In this case though the wizard must convince the planar creature to do so. The difference is a matter of force. Anyone can gain a wish when it's granted by an NPC. The Wizard simply can force the situation into existence where it can happen by preparing a spell. Just as the fighter Can survive a fall of any height at level one if things go well.
If we take the Planar Binding to be “character casting a wish”, then a Charm Person can allow casting of a Wish – all I need do is find someone capable of casting the Wish, and keep casting until he fails his save. Based on some posters, this should be no problem as detecting spellcasting should be pretty unlikely and the target should not take offense anyway.
Who said that they have no means? They may not know, but that's a different matter. Perhaps the players spent their time in play learning other things - after all, they can assess the character of the king when they meet him! (Do you know whether the Prime Minister of Australia is from the left or the right? Religious or atheist? You have the means to know, but may have spent your time learning other things.)
How stupid would someone have to be to enter lobbying negotiations with the PM of Australia without finding out his political affiliations? My view is that the “discover it in play” approach means the PC’s can never determine the lay of the land beforehand to plan a strategy that will best meet their needs.
We don’t discover in play that a Red Dragon breathes Fire. Why can we not learn beforehand the politics of the kingdom? Why would we not enter this challenge having undertaken advance preparation, just as we would prepare in advance to hunt down that Dragon?
We don't know what the king's reputation was, or whether or not he had one, because the only paricipant in the scene was Manbearcat and he has not told us. But you seem to think that a reputation for being a benevolent king rules out also being a baby-sacrificer; whereas I don't see that at all. The world is rife with rulers whose reputations belie their true colours.
This again opens the question “when is it set?” If the players Gathered Information in town to establish the King was a just and noble ruler and his Chancellor a loyal servant, could this then be overridden in play (the populace are unaware of the true state of affairs) or does success in Gathering Info mean that the King is now locked as just and noble, and there can be no future surprises? Can we later learn that the “baby” was a Shapeshifted creature and not a real baby, or is “real baby” now sufficiently established that we cannot override it? Can my character make a skill roll to impose that the entire scene was merely a dream sequence resulting from excessive alcohol, spicy food and nerves about meeting the King tomorrow?
Second, you are correct that there are limits here on planning. That is a feature, not a bug
To me, and I suspect several other posters, the last is not the case. If my PC goes to visit the King and has no opportunity to make any determination of the King’s values, goals or political affiliations beforehand, I think that shows my character to be pretty foolish, and a very poor diplomat. For me, that does not make the game better.
All I can do is quote Manbearcat (underling where he italicised):
with different underlines said:
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.
Again, it was about “both”. It had two purposes, not just one. One of those purposes was to prevent retribution. The roll succeeded. If “success is success – full stop” – then there should be no retribution. A lot of the responses seem to be “the stakes were set at the outset”. So if our stakes were “to befriend the King and support him”, are we locked in to go out and find him some more infants to sacrifice, or can further objectives be identified and pursued in the course of play? It seems to me like the rogue has added the intent of preventing retribution. Is the answer, then, “You can’t do anything to prevent retribution now as you are too busy securing the aid of the King”, or is it possible for the players to change, or add to, the aspects of the scene they are working to influence?
If Manbearcat took there to be two intents then presumably that particular drake is not coming back, but that wasn't what I took away from the description of the scene and the later comments. That drake believes the bluff, no doubt, but I think the GM would not be thwarting the players' success by having the drake later realise that it is not really cursed - though you would want to introduce that turn of events in a way that was not anti-climactic.
The rogue succeeded. If “success is success – full stop”, his intent should be realized. Your model suggests that success need not be “success – full stop”, but can further develop later in the story. For myself, I am not offended if the bluff does not last forever, or if the leader dragon laughs at the rake’s gullibility. But I am not asserting “success is success – full stop”. Are you? I think it was [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] who was, but I could be misrecalling. Whoever it was has not weighed in on this issue. Is “success is success – full stop” a hallmark of Indie gaming, or is it not? Each proponent seems to have a different view as to what tenets are hallmarks essential to Indie gaming and which are not.
At which point they are no longer mechanically identical.
We clearly disagree in this regard. I would consider two characters with identical statistics and identical options available, which they can change at their discretion at any time (ie which spells they will prepare, rather than which spells they are even capable of casting) to be mechanically identical. Let us assume they have the same spell load, but one chooses to cast Lightning Bolt and the other casts Confusion – does that also render them no longer identical mechanically? Does one fighter rolling a 1 and the other a 20 differentiate them mechanically? I think you are splitting hairs on the differentiation.
"Best tactics" are relative to a goal. There are no "best tactics" in the abstract. Hence my question about where the players' goals come from.
If “asking politely” provides a +1 bonus to interrogation, and “torch to the groin” provides a +3 bonus, then “torch to the groin” is the best tactic. It provides the greatest probability in success on the specific die roll to achieve the desired result. My hard bitten mercenary will probably get out the flint and steel where a more kindhearted character would not (even if he is mechanically identical).
Your example of "deviation from perfect tactics being a death sentence" suggests that the players already have a goal - namely, fight these NPCs/monsters to the death. Where did that goal come from? Why aren't there other options.
It does not matter. We are discussing tactics, not goals. Whatever their goals, they require getting past these opponents. That is the option they have either chosen of been forced into (possibly because diplomacy has failed).
And if we want a game where the berserker will attack goblins in preference to priests, why don't we either (i) frame more scene with goblins and fewer with priests, or (ii) make sure that the player has more resources to bring to bear when fighting goblins than when fighting priests, or (iii) make sure that the player can earn more rewards (whatever form these take within the context of mechanics and broader table dynamics) for attacking goblins than attacking priests?
The assumption that people will always take the best possible tactical approach is a false one in reality. I prefer a game where personality is not required to be enforced with mechanics. You clearly do not – hey, if sacrificing a bunch of babies is the best way to gain the Dragon’s trust and slip in to defeat him, I guess that’s what my Paladin would do, right?
Your whole discussion of “PC versus player” leaves me scratching my head. The PC’s have in-game goals within the setting. How do they best achieve them? Players have the goal of an exciting and fun game, in my experience. They want to play their characters. The PC may have goals which, if achieved, would frustrate the player. [Imagine Ben Grimm’s player when the Thing is cured and becomes a normal human being once again…]
I wouldn't expect others to be moved by the reasons I have given here - they are reasons that are particular to a certain playstyle. (Roughly, what I have labelled "indie".) I think @
Hussar might agree with the reasons, though, or at least the general outlook on play that they reflect.
I question that. The fact you have indicated you first had to be “satisfied that it won't hurt the game for the wish to be granted” implies that, if you feel it would, then you would simply deny the granting of the wish at the outset. This seems to be exactly the type of “mother may I” play [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has consistently expressed disgust for.
Or let's take two 1e Fighters*. Both are human, same level, strength, h.p., weapon proficiencies, etc. - but their fighting styles and out-of-combat personality mark them as very different. One is a down-to-earth sort, using wise tactics in combat when he can (except when the love of his life (also in the party) is in danger, he then defends her first) and providing soft-spoken practical advice and suggestions when out of combat. The other is a self-styled "guv'nor of givin 'er", wading in to battle face first at any opportunity with his only tactic being "kill it before it kills me" while being a somewhat loud, ornery and definitely foul-mouthed - but still amusing - sort out of combat. You don't need mechanics to play the difference, nor to notice it.
I think this is another playstyle difference we will not resolve. In my game, that foul mouthed warrior might offend the King with his approach, and both player and GM would accept this as part of playing the character. I get the sense that, in [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]’s world, the character must be able to persuade the King by being foul mouthed just as effectively as a diplomatic character would persuade him with courtly manners. We should be framing only scenes where your Fighter can be most effective by being loud, ornery and foul-mouthed, and rewarding that play with bonuses and successes.
@
N'raac The "potentially internally inconsistent due to uncanvassed/elusive backstory" angle still has legs it seems. Most of all of this is setting assumptions and extrapolations you're making for what you perceive would engender internal consistency. This on its own is indicative of the playstyle difference that I outlined above between primacy/driver of the extremely high resolution setting mandate of the playstyle agenda you're pursuing in your game and the primacy/driver of the low resolution that I seek in my own. Obviously this resolution disparity is exacerbated by the dynamics in play here; backstory was even more subordinate to the immediate action of the scene because this isn't a long term campaign. All we were trying to do here is relate how "indie play" (you chose 4e as the medium) would resolve the "obstinate chamberlain" conflict versus how its done in other play. The fact that you are very much "stuck on setting internal consistency" is actually instructive. Its a core principle central to the dispute.
So it seems. I remain unclear at what point we have locked in elements of the setting, as outlined in my comments to Pemerton above. To me, my Diplomat has been rendered an idiot, as he has not even taken the time to get a basic sense of the King’s principals and politics before lobbying for resources for our quest.
1) Do the players bear intimate knowledge of the king's "moral bank account?" Let us take a quick look at pemerton's answer below:
Even knowing the King makes an effort to appear good and noble provides some leverage if we discover he is not. Why would I walk in with no idea whatsoever of how the King is perceived? And, if we have established that he is perceived as Good and Righteous through our previous efforts to gather information, are we now locked in that he is? Again, “Success is success – full stop” or not?
This is spot on for an in-world justification. How many celebrities in this world have alleged to have established a deep and wide reputation for good will, of "doing things the right way"...only to be exposed as a complete fabrication.
Absolutely - but not if “Success is success – full stop”. I am getting the sense that this is not actually a precept of Indie games, but of one Indie gamer.
Insofar as there is an establishment of backstory to legitimize the scene, you have it here. The player of the Paladin has asserted (demonstrably - channeling the very divinity of his god's voice in doing so) that they are on a divine quest and his very god (the god of justice who is aligned very specifically against chromatic dragons) has an interest in the just resolution of this conflict.
Mid-way, in the combat the player made the conflict between Bahamut and Tiamat personal by searing the drake with Bahamut's sign, in his own divine radiance. Finally, at the end we also have:
Ok. So a dream of manifest destiny to end the dragon's reign and free the kingdom from its macabre despotism. This was established in play by the player. I give my players this kind of authority regularly.
So is this now locked, or could we later discover that the Dream was not sent by Bahamut, but by a Witch (let us say a Wicth who serves Tiamat to maintain the theme) invoking a Dream spell? In other words, if I can dream up an appropriate fictional positioning justification (just like “the King only pretends to be righteous – happens all the time in the real world), can I revise the fiction?
However, if this was a regular 4e campaign, what would likely have happened is:
So they do have some responsibility to not go too far afield with their authorship. If you cannot trust your players to not go too far afield (either genre deviation or established, in-play or out, backstory deviation), then either (i) find new players, (ii) teach your existing players how and let them garner experience through play, or (iii) keep doing what youre doing because you're all enjoying it! If you don't care to play under the auspices of this creative agenda then you're none the worse for wear!
The above seems to assume any dispute can come only from players being unreasonable. It seems to me that there could be very reasonable differences of opinion as to what constitutes going “too far afield with their authorship”.
Finally, the resolution mechanics. If we don't consult the resolution mechanics as ultimate arbiters of "what happens" with input from the prior fictional positioning then (A) I don't get to "see what happens" (
) and (B) they lose the authenticity of their scene-framing and re-framing authority (re-framed through the deployment of resources and its effect on the evolution of the fictional positioning) (also
).
So let me take you back to the Demon wish discussed above. Do you have to conclude the Wish would be good (or “not bad”) for the game, or does a successful roll by the player mean his wish is granted precisely as he intended, because he has framing authority and “success is success – full stop”?
What is important to the scene at hand? What are the PCs trying to accomplish. That is 1st order. Anything else is 2nd (or 3rd) order and, while still relevant, subordinate. In this case, the bluffing of the drake/chamberlain was solely a proxy to facilitate the immediate goal (this is central) of resolving the action scene toward the players' inclinations;
So what if the player flat out states “While I think this should also be complementary to our goal of securing the aid of the Kingdom, it is as or more important to the Rogue that no retaliation be taken on the Kingdom or its people – not now, not ever”. Can the player re-set the stakes? Can he add complementary stakes? Or is he restricted to the stakes he set based on the framing to date, and no in-play discovery can reshape his objectives until after he has resolved his first stated intention?
(2) Given that the players immediate intent would not be despoiled by the drakes much later understanding of the ruse, there is no violation.
If the Drake retaliates on the kingdom, based on my intent stated above, there is a violation of my success. I didn’t roll to Bluff the Chamberlain – I rolled to Bluff the Drake.
Remember, off-screen "living, breathing world" (although certainly a principle...we don't want a dead and dessicated world afterall!) is subordinate to on-screen conflict right now (!)
To me, the Drake realizing he has been duped and retaliating is a clear sign of an off-screen living, breathing world. However, his retaliation means that my Bluff failed in its stated intent to prevent retaliation – I don’t see that as “success is success – full stop”.
Finally, is it sensical or sensible for power-players/brokers (goodly aligned or neutral) to seek audience with and attain formal proclamation of mutual interests/consent/partnership with those on the other side of the table (or those who are in a position of power, not diametrically opposed, but orthogonal to their own)? I would say that the world is absolutely weighed down with examples of this.
Again, are we playing High Fantasy or Real World Politics? Either way, however, I would expect the PC’s to have some advance knowledge of whether they will be preaching to the choir, or dealing with the devil, before they go to court the King. Perhaps they will be surprised and their initial investigations will be proven false. But if the Kingdom is filled with slaves, brutally treated by their masters, I fail to see how the PC’s will expect they are walking into the court of a just and righteous King. And I doubt that all the slaves were hidden away as they made their way to the Court to fool them into believing the King is a just and righteous ruler. The PC’s might court a righteous ruler or a vile despot, but I would expect them to walk in with some expectation of which one they are dealing with. Otherwise, they strike me as rather stupid.
