Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6196912" data-attributes="member: 6681948">OK to distill some of the posts since my last comment, it appears we wish to restrict the term “GM Force” to the GM altering or overriding the game mechanics in the course of play.  So banning certain spells, or stating up front “Diplomacy works like this in my games” is OK.  I’m still unclear when the GM can make such changes without it being GM force – eg. is “That works” while in play, with an email after the session saying “I am changing that spell”, use of GM force, or is it OK to ban/alter a rule after the game has started? It also seems agreed it is not GM force to implement a table consensus.  So if three players say “Yes, Teleport should take a full turn to cast”, and one player says “No, I want my standard action Teleport, I am again curious which is GM Force: <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> The GM agreeing with the three players, with whom he agrees, that Teleport will be modified.</li> </ol><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The GM disagreeing with the three players, but acquiescing to the modification because the vote is 3 against 1, player votes only.</li> </ol> <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The GM disagreeing with the three players, but acquiescing to the modification because the vote is 3 against 2, player and GM vote.</li> </ol><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The GM refusing to allow the change, whether or not he agrees with it, because 1 player disagrees.  That is, GM Veto is forbidden, but Player Veto is mandatory.</li> </ol>Let us assume there is not explicit or even implicit social contract governing how such issues are to be resolved – in the past, there has never been an issue not resolved by 100% group consensus. Added from below:  In my games, it is rare for any GM to rule unilaterally that a rule is changed.  It is typically by consensus.  When it is not, it is because a group discussion has lead to no consensus other than “Each GM will have to make his own call on this”.  If, by group consensus, GM force is granted to the GM on a specific issue, is it still “GM Force”, or has it become “group consensus”?    In fairness, it is an extreme example, probably in response to a player extreme.  Let us assume, instead, that the Chamberlain simply refuses to listen to the PC for the one minute required for diplomacy.  He dismisses them.  If they don’t leave, he walks away.  If they follow, the castle guards block their path and/or he tells them to remove them from his presence.  To me, the Chamberlain is refusing to allow their attempt at diplomacy, quite with the rules, by not allowing that full minute to exercise the skill.BTW, I agree with your “the moat returns you to shore” example – unless there is something in game that causes this (there are water elementals in the moat who push swimmers back to shore, for example).  You discussed the adding of additional challenges – is the addition of the water elementals a legitimate additional challenge?  If not, why not?  The wargame would say no, assuming they were a spur of the moment GM addition.Why are you assuming the third is the GM lying?  When I typed it, I envisioned that possibility (I won’t lie in that regard), but just as much the approach that the GM permitted the player to make the roll (his PC has no way to know success is impossible), and advised him of the result.  I probably should have split (c) into both possibilities.  May we assume, going forward, that the Chamberlain has always been immune to diplomacy attempts the PC is capable of, for whatever magical (perhaps he is Dominated by another) or mundane reason (perhaps he has been persuaded by an excellent diplomacy check by someone better at it than the PC, and the required opposed roll is 3 higher than the PC gets when he rolls a 20). Then the diplomacy check failing because it is impossible under the action resolution mechanics, or never being allowed because the Chamberlain will not listen for the required minute should be equally “applying the action resolution rules”, and not “an instance of GM force”, should it not? Agreed.  It is, however, your job to run the game.  So let us assume that Group H and Group R decide they cannot work together any more, and CD goes his own way as well.  Each indicates they wish to recruit some replacement party members and continue their plans.   Does the campaign split in three, and you run three separate games?  Do all three get run as a single game?  Do we have to choose one group to follow and abandon the other two, and who makes that choice, assuming each player vehemently wishes to follow his or her character?  Let us assume time is a limited resource – you will not be able to play three times as often to accommodate all three “campaigns”. Repeated solely for emphasis, as I think the assumption it either is a bad thing, or is perceived as one, causes a lot of discussion that’s not overly useful. I think there is a lot of definitional maneuvering to remove “what I do” from the definition of “what I don’t like”.  In my games, it is rare for any GM to rule unilaterally that a rule is changed.  It is typically by consensus.  When it is not, it is because a group discussion has lead to no consensus other than “Each GM will have to make his own call on this”.  If, by group consensus, GM force is granted to the GM on a specific issue, is it still “GM Force, or has it become “group consensus”?  ”?  I’m copying that to the top of this post.  I’m not sure we haven’t drifted far from that topic, but let’s apply the logic again.  From the “GM Force” definition, it appears to be neither banning troublesome spells or modifying them, whether or not with group consensus.  Neither is it any change made with group consensus.  Changing the rules on the fly is not what I, or I think anyone else, is suggesting as a solution.  It is reasoned interpretation of the words of the rules, in a manner which may not favour the broad power the spellcaster player attributes to his spells.  Charm Person has become a focus of this, and let’s chat about that below. However, I question how it is superior for the game rules to change to correct a problem some perceive and others do not, and inferior for the gaming group to modify the rules to suit them.  I think that’s really what both the various rules quotes and the posters claiming “GM is the final arbiter” are really getting at – the GM has great power, and it is to be used responsibly to enhance the fun of the game. I am saying that the diplomacy check is never made, because [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s character is unable to meet its preconditions – that is, he is not able to speak with the Chamberlain for the one minute required (without invoking the GM discretion, but still RAW, fact that “In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase.”).   Open to whose narration?  Is it up to the player to decide, or the GM?  Who makes the final decision if they do not concur.  Not in your game, but by the 4e rules themselves.  It seems like this may well be an instance where the rules are giving way to the GM’s discretionary arbitration.  Did the rules provide this choice to the player, or did you exercise GM discretion to offer the choice?  So what game mechanic caused him to rise from the dead?  I’m seeing GM discretion applied here to override the death of a character. Weren’t you?  Would the PC have come back from the dead if you refused to allow it?  Would he have returned if you and that player so desired, but the other four players (if I recall the count correctly) all said “NO – death should be final – the action resolution mechanics have spoken, and they should not be overridden”?  In other words, there was a decision made that the character would not remain dead – the question is not just “who made that choice”, but “by the rules as written, who had the authority to make that choice”?  Delegated authority remains authority of the delegator. I’m not arguing it’s not fun.  I doubt anyone exercising GM force by any definition, in any way, shape or form, is doing so to make the game “not fun”.  I am arguing that you made a choice to deviate from the 4e mechanical encounter guidelines (which I think is not in dispute) on the fly (again not in dispute) unilaterally, not by table consensus (is that in dispute?) thereby overriding the action resolution results, which dictated the PC’s had defeated the encounter as drafted under the 4e guidelines.  To me, this meets with the definition of GM Force provided.  The fact you are using it for a purpose other than balancing fighters and spellcasters doesn’t change that fact.  Nor does the fact you added more opponents rather than beefing up the existing ones, or fudging die rolls.  As GM, you exercised GM force to alter the game in progress. Again, I am not saying that was a bad thing to do, but I am saying it is exercise of GM force, contrary to the claim you do not exercise GM force. It’s not?  It seems like interference with action resolution – the players had defeated their opponents and could reasonably now expect to proceed to the objective this encounter was preventing them from achieving.  Instead, additional forces arrived, interposed between them and the goal that, based on the results of the action resolution mechanics, they should now have been able to seize.  It seems a very “micro” focus to insist that, because your changes were not directly to one specific opponent, they were not “GM force”. How is continued addition of more enemy forces ultimately different than those waves in the moat that continually wash the swimming fighter back to his side of the moat?  Would it be OK if, instead of waves in the moat, we added a bunch of Moat Monsters with Grappling skills to continually catch the fighter and fling him back to his side of the moat?  That’s just adding some more opponents to increase the challenge, and the fun, isn’t it? I think you are drawing a very fuzzy line whose only definition is that what you do in your games must remain on the “non-GM force” side of the line.  I don’t think that is done maliciously, but it does seem to suggest you perceive exercise of GM force negatively and do not wish to be perceived as exercising it, contrary to your statement that it is merely a matter of playstyle. But the rules apply no specific resources (or limits on the resources) of the GM, do they?  This seems to be the exact “RAW permits GM Force” assertion presented in prior editions.  But you are adjudicating the results, as I read the above, and not applying results prescribed by the action resolution mechanics.  Once again, it appears the results fall more within your control than that of the players.  Being unfamiliar with the specific mechanics, I may be incorrect, however I’m not seeing the players now being able to determine, without your consent, that they have succeeded and now achieve their desired goal.  You hold the power to adjudicate this. I also find the assumption that the fact a specific tactic or ability will be unable to succeed in a specific circumstance can attribute only to GM unfairness quite off-putting.  It does highlight, however, that the game falls short if players’ trust in the GM is absent. If [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] consistently added more opponents until the PC’s were overwhelmed and slain, would that be a good use of the power afforded him as GM?  Clearly not.  It is within his power as GM – he has stated that adding more opponents to the challenges is perfectly legitimate.  But he must use that power responsibly, to make the game more fun for all the players.  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], you seem to assume the opposite GM behaviour, that he is simply out to make the game no fun for you if any situation arises where your resolution mechanism of choice is not the solution. How much fun is it for a player focused on melee combat if every challenge must be solved by social skills?  So maybe some challenges should not be readily resolved with the abilities your character has chosen to focus upon, but should require the skills of others (such as, perhaps the character with high info gathering abilities who can determine a means to either overcome the Chamberlain’s resistance or circumvent his control over the king’s schedule).  Maybe it’s just not SuperDiplomat’s turn in the spotlight.Precisely.  For me, I would assume this is the case until and unless it becomes clear that the GM is determined not to allow my diplomacy skills to be relevant to resolution of important challenges.  If this is the result pretty much every time I use my skills for something more than getting the barmaid’s attention, I’m probably out the door too.   But I don’t expect my one skill will resolve a significant portion of the challenges placed before us (or, better phrased, that it will be suited to resolve a significantly greater portion of those challenges than the skills and abilities of any of the other PC’s).I find the immediate assumption that the GM employs chicanery each and every time my first effort turns out not to be a viable solution insulting to the GM.   It seems like you are asserting the rule that diplomacy takes at least one minute, and sometimes much longer, should not apply to your character.  In other words, you are stepping back and saying that you should not be required to meet the requirements of the Diplomacy skill in order to use it to resolve a challenge. If your insistence that every situation could be resolved by a diplomacy check had brought me to the point I felt it necessary to role play the chamberlain in this manner, for that reason alone, I’d have to ask why you were still at the table to begin with. OK, first, if it’s Still and Silent, it is a third level spell, not a first level spell.  Second, by the rules, it requires one standard action, so it is clearly faster than your desired efforts at diplomacy.  Third, it is an attack – plain and simple – which will be viewed negatively if found out.  And if magic is abundant, Detect Magic spells on the chamberlain on occasion seem perfectly reasonable.  Sense Motive also works, although the DC is pretty high (although probably in the same range as, or higher than, say, persuading a Chamberlain to grant an immediate audience with the King after a minute or so of discussion). Second, Charm Person does not transform the Chamberlain into your sock puppet.  It makes him Friendly towards you.  This is another one of those “hey, let’s assume power far beyond that suggested by the spell” situations. He is friendly.  He will certainly try to help.  If your friend asked that you let him into your workplace after hours so he could rummage through some confidential files, would you do that for him?  Would you admit him into a board meeting so he can chat with your boss for a few minutes?  How about just giving him your secure laptop so he can download a few files (or letting him keep it – just say someone stole it from your car and they’ll get you a new one, after all).  “Obviously harmful” – need that be a threat to life and limb, or does a threat to the Chamberlain’s continued engagement in that capacity count?  Will you risk losing your job to help “your friend”?  What if losing your job means being reduced from a noble of the court to a beggar in the street? I can also see a situation where a friendly attitude may make it less likely you get to see the king.  It’s for your own good – if he admits an ill dressed, rudely mannered commoner such as yourself, he can claim you forced your way past, or lied about an urgent message from another nobleman.  You, however, will be executed.  Maybe you’re more likely to get in if you FAIL the diplomacy check.  “Fine – the rude little bug wants to see the king, we’ll let the rude little bug go see the king – and watch him be crushed underfoot, an appropriate end for any rude little bug!” So if his notes say “the Chamberlain cannot be persuaded, whether by magical or mundane means, to admin anyone to see the king”, that’s no longer GM force?  He did not, during play, overrule the resolution mechanics. Agreed 100%.  “That’s what it says in the module” is no excuse – the GM runs the game, not the module. Why is it not GM force to override the action resolution mechanics in favour of the players?  This seems another restriction over and above those already implemented.  “GM Force” has become very narrow indeed once we apply all of these restrictions, and I don’t think they would prevent many, if any, of the “rein in the wizard’s power” suggestions that have been made in this thread.It always seems that the PC’s of “overpowered spellcasters” are allowed to use their spells as they see fit, generally very broadly interpreted, but no one else is allowed to use magic in any way, shape or form if it would interfere.  A simple Detect Magic is pretty easy to spot even Stilled, Silent Spells in use.  Could a King not have a few L1 spellcasters on payroll, always around with Detect Magic in use (very easy in Pathfinder, where it can be re-cast at will)?  Actually, your presumption has been that the GM is manipulating the rules.  Your presumption tends always to be that the GM will use, or abuse, the rules with the sole and exclusive purpose of frustrating you, so whenever an action you wish to take does not carry the desired results, the GM is abusing his power.   Mine has been that the rules clearly say you need a minute to converse with the Chamberlain in order to use the Diplomacy skill, a full round action if you deliberately rush and take a -10 penalty to the roll, and possibly much longer for certain tasks.  Absolutely nothing requires the Chamberlain hear out your request for an immediate audience with the King. The rules also generally say that players should accept the GM’s interpretations and rulings.  To me, this implies giving the GM the benefit of the doubt that he is, in fact, following reasonable rule interpretations for the good of the game.  It seems to me that you are very reluctant to follow the spirit of those various statements in an array of rule books. Yes, the GM has a responsibility to use his authority wisely and well, to make the game fun for everyone.  But what about the player’s responsibility to play the game, give the GM some benefit of the doubt, and not whine and moan at every rule call or adjudication that goes against him?  Frankly, I don’t think that a player who constantly assumes the GM will be unfair and unreasonable, challenges rule calls left right and center, and packs up and storms out if he does not get his way has any claim to moral high ground. The game we agreed to play provides that your diplomacy attempt requires a minute (or more, maybe lots more) of communication with the target.  It provides that very low level spellcasters can Detect Magic (such as a Charm spell on a Chamberlain). And that is without getting into issues of GM adjudication or interpretation, much less rules –sponsored GM override of the rules.So if there are no diplomacy rules in the rules-light game, is it now OK for the GM to rule that the Chamberlain is deaf to your pleas for an audience with the King?  Or does it just mean he has no basis to deny you the audience with the King? Wicht, Wicht, Wicht…when we read the actual rules, and apply common sense interpretation to them, we depower those poor, hard done by spellcasters.  We wouldn’t want that, would we?  Then we could not complain about how overpowered spellcasters are, and where would the fun in that be? Oh wait…OK, carry on! So are you OK casting that Fireball in the middle of the town square, killing dozens and burning half the city to the ground, or is it possible that there are evil uses of spells which are not, by their very definition (like animating the corpses of the dead), evil?  Not an easy topic.  In general, it’s the specifics of the spells.  Charm Person is paraded out as though it makes the target into the caster’s sock puppet.  Teleport’s mischances and actual requirements are conveniently never invoked (after several threads, I am still waiting for the spell that readily allows study of a distant, unknown area for an hour; the world goes into stasis if we decide to rest in a Rope Trick and, of course, we conveniently ignore that statement suggesting bags of holding and handy haversacks create a problem within its confines). I did like the suggestion of one poster that, if the fighter goes ahead and acts as a point man, he can perfectly describe the area beyond, and its contents, so the wizard can safely stay around a corner and cast his spells with precision accuracy into the area the fighter looks into. Perhaps.  I would say “yes” if what you say to the chamberlain is judged based on the player’s own oratorical skills.  If it is judged by what is actually requested, and what specific facts the PC bring into the argument, without assessing how persuasive the player’s speech is outside the basic facts and the nature of the request, then that is what I would expect. I don’t make players show me how they acrobatically move through a 15’ area to be permitted to use that skill, so I fail to see why a player must demonstrate their persuasiveness to be permitted to access the persuasion skills their character spent character resources on.   [MENTION=29760]Luce[/MENTION] – the assertion that spells have no negative consequences later on is another good one.  “Oh, no, he should awaken from being Charmed perhaps wondering why he did that, but there should never be any negative consequences.  No one should ever be offended to having their mind ensorcled.”</blockquote>

Verification