Staple Spells Used against Genre Conventions

[shilsen]

To me this is what "heroic" gaming is all about. The triumph of the few against the many by guile, cunning and careful application of strength and magic. And I really like the attitude it has bred among my players. They approach every problem as though it can be solved, but also with caution because they know that if it were easily solved then it wouldn't really be a "problem" for them in the first place. They plumb the depths of their abilities and find ways to adapt and overcome the challenges presented to them. And, sometimes, they die trying. That's what lets them know that their sound tactics are worthwhile.

You just described my NPCs. They're often outnumbered, underequipped, and physically and magically weaker than the PCs. And through a combination of tactics, teamwork and sheer grit they fight the PCs to a standstill and then some. I salute you - the few, the proud, the NPCs

 

[jodyjohnson]

Some background to fill in the details:

A group of friends: Gestalt (versatile), 32 pt. buy (higher power), Armor Damage conversion (less lethal), Greyhawk campaign. House rules run 10 pages. Discussions as a group tend towards wanting more role-play, more novel/movie-like action, faster play, limited prep-time; must be DnD.

The faster play aspect gets more difficult as the levels go up due to IMO excessive buffing (spell tracking), over-reliance on melee over AE damage (prolonging minor combats), over-developed spell combos (agonizing over spell selection), and using indirect spells exclusively instead of damage spells (debuffing creatures to death).

The group of friends:
DM since 1981, power-gamer>role-player looking to move the campaign a bit more towards the role-play side (but not completely). (Also player of primarily Wizards/Clerics). Rules-lawyer.

Player1 since the 80s, RP>PG. Was the DM's Best Man. Been playing together at least 8 years. Character: Paladin/Cleric. Main Medic. LG

Player2 since the late 80s, PG>RP. Been playing together at least 6 years. Character: Fighter/Prestige Bard. Prime tank. Skill guy. N

Player3 since the 90s, RP>PG. Newest member at around 6 years. Character: Ranger/Wizard. Primary nuker. LN

Just hit 9th level last week and I'm hoping the campaign makes it to epic.

We've had a couple campaigns go into the teens since 3.0 and my experience is that 'SWAT-team' style combat can really get out of hand in the next few levels (and I assume even more so at epic).

Our Campaign house rules have 1.5 pages of alignment definitions followed by a half-page on Honor (which I made as easy to follow as possible), Surrender (surrender once is fine, if they come back they're dead), and Looting (nearly unrestricted looting with possible social consequences). The "fairness" section gets a paragraph as part of a half-page on "Societal Norms, Expectations, and Laws" and says:

Fairness is an over-riding principle for most humanoids of all alignments. Even the most despicable at least attempt the appearance of fairness in business and conflict. Creatures who are regarded as completely foreign (especially evil creatures) may be treated less fairly with no negative impact on public opinion. Fairness for these purposes is roughly the same as honor. Belief in being truly honorable in motivation is not a universal trait however. Ultimately when pushed to the limit fairness will be sacrificed for survival or for higher goals.

How I defined Honor (as required by Paladins and Samurai)
1. Make a concerted effort to preserve your good/evil name.
2. Fight fair. Don't use overwhelming force or circumstances which give him or his allies an overwhelming advantage. Resist joining a 'fair' fight and resent others joining in a 'fair' fight he is in (For this purpose a 'fair' fight is a fight you think your side will win but might not). Rather than 'piling on' to a foe already engaged, prefer to find an unopposed opponent.
3. Be brave but not stupid.
4. If you screw up - live by the consequences.
5. Observe the conventions of Duels/Challenges of Honor

The gist of Fairness as I currently understand it is (and I apply this to villains as well):
1. If you do something that makes you look bad, come up with an excuse to do it (even a flimsy/lame one - i.e. "He looked at me funny", or "Hey one of your guys attacked my outpost" - Hitler's excuse for invading Poland)
2. At least give a nod to fighting fair. If a helpless opponent lies before you, give them the slightest chance to be rescued, spared, or surrender. For examples of this see the 'Evil Overlord' list.
3. Metagame: don't make an encounter lame by turning it into a one-sided hackfest
4. Metagame: don't use killer-combos and super-tactics which completely exclude role-play from an encounter

The fairness clause has been in our house rules for years but recent incidents have lead me to believe that our group isn't on the same page regarding this. In addition it recently dawned on me that my 'fairness' idea was a genre convention for me.

My point in posting was:
- Subject my initial list of examples regarding fairness to scrutiny.
- Get input for other examples
- Find out if other groups observed genre conventions (self-imposed or ingrained through carrot-and-stick, deliberately or unspoken)
- Clarify my expectations for my group and hopefully generate a productive discussion of the fantasy genre
- Establish a habit of play which will be sustainable through the teens and into the Epic level of the game

The Shaman and Wizardru clarified what I was driving at.

My initial influence to even codify 'fairness' was my experience of Realm v. Realm combat in the Dark Age of Camelot MMORPG. All the trappings of DnD magic wrapped up in a mechanical quest for complete domination of the enemy. The brutal efficiency of MMORPG play was increasingly evident in PnP as well.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Looking at your thread titled "Power Ups and How They Effect the Game", I'm thinking that part of your problem is that you've developed a bunch of house rules that buff up your PCs, and the chickens spawned by that decision are coming home to roost.

Why not try the game "straight" for a bit, and see if this tones things down?

It's part of the issue.

And I don't mean to say my campaign is in trouble, and my friends are a problem. Just looking to make the game more fun and weave a better story which is our shared goal.

 

[Storm Raven]

It's part of the issue.

And I don't mean to say my campaign is in trouble, and my friends are a problem. Just looking to make the game more fun and weave a better story which is our shared goal.

If you are looking for more story, and less fireworks, it would make sense to explore the option of providing the PCs with less fireworks to rely upon. If they have to rely upon their guile, wits, and negotiation skills more often, then they will likely do so.

 

[WizarDru]

The issue then becomes: how do you enforce the honor concept without unfairly beating the PCs over the head and shoulders with it?

I'm assuming there are penalties for non-compliance with said conduct rules, right? For example, if the paladin/cleric fails to abide by the tenets of honor, does he risk loosing his paladinhood or have his deity sanction him? ("You have brought shame to the faith! For a period of one week, you will be unable to access spells of abjuration, so that you might learn what a shield honor is, and what it is to have lost it!"

The main issue may be that you need to make it farily obvious when some tactics are counter-productive to the game's goals of RP-ing....in fact, make really sure that your players share those goals: just ask them, straight up. There's no shame in making sure that you all are on the same page for your game: players can get bored of a style as much as DMs can.

For example, in the case of ol' Baron Plotter, there, you could have him utter some important words to open the door for RP-ing in mid-battle: "HOLD! I pledge that we will stay our swords if you will do the same! I have an offer to make between gentlemen! And if you are not gentlemen, then rest assured that my men who hold the orphan you helped earlier today captive will pay her in kind for your folly!" or "I beg you, stay your hand! [tosses down sword] It is clear that there is no benefit for us in this endeavour, and I would not throw my life or that of my men away! Let us surrender, and I swear that none of mine will cause you further trouble. In the name of my father, I so swear! [kneels]"

And if they do slay the ol' Baron, have the players notice innocent bystanders recoil in horror from the butchers, or react in fear that they might be struck down for angering or offending them. Nothing makes a player feel worse than when the people they swore to protect act as if they are the villains.

 

[WizarDru]

Oh, and if you think this is a problem at 9th level, I don't think you want to know what 24th level is like.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I can understand the honor system, and even like it a lot. Paladins and samurai live by a code, and that sets them apart. Certain clerics and fighters probably also follow that code.

But the fairness aspect just... boggles my mind.

It. Makes. No. Sense.

Taking away the wizard's super-combo-rific spells because they're unbalancing, boring and drag out play? Great. I don't even have traditional D&D spellcasters when I DM, for reasons I repeatedly outline.

Ask the Int 20 wizard not to NOTICE that the spells he has just so happen to work together in such a way as to give him unspeakably eldritch ineffable power beyond the dreams of mortal man (mwahaha!)... doesn't make sense. It just doesn't. There's no concievable reason, outside of pure metagame considerations (breaking the verisimilitude and actually HURTING role-playing) for the wizard NOT to use these buffs.

Now, creating a warrior culture among paladins and especially the non-spellcasting fighters and samurai that disdains magic as being for weaklings? That makes sense. If the fighters and samurai decline the buffs for the sake of their honor, I can buy it. But the wizard, who is smart enough to know what his spells do and willing enough to use magic that he learned them in the first place, has no reason not to use them.

Of course, even with codes of honor, there's no reason to abandon good tactics. Samurai in the halls of their daimyo followed different rules than samurai on the field of battle; in the middle of a war or even a raid, there's no worrying about fair fights or duels or any of that. Same with knights.

They may obey certain rules of warfare (no killing prisoners, at least noble ones; no use of certain weapons - the spiked chain, bioweapon of d20! -; perhaps even no using spells). But they'll definitely strike to kill and fight to the death. In fact, most code of honor feudal cultures EXPECT fights to the death, and consider surrender a sign of weakness and dishonor.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Which GENRE's conventions are you adhering to? Consider that D&D is informed by the likes of Conan , Elric and Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser as much as Tolkien or Vance.

D&D uses monsters, spells, locations etc from those authors but it doesn't follow their genre conventions. It's its own genre.

 

[jodyjohnson]

But the fairness aspect just... boggles my mind.

It. Makes. No. Sense.

Part of me agrees.

Ask the Int 20 wizard not to NOTICE that the spells he has just so happen to work together in such a way as to give him unspeakably eldritch ineffable power beyond the dreams of mortal man (mwahaha!)... doesn't make sense. It just doesn't. There's no concievable reason, outside of pure metagame considerations (breaking the verisimilitude and actually HURTING role-playing) for the wizard NOT to use these buffs.

This reminds me of numerous conversations after seeing a movie or reading a book or playing through a module where the gripe was how stupid 'X' was for not doing 'perfectly logical and intelligent option A'.

Rereading the Evil Overlord list (http://www.proft.org/tips/evil.html) reminded me of how many plots require one or more points from the list.

Maybe we need a poll on how many DMs have their villains commit gaffs on the Evil Overlord list and how many villains learn by it.

There's probably a Hero list out there as well. If such exists then the same might be applied to PCs.

 

[shilsen]

D&D uses monsters, spells, locations etc from those authors but it doesn't follow their genre conventions. It's its own genre.

I agree. Even though D&D may smack of certain fictional sources, the complete package forms a completely unique genre of its own. Often enough, I think problems people have with the game is because they expect to be able to replicate Tolkien or Leiber or [insert your own favorite fantasy author here], and D&D is designed to replicate only D&D.

P.S. Nice to see someone who can use "it's" and "its" correctly right next to each other. Gives me goosebumps