Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[pemerton]

Playing the character is fundamentally about experiencing things from the character's perspective.

<snip>

In a typical fantasy session, a player may make dozens or hundreds of die rolls, thousands of discrete decisions, but may have only a few chances or even a single chance or even no chance to meaningfully impact the narrative. Those choices are set up by the DM, and it's often of critical importance to keep it a secret where the meaningful decisions are.

This is so far removed from the game that Gygax and Arneson designed, and that I learned to play 30-odd years ago, that frankly it beggars belief that you present this as the core, or perhaps the only proper, way to play D&D.

None of this is to say, of course, that a group of people couldn't get together and decide to engage in a "shared storytelling" exercise as you describe.

I don't think I described any such exercise - I noted some features of RPGing that distinguish it from shared storytelling.

 

[sheadunne]

None of this is to say, of course, that a group of people couldn't get together and decide to engage in a "shared storytelling" exercise as you describe. A fundamentally different experience, but both have their value.

Shared Storytelling hasn't been discussed in anyone's game style as yet. I will bring it up now though, because I have several online games that are entirely Shared Storytelling.

One is a sci-fi game in the vein of "Firefly/Serenity." Members of a crew go about getting jobs and dealing with complications. As the "narrator" of the shared fiction, it is my responsibility to introduce complications into the shared fiction presented by the players. Through their posts they present situations and I am, as they are, limited to whatever is posted. It only gets edited or changed if something presented explicitly contradicts something else presented, and then only if the change cannot be supported through description. An example would be if one of the players changed the color of an NPCs hair. If this can be explained in my next post (ie the NPC went the hair salon in between the time they last saw him, or he was wearing a wig previously) then I have to go with it. If it can't be explained (the gun is suddenly a nuke) then the player changes it (this doesn't happen very often and usually happens by accident and is quickly fixed). There are no dice rolls in the game. When players created their characters, they chose abilities they would succeed at, those they would fail at, and those that would provoke possible complications. I leverage those to present opportunities for the players to interact. The game succeeds or fails only based on my ability to present complications and the players ability to shape the fiction in interesting ways. Dice have zero impact on the game.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s style, which he is calling "indie," isn't like this at all, with the exception of it being his job as DM to introduce complications to the game. Where in my shared storytelling game I only introduce complications to the game based on the character, he does it based on the result of die rolls, fictional relevancies, and character background. In my shared storytelling game, players can introduce new fiction, it's their job to do it. In his game, players do not introduce fiction into the game, they shape and re-frame the fiction presented (similar to the way a wizard in 3x might do it through the use of spells, which some perceive as the balanced issue with 3x - tying it back into to thread topic) by succeeding or failing at tasks (ie die rolls).

No one is denying that 3x needs DM arbitration. It's required (or rather difficult to play with out). 4x requires less (but less doesn't mean none) because there is far less ambiguity in the language of the rules. I would also argue that 4e has far less "indie" mechanics built into the game than other games like Burning Wheel or Dungeon World. I don't think Pemerton is suggesting differently. What he is saying, is that he is able to run the game he wants to play far more easily with 4x than with 3x because it needs less DM arbitration. Personally, I would love 3x to require less DM arbitration and more balance between narrative control (wizard) and mechanical action (fighter). This doesn't mean that I would want 3x to be 4x. But I would love 3x to reduce the need for arbitration. I love my 3x wizards (narrative is where it's at for me). Not so much the 3x fighter (give them some fighting styles - via TOB stances, not encounter powers - that impact the fiction!). And for heaven's sake 3x/4x start making abilities that function both in-combat and out-of-combat equally well! I want my cleave to work outside combat. I want my sneak attack to work outside combat. I want my diplomacy skill to work in combat. I want abilities that are useful whatever the situation so I can start making characters that are well rounded and yet specialized in what they can do and the way they can do it.

 

[TwoSix]

This is so far removed from the game that Gygax and Arneson designed, and that I learned to play 30-odd years ago, that frankly it beggars belief that you present this as the core, or perhaps the only proper, way to play D&D.

It's the 2e-ism. I think it's a generational thing. As a player who was weaned on 2e, I will say [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION]'s description matches much of my experience (and beliefs) for my first decade or so of roleplaying.

I don't think I described any such exercise - I noted some features of RPGing that distinguish it from shared storytelling.

Yes. Even played narratively, 4e or Burning Wheel or FATE have much more in common with 2e or 3e than they do with Fiasco. Even ignoring genre/setting.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This is so far removed from the game that Gygax and Arneson designed, and that I learned to play 30-odd years ago, that frankly it beggars belief that you present this as the core, or perhaps the only proper, way to play D&D.

Isn't everything in the 3e PHB/DMG/etc. pretty far removed from that? I'm skeptical of this contention, but I don't know a ton about forty-year-old gaming philosophies one way or another, but I don't see that it really matters.

The current version of Star Trek is no less divorced from Gene Roddenberry's vision (or the new BSG from the old one, or any of the numerous media properties that's been reinvented after a decades-long period of dormancy). There are traditionalists who aren't happy about this, but I don't see it as being a big deal.

This thread has a 3e/3.5 tag on it; AFAIC other editions are tangentially relevant at best. What percentage of the people who play 3e even know the names of Gary Gygax, let alone Dave Arneson? I suspect many of my players don't. What's relevant to 3e players is what's in the 3e books.

If anything, I would guess that the OD&D folks really hadn't thought about these issues much, played this novel game for a while, and empirically developed the rationale for the DM-driven game that came afterwards. After all, the primacy of the DM's vision is not an unprecedented postulate, it's a very logical way of constructing a game that derives from many other creative and recreational activities and has many strong points. I don't think the 3e DMG was written with this philosophy to pander to any group of gamers, I think it was written because the designers thought it was the best way to DM the game they'd created. And I've taken the apparently controversial position that they were right.

I don't think I described any such exercise - I noted some features of RPGing that distinguish it from shared storytelling.

Well, this is the quote:

But give players too much authority over backstory and scene-framing and you turn your game into shared storytelling rather than what I have labelled "indie RPGing".

You appear to be positing "indie rpging" as a category that exists between two poles, one of them you define as being shared storytelling, the other unspecified.

And for goodness sake, what I'm saying is that all these approaches are fine. What's not fine is twofold.

One, saying that the rules of D&D 3e give a player the authority to dictate anything whatsoever to a DM. Clearly, they don't. "Final arbiter" is pretty unambiguous.

Two, saying that whenever players in one's home game do dictate these kinds of things, and the outcome is undesirable, it's the rules' fault and indicates a need to fix something in the rules. Clearly, this is not the case.

 

[TwoSix]

If anything, I would guess that the OD&D folks really hadn't thought about these issues much, played this novel game for a while, and empirically developed the rationale for the DM-driven game that came afterwards. After all, the primacy of the DM's vision is not an unprecedented postulate, it's a very logical way of constructing a game that derives from many other creative and recreational activities and has many strong points. I don't think the 3e DMG was written with this philosophy to pander to any group of gamers, I think it was written because the designers thought it was the best way to DM the game they'd created. And I've taken the apparently controversial position that they were right.

While that may be true (and I agree with you that 3e is best run under "FINAL ARBITER" style DMing), you tend to swing rhetorically between "This is the way to run 3e", "This is the way to run D&D", and "This is the way to roleplay". Especially since you personally consider 4e to not be a true D&D because it doesn't cater to your strict version of actor-stance immersionist play.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's the 2e-ism. I think it's a generational thing. As a player who was weaned on 2e, I will say [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION]'s description matches much of my experience (and beliefs) for my first decade or so of roleplaying.

Even just going back to the early days of 2e takes us back a really long time. There was no internet. Reagan was president. The Berlin Wall was still up. This is not a new philosophy that I just made up. If it was the by the book norm for twenty years (more than that now that PF is the #1 rpg), that's a pretty reasonable baseline in my eyes.

Shared Storytelling hasn't been discussed in anyone's game style as yet. I will bring it up now though, because I have several online games that are entirely Shared Storytelling.

Great! I haven't done it in quite a while, but it's certainly a very engaging activity, just completely different from roleplaying.

No one is denying that 3x needs DM arbitration.

Uh, well...

I am disputing the need for GM force as the arbiter of action resolution.

@pemerton 's style, which he is calling "indie," isn't like this at all, with the exception of it being his job as DM to introduce complications to the game.

Of course not. I never said anything to the effect that it was. I'm saying hypothetically that if someone does play a different game with a different social contract, that doesn't mean that they're inferior or that they're wasting their time or so on and so forth. I'm just saying that D&D (at least the version under discussion in this particular thread) is explicitly written to give the DM blanket authority over everything, including action resolution. Any analysis of this particular game should be taking this into account.

 

[Ahnehnois]

While that may be true (and I agree with you that 3e is best run under "FINAL ARBITER" style DMing), you tend to swing rhetorically between "This is the way to run 3e", "This is the way to run D&D", and "This is the way to roleplay"

Again, this thread has a 3e tag; I take it as implicit that we're talking about 3e. If I use the term "D&D" in this thread, it's not meant to refer to other editions, it's just a shorthand. And I did go over at one point the distinction between the literal definition of "roleplaying" and the looser common usage that includes a broad variety of games.

When talking about a relatively novel hobby, terminology can be an issue.

Especially since you personally consider 4e to not be a true D&D because it doesn't cater to your strict version of actor-stance immersionist play.

That sounds like something I never said anywhere. You might infer that, but I don't see any reason to go there.

 

[sheadunne]

Of course not. I never said anything to the effect that it was. I'm saying hypothetically that if someone does play a different game with a different social contract, that doesn't mean that they're inferior or that they're wasting their time or so on and so forth. I'm just saying that D&D (at least the version under discussion in this particular thread) is explicitly written to give the DM blanket authority over everything, including action resolution. Any analysis of this particular game should be taking this into account.

Isn't the argument that the DM blanket authority is in opposition to some of the player abilities, which override DM authority and that to regain DM authority, the DM has to make rulings contradictory to the ability presented? If resolution is always handled through DM authority, why list every ability with a resolution in its description (ie sword deals 1d8 damage, or this spell turns the creature to stone, skill makes the creature friendly). Those things seem contradictory to DM authority. Or perhaps it would be clearer for the PHB to spell out that the resolution is only a suggestion for the DM to consider. I'm not sure anyone plays with that mindset. Players assume that the rules are there to resolve actions, why else list resolutions?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Isn't the argument that the DM blanket authority is in opposition to some of the player abilities, which override DM authority and that to regain DM authority, the DM has to make rulings contradictory to the ability presented? If resolution is always handled through DM authority, why list every ability with a resolution in its description (ie sword deals 1d8 damage, or this spell turns the creature to stone, skill makes the creature friendly). Those things seem contradictory to DM authority. Or perhaps it would be clearer for the PHB to spell out that the resolution is only a suggestion for the DM to consider. I'm not sure anyone plays with that mindset. Players assume that the rules are there to resolve actions, why else list resolutions?

The rules facilitate communication and encourage consistency. So if the player tells the DM he wants to attack with his longsword, he can expect the DM to say "give me an attack roll", and when the DM decides (presumably using an AC as a guideline) whether it hits, the player will be ready with a d8 when the DM asks him for a damage roll. It's easier to use the same attack and damage bonuses every time than to make up a new rule for every strike of the sword.

What that doesn't do is give the player the authority to tell the DM that he's rolling the attack, or to guess or impute the target's AC and tell the DM that he hit and what the damage is.

Certainly, I never looked at the rules as being contrary to my authority. When I'm playing out a conversation and I want to determine how persuasive a character is, it's very handy to have a Diplo modifier available. It's also handy if I want to skip the playing out of that interaction and simply roll something quickly to determine what the outcome is. If I don't need help in making those determinations, the rules are easily ignored. They're there for when I need them, nothing more.

 

[pemerton]

You appear to be positing "indie rpging" as a category that exists between two poles, one of them you define as being shared storytelling, the other unspecified.

No. A boat that gets too many hole in it eventually turns from boat to sieve, and sinks. An RPG that gets too much player over authority and backstory becomes a shared story-telling game. Neither boats nor RPGs (indie or otherwise) are between two poles. They just have points of potential vulnerability to their funtion.

In an RPG playing one's character is fairly key. Hence, authority over backstory and situation have to be handled with care, because it can be hard for a player to at one and the same time play his/her PC and narrate (certain elements of) backstory and situation.

Isn't everything in the 3e PHB/DMG/etc. pretty far removed from that? I'm skeptical of this contention, but I don't know a ton about forty-year-old gaming philosophies one way or another, but I don't see that it really matters.

you tend to swing rhetorically between "This is the way to run 3e", "This is the way to run D&D", and "This is the way to roleplay". Especially since you personally consider 4e to not be a true D&D because it doesn't cater to your strict version of actor-stance immersionist play.

This is what I have in mind: you (Ahnehnois) tend to assert a continuity between classic D&D and 3E (presumably via 2nd ed AD&D) and deny that 4e is part of that trajectory.

As for what is best for 3E, I defer to those with more experince. But I can guarantee that there are (or, at least, were) a lot of peoople playing it (or trying to play it) in a player driven style: the Necromancer modules (classic D&D gamism), the Penumbra modules (shades of indie), in fact the whole "back to the dungeon" slogan suggests a departure from 2nd ed norms.

EDIT: There is also [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION]'s excellent point in post 1798.