Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Ahnehnois]

I'm sure that definition will be agreed to by everyone and invite no controversy whatsoever.

It shouldn't.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Where to me that "colour" is half the fun! I see my role as player as being in large part to entertain the DM and the other players; I expect to be entertained in return. Mechanics are (usually) not entertaining. Personalities and "colour" (usually) are.

Some would say that if the mechanics or use of them aren't entertaining then the game design has failed. It's also possible to express personalities and such through mechanics.

And everyone, do keep in mind that giving out the numbers doesn't show the whole story. Arguably one of the strengths of a good game is that even if you're given the numbers or are watching it, you're not going to get the full experience since actually being there and playing it will truly give the best experience.

 

[Wicht]

It shouldn't.

If roleplaying is redefined to mean something other than "playing a role", then we have a larger discussion which really should have its own thread.

 

[sheadunne]

My main issue is that I’m not seeing the rising conflict I was told Indie play produced. Instead, I saw a cakewalk, and one a fact pattern that doesn’t really stand up to a lot of scrutiny. It’s a scene that could happen in other playstyles (on the assumption that the PC’s revealed the GM’s plot, rather than creating the plot themselves, of course). But it doesn’t seem like a plot that made it challenging to see the King – it’s challenging to keep believing we want his blessing on our quest, though. And easy to see how it could distract from our quest in leaving us to deal with both the Dragon threat and the leadership that sacrifices its people to appease that threat.

I think what you're seeing is the individual roles (as with 3x) and not the skill challenge (which is the collected total). One failure would have produced more conflict which might have led to further failures. In this particular example, the players succeed. It's probably a bad example in terms of escalating conflict, since the players successes mitigated the challenge, which one would expect from success. It's really no different than one-shotting the Big Bad in 3x. It happens, but not in every encounter.

What is interesting is that the DM abided by the successes of the characters and didn't ignore or deflate them at all. He continually provided more challenge, but didn't do so by focusing on the chamberlain. For example, when the Paladin received his first success, the chamberlain attitude changed. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] didn't increase or alter the chamberlain to make him more difficult, he introduced new conflict outside of the chamberlain in an attempt to influence the chamberlain's reaction. The roll was a success so making the chamberlain more difficult now doesn't make sense in the fiction, we need additional outside forces that might change the chamberlain's disposition back to his original stance. Rather than keep those hidden from the players, Manbearcat introduced outside forces that the characters could directly challenge in the scene. I thought it was well done. Did the individual DCs seem low? Probably, but 4e isn't built off of individual DCs but rather success vs failure ratio, which requires less individual chance of failure but greater risk of overall failure.

Here's the way I read it played out. The player's need to generate a series of successes before failures in order to do what in 3x is a single Diplomacy/Intimidate check.

1) The Chamberlain is unfriendly toward the characters (characters need to change that in order to see the king).

2) The Paladin intimidates the chamberlain (The check was successful and the Chamberlain's attitude changes but is clearly hiding secrets and wants the characters to go inside. This introduces the next check needed to change the chamberlain's mind on seeing the king).

3) Rogue senses something's up and let's the ranger know. The ranger moves to uncover the secret, dodging the guards which moved to intercept him. (The secret is out which is another point in the attempt to change the chamberlain's mind).

4) Drakes arrive, the last of the challenge to change the chamberlain's mind. The Drakes intimidate the Chamberlain (which would possibly cause the drake's intimidate to override the Paladins and restore the chamberlain resolve. To make things more interesting, this is done as a short combat)

5) Short action scene in which the characters can block the drakes intimidation of the chamberlain. To further prove they're stronger than the drakes, they bluff/intimidate the drakes, proving their mettle to the chamberlain.

6) The Chamberlain's mind is finally changed (not through a single intimidate/diplomacy roll as in 3x, but through a series of challenges, any of which could eventually lead to the players failing).

The entire scene was about gaining control of the chamberlain so the characters could see the king, which is what the example was all about. In the skill challenge method, a single diplomacy check only starts the challenge, it doesn't end it (as is more usual for 3x). You don't need to raise the DCs because it's only one of many skill checks required to succeed in changing the chamberlain's mind.

I want to see if I can port this over to 3x in a meaningful way, without necessarily introducing skill challenge math.

Let's say we set the DC for the chamberlain at 40. The characters' highest Diplomacy or Intimidate is 15 (max they can get is a 35). Right now there's no way the players can succeed at reach the king. The Chamberlain is just too determined and has too many pressures to not allow it. These pressures need to be challenged in order to convince the chamberlain to allow them to see the king.

Pressure one: Baby Sacrifice. If the players roll a successful sense motive they can learn that the Chamberlain doesn't want them to see the baby in the cage. A successful sense motive check gains the party a +2 on their next diplomacy check (making it +17 vs DC 40)

If they uncover the baby, they players get an additional +2 to their next diplomacy/intimidate check to convince the chamberlain to let them see the king (taking it to +19 vs DC 40).

Pressure two: The drakes. If the players manage to defeat the drakes in combat they gain an additional +2 to the diplomacy check (+21 vs DC 40).

If the players manage to chase off the drakes and not kill them, they will gain an additional +2 to the check (+23 vs DC 40).

We've now managed to give the players a chance to convince the chamberlain to let the characters see the king. Obviously the math is a little wonky, depending on what you think the right percentage chance should be for success, but it gets at a similar method as the skill challenge. Players gain +2 bonuses based on how they choose to interact with the chamberlain. I'm not sure it's as elegant as the skill challenge method, but it gets at a similar thing, to convince the Chamberlain to let the characters see the king and does it by providing bonuses to their single diplomacy/intimidate check.

You could, of course, spread it out over time and have the characters investigate outside of a single scene and then come back with evidence (gaining bonuses to their roll), but does that add anything to the game? Some people yes, some no.

I'd even allow a successful charm person spell to give a bonus to the roll (not a flat out success using this method).

Anyway, too much rambling. Cheers.

 

[TwoSix]

If roleplaying is redefined to mean something other than "playing a role", then we have a larger discussion which really should have its own thread.

Last time I checked, actors also play roles, and have access to a ton of knowledge that's off-limits to the character, like the entire plot. There's nothing inherent in the words "play" or "role" or "roleplaying" that means "must fully immerse in the character with no access to metagame knowledge".

All your squares are quadrilaterals, but not all quadrilaterals are squares.

 

[TwoSix]

What is interesting is that the DM abided by the successes of the characters and didn't ignore or deflate them at all. He continually provided more challenge, but didn't do so by focusing on the chamberlain. For example, when the Paladin received his first success, the chamberlain attitude changed. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] didn't increase or alter the chamberlain to make him more difficult, he introduced new conflict outside of the chamberlain in an attempt to influence the chamberlain's reaction. The roll was a success so making the chamberlain more difficult now doesn't make sense in the fiction, we need additional outside forces that might change the chamberlain's disposition back to his original stance. Rather than keep those hidden from the players, Manbearcat introduced outside forces that the characters could directly challenge in the scene. I thought it was well done. Did the individual DCs seem low? Probably, but 4e isn't built off of individual DCs but rather success vs failure ratio, which requires less individual chance of failure but greater risk of overall failure.

I think it's really great that you're looking at different techniques and seeing the best ways to assimilate them into your own game. Despite the low-level hostility in this thread, ideally what people would take away from here is that a) there's more than one way to play, and b) everyone is looking for something a little (or a lot!) different out of the game. It's much better to say, "Hey, I could use that" rather than "My way is always better" and remember that theese techniques operate on a continuum, there's no binary choice required.

 

[sheadunne]

I think it's really great that you're looking at different techniques and seeing the best ways to assimilate them into your own game. Despite the low-level hostility in this thread, ideally what people would take away from here is that a) there's more than one way to play, and b) everyone is looking for something a little (or a lot!) different out of the game. It's much better to say, "Hey, I could use that" rather than "My way is always better" and remember that theese techniques operate on a continuum, there's no binary choice required.

Agreed. I'm really focused around skills right now, so any examples of different uses for them or different ways they can be presented are useful to me. Of course, the hard part is wrapping my head around how they work and whether or not I'll enjoy them at the table. I'm running a PF one-shot this weekend so I'll attempt to use the bonus method on a scene and see if it produces the results I'm looking for. If not, then I'll move in another direction. It's difficult though, blending theory into practice, especially when there are variables outside my control, such as whether the players are interested in that technique.

For instance, a long time ago I stopped using DM screens and the like. One group I had started playing with, after the first session, told me that they wanted me to use a screen, because they didn't like the anxiety of seeing my die rolls. LOL Gaming groups are strange indeed and issues in one are not always issues in another. And while the DM my have authority at the table, that authority is given by the players and should be used for the players. I didn't like using a screen, but did so for the good of the group.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

Lesser Planar Binding allows you to cast 9th level spells. (Technically untrue. Lesser Planar Binding combined with Dimensional Anchor lets you bargain for another creature to cast it for you. Generous if DM does not bargain well for the entity, or does not take into account post bargaining ramifications.)

As an aside, one of the main weaknesses I find with the Binding spells is there really isn't any negotiation required. Rewards give you a bonus that is moderate at best on the opposed Charisma checks (and may reduce additional consequence depending on the DM).

You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward. You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature’s Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward

 

[Wicht]

As an aside, one of the main weaknesses I find with the Binding spells is there really isn't any negotiation required. Rewards give you a bonus that is moderate at best on the opposed Charisma checks (and may reduce additional consequence depending on the DM).

I can see that, though this is a fine line to walk. Personally, I would allow myself (generous of me I know) to add a penalty to the caster's check if I felt that the request was marginally unreasonable (though the spell allows a flat negative on the part of the DM if he feels its an unreasonable offer). This is actually, I think, an example of me being willing to be more reasonable than the rules allow, by allowing a negative penalty over a flay "no." But do not neglect the sentence which says that unreasonable requests are never agreed to. That is, the truly selfish creature may feel that doing anything for free is unreasonable.

 

[Nagol]

I can see that, though this is a fine line to walk. Personally, I would allow myself (generous of me I know) to add a penalty to the caster's check if I felt that the request was marginally unreasonable (though the spell allows a flat negative on the part of the DM if he feels its an unreasonable offer). This is actually, I think, an example of me being willing to be more reasonable than the rules allow, by allowing a negative penalty over a flay "no." But do not neglect the sentence which says that unreasonable requests are never agreed to. That is, the truly selfish creature may feel that doing anything for free is unreasonable.

No doubt. It's hard to say telling something to do an action that will cost them nothing is unreasonable when the alternative is one (and potentially many more) days stuck in a trap. Well you can say it, but it's likely not the offer being unreasonable at that point. The problem is the value to party A is at odds to the cost required of party B. Is it reasonable to expect a payment equal to the value one party sees or is it reasonable to cover the cost the other party pays?

It's an area I think would be better served with a skill-challenge-y mechanic -- make an offer, check situation, receive counter-offer, then rinse and repeat until a resolution occurs.