The Campaign Builder's Guild

Steerpike, I mostly agree with your point, so I don't want to pick on you too much, but I do kind of have a problem with the whole logic of "magic is magical but non-magical things have to stay realistic" because it leads directly to fighters sucking. Fighters would be better if they had superhuman (but not overtly magical) abilities that increased their non-combat effectiveness, or for that matter gave them some measure of battlefield control like wizards are able to achieve. So I think, on some level, it's perfectly fine to give even high level 'mundane' characters abilities that no ordinary human would ever have.

Anyway, as to the broader issue, I'm actually one of those people who does complain when characters are dominated by magic, at least in a way that takes away player agency. I much prefer the compel mechanic used in Fate and the like, where you are given a choice and can pay the game's meta-currency to avoid having to give in. I think social combat works this way in Exalted too. But anyway. I prefer that players are always in control of their characters, even when bad things happen.

Quote from: sparkletwistFighters would be better if they had superhuman (but not overtly magical) abilities that increased their non-combat effectiveness, or for that matter gave them some measure of battlefield control like wizards are able to achieve. So I think, on some level, it's perfectly fine to give even high level 'mundane' characters abilities that no ordinary human would ever have.

I see where you're coming from, here.  Basically high-level fighters should behave like Beowulf - phenomenally badass semi-superheroes.

I guess the two examples still function differently in my head.  I can imagine someone being strong enough or swift enough to perform preternatural athletic feats, like running along walls or fighting dozens of warriors at once.  These things are simply "scaled up" versions of mundane abilities.  The problem is, I can't really imagine someone being just so damn smooth that they can preternaturally subvert enemy warriors in the heat of battle, unless the context is right or some kind of actual magic is involved.  I think this is partly to do with the fact that multiple human psychologies are involved, and partly because words just don't really work that way.

Part of what kind of rubs me the wrong way about some of this is the insinuation that everyone needs to be balanced against one another in combat, whereas in the D&D I want to play certain characters are better in combat than others, and certain characters are much better at certain out-of-combat situations.  The silver-tongued speaker's value isn't to make fancy speeches in the midst of combat that quasi-magically convert enemies into allies, it's to lie to the guards to infiltrate a fortress or make speeches to the troops to lend them courage or con a hapless merchant into buying a cursed item.  This is just my preference, though; for those that really want the "D&D as tactical skirmish game," in which combat really is the main focus of the game, I understand why combat parity is very important.

Quote from: sparkletwistAnyway, as to the broader issue, I'm actually one of those people who does complain when characters are dominated by magic, at least in a way that takes away player agency. I much prefer the compel mechanic used in Fate and the like, where you are given a choice and can pay the game's meta-currency to avoid having to give in. I think social combat works this way in Exalted too. But anyway. I prefer that players are always in control of their characters, even when bad things happen.

I totally know what you mean, here.  Nowadays whenever I use Dominate against players I always tell them, "OK, you're on the enemy side now, but you still control your character.  I trust you to roleplay this."

Quote from: SteerpikePart of what kind of rubs me the wrong way about some of this is the insinuation that everyone needs to be balanced against one another in combat, whereas in the D&D I want to play certain characters are better in combat than others, and certain characters are much better at certain out-of-combat situations.

I agree to a point, actually, but I also think that every character should at least be competent in every major activity that the party is expected to do, so that each player can participate in each scene in a meaningful way. One particular character may shine, but everyone gets to contribute, lest a player become bored and/or frustrated due to being basically useless for that scene; what we don't want is a situation like Shadowrun where anyone who isn't a decker just has to sit around during any sort of "cyberspace" scene.

Quote from: SteerpikeNowadays whenever I use Dominate against players I always tell them, "OK, you're on the enemy side now, but you still control your character.  I trust you to roleplay this."

I like this approach, and I've done similarly. I think it works for non-magical social situations too-- like, the enemy succeeded at a social roll so the player roleplays the character as being more convinced, or whatever. At least, I like when it's somewhat automatic like that, because it'd be kind of awkward for me (as GM) to tell the player "you are more convinced of this now."

I'd like everyone to be balanced against each other in all aspects of the game; if we're going to parse things as combat, exploration, and interaction, so be it. In my experience playing and DMing, though, imbalances in combat are more felt and more resented than imbalances out of combat. If the ranger shows everyone up leading them through a forest, so be it, they're a ranger; the fighter is going to show them up commanding an army, the rogue is going to show them up sneaking into a fortress, and the wizard is going to show them up at everything.

But D&D, at least through 3rd Edition, has been sold to the DM as everyone should be reasonably balanced in combat. It never came out and said this (I suppose it did in 4E), but check out the encounter building guidelines; never did they say "If your party is all Fighters, then they're going to be able to handle tougher fights". Every PC class was the same CR at every level (though this was a mistake in their CR calculator). Because a party of 4 Fighters was, on the surface, supposed to be able to handle the same things as the uber party of 4 Clerics, the game should have been balanced around combat.

And, frankly, D&D is a combat game. I'm okay with larger imbalances in games like, say, L5R, where combat is a small part of the game. When well over half the book is dedicated to combat rules ... it's a combat game.

As for social skills acting like enchantment spells, I still think, as you both do I feel, that high level martial characters should be magical in some fashion. A high level fighter can fall an infinite distance and get up; they have to be damned magical at that point. A high level barbarian or fighter could simply be so scary that a flourish of their sword and a glare of their eyes sends weaker opponents running (demoralize, with higher levels of fear for larger save failures?). A charming swashbuckler can simply say "you don't want to fight me, you want to join me" and some simply nod and agree, turning on their masters. Taking what I learned from M&M, I don't think "one shot kills" should be able to happen when they couldn't with an attack, but minions are fair game; so are wounded opponents (See here, Thokk the One-Eyed, would you rather join our cause or join your god?).

I agree with both of you that letting players play out their domination is the best (though I might guide them if they're being dominated by an especially adept tactician).

Quote from: sparkletwistI agree to a point, actually, but I also think that every character should at least be competent in every major activity that the party is expected to do, so that each player can participate in each scene in a meaningful way.

I guess this depends on how broadly one defines "activity," but given a reasonably broad description I'd agree.

Quote from: XeviatBut D&D, at least through 3rd Edition, has been sold to the DM as everyone should be reasonably balanced in combat.

Yeah, but a lot of people don't like this.  Arguably this is part of why the OSR is so popular - the recent editions were perceived as excessively combat-centric, straying away from the dungeoneering/exploration mode of the previous editions.  In many of the earlier versions xp was explicitly about getting treasure - fighting was a means to an end, and if you skipped a fight with clever tactics or spells or stealth you still got the reward, you weren't "missing out" on the core of the game.

Like I said, though, I do understand that if you basically want D&D to be a tactical skirmish game - where combat is the main thing - I can understand why parity is a necessity.

I still feel that preternaturally effective social skills are more immersion-threatening than preternatural athletic ones, but if you are going for the "they really are magical" solution, at a certain point it does make sense.  Effectively, then everyone becomes a kind of magic-user after long enough.  This tends to leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, but I can see why other players would enjoy it.