Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[N'raac]

I think there is confusion here, at least from my reading. @pemerton is suggesting that there is no weather predetermined until the roll is made. Thus, when the character rolls his weather sense, why not have the player choose the weather? Clearly there was no forethought on the part of the DM to predetermine the weather, so why not give it to the player to decide, since he did invest resources into a skill (which the DM ignored in his planning) and succeeded on the roll. If he had failed on the roll, the DM would probably use the opposite intention (foul weather instead of sunny skies, etc) as the result of the roll. After all, the weather in most cases is irrelevant to the game, unless it is important to the story, in which case the DM would have it predetermined and the roll would simply indicate the predetermined weather. Shuffling the burden of minute, often unimportant details, onto the shoulders of the players can make the players feel that they have invested wisely in what is most assuredly a 1/1000 chance to actually gain any benefit from the resources of the weather sense skill (although the DM could make the skill an important part of the campaign if s/he so desired, but I have yet to see as a standard in any RPG I've played).

Emphasis added. I don’t see how this in any way makes “weather sense” more valuable. The player can choose whenever the choice is irrelevant anyway, and if it is important, the GM will determine the weather and the roll is only to see whether the PC gets to know in advance what weather the GM has chosen.

I think pemerton’s vision is that the player, with a successful roll, gets to dictate the weather, even if the GM had different weather in mind.

Because the character can't.

The character isn't the one choosing, so that's irrelevant.

If the character has the skill “Weather Sense”, and he gets to determine the weather only when his “Weather Sense” roll is successful, then the mechanics sure feel like the character is dictating the weather. Alternatively, we could have a “skill” completely divorced from the character, possessed by the player, which permits the player to dictate what the weather will be. An array of such abilities, providing authorial control to the players over various aspects of the game, could easily be envisioned.

We could even have both. With a successful Dictate Weather roll and a failed Weather Sense roll, the player gets the weather desired, but the character either cannot determine the weather, or misinterprets it and predicts wrongly. A failed Dictate Weather roll and a sucessful Weather Sense roll would mean the player does not get the weather he wanted, and the character knows what the undesired weather will be.

I think I can field this. Ahn and N'Raac both belong to the strong immersion side of the fence. You the player can only interact with the game world through your character and anything beyond that is immersion breaking and thus bad.

Regardless of the playstyle, if my character’s skill is determinative of the results, then the feel, to me, is that the character is influencing those results. If a good Survival roll means there is game in the woods and a failed roll means there is not, then my character is somehow influencing whether there is game in the woods, rather than whether he is successful at finding whatever game is there. Here again, a “player skill” that allows me as player to dictate the amount of game in the woods, which then influences the DC for any PC with Survival (more game makes it easier to locate; none means no hunt can succeed) would be preferable if the goal is to grant such control to the player.

In all D&D editions to and including 3.5 (I’m not well versed in 4e), there is no such authority delegated to players. The GM determines, based on story considerations, personal whim or random chance, the extent of game in the woods.

N'raac brought up the point of Conan and Khelben Blackstaff being in the same group and how it would not work. Isn't that what we've been saying all along? After all, a 3e fighter cannot do anything Conan couldn't and Khelben is a by the book DnD wizard.

Actually, I was initially going to say Piergeron Paladinson, but I figured I’d butcher the spelling (and I expect I did). The point is not that Khelben overwhelms Conan because he is a spellcaster, but that the assumptions of the Forgotten Realms are vastly different from those of Hyperborea. Will Conan have the expected magical loot of a fighter of his level? I expect he will not – how many magic items did he accumulate over his long career? Would he go out and recruit an arcane and a divine spellcaster before venturing forth on a quest, or would he expect no such personage would step forward even if one were within 1,000 miles, and if they did they would likely be black-hearted villains, not trustworthy boon companions?

And for a variety of reasons, the same people object to Khelben being in a party with Gilgamesh, Beowulf, Bodvar Bjarki, Cuchullain or Rama. Who are capable of some things that make them useful members of a party with Khelben.

Conan could be pretty useful as well – especially if we gear him up with standard WBL in magical items! You’re quite correct, however – different settings result in characters that fit together poorly. A D&D character inspired by any of these would work well, but Conan the D&D Character will be quite different from Conan the Fictional Character, or Conan the RPG’s build for the character. The setting assumptions do not match.

I think you are underestimating the significance of "making it happen faster without needing help or equipment" - if "it" refers to (say) building a castle, or crossing a continent, or learning the content of another's mind, then being able to do so withou needing help or equipment is a big deal.

First the martial characters cannot impact on fictional positioning, then they can and now they again suck wind.

My experience with higher-level AD&D caster is that (i) they tend to overshadow other characters through their broad range of capabilities, and (ii) their ability to do certain things "faster witout needing help or equipment" enables their players to reframe many scenes in major ways. (Teleport and scrying are the biggest two contributors here.)

Your experience differs a lot from mine. I find characters at a level where Teleport is viable tend to rely on the Wizard providing that for everyone’s convenience, much like the Cleric is expected to stock up on healing spells, making some of the spellcaster resources party resources instead. And, again, I’m still waiting for the actual scrying spells that allow low risk teleportation to an unknown (pre-scrying) location when we reasonably read the parameters of both spells.

In the post to which you replied, I said (and you quoted it), "Notice that both in the rules paragraph and in my paragraph it is the player, not the PC, who is dictating the weather. For a character to dictate the weather would require some sort of weather summoning magic.'

And, again, if it is a PC skill rolled to dictate the weather, that feels to me like the PC is dictating the weather.

I also said (and you quoted), "A skill is first and foremost a player resource: for instance, having a high Diplomacy skill (which is in part a function of level) means 'When I declare Diplomatic actions for my PC, things are more likely to go right.'"

Perhaps I am alone in envisioning a high Diplomacy roll representing the PC having the skills to persuade others to his way of thinking, not retroactively causing them to have shared his views all along. Perhaps. But I doubt it!

I'm therefore not sure why you are stating my examples back to me as if it were the character who is manipulating the weather or the presence/absence of the wizard. I understand that you do not enjoy RPGing in way that distinguishes player and character resources and capabilities; but I assume you are capable of drawing the distinction.

Emphasis added – thank you, as this exchange has helped me put my finger on my issue with this approach. By having the PLAYER dictate the weather (to keep to that example) by virtue of a CHARACTER skill, I find that player and character resources and abilities are conflated, rather than distinguished. A separate set of resources for players to control the game setting would distinguish the two.

A strong Weather Sense ability or a Diplomacy or Streetwise skill is a device for ensuring that, when my PC engages in that domain of actvity, s/he is likely to have things go the way s/he wants. What the ingame cause of that is is a distinctive question.

To me, Weather Sense differs from the others. It is detecting and predicting something the character cannot control. Diplomacy and Streetwise are active efforts to cause a change in the situation (persuade an NPC or ferret out information), weather sense only allows me to determine facts outside my control. Just as I might use Knowledge: Nobility to determine who I should be using my Diplomacy to persuade. My character does not feel like a highly persuasive, charismatic leader of men if the people he talks to turn out to share his views. He feels persuasive when he is able to change those views, turning a stubborn unfriendly rival into a staunch supporter or even ally.

In Burning Wheel, if in doubt the better roll wins. That solves the ranger/barbarian problem. It also solves the problem of the magical ranger vs the druid.

If a caster is using Weather Summoning magic, and succeeds, that determines the fiction, and therefore determines the content of a successful prediction - just as @sheadunne described in his post.

So in Burning Wheel, the magical will also override the mundane? I thought the whole point was leveling the playing field between spellcasters and non-spellcasters, but this seems to indicate the caster still wins because “it’s magic”. That seems no improvement over any issue believed to exist in D&D.

 

[N'raac]

I think I can field this. Ahn and N'Raac both belong to the strong immersion side of the fence. You the player can only interact with the game world through your character and anything beyond that is immersion breaking and thus bad.

I think that's how the argument goes.

What is being ignored here is that this is only one play style and what is bad for strong immersion is largely irrelavent to to rest of us.

Perhaps it would be reasonable to say that Ahnehnois and I perceive each player as playing a character within the fiction, where another approach has the player playing an author of the fiction focusing on one character therein.

In the former model, the player is restricted to the resources of the character. In the latter, he can bring other powers to bear in order to advance the fortunes of the character. Even in the latter, however, I would prefer a clear division between "the abilities of the character" and "the resources available to the player".

A game where each player plays a PC type character and a patron deity who favours that character could be an interesting version of such a game. I envision a great roll by me the player causing my character to fall to his knees. "Praise the Mighty Hugh, for he has vanquished mine enemies!"

 

[Hussar]

Ahn if magic is flat out better than non magic then they are not balanced.

N'raac, if the only way to balance muggle with wizard is equipment, then doesn't that mean that the caster is more powerful? After all you are adding equipment to the muggle to balance him with the base caster without equipment.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Ahn if magic is flat out better than non magic then they are not balanced.

Magic is better than not magic, and fighters are better than wizards (usually). High variance character unreliably tapping into superior power, versus reliable character without said power. It's not rocket science. Refer to the last two hundred pages of this thread.

Perhaps it would be reasonable to say that Ahnehnois and I perceive each player as playing a character within the fiction

Well, that's pretty much the definition of roleplaying.

I'm not big into the immersion stuff. I don't use props or even do voices much, and I routinely gloss over things in world. But it is one of the basic tenets of this game that a player is playing one character, and nothing else.

 

[Hussar]

Thus, you are strongly into immersion.

Which is fine Ahn, but you have to realize that what you see as important criteria is solely due to your specific definition of role playing which excludes any other play style.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Which is fine Ahn, but you have to realize that what you see as important criteria is solely due to your specific definition of role playing which excludes any other play style.

Metagaming is not a "style" of roleplaying, it's outside of (and even antithetical to) the definition. Metagaming (or storygaming, or whatever you want to call it) is not a "playstyle" in this context any more than LARPing is. It's a different activity entirely.

There are, of course, many styles of roleplaying, of which I don't exclude any from my discussions on the topic.

 

[Hussar]

Again this is only true for you.

Considering how many RPGs there are out there with specifically meta gaming mechanics, like 3e DnD with action points and Augury spells where you ask direct questions of the DM I'm actually curious to see what RPGs you are thinking of that contain no meta gaming me mechanics.

But then, I'm not the one trying to claim sole authority over what role playing is. I guess I'm also curious as to where you think you get to tell all of gaming whether or not they are "really" role playing.

Because you just told anyone who doesn't play like you do that they're doing it wrong. Is that what you wanted to say?

 

[pemerton]

If the player is playing the role of one particular character, but has in-game information that the character does not, or causes an in-game effect that their character does not, then that is what we refer to as "metagaming".

<snip>

it's simply outside of the activity that the DM and the players have agreed to do.

<snip>

If the player initiated the weather, it would be hard to expect him to feel that emotional response. And ultimately, the players subjective experiences are the end goal of the game.

This is a very particular, personal view of what RPGing is about. It is not an accurate description of the hobby per se (for instance, it has no bearing on what Gygax and Arneson were aiming for, and they played a key role in inventing the hobby).

Nor do I think there is any text in any 3E rulebook describing the goal of 3E D&D play in such terms.

Metagaming is not a "style" of roleplaying, it's outside of (and even antithetical to) the definition. Metagaming (or storygaming, or whatever you want to call it) is not a "playstyle" in this context any more than LARPing is. It's a different activity entirely.

You don't get to define the scope of RPGing by stipulation. Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, Over the Edge - just to name a few examples - all are roleplaying games, even though they are not designed to satisfy your particular preferences. They are designed by roleplaying designers (Jonathan Tweet, Robin Laws, Luke Crane) and are labelled, sold and described by their purchasers and players as RPGs.

Furthermore, by your definition the game that Gygax and Arneson played - and the game for which modules like Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain and Temple of Elemental Evil were desgined - was not a RPG. That consequence of your definition in my view makes it self-defeating. (Who would even imagine that the point of playing Tomb of Horrors is for the players to have some or other subjective experience, as if it were a gathering of the Bloomsbury group! The point of Tomb of Horrors is for the players to beat the dungeon. If it weren't obvious by impication - and it is - Gygax tells us so in his introduction.)

And apparently it's just not acceptable for a high-level character to be as good as another high-level character, because one of them casts spells and therefore deserves to be better.

what is a deity promising? "Devote your life to me and my perfect ideals and you will be roughly as powerful as you would be if you didn't?" What kind of deal is that? And what does the word magic even mean? "Stuff that you really could have done anyway if you'd tried hard enough?"

Ahnehnois, what you say here - as a rebuttal of Bluenose's point - only makes sense if character level is an ingame phenomenon. I don't think most people play the game that way - they take for granted that level is a metagame device for tracking certain mechanical aspects of a PC's development and power.

Hence a Nth level cleric and Nth level fighter should have comparable mechanical capabilities. This says nothing about, in the fiction, how easy or hard it was for one or the other to achieve that degree of capability.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But then, I'm not the one trying to claim sole authority over what role playing is.

Sure you are. You proudly declare that it is something outside of its dictionary definition, and that any activity that you like counts.

Considering how many RPGs there are out there with specifically meta gaming mechanics, like 3e DnD with action points and Augury spells where you ask direct questions of the DM I'm actually curious to see what RPGs you are thinking of that contain no meta gaming me mechanics.

Those are not metagame mechanics. However, there are some metagame mechanics in roleplaying games, just like there are some rules in professional soccer that do not pertain to the players on the field and the kicking of the ball (for example, rules on behavior of coaches on the sidelines, or even fans in the stands, the preparation of the playing surface, testing for performance enhancing drugs, personal conduct rules etc.).

For example, character creation is not roleplaying, or at least is only part roleplaying, because it includes things that the character did not consciously decide, like what qualities he inherited, and certain decisions his parents or caregivers may have effectively made for him, and certain things that happened to him from external sources. Which is why it's split off at the beginning as a "bonus round" of self-DMed exposition.

Because you just told anyone who doesn't play like you do that they're doing it wrong. Is that what you wanted to say?

No. I expect that most people do not play the game the way I do. However, I do not feel compelled to adhere to any deviations they make from the published game, as it relates to this or any other topic, particularly fundamental ones like you're suggesting.

I also assume that most roleplayers, from what I've seen in person and online, adopt a much stricter stance on in-character knowledge and capacities than I do.

The irony here is that relative to reality, I hold number of positions. I'm relatively old-school, relatively gamist, relatively narrativist, relatively non-simulationist, relatively light on DM authority, relatively loose on in-character immersion, relatively obsessed with balance between character classes, relatively big on the combat part of the game, relatively critical of 3e, and relatively pro-4e. That's all relative to the average rpg hobbyist in the real world. And yet you've contrived a set of opinions so extreme and exclusionary as to try and make me look like the diametric opposite of all of those things. There's a reason why none of the other DMs I know participate in these kinds of online discussions.

 

[N'raac]

N'raac, if the only way to balance muggle with wizard is equipment, then doesn't that mean that the caster is more powerful? After all you are adding equipment to the muggle to balance him with the base caster without equipment.

Let's remove all equipment from both characters and see how they do.

Fighter has no armor or weaponry.

Wizard has no spell book and no material components.

The fact is that the game DOES assume characters have certain equipment. The math of the monsters assumes that warriors enhance their abilities over time through more and more powerful magical equipment. If we make a warrior with no equipment comparable to a wizard with his full allotment at the same level, then the equipped warrior will overshadow the wizard. Could we change the assumptions? Sure. Some games see AC increase as characters rise in level. Others use inherent, scaling bonuses rather than magical gear. These games use different mechanics to achieve balance, and the warriors in these games are much less reliant on equipment (though they still won't be running around in a loincloth fighting bare-handed). They also don't need the same wealth by level guidelines as they are not reliant on gear to attain the game mechanical strengths needed to take on the challenges the game sets as level-appropriate.

I would expect a Conan game to be much less reliant on magical gear, as magical gear is not prevalent in the source material. Move Conan into a D&D world and trick him out with the gear appropriate to his level, and he would fit fine, but he'd no longer have the same feel because he no longer lives in the same world/setting. The environment in which the characters operate has a significant impact. The feel of a Conan story has at least as much to do with the opponents Conan faces, and the world in which he lives, as they have to do with the character himself, whether his personality or his skills as a warrior.

Toss Conan in the Forgotten Realms and he either gets gear appropriate to his level or he's not going to compete with characters of his level who are appropriately equipped for that setting. Move Lovecraftian horrors into a D&D setting, and they become challenges the heroes can overcome through force of arms, not mind-blasting terrors against which the heroes cannot hope to prevail. The characters exist within a setting, and that setting has a significant impact on them. They can't be assessed in a vacuum.