You've dropped that line, "most generous possible spell interpretation" a few times. Can you point to a couple of examples in this thread where anyone has done this? I mean, if it's been so prevalent that you feel the need to comment, then I would think that such examples would be easy to find.
I mean, you're the one who has taken the word "hazardous" to mean "automatically life threatening". Which is 100% accurate. Hazardous can mean life threatening. That's true. But, that's the most restrictive interpretation you can make. I said that hazardous could be dealing damage (probably not life threatening, but, possibly) or some other unspecified interpretation. It was the stated limitation to Gate that the (effective) god of a plane would stop casters from gating Noble Genies. You're the one who insisted that it was in the intent of the rules to choose the most restrictive interpretation in order to limit caster power.
Can you show instances where you feel that we've given the most generous interpretations to the spells?
Yet, every peasant in the world recognizes instantly any spell being cast, knows exactly what it is and how it works. Magic is commonplace enough that there are actually laws in the land governing the use of magic. Every orc tribe out there knows what a rope trick is and how to find those who use them. Even a lowly lizard man knows that wizards go around Magic Jarring comrades, and goes to check on a missing friend five minutes after he goes to take a pee.
Or is it that people only know about magic when it would be best for keeping the DM's plot in hand?
It seems the King may be less just and righteous than one would hope! And being routed by Paragon level heroes doesn't mean a dragon is easily routed by anyone. Pretty sure the dragons could have killed the chamberlain if the PCs weren't there to stop them.
All good questions that could be explored further in play! Why don't people see the dragons? Where IS the king getting these babies? Maybe it's just one baby, and the baby is special. Who knows? Let's play and find out!
How opposed is "diametrically opposed"? Like, he should have shoved the PCs off the balcony opposed? Strapped with explosives opposed? And sure, the chamberlain could have resisted more strenuously...if the PCs had failed! You're not adjudicating the success of the process, you're determining whether or not the PCs succeed in their goal. You narrate the process from that.
You don't do fail by succeeding in Indie. Full stop.
I'm not following the logic here. Failing to intimidate the Drakes would in no way imply that a greater threat doesn't exist if it fit the parameters of the game. There's ALWAYS a greater threat. That's why you play the game!
Yea, I guess a visit to meet with the king that all of a sudden has a visit by three dragons who want to take a baby(!) that the King's Chamberlain is feeding to them and then killing off two of them and injuring the other and driving off the other by the bluffed threat of a magical geas and that the King is actually complicit with this and isn't as just and righteous as the players thought and leads to a bunch of new questions that feed into new play all in one scene isn't enough rising action. Sure, man.
Astral Projection lets you get 3 wishes for free! (generous, and a bad ruling)
Charm Person gets you whatever you ask for from the charmed person. (generous and actually violates the spell text)
Lesser Planar Binding allows you to cast 9th level spells. (Technically untrue. Lesser Planar Binding combined with Dimensional Anchor lets you bargain for another creature to cast it for you. Generous if DM does not bargain well for the entity, or does not take into account post bargaining ramifications.)
This is meant to be hyperbole. Right? Because I doubt anyone here actually made that argument.
That sounds like a campaign dependent sort of thing. Would you be against a campaign world were this was true in some places (ie. Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Ebberon, Golarion) though maybe not all?
Anyway, if someone wants a campaign world like that, more power to them. If they don't, whatever makes them happy.
I'm not sure why this would be a sticking point, nor why you would assume its a universal assumption, except for, hyperbole, that is, exaggeration to make a point. But I'm not sure you are aware you are using hyperbole.
Hyperbole again. Who actually said this?
Hyperbole again. And this is not exactly how I recall the conversation, though I may have missed some of it. But I thought the whole magic jar episode sounded like a rather exciting sort of sequence of events, especially after the possibility of a friend noticing something wrong with his comrade was raised. That seems like exactly the sort of thing to make it all stand out in play, especially if it worked. I am not sure why, reasonable, in-game obstacles, are seen as some sort of detriment to good play, when, in my experience, they are what make the game fun for everyone and memorable.
Ad hominen attack.
Plot is generally a secondary consideration for myself when I am ruling on any particular action. And the assertion (made repeatedly by you) to the contrary is not born out in actual conversation in this thread (especially at this point of the thead).
You keep insultingly assuming bad faith on the part of those disagreeing with you and have made repeated accusation of malicious capriciousness in regards to how we interpret spells. I makes actually talking with you about the subject more difficult.
No doubt. It's hard to say telling something to do an action that will cost them nothing is unreasonable when the alternative is one (and potentially many more) days stuck in a trap. Well you can say it, but it's likely not the offer being unreasonable at that point. The problem is the value to party A is at odds to the cost required of party B. Is it reasonable to expect a payment equal to the value one party sees or is it reasonable to cover the cost the other party pays?
It's an area I think would be better served with a skill-challenge-y mechanic -- make an offer, check situation, receive counter-offer, then rinse and repeat until a resolution occurs.
If the creature in the trap is immortal, then some time trapped is probably a small price to pay to avoid being reduced to a mere slave... I would have any immortal creature want a price paid for any real service, especially if the caster is low-level...
As for the offer, counter offer, nothing in the rules really says you can't do it that way. Though, like I suggested, just consider the possibility of a negative modifier (small alteration to the rules as written) and then go from there.
@N'raac I'll post a reply to your post in the coming days. I'm very short on time as of now, I just wanted to acknowledge it. I still want to do a 3.x DMG post as well.
Suffice to say, that I'm in agreement with @TwoSix and @sheadunne posts immediately upthread (I'm glad you had a takeaway that may provide some functional worth for your home game sheadunne). There is plenty of rising action there to find, there is plenty of engagement of the players on their own thematic grounds, forcing them into the aggressor role via specific adversity/pressure related to the stakes at hand. Further, all of those (internal inconsistency) questions you asked (as TwoSix notes in hs post), those are all questions that we can address during play and have more fun for it!
I'll address your concerns and thoughts in the coming days in the greater post regarding table/creative agendas and how this situation may be addressed/resolved as it dovetails with the process simulation/causal logic/internal consistency primacy interest inherent to serial, open world exploration/world-building/sand-boxing/deep immersion in actor stance. That is your creative agenda and accompanying principles. Naturally the conflict above is going to bear out a lot of discord with you given that agenda and those principles. The principles and agenda (and mechanics) that guide play for the conflict resolution of the chamberlain scene above are very much at tension (not quite working in opposite direction, but primacy and subordinate interests are deeply in flux).
I think an extremely abridged way to look at outcome-based (rather than process-based), "Big Damn Hero, "Indie play" of 4e is the same way that you look at Die Hard, Indiana Jones, James Bond, and the Avengers. HISHE and Honest Trailers does a pisstake of the movies, waxing on about the internal inconsistency of the movies when viewing their genre conceits of "Big Damn Heroes" through the prism of tight coupling of cause and effect and granular accounting for "how in the world could this possibly happen" or "why wouldn't they just do this". But the answer is always "Uh, who gives a crap! Big Damn Heroes and these movies are awesome!"
However, as can easily enough be seen with movie expectations, if you go into "Die Hard" looking for Cormac McCarthy and the Cohen Brother's perfect marriage of "No Country For Old Men"...you're going to be disappointed. I'm an enormous fan of both, but I expect those genre conceits to be estranged from one another and hold neither to the others when watching the films.
And finally, the primary reason that you are seeing such a "beatdown" of this Skill Challenge is because you have a Chaladin (primary Cha Paladin), and Bilbo-like Rogue, both armed to the teeth with social skill resolution capabilities. The Ranger, not so much, but he filled his role thematically and coherently.
If you subbed that Chaladin and Rogue for a poorly social-skilled Warden and Monk...you're probably looking at a lot of untrained skills being leveraged with a lot of non-primary stats bulwarking those untrained skills (somewhere around + 9 - 10 in bonus on average and maybe even creeping down to 8ish). Different classes, and different builds in those classes, have different conflicts that they can bring their "big guns" to. They can all contribute (a Warden with Intimidate can contribute and pass a check somewhere between 55 - 65 % of the time) in their own thematic way, and maybe the fiction will unfold that they can leverage some of their "off-strengths". But don't expect the Warden to dominate a social skill challenge like a Chaladin who can channel the very voice of his god for giant bonuses (that buff his already considerable numbers) and sprout wings and all sorts of other stuff.
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.
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.
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 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!
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.)
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.
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 @TwoSix 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.
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.
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!
So it's only roleplaying when it's mechanically irrational? Comedically so?
@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.
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.
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.
You've dropped that line, "most generous possible spell interpretation" a few times. Can you point to a couple of examples in this thread where anyone has done this? I mean, if it's been so prevalent that you feel the need to comment, then I would think that such examples would be easy to find.
Here come some now…
Astral Projection lets you get 3 wishes for free! (generous, and a bad ruling)
Charm Person gets you whatever you ask for from the charmed person. (generous and actually violates the spell text)
Lesser Planar Binding allows you to cast 9th level spells. (Technically untrue. Lesser Planar Binding combined with Dimensional Anchor lets you bargain for another creature to cast it for you. Generous if DM does not bargain well for the entity, or does not take into account post bargaining ramifications.)
Let’s add invisibility = undetectibility, “why can’t I whisper my verbal components”, Fly lets my unconscious body hover in one place while I Magic Jar (that one I’d probably allow), I can just Scry someone to carefully study a Teleport location (and I need no real knowledge of the area), and “I can tell which Lizard Man is alone so I can Magic Jar him”.
So you were 100% right – such examples were very easy to find!
I mean, you're the one who has taken the word "hazardous" to mean "automatically life threatening". Which is 100% accurate. Hazardous can mean life threatening. That's true. But, that's the most restrictive interpretation you can make. I said that hazardous could be dealing damage (probably not life threatening, but possibly)
You said 1d4 damage – a nuisance, not a hazard, for 7th+ level characters casting Rope Trick.
or some other unspecified interpretation. It was the stated limitation to Gate that the (effective) god of a plane would stop casters from gating Noble Genies. You're the one who insisted that it was in the intent of the rules to choose the most restrictive interpretation in order to limit caster power.
I recall saying that actually reading the spell description and not giving the spellcaster dubious and even wrong interpretations assists with a lot of balance issues. You are the only one, to my recollection, to suggest this means the most restrictive interpretation possible.
Yet, every peasant in the world recognizes instantly any spell being cast, knows exactly what it is and how it works. Magic is commonplace enough that there are actually laws in the land governing the use of magic. Every orc tribe out there knows what a rope trick is and how to find those who use them. Even a lowly lizard man knows that wizards go around Magic Jarring comrades, and goes to check on a missing friend five minutes after he goes to take a pee.
Or is it that people only know about magic when it would be best for keeping the DM's plot in hand?
This is meant to be hyperbole. Right? Because I doubt anyone here actually made that argument.
Hussar argues that if anyone can have the knowledge, everyone will automatically possess it, as near as I can tell.
And this is not exactly how I recall the conversation, though I may have missed some of it. But I thought the whole magic jar episode sounded like a rather exciting sort of sequence of events, especially after the possibility of a friend noticing something wrong with his comrade was raised. That seems like exactly the sort of thing to make it all stand out in play, especially if it worked. I am not sure why, reasonable, in-game obstacles, are seen as some sort of detriment to good play, when, in my experience, they are what make the game fun for everyone and memorable.
I believe we’re back to the theory that “I pick one random mote of sentience I can perceive from inside my Magic Jar – that should be the guy who’s hiding all alone and can easily reach my safety zone without encountering anyone else in the village” is the only reasonable interpretation of the phrasing of Magic Jar.
You keep insultingly assuming bad faith on the part of those disagreeing with you and have made repeated accusation of malicious capriciousness in regards to how we interpret spells. I makes actually talking with you about the subject more difficult.
Yup.
No doubt. It's hard to say telling something to do an action that will cost them nothing is unreasonable when the alternative is one (and potentially many more) days stuck in a trap. Well you can say it, but it's likely not the offer being unreasonable at that point. The problem is the value to party A is at odds to the cost required of party B. Is it reasonable to expect a payment equal to the value one party sees or is it reasonable to cover the cost the other party pays?
It's an area I think would be better served with a skill-challenge-y mechanic -- make an offer, check situation, receive counter-offer, then rinse and repeat until a resolution occurs.
I’d like such a system provided it carries consequences to the PC when his offers are unsuccessful. Otherwise it’s just “keep the same offer until the roll succeeds”.
If the creature in the trap is immortal, then some time trapped is probably a small price to pay to avoid being reduced to a mere slave... I would have any immortal creature want a price paid for any real service, especially if the caster is low-level...
As for the offer, counter offer, nothing in the rules really says you can't do it that way. Though, like I suggested, just consider the possibility of a negative modifier (small alteration to the rules as written) and then go from there.
It’s interesting that the immortal creature should be desperate to avoid biding its time in the trap, but should have no problem agreeing to serve the caster for his lifetime, isn’t it?
