Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Ahnehnois]

Now, this is a very different approach to the game than I would take. I have no vested interest in what the players find, so, if they miss a secret door, or find it, either is perfectly fine with me. I would never bother putting in secret passages only to fudge my way into letting the players find it. I'm not sure if I would characterize that as antagonistic. The players can find it or not find it, that's up to them.

I wouldn't put in secret doors at all in most cases. I generally don't have locations planned out in advance. If there was some specific quest that involved a secret door, then that's one thing. I might strictly enforce the need to search actively. If not, but if I knew there were secret doors or traps in the area, I might ask them "are you searching?" as they advance. Typically I'd then let them roll or take 10 or take 20 as they like, and then tell them what's there if they find it.

More likely in actual play, a player would search the area and ask if he finds anything, and only at that time would I even bother to consider whether there is anything to find. Which creates a rather odd scenario for the elf, since the DM is theoretically supposed to already know these things already and to tell the player what he finds when there is something find-able. I tried once to record all the PCs' Spot/Listen/Search skills and determine when anyone saw anything without them asking in advance, but that was just too much work for me. I prefer to improvise.

I'd be more inclined to call the DM who "guides" his players into finding secret doors a DM who is treading very close to rail roading. For me, rail roading is negating player choices.

I suppose, if you consider searching for or finding a secret door to be a choice of interest. I'm generally looking at conflicts between characters as the primary venue for player choice; using an inanimate object as a challenge doesn't do much for me.

However, on some level I am granting the players additional agency. If I determine elements of reality only as a response to their actions, rather than independently and in advance, their ideas are affecting the story. In this case, it's entirely possible that a PC enters an area, says "I search for secret doors", and I think to myself "hey, maybe the ancient race that lived here did leave a secret door" and suddenly, a door exists. That isn't railroading, it's the players laying their own tracks.

As far as the "well a 1st level spell fixes that" I think you've just won this thread. Isn't this precisely the same thing I commented on about casting Charm Person to get past the chamberlain? What's the difference? The player's resources are being trumped by the caster.

This is a case of a first level spell trumping only a tiny part of the nonmagical character's expertise. Sure, the Search skill requires a roll, but it finds a lot more than secret doors. Like most spells, it's specialized; something that wins the day if there is a secret door, and is a waste of resources otherwise.



And after all of this, how often is there a secret door anyway? If there's one in every room, they aren't exactly secret. It's pretty much inherently something that should be a rare surprise, rather than an expected regular element of play. I've never known a player to play an elf because of that great secret door finding ability, so I don't see that altering that ability is likely to matter much to an elf player.

 

[Hussar]

Well, considering that you don't put secret doors in your adventures, it's not really shocking that finding secret doors isn't high on player priorities, Ahn. For those of us who played in older versions of D&D, the elf Find Secret Doors ability was a pretty big deal.

The spell and the elf's ability are different, certainly, but the spell does not render the elf's ability worthless. Personally, I'd much rather let the elf locate secret doors and I'll preserve my more limited magical resources for other uses.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?p=6227818&noquote=1#ixzz2mNAj2fRr

However, once you remove the passive element of the elf's abilities, and force him to always declare when he makes checks, then the spell (and better yet, a wand) makes the spell much better.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, considering that you don't put secret doors in your adventures, it's not really shocking that finding secret doors isn't high on player priorities, Ahn. For those of us who played in older versions of D&D, the elf Find Secret Doors ability was a pretty big deal.

Maybe. I don't remember it ever coming up in a 2e game. In any case, those older versions aren't the same as what's under discussion here.

Frankly, it seems to me that in a world where a first level spell or a pretty makeable skill check can find any secret door (which I believe were true in at least some way in earlier editions as well), it doesn't make sense to me that an NPC would invest the time and money to build one. At least, not without putting some serious extra protections to prevent that from happening. In a D&D world, it makes more sense to hide important stuff in some other way.

 

[N'raac]

However, once you remove the passive element of the elf's abilities, and force him to always declare when he makes checks, then the spell (and better yet, a wand) makes the spell much better.

I don't think that's automatic. The Elf character walks along all the walls repeating "I'm looking for secret doors" gives us an unlimited resource. If we're prepared to take the time, he can even Take 20 on all those search checks.

The caster must announce he is casting the spell or using the wand, and then gets 1 minute per level (likely one minute to keep the wands cheap), spend several rounds directing his 60' conic area to discern whether any doors are in range, then walk to the next area he wants to check. I figure he likely gets a 60' radius with each casting (likely with enough time to locate and discern trigger mechanisms) out of each wand charge, and he knows for sure whether there was a door in the area, but we're spending a resource the elf could manage at no cost, all day long.

More to the point, a steady chant of "Use the Detect Wand" seems unlikely to be more warmly greeted by the GM than a steady stream of "I look for secret doors as I walk past the wall".

I think removal of the passive nature of the elf's ability just makes it annoying to everyone at the table if he wants to use it - and I believe the player is not out of line wanting to use the character's abilities to best effect.

If elves or magic are common, they have no trouble finding secret doors. I'd expect they would be used in areas where elves are not prevalent and magic would not often be cast - a secret door in the royal palace would be less often sought out. Of course, many buildings in game fall into disuse and end up dungeon environs where such searches are much easier.

Why do so many people put those little locks on their luggage? Who would they actually keep from accessing the contents? And how often are the contents more valuable than the suitcase holding them anyway?

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Why do so many people put those little locks on their luggage? Who would they actually keep from accessing the contents? And how often are the contents more valuable than the suitcase holding them anyway?

Locks are more or less a social construct, anyway. No lock will stop someone determined to gain access to whatever you're locking, and most locks are so easy to defeat as to be laughable.

I suspect that, in the worlds of D&D, secret doors are much the same. The ordinary person, upon discovering a secret door, realizes that it was meant to keep them out. An adventurer, who by definition operates outside of the normal social milieu, goes right in.

 

[N'raac]

Locks are more or less a social construct, anyway. No lock will stop someone determined to gain access to whatever you're locking, and most locks are so easy to defeat as to be laughable.

Yet we lock our cars, homes and even briefcases, lock computers to desks or place them in locked desk drawers or cabinets, etc. I largely agree - the lock keeps the honest man honest. But, of course, it also takes longer and looks a lot more obvious to pick or break the lock - similarly, it looks pretty funny searching for the catch of that secret door, I suspect, and it takes time. No big deal in that dank dungeon, of course, but I suspect most secret doors were not installed with the expectation the location would be an unoccupied hole in the ground.

 

[Manbearcat]

Intent. To Telegraph or to Withhold; That is the Question.

Something very central to the conversations we had in this thread is the question of "intent transparency." I was recently re-reading my 13th Age book and there is a fine breakdown of the issue there. I won't abridge nor reproduce it, but rather I'm just going to try to apply it to our conversation on Indie versus non-Indie.

1) First, lets examine the reasoning behind a player withholding intent. Why would a player withhold their intent from the GM? What are they hoping to gain or what are they afraid of losing? In standard exploratory play, a player is seeking a trump card, something that they can either directly leverage or indirectly leverage (by proxy of an owned resource that is to be deployed) to advantage themselves in a situation. In this scenario, the player is asking a series of leading questions of the GM in order to overtly establish tangible elements of the scene (put them "on the record"), which cannot be negotiated nor retconned once established, in order to "spring a strategic trap" or deploy a power play that solves a problem facing the PC. If the player is too transparent with their attempt, they may fear that the GM will preempt their strategic power-play by affirming fictional elements that are stridently adverse.

Example:

Bob the Wizard is observing Louie Lizardman's sentinel infrastructure; frequency of rotation, patrol routes, etc. He may be deploying minor Divinations or just scouting via Invisible Flying in order to do so. Eventually he plans on foolproof Magic Jarring Louie and getting what he came here fore. He has a plan on what he wants to do, how he is going to do it, and, most importantly, why. If "why" is known to the GM and the GM understands the scope of the PC's build resources (the "what" and "how"), then the GM has all of the means at his disposal to preempt the strategic power-play by establishing tangible elements of the scene that either render the power play impotent or costly/dangerous to the point of that risk:reward analysis deems the plan illegitimate. However, if the player properly masks "why" and can continue their line of leading questions until enough fictional elements are made permanent and clear, they can "spring their strategic trap" and feel confident that any subsequent adverse GM-ruling or retcon will be objectively "foul play" to the audience (the other players). This typically insures the player against adversarial GMing. In this paradigm, the player has "played skillfully" and will have earned their victory.

2) Now lets examine the reasoning behind a player telegraphing intent or making it wholly transparent. What advantage do they gain? In an Indie style paradigm, the advantage is clear and present. Very generically, the point of play is to (i) immediately and continuously put characters into conflict-charged situations, (ii) say yes to the player's will or roll the dice in order to (iii) find out what happens. (iv) Rinse and repeat. What's more, gameplay output is typically derived from a conflict resolution scheme/framework. 1 and 2 are inputs and they deliver the output of 3. There is no disadvantage to the player for the GM knowing intent. There is only advantage. An intent made transparent clearly conveys to the GM what sort of content the player is looking to engage. So long as the action is genre-credible (eg I'm a priest/peacekeeper in an old Western setting where Demons actually exist...I want to punch smash the ground and make a crevasse...not genre credible) The GM is going to "say yes" or "invoke the resolution mechanics"...no matter what. Because of this, making intent clear and present actually behooves the player as the GM is now more likely to establish tangible scene elements that are thematically relevant for the player and his PC build rather than less likely. Ultimately, we're still going to engage the conflict resolution mechanics to "find out what happens."

Example:

Bob the Wizard is seeking the hidden entrance to the Dragon's Lair. Bob is thematically a Beguiler. He addles the mind of foes with various illusions and enchantments, eventually getting where he wants to go or finding out what he wants to know. He might say something like: "Swamps are filled with lizard-folk. I suspect there is a tribe of lizardmen in this swamp that venerate the dragon like a god. If there is, I'll bet I could "convince" one of them to help us out. My Nature is more than enough to regularly pass the Hard DC...or maybe I'll use a Ritual and ask the local animals who dwells here." Boom. The GM knows what kind of content the player is looking to engage with. Maybe he riffs off of that and all of a sudden his low-resolution setting has filled out; Lizard-man-cult infested swamp. Now we have an antagonist and a conflict. Even if he says yes to that, we're still ultimately going to consult the conflict resolution mechanics to see how the "finding" of the lizard-folk goes and the "convincing" of the lizard-folk goes. We'll see what happens. In this paradigm, the player has "played skillfully" and will have earned their victory.

 

[Abraxas]

1) First, lets examine the reasoning behind a player withholding intent. Why would a player withhold their intent from the GM? What are they hoping to gain or what are they afraid of losing? In standard exploratory play, a player is seeking a trump card, something that they can either directly leverage or indirectly leverage (by proxy of an owned resource that is to be deployed) to advantage themselves in a situation. In this scenario, the player is asking a series of leading questions of the GM in order to overtly establish tangible elements of the scene (put them "on the record"), which cannot be negotiated nor retconned once established, in order to "spring a strategic trap" or deploy a power play that solves a problem facing the PC. If the player is too transparent with their attempt, they may fear that the GM will preempt their strategic power-play by affirming fictional elements that are stridently adverse.

In no way would I consider this "standard" exploratory play. This is adversarial play with a lack of trust on the part of the player (possibly understandable if the GM is an ass, or not).

 

[Aenghus]

In no way would I consider this "standard" exploratory play. This is adversarial play with a lack of trust on the part of the player (possibly understandable if the GM is an ass, or not).

I've seen various shades of this sort of play in older school games, it doesn't necessarily require the GM to be an ass, it just requires them to feel obliged to challenge the players unless "tricked" into granting them a victory by "clever play"(which is very subjective in nature). Pinning the GM down is an age-old tactic, and a typical response to use of illusionism.

 

[Abraxas]

I've seen various shades of this sort of play in older school games, it doesn't necessarily require the GM to be an ass, it just requires them to feel obliged to challenge the players unless "tricked" into granting them a victory by "clever play"(which is very subjective in nature). Pinning the GM down is an age-old tactic, and a typical response to use of illusionism.

I'm an old gamer - it's not a tactic I've seen used except in adversarial play - usually because the players don't trust the GM - and they usually don't trust him cause he's an ass or they've been burned before. I must be lucky to not have seen this much - I've trusted my GMs not to change things just to screw with me and my players have trusted me.