Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[N'raac]

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

I thought the impetus behind this thread was that some players (the non-spellcasters) were NOT having fun because the characters of other players (the spellcasters) were overpowered. So why is every suggestion that we apply the rules in a manner that results in those spellcasters being less (or not at all) overpowered is greeted with cries of how we are ruining the game and spoiling the players' fun?

It seems like the assertion is that spellcasters are too powerful, which makes the game "no fun" (or less fun), but we cannot do anything about their excessive power because that, too, would render the game "no fun".

It seems like a lot of people are deluding themselves into believing they are having fun playing a game which cannot possibly be fun...or maybe the power disparity is actually managed under the rules as written, and it is excessively generous interpretations of those rules (invariably in the favour of the spellcasters) which creates the power disparity that makes the game "no fun" for some players.

 

[pemerton]

I thought the impetus behind this thread was that some players (the non-spellcasters) were NOT having fun because the characters of other players (the spellcasters) were overpowered. So why is every suggestion that we apply the rules in a manner that results in those spellcasters being less (or not at all) overpow

I will hazard a guess.

One way to power down spellcasters would be to change the PC build rules (eg tone down the power of the Charm Person spell, perhaps to grant a bonus to Diplomacy or permit a Diplomacy check to be made more quickly or permit INT rather than CHA to be used as the Diplomacy stat).

Another would be to change the basic structure of action resolution (eg "say yes or roll the dice", which tends to increase the power of mechanically non-fiat non-magical abilities, perhaps combined with the skill challenge format of 4e, which by using a metagame framework for resolution does not privilege casters over fighters).

But the bulk of the suggestions which are being criticised instead involve leaving the basic PC build elements and resolution mechanics unchanged, but interposing GM secret backstory between player effort and outcome so as to negate the desired effect of the player effort. That is what gives it the tone, to some at least, of adversarial GMing (perhaps combined with time-wasting at the table).

 

[Ahnehnois]

One way to power down spellcasters...

That presumes that there is some need to do so. I believe the point that [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] is getting at is that given that the existing rules are correctly applied, and sensible assumptions are made about world-building, and everyone is generally acting within reason, there is no such need.

But the bulk of the suggestions which are being criticised instead involve leaving the basic PC build elements and resolution mechanics unchanged, but interposing GM secret backstory between player effort and outcome so as to negate the desired effect of the player effort. That is what gives it the tone, to some at least, of adversarial GMing (perhaps combined with time-wasting at the table).

The term "interposing" implies a great deal more specific intent and contemporary resolution that I think is fairly atypical.

If you're playing D&D, you're pretending that there is, somewhere, a magical world where all this stuff is happening. Only an infinitessimal portion of that world is known to the players, and even less is under their control. By and large something in that world not being as the players would like is not a question of interposing anything or the DM making any active effort to keep something a secret or do anything specific to react to a player choice.

That's why I went down the example of the players trying to talk to a king who isn't there. There's no reason why they would necessarily know his whereabouts in advance, but as an important NPC, the DM may have an idea of what he's doing, and he may very well be inaccessible for reasons that have no connection to the PCs. The PCs' subsequent failure to gain an audience is not a secret backstory that's been imposed on their actions as he was never there to begin with, nor does it rob them of any agency since the king was not their character to play. It's simply an issue of there being a living world that is much bigger than any player could ever be aware of.

 

[sheadunne]

But the bulk of the suggestions which are being criticised instead involve leaving the basic PC build elements and resolution mechanics unchanged, but interposing GM secret backstory between player effort and outcome so as to negate the desired effect of the player effort. That is what gives it the tone, to some at least, of adversarial GMing (perhaps combined with time-wasting at the table).

That's what I'm seeing. For me though, the issue isn't with the DM, but the rules themselves. The DM is expected and encouraged to use secret backstory since there are no rules for narrative resolution. Teleport doesn't have a success or failure roll, only a mischance roll. There's no way to use "yes or roll the dice" since there are no dice to roll. The spell either works perfectly or a mishap happens, which doesn't negate the spell, only the arrival location. Since roll the dice isn't an option (no rules for it) that leaves, say yes or use secret backstory. I don't believe that others dislike the DM for using it, but rather the rules for providing no other way for determining results. The only option is to say yes or no. Since "no" without reason doesn't appeal to most people, a backstory has to be created to handle it (either prior or during the attempt). There are many different ways the rules could be changed to handle it better (you named a few). but until they are (such as the method 4e took), there will continue to be a divide on whether or not it's good game design.

Personally, I think subjective rules are worse than bad rules. The rules should exist without the notion of a DM. Only after the rules are created should the DM enter the picture. Unfortunately D&D has always been designed as a storytelling game that tacks rules on to add random chance, not to provide structured play.

 

[N'raac]

As Ahnehnois notes, I don't see reading the spells and applying the rules logically as "secret backstory" or "adversarial DMing". I don't assume the PC's are privy to details of the Royal Court's comings and goings, nor do I allow their adversaries to plan tactics with a perfect knowledge of the plans and abilities of the PC's (both subject to exception where they possess and use resources which provide them with such information).

Charm Person as written overrides the target's free will. That is an action logically seen as an attack. A spell which enhances diplomacy would be a fine spell, but it is a different spell. How it would be received by the general population would need to be assessed, but a spell that simply enhances the caster's persuasiveness (ie a buff spell) seems less likely to attract a negative reaction. That said, in a world where magic is not all that rare, would people with a variety of magical auras be allowed to wander into the King's court, or would we have some magic detection systems at the entry points (much like we have metal detectors, security scans, etc. in many locations in our modern world), and a "no magic allowed" policy?

This is a world where any wizard with an interest can locate the Charm Person spell. If it is that common, then it seems likely societal rules have built up around it. Why, for example, would the King not have a court caster who starts the day off buffing all of his mental stats, enhancing his ability to Sense Motive and carrying out any number of other functions designed to make the King, and key members of his court, much more resistant to social skills, magically augmented or otherwise?

Finally, if we wish to focus more on interaction skills, including magical augmentation of same, I think we should also be removing PC immunity to interaction skills. PC's should not be immune to persuasion - if they want resistance or immunity, let them also dedicate character resources to that advantage. If it is possible for the PC's to persuade the Chamberlain to grant them immediate access to the King, it should also be possible for the Chamberlain to persuade the PC's into some other course of action which he finds more desirable. Now we get into a "Say Yes or Roll the Dice" which has some meat to it - if the PC's are trying to persuade the Chamberlain to let them see the King immediately, with the only down side being they don't get to see the King immediately, this seems pretty one sided. If failure means that, instead, the Chamberlain persuades the PC's to undertake a task to prove their merit, heroism and battle proficiency, perhaps seeing out some magic artifact lost to history and returning it to the King's rightful possession, suddenly there is actual risk the PC's must consider.

"OK, if you succeed, you persuade the Chamberlain that an immediate audience with the King is appropriate, but if he wins, then you are persuaded by his arguments that the +5 Holy Longsword the paladin presently wields, which you seized from the Dragon Hoard, ought properly to be returned to the King as it was originally crafted for his ancestor." sounds like a more interesting challenge than "Roll 30+ to be granted an audience, otherwise you are turned away and will have to wait a day for every point short before you can try again."

Teleport is getting a lot of attention. So, [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] or [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], how would your Teleport spell read? The current rules say "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination.", so the players need to get that clear idea or the spell fails automatically. How clear their idea is will determine the likelihood of a mischance. But even here, we may have that secret backstory (for example, the PC's do not know that the temple they seek to Teleport to was sacked and burned in the recent past). I expect that may be the fallout of a failed roll, rather than an idea preconceived by the GM, in the indy type game suggested, so what are the odds that the players' teleport succeeds, and what are the odds it fails and such a complication may arise? The 3e rules provide an 11% chance for some sort of complication if the area has been "seen casually", with possible complications including injury, an off-target arrival and arrival in a similar location which was not desired. How will the complications of a failed roll be determined under your revised Teleport spell? I suspect your "perfect teleport spell" will be perfect to you, but carry flaws for other gamers' playstyles, but I am interested to see how you would modify the spell to make it fit your indy approach.

I'd also be interested to know how the Fighter or Rogue gets instantaneous transport to the King's Court, 1,500 miles away, using his skills or abilities, since the ability of the non-spellcaster to attain the same results seems to be crucial to your vision of a balanced game.

 

[N'raac]

Personally, I think subjective rules are worse than bad rules. The rules should exist without the notion of a DM. Only after the rules are created should the DM enter the picture. Unfortunately D&D has always been designed as a storytelling game that tacks rules on to add random chance, not to provide structured play.

In a broad based RPG, how can subjectivity be removed? My understanding is that, in most Indy games, the GM sets challenges, and interprets the results of success or failure when the dice are rolled. How is that "objective"? Removal of subjectivity would seem to me to entail charts for NPC reactions, the results of successful and failed rolls, etc., to the extreme of removing the GM entirely - the charts set the challenges, abilities of enemies, their tactics, setbacks arising, rewards achieved, ad infinitum. IOW, less a conventional RPG and more a co-operative boardgame.

 

[sheadunne]

how would your Teleport spell read? The current rules say "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination.", so the players need to get that clear idea or the spell fails automatically. How clear their idea is will determine the likelihood of a mischance. But even here, we may have that secret backstory (for example, the PC's do not know that the temple they seek to Teleport to was sacked and burned in the recent past). I expect that may be the fallout of a failed roll, rather than an idea preconceived by the GM, in the indy type game suggested, so what are the odds that the players' teleport succeeds, and what are the odds it fails and such a complication may arise? The 3e rules provide an 11% chance for some sort of complication if the area has been "seen casually", with possible complications including injury, an off-target arrival and arrival in a similar location which was not desired. How will the complications of a failed roll be determined under your revised Teleport spell? I suspect your "perfect teleport spell" will be perfect to you, but carry flaws for other gamers' playstyles, but I am interested to see how you would modify the spell to make it fit your indy approach.

Teleport is a particular problem spell because it doesn't have a roll for success, unlike a lot of other spells (saves, attack rolls, etc). It has a narrative mechanic that relies on narrative balance to determine success (which is why I have said that you're not running it wrong, it's the mechanic used to balance the spell). I would like to see either a skill check or saving throw (for the location) determine success, not a fixed percentile roll that's based on information not actual possible to prove since the language is subjective to whatever the DM determines (i.e. narrative balance). When I run teleport in my PF games it's a Knowledge check (Geography usually, but I allow other knowledge skill to be used as appropriate, such as religion to teleport to the temple) to determine what level of knowledge the character has with the location. Casting divination spells gives a bonus to that roll. This is a band-aid for the spell. For the most part I have absolutely no problem with using teleport to go where the PCs want. It has no impact on my games at all.

Keep in mind that I don't play indie games (for the most part, with the exception of one-shots and the like, although I like many aspects of individual games like the skill system in Cortex). Nor is my play style similar to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. I prefer story over gonzo. For example, to use superhero movies as an example, my play style is more similar to "unbreakable" than to "the avengers." I find indie style play leans more towards "the avengers." That said, there are elements in that play style that facilitate interaction much better than other models and I can adapt those models to fit my play style.

I'd also be interested to know how the Fighter or Rogue gets instantaneous transport to the King's Court, 1,500 miles away, using his skills or abilities, since the ability of the non-spellcaster to attain the same results seems to be crucial to your vision of a balanced game.

I have no interest in the fighter/rogue or any other martial mimicking teleport. I don't think anyone is (although I think in 4e that a fighter could learn the ritual for teleport, I'm not sure though since I don't play it and my knowledge of the system is limited). However, I have no problem with the fighter and rogue having abilities that represent narrative abilities of fictional characters. Say a rogue that has abilities similar to Patrick Jane on the "mentalist."

Finally, if we wish to focus more on interaction skills, including magical augmentation of same, I think we should also be removing PC immunity to interaction skills. PC's should not be immune to persuasion - if they want resistance or immunity, let them also dedicate character resources to that advantage. If it is possible for the PC's to persuade the Chamberlain to grant them immediate access to the King, it should also be possible for the Chamberlain to persuade the PC's into some other course of action which he finds more desirable. Now we get into a "Say Yes or Roll the Dice" which has some meat to it - if the PC's are trying to persuade the Chamberlain to let them see the King immediately, with the only down side being they don't get to see the King immediately, this seems pretty one sided. If failure means that, instead, the Chamberlain persuades the PC's to undertake a task to prove their merit, heroism and battle proficiency, perhaps seeing out some magic artifact lost to history and returning it to the King's rightful possession, suddenly there is actual risk the PC's must consider.

I think this is more geared toward [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] or [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] than myself, as I don't use "say yes or roll the dice," as the mechanics in 3x/PF don't provide the necessary resources for it (there are plenty of abilities that don't have anything to roll, see teleport above). And it's still more authoritarian than I like when I run my games. "Say yes" means the DM is still granting permission. I use something more like "Say no and roll the dice," which any player can use to see dice on the table. But again, 3x/PF doesn't have the necessary mechanical support to make it easy to use.

The problem with diplomacy and the charm spells is that they don't provide a "good" means of determining success. Fixed DCs (with the narrative capacity of the DM to raise the number) aren't particularly good mechanics in my opinion. I don't have a particularly better system (I'm examining the skill challenge method as a possibility, but I'm not entirely convinced it's any better for my preference). I'm not a fan of one roll to determine all, nor am I particularly interested in prolonged dice rolling. I think I'm looking for something in-between. But I do think the 3x/PF social mechanics are weak and need some serious thought revision. Until that happens, I don't tend to use the mechanics against players (including charm person, dominate, etc), nor do I have many players that are interested in using the spells themselves, for much the same reason.

 

[sheadunne]

In a broad based RPG, how can subjectivity be removed? My understanding is that, in most Indy games, the GM sets challenges, and interprets the results of success or failure when the dice are rolled. How is that "objective"? Removal of subjectivity would seem to me to entail charts for NPC reactions, the results of successful and failed rolls, etc., to the extreme of removing the GM entirely - the charts set the challenges, abilities of enemies, their tactics, setbacks arising, rewards achieved, ad infinitum. IOW, less a conventional RPG and more a co-operative boardgame.

I'm talking about determining success not determining effect. Teleport is a subjective spell because the DM can create a block for the spell that isn't in the rules for the spell. A player can succeed on the mechanics of the spell and still fail. Teleport = bad rule, tacking on additional blocks = worse. The spell could be designed so that blocking it was included in the mechanics of the spell and a single roll to determine whether it succeeds or not, regardless of subjectively adding on effects that aren't included in the spell itself.

I'm not sure that's any clearer to what I'm talking about, but it's all I've got for now.

 

[pemerton]

As Ahnehnois notes, I don't see reading the spells and applying the rules logically as "secret backstory" or "adversarial DMing". I don't assume the PC's are privy to details of the Royal Court's comings and goings

The second sentence in this quote is an examle of "secret backstory": backstory - in this case about the comings and goings of the Royal Court - which the GM knows but the players don't, and to which the GM refers to determine the success of actions - in this case, an attempt to gain an audience with the king - that the players have their PCs attempt.

I believe the point that N'raac is getting at is that given that the existing rules are correctly applied, and sensible assumptions are made about world-building, and everyone is generally acting within reason, there is no such need.

"Sensible assumptions are made about world-building" is another way of characterising secret backstory: ie information about the contents and disposition of the gameworld which the GM has and the players do not, and by reference to which the GM adjudicates the success of the actions that the players have their PCs attempt.

If you're playing D&D, you're pretending that there is, somewhere, a magical world where all this stuff is happening. Only an infinitessimal portion of that world is known to the players

<snip>

That's why I went down the example of the players trying to talk to a king who isn't there. There's no reason why they would necessarily know his whereabouts in advance, but as an important NPC, the DM may have an idea of what he's doing, and he may very well be inaccessible for reasons that have no connection to the PCs. The PCs' subsequent failure to gain an audience is not a secret backstory that's been imposed on their actions as he was never there to begin with, nor does it rob them of any agency since the king was not their character to play.

It's not in dispute that the players don't know everything about the gameworld. The relevant issue is the real-world conditions under which that unknown stuff relates to the actions that the players have their PCs attempt.

One way is for the players to declare actions for their PCs, for the GM to reference the secret backstory, and on the basis of that to then determine whether or not the declared actions succeed. This is what I described above as "interposition of secret backstory".

Whether the secret backstory was worked out in advance by the GM, or worked out on the fly, is important to some playstyles - eg in Gygaxian play the backstory should be worked out in advance, and part of the skill of play in that style is working out the secret backstory. Hence, for instance, all the detection abilities on magic swords in classic D&D. And hence the comparatively narrow scope of play - the dungeon - which makes the discovery of secret backstory by the players reasonably viable. In other playstyles - including what I have called "storyteller" play - it doesn't matter when the GM comes up with the secret backstory, because the players aren't expected to be trying to work it out through skilled play. Rather, it's all about "the story".

But another way to determine whether and how the unknown stuff relates to the PCs' actions is to bundle it into the action resolution mechanics. Unless I've misunderstood, this is what [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] is talking about in his couple of posts not far above this one (including the extract I quote below). And it's the default approach of indie play.

This is a world where any wizard with an interest can locate the Charm Person spell. If it is that common, then it seems likely societal rules have built up around it.

This all seems consistent with what I said. Rather than looking at changing PC build elements, or action resolution mechanics, you are leaving all the mechanics intact and developing ingame fiction - what I have called "secret backstory" - to determine the outcome of the use of the spell.

Charm Person as written overrides the target's free will. That is an action logically seen as an attack. A spell which enhances diplomacy would be a fine spell, but it is a different spell.

It need not be.

First, according to many in this thread, Charm Person does override free will: it makes the target view the caster as a friend, but within those parameters the target can choose what to do or what to refuse.

Second, and more importantly, what does it mean to "override a target's free will"? Charm Person makes a person make choices that s/he otherwise wouldn't make. So does successful diplomacy. One way to boost a Diplomacy skill attempt would be to magically make the target see you as friendlier - ie Charm Person. I think it would be a significant mechanical improvement to the spell to locate it in the same mechanical space as the rest of the interaction rules (which themselves might be rewritten to interface with the Will mechanics).

Finally, if we wish to focus more on interaction skills, including magical augmentation of same, I think we should also be removing PC immunity to interaction skills. PC's should not be immune to persuasion - if they want resistance or immunity, let them also dedicate character resources to that advantage.

I regard this as a matter of taste and style. The Dying Earth, Burning Wheel and Marvel Heroic RP all have robust rules for PC/NPC parity in influence resolution. Classic D&D and, as far as I know, 3E, have parity in magical influence but not mundane (eg AD&D PCs don't need to check morale - contrast Burning Wheel, where they do).

4e defaults to PC immunity to both magical and non-magic influence outside the rather narrow mechanical parameters of its "dominate" effect. This seems to me consistent with its general orientation towards "everyone involved all of the time".

It's a bit like PC death. There's nothing wrong with a game like (say) 13th Age which has a default "death flag" rule - the players can always declare a dramatic escape for their PCs, but at the expense of a GM-narrated campaign failure, which means that PCs will only die when the players decide the takes are too high to risk the failure.

Whereas in 3E, the default is vulnerability to death unless some sort of special resource is acquired.

The DM is expected and encouraged to use secret backstory since there are no rules for narrative resolution. Teleport doesn't have a success or failure roll, only a mischance roll. There's no way to use "yes or roll the dice" since there are no dice to roll.

<snip>

Since roll the dice isn't an option (no rules for it) that leaves, say yes or use secret backstory.

Good point.

Teleport is getting a lot of attention.

<snip>

even here, we may have that secret backstory (for example, the PC's do not know that the temple they seek to Teleport to was sacked and burned in the recent past). I expect that may be the fallout of a failed roll, rather than an idea preconceived by the GM, in the indy type game suggested, so what are the odds that the players' teleport succeeds, and what are the odds it fails and such a complication may arise?

The odds would be determined by your more general resolution system. In 4e, for instance, everything else being equal the successsful use of teleport would be an Arcana check against an appropriate DC. For the question of whether or not the destination had been destroyed, it might be History or Streetwise (depending on whether we're talking about recent destruction or destruction long ago).

I'd also be interested to know how the Fighter or Rogue gets instantaneous transport to the King's Court, 1,500 miles away, using his skills or abilities, since the ability of the non-spellcaster to attain the same results seems to be crucial to your vision of a balanced game.

No one is talking about "the same results" in the fiction. We are talking about a comparable capacity to meaningfully influence the gameworld. For long-distance influence that may be via carrier pigeons sending messages to reliable cohorts; or even an ability to resolve a 1500 mile trek with a simple "Trekking" skill check.

 

[sheadunne]

For long-distance influence that may be via carrier pigeons sending messages to reliable cohorts; or even an ability to resolve a 1500 mile trek with a simple "Trekking" skill check.

Let's just hope "trekking" doesn't become a skill . . . in any game. haha