Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art

[Imaro]

You really expect the person on the other side to accept the one on one duel? Your mark enables you to challenge them effectively to one on one combat so they have a problem attacking anyone else, and Valiant Strike gives you bonusses when they prefer to fight you many on one and have you dogpiled.

I guess it would depend on the situation and who he is challenging... pride and hubris has been the downfall of many an evil villain in fiction... As to the paladin mark in 4e, IME it tends to "guarantee" very little since it's a pretty weak mark...

But if you don't like the way Valiant Strike encourages you to behave don't take it. If your personal picture of a Paladin differs there are about a dozen other at will powers you could take in its place, all of which in different ways reflect how Paladins behave.

It's not about whether I "like" it or not, that's not what was being discussed... it was about abilities that give incentive to role play because they reward you for acting in archetype. I was making the assertion that most editions of D&D have class abilities that give an incentive for certain behaviors...

 

[Neonchameleon]

I guess it would depend on the situation and who he is challenging... pride and hubris has been the downfall of many an evil villain in fiction...

Indeed. But Paladins should be able to cope with the villains who don't decide to duel them. Which is what Valiant Strike does. They have more than one at will to use - so can pick a duelist's one for the other.

As to the paladin mark in 4e, IME it tends to "guarantee" very little since it's a pretty weak mark...

Agreed.

I was making the assertion that most editions of D&D have class abilities that give an incentive for certain behaviors...

And all the ones you listed reward you for doing things everyone should do anyway, irrespective of class. Which doesn't actually need rewarding. Not for doing things you normally shouldn't unless you're the sort of person who focusses on them. You'd have been closer if you'd listed Whirlwind Attack - but that's an ability to do something no one else can (at the cost of five feats!) rather than something everyone can but others shouldn't.

 

[Imaro]

And all the ones you listed reward you for doing things everyone should do anyway, irrespective of class. Which doesn't actually need rewarding. Not for doing things you normally shouldn't unless you're the sort of person who focusses on them. You'd have been closer if you'd listed Whirlwind Attack - but that's an ability to do something no one else can (at the cost of five feats!) rather than something everyone can but others shouldn't.

I disagree... should a wizard be "smiting" evil in direct hand-to-hand combat? Should a rogue? Should a paladin or fighter be trying to hide with the rogue to get a sneak attack in? No what I see is it giving incentive for behaviors that fit particular archetypes for the classes that correspond to said archetype...

 

[Hussar]

I played D&D all through the 80's and read many dragon magazines and I can assure you that style of play was not on most people's minds. And that is too bad because some of them would have been happy with the new approach and would have stopped sabotaging the more traditional games with their whining and rules lawyering.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-Mastering-as-a-Fine-Art/page24#ixzz33oKbxaBS

Sigh, you were doing so well up to this point. I was nodding along with your points and then you drop this. Sorry, but "sabotaging" with "whining and rules lawyering"? Please. That criticism can be levelled at any group of gamers you care to point to. How can it be rules lawyering when there are no rules for what you want to do? But, in any case, it would be extremely helpful to avoid these kinds of comments when talking about a play style you don't enjoy. it simply puts people on the defensive.

I think we are agreeing. I don't know when the first human being played in that style. I am certain it was a good bit before systems began to accommodate that style. I think we can agree that the common man on the street wasn't hearing about it unless he happened to know someone leading that charge. It wasn't the mainstream playing style is my point.

Any popular game is bound to be taken in lots of different directions. The Monte Haul style game was actually the battleground in the late 70s and 80s. Gygax actually railed against it in the 1e DMG. So I don't doubt that if roleplaying stays popular many more approaches will arise some of which I may like and some I won't. I'm not locked into the past but I am very much a fan of a particular viewpoint approach to gaming. I prefer actor stance and character limited knowledge as much as possible.

How is Dragonlance not mainstream? One of the best selling module series of all time, wasn't mainstream enough for you? Because you certainly see all sorts of "story game" elements in those modules. IIRC, the Conan series of modules had a number of elements as well to push story forward.

Never minding, of course, an entire edition (2e) which tried to push all sorts of story game style elements into the game.

How mainstream does it have to be before it gets accepted?

 

[Hussar]

Yes but the point was about abilities that reinforce roleplaying... Now whether a paladin archetype should rush in to a group and fight as opposed to say... challenging and smiting the biggest, baddest evil doer in one-on-one combat on the field is more about how one views a paladin than whether either particular ability gives more of an incentive to roleplay or not.

But, let's not forget here, we are going to have more than one power. Valiant strike encourages one behaviour. A different power encourages another (or possibly reinforces the first) and the player can decide what he wants to encourage based on his vision for the character. A challenging paladin is certainly a possibility as well. Or a paladin that can do both.

I disagree... should a wizard be "smiting" evil in direct hand-to-hand combat? Should a rogue? Should a paladin or fighter be trying to hide with the rogue to get a sneak attack in? No what I see is it giving incentive for behaviors that fit particular archetypes for the classes that correspond to said archetype...

No, well, not often anyway. But, the end strategy is largely the same - deal damage to the enemy. Wizards generally aren't going to do it in hand to hand combat, but, they are very likely to hide just like a rogue (invisibility, standing in the background, sniping) and firing away. A rogue and a wizard can look very, very similar sometimes. The paladin and fighter aren't hiding to get in that sneak attack, but, in say 1e, they are hiding to get in that surprise round, where you can get up to 3 full rounds worth of actions before the enemy takes a single action.

Even in 3e, having that surprise round can be devastating. Surprise charge followed by winning initiative and a full round of attacks can do a heck of a lot of damage. So, why wouldn't a fighter or a paladin hide with the rogue if they can?

Standing up front and challenging the enemy leader isn't actually supported by the mechanics in any way that I can think of in 3e. I remember in 2e actually trying to do it at some tables because, like you, I thought that's what a paladin should be doing. After my third paladin died when all the mooks rushed up and ganked him because the different DM's thought my idea was tactically suicidal, I stopped doing that.

 

[Lanefan]

How is Dragonlance not mainstream? One of the best selling module series of all time, wasn't mainstream enough for you? Because you certainly see all sorts of "story game" elements in those modules.

Dragonlance represented more of a split in the mainstream, or (depending on how you look at it) the beginning of a major diversion of its course...

Never minding, of course, an entire edition (2e) which tried to push all sorts of story game style elements into the game.

...to this.

Not to everybody's tastes, but it's out there notwithstanding and always will be.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

Which is my point. It's pretty hard to call 2e a "minor niche" in the hobby. I don't care if someone likes itor not. But trying to exclude it from the hobby is a bad idea.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I disagree... should a wizard be "smiting" evil in direct hand-to-hand combat? Should a rogue? Should a paladin or fighter be trying to hide with the rogue to get a sneak attack in? No what I see is it giving incentive for behaviors that fit particular archetypes for the classes that correspond to said archetype...

Yes fighters damn well should be trying to hide to win surprise rounds, and to get flanking bonusses. Surprise rounds kill and flanking is a boost to hit. And the only argument that Paladins shouldn't is the Paladin's code of conduct or RP. Sometimes class features prohibit what would normally be good tactics.

Wizards and Smite are the single exception here. And that's down to the class features of the wizard that make what would normally be a good tactic (everyone in melee beating the enemy down, either getting or preventing the overlap) into a bad one. Wizards are quite literally the exception that proves the rule - wizards wouldn't benefit from Smite because of the wizard class features that cut off lines of tactics that almost every other class uses. (Seriously, other than Wizards and Sorcerers every other PHB class goes into melee - which means every single class from Monk to Ranger, from Cleric to Rogue other than the Wizard or Sorcerer can make good use of Smite without changing their tactics). Literally the only classes that would be encouraged to make otherwise bad moves by giving them Smite would be Wizards and Sorcerers.

Dragonlance represented more of a split in the mainstream, or (depending on how you look at it) the beginning of a major diversion of its course...
...to this.

Not to everybody's tastes, but it's out there notwithstanding and always will be.

Dragonlance was huge. But I disagree with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] that it has mechanics that are meaningfully described as Story Game - Storygames are a reaction against the sort of mechanics in Dragonlance (and the truly terrible GM advice in the WoD) that had old school roleplayers grinding their teeth (see, for example, the "Obscure Death Rule" or railroading in general).

 

[Imaro]

But, let's not forget here, we are going to have more than one power. Valiant strike encourages one behaviour. A different power encourages another (or possibly reinforces the first) and the player can decide what he wants to encourage based on his vision for the character. A challenging paladin is certainly a possibility as well. Or a paladin that can do both.

What exact;ly does this have to do with the original point? Either class abilities do or don't encourage certain behavior... and thus give incentive to "roleplay"... the number or amount is irrelevant to my point.

No, well, not often anyway. But, the end strategy is largely the same - deal damage to the enemy. Wizards generally aren't going to do it in hand to hand combat, but, they are very likely to hide just like a rogue (invisibility, standing in the background, sniping) and firing away. A rogue and a wizard can look very, very similar sometimes. The paladin and fighter aren't hiding to get in that sneak attack, but, in say 1e, they are hiding to get in that surprise round, where you can get up to 3 full rounds worth of actions before the enemy takes a single action.

Yes and a Ranger and Rogue in 4e can look very similar when using similar tactics... Again how does this address my original point?

Standing up front and challenging the enemy leader isn't actually supported by the mechanics in any way that I can think of in 3e. I remember in 2e actually trying to do it at some tables because, like you, I thought that's what a paladin should be doing. After my third paladin died when all the mooks rushed up and ganked him because the different DM's thought my idea was tactically suicidal, I stopped doing that.

So heavy armor, stealth and hide as a non-class skill, smite ability, high hit points, etc. don't give incentive to face the big evil head up as opposed to say spending an action to try and sneak up on him and most likely failing miserably or attacking from range with a low Dex?? As to the tactics of your DM the same thing can be done in any system where the DM actively wants to counter the archetypal behavior of a class as opposed to working with it. Also where were was the rest of your party... if you were going head up with the BBEG what was everyone else doing?

 

[Imaro]

Yes fighters damn well should be trying to hide to win surprise rounds, and to get flanking bonusses. Surprise rounds kill and flanking is a boost to hit. And the only argument that Paladins shouldn't is the Paladin's code of conduct or RP. Sometimes class features prohibit what would normally be good tactics.

Unless of course their abyssmally low hide and move silently scores negate that (possibly even ruining the rogue's chance to get surprise as well) and thus push them towards the straight up fighter that they are as opposed to a sneaky rogue... it's not about what they can try to do (you can try to do anything you want in an rpg), it's about what their class abilities give an incentive to do... that's what were discussing.

Wizards and Smite are the single exception here. And that's down to the class features of the wizard that make what would normally be a good tactic (everyone in melee beating the enemy down, either getting or preventing the overlap) into a bad one. Wizards are quite literally the exception that proves the rule - wizards wouldn't benefit from Smite because of the wizard class features that cut off lines of tactics that almost every other class uses. (Seriously, other than Wizards and Sorcerers every other PHB class goes into melee - which means every single class from Monk to Ranger, from Cleric to Rogue other than the Wizard or Sorcerer can make good use of Smite without changing their tactics). Literally the only classes that would be encouraged to make otherwise bad moves by giving them Smite would be Wizards and Sorcerers.

So should a rogue be running up into straight up melee combat trading blows or should he be striking from distance and looking for chances to sneak attack? I'll tell you which rogue is going to survive longer and make better use of his abilities in any edition (possibly outside of 4e) and it's not the run up and hack (smite) rogue... Like I said every class in every edition has abilities that give an incentive (not force) to play said class in certain ways.