D&D General GM : Spellcaster Arms Race

[Manbearcat]

I think a number of folks have missed the apparently bad-faith/unfair part of Manbearcat's 1.

Preemptively using unestablished backstory or unilateral access to the offscreen

He's talking about filling in details or creating countermeasures which WEREN'T previously established as part of the worldbuilding or adventure design.

I interpreted @Manbearcat to be speaking at least mostly about doing so in the design stage. While it might not be something the PCs have encountered or had any opportunity to know heretofore, it's not contradicting anything they have.

I don't think he's saying mid-to-high-level spellcasters in D&D require bad-faith DMing. His experience might lead him to think so, but from prior conversations I expect him to recognize that his experience isn't everyone's.

A bit of clarification on @Manbearcat 's part might help here:

In this clause in the OP are you referring to backstory established in the design phase and consistently applied through the campaign (which nobody seems to have an issue with) or are you referring to backstory being changed on the fly in reaction to what the PC casters can do and-or are doing (which would be bad form)?

Lanefan and prabe have the right of it here. "Unestablished" here just means "latent content (GM notes/maps) which persists but has yet to be introduced into play because the PCs haven't interacted with it."

If this was a Moldvay Dungeon Crawl, it would be mapping, stocking, keying the ruin et al and "unestablished" would just be a trap or a monster or a puzzle that has yet to be encountered. Scale upwards and outwards from there (eg when you move to Expert) but its principally the same.

Now obviously there becomes issues of scope as you scale up from the dungeon. Information density and resolution becomes a problem; eg you can't detail everything with the kind of robustness and intensity in an entire hex or an entire region (etc) as you can with a dungeon.

So there, its a huge asset to develop principles (always do this, do x when y happens) and procedures (tables, resolution procedures for generating content on the fly, etc) to protect from biased extrapolation which lead to the adversarial nature of my (2) and (3). A very good example of this is Blades in the Dark's Fortune Roll.

 

[prabe]

"Unestablished" here just means "latent content (GM notes/maps) which persists but has yet to be introduced into play because the PCs haven't interacted with it."

I figured it might include "content which has yet to be written." It's inherently present, but it hasn't been worked out yet. I mean, I don't usually have any prep for a given session until hours--maybe a day or two--beforehand, when I start figuring out where things are at the start of the session so I can figure out during the session how things have changed. Of course, I realize my approach to 5E might be an outlier, here.

 

[Manbearcat]

I figured it might include "content which has yet to be written." It's inherently present, but it hasn't been worked out yet. I mean, I don't usually have any prep for a given session until hours--maybe a day or two--beforehand, when I start figuring out where things are at the start of the session so I can figure out during the session how things have changed. Of course, I realize my approach to 5E might be an outlier, here.

That wasn't included in the 1-4 because the scope of what I was getting after in this thread was focused on handling Spellcasters specifically rather than generating content for play broadly.

However...

If the content generated on the fly is specifically adversarial to Spellcasters (and that is the point), that would fall under #3 in my lead post.

If the content generated on the fly is agnostic (particularly if its generated in the method I depicted in my post above), then you merely bin it under #1 in my lead post.

 

[Manbearcat]

I figured it might include "content which has yet to be written." It's inherently present, but it hasn't been worked out yet. I mean, I don't usually have any prep for a given session until hours--maybe a day or two--beforehand, when I start figuring out where things are at the start of the session so I can figure out during the session how things have changed. Of course, I realize my approach to 5E might be an outlier, here.

If we want to have a conversation about unfettered GM extrapolation of setting to generate content while at the table vs principled and procedural generation of content, we can certainly have that conversation. Its extremely relevant to the issue.

There is a reason why I promote principled and procedural generation of content (especially player-facing) vs unfettered GM extrapolation (which is typically GM facing) of content. When it comes to spellcaster adversity, both in the perception of play and in the actual play itself, there is only one that is impervious to Force and Illusionism (both the perception of it happening by the players and the actual happening of it).

 

[prabe]

That wasn't included in the 1-4 because the scope of what I was getting after in this thread was focused on handling Spellcasters specifically rather than generating content for play broadly.

However...

If the content generated on the fly is specifically adversarial to Spellcasters (and that is the point), that would fall under #3 in my lead post.

If the content generated on the fly is agnostic (particularly if its generated in the method I depicted in my post above), then you merely bin it under #1 in my lead post.

Um. The content generated on the fly hasn't ever been adversarial specifically to the PC spellcasters. At least, not the stuff that was adversarial to spellcasters in general. There've been things ginned up specifically to be adversaries to the PCs, but ... that's kinda the DM's job, innit?

If we want to have a conversation about unfettered GM extrapolation of setting to generate content while at the table vs principled and procedural generation of content, we can certainly have that conversation. Its extremely relevant to the issue.

I agree that having principles is important, but I'm less sure I'd get hung up on procedural generation, presuming that by "procedural generation" you mean something like "derived from tables and dice." I mean, either I'd have one table for "city" (and the cities are all alike) or I'd have tables for Erlin and Torm Brinnom and New Arvai and Dhaqi and Pelsoreen and Embernook and Auriqua (and I'd use the tables like three times each and never use them again). And that's leaving aside the fact the PCs weren't really doing random encounter stuff in any of those cities.

Do I make stuff up as I go? Absolutely. Do I make a concerted effort to be principled about it? Again, absolutely.

There is a reason why I promote principled and procedural generation of content (especially player-facing) vs unfettered GM extrapolation (which is typically GM facing) of content. When it comes to spellcaster adversity, both in the perception of play and in the actual play itself, there is only one that is impervious to Force and Illusionism (both the perception of it happening by the players and the actual happening of it).

About the only time I use anything like what I think you mean my "procedural generation" is if the PCs are traveling, and I write up specific tables for every instance of traveling. Even then, I tend to disallow some things repeating (or repeating immediately), so I'm not gluing myself to those tables.

 

[Manbearcat]

Um. The content generated on the fly hasn't ever been adversarial specifically to the PC spellcasters. At least, not the stuff that was adversarial to spellcasters in general. There've been things ginned up specifically to be adversaries to the PCs, but ... that's kinda the DM's job, innit?

I think the disconnect is merely in terms, not in spirit.

Not all content generation is alike. Framing provocative and challenging (both thematically and tactically/strategic) situations is entirely different from adversarially introducing a block to a player move. For instance:

"At the King's behest, his Court Mage enters the drawing room, divination stone in hand and eyeing you carefully."

...is very different from (particularly if Court Mages and the like aren't always present at every parley with a person of high station)...

<oh crap, the PC Wizard has spells x, y z prepared which will allow them to obviate this obstacle via magic...I'm going to introduce content - Backstory/Spell/Effect/NPC - that blocks their ability to do so).

 

[Manbearcat]

One final quick clarification:

I think a number of folks have missed the apparently bad-faith/unfair part of Manbearcat's 1.

Preemptively using unestablished backstory or unilateral access to the offscreen

He's talking about filling in details or creating countermeasures which WEREN'T previously established as part of the worldbuilding or adventure design.

IS absolutely a thing and falls under my #3.

The whole of this is something I've talked about at length in other threads and why it becomes fraught. #1 and #3 can ABSOLUTELY feel like each other in play.

When (i) the primary way setting is revealed through play is through (ii) the GM reading their notes or (iii) the GM extrapolating from their notes to improvise unestablished backstory AND (iv) an unpalatable (the fault line here will depend on the sensitivity of the player) trend emerges of adversarial play toward spellcasters...

...then for all intents and purposes #1 won't exist for that player of the spellcaster. Its #2, #3, and #4 all the way down.