Pros and Cons of going mainstream

[Dannyalcatraz]

I also assume that at least some of the DDG entities can cast their MU spells while armoured - the gods, at least, if not also the heroes.

oddly, the D&Dg seems silent on that. while i would assume the Gods can do so, it is undler as to the Heroes. (Some don't have the issue, since they are not wearing armor...)

OTOH, there are still old sources: Count Hazendel of Sunndi is listed as being C5/F8/MU8 in the Greyhawk Boxed Set. No race is given, but Sunndi is supposedly 79% human- presumably, Hazendel is one.

That same set has personalities who have not quite risen to true divinity who clearly have multiple classes without being bards and who do not conform to any known demihuman multiclassing rules- Murlynd, for instance, is a Paladin/MU/Ill, and Kelanen is a Ftr/MU/Ill/Th-Ac.

And that's Gary Gygax's work.

I wouldn't be surprised to find more such in early modules.

 

[pemerton]

I've always assumed that the king of Sunndi is an elf or half-elf - those look like multi-class stats, to me, and those Greyhawk books use a double-slash (//) for dual-classing, as with the fighter//illusionist rulers of the Thilronian barbarian kingdoms.

As for the quasi-deities and heroes, I've always assumed that they're not rules legal too - I assume that, to the extent that they got that way in play, it was via Wishes or similar rules-breaking stuff.

 

[Luce]

Hussar:
From http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/features/9294-The-State-of-Dungeons-Dragons-Future
"
"I have a theory about RPGs," Mearls said. "When 2nd edition really got focused on story [in 1989], we had what I call the first era of RPG decadence and it was based on story. The idea that the DM is going to tell you a story, and you go from point A to point B to point C. The narrative is linear and [the DM is a] storyteller going to tell you a static story, and you would just get to roll dice occasionally. 3rd edition came out and said 'To Hell with that,' it's all about players, we're going to give you some really cool options, it's all flexibility in the DM and for the players, there's this meaningful choice.
"I think we've hit the second era of RPG decadence, and it's gone the opposite way," he continued. "It's all about player power now - the DM is just the rules guy - and the DM can't contradict what the players say. [The game] is taking away from the DM, and that's where I worry because other types of games can do that better. I might as well play a board game, 'cause I'm just here enforcing the rules. Without the DM as the creative guy, what's the point?"
Mearls admits 4th edition might have gone too far in creating a perfectly balanced game. "We've lost faith of what makes an RPG an RPG," he said, admitting that in trying to please gamers with a limited imagination, 4th edition might have punished those with an active one. "There's this fear of the bad gaming group, where the game is so good that even playing with a bad gaming group, you'll still have fun."
The result of this philosophy is that, perhaps more than ever before, gamers are playing different games than the official D&D coming out of the Wizards of the Coast. "What D&D faces now with different editions and old school versus new school, and 3.5 versus 4th edition, it's like the comic book conundrum," Mearls said
"

Not exactly WOTC publication, but words attributed to a lead designer.

I am not saying that is the universal truth (I have seen plenty of 2e games which were not railroads, or 3e GMs which did not abide being relegated to a position of only a referee), but there must have been enough of a discontent to warrant him making those statements.

 

[pemerton]

The idea of a "second era of RPG decadence" may be true for the games Mearls plays - I wouldn't know. Or he may be engaged in producing propaganada for the game he is currently authoring - seems plausible.

But if you look at games like Burning Wheel, Marvel Heroic RP, HeroQuest revised, other indie games or games that are inspired by the indie movement, and (at least as I experience it) 4e, they have a pretty clear concetpion of the GM's role. It is not just "the rules guy".

Here's how the 4e PHB puts it (p 8):

• Adventure Builder: The DM creates adventures (or selects premade adventures) for you and the other players to play through.
  
  
• Narrator: The DM sets the pace of the story and presents the various challenges and encounters the
  players must overcome.
  
  
• Monster Controller: The Dungeon Master controls the monsters and villains the player characters battle against, choosing their actions and rolling dice for their attacks.
  
  
• Referee: When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story.

This isn't completley unambiguous, and is perhaps not fully coherent - for instance, the first point implies that the GM "creates the adventure", whereas the fourth suggests that the GM only adjudicates the story "when it's not clear what ought to happen next", implying less GM authority over the plot.

But it is clear the the GM is not just "the rules guy".

 

[Manbearcat]

But it is clear the the GM is not just "the rules guy".

When I read commentary such as this from someone who should (must?) be intimately familiar with the source material, I am left stunned...stunned. What can you do but wonder such things as:

- Was this person mostly detached from the actual nuts and bolts design process, working mostly as a superficial quality control element (this is extraordinarily common on many projects I've been involved with; "lead designers" being represented as artisans for work they were only tangentially related to)?

- Did this person actually play the game to the fully nuanced experience that the mechanics support?

- Is this person's primary exposure to the gaming system (and the play experience ushered forth) witnessing the full-throttle, tactical war-gaming inherent to their Encounters program (rather than a home table where an actual campaign unfolds with understanding, committed players and GM)?

Without one or more of the above as root cause for the above position, I am left baffled. I would love for him to sit for a few sessions of any of our home games. I'm certain that if he sat at my own table for a few weeks, it would be blatantly obvious that player empowerment and GM creative enterprise are not mutually exclusive...in fact, they are synergistic. Player empowerment =/= GM relegated solely to "rules guy." Facepalm or SMH is the appropriate internet response?

 

[Luce]

I think that is one of the points I been trying to engage in conversation about.
This is what I think:
Shifting demographics:
D&D started as an indie. As the IP grew so did the demand and supply. With the increase in quality and quantity of products there came a need to sell more products to justify the cost of investment. WOTC would rather sell 5 books to 5 people (Players side) then 20 books to 1 (the DM side). This has been discussed before, so I will leave it at that. A by product of this is that we see more casual gamers, e.i. people who does not put more then hour or two between sessions on their characters (thinking, planing, reading rules, etc) then show up and play. Nothing wrong with that as they are having fun, or they would have stopped showing up.
"Casual GMs":
Unfortunately, one of the results of having a more clear, intuitive rules is that with a little effort (almost) anyone can pick up DM-ing. On one hand, I think there are not enough DMs so bringing more into the fold is great, and players tend to become more tolerant and having realistic expectations after seeing what DMs involves. On another hand... some previous editions (such as 1st and 2nd) by creating an artificial high bar of complexity (weapon speed, sometimes needing to roll high other times low to succeed) insured that greater level of dedication was required in order to run a game. Nowadays I occasionally see DMs who does not seem to spend any time outside of game improving their craft. The science (rules) part is very accessible, however the art side of DM ing is not something one can learn from a book, (how to read the mood of the table, improvising, dealing with problem player who is also a friend) those things one can only learn by living through them. I do not want to make it sound like an insurmountable hurdle, but it requires some dedication. Especially in:
"Mixed groups":
Yet another side of resent changes is that more groups (compared to previous decades) are fluid. When I started gaming in the 90s I like Manbearcat had a dedicated group composed of my friends and peers. We had known each other half our lives and hang out on a daily bases. Gaming was just one more thing we did. Nowadays, more groups starts as strangers who happen to share a common interest and meet in a public venue (as opposed to a private home). More games are episodic. This way there is less pressure to show every week (for players) or run a deep, detail rich campaign (for the DM). While I would like to be a part of a long campaign, this arrangement scratches my gaming itch and avoids the frustration of having more then 1 in 3 gaming nights being canceled due to RL issues.
One of the results of this is having a mixed age groups. Parents bring their children to game. In many cases it works out and it is endearing to see the love for gaming being passed on. However, sometimes people do not take into account the age difference while interacting. Especially when providing criticism (constructive or otherwise). For that reason, among others, when facing a group of (near) strangers DMs and players alike tend to rely on game mastery as a basis of interaction. While games have become more portable (easy to switch groups or play with strangers) it also curtails the DM customization (house rules, deep personal plots etc) in favor of consistency.
Put another way nowadays there arises a need for explicit social contract in contrast with the implicit one of the past. When you are gaming with long term group you know what the other boundaries and interest are and have established sense of camaraderie. With a pick up group it is harder to tell what hooks will work or that a give person is afraid of spiders for example.

 

[pemerton]

some previous editions (such as 1st and 2nd) by creating an artificial high bar of complexity (weapon speed, sometimes needing to roll high other times low to succeed) insured that greater level of dedication was required in order to run a game. Nowadays I occasionally see DMs who does not seem to spend any time outside of game improving their craft.

I don't really undestand how this sort of rather baroque aspect of AD&D helped make the GM something other than a "rules guy".

 

[pemerton]

When I read commentary such as this from someone who should (must?) be intimately familiar with the source material, I am left stunned...stunned.

<snip>

Player empowerment =/= GM relegated solely to "rules guy." Facepalm or SMH is the appropriate internet response?

My first thought is that, as part of a marketing campaign, this is Mearls as an echo-chamber for a certain sort of potential customer who is not especially happy with the current direction of WotC's games.

You may be right, though, that he doesn't have a good feel for what people are doing with the game - but then why hasn't he asked Chris Perkins, who presumably is in an office/cubicle down the hall somewhere!

I guess it's possible that most home games are crap and you, I, [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION], [MENTION=59411]Pour[/MENTION] and others are some breakout exceptions. But suppose that were true - which I personally doubt - is there any particular reason to think that things were once upon a time different in some past golden decade? I played quite a bit of, and saw plenty of others playing a lot of, crap D&D back in the 80s and 90s.

 

[billd91]

Apparently you guys weren't very active on the internet over the last 10 or so years in which we witnessed lots of players complaining about GMs not following the RAW, disputes over what the RAW meant, dismissals of people who adhere to Rules as Interpreted as "house rules", as well as players complaining bitterly about GMs violating encounter creation guidelines, not upholding wealth by level limits, destroying their stuff with rust monsters setting them back on their WBL permanently, creating campaigns that disallow certain character concepts, enforcing paladin code violations, and otherwise saying no to them when they want to do something "cool".

Of course Mearls's theory isn't going to apply to every single game being played. He's not trying to say that games in which the players and GMs have a functional rather than dysfunctional relationship don't exist. He's trying to describe the zeitgeist of D&D with respect to rules vs rulings, rules vs GM authority. The pendulum has swung when you compare the 1e days to the 2e days to the 3e days to now (in fact, it's probably fair to say there are multiple pendulums all swinging around at once). And in some ways, that's deliberate. Part of 3e's philosophy, thanks to Skip Williams, was to put more of the rules in the players' hands so know what to expect out of the actions they choose to take. And while that may be reasonable, one of the blessings of turning things over to the general public is that you get people and groups who push reasonable to the point of unreasonableness. And that gets reflected here on the discussion boards where discussions serve to amplify differences more often than promote commonality.

 

[Manbearcat]

My first thought is that, as part of a marketing campaign, this is Mearls as an echo-chamber for a certain sort of potential customer who is not especially happy with the current direction of WotC's games.

Those are the only two options; ignorance or willful marketing campaign. Its sort of the same questions that we asked about the authorial voice of 4e (get to the fun, skip the guards, etc). It beggars belief that he would be ignorant to how the game is actualized at home (outside of a Step On Up Encounters framework). So I guess we're left with your hunch; marketing campaign and strident authorial voice advocating a playstyle.

I guess it's possible that most home games are crap and you, I, @S'mon , @Quickleaf , @Pour and others are some breakout exceptions. But suppose that were true - which I personally doubt - is there any particular reason to think that things were once upon a time different in some past golden decade? I played quite a bit of, and saw plenty of others playing a lot of, crap D&D back in the 80s and 90s.

Like you, I'm certain that we aren't exceptions. There are probably 15-20 or so 4e GMs that I can think of on these boards alone where if you traded each of us out, the game would be only superficially different (primarily at the genre preferences level with only minor technique fluctuation). So this isn't some rare experience that is inaccessible to the masses (or mearls specifically...especially, as you note, he has a system-experienced GM at his beck and call).

Its exceedingly frustrating to see what should be (and as such is pressupposed as) authoritative commentary, informed by insight and experience, bear no resemblance to my play experience and then be passed down the grapevine (to be used as a weapon by detractors).