Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Ahnehnois]

There is no reason that D&D can't be played in this fashion also: ie the group collectively determines "the tone of the game and the goals of the campaign". I would even go further and say that, in general, I prefer it when the players determine the goals of the campaign, which follow from the backstory and goals that they come up with for their PCs.

D&D could be played in any number of ways. However, those kinds of tangents aren't really relevant. What happens when you grant the players the power to dictate tone or expand their responsibilities beyond their characters is irrelevant to the balance of particular character classes within the game as written, which does not give the player of any of those characters that level of authority.

The greater the influence of this secret backstory on action resolution, the less control the players have over the consequences of their choices.

Yes. And again, the RAW grant a DM in the D&D game under discussion (not a GM in some indie game) blanket authority over offscreen events.

The idea of "red herrings" - particularly in the form of episodes of play that might take up an hour or more at the table, and serve no purpose other than to "establsh that [a certain NPC] is not a plot devie or a tool" - strike me as highly playstyle dependent. I wouldn't play in a game that had this sort of stuff going on in it. And I certainly wouldn't introduce it into my own game.

Of course not. It's badwrongfun and you don't like it. You probably wouldn't get along in my campaigns (or anyone who plays with a different mentality than yours for that matter), and since you aren't in them, that's fine.

But what the red herring notion is, in this context, is a rationale. The rules don't require that all game play is productive towards reaching any particular goal. The notion of any game play that doesn't as a waste of time is certainly your opinion to have. However, the game does not forbid a DM from introducing game elements that the players can interact with, but which lead nowhere useful. With regards to social skills or spells, there is nothing in the text that prevents the DM from establishing NPCs that are unable, unwilling, or simply not interested in doing what the players would like, and their is no "fiat" in any of the Charm/Diplomacy abilities that would override that.

Personally, I find that it is essential that a significant portion of gameplay is not goal-directed or player-centric, in order to convey to the players the sense that there is a living world that their characters can participate in. The equivalent of establishing shots in cinema, or those background characters in D&D video games that make pithy comments but can't be interacted with.

For instance, there is the idea that there can be "a plotlline in the making" which is mostly, perhaps completely, independent of player choices and priorities. I don't run my games that way.

You don't have to. But nothing in the rules requires or even strongly suggests that the players need to be involved in every aspect of the game. Nor is it something that I find most players want. If anything, a DM that doesn't have a clear vision of what his game is about sends a message that he isn't very invested in his game and probably won't be much of a DM when the dice start flying.

I think I'm a sensible player. I'm a sensible player who has also watched Return of the Jedi. So I would probably think that charming an associate or servant of a powerful NPC (eg Bib Fortuna) was a clever and genre-appropriate way to secure an audience with a powerful NPC.

It certainly doesn't strike me as remotely abusive.

I think [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] addressed this pretty well. However, the example you've given was a Jedi, someone better than the average human, which is not the case in D&D. A D&D character is not "special" in the way that Luke is (unless the DM has decided this is the case). It also occurs in a lawless area, which is not implicit in the scenario I described, though if he had been caught he probably would have been executed (and indeed, almost was anyway). It is also, even though used against evil and for good, nonetheless an evil act. Is it impossible for an analogous scenario to play out in D&D? No. Is it a pretty radical action? Yes.

I don't know if "1st level PCs robbing the local magic shop" was what Ahnehnois and N'raac had in mind when they talk about "adversarial players" and "disruptive ideas", but if so then in my view their advice for dealing with the issue - the suggestion that you can stop that sort of "disruptive play" via GMing techniques like secret backstory and heavy-handed GM force - is completely misguided. That sort of "disruptive play" is a social issue - the analogue of tipping over the board when loosing, or keeping cards up one's sleeve - and needs to be dealt with at the social level.

Maybe. Maybe not. As I noted earlier, it's entirely possible that the PCs may attempt disruptive actions out of ignorance. Or, perhaps, out of sheer curiosity.

It's often nice when the players and DM are on the same page, but a clash of expectations can be interesting and dynamic. Which, of course, is why it needs to be (and is) textually clear whose vision wins when the DM and players clash.

So what if the 1st level players do try to rob a local magic shop? It could get them thrown unceremoniously out on the street, or it could start a new adventure in prison, or it could result in an unscrupulous mage demanding that the party steal something for him as a quest to prevent him from simply executing them after they've been caught.

Conversely, what if the NPC shop owner has made some mistake, or if some higher power is watching over the PCs, and their (ostensibly foolish) plan actually does work, and they walk out with riches? What then? Is there a whole new line of events devoted to what they do with their stuff? Are they on the run, fugitives? Are they recruited by some local criminal syndicate?

Or maybe some magical entity divines their intent and stops them before they even get started on their plan. Maybe the DM has a bigger plot to get to, or expectations of moral conduct that the players are violating, and he conveys to them quickly and clearly that this kind of behavior is not within the bounds of his campaign. The possibilities are endless. And, of course, almost completely under the purview of the DM. The thing the players provide here is a statement of intent, which it's then up to the DM to work with.

 

[Aenghus]

RPGs have been around for 4 decades or so. some players have a lot of experience of playing the game, and often running it themselves. Older people often have less free time, a better idea of what they want from the game, and what directions they want to take their characters. I find messing around with players like this to be actively counterproductive. You can urge or motivate them to try something different, but unilaterally forcing the game into an entirely different direction could be disastrous.

The bad old way of dealing with such problems is the way of the dictator, ignoring it, crushing dissent and refusing to discuss such issues. This may work when riding herd on unruly teenagers, but I don't think it's appropriate as the default approach nowadays. I find some debate on these issues, preferably outside the game proper works better for all concerned.

I have personally seen enough "DM decides everything" games (not all, but enough) turn into disasters, as the DM ignored or twisted what the players wanted and imposed his worldview on them, producing a terrible game for all concerned. It's the style of play I personally find most prone to failure as a player. Obviously, it works for some other groups, but I have seen some give and take be far more productive.

I prefer to facilitate players in their ambitions for their PCs. Now, facilitating them doesn't mean total wish fulfillment, but it does mean taking them into account in my plans and development of the gameworld, and not riding roughshod over their ambitions just because they don't suit me and/or my plot. If their ambitions aren't reasonable to me I flag the issues and discuss what can be changed - sometimes they change my mind, sometimes there's a mutual misunderstanding to clarify, sometimes I put my foot down if I can't see a viable compromise.

The thing is, in these forum discussions, we don't get context. We don't see or hear the game as it is actually run, don't see how the referee or players are treated in practise, and tend to fill in the gap with our imaginations and how we as players would react to the game style as described. I don;t think many posters here run their games as nightmare railroads or brave new worlds, but it's impossible to be sure due to the narrow bandwidth.

 

[N'raac]

But what the red herring notion is, in this context, is a rationale. The rules don't require that all game play is productive towards reaching any particular goal. The notion of any game play that doesn't as a waste of time is certainly your opinion to have. However, the game does not forbid a DM from introducing game elements that the players can interact with, but which lead nowhere useful. With regards to social skills or spells, there is nothing in the text that prevents the DM from establishing NPCs that are unable, unwilling, or simply not interested in doing what the players would like, and their is no "fiat" in any of the Charm/Diplomacy abilities that would override that.

Personally, I find that it is essential that a significant portion of gameplay is not goal-directed or player-centric, in order to convey to the players the sense that there is a living world that their characters can participate in. The equivalent of establishing shots in cinema, or those background characters in D&D video games that make pithy comments but can't be interacted with.

This point seems to come up a lot lately. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] accuses us of wasting time at the gaming table, for example, asking "What's the point?". To me, the point of the entire game is to partake in an enjoyable activity. Ask non-gamers and they will tell you it's ALL a waste of time (if they are not too busy watching a sporting event, rushing off to a golf game or an evening at the opera, or doing something else which is clearly not a waste of time like spending an evening gaming).

If the game is simply a rushed exercise at narrating the PC's success (whether because they rolled successfully or failed forward), that's no fun - THAT is a waste of time. If the players spent the entire evening role playing discussions at the tavern, and the adventure the GM thought would start today instead starts next week, and everyone had a great time, that was not a waste of game time. It was the purpose of the game time - to have fun.

Where the problem creeps in is where one (or more) at the table had different expectations, and did not enjoy the aspects of the game played out. At an extreme (that one player is a poor fit, and removing those aspects of the game he finds "no fun" would reduce or remove the fun for everyone else), maybe a player needs to find a new game. Much less extreme, and much more common IME, is that the players have different levels of enjoyment for various aspects of the game, and we try to balance that out over time. So if we spent the whole evening role playing interactions with NPC's, and showing off their own characters' personalities, perhaps the GM needs to have a more combat-heavy session next week so the combat wombat who was not as enthralled by the NPC's gets to see his aspect of the game in focus.

But, if Combat Wombat wants a game that is 100% hack & slash, maybe he is a poor fit for this game and needs to find a group more to his liking. Just like a player who wants to do nothing but social/political maneuvering and NPC interaction will be a poor fit in a game that also features dungeon delving and tactical combat. I suggest that, the more extreme the player's preferences (ie the more elements of the game he/she wants to eliminate) the more difficult it will be to find a satisfactory group.

That has nothing to do with who is deciding the history of the game world, or whether the players can force the Wizard to return to his Tower right now, whether the GM wants him to or not. The division of control is simply one more aspect of the game which the players and GM need to find some common ground for, or they will find their desires for the game are not compatible.

If most players show up with detailed character backgrounds and personality sketches, but one player's character can be described with Generic Character Background (GCB) *, then perhaps that one player is a poor fit. If all but one is happy with GCB, then the guy with a ten page character description may be the one who needs to seek another group.

* GCB, created by a gamer frustrated with cardboard cutouts created by another player"

[Insert character name here] is a typical [state race of character] [state class of character] whose sole goal in life is to become the best [select: fighter; spellcaster; healer; thief] he can possibly be. An introverted soul, his only real friends or acquaintances are [state names of other PC's], and he demonstrates little, if any, of his personality in any public setting.

Description: [Character's name] is a typical looking [character race] equipped, dressed and outfitted as would be expect of a [state class]. He wears [robes/or state armor] and carries [add weapon list], being otherwise equipped for travel and dungeon delving.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The bad old way of dealing with such problems is the way of the dictator, ignoring it, crushing dissent and refusing to discuss such issues. This may work when riding herd on unruly teenagers, but I don't think it's appropriate as the default approach nowadays. I find some debate on these issues, preferably outside the game proper works better for all concerned.

Agreed. I don't think I've ever been accused of ignoring anything.

I have personally seen enough "DM decides everything" games (not all, but enough) turn into disasters, as the DM ignored or twisted what the players wanted and imposed his worldview on them, producing a terrible game for all concerned. It's the style of play I personally find most prone to failure as a player. Obviously, it works for some other groups, but I have seen some give and take be far more productive.

I've seen that too, but I've also seen plenty of examples of players walking all over beginner or unconfident DMs. To me the differentiating factor between a good game and a bad game is usually the DM's vision. If the DM has a clear vision, it manifests in the game, regardless of rules minutia or who comes up with any particular idea. If the DM doesn't know what he's doing, no one else will know either.

The thing is, in these forum discussions, we don't get context. We don't see or hear the game as it is actually run, don't see how the referee or players are treated in practise, and tend to fill in the gap with our imaginations and how we as players would react to the game style as described. I don;t think many posters here run their games as nightmare railroads or brave new worlds, but it's impossible to be sure due to the narrow bandwidth.

Well, I do my personal best to provide context, but you're right. We'll never know a lot of things.

This point seems to come up a lot lately. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] accuses us of wasting time at the gaming table, for example, asking "What's the point?". To me, the point of the entire game is to partake in an enjoyable activity. Ask non-gamers and they will tell you it's ALL a waste of time (if they are not too busy watching a sporting event, rushing off to a golf game or an evening at the opera, or doing something else which is clearly not a waste of time like spending an evening gaming).

Let alone doing something indulgent like posting in online messageboard discussions.

If the game is simply a rushed exercise at narrating the PC's success (whether because they rolled successfully or failed forward), that's no fun - THAT is a waste of time. If the players spent the entire evening role playing discussions at the tavern, and the adventure the GM thought would start today instead starts next week, and everyone had a great time, that was not a waste of game time. It was the purpose of the game time - to have fun.

Absolutely, on both counts.

Where the problem creeps in is where one (or more) at the table had different expectations, and did not enjoy the aspects of the game played out.

I don't know that expectations is the right word. Perhaps, proclivities. It's entirely possible for a player to expect one thing, get another, and be thrilled by it. And, moreover, I think their acceptance of the qualities and constraints of the game depends more on how well the DM presents it, and less on the substance of what it is.

On the occasion that I'm playing, I'm down for just about anything, as long as the DM is committed to what he's doing. My own preference is to play a roguish character with very detailed background skills who improvises a lot, but I'll max out a combat character, or spend an hour detailing a gag character, or do the research needed to play a spellcaster, in order to round out the group. Playing is so relaxing precisely because all those things like balance, tone, and keeping everyone happy are no longer my job; I can just do whatever I feel like. It's liberating.

What my expectations are and whether they're met is fairly incidental.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I do not make this assumption - I am yet to see an RPG whose rules were remotely adequate for handling this sort of sociological explanatory burden, even if I though it was desirable.

If anything, this mentality to me suggests a higher degree of DM intervention. For example, take the old "PCs try to teleport into a secure area" problem. If you use the rules as a world-building engine, the DM has to have a rationale for why an area is teleport-blocked, either because he read some spell or technique that counters it, or at the very least because he establishes a new defense that is then part of the game's canon.

Conversely, an old-school "rulings over rules" approach would suggest that in such a situation, the DM should simply say that the spell doesn't work, make up a reason if he feels like it, and move on.

What's the alternative? Let the players teleport wherever they please?

 

[Bluenose]

If anything, this mentality to me suggests a higher degree of DM intervention. For example, take the old "PCs try to teleport into a secure area" problem. If you use the rules as a world-building engine, the DM has to have a rationale for why an area is teleport-blocked, either because he read some spell or technique that counters it, or at the very least because he establishes a new defense that is then part of the game's canon.

Conversely, an old-school "rulings over rules" approach would suggest that in such a situation, the DM should simply say that the spell doesn't work, make up a reason if he feels like it, and move on.

What's the alternative? Let the players teleport wherever they please?

One obvious answer would be to make teleport (or other magic) difficult, dangerous, or expensive and hence something that isn't a better solution to most problems. There's not many RPGs where magic is as cheap, easy, reliable and replenishable as D&D, and in those no-one would be likely to ask why the players don't teleport everywhere.

 

[Ahnehnois]

One obvious answer would be to make teleport (or other magic) difficult, dangerous, or expensive and hence something that isn't a better solution to most problems. There's not many RPGs where magic is as cheap, easy, reliable and replenishable as D&D, and in those no-one would be likely to ask why the players don't teleport everywhere.

Absolutely. That would be one solution, potentially a good one.

As presented, however, the game has less restricted magic and I think has to be interpreted as it is.

That being said, I think that while D&D magic does seem a bit unhinged, there are quite a few aspects of technology in modern society that, while not the same (I can't teleport anywhere) are no less troubling. I don't think that dealing with this type of magic is unprecedented, or that it is inherently game-breaking. It just requires some thought.

 

[Bluenose]

Absolutely. That would be one solution, potentially a good one.

As presented, however, the game has less restricted magic and I think has to be interpreted as it is.

That being said, I think that while D&D magic does seem a bit unhinged, there are quite a few aspects of technology in modern society that, while not the same (I can't teleport anywhere) are no less troubling. I don't think that dealing with this type of magic is unprecedented, or that it is inherently game-breaking. It just requires some thought.

Some thought about what? Ways to stop them becoming game-breaking? Since the subject of the thread is Fighters vs Spellcasters, what abilities do Fighters have that aren't unprecedented or inherently game-breaking, but which require some of that thought?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Some thought about what? Ways to stop them becoming game-breaking? Since the subject of the thread is Fighters vs Spellcasters, what abilities do Fighters have that aren't unprecedented or inherently game-breaking, but which require some of that thought?

I think you may have crossed up the negatives there and I'm not sure I understood what you meant. The thought in question is, as I was discussing above, thought about how a world would develop that had, over time, millions and millions of characters with access to these abilities. Wrapped up in that is the notion that if a particular ability exists, it will be used effectively, so it is either used to its full extent, or, on a societal level there is some compensatory mechanism (such as teleport blocking, or making charms illegal in civilized areas, or any number of other things).

There are some subtly game-breaking abilities that non-magical characters get, such as being able to survive a fall from any height. However, I seriously doubt the game-breaking potential of the different classes is the same, nor would I expect it to be. The basic dynamic of D&D is that the fighter is the simple, reliable, and safe option, whereas the other options are progressively more complicated and higher in variance. A wizard is the most likely to achieve something game-breaking, but is also the most likely to achieve nothing.

I don't take it as implicit that all characters should have equal potential to cause earth-shattering changes, or that the term "balance" applies to that dynamic. For example, if we play a hundred wizards and a hundred fighters through to 20th level, half the wizards become virtual gods and half of them die at 1st level, and all the fighters make it through and become famous and fairly successful at combat but don't grant wishes and create demiplanes for themselves, that would be evidence that the classes are quite well balanced. In practice, the outcomes aren't nearly that good for the caster crowd, creating the impetus for more "reliable" options like the warlock.

 

[ImperatorK]

What's the alternative? Let the players teleport wherever they please?

We can't have players having fun by using their class abilities, now can we. That would be terrible.