Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Manbearcat]

I am, at this point, left grasping aimlessly trying to figure out where we are going. The initial point of running this exercise with my players was:

A - to show how (i) a conflict resolution system would handle player deployment of resources to resolve their intentions and the stakes at hand, how the fictional positioning would evolve from that, and the implications on play of a mechanical assertion of finality to a conflict (eg HP ablation means death).

B - to examine the differences between this and other playstyle agendas; specfically process simulation task-resolution in a serial/open world exploration game where the GM-forces, adjudicates when conditions for success/failure have been met.


We don't seem to be addressing much fo that here. We seem to be talking about how we don't like the lack of exploration and the lack of fixedness of setting prior. Tangentially related but not wholly.

 

[TwoSix]

This is the crux of my issue – we have no basis on which to think anything about the kingdom. It’s an absolute blank slate. No one knows much of anything about the kingdom. We’ve embarked on a Holy Quest to save this Kingdom, but all we actually know is:

So, for all we know, we are fighting to defend a Kingdom of Open Devil Worshippers from a Great Gold Wyrm seeking to remove this devil worshipping stain from the face of the earth. Since everything develops in play, what prevents this result arising in play? My character has no clue whatsoever about what he is stepping into. For some characters, that’s appropriate. For others, it most definitely is not. I am forced to play a character who never does the slightest bit of intel gathering before stepping into the fray.

Who's forcing you to do that? Go find the intel. No one's stopping you. Roll some kind of knowledge check beforehand, or some kind of info-gathering check when you get there.
You keep extrapolating [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s example to be a lot more than it was. It's an example from a continuing game, which means that extra information is already available to the characters. Or, if it is a first session for an in medias res start, the characters would have some background information to go on. Unless you're running a true "No Myth" game, which is rare even in indie circles, people agree on background and genre conventions well before the game starts. I mean, Dresden Files RPG starts with a lot of background information (from the novels), and City Creation (which determines the campaign goals) is a whole chapter of the RPG book and assumed to take up most if not all of the first session of play.

So the player does not know things that would cause the PC to take different actions. Would that Paladin of Bahamut fight fiercely to defend the Devil Worshippers from a Gold Dragon?

Maybe. Realizing the deceit would make for a cool moment. I'd run it, and more importantly, play it out if it happened to my character.

I am responding to YOUR INTERPRETATION of what he has written, and I am judging solely from the words which were written. Those words tell me that there was a roll to Bluff the drake to take no retributive action, which arose during the efforts to persuade the Chamberlain of something. Or, actually, to “convince the king to act or sponsor/deputize them, or grant them resources/assets/hirelings in their effort to hunt and defeat the dragon that is either threatening to usurp his kingdom or already has it hostage”, as manbearcat has been quite clear the Chamberlain is “merely a complication”, and not the goal.

I'm still amused by your contention that the Rogue could bluff a servitor drake into somehow not getting his master to retaliate upon realizing his scheme was being challenged by an upstart paladin of Bahamat. That's wholly illogical scene framing, and the player doesn't have that level of authority over the antagonists in a big-damn-heroes fantasy game.

It seems like you are indicating that there should never be a situation where a character might have to choose between the most expedient and effective course of action and remaining true to his principals. That is not a presumption I would ever want in a game. That means that there could very well be scenes where your Paladin may have to choose between saving innocents and stopping the Dragon. That seems far more meaningful as to matters of theme and value than always structuring situations so that the Paladin never finds sticking to his principals remotely difficult.

Depends on the game. In FATE, I'd be compelling the Aspect of "Paladin Code of Honor" ALL THE TIME. After all, that's what FATE is all about. You get FATE points for choosing to accept the DM's offered path of your character being screwed over. It's the driver of the fun.
In 4e, I'd be much less likely to. I'd rather create encounters where the paladin can chose the path of glorious valor in facing his foes. "24"-esque situations of "torture the prisoner or the village dies!" are no fun from my perspective, since 4e isn't about challenging your beliefs; its theme is more one of living out your heroic destiny in a badass way.

So, again, you should never, ever be framed into a scene where your character’s style might be sub-optimal for success. If I build a melee monster – nothing but brute HTH strength, with every other ability sacrificed to enhance that melee might – then I should never, ever be framed into a scene I cannot readily resolve by slashing someone to ribbons.

Sort of irrelevant. In 4e, it's virtually impossible to build a character that completely sucks in every sort of non-combat situation. Finding ways to succeed in skill challenges where your skills aren't optimal is part of the challenge, yes.
In FATE, being crappy at a certain type of challenge (say, a royal ball when you have the Aspect "Manners of a Goat") actually lets you build up resources for later by totally screwing up the current scene.

If you find them coherent and satisfying, more power to you. I am not seeing any indication that the results are coherent or satisfying. I see some potential, but I see a lot of issues in getting there. And asking a question results in me being requested to read an extensive text. I am still waiting for you to say either:

• “Yes, a success is a success – full stop – is a tenet of all indie play – the PC/player intent is achieve and this achievement is advantageous if they are successful”, or

• “No, a success is a success – full stop – is not a tenet of all indie play – a successful roll can still result in complications later”

A success is a success - full stop. The player's intent is realized. The current scene plays out with the player's success becoming part of the narrative. That does not stop the road to hell from being paved with the player's good intentions.

Ultimately, how far the player's intent can be realized by any one success is a matter of negotiation between the players at the table, and subject to genre convention. Your reach as a god in Nobilis is much farther than if you're playing a heroic firefighter in FATE Core.



So how does that align with “But before we went to visit the King, I would have taken a measure of the King’s reputation among his people, looked at which way the palace faces and listened enough to know if Dragons routinely fly in and out of the King’s palace.”[/QUOTE]

 

[Manbearcat]

What I think would be extremely helpful to focus conversation (it is scattered everywhere right now so we're left addressing no premise whatsoever) would be to establish a specific premise. I'll establish a few of my own later this evening.

What I sense is being asserted is thus:

Premise: Low-resolution settings where authority over backstory is diffuse amongst all players (GM is a player) will likely (inevitably?) lead to farcical or incoherent play.

Is that the assertion? If not, could the assertion be made clear so whatever premise is being asserted could be functionally addressed? There is a lot of nuance that goes into that assertion; up to and including when it becomes diffuse - as the GM specifically solicits a player to establish content/backstory - and what does "fixed" mean - eg "is a newly established gorge the same as a newly established bluffed drake with respect to the permanency of their rigidity?"

@pemerton, @Campbell, @LostSoul, @sheadunne and myself will be doing another iteration of the chamberlain/king conflict (but this time the relevant players will be online). They have built full characters of level 12 (replete with backgrounds, themes and paragon paths) to handle this. What's more, to hopefully handle some of the "lack of fixedness" issues so we can focus more on the dynamics of conflict resolution itself, I will run them through a transition scene as vignette that hindcasts from their arrival in the grand entrance hall of the castle where they will initially be received. The actual play itself will frame them directly into the conflict. The transition scene will establish backstory and assets that will be "fixed" elements of the social conflict to be resolved. This will probably begin on Thursday. We're all over the place geographically so the entirety of the effort will take some time to resolve, I have no doubt.

 

[pemerton]

This is the crux of my issue – we have no basis on which to think anything about the kingdom. It’s an absolute blank slate.

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] ran a one-off scenario to illustrate how an audience with an obstinate chamberlain might be resolved in 4e. You encouraged him to do so.

And now you're complaining that the scenario in question does not have the same backstory depth as a long-running campaign that has actually been played?

And you really can't see any way of filling in those blanks in a reasonable and coherent fashion?

Hard(-ish) scene framing is another technique on the GM side - frame the PCs into difficult situations and put the onus on the players to back out or call for mulligans if they want to ("But before we went to visit the duke I would have primed my homonculus to record everything with its magical eyegems") while enticing them into tackling the actual situation in front of them.

So how does that align with “But before we went to visit the King, I would have taken a measure of the King’s reputation among his people, looked at which way the palace faces and listened enough to know if Dragons routinely fly in and out of the King’s palace.”

What do you mean "How does that align with . . ."? If the players say that, then we can back up and resolve the attempt. As I said in reply to [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION], though, part of the goal of this approach is to favour action over prep.

I am responding to YOUR INTERPRETATION of what he has written, and I am judging solely from the words which were written.

Actually, the passages I quoted included replies of yours to Manbearcat where you insisted that he was misinterpreting the stakes set in his own game. I do not know how you think you can have better knowledge of what the player of the rogue intended than [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] does. If his words led you to a mistaken belief as to the stakes, the worst that can be said against him is that he wrote poorly. It doesn't change the fact that he knows what was at stake in that moment of resolution, and that you have no access to that information except via his reports of his own knowledge!

I am still waiting for you to say either:

• “Yes, a success is a success – full stop – is a tenet of all indie play – the PC/player intent is achieve and this achievement is advantageous if they are successful”, or

• “No, a success is a success – full stop – is not a tenet of all indie play – a successful roll can still result in complications later”

Both are true. They are not in contradiction, and not even in tension.

Here is the description of the relevant process (already posted upthread, but repeated for reference puropses; it's by Eero Tuovinen):

[O]nce the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character . . . The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.​

If success does not lead to complicatoins than the game has come to an end.

In the discussion of Manbearcat's example, there is also the difference between a check that is a sub-component in an overall challenge, and the challenge itself. The stakes and consequences of an individual check typically cannot be as significant as for the challenge overall. For instance, if the challenge is framed in relation to the king and his chamberlain, but not in relation to protecting the city from the drakes, then success at an individual check establsihes success in relatoin to the king/chamberlain goal, but is naturally going to have fewer large-scale and long-lasting consequences in relation to the drakes' depradations upon the city.

If they both use the sword, are they no longer mechanically identical when one rolls a 3 and the other a 17?

I don't think of the die roll as a property of the PC. It is a separate integer in action resolution.

As I said upthread, I prefer the personality of my PC to be expressed via mechanics. You telling me what your conception of mechanical differences is not relevant to my preference, which - naturally enough - is grounded in my conception of mechanical differences.

It seems like you are indicating that there should never be a situation where a character might have to choose between the most expedient and effective course of action and remaining true to his principals.

<snip>

So, again, you should never, ever be framed into a scene where your character’s style might be sub-optimal for success.

It is hard to answer these questions, because you seem to be working with a concept of "scene" in which what would count as a successful outcome is known prior to the player engaging it; and you also seem to be assuming that scenes will be framed without regard to the significance, within the fiction, of the PCs who are to engage in them; and you are not assuming "fail forward" as the alternative to success.

I posted a link to an actual play post upthread in which a "paladin" (mechaincally, a fighter/cleric) in my game had to choose between honour and expedience. Here is the link again.

What is important to me is that the player's choice is not between honour and mechanical effectiveness. Rather, it is between two desired fictional outcomes - that the prisoner by duly punished; and that his PC's word be kept. There is no trading off of value against effectiveness and ability to impact the fiction.

I don't know what the analogue might be in the dragon scenario, because parameters have not been spelled out - but if the paladin player, having decided against offering the dragon sacrifices, now has no reasonably available way to mechanically impact the fiction, that is for me poor GMing and poor scene-framing.

The notion of "sub-optimality for success" I also find hard to apply. I have mentioned, several times already, this episode in which the PCs dined with the baron. As far as the NPCs were concerned, the fighter/cleric was the party leader. Mechanically, that character has 10 CHA and no trained social skills. Therefore one important element of resolution involved the other players taking steps such that the character was not tricked into giving over information to, or being goaded into premature action by, the baron's evil advisor. But as the post shows, the character was far from unimportant in determining the way the scene unfolded, and the player was definitely able to mechanically impact the fiction. Part of what was involved was changing the scene so that he could make an impact.

If my sneak attacks work on everything equally well, then what is my impetus to try something besides them? If every spell, even fireball works on the fire elemental, when does my pyromancer need to think outside the box to win?

My comments to N'raac also apply to this. Where did the notion of "winning" come from? Who set the goal?

As to why I wouldn't sneak attack everything I meet - because perhaps there are NPCs in the game whom I don't want to kill.

If you find them coherent and satisfying, more power to you. I am not seeing any indication that the results are coherent or satisfying. I see some potential, but I see a lot of issues in getting there. And asking a question results in me being requested to read an extensive text.

You appear to be telling me that my game is incoherent and shallow. I point you to actual play posts that will show you what is happening in my game. You then don't read them - because heaven knows you are too busy posting in this thread to read "extensive texts" - but you continue to assert that my game is inocherent and shalllow.

You seem to me to be more interested in dismissing other posters than in actually trying to understand how they play the game.

I think one of the main points of playing a character like a paladin is the fact that there are hard choices (with consequences) that must be made but I find the approach of pemerton (at least from the discussions we've had) insipid as far as exploring the thematic underpinnings of a class like the paladin

You're also welcome to read and comment on my actual play posts. There are a couple of links earlier in this post.

 

[N'raac]

@Manbearcat[/I[/URL]] ran a one-off scenario to illustrate how an audience with an obstinate chamberlain might be resolved in 4e. You encouraged him to do so.
And now you're complaining that the scenario in question does not have the same backstory depth as a long-running campaign that has actually been played?
And you really can't see any way of filling in those blanks in a reasonable and coherent fashion?

I'm not seeing it happening in these Indie Play examples set for me.

Both are true. They are not in contradiction, and not even in tension.

So "success means success with no future downside" means "future complications can arise from your success". I take it that black is white and vice versa in Indie games as well.

In the discussion of Manbearcat's example, there is also the difference between a check that is a sub-component in an overall challenge, and the challenge itself. The stakes and consequences of an individual check typically cannot be as significant as for the challenge overall. For instance, if the challenge is framed in relation to the king and his chamberlain, but not in relation to protecting the city from the drakes, then success at an individual check establsihes success in relatoin to the king/chamberlain goal, but is naturally going to have fewer large-scale and long-lasting consequences in relation to the drakes' depradations upon the city.

Then success on the check to bluff the Drake is not, in fact, "success - full stop". Might we accept that the question has been answered, then, and "success is succes - full stop" is not a tenet of Indie play?

It is hard to answer these questions, because you seem to be working with a concept of "scene" in which what would count as a successful outcome is known prior to the player engaging it; and you also seem to be assuming that scenes will be framed without regard to the significance, within the fiction, of the PCs who are to engage in them; and you are not assuming "fail forward" as the alternative to success.

So the players set the stakes, but do not know what a successful outcome is. That makes for a somewhat bizarre picture from where I sit.

I posted a link to an actual play post upthread in which a "paladin" (mechaincally, a fighter/cleric) in my game had to choose between honour and expedience. Here is the link again[/URL].

So the Paladin says "gosh, I don't think we'd really bring the prisoner back as a horrible unead creature" but then continues working with the fellow who not only made the threat but clearly has gone out of his way to gain the skills and expertise to do so. Meanwhile, the Frustrated Dwarf ensures he is conveniently outside the room when threats contrary to his own moral code might be made, then expresses his displeasure with the actions of his colleagues, but carries on working with them all the while. Yes, they bhave certainly faced the challenges to their beliefs in a thematic and dramatic moment which will resonate throughout role playing history!

What is important to me is that the player's choice is not between honour and mechanical effectiveness. Rather, it is between two desired fictional outcomes - that the prisoner by duly punished; and that his PC's word be kept. There is no trading off of value against effectiveness and ability to impact the fiction.

Seems like the Paladin had a choice between honour and mechanical effectiveness. He chose to make a mild protest, then stand back and let the necromancer continue. What a full blown gonzo whopper of a moral dilemma that was!

My comments to N'raac also apply to this. Where did the notion of "winning" come from? Who set the goal?

I suggest that gamers typically perceive victory once combat is engaged as an aspect of "winning".

As to why I wouldn't sneak attack everything I meet - because perhaps there are NPCs in the game whom I don't want to kill.

I thought the player decided whether the target was killed or merely rendered unconscious. In any case, there would be situations where combat is not the answer, but with combat joined, why would the rogue ever fail to use that Sneak Attack? And why not convert challenges from non-combat to combat so that sneak attack may be used - isn't the thrust of dinner with the Baron that we can always change the nature of the underlying challenge?

You appear to be telling me that my game is incoherent and shallow. I point you to actual play posts that will show you what is happening in my game. You then don't read them - because heaven knows you are too busy posting in this thread to read "extensive texts" - but you continue to assert that my game is inocherent and shalllow.

I find the "moral dilemma" expressed in your Paladin/Cleric thread didn't carry much depth. Does that help? If following his principals is always easy, then the Paladin's principals really don't mean much.

Many gaming groups prefer to avoid inter-party conflict and/or moral dilemmas, and that's fine. However, if we are truly exploring the belief systems of the characters in some depth, I would expect either limited differences between the characters' moral outlooks or inter-party conflict.

 

[N'raac]

BTW, the inability to see the characters as a whole, or the campaign as a whole, is one reason I don't find reading posts of game play all that interesting or informative. YMMV.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Keep in mind that "splitting hairs" or otherwise dissecting and analyzing a subject of interest to what might seem to some an unreasonable degree has indeed resulted in learning new things. Hair itself has various markers showing a person's health, among other things. Some animals even have hollow hairs (like polar bears), which splitting can reveal more information about.

However, if one doesn't have the tools needed to look at that (and ways of thinking can indeed be tools) then that information might never be open.

Put far more simply, do not dismiss someone just because they are "splitting hairs." They likely see something you don't, which means you might have to go beyond your "comfort zone" of your own experiences and general ways of thinking to catch a glimpse of what they see.

 

[Wiseblood]

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.

I certainly do not take Planar Binding to be “character casting a wish”. I was responding to Hussar who asked a point blank question. Can a caster gain a wish through the use of planar binding? It is in no way an assertion that it's a guaranteed success. As far as rules go it is possible. In actual campaigns I have my doubts that it would work in any save the most forgiving and possibly Monty Haul campaign. I don't particularly like those campaigns but they do exist.

 

[LostSoul]

BTW, the inability to see the characters as a whole, or the campaign as a whole, is one reason I don't find reading posts of game play all that interesting or informative. YMMV.

The link in my sig details a campaign of Burning Empires (Boldaq). We ran it years ago but if you have any questions about it I'd be happy to answer. I don't mention the rolls and mechanics much but I should be able to remember the basics.

 

[Lanefan]

I missed where fighters can create a Potion of Heroism.

He can't. But just as the wizard has to pay the demon for the wish, my fighter can pay for a potion; either at ye olde local magic shoppe if the campaign allows such, or by commissioning a potion-maker to brew him one.

What secondary source did the wizard use though? He summoned the demon, he bargained with the demon, and the demon granted the wish that he made. This is significantly different from the non-caster who has no innate way to ever gain access to anything similar.

The demon *is* the secondary source.

Well, this gets down, a lot, to preference of mechanics. Let's be honest here, the differences here are not in the slightest actually supported by AD&D mechanics. There is no way to be a "guv'nor of givin'er" in AD&D.

Just watch me.

You've never seen Lanefan (the character) in play, have you?

Your attacks are your attacks and you can't really change that. AD&D has so little actual mechanics supporting tactical play that at the table, from the point of view of a third person, your two characters will look pretty much identical.

If all you're looking at is the "box score", probably true. But if you're sitting at the table you'll see - and hear! - a big difference; and that's my whole point. Just like reading the box score of a hockey game in the paper - sure it gives the statistics, but it gives no real clue as to how entertaining (or not) the game was to watch.

The out of combat stuff is purely freeform play. Yup, one character acts differently than the other, but, there's nothing to back that up. Granted, there's nothing wrong with freeform play, but, I think there's a pretty strong argument to be made that freeform roleplay is not the only way to play.

There's nothing to back that up because, as I keep trying to point out, there doesn't need to be anything to back that up.

Lan-"givin'er since 1984"-efan