Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8153783" data-attributes="member: 6696971">So what you've brought up at the bottom of that is actually one of the historically big issues where Force is applied in D&D and it brings up a question that I want to post to the thread commenters (I will do that at the bottom).  D&D has a Spellcaster problem.  I'm wondering if the fault-line of the conversation cleaves exactly the same way as the ideological fault-line of the above statement.  I already know several members thoughts on it and, interestingly, it does for those participants, so I wonder if its across the board.If the play ethos, GMing Principles, capabilities of PCs, and the action resolution mechanics in Blades were ported over to D&D, it wouldn't have a Spellcaster problem.  But it doesn't have this kind of architecture and it does have a Spellcaster problem.How has D&D (outside of 4e and Moldvay Basic) historically resolved this "Spellcaster problem?"Force in the exact same way you're potentially imputing to Blades above; at the framing level and at the outcome level. How and why does this manifest in (non 4e) D&D?  As follows:* GMs has mandate as lead storyteller, adventure writer, rules mediator, spotlight balancer, and "ensure everyone has a good time...er".  Do what it takes to get "the job" done.* The process for specific types of action resolution is entirely GM facing.  However...spellcasting...is not.  It has the unique privilege of being little packets of "fiction/gamestate fiat".  "Fire and forget authorial control."  Literally.* How do you deal with this GM/Player Arms Race once Spellcaster power becomes proliferate enough that it can be routinely deployed and potent enough that it gets to routinely reframe or obviate content/conflicts?  Spotlight balancing (which is one of your big directives in D&D GMing) becomes impossible because Spellcaster players co-opt play just by sincerely playing their class (which no one should be castigated for...everyone else gets to play their class to the hilt).  Encounter intuitiveness on the GM's side of things gets thrown off because you may think you've built this interesting climactic fight and the Spellcaster just says "nope."  Intrigue, exploration, journey all get short-circuited because the Spellcaster just says "nope."  All that stuff in the first * becomes nigh impossible.  What's a GM to do?!* You unilaterally take it away.  You frame a situation with intrinsic Spellcaster blocks or you leverage offscreen/backstory that you have exclusive access to (and often times "leverage" means impromptu make it up in order to execute a block).  Antimagic Zones, Counterspells or NPC Wizards that are perfectly loaded out to counter PC Mages, Wild Magic Fields, Spellbook/component theft, Divination/recon, etc etc, etc.  * This ham-fisted stuff starts getting sniffed out from miles away in D&D and unless you're playing with passive, Participationist type players, its going to initially illicit eye-rolls > then passive-aggressiveness > then aggressiveness > then walk-out.[HR][/HR]So a couple of questions (for everyone):* Do you believe that (non 4e) D&D has a Spellcaster problem?  * If so, have you ever leveraged those blocks?* Try to Steelman my argument against the idea that "framing" and "choosing outcomes" is where you may find Force in Blades GMing.  If you're able, where/what in that group of stuff above puts it at odds with the paradigm of Blades?  If you can't that is fine, I'll fill in the blanks later.  But I think this paradigm above should be pretty instructive.</blockquote>

Verification