Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[LostSoul]

I think "Rule Zero" - or as I like to call it, making judgement calls - is an important feature of RPGs. However, I think that the game system has a big role to play here: it needs to make sure that, when the game requires a judgement call from someone, it doesn't create a conflict of interest, and the game system should be clear about the authority and responsibility players have when making those calls.

Conflicts of interest: you don't want the person making the judgement call to have a stake in its outcome. The typical example is a bonus to hit when you "have the high ground." The player who cares about getting that bonus shouldn't also be the one who makes that call. If he is, then the player has to determine if the value of the bonus outweighs an impartial assessment of the "high ground" in the game world. Conflict of interest.

This is pretty straightforward: the player cares if his PC gets a bonus. The DM doesn't care about that; he cares about making sure the game world is consistent. This simple dynamic gets complicated when you are running Adventure Paths, high-prep games, or games where the PCs are supposed to succeed.

Authority & Responsibility: In order for the game system to get rid of those conflicts of interest, I think it needs to spell out the authority that different players have over different judgement calls, and then detail the responsibility players have when making judgement calls.

e.g. Who decides if a PC is scared? Is it a judgement call from the player, the DM, or a check? The kinds of choices you want players to make in the game is going to change this dynamic: D&D and Call of Cthulhu take different approaches for good reason.

At that point I think a list of how to make "principled decisions" should be included in the game.

 

[Jester David]

MM3 math was for monsters, while p42 is for PC, so I wouldn't expect the damage expression table to change. Essentials placed that table in the DM Kit rather than the RC.

Ah, I skipped the DM kit. Did the numbers change?

4e was really close to being awesome for improvisation. According to WotC they had a formula for how much damage each condition was roughly equivalent to, which would have been awesome to have as a DM. Especially if Page 42 matched a little closer to expect PC damage output (and gave more advice, suggestions, examples, and rules than a single page).
Heck, even the example on p42 points out you can do significantly more damage with an Encounter power (plus the power's effect) which makes improvisation seem a little wasted.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't know of any power in 4e that would do that in and of itself. You as a player still have to consider that as a solution to your problem and come up with a way to make it happen.

Social-skilling away a boss's minions? If it seemed appropriate to the DM, it could be done as a Skill Challenge. Total up the exp of the monsters you'll be getting out of the way and design a SC worth that much... Partial success gets rid of or gets you past some of the monsters. Complete failure gives you a really big fight...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ah, I skipped the DM kit. Did the numbers change?

I also skipped it. I assume the numbers didn't change, since p42 did not receive an errata to the damage expression table.

4e was really close to being awesome for improvisation. According to WotC they had a formula for how much damage each condition was roughly equivalent to, which would have been awesome to have as a DM.

Hmm... if true, it should have been possible to reverse-engineer...

Heck, even the example on p42 points out you can do significantly more damage with an Encounter power (plus the power's effect) which makes improvisation seem a little wasted.

Sounds about right. Improvisation is a little more limited than an at-will, a little less so than an Encounter (you can try to improvise more than once, but it's situational).

 

[Blackbrrd]

MM3 math was for monsters, while p42 is for PC, so I wouldn't expect the damage expression table to change. Essentials placed that table in the DM Kit rather than the RC.

Conditions from the 'Condition Summary' in the 3.0 DMG, p83: Ability Damaged, Ability Drained, Blinded, Blown Away, Checked, Confused, Cowering, Dazed, Dazzled, Dead, Deafened, Disabled, Dying, Energy Drained, Entangled, Exhausted, Fatigued, Flat-Footed, Grappled, Held, Helpless, Incapacitated, Incorporeal, Invisible, Knocked Down, Nauseated, Normal, Panicked, Paralyzed, Petrified, Pinned, Prone, Shaken, Stable, Staggered, Stunned, Turned, Unconscious. Total: 38

From the 4e RC, 'Conditions,' p229: Blinded, Dazed, Deafened, Dominated, Dying, Grabbed, Helpless, Immobilized, Marked, Petrified, Prone, Removed from Play, Restrained, Slowed, Stunned, Surprised, Unconscious, Weakened. Total: 18.

Well, it doesn't help to have fewer conditions when you have 5 players using abilities that put them on monsters. In 3.x I might have 1-2 conditions max on my mob, in 4e it can get up to 5 pretty darned quickly if it's an elite.

 

[Balesir]

Yes. Rule Zero is the foundational rule of rpgs. What the DM thinks is reasonable is what goes. If the DM thinks that playing by the book is reasonable, he can say so, but it's still his decision. The DM's vision always defines the game, not the rules. Always.

Others have already pointed out that this is nothing like universal, and I'll say that I line up with [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] et al in thinking it's not even a helpful one.

If there is a gap in the rules and a call has to be made to keep play rolling, sure, the GM should step on up to the plate and make it, but in general it should not be the "rule" that the GM decides everything.

Sure, but not in metagame terms, I hope.

Yes, in "metagame" terms - that's what I mean by the players having aims. Game-world aims are things the characters have, not the players. The player aims should not be too much the focus when thinking and acting in-character, but I absolutely want every player to think about what they want to be doing to have fun during the game in the time between and even during sessions. And I want them to have the wherewithal to be able to plan for those aims and successfully (or unsuccessfully!) enact their plans.

A game that sets up a spiked chain trip fighter who is virtually unbeatable in melee encourages players to either cheese out or play "suboptimally". This is not good.

That's just poor rule system design. If there is only one "optimal" choice - for anything in the game - then that is no real choice at all. And much of the fun of roleplaying games comes from making meaningful, conflicted, compromising and downright hard decisions between distinct but evenly balanced choices. In some games these are tactical choices, in others they are moral choices, or character-defining choices, or strategic choices, or even emotional choices. In all cases, if there is only one, obviously "correct" choice then the choice is no choice and the design is bad.

Take that away, and the player's goal can simply be "I want to win X gladiator tournament" or "I want to be the best fighter I can", more meaningful and open-ended goals.

Those are character aims. These are desirable, too, but I really was talking about player aims and objectives.

Some people don't like the laws of physics or the like encroaching on their fantasy rpg experience, and prefer a looser reality. So again, whatever the laws of the world are is the group's and fundamentally the DM's call. (Personally, I prefer a more physically accurate world than most).

You misunderstand me; I'm not talking at all about "real world" physics, here - I'm saying that the game rules are the game world's physics.

As far as I'm concerned the physics of the real world means diddley squat in the game world unless the game rules say they play a role. This is, in fact, what I see as part of the problem with "DM fiat". As soon as you say (or even assume without notice) that "real world" physics are the basis of in-game resolutions to any degree, you run slap into the issue that you are relying on the GM's understanding of real world physics. In every case I have knowledge of, this has been to some extent flawed*. Add to that the plethora of mistaken ideas swilling around about how medieval combat works and even how data systems and computers work and you have a whole ocean of disasters waiting to happen as players assume one model of reality while the GM not merely assumes but enforces another. It can get really ugly, I find.

*: This includes me, when I GM. It was only ~18 months ago that I finally understood why e = m.c^2, for example - and I'm sure there are many other examples I don't even realise that I misunderstand.

It's also important to note that a lot of the rules-and particularly a lot-of the contentious ones-cover aspects of human behavior, which is not close-ended or completely comprehensible. I was trained in psychology and biology, where you have to accept that you know very little about the things you're studying. Certainly not enough to write rpg rules that strictly define the parameters of human choice (thus the CAGI and related debates).

Sure - but once again, I'm not talking about having "real world" models as the determinants of the game reality. In every field that I have actually studied, increased knowledge has taught me that one major thing we need to realise is how little we really know. Recent discoveries not withstanding, even in fundamental physics we don't have good answers; "dark matter", for all that we talk about it casually as if it were established fact, is no more than hopeful hypothesising because galaxies don't spin like our physical theories say they should!

For roleplaying the answer to all this is simple; forget "real world" physics. Let the game work according to the game rules. Even with our ignorance of psychology generally, in my own day-to-day interactions I still find that I instinctively understand broadly what's going on. Body-language and a host of sensory cues let me operate quite successfully despite a staggering ignorance of the workings of the human mind. I expect RPG characters to be similarly capable - with some margin for variability, which can usually be adequately represented by the dice. Game rules - especially good, elegant game rules - can fulfill this function very well indeed, I find.

I find that a lot of rules lawyering happens when there is a clear rule and the DM goes against it. While that is the DM's prilevege, it's better to have some latitude built in.

If the DM has deliberately ignored a written rule without prior notice then as far as I'm concerned the DM is wholly culpable for the lack of "fun" and any unpleasantness that follows. The rules are, as I said before, a communication about the way the game world works. Going against them is effectively lying to the players about how the game world works. As such, saying that some rules in a published set are not in play is fine - as long as it's done up-front - but ignoring them in play without notice is not. It's effectively equivalent to lying to a player about what his or her character sees (absent some in-game reason - illusions or other "abnormal" causes are always admissible exceptions).

A one-person approach though, is not warped. It's the standard. How do you think Christopher Nolan/Peter Jackson/Guillermo del Toro/etc. would feel about having everyone on the set vote which shot to use, how many takes to do, changing the script, and so on? They listen to their staff, but they make the final call on everything, giving their movies cohesion and getting them done. A DM is more like a movie director than anything. Without a single director being in charge of everything unconditionally, there wouldn't be much in the way of movies.

Here is maybe one reason we disagree. I think GMing is almost completely unlike directing a film (movie). This is almost anathema to what I aim for when GMing, in fact. I do not seek to control the players' lines, plans or character actions in any way whatsoever. It's not "my" game to direct - it's "our" game to find out what happens.

If this is how you really run your games, good luck to you - I hope your players are happy being there to fulfil your vision.

Consider the following: why might Mike Meals/Monte Cook/fill in the blank design a rule that is not fun for your group? Is it more likely that a DM who is physically in the room, knows the participants, and is responsible for creating the story will make a bad decision, or is it more likely that some unseen writer trying to make money off of the masses will do so? DMs aren't perfect, but I'll take a DM ruling over the book any day.

The designers of the game are much more likely to have thought about and developed a rule that fits the intended aim and tenor of the ruleset than I am. If they have done their job well the rules they have produced will mesh together to create a seamless whole. If that coherent, focussed game is not what I want, then I would much rather select another rule set that fits closer to the focus that I want to promote in play than start fiddling piecemeal with a set of rules designed (I hope) to work together in the vain assumption that I can design on the fly something more coherent than a team of professional designers have been able to produce in several months of work.

Such an assumption seems to me insanely arrogant.

Given long enough and some helpful input and feedback, I might be able to create a good, integrated ruleset that fits precisely the game focus I want to play - but even then it would likely either ignore or misunderstand what the other players really want. Many years of believing this sort of guff have led me to conclude that, actually, a better idea is to pick a ruleset that fits something similar to what I want for this specific campaign, then let the players read that system and decide based on that reading whether they want to take part. We may not get the "perfect fit" for the game focus we all want, but at least we go in eyes wide open and know what "locus of fun" we might reasonably expect.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, it doesn't help to have fewer conditions when you have 5 players using abilities that put them on monsters. In 3.x I might have 1-2 conditions max on my mob, in 4e it can get up to 5 pretty darned quickly if it's an elite.

Fewer conditions (and 4e had only half as many conditions as 3e did) really /do/ help, they're easier to remember and keep straight, for instance, so less looking up rules in the middle of combats or debating what those rules mean. Now, in 4e, everybody does get powers, and some of those powers - particularly dailies - inflict save-ends conditions. It's unlikely that everyone will throw a daily on the same monster, and even less likely that they'll all have non-identical save-ends effects. When that does happen - typically vs some uber solo in a 'boss' fight, your monster has that +5 save bonus, and, MM3 and later, action-preservation traits that can end some of those conditions, too.

Encounter or the rare at-will condition-inflicting power, OTOH, tend to be End of next turn.

So conditions rarely last a whole encounter. Which brings me to a different but related topic:

For the most part 3e let conditions, once inflicted, last out the fight, often ending the effectiveness of the victim. 3.5 started to get wise to that problem with Hold, which presaged the 4e save-ends duration with a save every round to avoid a single failed save ending a creatures participation in the combat.

Saves at the end of every round /do/ add a book-keeping factor, though, but the benefit of keeping everyone involved in each encounter is worth price of losing seconds to that book-keeping every single turn, IMHO (even though that price is, cumulatively, not so small). "Keeping everyone involved" doesn't just mean getting PC out from under conditions, either, it also means letting PCs inflict potent/interesting conditions, themselves, without destroying encounter balance.

The balanced/playable alternative to having everyone able to throw out conditions that quickly expire or get saved against would be to have no one throwing out conditions, at all.

 

[billd91]

The designers of the game are much more likely to have thought about and developed a rule that fits the intended aim and tenor of the ruleset than I am. If they have done their job well the rules they have produced will mesh together to create a seamless whole. If that coherent, focussed game is not what I want, then I would much rather select another rule set that fits closer to the focus that I want to promote in play than start fiddling piecemeal with a set of rules designed (I hope) to work together in the vain assumption that I can design on the fly something more coherent than a team of professional designers have been able to produce in several months of work.

Such an assumption seems to me insanely arrogant.

I appreciate the work game designers do to give me a framework on which to base my games. But in most cases, they're also the ones advocating for Rule 0 and departing from the rules when the individual game needs to do so. Embracing that recommendation isn't insanely arrogant at all. What would be arrogant would be game designers thinking they had the solution to everything and that the local game master must follow it. Fortunately, game designers who advocate that are rare.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Here is maybe one reason we disagree. I think GMing is almost completely unlike directing a film (movie). This is almost anathema to what I aim for when GMing, in fact. I do not seek to control the players' lines, plans or character actions in any way whatsoever. It's not "my" game to direct - it's "our" game to find out what happens.

If this is how you really run your games, good luck to you - I hope your players are happy being there to fulfil your vision.

It seems that you grossly misunderstand what moviemaking is about, and thus my analogy. The Dark Knight was directed by Christopher Nolan. The final product, however, reflects the vision and expertise of set designers, costume designers, cinematographers, composers, editors, actors, and many more people. Nolan used all of these people, but he was still in charge, he oversaw everything, and he had final say on everything.

It's not antagonistic as you make it sound.

And yes, my players are very happy, and they're generally more happy the more of a strong hand I use, and they generally are reluctant to DM instead of me even though they can. Just like a great director is surrounded by people who are willing to put in hard work for him. Do you think everyone in Hollywood that's not a director wishes they were, or is unhappy, or is wasting their time? Most of them are not well paid, but are happy to act and read lines off the page, clean the set up after everyone leaves, or spend a month animating one creature that goes in the background. And D&D players have far more substantial roles than that.

DMing is absolutely like movie directing.

[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] makes a good point as well. Most designers very explicitly tell you that you should use your judgment over the rules. Most of them play with major houserules and make changes on the fly as well.

In all cases, if there is only one, obviously "correct" choice then the choice is no choice and the design is bad.

In the modern age, correctness does not have to be obvious. It is entirely possible to calculate average dice rolls and outcomes for a variety of scenarios. Some character abilities are clearly better than others, even in relatively well-designed systems (like 2e and 3e D&D, and presumably the other editions as well).

If your character merely has a strength bonus and a +2 skill and the DM decides when that bonus applies, as opposed to having to pick a bunch of complex powers, there's really not much to analyze (or overanalyze). 5e is doing some good in this regard so far.

Such an assumption seems to me insanely arrogant.

Not at all. How many scientific studies have been published on what makes a good D&D mechanic? How much D&D-specific education, training, and certification/licensure is there? How much history does the business have? None, none, and virtually none.

This is not brain surgery. There is no evidence that Gary Gygax or anyone else is better at designing games than any of us, period, let alone are they better at designing rules for our specific campaigns then we are. Frankly, I could probably write a better D&D than has ever been written, for a broad audience as well as my own group, but I have better things to do with my time and no interest in entering the business. The same is probably true for other ENWorlders. Game designers have done some good work and that work is helpful, but it is not dogma.

If the DM has deliberately ignored a written rule without prior notice then as far as I'm concerned the DM is wholly culpable for the lack of "fun" and any unpleasantness that follows.

The DM is equally responsible whether he follows the rules or not. He's always responsible. It's his job to make the game worth people's time and effort, one that he should be doing well.

If there is a gap in the rules and a call has to be made to keep play rolling, sure, the GM should step on up to the plate and make it, but in general it should not be the "rule" that the GM decides everything.

It is though. Right there in the book. I'm not sure if I should explain why as I've posted extensively on it lately, or not even bother.

 

[TwinBahamut]

First off, I want to say that I strongly agree with [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION], and that I'd give him experience points for his last post if I didn't need to spread them around a bit first...

You're missing the point. The defining aspect of rule zero is not that it gives power to the DM, but that it takes it away from the rulebooks (unlike in most games). Whether power is in the hands of one person at the table or several is a secondary, social contract issue.

The thing is, I see no value in taking power away from the rules. The rules only apply once the people playing the game choose to use them. They are powerless, except as far as the people playing the game choose to follow them. People don't need a Rule Zero to give them the ability to change the game because it is redundant in that capacity; they can never be deprived of that ability. What's important, then, is its role in establishing the meta-rules that helps people determine who does that and how.

Basically, the tone that Rule Zero sets in establishing the power balance between people at the table has more impact than the illusion of freedom it provides.

Even so, D&D places one person in charge because having a good outcome now is better than debating things for a week. Like any leader, a good DM is responsive to others, but having one person with the final word is helpful in creating a cohesive and fast-moving game. A more cooperative game is possible, but that's not the D&D approach.

Debate is way more fun than dictatorship.

Also, the fact is that you're assuming the DM is the "leader" of the table. That is in of itself the problem I'm complaining about. D&D has built up this culture that combines many different roles of power together unnecessarily. There is no reason that the person who runs the monsters, the person that builds the campaign setting, the person who plays the NPCs, the person that adjudicates unclear rules, the person that chooses what rules to use, the person who has the authority to kick people out of the game, and the person who "leads" all have to be the same person. Basically, D&D's own rules and culture push players towards a way of playing where one person runs everything, and everyone else are just pawns dancing to the script. That is far, far from what I consider ideal.

A one-person approach though, is not warped. It's the standard. How do you think Christopher Nolan/Peter Jackson/Guillermo del Toro/etc. would feel about having everyone on the set vote which shot to use, how many takes to do, changing the script, and so on? They listen to their staff, but they make the final call on everything, giving their movies cohesion and getting them done. A DM is more like a movie director than anything. Without a single director being in charge of everything unconditionally, there wouldn't be much in the way of movies.

Amusingly enough, I just watched The Dark Knight Rises between my last post and this one...

Anyways, comparing a movie director to a DM is silly. The DM is anything but the player's boss. If he is, then the game is already dysfunctional. Almost preferably, he's scrambling to serve their whims and adapt to the thousand and one ways their wrecking all of his myriad plans and schemes. He's the stage manager working to give everyone in the production what they need to keep on making the show go on, not the one calling the shots.

Also, your analogy doesn't work because, well, that's not the only way to direct a production. For example, smaller stage productions these days often use a technique where the actors have an extremely influential role in developing the story of a play and framing its scenes (and I think there's evidence that this goes at least as far back as Shakespeare). Stage productions can be indeed cooperative efforts where the director doesn't make all the decisions. If we want to move even closer to tabletop roleplaying, improv theater doesn't even have a director giving final approval, and many essential decisions are made on the fly based on an actor's best judgement or audience reaction and involvement.

I read that if the DM is either not trying to make the game fun for everyone or if he is unable to do so due to incompetence, the game will suffer. No doubt. That's the DM's fault, not the system's.

This line of thinking is unproductive. You know what? An incompetant DM is still a normal person trying his best to make a fun game. Doing so isn't easy, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If a system makes a DMs job harder, then you blame the system, not the DM, especially if it is the system's advice and intents that drove that good person to become a bad DM.

Consider the following: why might Mike Meals/Monte Cook/fill in the blank design a rule that is not fun for your group? Is it more likely that a DM who is physically in the room, knows the participants, and is responsible for creating the story will make a bad decision, or is it more likely that some unseen writer trying to make money off of the masses will do so? DMs aren't perfect, but I'll take a DM ruling over the book any day. The rules are there to give everyone a shared language and suggest how things should work, but really, "rules" is a misnomer; they're more guidelines than actual rules.

No, they are rules, not guidelines, same as any other game. Sure you can ignore them or change them on the fly, but you run into the exact same issues as when you try to ignore or change the rules of basketball on the fly.

But, yeah, I completely trust a good game designer over any random DM's judgement. Game design isn't easy, even if some people foolishly think it is. It is full of all kinds of pitfalls and problems. That's why we're complaining about the rules in the first place! Even many professional game designers aren't that great, as D&D's long an unbroken tradition of flawed rulesets and terrible mistakes makes clear enough. Still, I think it is better to work to improve the rules themselves, or replace them with a competing ruleset, rather than to try to patch up a leaky ruleset with DM fiat. If Mike Mearls doesn't give me good rules I can go ask Monte Cook for some, and if he fails I can go ask Rob Heinsoo for some. I'm not lacking for options and choices.

Also, the DM isn't responsible for the story. I don't know why you think he is, since that's not even an assumption of the rules. Ultimately, the story is in the player's hands.

Who's the guy with "Don't let rules replace good DMing skills" in his sig?

Well, rules can't replace good DMing, but they should help people become better DMs, rather than force people to become good DMs despite bad rules. Also, this ideology doesn't really apply to the whole issue of how Rule Zero or DM Fiat should work. A person can be a great DM without ever changing a rule or making a judgement call, and a person can become a terrible DM by doing just that.