Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[pemerton]

I felt like Quinn was let off the hook here - when we transitioned to an action scene it seemed as though my previous failures had been erased. I was expecting the successes and failures from the transition scene to carry over to the action scene.

I think 4e has only limited mechanical resources for this sort of thing - eg healing surge loss or the disease/curse track - and otherwise relies heavily on the fiction to carry the weight of consequences from scene to scene. (In my game I use a combination of fiction, and -2 circumstance penalties, to try and handle this.)

From what you've said on other occasions, I gather that Sorcerer is considerably stronger in this regard. Marvel Heroic is also stronger, I think - because when complications carry over from scene to scene they cause a penalty (or, technically, buff the opposition), whereas lost healing surges are resource depletion but, in the good old D&D tradition, cause no actual penalty.

 

[LostSoul]

I hope that all makes sense.

It does. I just wasn't sure where the lines between continue current scene/start new scene/move to combat resolution fell.

Second that emotion. I think what would be interesting is if both you and LostSoul broke out your sense of (i) your personal contribution by way of PC build resources meeting the resolution mechanics and how that (ii) compares with your counterpart's contribution.

In terms of caster/non-caster balance? Even though I could bring magic! into play (most of which seemed quite limited compared to mid-level spellcasters in other editions), I felt as though the attention to the themes and genre conventions made up for any difference. Being able to "melt brains" is nice, but calling on the honour of the Iron Tower and the ancient pacts between men and elves makes things even.

Hope that makes sense.

I am not sure how much of that was Manbearcat's interpretation; I can imagine a DM deciding that magic! can be leveraged in situations where more mundane actions - even if they're genre appropriate and fit the game's themes - would not. I guess the difference would be if the DM pays attention to the "fluff" or colour text of the classes, paragon paths, epic destinies, and their powers.

 

[Imaro]

But, why bring in the original write up that everyone agrees was poorly done? There's a reason that the original SC rules were redone.

I think that there tends to be two very big problems in these discussions. And I'm likely just as guilty as anyone so don't think I'm pointing fingers.

One, picking and choosing specific point in the development of the game in order to criticize the game without acknowledging that things were changed to fix that issue at some point down the road.

Two, presuming that the people at the table are incapable of choosing interpretations that make sense to the table so all interpretations must be either dictated by the mechanics or the DM.

Honestly Hussar... because I feel there is a bit of a double standard going on here. When we talk about 3.x or earlier editions it seems to always be about what the rules say exactly... but when we talk about 4e it's nebulous... "choosing interpretations", adding supplemental advice (from later supplements and totally different games), and so on instead of looking at the original rules text... of course that's just in my opinion...

 

[Imaro]

Not only that, Imaro's statement of the original skill challenge rules is incomplete. He's leaving out these bits, for instance (pp 73-74):

Certain skills lead to the natural solutions to the problem the challenge presents. These should serve as the primary skills in the challenge. . .

Start with a list of the challenge’s primary skills, then give some thought to what a character might do when using that skill. You don’t need to make an exhaustive list, but try to define categories of actions the characters might take. Sometimes characters might decide to do exactly what you anticipate, but often you need to take what a player wants to do and find the closest match to the actions you’ve outlined. When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it. . .

Always keep in mind that players can and will come up with ways to use skills you do not expect. Stay on your toes, and let whatever improvised skill uses they come up with guide the rewards and penalties you apply afterward. . .​

None of the above quotes are from the section about running skills they are from the section about the DM deciding on skills for the SC...

In a skill challenge encounter, every player character must make skill checks to contribute to the success or failure of the encounter. Characters must make a check on their turn using one of the identified primary skills . . . or they must use a different skill, if they can come up with a way to use it to contribute to the challenge . . .

Ah, yeah you're also leaving out (purposefully or not) the part where if it's not on the DM"s list it is a hard DC as opposed to a moderate one... so I apologize, you're technically right, while the rules don't force you to only use skills from the DM's list, the rules definitely give alot of incentive to go in that direction...


​

Making sense of this is not trivially easy - but it is crystal clear that it is not the case that players are expected to use only the skills on the GM's list. As best I can interpret it (and there may be no single, fully coherent interpretation) the GM's list of primary skills is (i) a type of preparation by the GM for improvising, a bit like mapping out likely NPC tactics in advance of a combat encounter, (ii) is part of the process of sketching out the fiction of the skill challenge, thinking of it not only in story terms but connecting those story elements to the mechanical resources for resolution that the players have available, and (iii) provides a source of hints or cribs if the players can't think of anything to do in order to have their PCs engage the challenge.

I don't think it's crystal clear since if you go with a skill not on the DM's list you get slapped with a higher difficulty... regardless of all the advice given, players do what they are rewarded for doing and in 4e you are rewarded for sticking to the DM's pre-made list of skills...

Another thing which is made quite clear by the reference to rewards and penalties is that the consequences of a skill challenge are intended to turn on the actions actually taken by the PCs in its resolution. (And if there is any doubt that "rewards" in this terminology can go beyond treasure and XP to include changes in the fiction that advantage the PCs, that doubt is resolved by p 122 of the DMG, which observes that "quests can also have less concrete rewards. Perhaps someone owes them a favor, they’ve earned the respect of an organization that might give them future quests, or they’ve established a contact who can provide them with important information or access.")

I don't think quests and skill challenges are the same thing...quests, IMO, are much broader than a Sc, that said... it might have been better if the book had flat out stated what you claim above in the actual SC section...

There is also this interesting remark (on p 73), which reminds me of "quick takes" within the scene resolution mechanics for Maelstrom Storytelling:

Remember that not everything has to be directly tied to the challenge. Tangential or unrelated benefits, such as making unexpected allies from among the duke’s court or finding a small, forgotten treasure, can also be fun.​

This is another way in which 4e GMs are expressly told by their DMG to be flexible, responsive and dynamic in their adjudication and resolution of skill challenges.

I'm sorry but can't these rewards be pre-determined just like any other rewards? In fact the DMG seems to lean more towards working these rewards (and many other things like SC consequences) out beforehand so I'm not seeing where the discussion on these things necessarily leads to "another way in which 4e GMs are expressly told by their DMG to be flexible, responsive and dynamic in their adjudication and resolution of skill challenges"

So while I agree that the original presentation was not ideal, it certainly did not say what Imaro says it did, and certainly does not provide any licence for the "mere series of dice rolls" which I see as reports and characterisations of skill challenges from time to time. If players didn't in fact read the manual - perhaps because they mistook skill challenges for complex skill checks from Unearthed Arcana - that is not WotC's fault. If they failed to understand the manual, that is getting closer to the author's responsibility, but it still doesn't license the drawing of inferences about intended play which are expressly contradicted, in multiple places, by the statement that players can use whatever skill they like provided that the action they are declaring makes sense within the fiction framed by the GM.

No but the rules certainly push in the direction of what I said since again an improvised skill gets a higher difficulty, not because of the fiction but by dint of being not on the DM's list. Also the series of rolls is encpuraged because if you are picking skills from the DM's list then he already has (or should have) the way they interact with the fiction so in essence all a player has to do is go with the skills of the DM and it does in fact, for the most part, become an exercise in dice rolling

 

[N'raac]

But I posit that in a fantasy RPG with 12th level PCs, who are (in virtue of that fact) comparable to Aragorn or Conan or Merlin or Ged in terms of the scope of their prowess within the fiction, that a reluctant Chamberlain whose reluctance is a result of being a gebbeth under the control of the corrupted Court Mage is more exciting!

Yet if the reluctant chamberlain had been a gebbeth under the control of the Court Mage from the outset (ie not an Indie model), we are back to the chamberlain whom the PC’s cannot persuade, for which the GM was vilified many pages back in this thread.

As I reflect, I start to see why this approach does not sit well with me. The PC’s cannot truly fail at diplomacy – there must be some other reason their efforts are unpersuasive to the Chamberlain. So let’s look at this from another angle, since their die rolls set not their success in leveraging their own skills and abilities, but the backstory of whether their skills and abilities could succeed.

Instead of a 2, our Diplomat rolls a 20. Is he the greatest, most persuasive diplomat in his generation? Well, he seems to think so. But really, this just meant the Chamberlain was ready and willing to be persuaded, so let’s assess why. Really, he is not the snivelling toadie he may pretend to be. His months of scheming, plotting and planning are complete, and he is ready to implement his strategy to overthrow the Evil Oppressors (EO). But, should that plan fail, the repercussions to the people will be horrific.

But wait – he can perhaps use these raggedy ‘adventurers’ to provide a measure of plausible deniability. If they implement his plans and succeed, the EO’s yoke is thrown off. If they fail, then he and the King, of course, KNEW they lacked the power and cunning to be a threat to you, My Overlord, but we thought it best to feign complicity, just in case, in our own weakness and folly, we erred in our assessment and they might present some minimal threat to Your Lordships. We could then warn you. How fortunate that they were instead as nothing before your might and genius.

So he pretends to be impressed by their insipid, stuttering excuse for a speech, admits them to see the King, subtly passing the message to His Majesty that these may be useful. For the remainder of the skill challenge, a PC successful roll means they have been subtly lead to espouse the plans of the Chamberlain, believing the ideas to be their own. A failure means they have strayed into their own, much less considered and pitiful, strategems, and must be steered back. If they succeed in the challenge, this means that they have adopted the Chamberlains plans as their own, and can now implement them. If not, they are too stupid to pick up on the subtle threads laid by the Chamberlain, so they are dismissed as even the role of unwitting dupes is beyond their meagre skills.

All I did was mold the backstory consistent with the die rolls, right? Tune un next week for more Adventures of the Wise Lord Chamberlain, sponsored by Bryl Cream – a little dab’ll do ya and stay tuned for the evening news.

The war troll was an object of interrogation. The guard dogs were just that. The reason we were not granted an audience wasn't because we weren't genteel enough, but because of political opposition.

Is it logical that there are attack dogs running through the Royal Court and a War Troll being interrogated in a cloakroom? Or were you somehow lead to meet the Chamberlain in the Royal Dungeons to discuss an audience with the King?

Plus, the whole notion of "adventurers" is one that I find problematic - it's fine at the metagame level, but you are using it in a way that implies it has some ingame meaning. In the scenario we played, my PC was a Knight Commander of his order who had been rallying the defenders of the city,

Which again departs from the scenario originally set, that of a Chamberlain reluctant to grant an audience with the King to these personages who were poorly known to him, if at all. Now we are seeking to write credibility with the Royal Court into the PC’s backstory. This creates a different dynamic from that originally under discussion.

This challenge was resolved, in part, via diplomatic means: we argued with the chamberlain

Unless I misrecall, one diplomacy check was made. After that the PC’s efforts shifted to causing guard dogs to attack a poor serving girl, then to causing an attack by a War Troll conveniently being interrogated two doors down. Do you normally track attack dogs through the kitchens while torturing prisoners of war (I recall braziers and acid in that room) nearby? And I am supposed to consider this far more logical and rational than having someone in the Royal Court who can manage a Detect Magic spell?

and then, by defeating the war troll - whose attempts to go wild had been exacerbated by Quinn's mind control - persuaded other members of the war council that we, rather than the chamberlain, had the right policy.

Let’s change the facts just a tiny bit. IIRC, the PC’s did not know the Chamberlain was anything other than the Chamberlain when Quinn decided to goad the War Troll to attack him, causing his death. He and the other PC’s then leveraged that into intimidating the rightful leaders into taking their guidance. Sounds like the start of a classic villainous plot to take over the kingdom – when do the heroes show up to thwart their evil plans?

Thematically and in basic dramatic strcuture, the scene could be compared to the Gandalf/Wormtongue/Theoden scene in The Two Towers, only with more crazy violence.

So how did we get from a diplomacy/social challenge to a problem once again resolved by violence? To me, much of the point of the “reluctant chamberlain” scene was that it COULD NOT be resolved by slashing someone with a sword, which meant the fighter was out of his area of expertise.

I don't know why you say this. Quinn came close to being stopped at the start of the adventure, when he got in over his head in the city sewers. And then, once the dragon shattered the dams above the city, he nearly got swept over a cliff by rushing waters (Thurgon saved him).

I say that because it was flat out stated that Quinn’s build, coupled with the game rules, rendered him immune to detection by anyone but the Court Wizard (main adversary), and his magic skill roll was extremely high, making its success a near-certainty.

To the other issues, I was looking for the actual scene under discussion – the Reluctant Chamberlain. This is the section I read and commented on. I’m unclear how being threatened with violence or being carried away by a flood indicates the character’s enchantments and illusions were not unstoppable. They were simply ill suited to the task at hand. Over the course of a whole adventure, rather than a single scene, I’d expect some opportunities for that 3e Wizard to use Charm Person in a manner which would not antagonize or offend an ally, and I’d expect scenes where all characters, spellcaster or not, shine and scenes where they are out of their element. The complaint raised in respect of the Reluctant Chamberlain a hundred or so pages back was that the Wizard dominated with his Charm spells, unless he was “heavy handedly” detectable and his spells considered an attack or other offensive action. Here, the wizard is not detectable, his spells don’t seem to fail (at least against human opponents, where diplomacy is actually capable of success).

Now, the gebbeth presumably renders his spells ineffective, but it equally renders diplomacy ineffective. Instead, we have to think of an approach that does not involve us getting access to the King through the Chamberlain, just as if the normal, human chamberlain were immune to diplomacy and Charming him were an offensive act likely to be detected if undertaken in the Royal Palace. What is different? As near as I can tell, the only difference is the speed with which the scene shifts gears.

I don’t find a fighter saving a wizard from a floodtide any less likely in a 3e, non-indie game, myself. [Are we still discussing balance between spellcasters and fighters, or are we discussing 3e vs 4e, or indie vs non-indie, or pre-fab background to background crafted in play, or something else?

These claims are both wrong. Furthermore, the second one seems simply to be made up! It has no connection to anything Manbearcat actually posted.

To me, the ready ease with which the social challenge of persuading the Chamberlain to allow the PC’s an audience with the King was transformed into a combat challenge indicates "you can use pretty much any skill to succeed in a skill challenge". Many pages back, we saw a diplomatic mission open with an archery roll. You have also argued (not without contradiction by some more versed in 4e than I am) that the GM should be flexible and dynamic, rather than having a fixed list of skills which can resolve the challenge. But obviously you draw a line somewhere because, although charming a Troll to slay a member of the King’s Court seems an acceptable means of approaching a social challenge, my half orc’s belching skill is clearly not one for which you are open to flexibility.

Why can’t his roll of ‘20’ mean that the Chamberlain, as suggested upthread, previously served in a culture which greatly valued belching, considering it both a compliment and an art form, just as a ‘2’ in a Diplomacy roll indicates he has been replaced by a magical simulacrum loyal only to the evil Court Wizard?

It's true that the encounter was framed by Manbearcat in a way that spoke to the inclinations - both story and mechanical of the PCs - of the PCs, but that is the whole point of "indie" play, and also refutes your contentin that this scenario could be designed on a non-indie model. There is no non-indie way of framing a scenario to respond to the hooks built by the players into their PCs, and then adjduciating and evolving it as it unfolds in a way that maintains the pressure on those same points and invites the playes to thereby push towards resolution of the thematic elements built into their PCs. Because to run a game in this way is precisely what the "indie" style, as characterised by me well over 1000 posts upthread, is all about.

Are you seriously saying that only in an Indie game is it possible for an adventure to be designed around the abilities and personalities of the player characters, because that’s sure what it reads like. To which PC hook does a war troll prisoner breaking free and slaughtering the very person we were seeking to negotiate with play?

I have answered this multiple times upthread. There are rules for skill challenge construction (how many checks required at Easy, Medium or Hard difficulty) and then DC-by-level charts to assign numbers to those different degrees of difficulty.

Again, I’m no 4e expert, but this sounds to me like replacement of GM judgement with mechanics. I have seen other comments that 4e creates a very balanced game environment by making challenges very mechanically similar. And, again, who decided whether it was Easy, Medium or Hard to persuade the Chamberlain? Did the rule book tell us this? What basis is used to make that determination?

Two, presuming that the people at the table are incapable of choosing interpretations that make sense to the table so all interpretations must be either dictated by the mechanics or the DM.

I agree with the rest of your comments, and to some extent this one. However, I also think that the GM is one of those people at the table, and it should not be presumed that he is any less capable of choosing interpretations that make sense. Your posts tend to come across as presuming the GM’s primary, if not only, objective is frustrating the players. The GM is typically at least as capable as the players of making good, appropriate interpretations (as he will generally be experienced, he is in many cases more capable, although in some cases there will be one or more players even more capable of making good interpretations). Players are quite capable of arguing interpretations that are bad for the game as a whole. And sometimes, decisions must be made, so someone has to make the call, ideally after hearing the views of all at the table. If that is not the role of the GM, whose role should it be, and why?

I enjoyed the game; the action scene with the dryad was very tense. It was rewarding to try to change her mind instead of simply bashing her into the ground.

I fail to see why would it not have been rewarding to try to change the Chamberlain’s mind, rather than have a game model which makes it simple, as near as I could see, to turn a social challenge into a situation easily and successfully resolved by violence? And how does negotiation with a dryad differ from negotiation with the Chamberlain in that regard?

Reading over the posts, starting at #61 (reply to failed diplomacy check), the negotiations effectively ended at that point. Next, the dogs broke loose, a decision made entirely by the GM – I thought the players were expected to drive the action in Indie play. The GM seems to have moved the action from negotiation to violence unilaterally.

The GM next changed the skill(s) chosen by the player in respect of Sheadunne’s actions. I thought players decided which skills to use and how. This cowed the dogs (and the exact same occurrences could, in my view, take place in a typical 3e game, with Handle Animal or Animal Empathy (a non-spellcaster ranger ability) advancing the negotiations through a GM-orchestrated event (the unexpected attack by the dogs).
Rather than return to the social challenge of the negotiations, the GM added in the dog not being reined in, and the new door, and Sheadunne added the War Troll (it seems negotiating with the Chamberlain was really not on the agenda any more).

It is then the GM who actually returns to the focus of seeing the King in post 67. No PC action seems to cause the people to rally to get the Knight in to see the King, rather than reacting to the War Troll. Once again, what happened to “action driven by the PC’s and challenges placed by the GM”? Plus, hauling the troll up in this manner seems to indicate the people the PC’s are trying to ally with aren’t really very bright. The Troll had no difficulty making himself into a menace, and it seems like that would have been just as easy with or without the PC’s.

Quinn then deliberately tries to get the Troll to attack the Chamberlain, goading it to break free and become an even bigger threat and it kills the Lord Chamberlain. Why would we expect a court functionary could withstand an attack from an angry War Troll?

To me, the GM then lets the players off the hook, deciding that it was actually a good thing to kill the Chamberlain. Once again, this seems a decision made entirely by the GM, if anything reducing the challenge against the PC’s by having the impediment to their goals eliminated in this manner, and making it a good thing that Quinn effectively manipulated his execution.

[ASIDE]It also seems from the scene setting (#59) that we don’t have PC’s attempting to see the King under typical circumstances, but a very desperate ruling class, so while an interesting scene, it seems far from the originally presented “reluctant chamberlain”. In particular, the goals of the nobility have been much more closely aligned with those of the PC’s. This does, however, better explain the presence of the dogs and the troll.[/ASIDE]

So let’s summarize – the players and GM looked to be having a blast, and I expect I would have enjoyed the game as a player as well, so it seems like a great game.

It does not, however, seem like player-directed action with the GM serving simply to arbitrate and describe (Pemertons description of Indie), nor does it have the feel of negotiations with a reluctant chamberlain. It also does not seem like an arc of play that could not have played out in a 3e game, outside of the unusual aspect of no combat with the dogs or the Troll, which I believe was a deliberate departure from the norm based on manbearcat’s comments on experimenting with combat resolved under the skill system rather than the combat system.

 

[sheadunne]

The GM next changed the skill(s) chosen by the player in respect of Sheadunne’s actions. I thought players decided which skills to use and how. This cowed the dogs (and the exact same occurrences could, in my view, take place in a typical 3e game, with Handle Animal or Animal Empathy (a non-spellcaster ranger ability) advancing the negotiations through a GM-orchestrated event (the unexpected attack by the dogs).
Rather than return to the social challenge of the negotiations, the GM added in the dog not being reined in, and the new door, and Sheadunne added the War Troll (it seems negotiating with the Chamberlain was really not on the agenda any more).

Couple of things here.

I had chosen Intimidate because I wasn't sure which skill would apply to this circumstance not being familiar with 4e skill definitions. My goal was to use my Encounter Power "Come and Get it" to draw the dogs to me. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] had correctly interpreted that I had wanted to dogs to get lose and cause trouble, being the reason I focused my posts on watching the dogs. If he hadn't taken action directly related to the guard dogs, I probably would have been disappointed.

I was playing the "fighter" in this scenario. As the fighter my skills at diplomacy and negotiation were weak, which was why Thurgon was going the talking. My job was to protect him from any violence that might have occurred (this is D&D after all). Since Thurgon failed his diplomacy with the chamberlain and since I lacked the necessary narrative capacity to influence the narrative on a diplomatic level, I decided to focus on bringing the scenario into one I was more geared toward: protection and violence. The dog scene played out how I would have imagined it had I had a specific power called "cause a scene in which I can show my protective and combat capabilities" to impress the Chamberlain and show that we weren't men to be trifled with (which is what Theren felt Thurgon lacked in his diplomatic failure and I posted right after).

Had I posted that my character's eyes were focused on the beautiful noble woman standing in the back I would have expected the scene to unfold regarding that intention, however I stated my intention and based it on the circumstances we were currently engaged.

I added the troll because, again, I am playing the fighter and my arena is geared toward combat and protection. I had no idea how the scene would play out only that it seem like an interesting dynamic to add (I could have added a ballerina in a pink tutu but that wouldn't have seemed to fit the previous established fiction of a city at war). A troll being brought up from the dungeons where it was being interrogated and tortured to be sent into the council chamber and further interrogated directly by the war council. It was Quinn who decided to use the troll as a way to test the intentions of the chamberlain. The intention wasn't to kill the chamberlain but to find out more information (we had earlier discovered that some people in the city had arcane marks on them).

The entire scene turned violent because the players wanted it so, mostly because Thurgon failed his diplomacy check. When I have seen this type of scene unfold in 3x, it usually is the players directly attacking the chamberlain rather than the circumstance being generated around the chamberlain, which is what I felt was happening here. I don't think this is a result of 4e, but rather play style. I'm not convinced that 3x is well suited to handle this sort of play because it doesn't focus on average DCs across all the skills. The success required for one skill is independent of success the success required for another skill. A roll of a 15 means different things based on what skill you used not on the universal difficulty of the task, which makes establishing a task as hard without first establishing which skill is to be used. I'm not entirely convinced that 4e is particular good at this, but it is at least slightly better at it than 3x. I still plan on making a post about the narrative capacity of the fighter/wizard in regards to both 4e and play style, probably later today.

 

[LostSoul]

All I did was mold the backstory consistent with the die rolls, right? Tune un next week for more Adventures of the Wise Lord Chamberlain, sponsored by Bryl Cream – a little dab’ll do ya and stay tuned for the evening news.

That looks like a valid interpretation to me. The interesting question is why you decided to use that specific backstory.

Which again departs from the scenario originally set, that of a Chamberlain reluctant to grant an audience with the King to these personages who were poorly known to him, if at all. Now we are seeking to write credibility with the Royal Court into the PC’s backstory. This creates a different dynamic from that originally under discussion.

Makes sense - I confess, it's hard to keep track of everything going on in this thread. Maybe it would have been better to stay on point; but that wouldn't have been as fun!

Unless I misrecall, one diplomacy check was made. After that the PC’s efforts shifted to causing guard dogs to attack a poor serving girl, then to causing an attack by a War Troll conveniently being interrogated two doors down. Do you normally track attack dogs through the kitchens while torturing prisoners of war (I recall braziers and acid in that room) nearby? And I am supposed to consider this far more logical and rational than having someone in the Royal Court who can manage a Detect Magic spell?

I think the idea was that the war troll was going to be interrogated before the court, and the acid was there to use on him if he got away. Yeah:

"A captured troll. He was being interrogated in the lower levels and the war counsel now wants to question him directly."

Then I had the war troll attack the chamberlain because 1) I thought there was something fishy with him and hoped that the attack would force him to reveal himself and 2) because I thought he deserved to die.

Let’s change the facts just a tiny bit. IIRC, the PC’s did not know the Chamberlain was anything other than the Chamberlain when Quinn decided to goad the War Troll to attack him, causing his death. He and the other PC’s then leveraged that into intimidating the rightful leaders into taking their guidance. Sounds like the start of a classic villainous plot to take over the kingdom – when do the heroes show up to thwart their evil plans?

At this point, I'd describe Quinn as mercenary, at best. Probably heading down the villain path, though that's up to one's own judgement. (When I first made him up I said: "I am not sure who Quinn is or what he believes in; we'll discover that in play.") He was only there to get rich, after all, and did not care about the city or what happened to it.

So how did we get from a diplomacy/social challenge to a problem once again resolved by violence? To me, much of the point of the “reluctant chamberlain” scene was that it COULD NOT be resolved by slashing someone with a sword, which meant the fighter was out of his area of expertise.

That's probably my fault, because I "escalated" to violence when I attacked the chamberlain (using my war troll proxy). This is how the players end up driving play.

Why can’t his roll of ‘20’ mean that the Chamberlain, as suggested upthread, previously served in a culture which greatly valued belching, considering it both a compliment and an art form, just as a ‘2’ in a Diplomacy roll indicates he has been replaced by a magical simulacrum loyal only to the evil Court Wizard?

That's a good question. I think that it could work that way. The players are going to judge that contribution to the game's fiction - not in terms of action resolution, but whether or not they like it. If someone keeps taking actions that you don't like, maybe the two of you shouldn't play together - your aesthetics don't mesh. Which is fine and good, I think.

I fail to see why would it not have been rewarding to try to change the Chamberlain’s mind, rather than have a game model which makes it simple, as near as I could see, to turn a social challenge into a situation easily and successfully resolved by violence? And how does negotiation with a dryad differ from negotiation with the Chamberlain in that regard?

Because I was invested in seeing the dryad, her godess, and Lucann being reunited, and I thought the chamberlain deserved to die. My own personal beliefs about these "problematic aspects of human interactions" - self-important bureaucrats getting a kick out of their power to say "no" even if someone gets hurt, and the relationship between someone in power (Sehanine) and their responsibility to their wards (the dryad).

It is then the GM who actually returns to the focus of seeing the King in post 67. No PC action seems to cause the people to rally to get the Knight in to see the King, rather than reacting to the War Troll. Once again, what happened to “action driven by the PC’s and challenges placed by the GM”? Plus, hauling the troll up in this manner seems to indicate the people the PC’s are trying to ally with aren’t really very bright. The Troll had no difficulty making himself into a menace, and it seems like that would have been just as easy with or without the PC’s.

Quinn then deliberately tries to get the Troll to attack the Chamberlain, goading it to break free and become an even bigger threat and it kills the Lord Chamberlain. Why would we expect a court functionary could withstand an attack from an angry War Troll?

I could have brought things back to a more diplomatic state, but I didn't want to. (I could have tried to calm down the war troll and used that as leverage against the chamberlain - we're doing something to help the people while you just sit there - and rally the crowd that way.) I wanted to hurt the chamberlain.

To me, the GM then lets the players off the hook, deciding that it was actually a good thing to kill the Chamberlain. Once again, this seems a decision made entirely by the GM, if anything reducing the challenge against the PC’s by having the impediment to their goals eliminated in this manner, and making it a good thing that Quinn effectively manipulated his execution.

My guess is that was because the roll was successful, but [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] can probably give you more information there. (My intent was: "I want to know if the Lord Chamberlain is directing these beasts against the people here.")

 

[Hussar]

Honestly Hussar... because I feel there is a bit of a double standard going on here. When we talk about 3.x or earlier editions it seems to always be about what the rules say exactly... but when we talk about 4e it's nebulous... "choosing interpretations", adding supplemental advice (from later supplements and totally different games), and so on instead of looking at the original rules text... of course that's just in my opinion...

Two things. First you're probably right in that I've been a stickler for interpretation but mostly that's due to what I see as some very questionable interpretations. Rope trick has potentially lethal limitations. The summoned demon has already used its wish. That sort of thing.

Secondly, we're discussing 3e which has been revised strongly once into 3.5 and is a complete game. I would say there is a difference at least in scale between a couple of sentences in a setting resource from 3e clarifying a spell and core errata issued to everyone. They are not equal.

Just about everyone agrees that the initial write up of SC's was not as good as it could have been. But isn't that like using 3e's original aoo explanation to criticize 3e? The wording was revised and clarified. Why insist on using the old verbiage?

 

[Hussar]

N'raac you bring up the point that you think they can't fail. Why do you think this?

3 failed checks and they fail. So yes they can fail.

What they can't do in this scenario is automatically fail. Is that the heart of your problem here?

 

[pemerton]

Yet if the reluctant chamberlain had been a gebbeth under the control of the Court Mage from the outset (ie not an Indie model), we are back to the chamberlain whom the PC’s cannot persuade, for which the GM was vilified many pages back in this thread.

Yes, if the session had been run as a predetermined, non-indie style "storytelling" episode then those who don't enjoy such play wouldn't have enjoyed it.

So what you say is true, but I don't see who disagrees with it, so I don't feel the force of the "yet".

Can you not see that there is a huge difference between the secret backstory of the chamberlain as gebbeth, which makes my Diplomacy check an autofail, and the chamberlain as gebbeth being narrated to explain, within the fiction, and as a response to the mechanical resolution of my Diplomacy check, why my attempt at diplomacy failed.

As I reflect, I start to see why this approach does not sit well with me. The PC’s cannot truly fail at diplomacy – there must be some other reason their efforts are unpersuasive to the Chamberlain.

This is an intended feature of fortune in the middle resolution - it preserves player protagonism and the player's conception of his/her PC as competent. (In 4e there tends to be only this element, because 4e has no "choose to fail for advantage" mechanic - it really is about superheroic characters. More typical "indie" games include options to fail in return for gaining a metagame token from the GM (FATE, Marvel Heroic RP, Burning Wheel all have this), which means that failure is possible but is under the player's control. And it is always open to narrate a failed roll as failure if that suit's the group's current purposes.)

Here is Ron Edwards's description of how FitM serves this purpose:

It preserves the desired image of player-characters specific to the moment. Given a failed roll, they don't have to look like incompetent goofs; conversely, if you want your guy to suffer the effects of cruel fate, or just not be good enough, you can do that too.​

13th Age, p 42, describes the same principle this way:

A simple but powerful improvement you can make to your game is to redefine failure as “things go wrong” instead of “the PC isn’t good enough.” Ron Edwards, Luke Crane, and other indie RPG designers have championed this idea, and they’re exactly right. You can call it “fail forward” or “no whiffing.”​

So let’s look at this from another angle, since their die rolls set not their success in leveraging their own skills and abilities, but the backstory of whether their skills and abilities could succeed.

Instead of a 2, our Diplomat rolls a 20. Is he the greatest, most persuasive diplomat in his generation? Well, he seems to think so. But really, this just meant the Chamberlain was ready and willing to be persuaded, so let’s assess why. Really, he is not the snivelling toadie he may pretend to be. His months of scheming, plotting and planning are complete, and he is ready to implement his strategy to overthrow the Evil Oppressors (EO). But, should that plan fail, the repercussions to the people will be horrific.

But wait – he can perhaps use these raggedy ‘adventurers’ to provide a measure of plausible deniability. If they implement his plans and succeed, the EO’s yoke is thrown off. If they fail, then he and the King, of course, KNEW they lacked the power and cunning to be a threat to you, My Overlord, but we thought it best to feign complicity, just in case, in our own weakness and folly, we erred in our assessment and they might present some minimal threat to Your Lordships. We could then warn you. How fortunate that they were instead as nothing before your might and genius.

So he pretends to be impressed by their insipid, stuttering excuse for a speech, admits them to see the King, subtly passing the message to His Majesty that these may be useful. For the remainder of the skill challenge, a PC successful roll means they have been subtly lead to espouse the plans of the Chamberlain, believing the ideas to be their own. A failure means they have strayed into their own, much less considered and pitiful, strategems, and must be steered back. If they succeed in the challenge, this means that they have adopted the Chamberlains plans as their own, and can now implement them. If not, they are too stupid to pick up on the subtle threads laid by the Chamberlain, so they are dismissed as even the role of unwitting dupes is beyond their meagre skills.

No doubt you could adjudicate things this way if you wanted to - disregarding the players' intents in the narration of their successes. What does that prove about other playstyles, though?

All I did was mold the backstory consistent with the die rolls, right?

No, you also disregarded the players' intentions in determining the consequences of their successful checks.

Let’s change the facts just a tiny bit.

<snip>

Sounds like the start of a classic villainous plot to take over the kingdom – when do the heroes show up to thwart their evil plans?

I don't follow this either. What does it show us about Gandalf's motives and morality in freeing Theoden from Saruman that, had Gandalf been a villain, he would have been acting villainously?

So how did we get from a diplomacy/social challenge to a problem once again resolved by violence?

Via [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION]'s play, as he descibes in his post.

To me, much of the point of the “reluctant chamberlain” scene was that it COULD NOT be resolved by slashing someone with a sword, which meant the fighter was out of his area of expertise.

Which takes us back to the contrast between "indie" and "storyteller" play: in indie play there is no predetermined conception of how things might unfold and be resolved.

it was flat out stated that Quinn’s build, coupled with the game rules, rendered him immune to detection by anyone but the Court Wizard (main adversary), and his magic skill roll was extremely high, making its success a near-certainty.

That only one NPC can detect his magic, and that his Arcana skill bonus is high, does not entail that "Quinn is well nigh unstoppable by the resources most challenges can be expected to bring to bear against him in his chosen field." Because most challenges that one can expect to bear upon him will involve that NPC! (As they did on this ocassion. Which got Quinn into trouble!)

The complaint raised in respect of the Reluctant Chamberlain a hundred or so pages back was that the Wizard dominated with his Charm spells, unless he was “heavy handedly” detectable and his spells considered an attack or other offensive action. Here, the wizard is not detectable, his spells don’t seem to fail (at least against human opponents, where diplomacy is actually capable of success).

Yet Quinn did not dominate the scene, nor solve it singlehandedly with his magic. That is the point of skill challenge-style mechanics.

Are you seriously saying that only in an Indie game is it possible for an adventure to be designed around the abilities and personalities of the player characters, because that’s sure what it reads like.

Perhaps then you discounted "and then adjduciating and evolving it as it unfolds in a way that maintains the pressure on those same points and invites the playes to thereby push towards resolution of the thematic elements built into their PCs".

It is then the GM who actually returns to the focus of seeing the King in post 67. No PC action seems to cause the people to rally to get the Knight in to see the King, rather than reacting to the War Troll.

The focus returns to the king in post 88, where Thurgon heads off to save the king while sending Quinn and avenger to track down the Court Mage. The earlier stuff is GM colour in response to my action at post 60.

this sounds to me like replacement of GM judgement with mechanics.

That's the whole point: replacing GM force with mechanical structures that the players can leverage by deploying their resources (in this case, skill checks).