D&D 4E Ryan Dancey on 4E

[Hussar]

The question how often that occurs is rather irrelevant, in my eyes...even if it occurs only once in every game other session, I'd prefer to be able to make a quick ruling on the spot instead of hunting through 600 pages of core rules and additional supplements in order to find the rule that deals with the situation.

But, this is hyperbole. At no point would you ever have to hunt through 600 pages of core rules and supplements to find the answer to a question. At most, you might have to consult two books and specific chapters of those books. No issue that is going to come up at the gaming table will require someone to look at both the entire Monster Manual and DMG at the same time.

I can appreciate that complexities occur. I also stand by the idea that it is the player's job to know the rules of the game. If you are using a non-core book, it is the player's responsiblity to know the rules of what he is bringing to the table. If he's using a new spell from book X, then it is entirely his responsibility to be able to answer questions regarding that spell.

And, for the "How many halflings fit in a behir", again, these come up so incredibly rarely, if at all in an actual game. But, even if it did come up, surely it is not terribly jarring to look down at the book you probably already have open since you're using a behir in the encounter.

99% of the issues that people are talking about here vanish if players are put into the role of policing their own characters.

For the 1% that comes up, sure, the DM can make a ruling in game, that's to be expected. Moving the game along is a noble goal and is the primary function of Rule Zero. I still maintain that the function of rule zero is not to let designers off the hook when they put out crap mechanics.

 

[sullivan]

Now I'm curious. So you have a situation with a player wanting to attempt something with his character. The rule system has no rule for what he wants to attempt, and the DM is not supposed to come up with a ruling of his own, either derived from another "official" rule, or of his own making. How can the dice be the impartial judges in this?

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.

I recommend the book just for reading, even if you never play the game. It shows how you can run a sucsessful story centric game by the rules. Obviously it is crunchier than D&D, just for the simple fact that it actually handles social conflicts between characters at the same level as sword fights. But it isn't really as much a page flipper in the end. In no small part because there are only a few books total. The system is also tighter, more self-consistant. The base of D&D is straight forward. It is the exceptions and little side details that kill you in D&D.

Also players are explicitly charged with being rules mongers. It is the antithesis of the DM as the "server", players as "terminals".

 

[Munin]

But it goes so far as to give the DM the sole authority to kick people out of the game!

I don't recall reading that in my copy of the DMG, but I'm probably mistaken. Even so, it's my right to kick someone out of my house if I choose to do so. But that has nothing to do with D&D. It's MY game, MY house, MY table, MY electricity, MY food, and so on. If a guest in my house is rude or insulting to me or my other guests, that person will be asked to leave, whether I'm playing D&D or Monopoly.

DMs have more authority by virtue of the fact that they have a greater investment in the game, period. I have spent hundreds of dollars on the core rulebooks, the minis, the battlemat & terrain, the adventure and the supplements. I spend hours developing the setting and catering it to my PCs so they can have a fun time and create a story they will enjoy. I spend hours, HOURS of my life creating NPCs, adventures and all the other stuff that comes along with it.

What do the players bring? Nothing. Most of them don't even have the PHB and can't remember to bring their character sheets, much less be bothered to learn how grapple checks work. But I don't care, I do it for the love of the game and for my players. I ask nothing from them and expect nothing. They show up, drink my coffee, eat my goodies, have a great time and leave. And I love 'em every one, but I will be damned if for a second I'll take any grief whatsoever if I want to houserule Find the Path.

 

[Henry]

I can appreciate that complexities occur. I also stand by the idea that it is the player's job to know the rules of the game. If you are using a non-core book, it is the player's responsiblity to know the rules of what he is bringing to the table. If he's using a new spell from book X, then it is entirely his responsibility to be able to answer questions regarding that spell.

Players can, and do, get it wrong, mostly in their favor. Sometimes I can't tell if the player gets it wrong intentionally, or honestly. Players who can tell me the rules, both when they run against them and when they run for them, are worth their weight in diamond. Fortunately , I have two at the table.

And, for the "How many halflings fit in a behir", again, these come up so incredibly rarely, if at all in an actual game. But, even if it did come up, surely it is not terribly jarring to look down at the book you probably already have open since you're using a behir in the encounter.

I try to reduce the amount of clutter at the table, and this includes open books. Since I can't afford to photocopy each and every monster page I'm using, I copy the stats down ahead of time. Sometimes, I miss a stat that might not be important, but it turns out to be. I used a purple worm a few months back, and fortunately, I knew he was big enough to swallow everyone present, so I didn't worry about it. 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. TO prep, I write as much as I can keep track of in a single row table to reference. I'm still constantly experimenting with smaller and easier shorthand, trying to hit the magic format that works for me. Keeping track of a purple worm is easy; keeping track of an Ak'chazzar Rakshasa is a MOTHER-LOVING PAIN IN THE REAR, no matter what format.

99% of the issues that people are talking about here vanish if players are put into the role of policing their own characters.

Who watches the watchers? The DM, whom people seem to feel very unwilling to trust. What makes the players any better to trust than the DM, if people are unwilling to trust him?

For the 1% that comes up, sure, the DM can make a ruling in game, that's to be expected. Moving the game along is a noble goal and is the primary function of Rule Zero. I still maintain that the function of rule zero is not to let designers off the hook when they put out crap mechanics.

Yet, you have to have that out, crap mechanics or not.

 

[Krelios]

Declaring an urge on a public forum is the same thing as doing it. Try to keep that to yourself.
-blarg

Good point, I'll be among those to say "This is me, flipping off the miniatures collectors that are ruining my RPG." ..|..

 

[sullivan]

I don't recall reading that in my copy of the DMG, but I'm probably mistaken.

I too was surprised by the language in it when someone pointed it out to me recently. I'll post if I manage to find the quote.

Even so, it's my right to kick someone out of my house if I choose to do so. But that has nothing to do with D&D. It's MY game, MY house, MY table, MY electricity, MY food, and so on.

So what happens when you are DMing in a semi-public place like a game room at a game store? Or at the player's house? Or they live with you (although that's a whole bigger can of worms). Because one of my groups plays pretty much exclusively at my house, but I DM maybe 30% of the time if that. The other group we play at a house that isn't the current DM's, nor owned by the next DM on the slate.

 

[Umbran]

The problem is, when it doesn't work,

What you going to do?, live with it?, or fix it?

No, the real problem is "works" is largely a subjective thing. What works for one group or campaign won't work for another.

It is nice to have a set of rules you can lean on. It is also nice to have options, should you want to change the flavor of your game a bit without having ot force everyone to learn an entire new system.

 

[FireLance]

My answer was to that point, which, if I'm not corrected by Firelance next, states that a DM doesn't need to have the right to change the rules to be a DM. Neither Firelance, nor I, inferred that rules tweaking is a sign of a "good DM". Rather, to me rules tweaking is part of a DM's authority in order to keep the game going in points where the rules don't cover it, or cover it in a bad manner. It's something a DM should be able to do without much problem if necessary, and able to do it quick and concisely without having to cross-reference more than one book, and without shattering half a dozen dependent subsystems.

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.

 

[sullivan]

Who watches the watchers?

You watch each other.

http://www.answers.com/topic/white-joe-eddie-standoff-jpg

 

[sullivan]

No, the real problem is "works" is largely a subjective thing. What works for one group or campaign won't work for another.

It is nice to have a set of rules you can lean on. It is also nice to have options, should you want to change the flavor of your game a bit without having ot force everyone to learn an entire new system.

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.

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