I agree that 5e is very vulnerable to illusionism GMing. It hits all the marks that I noted above. Further, from a cultural perspective, it definitely seems to harken back to that 90's era of WW/AD&D2e play that was the epicenter for illusionism; "roleplaying not rollplaying", utterly metagame averse, its the GMs game and they have absolute authority.
And I don't have a problem with that. I mean, while I absolutely abhor the practice (while basically have a PHD in it), it is all well and good that plenty of folks do it. Just admit what is going on. But therein lies the rub, the house of cards illusionism is built upon comes tumbling down the moment that you're honest with your players (that is unless they're welling co-consiprators; participationists). And I have to say, most, but not all, of the illusionist-heavy GMs that I watched run games had toxic, paranoid, passive-aggressive relationships with their players simmering just below the surface. The table dynamic just oozed it.
It's weird how experiences differ. My brother got me into TTRPGs, and he's been the GM that I've gamed the most under by a huge margin. He is extremely good as illusionism in that his players (myself and several of our mutual friends) know it's going on, but don't know exactly how, and that the game is still incredibly enjoyable. There was never a "toxic, paranoid, passive-aggressive relationship" between any of the players and the GM, even though we (as players) knew what was going on, and talked about the illusionism amongst ourselves often when my brother wasn't in the room.
Now, that's not to say that it's my preferred technique to play under. That style led to us, as players, making bigger and bigger risks, being more and more reckless and silly, because we knew, from a meta perspective, that we had an outrageous level of plot protection, and that my brother would bend over backwards to keep the campaign from collapsing. This meant that this technique, while still very enjoyable, steered those campaigns towards very meta and silly areas, rather than more immersive and emotional (the latter being my preference).
His techniques have changed over time (as have mine, and probably all GMs), and he's met somewhere in the middle. He rolls in the open (rather than behind a screen or his hand) and uses those results, but still fudges non-mechanical stuff to make things more interesting (in his mind... but to his credit, his games are still fun).
Thanks mate. I'm glad you liked the post. I'm sure those sentiments speak to a very large portion of folks (yourself included) that have been running games since the early 80s, went through all that "stuff", don't want to go through it again, and have a deep appreciation for what makes 4e special (it ensures we don't have to go through all that "stuff"!).
You know what's also weird about this? As clear as 4e is, I've had to ad-hoc way, way more stuff than I do with, say, my RPG. The players are constantly asking me how things work, or if they can do certain things, and I often have to remind them they can try things that aren't on their power sheets (though the Warpriest is the best about trying stuff out or asking about it).
In my experience, 4e is much more GM-empowering that my RPG, in that it requires GM feedback much more than my RPG does. My RPG still requires a lot of GM input (level of NPCs, their personalities, creation of setting... all the things GMs do), but once things are set, they're set. In 4e, I'm judging stunts on page 42, I'm deciding what skill can do what or if it's appropriate to their level / tier, I'm coming up with how skill challenges work and what the consequences of both success and failure are, etc.
Basically, there is a lot more forced GM-empowerment in 4e than I'm used to, and it's slowly taking a toll on my enjoyment of running 4e. That and the prep. I like making monsters, but I'm just done with looking at treasure every level. I can't bring myself to do it anymore. The monsters are interesting, but they usually feel a little lackluster unless I alter them to fit my campaign, and that gets a little tedious, too, even if the payoff is enjoyable.
I don't know. There are things I like about 4e. I'd never run it as my primary campaign, but it's been fun running it. The game I run is a lot more... action-oriented (I want to use the word superficial, which is accurate for my group, but I don't want to sound condescending or something towards the entire system) than what I'm used to. And much, much more prep-intensive than what I'm used to in terms of mechanical baddies (I "prep" setting in any campaign I run... I love world building).
All that being said, I did run a 3.X (3.5 for something like 99% of it) for a few years, so I get why people like the prep more. It's easier in some ways, for sure. The monsters are more predictable, the combat is still fun. The game is fun if you enjoy what it does or you can enjoy what it does (which I can). It's much more predictable than 3.X is, in my experience, and if you want that, I get why people like it.
But as far as 4e's "transparency" goes:
Transparency again. I'm going to piggy-back on this. Transparency is kryptonite for my most disliked GMing technique; illusionism (by way of GM force). The abridgement or suspension of the formula of GM framed situation + player action declaration + the action resolution mechanics as the primary driver of play is never good. It is especially not good when it is done so that the primary driver of play then becomes GM inclination (either arbitrarily or even in the interest of their metaplot). When GMs are enabled to willfully keep that subordination a secret due to there being an opaque/fuzzy curtain between the players and the game's machinery (until the GM clumsily and inevitably goes a bridge too far and continuously does things clearly out of line, thus showing their hand), that is illusionism. It comes in multiple shapes and sizes, but illusionism's best friend is unclear/incoherent/hand-wavey rules, vague GMing principles/guidance, and a stout invocation that the GM is always right/can do what they want for the sake of story/"its the GM's game"; see White Wolf's "Golden Rule" and D&D's historical "Rule 0".
4e's transparency kicked that approach in its teeth and took its lunch money. Though it would never be readily admitted, I have absolutely no doubt that much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands was had in the edition wars because many GMs had their precious illusionism taken from their toolbox.
I just don't feel this. I feel 4e rules are much,
much, more "unclear/incoherent/hand-wavey" than the rules in my RPG, and in many ways, 3.X. Combat powers are clear, but stunts (page 42), skill uses, skill challenges options, chances of success (Easy, Moderate, or Hard) are all GM-adjudicated, which is directly taking power away from players and putting it in the hands of the GM.
That is, if skill uses are clearly and completely spelled out, with many uses and DCs, the players can look at their bonuses, the DCs, and not only build characters in a concrete direction, ("if I get +X to Example Skill, then I'll be able to consistently do Example Action even if I roll a 1!"), but they also know their chances of success or failure without the GM coming up with whether or not it's even possible ("no, you can't throw your hands into the forge to hold down Whlem" or "yes, I think it's appropriate at your level for you to be able to, but it's a Hard DC, and your hands will burn and you'll need a ritual to heal them").
If Skill Challenges, as a system, have a formula for determining how many successes are necessary, and the players get to decide who is making the check based on fictional positioning instead of being forced to contribute by initiative, your players can come up with plans with explicit DCs, estimate their chances of success,
and decide to go for it or not without any GM input whatsoever.
If there is a stunt system in-place in the system that the players can access (with rules laid out for them to use), they can access these stunts without checking with the GM to see if it's even possible. They can say "I'm going to kick off the wall and come down from the side with more force than a normal swing, giving me a +1 on my attack" instead of leaving the authority completely in the hands of the GM.
If there was a formula by level or by tier to determine Easy/Moderate/Hard DCs for skill uses (broken down by skill use), then the players wouldn't have to rely on question-and-answer time when making plans with the GM ("what DC would it be to do Example Action?") many times per session (at least, in my sessions, where skill uses come up often). They could just look it up, check the DC / see if it's possible, and then make a player-empowered decision to pursue that course of action (or not).
What we have instead is a system where these things (and others, but this is already a very long post) are all explicitly given to the GM to control. Some people might give players control of outcomes, but I think it's the very niche group where the GM asks the player "and what DC is it?" when the player declares an action in-game. Sure, that group might be out there, but I don't think 4e text really supports it, nor was it intended that way (though it'd work with the right mix of players, I think).
Anyway, I just wanted to chime in on this "transparency" thing, and how it relates to play. This:
It comes in multiple shapes and sizes, but illusionism's best friend is unclear/incoherent/hand-wavey rules, vague GMing principles/guidance, and a stout invocation that the GM is always right/can do what they want for the sake of story/"its the GM's game"; see White Wolf's "Golden Rule" and D&D's historical "Rule 0".
4e's transparency kicked that approach in its teeth and took its lunch money.
This was just not my experience at all. In practice, 4e pushed a lot of rules onto me, forcing me to make way more rulings than I'd like to in any given session. Having played 3.X for years, I can kind of see where people are coming from, but I just don't think it's nearly as clean or clear or player-empowered as I hear its fans call it.
But that's just my experience. And I don't mean to go off on an anti-4e rant in a pro-4e thread. I have a long thread about my sessions running a 4e campaign on this site that I've maintained for a while now (coming up on two years this September:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...rage-s-First-4e-Session&p=6180484#post6180484).
I've had a lot of fun with 4e. But I'm still a little baffled by the claims to wonderful player-empowerment. I get the transparency, but player-empowerment seemed quite intertwined in Manbearcat's definition, and that just doesn't ring true to me.
But the reason I bring this up is to not only share my experience, but also to get some perspective on it from outside my own. Anyone have any thoughts to my entire-too-long post? Am I missing something? Am I wrong? Maybe. And I'm open to finding out.
D) play excellently, and for sandbox I know to use BX, 1e, 5e etc etc.
