Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[N'raac]

You re- You know, screw it, this isn't worth my time. Rebut or concede. Now.

You really DO think you can win the Internet, don't you?


......................................................

No. I'm attempting to determine if he is inherently unreasonable, or just very wrong.

In all fairness, I'd have to conclude the former, based on the fact I continue to read your responses and reply. No other rational conclusion can really be reached, can it?

As to the latter, I have long since given up hope you will start backing up your contentions with any rational basis, successfully read the rules you cite with any reasonable interpretation or, really, provide anything of any value besides, perhaps, the quasi-entertainment we as human beings sometimes get from the bizarre, the surreal and the ludicrous.

But by responding at all, I clearly again demonstrate the accuracy of your first allegation. Congratulations - you are inarguably right about something!

 

[pemerton]

That applies to all actions, though. The tast "Clean the basement" is dependent on numerous other things, including a lack of murder-hobos breaking in or pissed-off dragons destroying my wizard citadel. If the end result is doable by the minion, then I believe it qualifies.

All action is subject to the possiblity of external interference. But the spell description uses the phrase "open-ended" as a way of describing some, but not all, actions. Perhaps the authors of the description made a mistake - perhaps all actions are open-ended - but it is a general principle of interpretation that one should try and give each of the terms used some work to do in contributing to overall meaning. In this context, then, the spell description obliges us to make a serious effort to distinguish between tasks which are and tasks which are not open-ended. There will probably be borderline cases - there almost always are - but that's inherent in most natural language descriptions.

Turning to your particular example, "Clean this basement" strikes me as not open-ended. "Keep this basement clean" strike me as open-ended. What happens if you give the first instruction and then, just as the bound creatures is putting the last bit of old junk onto a shelf a dragon flies through and knocks everything over with the buffeting of its wings? Does the creature have to start again? Or has it discharged it's obligation? Should the GM roll another check for the creature to choose between these options? I don't think the spell description on its own settles these questions. It's trying to set up a framework for giving mechanical effect to a classic trope - the bound demon which might turn on its binder. It's not surprising that it gives rise to edge cases whose resolution is uncertain.

I want to come back to this issue of "discretion" or "adjudication" in resolution, but via some other posts.

Story effectiveness is not mechanical

How is story effectiveness not mechanical? If the resolution mechanics are utterly circumvented and drowned out by GM fiat, then yes, the authenticity of a player's build mechanics and their strategic and tactical decisions are indeed rendered irrelevant. However, assuming that GM fiat is not the driver of outcomes, then how is story effectiveness not, at least in part (another part if the fog of fortune resolution and another part is acumen of tactical and strategic decision-making), driven mechanically?

This issue has come up on at least two other threads recently. On the L&L thread, [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] expressed the view that getting the maths right is fundamental to desiging Next. I agreed with him, but also explained that I think others have a different playstyle which makes the maths less important; [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] agreed with me.

On the multi-classing prereqs thread, I made a point similar to Manbearcat's above, that mechanical effectiveness and a character's story effectiveness are pretty tightly connected in a game that does not involve very heavy GMing and comparatively passive players. I got some disagreement, but not of the sort that makes me change my mind.

Across these threads I can see at least three playstyles being referred to, or presupposed:

* What I would call "indie-RPG" style - Manbearcat, Neonchameleon and I are all roughly in this zone - the point of PC build is to give players resources and capabilities whereby they can engage with the action resolution mechanics, and thereby impose their will on the fictional situations whose initial state is set by the GM but whose final state is not predetermined. In this playstyle, the GM's role in adjudication is to maintain the pressure on the players via their PCs, but within the constraints that are set by the players' successful action resolution checks. In adjudicating Planar Binding, for this style it is OK if the GM takes the view that the dragon's interference with the basement-cleaning operation free's the creature from control, provided that the player also has the chance to reestablish control via the action resolution mechanics. The GM's choice as to which way to go with this adjudication should be guided by considerations of what will make for fun and/or high emotional stakes at the table; provided the GM gets this call right, the player of the mage won't mind too much that his/her creature got free, because bringing the creature back under control, or failing to do so, will itself be a fun piece of RPGing. "Fail forward" is pretty crucial to this playstyle, because it means that failure is a non-game-ending option.

* What I would call "wargame" style - Cyclone_Joker seems to me to be a proponent of this style. The point of PC build is to give players resorces and capabilites whereby they can win the game by defeating challenges. Fail forward is not part of this style, and is in fact antithetical to it, because fail forward can make winners out of losers. I think this style suffers when adjudication requires open-ended judgements, because there is a very obvious conflict of interest between players (who are playing to win) and the GM (who is running the challenges in a more-or-less antagonistic fashion) - and unlike in the indie style there is no fail forward, or shared conceits about genre or about what would be a fun direction for the story to head off in, which help to cushion these conflicts of interest in the indie style.

* What I would call "storyteller" style - MJS and [MENTION=42437]Wiseblood[/MENTION] in this thread (perhaps also [MENTION=1932]Savage Wombat[/MENTION]) seems to be a proponent of this style. In this style the numbers are of secondary importance - they tell us something about the PCs nature and place in the world (we can tell a fighter is tougher than a mage, for instance, because s/he has more hit points) - and thinking of PC build as the generation of metagame resources is probably anathema, or at least a munchkin tendency. The GM is expected to play a big role not just in framing challenges and controlling the fiction external to the PCs more generally, but negotiated understandings about where the fiction is heading - with the GM having the preeminent say, in the event of disagreement - is more important than action resolution via mechanical means ("roleplaying not rollplaying"). On this style, it is taken for granted that a spell like planar binding may require the GM to adjudicate it in play, and the player is expected to simply accept that adjudication and give voice to his/her PC's reaction to what happens. For those who play in this style, there is probably no general truth about whether fighters or wizards are more potent, because at any given table in any given campaign that is much more a consequence of how an individual player roleplays his/her PC and how the GM responds to that - purely mechanical considerations are of less (perhaps much less) significance​

Although I have a clear preferred style (and there are surely other styles that I haven't mentioned, such as exploratory sandboxing) I've tried to be fair and sincere in my characterisation of all three.

That's called "Rocks fall," brah.

<snip>

Yes. You're simply not listening to reason, choosing rather to feel self-righteous because "Screw facts, y'all're coddled."

Either that or you think Rocks Fall encounters are good ideas. I'm not sure which of those is less unflattering, so I'll let you choose.

I think your comments here are a (strongly worded) response from someone who prefers "wargame" style to someone who prefers "storyteller" style. From the wargame (or indie) point of view, all encounters in the storyteller game are in a certain sense "rocks fall" encounters, in that the role of the GM in framing them, and then adjudicating them by reference to the roleplaying responses of the players (to which mechanics may be very secondary, especially outside of combat), is the most important determinant of how they resolve.

In that play style, it may be true that a wizard player is "coddled" - that the GM does not frame and resolve situations so as to put pressure on the player of that PC to really push the limits - and it may also be true that a fighter is more powerful than a wizard - because the fighter player might engage the GM's fiction more energetically and enthusiastically than does the player of a wizard.

(The particular example Wiseblood has given also has another subtext - the collision of "storyteller" playstyle with the remnants of "wargame" mechanical design - and so there are worries that if you push the wizard player to hard in story terms, you might get an unhappy result in mechanical terms, namely of a failed Fort save or death by hp loss. From the perspective of "indie" players, eliminating these contradictions between story aspirations and mechanical possibilities is part of getting the maths right (to borrow Neonchameleon's words) and thereby reducing the role of GM force and allowing story and mechancial possiblity to become more integrated as Manbearcat has talked about.)

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

You really DO think you can win the Internet, don't you?

Yes, by simply determining you're not worth my time. You're wrong, obviously, hilariously so, since you have problems with the mere concept of "facts," no amount of reason will get through. In other words, you're not worth my time, and I'll do you the favor of taking that post as your concession.

Mod Note: See my post below. ~Umbran

 

[Dandu]

If there's a druid, there's an animal companion, so one more (maybe large) creature to teleport.

The conditions of our hypothetical situation are a completely different discussion from the one I was having with MJS.

The closest COP has gotten to locating the dragon is "is it in this square on the map?". If we've narrowed that down to any kind of reasonable area for that to work, I don't think we'll have to look too hard for the Lizardfolk. Prying Eyes would, I agree, be more efficient. We can do that in 5 weeks, after the wizard recovers from one failed INT roll on COPmania.

Again, I believe one can take 10 on COP, but if we are ruling that does not work, then I would avoid it in favor of Prying Eyes.

Sorry - you're not the one playing semantics with spell verbiage

However, do you think semi-aquatic lizardfolk can carry bows and arrows efficiently? I think they use javelins because they survive submersion better.

Even Aquatic Elves get longbow proficiency.

The example given - I don't think it was yours - was the invisible wizard infiltrating the lizard village. Hence, invisibility. More later. Invisibly land in water or swamp, making footprints that are easy to detect and splashing about as he walks (or tugging his boots out of the muck and mire). Really, the best tactic for the lizardfolk is to get either Wizard or Warrior into the water.

I am uncertain why the Wizard is in the water or swamp in the first place if he can cast Fly on himself. Remember, Fighters obey the laws of physics, Wizards rewrite them.

The wizard can likely fly, but 1 minute per level isn't very long, and overland flight has Average maneuverability which, as you have pointed out for the dragon, requires constant movement.

I imagine you could cast an Fly spell, then Teleport above the village.

As to the Magic Jar, where are you leaving your body? It has to be close enough to the lizard village to get a lizardfolk to pass within 10' per level of it. It has to be kept above water and mire so you can breath (although I'm not sure it breathes while you're gone).

If the Wizard has cast Fly on himself, his invisible body is still floating in the air sans further command from the Wizard. Alternatively, he could position his body in a tree, perhaps?

And how strong is your wizard, now hauling a lizardfolk through the swamp?

Teleport eliminates the need to physically haul something through the swamp. Stop thinking like a fighter .

Oddly, it talks about slowing your fall if you fall through it, but not about what happens if the fall starts in the fog itself, so we get to a judgement call. I do not think, under any reasonable interpretation, the fog would keep the dragon afloat, so the only question is how fast he will land. If he's strafing with a breath weapon, why would he be close enough to the ground for the fighter to hit?

He wouldn't, which is why the wizard is trying to get him to fall out of the air.

If he's passing directly over the fighter, it may not be to the party's advantage for him to drop out of the sky either, so the fighter likely will need to move to close for melee.

I would argue that is a decision best left to the party as it depends on the party composition. A charging fighter might not appreciate being right next to the dragon as much as, say, a lockdown fighter.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

It turns out I got swordsaged.

All action is subject to the possiblity of external interference. But the spell description uses the phrase "open-ended" as a way of describing some, but not all, actions. Perhaps the authors of the description made a mistake - perhaps all actions are open-ended - but it is a general principle of interpretation that one should try and give each of the terms used some work to do in contributing to overall meaning. In this context, then, the spell description obliges us to make a serious effort to distinguish between tasks which are and tasks which are not open-ended. There will probably be borderline cases - there almost always are - but that's inherent in most natural language descriptions.

When I hear "open-ended," I hear what's on the tin, something with no real definite limit, in this case a task without end.

Turning to your particular example, "Clean this basement" strikes me as not open-ended. "Keep this basement clean" strike me as open-ended. What happens if you give the first instruction and then, just as the bound creatures is putting the last bit of old junk onto a shelf a dragon flies through and knocks everything over with the buffeting of its wings? Does the creature have to start again? Or has it discharged it's obligation? Should the GM roll another check for the creature to choose between these options? I don't think the spell description on its own settles these questions. It's trying to set up a framework for giving mechanical effect to a classic trope - the bound demon which might turn on its binder. It's not surprising that it gives rise to edge cases whose resolution is uncertain.

To continue, "Keep this floor clean," is open-ended. It has no real limit in scope. "Keep this floor clean for as long as this structure stand," is not, however, as the scope of task has been clearly defined, unless you want to go to defining "cleaning" further.

Although I have a clear preferred style (and there are surely other styles that I haven't mentioned, such as exploratory sandboxing) I've tried to be fair and sincere in my characterisation of all three.

I've got to say, either your impression of me or your definition of "wargame style" is flawed. I view myself as, judging from your descriptions, "indie." I just value the mechanics as mechanics, because without them it's not a game.

I think your comments here are a (strongly worded) response from someone who prefers "wargame" style to someone who prefers "storyteller" style. From the wargame (or indie) point of view, all encounters in the storyteller game are in a certain sense "rocks fall" encounters, in that the role of the GM in framing them, and then adjudicating them by reference to the roleplaying responses of the players (to which mechanics may be very secondary, especially outside of combat), is the most important determinant of how they resolve.

I'm afraid I don't follow.

In that play style, it may be true that a wizard player is "coddled" - that the GM does not frame and resolve situations so as to put pressure on the player of that PC to really push the limits - and it may also be true that a fighter is more powerful than a wizard - because the fighter player might engage the GM's fiction more energetically and enthusiastically than does the player of a wizard.

No, because mechanically it's impossible to challenge a wizard in a way that is not instantly lethal. Either one can win in the first two rounds or they can't. The weaker one can either escape or they can't. It gets more egregious once CCS comes into play.

 

[Manbearcat]

@pemerton That is quite an excellent and thorough post 182. Can't xp so if someone could cover for me. Breaking out how the "story effectiveness" of a PC is actualized in story now, step on up, and right to dream agendas is really at the heart of the discussion here. The expectant roles of GM force vs the authenticity of engagement of the resolution mechanics are key clarifiers here. PC build choices vs roleplaying choices/contributions are also key clarifiers. You've done a great job in tying it all together. I would like to hear how the various parties (the ones that you mentioned as well as @Dandu and @N'raac) in this thread feel that you've pinned down their table agendas and if it comports with how you predict their "Fighter vs Spellcaster" position comes together (here and in play). This thread has been a bit of a meandering, dysfunctional playground (amusing but dysfunctional). Maybe your post will focus the conversation toward something a wee bit more productive and we can stop calling each other names over elfgames.

 

[Manbearcat]

Originally Posted by pemerton
I think your comments here are a (strongly worded) response from someone who prefers "wargame" style to someone who prefers "storyteller" style. From the wargame (or indie) point of view, all encounters in the storyteller game are in a certain sense "rocks fall" encounters, in that the role of the GM in framing them, and then adjudicating them by reference to the roleplaying responses of the players (to which mechanics may be very secondary, especially outside of combat), is the most important determinant of how they resolve.

I'm afraid I don't follow.

What pemerton is referring to is the legitimacy of the engagement of the resolution mechanics as arbiter of "what happens in the fiction" when a conflict manifests versus GM fiat/force as arbiter. "Rocks fall. You die." is problematic for you (and me) because its either framed (arbitrarily, without context/foreshadowing) as an unwinnable challenge and engages the resolution mechanics with impossible odds of success...or it doesn't engage the resolution mechanics at all. GM fiat/force as arbiter. Contrast that to a healthy dose of foreshadowing/context and functional mechanical resolution of the hazard that allows PCs to deploy strategic countermeasures and, failing that turning out, engages the resolution mechanics to determine how the PC build choices (defenses/HPs/suite of relevant actions) interfaces with the attack/damage/status effect thresholds of the hazard.

Every encounter, from social to combat, can be mapped out in the same way as the infamous "rocks fall, you die" "encounter." Suzy the player has great charisma, social skills, understanding of the human condition, and is extroverted. Her Orc Fighter, Bracka, has an 8 Charisma with no social skills to speak of. Andy the player is the inverse of Suzy; uncharismatic, socially awkward, aloof, introverted. His suave Half-elf Bard Don Juan has an 18 Charisma and a full suite of social skills/powers etc. While Andy is a quiet wallflower, Suzy regularly dominates scenes of social conflict because the GM is moved by her (the player) adept roleplaying and re-framing of the situation. He either engages the resolution mechanics with such considerable looseness/lack of stringency that Suzy cannot lose or he doesn't engage them at all because "rollplaying, not roleplaying."

In the same way that GM fiat forces "death" upon your character in the "rocks fall, you die" exploration scenario (and your character's fictional positioning is now "dead"), the fictional positioning in the social scenario above represents Suzy's Orc as "Face of the A-Team" and Andy's half-elf as "the mousey girl in the corner at prom", because conflict arbitration by way of GM ruling (putting the onus on "roleplaying not rollplaying") overrides/circumvents the action resolution mechanics (which interface with PC build choices).

In essence, all the "power cosmic" in the world doesn't matter if using various Divinations, "Wish", etc means that your GM is obliged to aggressively work to re-frame (interpret and evolve the fictional positioning) your attempts to re-frame (casted spell/s) his framed scenario (whatever the conflict might be) in a manner that, in part or wholly, thwarts your plan...in the name of creating/forcing functional story and equitable table spotlight amongst players (the "balance is in the hands of the GM" position).

 

[Hussar]

Umm, first off, since when are lizard folk "semi-aquatic"? They don't even have a swim speed.

Secondly, just because it nicely dovetails with this thread:

The latest OOTS strip pretty much nails the thread

Best quote: Haley: Oh yeah... Wizard.

 

[pemerton]

story now[/I], step on up, and right to dream agendas is really at the heart of the discussion here.

I wondered who would be the first to translate my terminology into its natural language!

On your reply to [MENTION=29841]cyclone[/MENTION]_Jester, I would add that there is a variation on your Suzy/Andy story, where Suzy "properly roleplays" her 8 CHA and so has an abrasive orc fighter who still dominates a lot of table time, even if not necessarily getting to charm his/her way through the GM's encounters. Exactly how the "rocks fall" at that table can be a bit variable (I saw it play out in different ways during the mid-90s 2nd ed AD&D years) but it's still generally a case of GM force over resolution mechanics.

When I hear "open-ended," I hear what's on the tin, something with no real definite limit, in this case a task without end.
To continue, "Keep this floor clean," is open-ended. It has no real limit in scope. "Keep this floor clean for as long as this structure stand," is not, however, as the scope of task has been clearly defined, unless you want to go to defining "cleaning" further.

That's not where I would draw the boundary, precisely because I think it tends to make the spell over-powered. Obviously other tables can have their own interpretive practices.

I've got to say, either your impression of me or your definition of "wargame style" is flawed. I view myself as, judging from your descriptions, "indie." I just value the mechanics as mechanics, because without them it's not a game.

I don't know anything about your play other than your rules posts on this board - and if you've posted any actual play examples, I've missed them but am happy to be pointed to them.

But your rules posts very strongly emphasise the rules as a closed mechanical system, and tend to downplay or ignore the intersection between the rules and the actual events occurring to the PC within the fiction. That's what makes me associate your play more with the "wargame" style than the "indie" style. It's not an insult (or not intended as one, and I hope not taken as one).

I'm afraid I don't follow.

<snip>

mechanically it's impossible to challenge a wizard in a way that is not instantly lethal. Either one can win in the first two rounds or they can't. The weaker one can either escape or they can't. It gets more egregious once CCS comes into play.

What's CCS?

Anyway, Mabearcat explained my point. There are ways of framing an encounter which challenges without killing a wizard, provided the GM is prepared to do things a certain way. For instance, a high level caster (NPC, lich, dragon, whatever) casts some sort of Hold or Paralysis spell on the wizard, and then toys with him/her while whatever else the table things is interesting unfolds. 2nd ed AD&D modules are full of this sort of stuff.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

That's not where I would draw the boundary, precisely because I think it tends to make the spell over-powered. Obviously other tables can have their own interpretive practices.

I draw the line there, however, because I can't read it and have the spell make sense in any other way. But to each their own, I guess.

I don't know anything about your play other than your rules posts on this board - and if you've posted any actual play examples, I've missed them but am happy to be pointed to them.But your rules posts very strongly emphasise the rules as a closed mechanical system, and tend to downplay or ignore the intersection between the rules and the actual events occurring to the PC within the fiction. That's what makes me associate your play more with the "wargame" style than the "indie" style. It's not an insult (or not intended as one, and I hope not taken as one).

I've posted multiple times on this board that I only address rules online because that's the one thing we all share as players. Basing arguments on anything else just doesn't work when none of us have gamed together or share experiences, and how much everything else can change from group to group. Thus, I only argue based on what is universal, the rules.

What's CCS?

Craft Contingent Spell.

Anyway, Mabearcat explained my point. There are ways of framing an encounter which challenges without killing a wizard, provided the GM is prepared to do things a certain way. For instance, a high level caster (NPC, lich, dragon, whatever) casts some sort of Hold or Paralysis spell on the wizard, and then toys with him/her while whatever else the table things is interesting unfolds. 2nd ed AD&D modules are full of this sort of stuff.

First, Hold X is Mind-Affecting and Paralyzes, two things I'd hope any wizard would have protections against. Even if not, it doesn't stop Teleport/Door/etc, so the wizard can still get the hell out. Second, I don't know about anyone else, but I can't take seriously casters who can't act like their mental stats. If a high-level caster has a wizard at their mercy and doesn't have a damned good reason not to kill or Dominate them, I'd expect they'd do so.