D&D 4E Ryan Dancey on 4E

[sullivan]

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?

When you build something there comes a time when you must make decisions, sometimes very hard decisions, to direction. Because if you try to take more than one branch you lose you way. The scope spirals larger and you either don't finish or you end up with something nigh useless because can't support it's own weight. Literally or figuratively.

It's like a movie that doesn't have any of the film that was shot editted out. A rambling unintellegiable mass of noise.

D&D itself has previously made the choice. The authors chose that the DM sets the rules and vetos all. EDIT: Short of obvious legal limitations such as forced confinement of the players. Now some tables may ignore this to some extent, but largely the attitude lives large. I suggest it sets a poor example in the interests of healthy [longterm] gaming tables.

 

[Skaven_13]

See, that right there is one of the biggest gulfs between gamers there is. I in no way consider my campaign to be telling any sort of story. The players are telling the story, I'm just filling in the setting and possibly nudging the plot. I know that other people differ greatly on this, so it's not a case of right or wrong, just different playstyles.

Actually, it's not that big. You just consider it differently. The players didn't design the plot. They didn't place the kobold warren behind the third hill. They didn't make the lost prince a traitorous rebel going against his uncle. That was the DM. Maybe I should update my statement so that the DM is telling a story that the players are helping to create.

That being said, if the designers have to lean one way or the other, I would prefer them to lean towards the idea of the DM being an rules facist and applying the rules religiously rather than the idea that the DM is only going to tweak the rules anyway, so shove whatever looks halfway decent on paper out the door and let it roam the wilds.

But, how often does that happen? Every session? Every few months? Once in a blue moon? I'm hoping it's the once in a blue moon sort of thing or the game is either designed poorly (if its a situation that SHOULD be covered) or is a true corner case that only applies to your group anyway.

I would prefer they put out balanced rules without considering what the DM is going to do. Even if they put on the front cover: "Warning: deviating from the rules within this book is akin to stealing money from your children's piggy bank or watching Mortal Kombat II, the movie", you still will have DM's that will make changes to the rules.

The point that Firelance makes though is why should rules tweaking be a sign of a good DM? Yes, we all know that a DM does have to make a ruling from time to time, but, why should the assumption be that if you play by the rules, you are a, what is the buzz phrase that got tossed in here? A MMORPG Server instead of a "real" DM.

Firelance already commented about his statement, so I'll edit this a little. A good DM makes sure his players have fun, and that's a pretty easy answer. There's nothing wrong with playing by the rules as written, just as there's nothing wrong with house rules. I think what most are fearing is the relagating the DM to nothing but that "server", which is a little unfounded until we get more than the rumors we have so far.

Skaven13

 

[Lanefan]

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?

Short answer: no. It's called maintaining the mystery and sense of wonder. A player who complains otherwise more than once has no place at my table.

Lanefan

 

[sullivan]

Actually, it's not that big. You just consider it differently. The players didn't design the plot. They didn't place the kobold warren behind the third hill. They didn't make the lost prince a traitorous rebel going against his uncle. That was the DM.

I think the gulf is wider than you think. Part of this is also players helping to design the plot. Equally wild is part where the rules/dice decide when the plot twists. The GM is just filling in some details like which hill the warren is behind, or exactly what complication is introduced by that NPC that isn't what they initially appeared to be.

In the past many DMs have not trusted the players or the rules to help direct the story. So they overrule the players and rewrite or ignore the rules. Because of the philosophy that DM knows best, and it's his story damn it.

EDIT I think my word choice of "just filling in some details" is perhaps giving a tone of understatement of the role that I don't really intend. It is still an important job and it certainly can, and should, influence the story and the outcome.

 

[eyebeams]

I think there are some marketing concerns here:

1) MMO and computer games are eating into D&D's traditional audience. This is evinced by WotC's own "attack ad" on MMOs and evidence that, while anecdotal, is extremely broad and consistent in reports.

2) D&D's design anticipated this problem to an extent and utilized many of the features of computer games.

3) #2 led to something I call the media utility problem. It works like this.

A: When two similar media have the same audience, the temptation is to make the less popular form emulate the more popular form.

B: However, this only begs the question of why the consumer doesn't just choose the more popular form, once the distinguishing characteristics drop to a level that makes the transition easy.

Keep in mind I'm talking about consumers, not users. RPG consumers are less numerous than RPG users. A large player networ does not translate into people who want to actually buy stuff. In the case of D&D there were people who never made the transitions across editions for 2e, much less 3e.

MMO users are, on the other hand, *always* MMO consumers. The nature of the MMO hobby makes it so.

3) Therefore, D&D needs some kind of distinctive touchstone that makes it *different* from the leading media forms of the fantasy genre. It can't be like books or computer games. So from a marketing standpoint, miniatures do nothing but add to D&D's value. Furthermore, ater the disaster that was Chainmail (which basically begged the question, "Why not play Warhammer?"), WotC now has a successful brand in a miniatures niche that does not sufer from the media utility problem.

4) It's consistently been WotC's policy not to dilute a brand's identity. That's why there's no MtG/D&D crossover. It would be the company's tendency to keep a strong connection between the miniatures and RPG sides of the brand.

5) Would this mean a big change for the miniatures game? Not necessarily. It would mean a change in the way the D&D RPG is presented. Remember that D&D is not even marketed as a "roleplaying game" to consumers outside of dedicated hobbyists. It's almost always called an "adventure game." There has always been a desire to emphasize that D&D is not a part of the community of RPG brands.

So the meaning of the D&D brand is pretty flexible, going from straight-up miniatures and no RPG to heavy RPG elements. The question is how broad D&D's identity will remain, and what combination of elements will be presented as the core experience of the game. I suspect that the RPG might be a set of rules on top of the miniatures systems, but this kind of transitional game has failed before (GW's Inquisitor), and anybody designing the new game will know that.

 

[Banshee16]

Or get a game that works?

Without true and honest negotiation there can be no peace. With the hammer of arbitory imposing of will this does not actually exist.

Woah! Are we talking gaming or politics here? I thought it was gaming.

Someone has to run the game...otherwise adventures...wouldn't work. And in the end, someone needs to make calls to make the game work. That person should have the flexibility to bend things when needed, to make a better game. This does require that the leader be equal to everyone.

I think some of these bad feelings must come from experiences of having had bad DMs or something.

I've DMed for my group for 8 years, and have offered to turn over the reins numerous times, but nobody wants me to. They like playing in the game too much. And yes, I have had to use DM fiat at times, but the trick is using it as a scalpel instead of as a hammer, and yes, at times, talking points of contention out with the players. But at the end, it has to be the DM's call. Otherwise you simply end up with groupthink being used to run the game, which is a horrible way to accomplsh.......anything.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

I

So the meaning of the D&D brand is pretty flexible, going from straight-up miniatures and no RPG to heavy RPG elements. The question is how broad D&D's identity will remain, and what combination of elements will be presented as the core experience of the game. I suspect that the RPG might be a set of rules on top of the miniatures systems, but this kind of transitional game has failed before (GW's Inquisitor), and anybody designing the new game will know that.

Thank you for your post. It helped spur some thoughts that had been flitting around.

I think that's one of the concerns I have of the direction the game is going in, and where I fear 4E may go. They have made the game more "engineered" and "regulated", to benefit from developments in computer games, make it more easily adaptable to computers etc. But the problem, as I see it, is that by making the rules *so* strict, that it then forces the DM to use fiat or optional rules in places, because the rules are so rigid. And any kind of flex, like in the Polymorph, Command, and other spells, paladin horse summoning or whatever, has been stripped out, which is basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater, in order to get rid of a nasty hornet that fell in the tub.

The rigidity of the rules removes some of the ability of the DM and players to come up with interesting scenarios, which are now not allowed, based on the rules. And the game was supposed to be designed to permit options, not limit them.

When you get most computer games, there are certain capabilities that are scripted....and then other things you can't do, because the programmers/designers didn't enable them. It feels like that's what's happening to the game right now.

Banshee

 

[Ranger REG]

Or get a game that works?

But can you find one that works perfectly and resolve anything that even you cannot think of? If you have and it's not D&D, then more power to you. In a perfect world, there might be a perfect RPG ruleset, but this ain't a perfect world, isn't it?

 

[sullivan]

Woah! Are we talking gaming or politics here? I thought it was gaming.

Sociology of gaming actually. But since sociology underlies a lot of politics, both of these involving people functioning in a group, your confusion is understandable.

Someone has to run the game...otherwise adventures...wouldn't work. And in the end, someone needs to make calls to make the game work. That person should have the flexibility to bend things when needed, to make a better game. This does require that the leader be equal to everyone.

But at the end, it has to be the DM's call. Otherwise you simply end up with groupthink being used to run the game, which is a horrible way to accomplsh.......anything.

Collaboration is not a horrible way to accoplish something. It is an extremely powerful way. On a larger scale we, meaning humans, currently lack the interpersonal communication abilities, technology, and methologies to successfully function this way. But at the level of 4 to 6 people? Who at the very least pass for marginally mature and intellegent? In a limited senario where actual life and limb are not on the line? These are lifeskills, and if found lacking then what a great way to learn them and enrich the rest of a life.

Groupthink implies an uncritical acceptance, which is certainly not something I'd advocate. Groupthink is something that can occur just as easily, if not more readily, in a situation of a DM as the authority figure. Because often the players are encourgaged to NOT complain or question or act on their own. Not to pick on him because he's not alone, nor can I say I've lived a life without sin, but just look at Lanefan's comment above.

 

[tenkar]

If the game is fun for the players and the GM who the heck cares how they play it? It is, after all, a game... its purpose is to entertain.

If you want it to be a vehicle for social interaction experiments you very well might be taking the "game" out of the game for many players (although apparently not all).