Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[LostSoul]

Again, I find it odd that the king is discovered to routinely trade with dragons when their arrival and departure at his castle would seem obvious to the denizens of the area. Why are they not aware of such routine comings and goings? Looked at another way, if the PCs logically have some knowledge of the local area, do they have the fictional positioning to reasonably establish dragons coming and going?

That is a good question. If the PCs have positioned themselves to know that dragons are coming and going, then the DM should tell them. Something like this happened in my last Burning Empires game (which is an indie game).

The PCs were hunting down the "lieutenant" of a violent revolutionary. The revolutionaries hang out in the remnants of old mining pits called "the scrubs" or SCRBs. The PCs went down there and were met by some "toll guards" who were blocking the entrance. I threw in some colour - how it smelled, how the guards were dressed in rags, dirty, with clubs and knives instead of lasers, etc. (Scene framed.)

Now before this happened, the PCs (and NPCs) had a lot of "downtime" - where not much was going on, no scenes were framed, and characters have the ability to train/practice their skills. One of the PCs trained some -Wise skills (knowledge skills) relating to the revolution and its leader. So when the PCs went to hunt him down, I had that PC roll her "Bright Revolution-wise" skill. (Conflict means we have to roll the dice, and the lieutenant did not want to be found.)

I did not have her roll to convince the toll guards to let her pass - her PC had been down there often enough, as was established during the "downtime", so she was fictionally positioned to easily bypass the toll guards. The conflict wasn't with them, it was with the lieutenant and tracking him down.

They spoke with the guards, they offered a rat (as pure colour), and the guards let them through. (Said yes - no conflict, don't roll, just move along.)

I had no backstory detailing where the lieutenant was. I am not sure if the player to stated her intent that they'd find the lieutenant at a nearby bar the PC was familiar with, or if I did that. Doesn't matter; either way would have worked. Anyway, her PC's intent was to find out where the lieutenant was. (Success on intent is important.)

I told her - as one of my DMing responsibilities - what failure would mean: They'd find the lieutenant, sure, but he'd be warned by someone before they got there. (Fail forward. There's a little more to this, but I'd have to go into Burning Empire's maneuver and scene mechanics to explain it.)

The player rolled, the PC failed. They went to the bar where the lieutenant was known to hang out. As they walked into the bar, they saw a guy whispering in the ear of the lieutenant and pointing at the PCs. The lieutenant motioned for the PCs to approach. (Scene framed - though this was all part of the same "Building" scene in terms of Burning Empire's maneuver mechanics, but that's not important.)

Seems like the player would be quite justified believing his efforts were to prevent the Drake drawing retribution on the city. He spent resources to ensure success. I thought success meant success – full stop – and not success that later has adverse consequences like retribution on the city.

This is why Burning Empires tells players to clearly state their "Intent" - what they want out of a roll - and their "Task" - what their PC is doing to get it. It helps cut down on this sort of confusion. If the intent was to get the drake to fly away, I think it'd be fair game to have it do whatever it wanted later on, including taking his revenge. If the intent was to get the drake to leave and prevent it from attacking the city, then that's what would happen on a successful roll.

How you determine which intents are valid is an interesting area of discussion. In the Burning games, that's one of the DM's responsibilities - to make sure they're not too big ("I want the drake to become my ever-lasting servant") or too small ("I want the drake to hesitate for a single second"). It's a difficult task, though it can be fun/rewarding when you get it just right.

 

[Manbearcat]

Going to briefly resolve this so conversation can get moved along. I don't have time to format the notes I took on my re-read of the DMG 3.x yet (which specifically relates to the topics discussed here) and that likely won't take place until the weekend. Here is the relevant information:

- Nested combat skill challenge is a success.

- The relevant stakes of this skill challenge was that the Chamberlain's life was at risk.

- The PCs' 1st order intent was to save his life

- 2nd order effects would be (i) earning his trust and (ii) proving their mettle.

- A successful nested skill challenge yielded (A) a + 2 (forward) for the next social skill deployed by the paladin (earned by the successful Endurance check when the Paladin shielded the chamberlain from the fiery breath barrage) and (B) a success in the greater skill challenge which, again, was "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."

4:0 Religion- The Paly invokes the name of Bahamut, in defiance of Tiamat, and basically uses the thematic notes of the Wing Buffet Attack inherent to Platinum Wings. The bloodied, battered, beaten drake backs down with severe injuries. The Paladin, burning divine radiance into the beast, marks him with the sign of Bahamut and tells him to return to his master and deliver the message that his reign is at an end.

The battle is won. The + 2 forward is earned via actions taken within as is a singular success in the greater challenge (the mechanical relevance of the SC). The drake is "bloodied, battered, beaten and "backs down with severe injuries." The Paladin marks him with burning radiance, disparaging the god of chromatic dragons and exalting Bahamut. He tells the broken drake to "return to his master and deliver the message that his reign is at an end."

The player ended the fight with a thematic flourish, setting the stage for a Bahamut vs Tiamat showdown, stipulated that the Adult Red Dragon (primary antagonist) is a male, and wanted to ensure that the dragon knew what had happened here and that there were now heroes who oppose him and will be deposing him in short order.

3:0 – Successful nested skill challenge combat. The heroes mettle is tested and on full display, trust is earned and the chamberlain is saved. As the drake begins to leave, the burning hatred in his eyes is palpable. He spits a curse and a promise that the whole city will burn in an ancient tongue that only the Rogue knows.

Here is the formal declaration of the relevant 2nd order effects; newly acquired fictional positioning and mechanical gain. As the drake begins to leave, the heroes had defeated him (thus earning their gains above) in the nested challenge, he spits an epithet in a language no one understands but the Rogue. This, again, is a specific technique. Why a curse in an ancient language that no one knows but the Rogue? Because its the Rogue's turn so my job is specifically challenge him, frame him into the "spotlight", and (as important as anything else) place him in the role as aggressor to resolve the conflict that I put before him. This conflict should have thematic and utilitarian relevance to him and to what the intent/stakes are. Here is what happened:

4:0 Bluff - As the drake is preparing to tests its torn wings for flight, 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 enslavement 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.

As a rattled drake flies off (poorly), an equally rattled chamberlain beseeches a guard contingent to bring the king. As they reach the door, a tired, forlorn, mentally beaten king (added to scene distinction flashcards) actually ambles in simultaneously, as several guards attempt to corral him or protect him from whatever caused the crazy racket that resonated through the castle walls. The king takes account of the still-present tribute, the bloody mess of the portico and the battered drake flying off toward a "Lonely Mountain" and says "What have you done? You've doomed us all."

Here is probably where most of the confusion lies. I didn't write this well nor did I convey the most important info. The Rogue answered and began his Bluffed geas ritual threat in the arcane language spat out by the drake. He ended the formal threat by speaking in the common tongue so that the chamberlain could understand just what was taking place. The Bluff was both about threatening the drake to leave this place and never take any retribution on this kingdom nor any of its inhabitants for this specific defeat (and this is my assumption as it was a very broad threat...I could ask the player and confirm if anyone cares) lest he be magically ensorcelled with the curse...but its intent was relevant to the task at hand - convincing the chamberlain that he was capable of such a thing. As such, the fictional positioning changed (again) by the successful Bluff as it achieved its sought end; earning trust (they care about the city, its people, and even the chamberlain...and their motive is to protect it rather than to extort it for services rendered...much like the dragon is currently doing...so they aren't trading one master for another) and mettle credibility (this guy, and this group, can actually curse people with powerful rituals!) with the chamberlain.


As far as much of the rest of it. There are a lot of odd leaps, inferrences and implications that I never made.

- I don't know anything about any "just and righteous kings". This king may be cowardly and self-serving. He may perceive himself as just and righteous. I don't know. That will be determined in play. It wasn't fixed before play, that is for sure.

- If the players continue to want his help after they've uncovered (and hooked me) about the tribute, I don't know. That is for them to decide. It seems likely that the kingdom is invested in this battle as the citizenry is under the dragon's thumb. The king commands the resources that can be brought to bear to repel the reign of the dragon. At least for now, he is the intermediary. If they feel sponsorship (whatever that means - authoritative legitimacy or actual assets/resources) is necessary to that action, then they will decide accordingly. I don't decide that. If the king needs to be usurped, exposed (what-have-you), later...maybe that will happen.

- With respect to the tribute and drakes coming and going. I don't know. Again, in play. Currently, its been only established that there is a single tribute. Have their been many in the past? Have they been at other locations? Is the portico on the back-side of a mountain with the city proper obscured? I don't know? Maybe the people know that their king deals with dragons? Maybe they've actually put a vote to it and are offering up their own infants (there is genre backing for this) to save their other children?

I don't know any of these questions. Some, or none, of that may have been established before this scene unfolded via divinations or streetwise et al. But I do know there is no authoritative answer on them at this point.

 

[Imaro]

As far as much of the rest of it. There are a lot of odd leaps, inferrences and implications that I never made.

- I don't know anything about any "just and righteous kings". This king may be cowardly and self-serving. He may perceive himself as just and righteous. I don't know. That will be determined in play. It wasn't fixed before play, that is for sure.

- If the players continue to want his help after they've uncovered (and hooked me) about the tribute, I don't know. That is for them to decide. It seems likely that the kingdom is invested in this battle as the citizenry is under the dragon's thumb. The king commands the resources that can be brought to bear to repel the reign of the dragon. At least for now, he is the intermediary. If they feel sponsorship (whatever that means - authoritative legitimacy or actual assets/resources) is necessary to that action, then they will decide accordingly. I don't decide that. If the king needs to be usurped, exposed (what-have-you), later...maybe that will happen.

- With respect to the tribute and drakes coming and going. I don't know. Again, in play. Currently, its been only established that there is a single tribute. Have their been many in the past? Have they been at other locations? Is the portico on the back-side of a mountain with the city proper obscured? I don't know? Maybe the people know that their king deals with dragons? Maybe they've actually put a vote to it and are offering up their own infants (there is genre backing for this) to save their other children?

I don't know any of these questions. Some, or none, of that may have been established before this scene unfolded via divinations or streetwise et al. But I do know there is no authoritative answer on them at this point.

You know after reading this section I think I'm realizing the root problem that I, and possibly others, may have with the play style of [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], and others... it's the whole "discover it through play" ethos. It feels (correctly or not) like there isn't any way to actually discover or explore anything concrete.... only make stuff up based on dice rolls... Is the king a benevolent ruler? Let's have a skill check and determine it based on your party's success or failure. Is tribute coming and going... who knows, let's roll some dice and let them decide. It feels like you just make it up as you go along which I can admit may appeal to some, but I know would not appeal to my players. they want to figure things out, and they want a basis so that they can actually be right or wrong about assumptions, guesses, etc.... They don't want a Schrodinger's cat that will only form when the dice are rolled. For my players, rolls shouldn't be deciding whether the king is a benevolent ruler or tyrant, that should be established already and be at least somewhat communicated through what they experience and see while in the city... What that roll should determine for my players is whether they find definitive proof of him being a tyrant or a good man. Likewise whether this king sacrifices babies to a dragon shouldn't be nebulous for them until the dice are rolled.

Interestingly enough I don't see how the dice deciding everything "through play" is any better or worse than if the DM had made it up beforehand. Some will claim you are playing a game of trying to read the DM's mind... but how is that any more or less de-protagonizing than trying to guess based on random rolls? Actually I see a few downsides to the "through play" method such as issues with coherency and already established backstory, a dis-incentive to think outside the box (as in beyond the numbers/skills/powers on your sheet) in figuring things out or exploring (since nothing is really created yet anyway), and so on.

I'm curious, how the DM's who run in this style establish things where the PC's don't take the " let's find out in play" approach. Let's say in [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s example, once they are admitted to see the king the players have made all the same assumptions that some of the posters here made (that the king is a baby sacrificing, dragon dealing, cowardly tyrant) and they slay him... were they right? Were they wrong? How do you fairly decide that in that moment or after it since nothing is established yet?

 

[Wicht]

On the subject of summoning, et. al. I thought I would share one story technique that I use for summoning, which while an addition to the rules, does not, so far as I know, run counter to the rules, and helps provide some fictional stability. To whit, I normally assume that a creature summoned once is, unless there is a reason not to be, the same creature is most likely to answer future summons. While my players normally conjure good aligned creatures, good or evil, if one assumes that the powers that be are trying to influence the souls of mortals, having the same creature, even if unnamed, establish a relationship with a caster, is generally going to facilitate this.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Imaro Yup. That is a big difference between the agenda outlined above and * process-simulation, world-exploration, sandboxing play (that almost universally presupposes 1st person/actor stance immersion; eg no metagaming). I'll go into all of that in a deeper post when I can but it is central. That is how I ran 3.x and it may not seem it, but I'm not adversarial to the playstyle. There are just certain techniques that often come with it that I find can be problematic (and to be honest, not necessary) and unsatisfactory for myself as GM and for players. I still enjoy the playstyle, understand it deeply, and could run a very functional game of it right now. It would probably look a lot closer to Lost Soul's hex-based, serial exploration sandbox though than Wicht's or N'raacs.

I'll think on your questions and the best way to answer them (either to try to use it with a hypothetical - the chamberlain/king/dragon/tribute - or with examples from my home game). Nonetheless, there will be plenty of fixed elements. My game isn't completely "no myth". There is exploration in Transition Scenes that establish backstory and there are fixed elements that the players can discover. However, there are a lot of un-fixed elements, or at least malleability, so that when a player wants to impose their will upon the fiction (eg the Ranger with the tribute scenario), they can do so and we will sort the rest out in play.

Will folks who exclusively want * above enjoy this? Absolutely not. They would hate my 4e game. They would hate playing Starblazer Fate or Dungeon World with me. I'm fairly certain that half the people in this thread (we can figure out whom) would want to punch me in the face and the other half would greatly enjoy playing in any of those 3 systems with me. I've almost got a perfectly hacked MHRP D&D at this point and I'm certain they would love to play that with me as well while the other half would, yet again, punch me in the face and walk out.

Thats ok. Anyway, good post. I'll address your stuff later when I have time and can think on how best to functionally answer (hypothetical or example).

 

[N'raac]

That is a good question. If the PCs have positioned themselves to know that dragons are coming and going, then the DM should tell them. Something like this happened in my last Burning Empires game (which is an indie game).

But therein lies the problem – we didn’t know dragons were coming and going until it was added in the course of the scene (it’s even noted that this was completely unplanned). But if they were coming and going routinely, shouldn’t the PC’s have known about that already, in which case the “big reveal” of dragon tribute is more a confirmation than a reveal the baby still stirs the pot, though).

If the PC’s didn’t “know” dragons were coming and going before, then where was the fictional positioning to have them suddenly arrive? How would this just routinely go unnoticed?

As a player, I think I would have grounds to ask why my character would be coming to the King to grant resources to fight the Dragon if I know he’s already engaged in an appeasement strategy, or if I know dragons come and go regularly from the Kings’ tower – but never attack and are never opposed.

Now, we’re handicapped here in that we lack the backstory – maybe the PC’s rushed to the Kingdom and haven’t taken the time to get the lay of the land. But it seems reasonable to assume they’ve been here for long enough to at least hear tell that the King consorts with Dragons.

The battle is won. The + 2 forward is earned via actions taken within as is a singular success in the greater challenge (the mechanical relevance of the SC). The drake is "bloodied, battered, beaten and "backs down with severe injuries." The Paladin marks him with burning radiance, disparaging the god of chromatic dragons and exalting Bahamut. He tells the broken drake to "return to his master and deliver the message that his reign is at an end."

First off, thanks for the quote – I thought I recalled the Rogue specifically responding to a threat of retribution. As I read the writeup, the bluff was to convince the Drake that any action he takes to bring retribution to the city will cost him dearly, so the retribution he just threatened should not be unertaken.

- I don't know anything about any "just and righteous kings". This king may be cowardly and self-serving. He may perceive himself as just and righteous. I don't know. That will be determined in play. It wasn't fixed before play, that is for sure.

Again, as a PC in the game, I think I would know how the King is perceived by his people before going to ask for his aid against the Dragon. It seems like, for all we know walking through the door, the King might BE a Dragon.

- With respect to the tribute and drakes coming and going. I don't know. Again, in play. Currently, its been only established that there is a single tribute. Have their been many in the past? Have they been at other locations? Is the portico on the back-side of a mountain with the city proper obscured? I don't know? Maybe the people know that their king deals with dragons? Maybe they've actually put a vote to it and are offering up their own infants (there is genre backing for this) to save their other children?

And maybe it’s unrealistic that prepared PC’s are walking in unaware of whether Dragons do, or do not, routinely come and go, where the palace is actually located (in view or obscured from the city), whether the people seem to respect or fear the King, and any other info one would expect living in this kingdom for any period of time would provide. Instead, they’re completely blind.

You know after reading this section I think I'm realizing the root problem that I, and possibly others, may have with the play style of @Manbearcat , @pemerton , and others... it's the whole "discover it through play" ethos. It feels (correctly or not) like there isn't any way to actually discover or explore anything concrete.... only make stuff up based on dice rolls... Is the king a benevolent ruler? Let's have a skill check and determine it based on your party's success or failure. Is tribute coming and going... who knows, let's roll some dice and let them decide. It feels like you just make it up as you go along which I can admit may appeal to some, but I know would not appeal to my players. they want to figure things out, and they want a basis so that they can actually be right or wrong about assumptions, guesses, etc.... They don't want a Schrodinger's cat that will only form when the dice are rolled. For my players, rolls shouldn't be deciding whether the king is a benevolent ruler or tyrant, that should be established already and be at least somewhat communicated through what they experience and see while in the city... What that roll should determine for my players is whether they find definitive proof of him being a tyrant or a good man. Likewise whether this king sacrifices babies to a dragon shouldn't be nebulous for them until the dice are rolled.

A solid observation. Can the players decide, in rolling as they communicate with the Chamberlain, that the nation is actually ruled by a democratically elected Council of Twelve, which holds open meetings to make all decisions? If not, how was it established that it has an absolute monarch in charge of its governance, as it seems everything must be established in play. “We wish to visit the Capitol City” “Make a roll to see whether there is a Capitol City”; “Can we take a boat there?” “Make a roll to see if it is a port city or is inland” seems like it would get very old, very fast.

Interestingly enough I don't see how the dice deciding everything "through play" is any better or worse than if the DM had made it up beforehand. Some will claim you are playing a game of trying to read the DM's mind... but how is that any more or less de-protagonizing than trying to guess based on random rolls? Actually I see a few downsides to the "through play" method such as issues with coherency and already established backstory, a dis-incentive to think outside the box (as in beyond the numbers/skills/powers on your sheet) in figuring things out or exploring (since nothing is really created yet anyway), and so on.

I'm curious, how the DM's who run in this style establish things where the PC's don't take the " let's find out in play" approach. Let's say in @Manbearcat 's example, once they are admitted to see the king the players have made all the same assumptions that some of the posters here made (that the king is a baby sacrificing, dragon dealing, cowardly tyrant) and they slay him... were they right? Were they wrong? How do you fairly decide that in that moment or after it since nothing is established yet?

No disagreement on anything above, with one exception. Given the “success means success, full stop” view espoused by one of our Indie gamers (not [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] or [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], and I have not seen their viewpoint on that proviso), it seems that, if the players seek to slay the King and succeed in their rolls to do so, the King was a baby sacrificing, dragon dealing, cowardly tyrant and his death brings great rejoicing. But if their roll fails, it seems like they still killed the king (success at their task), but the King was really a good a noble ruler and there were other factors in the scene that unfolded before the PC’s which would show this, but they foolishly killed the man whose plans were in motion to end the Dragon threat.

It does seem like ”coin toss dungeon” to me. Is there a door in the room? Toss a coin and find out. Is there a hallway behind it? Toss a coin. Does the hallway have any branches? Roll on the “branches” chart. How about doors? Roll again. Open the door. Roll to see if it is locked, then we can roll to see what waits behind it, and so on ad infinitum.

Now, it's not as random as that, as either the player defines it or the GM does, depending on success on the roll. Hence, I come back to "group storytelling", with passing of the speaking stick determined largely by die rolls.

 

[sheadunne]

I'm curious, how the DM's who run in this style establish things where the PC's don't take the " let's find out in play" approach. Let's say in [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s example, once they are admitted to see the king the players have made all the same assumptions that some of the posters here made (that the king is a baby sacrificing, dragon dealing, cowardly tyrant) and they slay him... were they right? Were they wrong? How do you fairly decide that in that moment or after it since nothing is established yet?

While I don't necessarily play in an "indie style" I do use elements that I find interesting in my games. For instance, if the players were really pushing (ie making assumptions they were excited about) I'd play it that way, even if I had other ideas about how the situation might unfold. I am concerned more about plot/story than others, but not so much so that I'm not willing to bend and break it to make for an interesting story. The difficult part is determining whether the players really want their assumptions to be right or wrong. In other words, are the players pushing for "We did the right thing," or "We did the wrong thing." I'm willing to go either direction, even if it wasn't pre-planned to do in that direction. I've had no issues with story consistency doing this, but I can certainly see how others might not be able to connect dots the same way I do in a game and therefore not be interested in changes or adaptations on the fly.

An example, I'm putting together a one-shot PF game for tomorrow. The opening scene is going to be a series of skill checks in order to find out what's going on (I have already determined what is going on and players will need to make checks in order to find out that information through a series of challenges). If the players take actions I'm not prepared for, I'll need to adjust everything on the fly, but I'm not willing to prevent the players from taking actions outside of my pre-thought-out plan, even though we will be under time constraints (4-5 hours of total game play). If during this opening scene I sense that the players are looking for something else than what I had in mind, I'll shift more in their direction and change things as needed. What's difficult about this, is that 3x/PF aren't really designed well for spontaneous play. Generic monsters are across the board and often need to be customized in order to create interesting challenges for the players. Skill use is across the board, with no universal mechanics based on level (although I did create a sheet to use with average/high/low DCs, etc), but it's certainly not by the book. This doesn't mean it can't be done, it just takes a bit more work to do it and requires the DM to bend the rules more than I personally like.

 

[Imaro]

While I don't necessarily play in an "indie style" I do use elements that I find interesting in my games. For instance, if the players were really pushing (ie making assumptions they were excited about) I'd play it that way, even if I had other ideas about how the situation might unfold. I am concerned more about plot/story than others, but not so much so that I'm not willing to bend and break it to make for an interesting story. The difficult part is determining whether the players really want their assumptions to be right or wrong. In other words, are the players pushing for "We did the right thing," or "We did the wrong thing." I'm willing to go either direction, even if it wasn't pre-planned to do in that direction. I've had no issues with story consistency doing this, but I can certainly see how others might not be able to connect dots the same way I do in a game and therefore not be interested in changes or adaptations on the fly.

Well this is my question concerning that technique... why do you assume that the PC's wouldn't find what you thought up just as (or more) interesting than what they think is happening? Especially if it has the added factor of surprising them? What about "We did something and the result was... totally unexpected"? Another question I have is are you up front with your players about the fact that you will change things behind the scenes? Or is it a case where you keep that fact hidden from them?

I also think the consistency thing is different with your example because you are still maintaining control over what is or is not canon... the players don't get to decide something is a fact because they rolled high, you decide whether you want to add the changes (based on player assumptions) or not and thus it is still one coherent vision... I think it's a different story when you have 5 to 6 people all able to decide whether something is or is not true based on rolls of the die, especially when these decisions can influence and affect one another. I have no problem adapting to what the players choose to do, but if I decide the king is a demon summoning tyrant, then he is a demon summoning tyrant until the PC's act to change that. IMO, adapting is being able to account for the PC's killing him, redeeming him, allying with him, deceiving him, etc. What I and my players don't want is because a combination of dice were rolled he is no longer a diabolist but instead a benevolent ruler in the service of Bahamut.

An example, I'm putting together a one-shot PF game for tomorrow. The opening scene is going to be a series of skill checks in order to find out what's going on (I have already determined what is going on and players will need to make checks in order to find out that information through a series of challenges). If the players take actions I'm not prepared for, I'll need to adjust everything on the fly, but I'm not willing to prevent the players from taking actions outside of my pre-thought-out plan, even though we will be under time constraints (4-5 hours of total game play). If during this opening scene I sense that the players are looking for something else than what I had in mind, I'll shift more in their direction and change things as needed. What's difficult about this, is that 3x/PF aren't really designed well for spontaneous play. Generic monsters are across the board and often need to be customized in order to create interesting challenges for the players. Skill use is across the board, with no universal mechanics based on level (although I did create a sheet to use with average/high/low DCs, etc), but it's certainly not by the book. This doesn't mean it can't be done, it just takes a bit more work to do it and requires the DM to bend the rules more than I personally like.

But again we aren't talking about adapting to the effect that the actions of the PC's have , we are talking about the relevant fiction that has or hasn't been established and the PC's actually being able to create and decide this based on a roll of the dice. I also don't see 3.x/PF as being inherently better or worse for the sort of play you describe than any other edition of D&D. There are set difficulties to extrapolate from and battles need to be customized in any edition to be interesting as well... a single orc in a plain room is a boring battle in all editions of D&D. I honestly think this has much more to do with how familiar you are and how much experience you have with a game, but I could be wrong.

 

[Hussar]

I think you could not contribute as effectively as you wanted in the manner you wanted. You could still attack and have some impact, just not as much as you want. Just as flanking allows you to Sneak Attack some opponents, it also gives your teammates a bonus to hit, so that's a further contribution. You could certainly use the Aid Another action to contribute to party success.

But you could not benefit from your Sneak Attack, so you look to have chosen to sit on your thumbs for three sessions rather than think outside the box and contribute to the extent possible in other ways. The GM did not exclude you – you excluded yourself. And, for a change, the fighter got to be the guy inflicting the most damage on the enemy, rather than being in the rogue's shadow.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page153#ixzz2ik4mgxh0

Note, just for clarity, I wasn't playing the rogue.

But, then again, now we're back to, "Well, you can Aid Another, that should be good enough for you". Wahoo, I get to be as useful as a peasant for 9 straight hours. Please, can I have some more?

As I said, a single encounter? No problem. 3 straight sessions? Yeah, I couldn't blame the rogue player for being a bit pissed.

Seems like the rules provide a balance against L11 Wizards summoning Glabrezu as a source of free wishes. But, of course, since I actually read the rules, I am being horribly biased against @Hussar ’s wizard and taking the worst possible interpretation of the rules, I suppose.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page153#ixzz2ik5cU39H

If I'm summoning demons to get wishes, it's probably not too much of a stretch to think that I'm going to pick wishes that make someone pretty unhappy. That whole evil wizard thing after all. But, then again, it doesn't matter what I'm going to wish for since you're going to provide me with a demon that can't grant wishes anyway. Gee, that was fun.

Doing something for nothing is altruistic, which is pretty much the opposite of selfish.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page153#ixzz2ik65pCFv

You've never heard the phrase, "The first hit's free"? The demon is, after all, about trying to corrupt someone and bind them even tighter. Seems like a pretty good way to me.

So it’s OK for you to ask for some special extras, but not for the GM to provide something different. I’d agree that a sabre tooth cat may not have been a great Dming approach, but what entitled you to expect something better than the rules provide for?

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page153#ixzz2ik6Pod9I

Now your players aren't even allowed to ask for stuff? Wow. Where did I say that I expected anything? I asked for something that I thought was cool but would have been perfectly happy with a regular horse. Wasn't so happy with a mount that completely didn't fit with my character.

 

[Hussar]

Interestingly enough I don't see how the dice deciding everything "through play" is any better or worse than if the DM had made it up beforehand. Some will claim you are playing a game of trying to read the DM's mind... but how is that any more or less de-protagonizing than trying to guess based on random rolls? Actually I see a few downsides to the "through play" method such as issues with coherency and already established backstory, a dis-incentive to think outside the box (as in beyond the numbers/skills/powers on your sheet) in figuring things out or exploring (since nothing is really created yet anyway), and so on.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page154#ixzz2ik7ouVsv

Oh, I agree here. It's not better or worse. Just a different way of playing. From what I can see, while I've been having my little spat with N'raac about rules interpretation, I've tried to keep saying that there's nothing wrong with his style of play, just that I don't like it. For me, it's better for exactly the issues you raise. From the DM's side, the story is unfolding in a more organic manner. If done well, you shouldn't get coherency issues because it isn't truly random. From the player's side, the only truly neutral arbiter is the dice. Which means that the decisions that the players make always matter. Or, at least they should.

It does seem like ”coin toss dungeon” to me. Is there a door in the room? Toss a coin and find out. Is there a hallway behind it? Toss a coin. Does the hallway have any branches? Roll on the “branches” chart. How about doors? Roll again. Open the door. Roll to see if it is locked, then we can roll to see what waits behind it, and so on ad infinitum.

Now, it's not as random as that, as either the player defines it or the GM does, depending on success on the roll. Hence, I come back to "group storytelling", with passing of the speaking stick determined largely by die rolls.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page154#ixzz2ik9bV7Iz

Not a terribly unfair description. In this style, the DM is far less involved in the macro level of the campaign. Everyone gets to determine what's going on in the game, rather than just one person doling out information based on everyone else's actions. It is group story telling.

IMO, adapting is being able to account for the PC's killing him, redeeming him, allying with him, deceiving him, etc. What I and my players don't want is because a combination of dice were rolled he is no longer a diabolist but instead a benevolent ruler in the service of Bahamut.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page154#ixzz2ikA4AC3u

But, remember, you cannot contradict anything that has been established in play. That is the one absolute rule here. Anything that is established at the table cannot ever be contradicted. So, if your king is a diabolist, and that has been established then there is nothing the players could do to change that fact.

But, if that has not been established at the table, and that fact only exists in the DM's mind, then it's not true. It might be true, or it might not be. It remains to be established either way. It does require the DM to be a lot more flexible about what's going on in the campaign.