anyway, my take on that was off and I bridged my off-take by stating that such a setting paradigm was quintessential for certain adversarial GMing towards spellcasters. I was wrong on my take and unfair on the extrapolation. Consider my wrongness owned, and this an apology to N'raac for a poor 2nd order extrapolation borne of 1st order wrongness.

Beyond that, I still hold my position firmly on the rest of it and will have a post in a few days on what I noted in the 1st paragraph above.