Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Ahnehnois]

Of course I have. But adopting the perspective of the character is not the same thing as making decisions solely on the basis of what the character is experiencing within the fiction of the gameworld.

Yes, it is. I'm not even sure what hair you're trying to split here.

Two examples. Adopting the perspective of my character, I might think it would be desirable to engage a group of enemies in combat. Therefore, I use Come and Get It and pull those enemies in around my character. On most interpretations of the power, Come and Get It has some metagame dimensions. But it doesn't require thinking outside the perspective of my character.

Or: adopting perspective of my character, I realise that two alternatives - A and B - are open to me. A seems like it will clearly be more fun, so my character chooses A. That is metagaming, but it hasn't required abandoing the perspective of my character, though I've supplemented that with a desire for fun at the table.

Both of those are clearly examples of temporarily abandoning the character's perspective. Doing so isn't some kind of unforgivable sin, but it is outside the strict literal definition of roleplaying.

Relative to the acting comparison, these are analagous to actors who give a wink and a nudge to the audience and break the third wall a bit. Occasionally you can do that kind of stuff, and sometimes it's good not to take yourself seriously, but it isn't what acting is about.

I expect my players to take account of the maths of the game - how else are they meant to make meaningful decisions about expending resources?

The same way you or I do. We guess. Educated guesses, mostly.

And how else are they meant to emulate their PCs' understanding of the ingame situation - working with the maths of the game is the analogue, for the players, of their PCs receiving and acting upon sensory experience.

Sensory experiences don't give you information as specific as the DC of a check (or attack). And they're quite fallible, as well. I see nothing wrong with creating an experience for the players that matches that.

I would not play in a game in which the GM did this. It's a very narrow conception of roleplaying - "illusionism", the GM's deliberate creation of an illusion of meaningful choice on the part of the players, when in fact s/he is manipulating the fiction via secret backstory to generate whatever outcomes s/he thinks desirable.

As far as I can tell, anything you don't understand or appreciate is "narrow". In this case, it's obviously misapplied. The DM can do just about anything he can imagine. The players can do just about anything their characters could imagine. That's not narrow. The only limitation is a very intuitive one: the players can't metagame.

Now, trying to create some kind of conceit whereby two characters of completely different backgrounds, archetypes, and capabilities must be precisely "balanced" with each other, that's narrow.

 

[pemerton]

Dragons that are, it seems, pretty easily routed, so how much power does this King or kingdom actually have?

<snip>

success intimidating the Drake, means that there can’t be a much greater threat out there, perhaps enough to explain why the King is appeasing, rather than opposing, the dragons

I thought [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] referred to drakes. I assumed that these were servitors of the dragon, who sits in a cave like Smaug or Glaurung, waiting for the sacrifices.

You also seem to be finding it odd that mid-paragon PCs would be peers of the king, and have capabilities that rival the king's. That is, you seem to be reading mid-paragon play through the lens of mid-heroic genre expectations.

The 4e mechanics as played out in the scene above didn’t present a stubborn, strong-willed Chamberlain to me. Did you see a strong-willed, stubborn Chamberlain who truly challenged the social skills of the PC’s?

Yes. He only relented to their desires once they saved him from the drakes. It's pretty classic fantasy story of redemption via heroism - the evil doer who thinks his evil is jusitified by the greater good relents when the heroes show him that standing up to evil is a viable strategy.

For reasons that I'm sure he will explain if he wants to, Manbearcat framed this as a complexity 2 challenge. Had he framed it as complexity 5 (12 successes before 3 failures) then the interaction with the chamberlain would have taken longer, and more checks, to resolve. It partly depends on how much fun one thinks it is to banter with an obstinate chamberlain, I guess.

I was called down earlier for not letting players learn of the backstory (like the attitude of the Chamberlain), but here it seems there is no word amongst the townsfolk about dragons regularly visiting the tower of the King (no one notices them swooping to the balcony and shortly thereafter departing without hostilities?). To say nothing of any lack of knowledge on the part of the public that the King is handing over babies (how often, to keep the Drakes satisfied? Where did they come from?) to appease the Dragons.

I don't understand this - where is the secret backstory in Manbearcat's example, that is shaping fictional positioning such that the players can't make choices that will have a meaningful impact on the scene? I can't see anywhere - the most dramatic bit of secret backstory, namely, the presence of a baby under the cloth, was introduced into the scene by a player. That is surely the opposite of a GM's secret backstory!

The idea was that the Chamberlain is diametrically opposed to the PC’s seeing the King. Could that have been simulated here? Sure – maybe the King doesn’t know exactly what is appeasing the Dragons, and believes they merely part with some treasure, bringing no hardship to the Kingdom or its people. But it seems like the Chamberlain would now be even more opposed to the PC’s seeing the King, rather than running off to him.

Sure, there are other ways this could have played out. There are other ways it could have been framed. For the resolution, in actual play, of a scene in which (i) the noble's advisor is diametrically opposed to the PCs, and (ii) the PCs have to handle the resulting delicate situation, I refer you once again to this actual play post. (I don't think you have yet read it, which is a pity, because it might answer via actual illustration of techniques some of your questions about how indie play works, especially what is meant by the absence of a GM's preconception as to how the scene will resolve.)

That would be a consequence of the players’ success that has a negative impact on their ability to achieve the goal of seeing the King.

No. I would change the fictional positioning so that to meet the king they must somehow dispose of the chamberlain. That changes the fictional dynamics, but within the framework of a skill challenge does not change the basic mechanical parameters.

My main issue is that I’m not seeing the rising conflict I was told Indie play produced. Instead, I saw a cakewalk

<snip>

It’s a scene that could happen in other playstyles (on the assumption that the PC’s revealed the GM’s plot, rather than creating the plot themselves, of course). But it doesn’t seem like a plot that made it challenging to see the King – it’s challenging to keep believing we want his blessing on our quest, though.

I don't think anyone said it couldn't happen in other playstyles. Indie is about techniques and play experience, not particular plot outcomes.

I agree with [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] that there is plenty of rising conflict here - but in the absence of actual play examples from you other than the umber hulk one, I don't know what sorts of events happen in your games.

I also don't see why you say it is a cakewalk. You seem to be projecting from the end back to the actual experience of playing it through. In actual play the players had to roll dice - not all of which were successes - and choose to use various powers and other resources in order to increase their chances of success.

Some might describe the “why” of the mechanics as “mere colour”. The effect lasted a specific period of time, then ended. Does it matter whether he was a frog, a toad or a rat? He’s equally helpless – colour. Does it matter why the spell ended? Not really – colour. Role play is largely colour – going beyond tactics and mechanics to add personality.

<snip>

If we ignore his religious convictions, would the spell end later? If he were more devout, would it never have taken hold? His role playing did not impact the mechanics. They did something much more important – they added the kind of colour that makes the game more fun.

And is it really faith if it remains only when it tangibly manifests? It must have been the Will of the Raven Queen that he spend several rounds as a frog - what message did that send?

<snip>

Mechanically, how is the rogue any less likely to benefit in your game? He colours it as luck, or personal skill, or what have you, but the mechanics are unchanged.

That the PC turned into a frog is mere colour, yes. A rat, toad, worm etc would do as well.

But as to the significance of the narration of why the hex ended, maybe you misunderstood my comment: "it further establishes the basic fictional positioning of the paladin, which in turn frames what is feasible in terms of action resolution, and what sorts of conflicts I might frame to engage the player of that PC".

As you can see, I never asserted that the roleplaying changed the resolution of the baleful polymorph. I asserted that it contributes to the basic fictional positioning of the paladin. What difference does it make? In future encounters with servants of the gods (or enemies of the gods), the paladin and the rogue are in fundamentally different situations, with different pathways open to them. Or, perhaps more prosaically, if they are wandering through the Abyss and get lost the paladin is in a position to use Religion to receive some guidance from his god, and the rogue is not.

This is what Manbearcat is talking about when he says that 4e play, and indie play more generally, is fiction first. And it marks out the difference between mere colour and genuine fictional positioning. And it emphasises that in indie play the latter is not under the sole, or even primary, control of the GM via secret backstory.

it’s not your playstyle, so it should be disparaged as “speaking in funny voices”.

If you (or someone else) wants to explain the virtue of "roleplaying" in the sense of adding colour to situations via voices, mannerism, explaining one's PC's choice of shoe-style, etc, go to town. I'm not really into it, but plenty of people seem to be. Tell us about it! Post some actual play examples!

Actual role playing? That would be why the wizard is here to defend the townsfolk, despite being terrified of physical damage. That would be why, for example, he panics and uses that Wall of Iron to block off a force that wasn’t really much of a threat to the party.

So it's only roleplaying when it's mechanically irrational? Comedically so?

 

[Manbearcat]

@N'raac Here is an example from a social Skill Challenge in my home game that went horribly awry in the same way that the one outlined above went extraordinarily well. It makes have use of the technique of "Fail Forward" so I suspect it will be very averse to your tastes. But I just wanted to show it to you as an example that things can go terribly wrong just as they can go terribly well. It was remarkable/memorable to me for two reasons:

1 - It was only a complexity 1 Skill Challenge that extraordinarily went south and went south hard due to a series of wonky die rolls.

2 - The impact on the resolution of the final tier of play, and afterward, was fairly significant.


The tier of play being resolved was a riff off the classic trope (Gap of Rohan, Thermopylae Pass, The Wall in ASoF&I) of hopelessly outnumbered, but utterly committed, defenders heroically defending the lone breach to civilization from an oncoming horde. In this case it was a mixed horde of human barbarians and monstrous creatures versus several settlements on the edge of civilization where various Ranger Lodges have been watching and defending this breach throughout history. However, the old allegiances had died and it was a fractured fraternity. The PCs task was to "unite the clans (lodges)" by convincing each High Huntsman (the leader of the lodge) of the impending threat. This particular lodge had a very proud, very severe half-orc as High Huntsman. Of note, in my game the elf/orc feud is not one of socialization, its born of the Gruumsh/Correlon creator influence; effectively magical (genetic) predisposition. "Its in the blood." Half-orcs are not free of this. Two of my 3 PCs are elven (one is technically eladrin...but elf nonetheless).

B (Bladesinger), R (Rogue), D (Druid)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They arrived in his village with children playing, practicing archery, tanners tanning, warriors practicing morning drills with the great half-orc huntsmen chopping great blocks of wood on a redwood stump.

The initial scene Bang involved the aformentioned, archery-practicing-children enamored of an elf (Eladrin Bladesinger) and his beautifully carved bow. They wanted to see the bow and they wanted him to show them the legendary elven technique and accuracy. He indulges them...in eyeshot and earshot of the half-orc High Huntsman and the proud warriors of his clan...

0:1 - (B) Dexterity check + Bow proficiency bonus + magic item bonus (would have added + to hit from Expertise etc if he had it as well) versus Moderate DC. The Bladesinger lets them see the bow, pull back the string, etc. At their behest, he lets loose an arrow at their target and hits it square in the middle, cheers abound.

Mechanically this was a failure by 1. Complication: The High Huntsman is not amused. He is visibly offended, big time. He grunts disdain and snorts something under his bread, slamming his axe home and splitting a log in one fell blow.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SA - (D) Insight support action versus Easy DC. The elven Druid takes measure of the High Huntsman's "not amused" response to the foreigner elf proposing to "instruct" the children of his clan on archery...of which their lodge is legendary for. She gives gives a brief look of acknowledging consternation to the Rogue for his follow-up effort at damage mitigation.

Mechanically a success so a + 2 to the Rogue's next check below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0:2 (uh oh) - (R) Diplomacy versus Medium DC. The Rogue attempts damage control, making note of and praising the lodge's legendary reputation as archers...and make, hopefully, a mood-lightening joke at the naive elf's expense.

Mechanically this check was impossible to miss...yeah, except he rolled a 1. There was an amusing facepalm moment here. Complication: The High Huntsman acknowledges the Rogue's words, says "yes, he is clearly a fool...state your purpose." However, his top warrior (also offended and unwilling to let it go at that) walks over, focuses his ire squarely on the elf and begins to recount a folk tale about the wolf going into the bear's den and "rearranging the place." He asks the elf he knows it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1:2 - (B) He pondered going with Intimidation (he would have used the Spook Cantrip; sub Arcana for Intimidate) here, but went History check versus Medium DC (as the opportunity presented itself, making sense in the narrative and allowing him to keep Spook in his back pocket should it be needed later). He dispassionately finishes the story about the bear waking up and eating the wolf. The two warriors stand not far from each other, looking grimly at each other.

Mechanically an easy success. Result: The High Huntsman, amused, lightens for a moment and asks them "are you here to scare me and my clan into being the levee overcome by the great flood?"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SA - (D) Intimidate support action versus Easy DC. The Druid attempts to relate that the great food is all-consuming. All of the land is washed away, the animals, the trees, everything...not just the breaking levee. Hopefully setting up the Rogue for a follow-on.

Mechanically. Yeah, inexplicably she fails. - 2 to Rogue's upcoming check. Complication: Exhausted and the interruption to his morning work, he lashes out at her, irrationally blaming her for distracting him when his favorite wood-cutting axe becomes lodged in an unforgiving knot in his next blow. He lets go of the stuck axe, backs off and wipes his sweating brow, catching his breath.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1:3 - (R) Athletics versus Hard DC. Going to do the mechanic part first here. An interesting thing happened here. Before the Skill Challenge, the Rogue invoked the Martial Practice Uncanny Strength (10 minute duration, take 10 on Athletics checks for a Healing Surge). If the Druid passed her Intimidate support action, that would have given the Rogue an automatic success versus a Hard DC with Athletics. Now, with a failure, he needed a 13 or better. He still could have auto-passed on a Moderate DC but he wanted this to be narratively impactful and they needed to rally. He bartered for the Hard DC for 2 successes in the challenge. Rolled an 11. Yeah. Aggressively and assertively, the Rogue tore the deeply buried axehead free of the knot in the half-split log. Before he sent it down, he made some sort of symbolic statement (invoking the spirit of the flood metaphor) like "a swing from each of your lodges and the horde will be rent asunder" and he brought the axe down. The axe tears through the defiant knot, splits the log in two but the axehead buries deep into the stump as the handle explodes into pieces, destroying the axe.

From my recollection I didn't have the High Huntsman say anything, he just delivered an acknowledging glare at the irony. The PCs left defeated. The cost of the lost Skill Challenge was that the mass battle to end the tier was + 1 level in difficulty in encounter budgeting. Because of the way of this loss, I actually had the Half-Orc High Huntsman cut a deal with the Horde, in return for sparing his people/lodge, his Rangers showed the horde's lead scouts a secret mountain path (cue Thermopylae) that let them surround the manned bastion that spanned the gap. The PCs knew who their betrayer was immediately and after defeating the horde (with great cost...almost all of the Rangers of the other lodges were killed), conflict with that rogue lodge ensued.

 

[pemerton]

I want to see if I can port this over to 3x in a meaningful way, without necessarily introducing skill challenge math.

I liked your post (can't XP it, sorry). I think upthread I raised the idea of the players changing the fictional position to increase their chances of success, but you've actually given a concrete example of how it could be done!

If you try this in your next game, post about how it went!

 

[Warbringer]

Sensory experiences don't give you information as specific as the DC of a check (or attack). And they're quite fallible, as well. I see nothing wrong with creating an experience for the players that matches that.

True, the role of the mechanical aspects of the game is to convey that information. Now, that can come from a series of insight checks that bog the game down, or from metagame knowledge of simply reading the "DM appropriate tools".

In my game, I use the "active roll" rule from the old Unearthed Arcana, and not only do I declare the target (ie AC), but roll the damage before the player tries to defend. I use that as shorthand for the player realizing how bad the blow is really going to be! Now to be fair, sometimes if there is power up or power down that deviates from the average creature, I'll give the target, but then comment "something isn't quite right", and narrate the difference from the target after the roll (just for a little tension).

It's pretty metagame driven, but surprisingly, it leaves so much room for player narration on their attacks and character actions (1st or 3rd person) that I've stayed with it for 10 years.

 

[Manbearcat]

I thought @Manbearcat referred to drakes. I assumed that these were servitors of the dragon, who sits in a cave like Smaug or Glaurung, waiting for the sacrifices.

Precisely. I thought that was clear but I guess not given the confusion. Drakes as servitors to powerful chromatic dragons is entry-level course-work in D&D 101.

And "yup" on everything else in your post.

For reasons that I'm sure he will explain if he wants to, Manbearcat framed this as a complexity 2 challenge. Had he framed it as complexity 5 (12 successes before 3 failures) then the interaction with the chamberlain would have taken longer, and more checks, to resolve. It partly depends on how much fun one thinks it is to banter with an obstinate chamberlain, I guess.

You guessed correctly on the bottom. I like my social skill challenges to be complexity 1 or 2, with 2 reserve for more important issues. It also gives me the opportunity to "nest" an unforeseen mini-complexity 1 SC into the skill challenge (for an accrued success/failure in the macro-conflict and perhaps a stakes/game-changer) if something such as combat breaks out. I mentioned above that handling the various Skill Challenge mechanics inherent to 4e Rituals (Summon Demon, Adjure, Loremaster's Bargain). I've used 2 for each of those to good effect as well. Perhaps I just have a subconscious internal pacing mechanism that is predicated upon the numbers of stages/panels inherent to a complexity 2, but I'm certain I like my social skill challenges to be short but with punch (I probably model them off of the various social interactions in The Princess Bride to be honest). I feel I'm adept at social skill challenges but I suspect that there are plenty out there better than I (including yourself) that can make them interesting and compelling beyond complexity 2.

I generally reserve complexity 3-5 for lengthy chases, pursuits, hazardous exploration, daring escapes, et al.

 

[Ahnehnois]

True, the role of the mechanical aspects of the game is to convey that information. Now, that can come from a series of insight checks that bog the game down, or from metagame knowledge of simply reading the "DM appropriate tools".

In my game, I use the "active roll" rule from the old Unearthed Arcana, and not only do I declare the target (ie AC), but roll the damage before the player tries to defend. I use that as shorthand for the player realizing how bad the blow is really going to be! Now to be fair, sometimes if there is power up or power down that deviates from the average creature, I'll give the target, but then comment "something isn't quite right", and narrate the difference from the target after the roll (just for a little tension).

It's pretty metagame driven, but surprisingly, it leaves so much room for player narration on their attacks and character actions (1st or 3rd person) that I've stayed with it for 10 years.

And that's all well and good. You know what metagaming is, you know you're doing it, and you know why. It works, so you keep doing it. There's no rule that says you can't metagame if you have a inkling to do so.

 

[Wicht]

Precisely. I thought that was clear but I guess not given the confusion. Drakes as servitors to powerful chromatic dragons is entry-level course-work in D&D 101.

I would have failed the test. Is drakes serving dragons a 4e thing, or when was it introduced? I am unfamiliar with the mythology or monsterology of this particular relationship myself. I tend to think "drake=another word for dragon" or else "drake=minor dragon" myself.

You also seem to be finding it odd that mid-paragon PCs would be peers of the king, and have capabilities that rival the king's. That is, you seem to be reading mid-paragon play through the lens of mid-heroic genre expectations.

Or perhaps some of us do not even think in those terms.

One of the things I hold against 4e is so changing the vocabulary that it is hard to have cross edition discussions with the same clarity I am used to in previous editions.

 

[TwoSix]

I would have failed the test. Is drakes serving dragons a 4e thing, or when was it introduced? I am unfamiliar with the mythology or monsterology of this particular relationship myself. I tend to think "drake=another word for dragon" or else "drake=minor dragon" myself.

I think it was the MMIII for 3.5 that started using drakes as a smaller type of dragon-like creature. And of course Warcraft used the term for non full-grown dragons. (Wyrmling->Drake->Dragon)

 

[Wicht]

I think it was the MMIII for 3.5 that started using drakes as a smaller type of dragon-like creature. And of course Warcraft used the term for non full-grown dragons. (Wyrmling->Drake->Dragon)

I understand the minor dragon type of creature, see my definition #2 above. That was not what I was asking about. The idea that "dragons are waited on by drake servants is D&D 101" is what I was asking about.