Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)
- Thread starter cross ofth carpenter
- Start date
Hussar
Legend
See, here's what I'm talking about.
You have interpreted the spell. That's fine and dandy. No problems. And it's a perfectly valid interpretation. Do you believe it's the only correct one?
N'raac keeps insisting that his interpretations are the only correct interpretations, which is why I'm asking you.
Now, do you inform the player that you are changing the text of the rules? When? Before he starts? In the middle? I would think that Ahn would never inform the player since he has no problem with deceiving the player about the mechanics in play.
And, that brings me back around to my point. Why is the change being made? Why this specific interpretation? Is it not to limit the efficacy of the spell and rein in caster power? Otherwise, why bother?
So, basically, you are choosing an interpretation (no selfish creature will ever perform an act for free) which is most punishing to the players (they can never get something for nothing) as a means of limiting caster power.
Am I presuming bad faith here somehow? What bad faith? Seems pretty straightforward to me. I would hate it in a game, but, I've certainly played in games where things work this way.
Another way to look at it - in what edition of D&D are 14th level PCs - well past name level - not peers, or near-peers, of kings?
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
And a third way: in 1e by 14th level the PCs in theory have already established their strongholds etc. and in a sense have *become* royalty.
Personally, I've been assuming all along with the chamberlain-king example that we're talking about somewhat lower level PCs, experienced enough to know what's what but to whom an audience with the king would still be a pretty Big Deal. (maybe 3rd-5th in 1e, 7th-10th in 4e)
And I too would fail D&D 101, it seems, as I didn't know about Drakes being servitors to Dragons either. (then again, the only time I ever see or use the word "drake" is in M:tG where it's a creature type; otherwise I'm just as likely to think duck as dragon when I hear it)
Lan-"I really should get on with setting up my stronghold one of these days"-efan
Maybe I'm just ignorant of acting techniques, never having been one nor trained as one - but are you suggesting that Christopher Reeve, playing Clark Kent, didn't adopt and/or perform the mannerism of adjusting his glasses on his nose with an eye to how that might look to an audience on screen? I guess that's possible, but it would never have occured to me as a likely possibility. (I personally think that this also shows that there are plenty of ways in which an actor can make decisions based on considerations other than what the character themselves would feel or experience, without giving a wink and a nudge to the audience.)
Or if we think of the performance of Harrison Ford as the "rogue with a heart of gold" in Star Wars - is he really playing that character without regard to the fact that he has to come across as brash but likeable rather than brash and unlikeable?
For a more recent example, I'm thinking of the Mark Ruffalo vs Robert Downey Jr show, otherwise known as The Avengers. Those performances are so self-conscious that it beggars belief to think that they are based on nothing more than the actors' conceptions of how the character might be feeling and thinking at that moment in the fiction.
Now both of those are good actors. And a performance like Ruffalo's in My Life Without Me I would consider as being more plausibly grounded in a sense of the character's own position in the fiction and nothing more (though even then I don't know that that's all of it). But Ruffalo was also less well known then. Compare that to his performance in The Kids Are All Right - ostensibly a comparable sort of role as far as character and fiction are concerned - and I think you can see a lot more self-consciousness in the performance. But he's still playing the role!
This seems to be positing method acting as the only mode of acting. I'm not sure that's true. Leaving aside more vaudevillean or "weekend matinee" approaches to acting, I'm not sure that method acting is the proper approach to something like Waiting for Godot. I think there are a range of approaches to acting which can still count as "playing the role".
In RPG play there is an additional complication that, unless the GM has prescripted the whole thing, the players are not just actors but authors. And also audiences for one another's performances (and for the GM's performances). I'm not sure that the only viable way to approach this situation is via method acting. There are a range of reasons why this is so; here's one: method acting depends upon a sense of the character, the character's motivations and inner life, the needs and demands that the scene places on the character. This all depends on pre-scripting by the playwright/screenwriter. In an RPG, that hasn't happened yet. The character actually has to have that inner life authored, the stresses and demands of the scene created. And who is going to do that? Even if your answer in respect of the scene puts all the weight on the GM, someone has to author the inner life of the character. And surely that is the player! And in so far as they are authoring the character in this way as they perform, they are doing something different from what the method actor does.
Why is this ideally the goal? Robin Laws - who, whether or not one agrees with everything he says, presumably knows a thing or two about roleplaying - discusses this issue in his contribution to the Over the Edge rulebook.
For instance: Player A knows that Player B's PC - call that PC X - is hunting for the person who was a mysterious benefactor while the character X was a child. (Think Great Expectations.) Player A's PC - call that PC Q - does not know this, however. Now the GM and Player A are resolving some minor aspect around Q's affairs - perhaps Q has gone to the wizard's guild to meet up with a contact there - and the GM has an NPC mention to Q some little bit of gossip about a myserious guild member who never shows his face, but who periodically sends donations to support the wizardly education of struggling young apprentices. Now Player A immediately thinks "I wonder if this is connected to X's mysterious benefactor?" But from the point of view of Q, there is no real reason to treat this as more than idle gossip. Is Player A being a good player or a bad player if s/he has Q take a degree of interest in the gossip and learn more; and then, upon Q meeting up with X later that day at party headquarters, has Q mention to X "Hey, I heard this interesting gossip at the wizard's guild about a shadowy guildmember who bestows bounty on young apprenteices"?
In my game, I would consider this as PLayer A being a good player - s/he has picked up on a thread that might link PCs together and drive the game forward in some interesting way. Some other tables - yours, Wicht, and perhaps [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION]'s - think this is bad play, because it is metagaming - playing the character on the basis of knowledge that s/he lacks but that the player has. I'm happy to accept there are different preferences here - but I won't accept that Player A is not "playing a role", or that what we have here is no longer an instance of RPGing.
Are you speaking for yourself with that, or for all RPGers? That's not really how I view RPGing. Apart from anything else, it suggests that the rules are a necessary evil. That's not how I experience them. For me, they play a key role in generating the experience of play.
What I think is "narrow" is an attempt to define D&D, RPGing, and the techniques that playing them can involve, in ways that entail that half the posters on this site are not RPGers. Or that entail that Robin Laws - one of the leading designers of RPGs and commentators on what RPGing can involve - in fact misunderstands the activity that has been his life's work.
If you think I don't understand your approach you're mistaken. I understand it - I just don't particularly care for it myself. Much the same as I gather you don't care for mine. But I don't attempt to tell you you're not RPGing, or that you're playing the game wrong. I'm really just inviting you to extend the same courtesy.
Which was my basic point back when I introduced the notion of playstyles in a post that tried to explain to Cyclone Jester why other posters like Wicht, Ahnehnois and [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] might not experience balance issue in their games - namely, because they are using different techniques and approaches to play. There are different ways of playing D&D, and for some the caster/fighter issue matters in ways that are different from others. The role of the GM in preventing those balance issues from breaking out is important in some approaches but not available in others. Why anyone would think this is a criticism I don't understand, given that all three of you have yourselves said that "good GMing" is what makes the balance issues not happen in your games.
That's what I was thinking intially, too - but [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] introduced the idea of the PCs also being competent to hunt down non-juvenile dragons, and at post 1125 upthread Manbearcat posted the following:
I would happily run a "deal with the chamberlain to meet the king" encounter for lower level PCs along the lines you suggest, but they would not be looking for assistance to hunt a dragon, as (at least in default 4e) that just doesn't make sense for 7th level PCs. (You'd have to be doing a Neverwinter-style reframing, where upper Heroic PCs deal with challenges that, in thematic but not mechanical terms, would be typical of mid- to upper-paragon default 4e.)
By my count, they could have failed the Athletics check (especially if the prior Insight check had failed); could have failed the nested challenge (none of those were auto-success); and could have failed the Nature check. And hence could have failed the challenge overall.
And even in success, they had to make choices which change the fiction - for instance, outing the king and the chamberlain as weak, and potentially also deceptive. That sort of thing matters, at least in my experience. It sets important context and material for the framing and the resolution of future situations.
I think that's right. At the point where the attack was missed, and rerolled, there was a 3/10 chance of missing on the reroll. That would cause tension at the table - I've certainly had players use rerolls and the die comes up 6 or lower!
When I think about this sort of example, and relate it to my own play expereinces (and not just with 4e - certainly Rolemaster as well), it fits with my idea of "immersion through mechancis". That reroll will focus the attention of the table, making them anxious about the outcome and recognising that the fate of the chamberlain and the guards might turn on it, and that then puts the players in the same emotional situation as their PCs. That's the sort of immersion that I aim for in play.
How might matters have unfolded if the ranger had missed? [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] doesn't tell us, but one possibility could have been that the drake leaps past the ranger and chows down on the chamberlain! It seems likely that the players would still have succeeded at the challenge overall, routing the drakes and meeting the king, but getting to meet the king, and getting him to agree to provide aid, over the body of the dead chamberlain would be very different, in the fiction, from what actually happened.
Maybe the PCs in question had different skill sets and different builds, meaning that the players had access to different resources?
I posted upthread a PC sheet for an 11th level Strength paladin whom I would happily play in a version of this challenge. I don't know if you looked at the sheet or not.
And here we observe another playstyle difference. I want a game in which the mechanics ensure that the best way for me, as player, to impact the scene via my PC - which is what I take you to mean by "tactically best choice" - is a way that will give voice and expression to my character's personality.
This is related to my discussion, upthread, of Rolemaster PC sheets. The best way for the player of the character with only Duping and Lie Perception as social skills to impact a social scene via his PC is to dissimulate while "reading" his target. The best way for the player of the character with only Leadership as a strong social skill to impact the same scene is to try and take charge. The best way for the player of the character with decent Amiability to impact the same scene is to be friendly, and evince a readiness to give and take. The mechanics encourage the players, in playing their PCs so as to impact the scene, to give expression to distincitve personalities.
It also relates to my comments upthread about 4e dwarves. The fact that a 4e dwarf has resistance to forced movement and gets saves against being knocked prone (and hence potentially overrun) gives the player of a dwarf a mechanical incentive to try and impact the situation by holding the line. Which then gives epression to the well-known trope of dwarves as steadfast and resolute.
I personally would never play in the way you described upthread about the wizard who casts the Wall of Iron despite the player knowing there is no mechanical threat; or the fighter who looks into the eyes of the umber hulk; and I would never expect my players to do so. I am always looking for ways to use my resources, as a player, to maximise my ability to impact the scene, and want mechanics that ensure that doing this will express the distinctive personality of my PC.
You can see another instance if you look at the PC sheet I posted. The character has strong Intimidate and Diplomacy but comparatively weak Insight. He is overbearing but lacks empathy and understanding of the motives, particularly the more subtle motives, of others. For that to come out in play, all I have to do is play him off the sheet!, deploying the resources it gives me. And that is a deliberate design choice on my part in building this character - I think issues of nobility vs humility are at the core of playing a paladin (they're not all that's at that core, but they're definitely there).
The goal of the scene was not "Defeat the drakes". It was "Meet the king and get him to give aid." Or, as [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] put it, "The entirety of the Skill Challenge will be to get to and convince the king to act or sponsor/deputize them, or grant them resources/assets/hirelings in their effort to hunt and defeat the dragon."
The successful Intimidate check against the drakes is a means to that goal. It doesn't achieve some other goal.
Now, to what extent can goals crystallise or even change over the course of a skill challenge? (Or similar complex conflict resolution system.) I suspect that views and approaches differ. In Burning Wheel, for instance, the stakes in a Duel of Wits are set up front, and can't be changed part way through, at least as the rules are written. For my own part, in lengthy social skill challenges in 4e, I typically allow the first part of the challenge to help set the scene in more detail and help focus the action on the ultimate stakes, and then use the final few checks to hone in on those stakes and see how they end up being resolved. I like the pacing effects of this approach, especially because a skill challenge (unlike, say, a DoW in BW) does not have active opposition, and so this sort of "firming up" of the goals and stakes can be a sustitute for active opposition in contributing to drama and a sense of rising tension.
You said, as I understand it, that you are happy to run a scene in which the players cannot change the Chamberlain's mind, but can only acquire backstory that the GM dispenses to them. Your idea, as I understand it, is to frame a scene in which the fictional positioning that underpins the PCs' actions (as declared by their players) is basically secret, and they might uncover it in the course of finding out why their actions fail - or, perhaps, learn from their actions failing that they need to uncover it, and then go off and do that.
If any of what I've said is wrong, you need to tell me, because that is the picture I have in my mind of the style of play you were talking about. I have formed that picture from a combination of what you have said, what you have agreed with that other posters have said, plus my own experiences as an RPGer player over many years, drawing particularly upon those experiences of GMing that otherwise seem to fit with the way you describe the task.
Anyway, I do not see how that picture is very similar to what Manbearcat posted and what [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] said in response. You asked "Where did the drakes come from? Why do the townspeople not know about them, and the babies?" TwoSix replies - "Good questions! Let's find out via further play." Who is the "us" in TwoSix's words "Let us find out"? The "us" is everyone at the table, including the GM. In other words, there is no secret backstory about these matters. And you can see that in Manbearcat's post, too. At no point does the ficitional positioning of the PCs, and hence the players' prospects of success, depend upon secret backstory. The DCs are set by reference to the relevant charts - ie they depend on (i) level and (ii) the rule that a Complexity 2 skill challenge should require 5 medium and 1 hard success. "Secret" backstory is an output of resolution - ie the GM (and in the case of the baby in the cage, one of the players) works out the details of the secret backstory as part of explaining successes and failures, not as an input into them. (This is like "Schroedinger's NPCs" discussed above after I quoted Paul Czege about keeping NPC personalities somewhat unfixed prior to play, so as to be able to realise them in play in the course of pushing and pulling at the players.)
I have had posters on earlier threads dealing with these sorts of issues tell me that they wouldn't like playing in this sort of way because the world is "not real" - it's all just "paper scenery". I can't recall if you've expressed a view on that, but I wouldn't be surprised if you had that view.
Now not all "indie" play depends on a heavy use of these "no myth" techniques. And Manbearcat's example is not fully no myth, it seems to me - there are some preconceived plot elements like the reluctant king, the obdurate chamberlain, which he is drawing on in his framing of the scene and narration of outcomes. But I think reasonably liberal use of no myth techniques is pretty mainstream in "indie" play, precisely because it lets you establish a rich backstory without the risk of deprotagonisation resulting from adjudication via GM reference to secret backstory.
I used the verb "thespianise", to describe the opportunities open to players playing their PCs in a situation - like your version of the obdurate chamberlain - in which they cannot actually change the fiction via the play of their PCs. If you think there are opportunities in this scene that don't involve mere "thespianising" - that don't involve funny voices and shoe sizes - then please tell me (and others) what those opportunities are. It's not my style - so I might well have missed them!
Who is picking your game apart? All I, Manbearcat and TwoSix are doing is pointing out that there are other ways to play besides yours, and those approaches aren't going to be able to deploy the techniques that you deploy to handle caster/fighter issues.
As I said, if you think that the chamberlain scene that does not allow the players to actually affect the outcome might nevertheless make for terrific roleplaying, tell me more. What would it look like?
The d20srd says this about Charm Person (in the spell rules and the Diplomacy rules):
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly).
"Friendly" means "Wishes you well" and might therefore "Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate"
"Friendly" means "Wishes you well" and might therefore "Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate"
So the first thing I notice is that there is a contradiction, which is not a good start for interpretation. Trusted friend and ally does not fit with a "friendly" attitude, but rather a "helpful" one ("Helpful" means "Will take risks to help you" and might therefore "Protect, back up, heal, aid"). At least where I come, trusted friends don't just chat, advise and offer limited help (that's what associates and colleagues do); they protect you, help you and back you up.
The following further text also creates tension at least, if not outright contradiction: "The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way." What is the point of this text, if we already know that the target becomes "friendly"? It is just more confusion of the precise parameters of the spell. (Is it meant to indicate that the spell can be used in lieu of Bluff as well as Diplomacy? I'm not sure.)
But anyway, let's suppose we resolve the contradiction in favour of the mechanical element ("treat the target's attitude as friendly") and ignore the text about being a trusted friend and ally. (I hesitate to call that mere flavour text, as it is clearly meant to contribute to the resolution of the spell. The drafting really is quite poor). That would make the spell weaker in 3E than in AD&D, but perhaps therefore more suitable in power for a 1st level spell.
Now, consider the casting of the spell on the obdurate chamberlain. He becomes friendly, and hence will chat, advise, offer limited help, and/or advocate. That seems like a pretty good way to get to see the king if you ask me! It very stronly implies that, at a minimum, he will chat to the charming PC, advise them on the best way to approach the king, and himself advocate to the king that the charming PC be granted an audience. I suppose it's possible that he would continue to dismiss the rest of the PCs, but given that D&D defaults to party play, I would regard it as reasonable for the player of the charming PC to have his PC try and get the audience for the whole party, and at least have a chance of success in that respect. (Especially if you take seriously the idea that the charmed chamberlain will perceive the charming PC's words and actions in the most favourable way - the chamberlain should not be suspicious of the charming PC's insistence that the other PCs are crucial to the matter s/he must discuss with the king.)
Wicht
Hero
I feel like we are going in circles. What you say is true unless there are other factors. For example, the Chamberlain feels it is in the best interest of the party not to see the king. In which case the Charm person becomes a good way to gather information, but not to fulfill the original goal. Or the Chamberlain feels that violating the order of the king would be detrimental to himself in some way (in which case the friendly mechanics are trumped by the spell text.)
The wording of the spell is not, imo, poor, rather it sets off parameters and guidelines for adjudicating the spell.
Wicht
Hero
Um, as my suggestion was more generous than the actual spell text, then I am not sure in what universe that would more greatly hamper casters.
Actually limiting the caster is only a secondary benefit. The primary consideration is playing our the demonic entity in a manner that is consistent with their values and goals.
And something for nothing is always going to unbalance any game.
Under those circumstances, wouldn't a friendly chamberlain explain matters? And if the charming PC then argues to the contrary, mightn't the chamberlain interpret his/her words in the most favourable light, and go on to advocate on that PC's behalf?
The only relevant part of the spell I could find that seems close to what you say here is this:
An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.
That seems to me to say that the charmed target will violate orders for good reasons. The threat from the chamberlain to the king would have to be pretty severe, I think, for this clause to kick in. And even then the chamberlain might be expected to explain to the charming PC why he cannot help.
