The Playtest Fighter

[Walking Dad]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking Dad
This!
If the DM and one player think ninjas are awesome and one thinks spartan warriors are, which player will have an easier time to persuade the DM that his stunts are cool and reasonable?

So, this is how you, as a DM, would run the game?

Originally Posted by Walking Dad
No, but I was in games like that. And not only D&D or fantasy.

So, you're faulting the system because a bad dm will run it poorly? Should they make the game with bad dm's in mind? And how far should they go in that direction?

Should they hamstring good dm's, if that will mean less abuse from bad dm's?

Is it possible to "dm-proof" an rpg? While keeping the game fun, interesting and conducive to creativity for good dm's?

Would good dm's choose such a system over one that takes some skill to run, but is more enjoyable to dm?

If not, do good dm's give a fig about criticisms of the game, based on how they might be botched by bad dm's, especially when those criticisms are so worded as to imply the problem is all-pervasive and not merely confined to bad/inexperienced dm's (or, gods forbid, the occasional mistake)?

I'm not talking about bad DM, but that I think that personal favorites, experiences and styles affect what one think as believable.

And I don't understand your later argumentation. Are you saying that clearer examples, sample rules and guidelines for DMs ruin their fun because anything isn't no loner totally arbitrary but has some sort of consistence? And havi g rules makes his job easier, as he hasn't come to up with a rule for everything himself.

This is what rules are for. And I pay for the rules in the game I buy, not for the uber DM or for being forced to improvise anything if I be the DM myself.

(Lastly, you asked for a personal experience sample in the first place.)

 

[TerraDave]

If you have classes with very well defined and pretty cool effects (spells) and then one that relies on the DM just kinda agreeing to make stuff up...I can see why some people would have a problem with that.

But even allowing for improvisation and abllity/skill use...we do have that charecter. The rogue. Multiple things on the rogues sheet support this. In fact, in combat, he's all about it!

As noted, the slayer is good and attacking and causing damage. No real indication that he is good at much else. But maybe the DM will let him.

 

[Balesir]

This!
If the DM and one player think ninjas are awesome and one thinks spartan warriors are, which player will have an easier time to persuade the DM that his stunts are cool and reasonable?

So, this is how you, as a DM, would run the game?

Not wishing to answer for [MENTION=59043]Walking Dad[/MENTION], who has already answered for himself, but my answer is "Not intentionally, no". But I'm a human being; that means I have a set of assumptions and models that I carry in my brain about how the world works. These are mostly wrong, of course - just like everybody else's - and all of them are unprovable, but they do inevitably colour pretty much every aspect of how I see even imaginary worlds working. And my players may or may not share them.

Having a solid, clear set of rules does not change this, of course. But what such rules do achieve is to act as a common yardstick - a common reference and communication about how the game world works. What this means, in turn, is that the players are given agency in their characters since they can have some trustworthy conception of how their character's abilities will work. This allows them to make plans and announce actions with some confidence that the DM will not be totally nonplussed and bring their efforts to a crashing halt by announcing that the situation and/or their character's capability to alter it is actually different in some fundamental way to how they had understood it. That the DM's mental model of the in-game scenario was, in effect, quite different to that of the player.

 

[Walking Dad]

This!
I think that tow gamers, one coming from an Exalted (White Wolf) and like to watch Animes and another coming from Warhammer 2e (Green Ronin) and likes medieval documentations will have quite different ideas what stunt should work in the game.
A common yard stick would help them.
Either the rules or the DM have to provide it before the game. And I prefer it to be the rules, as I like living worlds and organized play with more than one DM for the same character.
If a DM wants to change the tone for his personal game, that is fine, but also provide a common ground first, please.

For example, this was a viable tactic in another one's game:

...

I'll give you an example of PC creativity from our campaign: I was DMing a group whose players were playing teenagers (no feats, no max abilities, no real equipment - nothing). They came across a bear in the woods, not fully grown, but still dangerous given their characters experience and powers. They only had a short sword between the 4 of them. So they formed a pyramid, climbed on each others backs (like cheerleaders), and pretended they were a creature who was greater in stature than the bear - they growled and howled and made threatening noises, and even threw stones/pebbles at it. They made a series of nature/intimidate checks and succeeded to ward off the bear.

...

But I'm not sure it fits the tone of everyones imagination what should work in the game. I wouldn't be able to come up with this tactic, because I think the change of success for this tactic was negligible. Does this makes me an uncreative player? Or are there just different favors what should work?

Think of the other way around, the same situation and the DM don't think this should work and the bear starts to slay them. Killer DM or just a different opinion what should work?

As I said, in a gaming form with multiple DMs, a tactic should either be worthwhile or not and not only depend on the DM. Give us a yard stick, please.

 

[Sadras]

This! But I'm not sure it fits the tone of everyones imagination what should work in the game. I wouldn't be able to come up with this tactic, because I think the change of success for this tactic was negligible. Does this makes me an uncreative player? Or are there just different favors what should work?

I think its mostly DM style. What you allow as a DM, affects your players' thinking/creativity. A DM open to reasonable suggestions grows the PCs to think further than their character sheets. In my case the bear was not a full adult and on the the younger side, so I didnt preceive it would just auto-rush them. It was hungry but unsure about the nature/danger of its opponent, so it left after they succeeded quite well on their initimidate/nature checks.
A lot of DMs play their monsters "fight to the death" others take into consideration the type of monster, is it an animal, is it mindless undead, are they outnumbered goblins...etc.
DMs play a major role in the success/failure of an adventure and how immersed the characters are in their imaginary world.

I have another example, where this giant spider on a stone bridge in an underground complex attacked both the party and the "evil NPC" who was escaping with an artifact.
The NPC subsequently died in the fight, unable to escape and the spider, at this stage bloodied, grabbed the dead evil NPC to web and preserve it while the PCs managed to grab the artifact before it fell off the bridge into the chasm below as the beast began turning the NPC for wedding purposes. They then ran for the lives away from the beast who did not give chase.
Other DMs would have had the spider committed to the chase of the PCs, as things turned out in the combat I didnt believe the injured spider would continue to hassle the PCs as they crept away...so I let them escape. It was better for my story - and they enjoyed it too.

Think of the other way around, the same situation and the DM don't think this should work and the bear starts to slay them. Killer DM or just a different opinion what should work?

You cannot have rules for everything, there is advice for the DM in the DMG for that and the group and DM play as they like. To have everything codified is just rediculous.

As I said, in a gaming form with multiple DMs, a tactic should either be worthwhile or not and not only depend on the DM. Give us a yard stick, please.

As an example - how would you have liked the DMG/MM to have catered for the bear encounter in my adventure? Because it sounds like you asking for the impossible.

 

[Balesir]

As an example - how would you have liked the DMG/MM to have catered for the bear encounter in my adventure? Because it sounds like you asking for the impossible.

Again, speaking for myself, I don't think it's a function of the MM - it's far more general than that. It has to do with having rules for non-magical ways to impose conditions outside combat encounters. D&DNext is showing a few hints of this, and yet is running back to the BS distinction between "Spells" and "mundane stuff". Take the D&DN "Frightened" condition; Intimidation should be able to impose that condition.

It's an area that bugs me about RPGs and GMs in particular; we're like stage magicians who are taken in by our own illusions. If we can't see how and why the deck is rigged and where the rabbit is before we pull it out of the hat, what the heck do we think we're playing at? Social skills in the game are there to create the sort of effects that spells also create, just in a different way. Making magic "special" in a "wooo, woo" way to gull the credulous is fine - it's part of the act - but when we start believing the hype when in "game design and setup" mode things have gone seriously awry.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As an example - how would you have liked the DMG/MM to have catered for the bear encounter in my adventure? Because it sounds like you asking for the impossible.

Behind the curtain - plausible if slightly silly plan. Level 1 or 2 complexity 1 or 2 skill challenge* involving at least an acrobatics check for balance (I'll call for) and a bluff or intimidate check (they'll mention if they have any clue at all). This allows me to set the rough time and difficulty of the tasks.

Note that at no point would I have mentioned the phrase "Skill Challenge" or told them to just roll any dice. The skill challenge system is merely how I'd have kept score on the PC's plan.

* With the final experience point value being somewhere around that of the bear and the penalty for failure being fighting the bear from a bad situation (either sprawled in a heap or in one big bunch, someone carrying another piggy back and being charged by an irate bear).

 

[WizarDru]

I liked the D&D Next Fighter. In our playtest, he was the only one who could stand toe-to-toe with the Ogre. The wizard may have had some good tricks, but he wanted to be nowhere near that action.

My assumption is that there will be more combat options delineated later, to give the fighter back some of his tricks. I know some people seem to think the 'do damage on a miss' was a really bad idea, but in practice we didn't see any problem with it. It allowed the fighter to take out puny kobolds with no problem (not unlike the wizard, who was pelting them from afar). Kills the yard trash, sure...but the Ogre merely glared in the wizard's direction, while the fighter...you know...FOUGHT.

 

[Doug Justice]

I like it just fine for first level. Needs a bit better AC and/or HP.

 

[concjo]

A fighter being simple is not a problem. A fighter being boring and noticeably weaker than his peers is a problem.
Some is not the fighter class' fault. Heavy armor is terrible. The 5' move reduction on top of a lower AC compared to the Templar or rogue makes it easy to keep the fighter kited by enemies or focus fired into oblivion big HP or no.
An extra action in a round is godly. Twice per day godly is cutting a little thin. This may scale with level or not.
Cleave is nice, but no great shakes.

The biggest problem in my first playtest run was the fighter getting burned down quickly. Dark Cultists Unholy Smite can hurt. Owlbears aren't nice either. Maybe Pelor doesn't like dwarves?

Action economy rules them all. An extra action is a great benefit. AND do not sell cleave short. They specifically kept the math flattened so you can still battle orcs and such at higher levels instead of just one baddie. Giving you plenty of cleave chances and therefore more actions/damage each round. Very powerful stuff.