D&D 4E Ryan Dancey on 4E

[Geron Raveneye]

Roll the sucker. I've seen this used in house rule lots over the years. You look for some special feature in the terrain that you might expect to find, but it isn't certain. Say a tree on rolling praire. Sometimes there will be one nearby, sometimes there won't.

This Burning Wheel I was talking about actually has a rule for no-rules. It's called the Die of Fate. The game uses d6 exclusively. So you roll a d6 and if it comes up 1 then there is a tree nearby.

Note that this isn't for anything that is a character ability, or a player being a total hose-head. The system uses an open-ended Skills system, with underlying Attributes. So anything the character is doing there is a roll for. And the DM and the players are expected to agree on this. They also agree on the consequences, good or bad, before the roll.

So if I had to come up with a quick rules decision for some situation not covered by the printed rules, I'd have to decide the outcome of a single die roll by commitee? No offense, but I'm hard-pressed to see that as a "standard solution" for that kind of decisions in D&D. Maybe I'm showing now how often I was burned by "decisions by discussion" in my own games, but I'd prefer somebody whose common sense I trust make a quick ruling when needed. Might work fine in Burning Wheel, though, I might take your recommendation after my final exams are done.

My point was that there seems to be an underlying assumption that games in which the DM follows the rules instead of changing them are somehow inferior, and that DMs who run these games are somehow sub-par. At least, that is the impression I get when posters complain about design philosophies that seek to "remove the need for an impartial DM" or "take the DM out of the equation". I am curious what could be the logic or reasoning behind such an assumption.

I have no problems with DMs winging it or making up rules on the spot when they encounter a situation that is not covered in the rules. This flexibility and adaptability is the advantage that a DM has over a computer. But where the rules exist, the DM who chooses to abide by them is considered by some to be inferior to one who chooses to change them. I simply wonder why.

Then I got you wrong, and apologize. Thanks for clearing it up, too. Actually, I'm with you on the "wondering" part.

 

[Hussar]

I have no problems with DMs winging it or making up rules on the spot when they encounter a situation that is not covered in the rules. This flexibility and adaptability is the advantage that a DM has over a computer. But where the rules exist, the DM who chooses to abide by them is considered by some to be inferior to one who chooses to change them. I simply wonder why.

Ack, honestly, I did understand what you said, but, in my phrasing of my answers, I think I bolloxed it. Please ignore me while I try to sort out my language issues. Sigh.

This is what I was referring to when I said that I want to lean on the rules. I want a game where the rules are there to support me, rather than me propping up the rules.

But even if I did have the books open and bookmarked to EVERY monster I use in an encounter (and sometimes I use 5 different types!) it takes valuable seconds every time I have to look something up, whether it's armor class, switch over to scrap paper to track hit points, a special ability, or even if he has the combat reflexes feat.

I in no way mean this to be snarky. You choose to create such encounters. It is your choice to use such complicated rules in your game. Is it really fair to then complain that the game is too complex?

Nothing is forcing you to use five different creature types in a single encounter. You can create perfectly interesting encounters with much less complexity. That you choose to use that level of complexity is your decision. If a particular creature is a pain to stat up, then why use it?

I'm a lazy DM. I freely admit that. Given the choice between two creatures, one that's going to take me an hour to work out and one that I can use immedietely, well, that's not a hard decision for me. I really don't understand DM's who complain about how hard it is to stat up classed creatures for example. My answer is far simpler: Don't use them. With over 2000 creatures just in WOTC publications, I'm 99.9 % sure you can find a critter that will fit your encounter every bit as well as a classed monster.

 

[Skaven_13]

That can be a fun way to play, but some people don't like it. I'd rather not see that kind of thing supported in D&D. Ah well, to each his own.

It's house rules. I would think most groups use them in some fashion. Whether it's the change to sneak attack like in my example, or changing the magic system into a spell point system, most stable groups will probably have some change to a rule that they don't like. D&D supports it, and has supported it for some time. There are variant rules. The unearthed arcana (both editions) were full of them. There was the infamous 2.5 books, presenting ways to customize classes with new abilities.

But you are correct. To each his own.

Skaven13

 

[Gentlegamer]

So, which title for d20 Fantasy 3rd Edition do you all prefer? Game Custodian, or Game Trustee?

 

[Skaven_13]

Well, whether the story belongs to the DM or to the group as a whole, or whether the aim of RPGs should necessarily be to tell a story or just to have fun are separate discussions in themselves, so I won't go there.

I will simply wonder why some DMs are so fixated on telling their ONE story to the extent they won't consider any of the other stories that they don't need to change the rules to tell.

I suspect it is an attitude of convenience over creativity.

Ok. As a gamer, I grew out of games that did not have a story. It was good for learning the game, but quickly grew boring. To me, the aim of a role-playing is to take part in a story, and the aim of a game is to have fun, so an RPG should be both. No reason to debate.

As a DM, I'm fixated in telling that one story because I put a lot of creative effort into that one story. I will change my story if the players are not having fun. But if, as the DM, I'm not having fun because a certain rule is a problem, and other players realize it's a problem, where is the incentive for me to continue telling the story? Yes, it's a little selfish, but we are all there to have fun.

It's no different than playing the individual settings present: greyhawk, eberron, fr. Each of the campaign worlds change some rules or add new rules to further set the story.

Skaven13

 

[sullivan]

So if I had to come up with a quick rules decision for some situation not covered by the printed rules, I'd have to decide the outcome of a single die roll by commitee? No offense, but I'm hard-pressed to see that as a "standard solution" for that kind of decisions in D&D.

What is an example of what you have in mind? Because this is about a rare exception.

I think this kinda goes back to the rules themselves, which are key to the success. Basically in Burning Wheel the rules are constructed much more than D&D to be universal, and less exception based. Social conflict resolution is the model that melee and ranged combat are based on. "War is the pursuit of diplomancy by other means" is quite literally true in Burning Wheel. And these all use the same basic Skills mechanism as is used for tasks that fall outside of those two.

In short it would indeed be difficult to do this in 3e D&D because the rules don't have the infrastructure support it. Indeed if you just say "I move the burden from the DM to the rules" without beefing up the rules to handle the extra responsibilities then bad things indeed will occur.

P.S. If you are relying on a sense that is not shared by those around the table then exactly how common is it?

 

[Umbran]

It isn't a matter of changing peripheral rules or not. It is about who changes the rules, to what depth, and when. Everyone or one person. Lots or odd tweak. Before you start the game or during.

I don't think any of theose things can be decided globally, for all people who play the game. Those are all matters of local import, within the specific gaming group. It is not for us to decide what's best for someone else, neh?

P.S. If you are changing beyond the odd tweak then you are likely not using the right game.

I am always a proponent for using the right game for the job. However, frequently enough the right game simply isn't available, or known to the GM. There's a broad ground between "occasional small tweaks" and "complete rewrite" in which a search for an entire new game can be more bother than house-ruling.

As a design philosophy, it makes sense to leave the question open. Create a rules set that's solid for most, then publish many alternatives, and allow the individuals to sort out what's best for themselves. That's what we have now, and it seems to work pretty darned well.

 

[Henry]

I in no way mean this to be snarky. You choose to create such encounters. It is your choice to use such complicated rules in your game. Is it really fair to then complain that the game is too complex?

It's a perfectly valid question -- My perspective is that they are there to be used, rather than to sit there judged too difficult to be used. Same reason that high-level play was revised in the first place from 2E to 3E -- the designers wanted high-level play to be more approachable and not used by only a disparate few. If a large number of DM's (which I've gathered from years of listening to the complaints) find them difficult to use out of the box, then that speaks to me for it being too complex, and needing work. Otherwise, there's no point to their existance. It's why even now, WotC revises their monster stat blocks, and their magic item stat blocks, trying to make the teeming mass of info more palatable to players and DMs. Until a better way comes along for the flagship game, I'm all for a little fudging now and again to make a creative, fun playable session. I trust my DMs, just as they trust me when they're on that side of the table, and it works well for us. Like Geron says, its untrustable DMs that make the whole previous paradigm seem so untenable to a large portion of the player base. On the other hand, to that portion of the player base for which a trustable DM is a reality, they find a DM'less or a DMing situation where all rules creativity taken away just as untenable.


Side example: Is a DM a bad DM for introducing a situation, spell, or magical effect that player characters have no rules for reproducing? For example, there are no 3E rules I'm aware of for floating cities. There's a palace in a Xen'drik sourcebook which floats above a ruined city; there's no means of support, and ancient Giant magic holds it up there. Should players feel cheated if they can't find in the adventure the means to duplicate the floating palace, or to take control of it and fly it somewhere?

Second example: Should a player feel cheated if an NPC does something that seems impossible by the rules? If someone shoots a spell at them that hits an impossible AC, and it does damage with no save, for instance? If it's later revealed to be perfectly legal after the session (for example, it's a magic missile with funky colors, and the player didn't think to make a spellcraft check), would it be any more cheating from the DM than the flying palace?

 

[mmadsen]

Is a DM a bad DM for introducing a situation, spell, or magical effect that player characters have no rules for reproducing? For example, there are no 3E rules I'm aware of for floating cities. There's a palace in a Xen'drik sourcebook which floats above a ruined city; there's no means of support, and ancient Giant magic holds it up there. Should players feel cheated if they can't find in the adventure the means to duplicate the floating palace, or to take control of it and fly it somewhere?

This points to a huge shift in philosophy from earlier editions.

 

[Lanefan]

In all honesty, I loathe Unearthed Arcana. Mostly because I just don't enjoy tweaking. I want to play. I don't want to design a game. It does not interest me in the slightest. I got all that amateur game designer beaten out of me in 2e when piles of contradictory rules forced me to constantly rework the game in order to use any new material.

To me, the best part of being a DM is the creativity of it. Being able to envision an entire world (or at least a part of it) and then expressing that vision to my players. Reinventing rules bores me to tears and I drop games that expect it as fast as I can.

While to me, tweaking the rules is *part* of the creativity. If something in the rules doesn't work for me, I'm gonna fix it and fix it now, rather than wait for the RAW-rewrite to fix it for me. And, something that doesn't work for me might work perfectly well for someone else...

Part of the world-design process is game design; even if it's as basic as deciding your Gnomes are going to average 2'6" tall instead of 3'6", that's a change to the rules. It's a very short step from there to start tweaking with mechanics (usually, spells), and away you go.

However, once the campaign has started the time for tweaking is largely over; if new source material comes out later, it's auto-banned from that campaign for reasons of consistency.

Lane-"tweaking rules since 1984"-fan