Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[sheadunne]

Could it be an awesome game? Sure. Is this somehow superior from discovering the obstinate Chamberlain will not let us see the king, and needing to regroup to plan how to deal with that issue? Not automatically. That could also be an awesome game.

What I saw was the "issues" being resolved during the scene rather than done as a separate game. Rather than have the PC's turned away and investigate, all the investigating that would have been done was included within the scene. I felt the scene actually crammed three or four sessions worth of investigating into one 40 minute scene. I felt it was elegant that way.

Now on the other side, I can certainly see a lot of fun also occurring in an investigation game, if that was something the players were interested in pursuing. In indie-play, player goals are the driving force behind the scenes. The goal of this particular scene was to gain the assistance, blessing, etc of the king. They achieved that goal. An investigation scene would have delayed the player goals and may have caused player disinterest? On the other hand, if the goal of the scene was to set up an investigation of why the kingdom is falling apart or why babies have gone missing etc, then the scene would have been framed differently. At least that's the way I'm understanding it.

If players in [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] 's games want to get to the action and aren't interested in spending time investigating, then this particular method I would say worked well.

If players in your game are interested in investigating then the scene wouldn't have been very fulfilling, felt rushed, lacked the nuances of uncovering clues.

What I think both of you are interested in is playing a fun game. What nobody wants is forcing players to investigate when they have no interested in it, or forcing players to ignore investigating when they've clearly expressed a desire to play that type of game.

What I personally don't want is a bait and switch game. I don't want to spend 4 sessions investigating why the chamberlain won't let us see the king if I've signed up for a gonzo high-fantasy adventure game, nor do I want a gonzo game when I've but my Sherlock Holmes hat on.

 

[pemerton]

I continue to find a dichotomy that we must always be able to negotiate/intimidate/con our way past the Chamberlain – that is, there is no such thing as an unbeatable social challenge - but the same does not extend to a combat challenge. Especially when this is interspersed with admonitions that we should be letting the gameplay drive the determination of whether we are engaging some challenges (all challenges?) through social or combat means.

I don't understand what you mean by "the same does not extend to a combat challenge". I've stated on multiple occasions that I wouldn't frame default 1st level 4e PCs into a conflict with a default 4e Ancient Red Dragon precisely because the players of those PCs would have no chance of meaningfully affecting the fiction within the scene.

The same is true of the chamberlain. If you think that it is absurd that a chamberlain might be influenced by 1st level PCs, then they are not going to be framed into such an encounter. I personally don't take this view, however. As I've also stated upthread, multiple times, 4e does not by default assign a level to chamberlains. And I think there is nothing at all absurd about 1st level PCs dealing with the chamberlain if the fictional positioning otherwise makes sense; not every king is so exalted as to not be able to meet with commoners.

Or it contradicts the setting backstory (backstory we don’t, because we are dealing out of context, have). When the party arrived, I perceived them seeking the blessing of the good and noble king for their quest. When that scene ended, do they still even want that blessing? Their quest seems to have vanished as an element of play with all the new issues raised

<snip>

The players previously had no idea dragons/drakes are ever seen in the city, but now we find they routinely visit the King to collect tribute (including, apparently, his subjects). It’s unreasonable that the players don’t know in advance whether they have any chance, or whether it is likely, to get an audience with the King, but it’s perfectly reasonable that the kingdom they perceive as noble, righteous and secure is actually routinely trading, in a heavily populated area, with dragons they must appease at any cost.

<snip>

The scene either created or modified substantial backstory and set up challenges very different than those the players began the scene focused on (ie their Quest).

I don't see any reference to "good and noble king" in post 1403 in which [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] describes the framing and resolution of the scene - the goal is described as "to get to and convince the king to act or sponsor/deputize them, or grant them resources/assets/hirelings". That is pretty standard, I think - the goal is to achieve a certain ingame outcome, not to achieve a metagame-level rewriting of the king's backstory.

That success at the goal turns out to bring its own complications with it is pretty fundamental to indie GMing - as per my quote upthread of Eero Tuovinen:

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.​

What is distinctive about the "indie" technique is that the complications and secret backstory - such as that the king has been trafficking with dragons - becomes relevant as a consequence of play, rather than serves as an input into action resolution via affecting fictional positioning in ways that the players aren't aware of.

So yes, it would be unreasonable - in this playstyle - to frame a scene which the players cannot impact, and hence they do know in advance that they can impact it; but it is not unreasonable for new backstory, even pretty wild backstory, to emerge from play. That's a good part of the point of play in this approach.

And I don't see why you say that the scene sets up challenges different from the dragon-slaying quest. It seems to me to have intensified the stakes of that quest - if the dragon isn't slain, the whole town might be destroyed in revenge for the sacrifices not being provided!

It seems incongruous to me that, after our wily rogue gathered info on the town and the kingdom, let us assume successfully, that no indication of these Drakes came to light, that the King is viewed as good and righteous, and that his vigilence means we all sleep securely in our beds.

I missed all this stuff. Where did Manbearcat indicated that this had happened?

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 nslavement 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 . . .

The goal of the specific roll in question, which succeeded, was to avoid retribution on the city (or at least that is how it was presented in context).

I don't read it that way at all. Manbearcat doesn't tell us exactly what the player framed as his goal, but it looks to me like the goal was to drive the drake off by making it think it had been cursed. And that succeeded - the drake flew off, and didn't return within the context of the scene. But I would be gobsmacked if anyone involved in resolving that skill check thought that by succeeding at it the city had been saved from retribution.

*********************************

I am always looking for ways to use my resources, as a player, to maximise my ability to impact the scene, and want mechanics that ensure that doing this will express the distinctive personality of my PC.

And this is where I see “tactics override personality”. I want a game where PC’s can have strengths and weaknesses, where they may well make suboptimal choices tactically because that is where their personalities would lead them, and where the game play is capable of accommodating this.

Your response seems to come from a very strong "mechanics as process simulation" perspective - so that if the character does something which is, within the fiction, tactically suboptimal, then you as a player have foregone your chance to have an impact on the fiction.

Part of what I mean when I say that I want mechanics that will mean that using my resources to maximise impact on the scene will also express personality, is that the mechanics will include what ever metagame, non-simulation component they require to achieve this.

This is quite orthogonal to PCs having weaknesses. The PC whose sheet I posted has weaknesses - for instance, he is not very perceptive of the emotions and attitudes of others. But if the GM frames me into a situation in which, in order to impact the fiction, I must know what some other person is thinking or feeling, then I will make my Insight check, even though I have a good chance of failing.

What I won't do is voluntarily deprotagonise my PC. Given that the point of playing the game, for me, is to impact upon the fiction via my PC, it would be self-defeating to deprive myself of the capacity to do that.

Let us assume that the “tactically best choice” in further negotiations with the King is to offer him a way to just sweep the whole “commiserating with dragons” thing under the rug, or even to allow it to continue – that’s the best way to get what we want to continue with our quest. Is it good role playing for the Paladin to take that route, or would good role playing see him take a more difficult approach, or perhaps even forego the King’s blessing rather than compromise his beliefs?

I must not have been clear. If the mechanical build of a paladin, in conjunction with the action resolution mechanics, mean that the mechanically most effective way for the player of the paladin to impact the fiction is in the way you describe, then I think there is something wrong with the mechanics.

So when a situation arises where the better tactic is to seek an understanding and accommodation, does your Paladin still (in a tactically poor approach) use his typical overbearing approach, or does a hand on his shoulder and a cautionary word from another party member cause him to override his personality and shut up for the scene so those with better Insight can bring the best tactical approach to success?

As I said just above, this is up to the framing. If my PC is present in a scene then I would expect the GM to frame it so as to engage my PC. How I would respond would depend upon that framing. An obvious default would be to politely ask my comrade not to touch me, and to persuade the NPC in question of what is needed or expected.

Part of what may be causing some communication issues here, by the way, is the idea that, in the situation, there is a "better tactic". I'm not100% sure what you have in mind there, but to me it has at least hints of preconceived ideas, on the part of the GM, as to how the scene will unfold.

Do the PC’s commonly give something for nothing? I think they commonly act to advance their own agendas.

That depends pretty heavily on the PCs in question.

The PCs in my current game have saved a couple of major towns and their hinterland from goblin invasions, stopped gnolls running rampant through that same hinterland, helped some elves recover stolen idols from a black dragon, redeemed a fallen paladin, reestablished an abandoned temple, rescued a drow outpost from Orcus, and stopped Miska the Wolf-Spider's attempt at escaping from Carceri (which admittedly they also inadvertantly abetted somewhat), all for very little reward.

Their agenda is pretty much "save the world from the impending Dusk War", although they have different views about what saving the world actually involves.

The PCs in another campaign I mentioned upthread, who helped invaders conquer their hometown, were quite different. The more admirable of them still agreed to betry his hometown in return for a promise of (moderately) high office and a (reasonably nice) house.

****************************

Could it be an awesome game? Sure. Is this somehow superior from discovering the obstinate Chamberlain will not let us see the king, and needing to regroup to plan how to deal with that issue? Not automatically. That could also be an awesome game.

<snip>

I don’t find it any more conducive to a good game whether created by the GM or a player.

I don't really understand why you frame the discussion in those terms. Manbearcat is not trying to persuade anyone to play like him. He's just trying to show how certain techniques are used.

I frankly doubt that [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] would find a game involving Manbearcat's techniques awesome. And I know I would not find the game with the obstinate chamberlain on whom I can have no impact via my PC awesome. In fact I would quite dislike it. That's the nature of different styles - we don't all find the same things awesome.

 

[pemerton]

What I saw was the "issues" being resolved during the scene rather than done as a separate game.

<snip>

I felt it was elegant that way.

Nice observation.

Now on the other side, I can certainly see a lot of fun also occurring in an investigation game, if that was something the players were interested in pursuing.

<snip>

If players in your game are interested in investigating then the scene wouldn't have been very fulfilling, felt rushed, lacked the nuances of uncovering clues.

The issue of mystery games in indie play has come up a few times now. I think that indie play is not necessarily well-suited to a certain style of mystery game, because of the "paper scenery" response that some players may have (see [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]'s reply about 10 posts upthread of this one).

 

[Lanefan]

And here we observe another playstyle difference. I want a game in which the mechanics ensure that the best way for me, as player, to impact the scene via my PC - which is what I take you to mean by "tactically best choice" - is a way that will give voice and expression to my character's personality.

This is related to my discussion, upthread, of Rolemaster PC sheets. The best way for the player of the character with only Duping and Lie Perception as social skills to impact a social scene via his PC is to dissimulate while "reading" his target. The best way for the player of the character with only Leadership as a strong social skill to impact the same scene is to try and take charge. The best way for the player of the character with decent Amiability to impact the same scene is to be friendly, and evince a readiness to give and take. The mechanics encourage the players, in playing their PCs so as to impact the scene, to give expression to distincitve personalities.

Thing is, it's every bit as possible to do this without mechanical backup. You want to play a character as a strong leader? Go for it. As a charming spy-type? Go for it.

Example: in the past few years I've had two magic-users, mechanically pretty similar (very high Int, decent Dex and Cha, not much else) but vastly different in non-mechanical personality...which reflects in how they play:
- one is a pompous LN type who grew up in (equivalent of) a Roman culture - her goals are to help civilize the world by ridding it of monsters etc. and bringing good Roman ideals to all, and later to become the first woman in the Senate. In play this reflects where she will take the lead while others dither, cast in a controlled (sometimes even elegant) manner, and not tolerate dissension in the ranks.
- the other is a flighty CE type who is only with the party at all because a) her friends are, and b) adventuring gets you rich. She's a nasty <female-dog> to be around but tries not to piss off the party *too* much. Her long-term goal is to be the evil wizard that lower-level adventurers go out to kill, and to fund her activities off what she loots from said adventurers. In play her personality reflects in that nobody ever knows quite what she will do next but it'll probably involve fire at some point, and if a few innocents get hurt in the process: shrug "oops".

And sometimes you have to fight the mechanics. Right now I'm playing a Dwarf Cleric in one game who is hampered somewhat by his mighty 6 of a Charisma score. In a fight-y dungeon this wouldn't be a problem but the current adventure has so far been about 7 sessions worth of spying, information gathering, scouting etc. in a city half a continent behind enemy lines. So how do I make Terazon relevant in this scenario? His deity is the God of Beer, so to gather info he hits the pubs, buys beer for all, tries (maybe not very well) to be friendly, and then pretty much shuts up and listens. It doesn't always work (and realistically, nor should it) but at least he tries.

I personally would never play in the way you described upthread about the wizard who casts the Wall of Iron despite the player knowing there is no mechanical threat; or the fighter who looks into the eyes of the umber hulk; and I would never expect my players to do so.

And now we're into what I call (though perhaps redefining the term a bit from its usual use) powergaming, seeing D&D as chess-with-personality. This style of play, where everything is done perfectly and you always make the right choice (even without necessarily having the in-character knowledge to do so), just isn't any fun - it's too serious. It's also not very realistic. To me the fighter who glares into the eyes of the Umber Hulk - that's brilliant! And if he makes his save and fights the thing it's heroic too. And if he fails his save, well that's what experience is all about and he'll know better next time...assuming he survives.

Lan-"off to worship the God of Beer later this afternoon, in fact"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Your response seems to come from a very strong "mechanics as process simulation" perspective - so that if the character does something which is, within the fiction, tactically suboptimal, then you as a player have foregone your chance to have an impact on the fiction.

Oh you'll still have an impact - it just might not be what you and-or your party were after.

What I won't do is voluntarily deprotagonise my PC. Given that the point of playing the game, for me, is to impact upon the fiction via my PC, it would be self-defeating to deprive myself of the capacity to do that.

Obviously. And no matter what you do you'll have an impact. My argument is that you seem to want that impact to always be positive and controlled, where I say a negative or neutral or completely unexpected impact arising from doing the wrong thing can be just as entertaining. The only way to completely de-protagonize your character (in almost all situations) is to do nothing at all and just stand there quietly, and very few if any players will do this on a regular basis.

I must not have been clear. If the mechanical build of a paladin, in conjunction with the action resolution mechanics, mean that the mechanically most effective way for the player of the paladin to impact the fiction is in the way you describe, then I think there is something wrong with the mechanics.

Why? That seems like a perfectly reasonable choice to have to make for an honour-bound Pally.

As I said just above, this is up to the framing. If my PC is present in a scene then I would expect the GM to frame it so as to engage my PC.

Why does it always have to be about you/your PC? Maybe the scene you're in has nothing to do with you at all to begin with, you've been put in it to see if you realize this and can restrain yourself from interfering until unexpected-action X happens. Example: your 4th-level (1e) party is waiting to see the chamberlain. Again. This is the third day in a row you've spent sitting in his waiting room, but you really need the king's direct permission for this venture as it might involve clashes with forces from the neighouring Barony (currently against the law, by royal decree) and without the king's relaxation of his decree you'll end up hunted by two realms. Over the past few days you've seen various other supplicants come and go, some are turned away immediately, others get in pretty fast, others are made to wait just like you. What do you do?
(note there could be any number of reasons why you're stuck waiting - you're being watched to see how patient you are; or there's a backroom dispute as to whether you're to be allowed in; or the king simply has higher priorities to deal with than you lot, etc.)
Now here as DM I've decided that if you simply say "We'll wait longer" then half an hour later a crossbow bolt is going to come in the window and take down one of the other supplicants (a pre-planned plot development that leads to other things including you being fast-tracked into the king's presence should you so desire). If you say "Screw it, we're leaving" then the crossbow incident will still happen but you might not learn of it for days. If you do anything else e.g. start nosing around thepalace, or talk with other supplicants, etc. then that's played out as per usual - but it's a nothing scene that takes 30 seconds to resolve if the party (for once!) does nothing.

What it also does is gives the party a chance to mess things up.

Part of what may be causing some communication issues here, by the way, is the idea that, in the situation, there is a "better tactic". I'm not100% sure what you have in mind there, but to me it has at least hints of preconceived ideas, on the part of the GM, as to how the scene will unfold.

The DM knows what's going to happen - of course - in the longer term (the crossbow bolt is coming in through the window in half an hour) but doesn't know if the party will be around to notice it or not.

And in some cases there isn't a "better tactic", only "less worse".

Lanefan

 

[Aenghus]

And now we're into what I call (though perhaps redefining the term a bit from its usual use) powergaming, seeing D&D as chess-with-personality. This style of play, where everything is done perfectly and you always make the right choice (even without necessarily having the in-character knowledge to do so), just isn't any fun - it's too serious. It's also not very realistic. To me the fighter who glares into the eyes of the Umber Hulk - that's brilliant! And if he makes his save and fights the thing it's heroic too. And if he fails his save, well that's what experience is all about and he'll know better next time...assuming he survives.

Making tactical errors doesn't necessarily make you a better roleplayer. Repeating tactical errors definitely doesn't. Taking risks with your own PC is part of the game, and can be fun.

It's not so much fun when your PC, when confused, chops another PC's head off (I've seen similar incidents before). It's even less fun the second time it happens. This style of play can have severe downsides if there isn't DM fudging so that the flavourful clueless mistakes of the method actor don't directly cause a trail of PC deaths or even TPKs. Holding the foaming barbarian back so he doesn't eviscerate the recalcitrant chamberlain can be fun the first time, but with repetition without any learning or character development it quickly turns being a quirk of character to an annoyance, to making the PC too much of a liability to tolerate. I've seen PCs fired or killed by parties tired of the unnecessary risks taken by such PCs in the name of fun and role-playing. The hackneyed phrase "I was just playing my character" are typically the last words of many such PCs.

Wargaming-style play is a perfectly viable game style, emphasising the Game part of "RPG". After all D&D itself descended from a wargame. I prefer some roleplaying mixed in there myself. I just don't see rules as a natural enemy of roleplaying or a necessary evil.

Every group I have seen develops their own sense of what metagaming is rewarded, what is permitted and what is forbidden. If any mechanics are used in the game players with decent system mastery or good math will instinctively develop a feel for the underlying probabilities (or lack of them) in the game, whether they articulate them or not. Obfuscating the math just hinders those players who want to make rational decisions and are prevented from doing so.

Seriously, every style of play has strengths and weaknesses. Used "incorrectly", any style of play can lead to issues within a game. The posters here have developed their play and refereeing styles in reaction to the best and the worst they have seen over their years. The issue being one persons best may well be another's undesirable or worst. We value different game goals and our choice of DM tools and tactics reflect that.

 

[pemerton]

Why does it always have to be about you/your PC? Maybe the scene you're in has nothing to do with you at all to begin with, you've been put in it to see if you realize this and can restrain yourself from interfering until unexpected-action X happens.

In my case, because that's what I play the game for. If action X is interesting, then I would expect that GM to frame my PC into the occurence of action X.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable choice to have to make for an honour-bound Pally.

This comes back to what we mean by "success", I think. I have talked about "having an impact on the scene". If I am playing an honour-bound paladin, and the best (or only) way for me have an impact on the scene is to act dishonourably, then (by my lights) something has gone wrong. Choosing to act dishonourably should be relevant not because it is the best way to impact the scene, but because it is a different way of impacting the scene compared to acting honourably.

Here is an actual play report that illustrates what I mean: the player of the paladin (well, fighter/cleric - same diff) chose to act honourably rather than dishonourably, and that didn't reduce his ability to impact the scene, though it changed the nature of the impact:

the PCs took as prisoner a cleric of Torog

<snip>

They decided to conduct the interrogation in the beer cellar of the inn

<snip>

The party's "social" team consists of a drow sorcerer/demonskin adept with very strong Bluff and good Intimidate, a tiefling paladin of the Raven Queen with good Diplomacy and Intimidate, and a wizard/divine philosopher (who serves Erathis, Ioun, probably Vecna although it's a bit amiguous, and in the past at least has served the Raven Queen)

<snip>

There are two other PCs. One is a ranger/cleric who has good perception, zero social skills, and whose player is interstate on sabbatical - so that character was given the job of guarding the stairs. The other is a dwarven fighter/warpriest of Moradin, who has poor social skills but who (due to the way previous events have played out) is the "leader" of the party in the town they are in - he is "Lord Derrik", "Lord of the Dwarfholme of the East" who is accepted by the Baron as a peer.

As the interrogation began in the beer cellar, Lord Derrik was sent upstairs, to the enemy's apartments, to do a thorough search

<snip>

With the sorcerer taking the lead <snip> they managed to persuade the captive cleric to talk. I ran the persuasion as a skill challenge

<snip>

The crux of the attempt to persuade her was that she had no objection to suffering (being a cleric of Torog) but that she didn't want to die; but also if she did die, she was very confident that her soul would not go to the Raven Queen but straight to her divine master.

<snip>

The wizard threatened her with death and resurrection as an undead corpse which he would then interrogate at his leisure (and he showed her some documents detailing necromantic rituals to back up this threat), but the force of this threat was a little blunted by the objections coming from the paladin of the Raven Queen.

The captive herself then started insisting that Lord Derrik (whom she, like everyone else in the town, was treating as the leader of the party) guarantee that the Baron would not execute her.

<snip>

The drow sorcerer, through subtle manipulation (and an excellent Bluff check) managed to persuade her that this would be done, although no such actual promise was given - it was more that he worded things in such a way that gave her the impression that the undertaking was understood by all to have been given. And neither the wizard nor the paladin did anything to contradict the impression that had been created on her part. And thus she started spilling the beans - of which she had many to spill.

And then at about this time the player playing Derrik decided he had had enough of watching the others go at it, and so decided that Derrik had finished sorting out the furniture upstairs and was coming back downstairs to see how things were going. The ranger on guard had been instructed to try and dissuade Derrik from coming down, and he made a half-hearted attempt, but a PC whose player is absent is never going to persuade a PC whose player is present and wants to get in on the action! So Derrik came in.

He was very pleased to see the captive talking, and being so cooperative. And she was very pleased to see him, explaining that she was glad that he (through his agents) had promised to persuade the Baron to spare his life. At which point Derrik almost started pulling out his beard in frustration (and I think the player might not have been following all that was going on also

<snip>

But being a warpriest of Moradin, and a dwarf of his word (even if given carelessly by others!) he could not go back on a deal that she had so obviously been made to believe had been struck, and had relied upon in exchange for giving up her information.

Derrik did try to weasel out of things a bit by saying "he would do his best to persuade the Baron to spare her life", but the captive pointed out that the Baron owed his life and his town to Derrik, and Derrik was therefore in a position to extract the guarantee of mercy, not merely ask for it. And so when the PCs then met up with the Baron at dawn, the first thing Derrik did after pleasantries had been exchanged was to hand over the prisoner while explaining that he had promised to her that her life would be spared. And as she had foreseen, the Baron had no choice but to comply with Derrik's request.

So Derrik (and Derrik's player, at least somewhat) was upset that a prisoner had been spared whom he thought ought to be tried and justly punished - because the interrogators had been careless in making promises that they shouldn't have. The drow was upset that Derrik had instructed him to lead an interrogation, and then come in and mucked it up before it had reached its conclusion (which I think the drow envisaged being a swift execution so that Derrik need never know of the duplicitous means used to extract the information). The paladin was upset that someone who deserved death, and who had brough death to so many undeserving, was being spared.​

And now we're into what I call (though perhaps redefining the term a bit from its usual use) powergaming, seeing D&D as chess-with-personality. This style of play, where everything is done perfectly and you always make the right choice (even without necessarily having the in-character knowledge to do so), just isn't any fun - it's too serious.

I think there is still a disconnect over "right choice". I prefer it that differences of choice be driven by differences in their value or meaning, not becuase one is more mechanically expedient than the other.

 

[Wicht]

The threat from the chamberlain to the king would have to be pretty severe, I think, for this clause to kick in. And even then the chamberlain might be expected to explain to the charming PC why he cannot help.

Nobody ever said contrarywise to any of that.

 

[Lanefan]

This comes back to what we mean by "success", I think. I have talked about "having an impact on the scene". If I am playing an honour-bound paladin, and the best (or only) way for me have an impact on the scene is to act dishonourably, then (by my lights) something has gone wrong. Choosing to act dishonourably should be relevant not because it is the best way to impact the scene, but because it is a different way of impacting the scene compared to acting honourably.

Perhaps in this case the best impact you could have would be no impact at all - realize you're stuck between honour and action, bow out, and leave this one to your supporting cast. (in other words, not every scene should expect to engage every character, and not every character <read: player> should automatically expect to be able to participate in every scene)

the PCs took as prisoner a cleric of Torog

<snip an amusing story>

The paladin was upset that someone who deserved death, and who had brough death to so many undeserving, was being spared.​

And the best part? She's still alive to escape from the Baron's prison and come back at the party as a recurring villain later! I love it when players give me-as-DM gifts like this!

Lan-"'if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice' - Rush"-efan

 

[Wicht]

Consistent with their values and goals, in your view, you mean. After all, you've now imposed your own interpretation on their values and goals.

Well I am the DM, who else gets to interpret the value and goals of NPCs? (excepting in some shared story indy game, which I am not playing, so it doesn't count)

But, it's not really something for nothing. Not in that sense. The player cast the spell and expects to get the results from the spell. When I cast fireball, is it unreasonable to expect to do d6/level damage? Planar Binding spells do exactly what they say - give wizards the ability to gain a powerful ally who will do something for them.

Unless, of course, the DM has now decided that the spell doesn't actually do that and chooses to interpret things in a very specific way.

You have read the spell text right? The spell text that explicitly says there will be bargaining, that the creatures will not perform unreasonable tasks, and that, in short, it is not guaranteed to work every time? There is no "interpretation" here, just the rules as explicitly written. A DM who fails to bargain on behalf of the NPC is the one who is failing to follow the spell text as written.

Isn't it funny that every PC in the world has time issues, so, casters never have time to rest and gain spells (that's directly from N'Raac btw, that was his counter to why caster parties are weaker), yet every NPC in the world has unlimited time and nothing going on that is being disturbed by being held prisoner by some uppity wizard. You did, after all, comment that the immortal being wouldn't be bothered by being held up, so, the offer of release isn't sufficient of an incentive to gain some action from the bound creature.

I tend to think of immortal creatures as being more patient than mortal creatures. But that is, admittedly, just me. Feel free to run them differently in your world.

Time issues are a legitimate lever the DM can employ; though like all levers, overuse makes it obnoxious. If you don't like them don't use them, but used judiciously they add a certain je ne sais quoi to a game.

As to you PC vs. NPC conjecture, it is actually a necessary consideration, when doing game design, to remember that NPCs do generally have more time and less threats than PCs. That is, PCs tend to have battle after battle in a single day, NPCs tend to have only one battle a day (often, alas and alack, their last). Now, as to the implication in regards to conjuring one to bargain, a named entity is likely going to have different concerns than an unnamed entity. Goals will also be different for each creature and alignment. A DM should take all of this into account when bargaining on behalf of the NPC.

Funny thing is, I honestly think you don't see it. Look at every single example in this or any other thread like it. Every single time this comes up, it's exactly the same. There is no imbalance because "good DM's" make good rulings and limit caster power.[/QUOTE]