Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Hussar]

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?

MY solution would be to rewrite the teleport spell because it is overpowered. There done. But in a game where teleport is in the game as written in say 3e, then if the players use teleport, the DM should not be playing silly buggers with the game world just to prop up poorly written mechanics.

 

[N'raac]

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.

"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.

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.

It seems like it IS in dispute. If they are not privy to every detail of the comings and goings of the Royal Court, then this is "secret backstory", which you dismiss. "Knowing everything relevant to anything they might wish to attempt" is, to me, "knowing everything about the gameworld", or its functional equivalent.

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 @sheadunne 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.

We're not discussing indie play. We're discussing 3.5 Fighters vs Spellcasters (see title of thread). No amount of skilled diplomacy, knowledge of nobility, etc. will make the King reappear at the Royal Court from a retreat to a hunting lodge, so I don't want a high enough d20 roll to force the King to be in attendance and available at the drop of a hat to receive a group of scruffy-looking adventurers who just happen to drop in unannounced.

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.

Here, I would say there should be no secret. If Charm Person is viewed as an offensive action that overrides free will, or casting a spell at someone is viewed similarly to drawing a weapon and threatening that individual, this should be known to the characters - they live in this world. If the Royal Court views spellcasting differently than the population with which the PC's normally interact, that would be a different matter, but this implies they are out of their element, so effectively exploring a culture foreign to them where they clearly should not have a solid knowledge of the cultural norms.

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.

Each time someone has suggested the Chamberlain refuses any action requested by the PC's, this has been dismissed as excessive GM force - "he is friendly, so clearly he would do this for me". Examples where this is clearly ludicrous (someone mentioned having a friend on the Secret Service not granting instant access to the President) have simply been ignored by those perceiving this simple little L1 spell as an "I win" button for bypassing the Chamberlain and being granted an immediate audience with the King.

Second, and more importantly, what does it mean to "override a target's free will"?

I suggest it includes using foul sorcery to make the target perceive you as a friend, rather than earning such friendship. The fact the target gets a saving throw (and not one marked "harmless") indicates that this is something the target will resist, so it is an override of 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).

I question whether it would be perceived as acceptable, in whatever culture we are envisioning, to magically influence the perceptions of third parties. Would your version of Charm Person, if unwittingly cast upon a Helpful person, render him Friendly (that is less inclined to provide you with assistance)? Diplomacy is the art of persuasion. Someone not wishing to be persuaded could, in my view, refuse to listen (another area broadly debated in this thread). It is not Bluff (a con exercise which quickly wears off), nor is it Intimidation (forcing the target to go along with our desires by physical, emotional or other threat). Again, as written, Diplomacy changes the target's attitude towards you, not what he may or may not be willing to do. Even when Diplomacy renders the King Friendly or Helpful, he is not going to name you Crown Prince. There is, similarly, no reason to believe that Friendly or even Helpful Chamberlain will automatically and immediately grant you an audience with the King.

Now, if we create a different spell (whether or not one with the same name) which makes you, the caster (or the target of the spell) a smoother talker, a better orator, etc., then we are no longer casting a spell to override free will, but to enhance the target's persuasive abilities. Here, skill bonuses seem appropriate, and it may be more reasonable to assume a societal norm which is accepting of such magical augmentation. But it seems no less reasonable that society might not view magic so positively, and this is still a foul enchantment (much like a professional athlete using performance-enhancing drugs is viewed in our own society). In the latter case, we might see a screening for magic at the entrance to the Royal Palace. If you have a magical aura, you will not be admitted, just as armed and armored persons will not be admitted into the King's presence (and certain items cannot be taken on the airplane in your carry on baggage). Here again, I would expect this backstory not to be a secret, assuming this is a society the PC's have interacted with, whether in game or in backstory.

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).

Here again, I expect it is the GM who is determining what DC is appropriate, possibly influenced by factors the PC's are unaware of. For example, they may be unaware that an opposing spellcaster has recently set a Teleport Block over the area they wish to travel to. Of course, we would need the actual spell writeup. Assuming we wish to depart as little as possible from the present vision of Teleport, I question how Knowledge: Arcana makes you any more familiar with the location to which you wish to travel. I like Sheadunne's approach to some extent. You want to travel to a far distant land? KS: Geography will determine how familiar you are with some location to be able to travel there. But KS: Geography will not grant you familiarity with the main temple of the Cult of the Dark One, so you can get to the city, but not into the Temple (or the Kings Chambers) with your Teleport spell by making an appropriate KS: Geography check. Don't HAVE KS: Geography? Then you follow the Untrained rule that you cannot get a success better than DC 10 (common knowledge), which may or may not be adequate to allow teleportation to that region at all.

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.

That doesn't seem like it will get me to the King's Court in time to capture the fellow who will attempt to assassinate the King tonight, which would mean it is not comparable in its capacity to meaningfully influence the gameworld, would it?

MY solution would be to rewrite the teleport spell because it is overpowered. There done. But in a game where teleport is in the game as written in say 3e, then if the players use teleport, the DM should not be playing silly buggers with the game world just to prop up poorly written mechanics.

I keep asking people to show me how they use Scrying spells to get the required one hour of careful study required to push up the person's familiarity with the location to "studied carefully", getting the odds of error dropped down to 6%. Every example so far has been constrained by its area of vision, its duration, etc. So I suggest "I can teleport anywhere with precision" is not the manner in which the spell is written in 3e. It is the manner in which those wishing to overpower the spell assert it should be interpreted, but I do not find that interpretation consistent with the writeup of the spell. "You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination." All four categories for odds of success require you to have seen the location. That makes the King's Court or the Temple of the Dark One possible Teleport locations only if you have seen those locations at least once. And Seen Once leaves a 24% failure chance, so I would not recommend it as a common tactic.

And we have the altering of the familiar area to make it a false destination - in a world where teleportation is a common ability for viable opponents, it seems like this would be done a lot to frustrate such attempts - especially where magic at a similar level can also "renovate" the area pretty quickly and efficiently. Just as our society adjusts to new technologies, I would expect D&D societies to adjust to magical abilities. If they do not, then the spellcaster definitely becomes more powerful, but the 3E+ assumption of ready access to new spells and magic items carries a reasonable conclusion that magic is pretty common, so people will be aware of the abilities magic can grant, and how they can be frustrated, much as we know your computer should have a virus checker and a firewall, and that you should not provide your identification and bank account information to people who email you suggesting you are entitled to receive a tax refund (but someone from 1950 would not know these things).

 

[pemerton]

The players don’t get to decide that their buyer is available, nor that he is interested in buying this loot. It appears we have accepted, in this game, that buying and selling magical loot is not a basic, mundane event, but gets played out. So, logically, we play it out.

Is it not the GM’s job to provide challenges? The players have decided they can quickly and easily dispose of this magical loot by taking it to the wizard. If he is simply there with a big bag of gold and a stack of barter choices, they trade in their magical loot with no challenge. If he is missing, a challenge has developed.

<snip>

It seems like every suggestion that the PC’s cannot simply dictate every turn of events in the game world is interpreted as a complete inability of any action of the players to have any impact on the game world. I also note that the ability of the players to “make meaningful changes in the gameworld via deploying their mechanical resources” presupposes a game world which exists now, and which they desire to change. Where did that pre-existing state of affairs come from? Historically, I believe it came from the GM.

If the wizard is there, ready to buy their loot, there is nothing for them to change. If he is not, they would deploy their resources to effect a desired change, whether that be locating the wizard or locating a different buyer.

I am not disputing that a game of D&D can be run in the way you describe. Indeed, a whole edition (2nd ed AD&D) and a whole gaming culture are built upon the method you describe.

My point is (and for somewhere over 1000 posts in the thread has been) that there are also other ways to run D&D. And that in some of those other ways the techniques you suggest are not helpful. For those running D&D in those other ways, other sorts of advice is required.

So, for instance, if the style of play is one in which the GM's job is "to go where the action is", then it would be a GMing error to create challenges around the selling of the loot, if the selling of the loot was merely a procedural matter that had no dramatic or thematic weight. (Why do we nevertheless play it out? Because D&D has no abstracted rules for selling loot, and so there is no canonical way for resolving loot sales other than playing it out. Contrast Classic Traveller, which does have abstracted rules for buying and selling.)

And even if the selling of the loot is a point of dramatic focus - eg what is being sold is a mysterious artefact - then there are ways to resolve it other than via GM stipluation of the relevant backstory. For instance, in the 4e framework the presence of the wizard in his/her tower and his/her willingness to buy could be determined via a successful Streetwise check (in 3E that would be Gather Information). If the situation were resolved this way, we would have a fairly standard distribution of narrative authority: the GM gets to decide the truth of the general backstory proposition "There is a wizard who lives in a tower in this town", but the action resolution mechanics are used to resolve the success or failure of the present dramatic situation ie "Do or don't the PCs get to sell their loot to the above-mentioned wizard?"

As for your suggestion that, in my earlier post, I have engaged in the strawmanning of "every suggestion that the PC’s cannot simply dictate every turn of events in the game world [being] interpreted as a complete inability of any action of the players to have any impact on the game world", I was simply responding to [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION]'s claims that "the point of any spell or skill or rule is not to give a player the ability to dictate any part of the narrative" and that "it's for the DM to decide what's in the world and how people behave." If those claims are true then the players cannot, simply via application of the game mechanics, have any impact on the game world. Furthermore, unless his posting has been rather misleading, I believe that this is exactly how Ahnehnois runs his game: the game mechanics are merely some sort of input into the GM's decision-making process as to what happens in the gameworld.

I am not claiming that D&D cannot be played that way. Rather, I am pointing out that D&D can be played in other ways too, including ways in which the players can, simply via application of the game mechanics, have a direct impact on the fictional content of the game world.

It seems like it IS in dispute. If they are not privy to every detail of the comings and goings of the Royal Court, then this is "secret backstory", which you dismiss.

What is in disupte is whether the GM should draw upon that secret backstory to determine the success or failure of the actions that the players have declared for their PCs. There are other ways of having action resolution reflect unknown elements of the gameworld.

"Knowing everything relevant to anything they might wish to attempt" is, to me, "knowing everything about the gameworld", or its functional equivalent.

It's not about "knowing everything". It's about how the unknown stuff is determined.

For instance, is the wizard in his/her tower ready to buy loot? This can be determined via GM declaration of secret backstory, or via (say) a Streetwise check. The latter doesn't involve the PCs knowing everything relevant - it involves the players being able to influence the content of the gameworld by direct application of the mechanics (eg if it is very important to them to be able to sell their loot to the wizard, then they can muster their bonuses to the Streetwise check).

That would be why, for example, the Fellowship of the Ring got to dictate that the snows did not render the mountain passes too dangerous to pass, and they avoided those nasty Moria encounters altogether. It certainly explains why, after Frodo expressed his lack of desire to slog across Mordor, they quickly discovered a different means of destroying the One Ring, in a fashion which was more to Frodo's liking.

This also explains why locating the whereabouts of the Holy Grail was a simple task indeed for the Knights of the Round Table, and, in the spirit of “Story Now”, they progressed directly to the challenges they must face to retrieve it.

These examples don't show (i) that world-building was the focus of those stories (they only show that there can be environmental as well as other forms of challenge), nor (ii) that there is any sociological coherence whatsoever to those stories (and in my view there clearly is none).

These examples also conflate player and PC in a way that is playstyle-dependent. In an approach in which (for instance) the presence of the wizard in the tower ready to buy loot is determined via a Streetwise check, no one supposes that the PCs, by talking to NPCs, are causing the wizard to be present. Likewise, if the GM narrated snow in the pass of the mountains as a result of a failed Survival check, no one would suppose that the PCs caused it to snow. Rather, because the check failed, it follows that the players' desire - that their PCs succeed in virtue of their outdoor survival capabilities - has not been realised. And the GM gives effect to this by narrating impassable snow.

We're not discussing indie play. We're discussing 3.5 Fighters vs Spellcasters (see title of thread). No amount of skilled diplomacy, knowledge of nobility, etc. will make the King reappear at the Royal Court from a retreat to a hunting lodge, so I don't want a high enough d20 roll to force the King to be in attendance and available at the drop of a hat to receive a group of scruffy-looking adventurers who just happen to drop in unannounced.

Huh? Like I already said, for the past 1000+ posts I've been talking about playstyles. And pointing out that techniques that work for some playstyles don't work for others.

And if you're claiming that no one plays 3.5 in an indie-style, I simpply don't believe you. Just look at some of [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION]'s posts in this thread, where he is looking for ways to incorporate "indie" techniques into a 3E/PF game. And [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is another. And I very much doubt that they are the only ones.

The Star Wars setting posits Jedi powers which are extremely rare, and thus neither detection nor defenses seems logical. There also appears to be some stigma attached to this approach, in that these powers are used on enemies and morally questionable targets (like stormtroopers and Bib Fortuna) but not on neutral parties or potential allies.

<snip>

Actually, at least some commentators on Star Wars also consider Jedi Mind Tricks an area of tricky ethics for the Jedi themselves.

<snip>

Luke's use of this power to influence Bib Fortuna is often considered an early indicator in RoTJ that he had grown in power, and that he was influenced by the Dark Side in using that power.

In general, overriding a person's free will is not typically considered a good act.

The question I was addressing, via the Bib Fortuna example, was whether or not it is abusive for a player whose PC has mind-influencing powers to use them against the servant of a powerful NPC. I don't see how it's relevant to that question to consider whether or not the use of such powers is morally abusive within the gameworld. (Unless you're saying that it is always abusive play for players to have their PCs do morally questionable things. If so, that would also be highly playstle dependent.)

I suggest it includes using foul sorcery to make the target perceive you as a friend, rather than earning such friendship.

<snip>

I question whether it would be perceived as acceptable, in whatever culture we are envisioning, to magically influence the perceptions of third parties.

<snip>

if we create a different spell (whether or not one with the same name) which makes you, the caster (or the target of the spell) a smoother talker, a better orator, etc., then we are no longer casting a spell to override free will, but to enhance the target's persuasive abilities.

I don't understand the theory of mind and of interpersonal interaction that you are deploying here. What is it to make someone a better orator except to change the perceptions of others? What is oratory but influencing others' perceptions?

The Star Wars setting posits Jedi powers which are extremely rare, and thus neither detection nor defenses seeDo you also accept the GM responding that the Chamberlain is not weak minded so it fails? Luke fialied to influence Jabba, who was immune to his Jedi powers. It seems he had no chance of success.

Isn't this just Jabba making a successful saving throw?

 

[Ahnehnois]

"the point of any spell or skill or rule is not to give a player the ability to dictate any part of the narrative" and that "it's for the DM to decide what's in the world and how people behave." If those claims are true then the players cannot, simply via application of the game mechanics, have any impact on the game world. Furthermore, unless his posting has been rather misleading, I believe that this is exactly how Ahnehnois runs his game: the game mechanics are merely some sort of input into the GM's decision-making process as to what happens in the gameworld.

Well yes. The mechanics serve as a reference point and a common language for the DM and players, not a set of strictures that the DM is bound by (since this is of course stated in the books themselves).

Even though the players don't dictate anything, it's important to understand that they do influence the game (i.e. the DM). Even if they have no final say on anything, the game is likely different with each player than it would be without him or her, and different with the rules than without.

I am not claiming that D&D cannot be played that way. Rather, I am pointing out that D&D can be played in other ways too, including ways in which the players can, simply via application of the game mechanics, have a direct impact on the fictional content of the game world.

You could do that, but there's nothing in the game itself (at least the one under discussion) that guarantees or entitles a player to have that kind of influence.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Personally, I find this sort of stuff to be undesirable. The equivalent of "establishing shots" occur in PC building and campaign set-up.

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.

In my experience, GM's who "have a clear vision of what the game is about" - ie a pre-written conception of plot and endgame that they impose on the ingame situation - make for poor GMs outside of a certain rather narrow approach to one-shots that is best suited (in my view) to Call of Cthulhu.

And in my experience players absolutely want to impact on the gameworld, both at campaign setup and during play.

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

<snip>

Of course not. It's badwrongfun and you don't like it.

I don't understand why it is "badwrongfun" to point out that there are multiple ways of playing D&D.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In my experience, GM's who "have a clear vision of what the game is about" - ie a pre-written conception of plot and endgame that they impose on the ingame situation - make for poor GMs outside of a certain rather narrow approach to one-shots that is best suited (in my view) to Call of Cthulhu.

I would think that a DM that has a pre-written plot does not have a clear vision. If he did, what would he need the pre-written plot for?

When I say vision, I'm referring mostly to setting and character rather than plot, but also deeper thematic elements. Plot is, as in most fiction, icing on the cake. A DM who knows what the tone of his world is; is it Ravenloft with gothic elements, FR with medieval-inspired magocracies, something else entirely? A DM who has clear and distinctive and interesting personalities for his NPCs. A DM who knows what emotions he wants to elicit from the players and how to do it. That's what I'm getting at. Plot can be largely emergent, given a strong foundation.

Trying purposefully to run games without having this kind of knowledge in my head has not lead to good results, nor would I expect it to.

Also, what's with the knock on CoC? AFAIC, CoC has much better DM advice than any DMG I've ever read. And I would hardly say that it's about planning things in advance. Selling horror requires sophisticated emotional manipulations of players in real time, not pre-written plots. CoC is about thematic improvisation, which I find works very well for D&D as well.

And in my experience players absolutely want to impact on the gameworld, both at campaign setup and during play.

Even if they want to, it's a dubious endeavor. Too many cooks and all that. It's very difficult to groupthink a fantasy reality. That's why we have DMs and players.

Personally, I find this sort of stuff to be undesirable. The equivalent of "establishing shots" occur in PC building and campaign set-up.

I find it difficult to imagine players feeling the parts of their characters without a significant amount of time spent in-session, not beforehand, on establishing naturalistic details of the world around them.

I don't understand why it is "badwrongfun" to point out that there are multiple ways of playing D&D.

You're entitled to your preferences, but when some phrase to the effect of "I would never do that" pops up enough times, it passes a certain threshold into snobbishness. Can't we just agree that neither of us would want to play in the other's game and leave it at that?

And, to the (!) thread topic, there are multiple ways to play, which will create different dynamics between all sorts of rules elements. Dynamics that can't all be accounted for by people writing the game.

 

[N'raac]

My point is (and for somewhere over 1000 posts in the thread has been) that there are also other ways to run D&D. And that in some of those other ways the techniques you suggest are not helpful. For those running D&D in those other ways, other sorts of advice is required.

If we need both other approaches and different mechanics to achieve the desired playstyle, I suggest it is not the playstyle intended by the authors of the specific game. You consistently refer to how mechanics work in other games. The mechanics of other games has no relevance to the balance between classes in D&D (see thread title). If the mechanics and style of another game is preferred, the answer is to play that other game. Alternatively, one can write one’s own game (whether from whole cloth, by altering mechanics of an existing game, or by blending mechanics of various games). But this departs wholesale from any balance within the specific game under discussion.

So, for instance, if the style of play is one in which the GM's job is "to go where the action is", then it would be a GMing error to create challenges around the selling of the loot, if the selling of the loot was merely a procedural matter that had no dramatic or thematic weight.

To me, if selling the loot is merely a procedural matter, we don’t play it out. By choosing to play it out, at least in my view, the GM undertakes to make the challenge of selling loot a point “where the action is” in itself. The error, to me, is for the players to assume that the game must jump from one player/PC objective to the next in linear fashion, and that the players must have complete knowledge of what will take place next, how any given scene may be relevant, etc. The PC’s do not know everything. To better play my PC, I also do not need, or even want, to know everything.

Why do we nevertheless play it out? Because D&D has no abstracted rules for selling loot, and so there is no canonical way for resolving loot sales other than playing it out. Contrast Classic Traveller, which does have abstracted rules for buying and selling.

Seems to me 3e has some pretty good abstract rules. If we want to simply apply the rules that the purchase prices are what equipment sells for, loot can be sold for half its price and the size of the settlement determines the value of both goods for sale and wealth for purchase, we’ve abstracted it pretty well.

But if part of the theme of the adventure, or the campaign, is that the PC’s are outsiders in an insular community, that theme may in part be represented by reduced willingness to trade with them, higher prices to purchase goods and reduced prices on selling them. We choose what to play out and what to abstract.

As for your suggestion that, in my earlier post, I have engaged in the strawmanning of "every suggestion that the PC’s cannot simply dictate every turn of events in the game world [being] interpreted as a complete inability of any action of the players to have any impact on the game world", I was simply responding to @Ahnehnois 's claims that "the point of any spell or skill or rule is not to give a player the ability to dictate any part of the narrative" and that "it's for the DM to decide what's in the world and how people behave." If those claims are true then the players cannot, simply via application of the game mechanics, have any impact on the game world. Furthermore, unless his posting has been rather misleading, I believe that this is exactly how Ahnehnois runs his game: the game mechanics are merely some sort of input into the GM's decision-making process as to what happens in the gameworld.

Again, you extrapolate “the player cannot dictate the narrative” to be “the PC’s can have no meaningful impact”. The PC’s might well, on being unable to contact the wizard, use their skills to determine where he has gone, or to determine another possible purchaser of their loot. The refusal of the Chamberlain to admit them to see the King might lead them to use their skills to determine why the King might not be receiving visitors, what may influence the Chamberlain’s current views, what might change the situation, etc. But they don’t get to dictate that their skills are capable of generating immediate co-operation of the Chamberlain and an instant audience with the King. There are degrees of impact, not “either they can dictate the narrative or they can have no meaningful impact”.

I am not claiming that D&D cannot be played that way. Rather, I am pointing out that D&D can be played in other ways too, including ways in which the players can, simply via application of the game mechanics, have a direct impact on the fictional content of the game world.

As this is a thread about 3.5, please identify the mechanics of 3.5 which provide this direct impact on the game world’s fictional content. I don’t dispute that such mechanics exist in other games, and in optional rule changes. I do not believe they are part of the core 3.5e mechanics.

For instance, is the wizard in his/her tower ready to buy loot? This can be determined via GM declaration of secret backstory, or via (say) a Streetwise check. The latter doesn't involve the PCs knowing everything relevant - it involves the players being able to influence the content of the gameworld by direct application of the mechanics (eg if it is very important to them to be able to sell their loot to the wizard, then they can muster their bonuses to the Streetwise check).

It implies that the greater the PC’s streetwise (since when is Streetwise a 3.5 skill, by the way) roll, the more likely it is that the wizard will be willing to purchase their loot. By attaining a bonus by, say, purchasing drinks at the local tavern and hiring a town crier, the PC’s are able to positively influence the Wizard to purchase their loot. To me, these are actions that may help locate someone who might have both an interest and the finances to purchase the loot. It does not influence who that someone might be, where he might be found, or that it would be the wizard we have previously traded with.

These examples also conflate player and PC in a way that is playstyle-dependent. In an approach in which (for instance) the presence of the wizard in the tower ready to buy loot is determined via a Streetwise check, no one supposes that the PCs, by talking to NPCs, are causing the wizard to be present.

The mechanics indicate they are causing him to be present – a bonus to the roll causes his presence to be more likely.

Likewise, if the GM narrated snow in the pass of the mountains as a result of a failed Survival check, no one would suppose that the PCs caused it to snow. Rather, because the check failed, it follows that the players' desire - that their PCs succeed in virtue of their outdoor survival capabilities - has not been realised. And the GM gives effect to this by narrating impassable snow.

If our Ranger had not been down 3 WIS from our encounter with that Undead creature, his roll would have succeeded and we would not have all this snow. If the character’s level of skill is determinative of whether there is snow, it seems to me that the rules indicate the PC’s skills do, in fact, influence whether it will snow.

And if you're claiming that no one plays 3.5 in an indie-style, I simpply don't believe you. Just look at some of @sheadunne 's posts in this thread, where he is looking for ways to incorporate "indie" techniques into a 3E/PF game. And @Hussar is another. And I very much doubt that they are the only ones.

Again, if one must change the rules, then one is no longer playing the same game, but building a different one. If I consider the wizard overpowered, so I change the spell progression and many of the spell descriptions, and alter the saving throw rules, that may better balance the wizard, but I am not still playing the same game. It is no longer a discussion of the balance of 3.5, but the balance of a different, modified game.

The question I was addressing, via the Bib Fortuna example, was whether or not it is abusive for a player whose PC has mind-influencing powers to use them against the servant of a powerful NPC. I don't see how it's relevant to that question to consider whether or not the use of such powers is morally abusive within the gameworld. (Unless you're saying that it is always abusive play for players to have their PCs do morally questionable things. If so, that would also be highly playstle dependent.)

But no one has said the PC cannot cast a Charm Person spell. They have suggested that the King’s Court may be able to detect and/or cancel that spell. They have suggested the spell, as written, does not guarantee instant access to the King, even if successful. And they have suggested there may be negative repercussions to overriding the Chamberlain’s free will in that manner. And each of these suggestions has been responded to with the suggestion they are unfair on the part of the GM, nerfing the abilities of the characters, abuse of “secret backstory” and GM authority, etc.

Yes, you can cast the spell. And yes, there may be people in the Court capable of detecting the spell has been cast, that detection may have detrimental results to the PC’s down the road and the spell may, for reasons unknown to the PC’s, still not generate the desired result (the King is seeing no one, is not present or is on his deathbed being three easy examples).

Isn't this just Jabba making a successful saving throw?

I believe many races in the SW universe were immune to Jedi mind tricks. Only weak minds could be influenced, a statement often made. And the SW universe may well have different mechanics than 3.5 D&D. But let’s continue this scene analysis.

Did Luke need the long-term goodwill of Fortuna or Jabba, or did he take the most expeditious route possible to get in and make his pitch to Jabba, with the expectation he would either get Han back as desired and leave, never to see the Hutt again, or he would destroy Jabba’s operations, so there would be no future interaction with him? Quite different from forming an alliance with the King -or with the rebellion. I don’t see Luke using Jedi mind tricks on rebel leaders, or Vader using them on Grand Moff Tarkin, both situations where this short-term extra influence could have long-term negative repercussions. Similarly, I think the players need to weigh the short term benefit of Charming the Chamberlain against the risk of discovery and the long-term implications to any relationship with the Chamberlain, the King and the Kingdom.

 

[pemerton]

what's with the knock on CoC?

Who's knocking Call of Cthulhu? Repeatedly in this thread I've said it's the only RPG I've played where strong GM force - with the concomitant result that the players are mostly just along for the ride - is my preferred GMing approach.

 

[Hussar]

The reasons your suggestions have largely been rejected N'raac is that they are very heavy handed.

You are presuming a very high magic setting for one. One where every king will have court wizard security. Where every king will have detailed knowledge of how magic works. This is the result of pressing that DnD rules are world building rules. Once you reject that idea then suddenly you no longer have wizard security corps at every court.

After all, what wizard security did Conan's court have? Or Theoden's? Sure, if you presume that DnD's rules are for world building then you probably should have wizard security corps and laws governing wizardry.

But, in a setting where the rules are viewed as action resolution tools and the Player's Handbook is for players, then you don't get this kind of setting.

What really spins my wheels is how anyone can talk about believability and DnD rules applied to world building in the same breath. There are just too many giant holes for me to even begin to view DnD rules as even remotely aligned with world building.

 

[N'raac]

You are presuming a very high magic setting for one. One where every king will have court wizard security. Where every king will have detailed knowledge of how magic works. This is the result of pressing that DnD rules are world building rules. Once you reject that idea then suddenly you no longer have wizard security corps at every court.

In my view, the ease with which a wizard can select new spells under the basic rules, and the expectation that magic items will be readily available, presupposes a very high magic setting. In a low magic setting, it would not be possible to locate any desired spell at will as the PC levels up, nor to buy scrolls to augment this, nor would we see magic weapons in such abundance that the warriors can pick and choose which magic weapons they will keep and which will be sold (or sell all of them and have your own custom weapon commissioned from a local wizard). We would not likely have that local wizard who routinely purchases magical loot, nor would we have such an abundance of magical loot that this would become an issue. In such a low magic environment, the general populace would be limited to superstition, and the wizard's abilities would be much less well known. But advertising oneself as a Wizard seeking employment would likely not carry the same results it carries in the typical game either. And why would a person of such rare skills be found in a common mercenary band to begin with?

After all, what wizard security did Conan's court have? Or Theoden's? Sure, if you presume that DnD's rules are for world building then you probably should have wizard security corps and laws governing wizardry.

In neither Conan nor LoTR was wizardry common. When do we see fireballs and lightning bolts in those works? How many spells did one of the most powerful wizards in all of Middle Earth cast over the course of the trilogy? How many had the combat punch of a single Burning Hands or Magic Missile spell? Magic in D&D is far more common, and quite different, from magic in Conan or LoTR, so the game milieu has different reactions to it. RPG's in general, and D&D specifically, have made magic far more common and vastly more versatile than it is in most fantasy literature, and certainly more than in Conan or LoTR. A price for spellcasting services among other mundane trades implies, to me, a much more common availability of magic than most literature would support.

I didn't see Gandalf getting the various players to co-operate with him through the use of Charm spells, and I don't recall Conan attempting a lot of will saves. If we expect that the King's Court will largely match these settings, then I suggest we should also expect the frequency, versatility and utility of magic to similarly align with those settings. I don't think the Conan RPG features wizards who routinely get political access and power through Charm spells, or who are able to defeat powerful enemies in open combat through their spellcasting.

Fantasy RPG's have historically made magic much more useful, especially in combat situations, than the source literature generally reflects, largely to make the Wizard and other spellcasters viable, enjoyable player characters. If we simply accept increased power and versatility for the spellcasters with no impact on the world in which they live then, yes. the spellcasters will become overpowered.

But, in a setting where the rules are viewed as action resolution tools and the Player's Handbook is for players, then you don't get this kind of setting.

I don't think NPC classes, many of which can also cast spells, are intended for players. In older editions, where spells were not automatically selected by PC wizards as they advanced in level, and magic items generally not readily available for purchase, a much lower magic environment would seem much more plausible. The 3e rule set implies much more common magic, and this comes with a reasonable expectation that it be much more accessible, and much more publicly known. Does that mean every King is an expert in magic? No, just as the POTUS is likely not an expert in military hardware, or in computer science. But he does have access to such experts, and a ruler in a D&D setting with magic as common as the rules imply would logically have similar access.

If, instead, we assume that magic is rare and largely unknown, with only a handful of spellcasters in the world, then we augment the power of magic simply because of its rarity. But that rarity also carries drawbacks, including a much reduced availability of magical components, sources for spell research, etc. which would logically mean, for example, you don't just get to select any two spells desired on gaining a level, picking your areas of study off the shelf. Spellcasting would likely be viewed with much greater suspicion, as "wizard" would not be a profession one could simply announce with any expectation of being taken seriously.

It doesn't change the need to speak one's verbal components in a strong, clear voice, and make strange hand gestures. It certainly doesn't alter the likelihood that enchanting the Chamberlain, if discovered, will likely carry negative repercussions (although it does markedly reduce the likelihood of such discovery). And, as has been stated numerous times on this thread alone, it contributes to an imbalance between fighters and spellcasters.