Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[N'raac]

This is why I prefer modules that take a different approach - eg P2, which has reasonable advice on how to handle PC alliances with various factions.

This is an expression of my more general preference for the players to choose their PCs' adversaries.

As I said, I think modules that allow for that approach are scarce. Why? Because they have to follow multiple possible threads. Let's assume there are four factions, all of whom are incompatible. A module which is written on the expectation the PC's will ally with one and oppose the other three can be written only from that perspective. One that allows for all four possibilities provides a lot more depth (presumably there must be pros and cons to all four groups, not "the obvious heroes and three clear villains") and a lot more scope for role playing of character choices. But they also have to write in all four possibilities, only one of which will actually be played through. As well, even that is probably not enough. Do we not also need to consider the possibility the PC's change alliances over the course of the scenario, choose to ally with none of the four, try to broker an alliance between two or more of the four (and perhaps those alliances also shift over the course of the scenario) or simply walk away from all these politics and go somewhere else, skipping the module entirely? That's a lot of material that will not be used (but which takes up space in the module, and which the purchaser had to pay for).

And, if I assume we want to market this to both gamers like yourself who want all action to focus on the PC's, and those who favour a more "living world" approach, the module also needs to cover what the various factions will do outside of interaction with the PC's, and how their plans may change and evolve based on the activities of the PC's. That is material you won't use, of course, so you will not get value from its inclusion, but its absence will be noted and unappreciated by gamers who want those "living NPC's".

Really, I think I'd present that more as a setting for a series of adventures to be developed by the GM based on the approach the players take, providing the details of the various characters and factions before the PC's arrive to upset their delicate equilibrium, and the actions the key factions and NPC's might likely take to recruit the PC's, dissuade them from allying with other factions and/or respond to them allying with other factions.

Are you referring to this P2? If so, it appears the module is not universally viewed positively, but you've also only commented on one aspect, so you may not view it as a great module overall either. And, as set out above, a module with lots of choice in that regard is, at least in my view, much tougher to write.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. To be fair, I almost never used splats as a player. Never saw the point when a core caster was already head and shoulders above everyone else.

 

[pemerton]

this P2[/URL]? If so, it appears the module is not universally viewed positively, but you've also only commented on one aspect, so you may not view it as a great module overall either.

I don't think it's great, but I don't have the same criticisms as the OP in the thread you linked to.

Also, notice that several of the criticisms - such as lack of a hook or of clear NPC motiviations - are not things that I am going to object to, given that I want hooks to come from the players, not the GM, and that I want NPC movitvations to be flexible in their original conception so that precision can be introduced in the course of, and as part of, action resolution. (The most facile criticism: ambiguity over whether the chasm is 100' or 400' deep. That came up in play when one of my PCs blasted a couple of spiders over the edge of the bridge, and was easily resolved: the spiders landed on a ledge 100' down.)

 

[LostSoul]

As I said, I think modules that allow for that approach are scarce. Why? Because they have to follow multiple possible threads.

Nah, they just need to detail the different factions in appropriate detail - their resources, goals, and personalities. Then the DM can just run those NPCs/factions.

Anyway. Since we did that whole "Chamberlain" scenario as a play-by-post for this thread, do you have any questions about it? I think there's some meat in there that could provide for interesting discussion.

 

[N'raac]

Nah, they just need to detail the different factions in appropriate detail - their resources, goals, and personalities. Then the DM can just run those NPCs/factions.

I'd classify that as a setting book, rather than an adventure module, to avoid the criticism that the actual adventure is not presented, but other than that, I think that is the way to present a more sandboxy environment. That also seems more consistent with Permerton's "the players make the adventure" approach. Of course, this still presumes the players will interact with some or all factions. Any they do not interact with become wasted space. That's an unavoidable risk, though, for flexibility.

Of course, they could decide to interact with no one and just leave town - unless the scenario forces them to remain, constraining their choices. Ultimately, there has to be some willingness by the players to participate in, rather than avoid, the game. It's a question of the extent of choice they will have, which is really set by the group. Can they just pick anywhere in the world to start the game, or to travel to, or are some parameters set by the GM?

Anyway. Since we did that whole "Chamberlain" scenario as a play-by-post for this thread, do you have any questions about it? I think there's some meat in there that could provide for interesting discussion.

I think I looked briefly at it (I've lost track of the location) without seeing a lot to discuss. If I recall correctly, the reluctant chamberlain ultimately didn't come across as all that reluctant.

 

[LostSoul]

I'd classify that as a setting book, rather than an adventure module, to avoid the criticism that the actual adventure is not presented, but other than that, I think that is the way to present a more sandboxy environment. That also seems more consistent with Permerton's "the players make the adventure" approach. Of course, this still presumes the players will interact with some or all factions. Any they do not interact with become wasted space. That's an unavoidable risk, though, for flexibility.

Of course, they could decide to interact with no one and just leave town - unless the scenario forces them to remain, constraining their choices. Ultimately, there has to be some willingness by the players to participate in, rather than avoid, the game. It's a question of the extent of choice they will have, which is really set by the group. Can they just pick anywhere in the world to start the game, or to travel to, or are some parameters set by the GM?

Good points.

I'm not sure factions in a setting/adventure book (whatever you want to call it! ) become wasted space if the PCs don't interact with them - the presence of a faction should influence the NPC's behaviour. But I see your point.

Setting up game parameters is a subject for a lot of discussion. You're right when you say that the players have to be willing to engage with the game. I guess the question that all DMs or groups face is how to start the game off on the right foot, in accordance with what one wants out of the game. There are a lot of ways to do it but I think not all are right for different groups.

I think I looked briefly at it (I've lost track of the location) without seeing a lot to discuss. If I recall correctly, the reluctant chamberlain ultimately didn't come across as all that reluctant.

If I remember correctly, he was possessed by the court mage. I'd call that pretty reluctant! Though he wasn't the major focus for play, as it turned out. You could ask [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] why that was (if you're still interested).

I had some things I wanted to discuss - success/failures, the scope of abilities, intra-party conflicts, maybe some other stuff?

 

[Manbearcat]

I think I looked briefly at it (I've lost track of the location) without seeing a lot to discuss. If I recall correctly, the reluctant chamberlain ultimately didn't come across as all that reluctant.

If I remember correctly, he was possessed by the court mage. I'd call that pretty reluctant! Though he wasn't the major focus for play, as it turned out. You could ask @Manbearcat why that was (if you're still interested).

I had some things I wanted to discuss - success/failures, the scope of abilities, intra-party conflicts, maybe some other stuff?

Our efforts were spent to address multiple angles including:

1) How a closed conflict resolution framework handles the balance issues being debated in this thread.

2) How stakes-based conflict resolution (codified mechanical resolution referencing evolving fictional positioning which decisively carves out the present conflict's outcome and which [ii] leads to follow-up conflicts) promotes a Story Now agenda (or one facet of "indie play" as its been used in this thread).

3) How low-resolution (borderline "no myth") setting, director and/or author stance PC build resources, and GM provocation endows the players with potent narrative authority, which in turn perpetuates a Story Now agenda.

Given 1 above, the overarching intent of all activity in the primary scene (the impetus of our play) referenced the stakes: "The PCs sought audience with the King to beseech him to act (be a presence, rally defenses, stand up to the dragon's demands, embolden his besieged people) or the city would likely fall". With conflict resolution where those are the stakes and the strategic objective is to "see the king and convince him to act", "the obstinate chamberlain" is merely an obstacle/complication to be overcome. He isn't the point of play in the same way that the harsh winter conditions, the lack of supplies and ammo, and the overwhelming German numbers weren't central to the Allies' unwillingness to give up Bastogne in the Battle of the Bulge. The strategic objective was to prevent German armor advance and German access to all of the various infrastructure (road networks leading to and from) of Bastogne. The harsh winter conditions, the lack of supplies and ammo, and the overwhelming German numbers were all complications for the attainment of that strategic objective of the 101st Airborne. In the same way, a Lord Chamberlain is just a complication in the way of a group PCs' strategic objective to seek audience with a King and convince him to act.

The nature of the Lord Chamberlain was unfixed and turned on your and @sheadunne 's transition scene. Ultimately, the Court Mage was harvesting corpses in the Undercity to facilitate her network of flesh golems (of which the Lord Chamberlain was her primary creation) to extend her influence over the city, to contribute to general unrest within the walls while the siege did its part outside, and to lead to ultimate acquiescence to the dragon's demands.

The Flesh Golem Lord Chamberlain (possessed by the Court Mage's senses) directly opposed the PCs:

- He didn't recognize Thurgon's authority as Lord Commander of the Iron Tower.

- He rebuffed Thurgon's invocations of the dire situation and plea to see the king in light of it (failed Diplomacy).

Subsequent to that, the guards' dogs got loose and were making a beeline for the servant girl with the animal fat covered smock. Theron showed his mettle (and represented your group as the same), intercepted the dogs and cowed them. That would impress the guards if not the chamberlain (which it didn't...he was unmoved). Cue War Troll being brought into the entrance hall in chains, and the refugees beseeching the Lord Chamberlain to heed the Holy Knight's (Thurgon's) pleas...which he dismisses. As the War Troll is prepped for interrogation all hell breaks loose. Ultimately, Quinn escalates things, mind-melts the War Troll into attacking the chamberlain. The chamberlain flesh golem is eviscerated by the mind controlled troll. Once the "chamberlain" is eviscerated, it made it rather hard for his protestations to pack much punch!

Subsequent to the immediate relevance of the Lord Chamberlain in the Action Scene, Lucann converses with the golem husk momentarily to confirm the truth of things and provide corresponding bonuses to future PC actions. The "Lord Chamberlain" is exposed as "an enemy in our midst", and the War Council filters in to witness the X-men takedown of the War Troll by Theron and Thurgon (thus saving all the refugees). As the (now that the chamberlain has been deposed) ranking member of the War Council takes in the disturbing scene, Quinn (by way of Suggestion...Arcana in the stead of Diplomacy...the Charm Person angle) requests the leader of the Council assist the PCs with the King and the Court Mage (identifying the Court Mage as the antagonist).

After that, other stuff happens with respect to the King and the Court Mage. But that breaks out the obstinate Lord Chamberlain's immediate role as complication set against the PC's strategic objective; Audience with the King.

We can address other aspects if people wish (such as the use of player backstory and direct player action as cues in the creation of relevant thematic conflict/opposition/antagonists).

 

[N'raac]

Given 1 above, the overarching intent of all activity in the primary scene (the impetus of our play) referenced the stakes: "The PCs sought audience with the King to beseech him to act (be a presence, rally defenses, stand up to the dragon's demands, embolden his besieged people) or the city would likely fall". With conflict resolution where those are the stakes and the strategic objective is to "see the king and convince him to act", "the obstinate chamberlain" is merely an obstacle/complication to be overcome. He isn't the point of play in the same way that the harsh winter conditions, the lack of supplies and ammo, and the overwhelming German numbers weren't central to the Allies' unwillingness to give up Bastogne in the Battle of the Bulge. The strategic objective was to prevent German armor advance and German access to all of the various infrastructure (road networks leading to and from) of Bastogne. The harsh winter conditions, the lack of supplies and ammo, and the overwhelming German numbers were all complications for the attainment of that strategic objective of the 101st Airborne. In the same way, a Lord Chamberlain is just a complication in the way of a group PCs' strategic objective to seek audience with a King and convince him to act.

I would suggest that harsh winter conditions, lack of supplies and overwhelming opposition are all challenges which would have recurring impact on the campaign as a whole, and not be quickly resolved in a single encounter or scene. That is more akin to the Lord Chamberlain who it is simply not possible to immediately bypass, requiring a longer term effort by the players/characters.

The nature of the Lord Chamberlain was unfixed and turned on your and @sheadunne 's transition scene. Ultimately, the Court Mage was harvesting corpses in the Undercity to facilitate her network of flesh golems (of which the Lord Chamberlain was her primary creation) to extend her influence over the city, to contribute to general unrest within the walls while the siege did its part outside, and to lead to ultimate acquiescence to the dragon's demands.

The Flesh Golem Lord Chamberlain (possessed by the Court Mage's senses) directly opposed the PCs:

- He didn't recognize Thurgon's authority as Lord Commander of the Iron Tower.

- He rebuffed Thurgon's invocations of the dire situation and plea to see the king in light of it (failed Diplomacy).

This Chamberlain seems less a challenge unto himself than a minor aspect of other plotlines (the Court Mage being an unknown villain; corpse harvesting and flesh golem infiltration - so the Chamberlain is no longer simply a political adversary).

Subsequent to that, the guards' dogs got loose and were making a beeline for the servant girl with the animal fat covered smock. Theron showed his mettle (and represented your group as the same), intercepted the dogs and cowed them. That would impress the guards if not the chamberlain (which it didn't...he was unmoved). Cue War Troll being brought into the entrance hall in chains, and the refugees beseeching the Lord Chamberlain to heed the Holy Knight's (Thurgon's) pleas...which he dismisses. As the War Troll is prepped for interrogation all hell breaks loose. Ultimately, Quinn escalates things, mind-melts the War Troll into attacking the chamberlain. The chamberlain flesh golem is eviscerated by the mind controlled troll. Once the "chamberlain" is eviscerated, it made it rather hard for his protestations to pack much punch!

I would find it difficult to credit the King's Court being reluctant to grant armed adventurers an audience, but have wild guard dogs and war trolls regularly in the Court. This seems very "over the top" as compared to negotiating for an audience with the King with a Chamberlain who does not wish to facilitate same. Is it possible for the reluctant Chamberlain to be an obstacle while simply being a person who sees matters differently from the PC's, rather than a flesh golem infiltrator in a Kings Court that sees guard dogs attacking servants and a War Troll prisoner in the course of an afternoon's events?

And now the King's first thought is to meet with these adventurers regarding the Dragon's siege? Seems like he has a lot of other matters on his plate...

 

[N'raac]

So, wait a minute, here.

A court mage who is harvesting corpses, manufacturing golems, and replacing people, including a key member of the Royal Court's inner circle, with those flesh golems is fine.

But the possibility of a spellcaster capable of casting the 0 level Detect Magic spell and determining that these adventurers are casting spells to ensorcle the Chamberlain (or the King) is crossing the line.

Somehow, surprisingly, I'm not sold on this chain of logic.

 

[Manbearcat]

I would suggest that harsh winter conditions, lack of supplies and overwhelming opposition are all challenges which would have recurring impact on the campaign as a whole, and not be quickly resolved in a single encounter or scene. That is more akin to the Lord Chamberlain who it is simply not possible to immediately bypass, requiring a longer term effort by the players/characters.

This is central to a lot of our discussion; granular task resolution versus abstract conflict resolution. Of consequence here is the "level of zoom" (aesthetic and mechanical) inherent to the medium. If you're running a game that is meant to cover the 101st Airborne parachuting behind enemy lines on D-Day all the way through the seizing of the Eagle's Nest in Berchtesgaden, then the siege of Bastogne would be one conflict (albeit paramount). As such, one would then need to resolve that conflict with the stakes being; "Do the 101st Airborne hold Bastogne through the siege or do they fail?" The resolution of that conflict would then have a ripple effect (as it clearly did) which frame's follow-up conflicts.

Important to the question at hand, at that level of zoom, the thematic adversity (harsh winter, undersupplied, overwhelming opposition) can be dealt with in a single scene. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have thematic punch and it is without ceremony (it defines them afterall). It just means that it is one conflict. Not the conflict.

Now. If you zoom in and the game is entirely about Bastogne, then you have micro-conflicts framed to deal with each piece of adversity (eg; "How do the good guys deal with the harsh winter conditions?").

I think it is clear that your default level of zoom is tighter than the level of zoom in the one-off PBP we performed (and the default level of zoom of most "indie" play). That is to be expected given other preferences that you have conveyed (system, setting, and technique).

This Chamberlain seems less a challenge unto himself than a minor aspect of other plotlines (the Court Mage being an unknown villain; corpse harvesting and flesh golem infiltration - so the Chamberlain is no longer simply a political adversary).

I would find it difficult to credit the King's Court being reluctant to grant armed adventurers an audience, but have wild guard dogs and war trolls regularly in the Court. This seems very "over the top" as compared to negotiating for an audience with the King with a Chamberlain who does not wish to facilitate same. Is it possible for the reluctant Chamberlain to be an obstacle while simply being a person who sees matters differently from the PC's, rather than a flesh golem infiltrator in a Kings Court that sees guard dogs attacking servants and a War Troll prisoner in the course of an afternoon's events?

The scene's setting components did not entail a standard fair, formalized appeal under normal circumstances this much is true. You could certainly run a scenario as such. This is one iteration of a potential "obstinate chamberlain setting his will and resources against PCs who are seeking audience with the King to beseech him into a course of action". I gave another well upthread as an ad-hoc scene resolved by my home players specfically for this thread...thank you home players. There are still others out there in the ether, waiting to manifest. Countless configurations actually.

In the one played out, the physical form of the Lord Chamberlain is the flesh golem puppet of the primary antagonist in our conflict; The Court Mage. After the scene played it out, one could sufficiently hindcast that the Court Mage assassinated the original Lord Chamberlain (who may have been of an entirely different disposition...who knows...that was offscreen, in the past, and never had relevance in play) in conjunction with the assassination of the king (made to look as natural death) in order to arrange capitulation to the dragon's demands.

Achieving heroic renown within a besieged city that is short on heroes, gathering intelligence on the adversarial elements in play, dealing with the adversarial golem husk as chamberlain (the Court Mage), uncovering the enemy within (the Court Mage), legitimizing their status and mettle as capable heroes of good will, and saving the king from the assassination attempt (arranged by the Court Mage) were all component parts of the conflict. They each played a role in determining the outcome of the stakes set out at the beginning of play.

There is only so much a Lord Chamberlain (even one with the amount of political power and means this one possessed) can do to interpose himself against the will of the PCs after the conflict is escalated to violence. And he is summarily dispatched and exposed.

And now the King's first thought is to meet with these adventurers regarding the Dragon's siege? Seems like he has a lot of other matters on his plate...

It would appear you are not familiar with the resolution of the scene. After Thurgon and Theron narrowly saved the king from the Hag's "Dream Sleep" assassination attempt, the weary, near-death, warrior-king rolled out of bed and reflexively tried to don his armor (fumbling terribly from his condition) while calling incoherently for his squire from days gone by.

Having successfully saved the King from assasination, Thurgon helped him to his feet and took him to the balcony for fresh air, upon which time the battle in the Royal Garden below became apparent. Thurgon and Theron then leapt to the aid of their allies.

Much went on in the Royal Garden (much probably relevant to this thread), with much unresolved, but the supposition you had about the King's "first thought" didn't manifest.

So, wait a minute, here.

A court mage who is harvesting corpses, manufacturing golems, and replacing people, including a key member of the Royal Court's inner circle, with those flesh golems is fine.

But the possibility of a spellcaster capable of casting the 0 level Detect Magic spell and determining that these adventurers are casting spells to ensorcle the Chamberlain (or the King) is crossing the line.

Somehow, surprisingly, I'm not sold on this chain of logic.

In play here are many things. A primary issue here is that Quinn, [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s character, is an extremely powerful Illusionist/Enchanter. He is trained in Arcana and has a very high check. Outside of Quinn, the only other person (including the other PCs) we encounter who meet these specs is the primary antagonist; The Court Mage. Default play assumes the PC's are unique protagonists in the world. There need not be prolific mage towers and magic item shops. Neither the layfolk nor many/most/all of the Royal Courts, barristers, judges, and other officials are expected to be trained in Arcana. It is an outcome-based system whereby NPCs are only relevant insofar as the on-screen time warrants their relevance.

Further, in 4e, "Detect Magic" is a very different beast than in 3.x:

1) It requires being trained in Arcana.

2) Its identification capacity is limited typically to rituals, zones, conjurations and other specified magic phenomenon. It typically excludes powers, spells, magic items et al. Further, it requires an Arcana check at the Hard DC of the phenmonon's or caster's level (whichever is relevant)

3) "Sensing the presence of magic" requires (i) considerable concentration and effort (Standard Action) and, more importantly (ii) an Arcana check at the Hard DC of the creature's level.

Therefore, anyone attempting to run "anti-mage" QC at Royal Court would need to (i) be Trained in Arcana and (ii) would need a significant Arcana skill to uncover Quinn's enchantments. The (ii) would require them to be of Quinn's level, have extreme Intelligence, other augmenting bonuses, and a decent roll to defeat the Hard DC of Quinn's level.

All of the above setting and mechanical elements are true, which presumably should put PC Arcane spellcasters in a position of unique advantage and leverage (as the reasoning has been unpacked in this thread). And yet Quinn by no means was some unparalleled facilitator of the resolution of the conflict we played out in our PBP.