Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Ahnehnois]

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.

I would think that a sensible player would assume that a powerful NPC probably has defenses in place that prevent anyone from enchanting people close to him, teleporting into his bedroom, scrying on his meetings, or killing him. As to exactly what those defenses are and whether any particular NPC in a crowded room is part of them, the player is likely not aware. Those defenses can't be perfect, but they're most likely better than whatever the players have, unless the players are playing kings themselves.

Remember, you folks are the ones who have stated that adversarial GMing is the solution to caster imbalance.

No one said that. If anything, we said that adversarial DMing that selectively targets only the nonmagical characters is probably the source of your complaint in the first place.

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.

I don't think anyone said that either (apart from you of course).

Personally, I will screw over the players at some opportunities, and not at others, which is pretty much inherent to the definition of DMing.

 

[N'raac]

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.

I question whether “perfect knowledge” ever exists. If it is a standard assumption of the setting, I would expect your character to know that, typically, there are spellcasters at the Royal Court who are on the lookout for unauthorized use of magic in the King’s Court. If there are not, and if we accept your premise that the Charm Person spell is a trump card to force any NPC to accede to your wishes, then there is no way the social structure could be maintained. Therefore, either the Charm Person spell lacks the power you wish to ascribe to it, or something defends the higher ups from its impact.

Whether that “something” is known to all or a closely guarded secret, whether it is uniform or varies from kingdom to kingdom, etc. can certainly depend on the game world. In one location, it could be acolytes of the State Religion using Detect Magic (zero level spells being even more common than 1^st level spells). In others, it could be Court Wizards, magic items, anti-magic shells or zones, or any number of other mechanical means that detect or prevent mind-affecting magic.

But, if we accept that magic is so common that wizards can expect to find scrolls of any spell their black little hearts could desire available for purchase in any settlement of reasonable size, or even so they can readily locate materials to research any spell they wish (which they clearly can as their selection on advancement is neither random nor constrained), then we must also consider that such common magic must have had some impact on how the rest of the world operates. One such ramification is that those in power likely have defenses against magic, especially common, low level magic.

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.

Again, I ask how obvious it is that your character, who wishes to cast that Charm Person, is a spell caster. If it is easy for your character to know whether or not there are casters there, why is it not equally easy for people to know your character is also a caster? Is it your contention that all the world’s an open book, except for the PC’s who should be shrouded in impenetrable mystery?

Can the players know with certainty the numbers and capabilities of the King’s Guard? Is failure to broadcast those details “screwing over the fighters”? I don’t think so, but that’s the conclusion I would have to reach if I apply your definition of “screwing over the players”.

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.

It seems like you define “screwing over the players” as including any situation where the players lack omniscience and omnipotence, and recognize no middle ground between “at every opportunity” and “never, no not even once”.

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.

You are the only one saying that. I don’t consider the King, or his chamberlain, possessing defenses that prevent a first level spell converting them to sock puppets to be “adversarial GMing”, any more than I consider the King’s Champion having the combat skill to defeat low level PC’s, or the King not running around undefended to fall prey to the PC’s should they have some whim to do him harm, or the King not having an open door policy to meet with any bunch of murderhobos who happen to darken his doorstep, to be adversarial GMing.

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?

There is, again, a large continuum between “no chance of success” and “autosuccess” which you seem unable to perceive. That said, why would Charm Person being a quick and easy solution to any dispute with an NPC be any more reasonable an expectation than a 3^rd level fighter expecting to be able to storm the castle of the King, take on all comers, and emerge victorious with nary a scratch? Neither makes for a good, challenging game (as opposed to an adolescent power fantasy).

As well,

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?

The fact that a Charm spell is an attack seems to be conveniently overlooked by those players wishing to use it to make the NPC’s into sock puppets with impunity. The fact that there must be a host of characters in the world capable of casting this spell also seems ignored. Given this, how can we reasonably assume there are no common defenses against this tactic? How could any ruler with no such defenses retain his crown?

I’m curious, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], how you envision a wizard who opposes you and having access to the Charm Person spell would deal with your party of PC’s? Should he also be able to undetectably convert the PC’s into his sock puppets, or are PC’s special snowflakes who should be both irresistible forces and immovable objects? If he is detected, should the PC’s be expected to just laugh it off as a friendly chat, or would they take action against the caster? You seem to expect the rest of the world to behave very differently from the PC’s.

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.

Agreed. And this comes back to the main thrust of the discussion – when the rules are interpreted reasonably in light of the game as a whole, a lot of the “overpowered caster” issues go away. To me, that is not “screwing over the players at every opportunity”, but applying a reasonable interpretation of the rules and their implications on the game world.

 

[Hussar]

where is this "Sock Puppet" straw man coming from? I mean, is it unreasonable that a charmed chamberlain would let you in? Oh, that's right, it is. According to you, even though the chamberlain now sees me as a completely trusted friend, letting me in to see the king would be beyond the power of the spell. Thus, even if I do somehow manage to successfully charm the chamberlain, you'll still interpret the spell in such a way to negate any success.

Yup, no adversarial GMing going on here. None at all.

Pretty much proves my point doesn't it? No matter what the players try, they will never get to see the king, because the DM has dictated that they shall always fail.

And this is being used as a means for controlling game balance. Which is fine. It does work. It just doesn't work for me.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Agreed. And this comes back to the main thrust of the discussion – when the rules are interpreted reasonably in light of the game as a whole, a lot of the “overpowered caster” issues go away. To me, that is not “screwing over the players at every opportunity”, but applying a reasonable interpretation of the rules and their implications on the game world.

I'm imagining if we played a modern rpg instead of D&D, let's say some player decides to be a hacker. He maxes out his computer skills and says to the DM "I hack the Pentagon and release nukes on everyone I dislike", proudly displaying the 20 he rolled on his skill check. The DM says no and moves on, and the player complains about being "deprotagonized", noting that the highest DC given in the skill description is 30, so he should be able to do anything, right? Right?

Obviously, that can't happen, because the government and big businesses and rich people protect their systems from hackers, and because launching nukes requires more than some passcode, even in our computer-dependent society. If there weren't such protections, we'd still be living in the twentieth century. Every now and then, something does get breached and it is a big deal, but it takes a good bit more than one haphazard attempt to accomplish that.

Why it's so difficult to apply the same logic to D&D is baffling to me.

 

[Ahnehnois]

where is this "Sock Puppet" straw man coming from?

He's a sock puppet because you're assuming that he does what the player wants, even if it violates his professional responsibilities, oaths, or common sense. Even close friends generally don't do those things.

For example, if you were close friends with someone in the Secret Service, you wouldn't just be able to walk up to the White House unannounced and say "Hey, let me in to see the President".

Yup, no adversarial GMing going on here. None at all.

Pretty much proves my point doesn't it? No matter what the players try, they will never get to see the king, because the DM has dictated that they shall always fail.

Saying that the players can't do something is not inherently adversarial, any more than a referee is being adversarial when he calls a foul of some sort on the players of your sport of choice. Playing is not about getting what you want, and the rules clearly explain that players do not have the authority to resolve their own actions or dictate any outcome in the game world, therefore, being denied that is not adversarial, it's simply the DM doing his job.

In this example, the DM is free to decide that the king in question is above speaking to people he doesn't know, or that he's busy, or that he doesn't exist because the DM hasn't statted him and doesn't want to improvise his personality, or that his chamberlain is having a bad day and refuses the players out of spite without the king's knowledge. The players don't have any right to dictate that any of those things are not the case, and don't even need to know why their audience has been denied. They simply know what their characters know: that they asked very nicely and persuasively and the staff said no.

 

[Hussar]

Because unlike you, I'm not presuming that the players are jerks? I mean, there's a pretty significant difference between, "I use a spell which makes someone my friend to get past this guy so I can move on with the adventure" and, "I completely munchkinned my character to the point where it breaks your game, now deal with it".

But, judging from this thread, you view them both the same.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Because unlike you, I'm not presuming that the players are jerks? I mean, there's a pretty significant difference between, "I use a spell which makes someone my friend to get past this guy so I can move on with the adventure" and, "I completely munchkinned my character to the point where it breaks your game, now deal with it".

But, judging from this thread, you view them both the same.

I provided the example specifically to show a case in which the players were jerks and were overreaching. Given the quality control mechanisms of the hobby and the sheer numbers ratio, I think it's a lot more likely for a player to be one than a DM.

However, the player's motivations are fairly incidental. The bottom line is what happens in the world, not which real-life person gets their way.

 

[Aenghus]

The logical extrapolation of the features of a setting is a subjective process, and can produce consequences that are detrimental to some players and GMs preferred playstyles. Implementing them in the gameworld is a matter of choice and not compulsory.

Some people prefer more fast-paced action adventure in their game where the PCs are or can aspire to being important. Some people prefer a slower-paced, more serious game where the PCs are just another face in the crowd, and maybe can earn more. These different goals call for different world-building and a different flavour of resolution.

Cold, hard reality is entirely cold and hard enough IMO. Our games can have coldness and hard edges, but they are products of the imagination, and they don't have to - RPGs can be hard-edged or soft-edged or anywhere in between.

Even in reality, we find out that security has flaws all the time, simple precautions not taken, locks broken,unlocked or just not present, people lazy, incompetent or corrupt. Some groups like to slowly, painstakingly figure out the weak points in an in-game challenge (including social challenges such as getting past the chamberlain) and then attack the weakest point. Others like to use the obvious approach and engage quickly with the challenge - and this is the important part - without their forthrighness appreciably damaging their chances of success. In the latter style, throwing up lots of roadblocks and dead ends is a mistake, as it misses the point of the fast paced playstyle. The challenge in the latter style of play comes substantially from the number of challenges thrown at the PCs, not their details - the fast-paced group can handle more challenges, but you can throw more at them than they can handle, so they have to pick and choose.

GMs, if a player comes up with a PC which is legal by the rules, but has, for you ,unrealistic goals and methods for achieving them that he or she thinks are plausible, what do you do? Do you discuss it beforehand, or let them play in the school of hard knocks and grind their dreams and enthusiasm out of them in the game itself? IMO that's what the latter method ends up doing far too much of the time.

 

[Hussar]

The problem is Ahn, all your examples are extreme. In every single one of your examples, it's the players who are trying to disrupt the game on the poor, beleaguered DM. IME, it's often the other way around, and very little in this thread has convinced me otherwise. I mean, you've specifically stated that you are the primary motivator in the game and the players are there to play in your world. For my personal preferences, I do not like to play in this style of game. I don't DM this way and I don't play this way.

I have no interest, anymore, in the experience you are advocating.

 

[Ahnehnois]

GMs, if a player comes up with a PC which is legal by the rules, but has, for you ,unrealistic goals and methods for achieving them that he or she thinks are plausible, what do you do? Do you discuss it beforehand, or let them play in the school of hard knocks and grind their dreams and enthusiasm out of them in the game itself? IMO that's what the latter method ends up doing far too much of the time.

I used to do the latter some some extent and it was a problem. These days, I look at PC creation as a collaborative process. If, for example, the player of a first level barbarian wrote a background in which he was the leader of a tribe, blessed by the gods, and referred to himself as a "warlord" who inspires men to greatness, I would read this and tell him: "No, you aren't. You're a first level barbarian. Some day, you might be all those things, but that's not where I'm starting this game at." I do see less extreme versions of this pretty regularly, where players make a character that doesn't make sense, where they overreach.

Or, for a more practical example, I had a player who created a character who hunted mind flayers but had various flaws and penalties that knocked his will save down to a negative number. I let this go because it was his choice, but in reality I should have conveyed to him that this was such a suboptimal combination of mechanics and goals that it wouldn't work. I had used the player's background to make an aberration-heavy campaign full of tough enemies. And, indeed, the character was blasted with will save effects repeatedly and eventually died as a consequence. The player's mistake? Yes, but also mine for letting him go down the wrong road.

I think the gaming culture overemphasizes player choice. The DM knows what's going on in the whole world, and he determines the tone of the game and the goals of the campaign. Soliciting player input can be great, but it's important that he make sure that no one is blatantly outside of his vision for the campaign, because that just sets up a confrontation, one that the player will always lose and which won't likely be much fun for anyone. Trying to convey just the right amount of information, such that the players are within the box but are also independently creating something that adds meaning to the game, is a delicate process.