Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Hussar]

I don't understand this. If a player doesn't explain his strategy beforehand, there's nothing preventing wizards from suddenly popping up to negate it. If the player asks about wizards, there's no reason to think that any answer he gets holds any water; how could someone know whether or not a person is a wizard just by looking? Never mind that one could be right nearby, but unseen, for a variety of magical or nonmagical reasons.

If the player keeps his cards close to the vest, the only thing that really accomplishes is that it forces the DM to think faster whenever they are ultimately revealed.

Really? His attempts to discover whether or not there are wizards at the court hold no water? What's the point of Gather Information or various Spot or whatever rolls then? Sure, I could fail those checks, but, if there are four court wizards whose sole purpose is to discover and discourage the use of magic at the court, then I would think that that's a pretty easy thing to discover.

But, again, here we have such a gulf in assumptions. You've repeatedly stated that it's simply natural that courts would have such things like court wizards to discourage shenanigans. But, apparently, just because it's natural, now it's suddenly a secret from the players because their attempt to discover the presence of such a thing "holds not water"

How is this not adversarial GMing? If I go ahead and try to charm the Chamberlain, there are court wizards there who will automatically see me, and punish me. If I try to discover their presence beforehand, then it's a big secret whether they are there or not. If I never try to charm the Chamberlain, there won't be any court wizards at all.

Campbell pretty much nails my opinion of the whole thing in a nutshell.

 

[pemerton]

Campbell pretty much nails my opinion of the whole thing in a nutshell.

In my case, [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] and Hussar. Can't XP either though.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But, again, here we have such a gulf in assumptions.
...
How is this not adversarial GMing? If I go ahead and try to charm the Chamberlain, there are court wizards there who will automatically see me, and punish me. If I try to discover their presence beforehand, then it's a big secret whether they are there or not. If I never try to charm the Chamberlain, there won't be any court wizards at all.

No. There might or might not be wizards there, and if the players attempt to discern their presence, they may or may not discover any information, which may or may not be accurate. If and when they attempt their action, they make, at best, an educated guess about what the parameters are and what outcome they think they might get. Then, the DM resolves it, drawing on a body of information about what's going on that is much broader than what the players will ever be aware of.

The gulf in assumptions seems to be that you're treating this scenario as a zero-sum game, like chess. All the pieces and their positions are known, and the player's job is to assimilate that information, do some mental math, and output a decision, much like a computer would do. I, on the other hand, assume a world of maybes, in which the players (like their characters) have limited and imperfect knowledge and make decisions the way people do, not computers, using heuristics and guesswork.

The other assumption I make is that the rules define the entire world. So if some player has a plan to charm an important NPC, he can't possibly be the first person to have thought of that. Magic has been around for thousands of years (or more). There have been thousands of NPC spellcasters throughout history that were much better than the PCs will ever be. So, if there is a king or similarly important figure, his rulership is contingent on his ability to not be possessed by demons, replaced by doppelgangers, charmed, dominated, or simply coerced. Clearly, if there is a king at all, there are some mechanisms by which he maintains his power and avoids subterfuge. Real kings had armies, castles, spies, and food tasters. Who knows what D&D kings have? Overcoming the social structures of the world would require a player be either incredibly powerful or incredibly clever.

The difference is that I think that the player characters are characters, and live in the same world as everyone else, and work the same way.

It's not adversarial DMing because the DM's motivation is not to oppose the player. His motivation is to create a world, populate it with characters, and play out a plot of some sort. Depending on the players, he might be doing anything from actively suggesting courses of action and giving them free stuff to countering their actions and hurting their characters/

 

[N'raac]

Really? His attempts to discover whether or not there are wizards at the court hold no water? What's the point of Gather Information or various Spot or whatever rolls then? Sure, I could fail those checks, but, if there are four court wizards whose sole purpose is to discover and discourage the use of magic at the court, then I would think that that's a pretty easy thing to discover.

No. There might or might not be wizards there, and if the players attempt to discern their presence, they may or may not discover any information, which may or may not be accurate. If and when they attempt their action, they make, at best, an educated guess about what the parameters are and what outcome they think they might get. Then, the DM resolves it, drawing on a body of information about what's going on that is much broader than what the players will ever be aware of.

The other assumption I make is that the rules define the entire world. So if some player has a plan to charm an important NPC, he can't possibly be the first person to have thought of that. Magic has been around for thousands of years (or more). There have been thousands of NPC spellcasters throughout history that were much better than the PCs will ever be. So, if there is a king or similarly important figure, his rulership is contingent on his ability to not be possessed by demons, replaced by doppelgangers, charmed, dominated, or simply coerced. Clearly, if there is a king at all, there are some mechanisms by which he maintains his power and avoids subterfuge. Real kings had armies, castles, spies, and food tasters. Who knows what D&D kings have? Overcoming the social structures of the world would require a player be either incredibly powerful or incredibly clever.

To me, the answer is “it depends”. Real kings had armies, castles and food tasters, and that was pretty well known. In the D&D world, it seems likely real kings would have spellcasters (whether wizards or clerics) or some other means of magic detection (magic items for the Royal Guard would do the trick). But it also seems likely this fact would be fairly well known.

That doesn’t mean the spellcasters can be picked easily out of the King’s Court – that would also depend on the campaign norms. If it’s simplicity to spot the four spellcasters in 100+ people at Court, it should be just as easy to spot [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s character as a spellcaster, should it not? Or is he the only caster in 50,000 years to ever think of dispensing with the star-encrusted robes and tall, pointy hat?

But, again, here we have such a gulf in assumptions. You've repeatedly stated that it's simply natural that courts would have such things like court wizards to discourage shenanigans. But, apparently, just because it's natural, now it's suddenly a secret from the players because their attempt to discover the presence of such a thing "holds not water"

It seems to me it would be as well known as the fact the king has a food taster and a royal guard, in a game where magic is common (which is the 3e+ D&D standard, IMO).

How is this not adversarial GMing?

It’s about as adversarial as having a Dragon resting atop the treasure horde rather than allowing the players to start shoveling loot onto the wagon train. The King knows spellcasters exist, and he doesn’t want his free will easily usurped. The GM knows the PC’s have spellcasters, and the game would lack challenge if they can make anyone or everyone holding any authority their sock puppet with a simple spell.

If I go ahead and try to charm the Chamberlain, there are court wizards there who will automatically see me, and punish me.

Does your Detect Magic miss some spells? If not, why would theirs? It seems reasonable to assume that casting a spell in the King’s Court would be viewed similarly to drawing a weapon, does it not?

If I try to discover their presence beforehand, then it's a big secret whether they are there or not.

Whether it is a secret depends on the campaign norms. Are there wizards? If this is the norm, any character with any knowledge would know this is typically the case. Who is the spellcaster, or the guard with the magic detection device, etc.? That may be less obvious, or it may not. Maybe it’s tradition to have four acolytes of the official state religion carry out this duty, and they are pretty obvious, or perhaps the Royal Guard are equipped with magic detecting headbands. Or maybe the court spellcasters are less obvious.

If I never try to charm the Chamberlain, there won't be any court wizards at all.

This is simply your assumption, once again deciding that no GM ever acts in good faith, but instead lives only to screw you over. Funny how we don’t criticize adversarial players who assume the GM is always out to get them, and constantly waste time in efforts to screw over the GM (often and/or the other players as well).

 

[Ahnehnois]

It’s about as adversarial as having a Dragon resting atop the treasure horde rather than allowing the players to start shoveling loot onto the wagon train. The King knows spellcasters exist, and he doesn’t want his free will easily usurped. The GM knows the PC’s have spellcasters, and the game would lack challenge if they can make anyone or everyone holding any authority their sock puppet with a simple spell.

The bottom line is does the strategy work or not, in the world. Whether the player originates it or not is irrelevant. The question is what outcomes could rationally be expected from the relevant action, given the parameters of how the world works.

It's extremely unlikely that a DM anticipates every contingency, so going back to the [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] post above, if the players try to keep the DM in the dark, he has to make a decision about what defenses the king would have, whereas if they are more open about their intentions, he has time to think.

Realistically, if the players suddenly come up with a potentially disruptive idea, a DM is going to react defensively and preserve the status quo. He should, lest the players fool him into letting them doing something game-breaking. Whereas, given more time, he can appraise the situation and make a more reasoned and thoughtful decision, such as thinking about what kind of resources and knowledge this king has and what defensive strategies he likely has deployed. It seems to me that the players being transparent is in their own interests.

This is simply your assumption, once again deciding that no GM ever acts in good faith, but instead lives only to screw you over. Funny how we don’t criticize adversarial players who assume the GM is always out to get them, and constantly waste time in efforts to screw over the GM (often and/or the other players as well).

It amazes me that some people have less trust in their own friends than in Hasbro.

 

[sheadunne]

I think it would be more likely in my mind that there wouldn't be mages at court. The last thing I want is a wizard standing around me day after day with the capacity to dominate me and take over the kingdom. More likely I'd have a cleric or paladin handy instead. Or I'd have commissioned items that detect the types of threats, rather than relying on wizards. Having a court wizard would make me naturally assume that the king is being manipulated.

I only being this up to suggest that players don't necessarily act on the logic the DM has used to create the scene/world and that if it's not flexible enough to bend to the logic of the players, the game is put at risk. The longer a group plays together the less likely this becomes.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think it would be more likely in my mind that there wouldn't be mages at court. The last thing I want is a wizard standing around me day after day with the capacity to dominate me and take over the kingdom. More likely I'd have a cleric or paladin handy instead. Or I'd have commissioned items that detect the types of threats, rather than relying on wizards. Having a court wizard would make me naturally assume that the king is being manipulated.

I would think that most royalty would employ wizards, even if they didn't like them or didn't make this fact public, for the same reason that real governments have various powerful and ethically dubious defenses. Self-preservation is a powerful motive. And sure, the magic item angle makes sense too. Royalty is rich and paranoid, spending like crazy on defense is very reflective of real life.

However, clerics are pretty useful. I would think that anyone powerful enough to be called a king would have a cleric (or clerics) casting Divination each day with a question something like "What harm might befall King X today?". Those clerics can also detect and dispel magic, and have quite a few other useful ways of negating nefarious plans.

There's also every reason to believe that really powerful monarchs have any number of magical creatures as allies (angels, dragons, mind flayers, etc.), perhaps even direct working relationships with deities (as many RL monarchs claimed to have had). Deus ex machina becomes the norm when you're talking about actual gods.

I only being this up to suggest that players don't necessarily act on the logic the DM has used to create the scene/world and that if it's not flexible enough to bend to the logic of the players, the game is put at risk. The longer a group plays together the less likely this becomes.

The reason I suggested this example to begin with (probably over a hundred pages ago) was to show a case where the players were attempting an action that both they and the DM immediately understood was unreasonable and should not work (a subversive action by the players), and how (contrary to all this "player fiat" nonsense), nothing in any spell or skill would allow the players to dictate that their unreasonable idea would have any chance of success.

In general, I'm inclined to agree that an actual group that knew each other well would probably not venture down that road.

 

[Hussar]

To me, the answer is “it depends”. Real kings had armies, castles and food tasters, and that was pretty well known. In the D&D world, it seems likely real kings would have spellcasters (whether wizards or clerics) or some other means of magic detection (magic items for the Royal Guard would do the trick). But it also seems likely this fact would be fairly well known.

That doesn’t mean the spellcasters can be picked easily out of the King’s Court – that would also depend on the campaign norms. If it’s simplicity to spot the four spellcasters in 100+ people at Court, it should be just as easy to spot [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s character as a spellcaster, should it not? Or is he the only caster in 50,000 years to ever think of dispensing with the star-encrusted robes and tall, pointy hat?



It seems to me it would be as well known as the fact the king has a food taster and a royal guard, in a game where magic is common (which is the 3e+ D&D standard, IMO).

But, N'raac, this isn't what Ahn is saying. He's saying that I can never really know if there are spell casters there. My knowledge will always be imperfect. If it's a standard assumption of the setting, then my character should know that right? So, I would never be surprised that there are court wizards there to block charming.

It’s about as adversarial as having a Dragon resting atop the treasure horde rather than allowing the players to start shoveling loot onto the wagon train. The King knows spellcasters exist, and he doesn’t want his free will easily usurped. The GM knows the PC’s have spellcasters, and the game would lack challenge if they can make anyone or everyone holding any authority their sock puppet with a simple spell.

You're missing the point. It's not the presence (or lack thereof) of the spell casters. It's that the players can never know if they are there or not.

Does your Detect Magic miss some spells? If not, why would theirs? It seems reasonable to assume that casting a spell in the King’s Court would be viewed similarly to drawing a weapon, does it not?



Whether it is a secret depends on the campaign norms. Are there wizards? If this is the norm, any character with any knowledge would know this is typically the case. Who is the spellcaster, or the guard with the magic detection device, etc.? That may be less obvious, or it may not. Maybe it’s tradition to have four acolytes of the official state religion carry out this duty, and they are pretty obvious, or perhaps the Royal Guard are equipped with magic detecting headbands. Or maybe the court spellcasters are less obvious.



This is simply your assumption, once again deciding that no GM ever acts in good faith, but instead lives only to screw you over. Funny how we don’t criticize adversarial players who assume the GM is always out to get them, and constantly waste time in efforts to screw over the GM (often and/or the other players as well).

No, I assume that there are some GM's that do not act in good faith based on the evidence shown in this thread where several DM's have flat out stated that they will screw over the players at every opportunity.

The reason I'm not criticising players for this is no one is saying that players should do this in order to maintain balance in their campaign. Remember, you folks are the ones who have stated that adversarial GMing is the solution to caster imbalance.

 

[Hussar]

I would think that most royalty would employ wizards, even if they didn't like them or didn't make this fact public, for the same reason that real governments have various powerful and ethically dubious defenses. Self-preservation is a powerful motive. And sure, the magic item angle makes sense too. Royalty is rich and paranoid, spending like crazy on defense is very reflective of real life.

However, clerics are pretty useful. I would think that anyone powerful enough to be called a king would have a cleric (or clerics) casting Divination each day with a question something like "What harm might befall King X today?". Those clerics can also detect and dispel magic, and have quite a few other useful ways of negating nefarious plans.

There's also every reason to believe that really powerful monarchs have any number of magical creatures as allies (angels, dragons, mind flayers, etc.), perhaps even direct working relationships with deities (as many RL monarchs claimed to have had). Deus ex machina becomes the norm when you're talking about actual gods.

The reason I suggested this example to begin with (probably over a hundred pages ago) was to show a case where the players were attempting an action that both they and the DM immediately understood was unreasonable and should not work (a subversive action by the players), and how (contrary to all this "player fiat" nonsense), nothing in any spell or skill would allow the players to dictate that their unreasonable idea would have any chance of success.

In general, I'm inclined to agree that an actual group that knew each other well would probably not venture down that road.

See, but, this is where the difference lies. To me, the players are not, in any way, attempting an action that is unreasonable or subversive. Using Charm Person to bypass a recalcitrant NPC is perfectly in keeping with the letter and intent of the spell. It's not unreasonable at all. So, why should it have no chance of success?

 

[Ahnehnois]

See, but, this is where the difference lies. To me, the players are not, in any way, attempting an action that is unreasonable or subversive. Using Charm Person to bypass a recalcitrant NPC is perfectly in keeping with the letter and intent of the spell. It's not unreasonable at all. So, why should it have no chance of success?

The example I gave was charming a king, which got moved to charming the people necessary to see him at all when I suggested that an audience with the king is not something that anyone can get on a whim.

However, even though the latter is slightly less out of line, there is no reason to expect that either would work. As others have noted, a charm spell is an attack. In any civilized area it would almost certainly be illegal and any competent authorities would likely be prepared for it. I would expect that in many settings, trying to cast a charm spell on even a low-ranking attache would be recognized well before the PCs got anywhere and punishable by death. As I noted, if this is not the case, how can one explain that the king and his forces remain in power in world full of magic?

I don't think the intent of the charm spell (or the Diplomacy skill) was that it would be a trump card that only PCs have and which could completely break the social structures of the world.

More broadly, the point of any spell or skill or rule is not to give a player the ability to dictate any part of the narrative.