Dealing with a DM who takes things too literally

[ExploderWizard]

It also seems to me that a few folks are saying that it is wrongbadfun for the DM to run 4e in an "old school" way.


RC

I don't consider the idea wrongbadfun (or badwrongfun ) to play 4E this way but I don't really see the point of it myself. 4E PC's are superheroes and should get to do superhero stuff. If that isn't the style of game desired then it's simply a matter of the right tool for the right job.

 

[Mallus]

I was given to understand that some folks thought that any game could be played in an "old school" way.

Sure. I'm one of those people.

Part of running a game in an "old school" way is interpreting powers and abilities in ways that seem plausible.

Yes, but how big a part is a matter for some debate (and more disagreement). For instance, combat in our campaign hews pretty close, if not exactly to, the 4e RAW. Everything else, not so much (and in our group that's a whole lot of else). Since most of the game's action takes place in a DM-mediated --as opposed to rules-mediated-- space it seems old-school to me.

It also seems to me that a few folks are saying that it is wrongbadfun for the DM to run 4e in an "old school" way.

I didn't mean to give that impression. But I do think a 4e DM should learn the rules before he or she breaks/modifies/reinterprets them. That's just good advice no matter what game you're playing.

 

[MichaelK]

If you always follow the letter of the RAW, even when what the RAW says happens doesn't make sense to you (be it tripping oozes, swimming while immobilized, getting archers to jump off battlements to fight you, or halfling fighters pushing giants around), the game will become an exercise in maniuplating the rules and you'll lose the gameworld and the fiction to the mechanics.

Agreed, but with two provisos.

1) You should have a decent understanding of why the rules work the way they do before you try to change them.
2) If the vast majority of the rules don't make sense to you in the way that you describe, you're probably using the wrong system. You should consider using one that you're a bit more comfortable using as written.

I suspect that the described DM may be tilted towards situation number 2 and may be more comfortable running a different system. From the very limited description we've had so far, I suspect that they may enjoy 2nd edition AD&D if they want to stick with the D&D line.

 

[Barastrondo]

I'd consider it a troublesome point, and I'm a firm believer in a game that rests heavily on judgment calls. Essentially, 4e is predicated on the idea that you can reskin mechanical effects. You can use the stat block of a hobgoblin soldier to represent an orc, and as long as you give him a more orcish racial ability instead of the hobgoblin one, nobody should even notice.

The DM here is saying that you can't reskin mechanical effects based on context or situation. He's reading the maneuver in questions as one specific maneuver, instead of a variety of potential maneuvers that the character can execute that are represented with the same mechanical effect. For example, 4e assumes that if you have a power that does damage and knocks the target prone, you can elaborate on how you knock the target prone in different ways each time. Maybe last time you delivered a blow to the back of the opponent's knee. But you can also use the same mechanics to overbalance a giant spider or shove an opponent's feet out from under him. Or to strike a giant in the ankle while his foot's descending. You can have different in-character actions that are mechanically represented with the same exploit, and in fact that's a great tool for encouraging players to get into their character's heads and visualize the combat as more than just tokens on the table.

I'm all for judgment calls, but the idea that a player isn't allowed to creatively reskin maneuvers to make combats look visually differently — and to keep his character as useful as it's expected to be — is pretty much on the harsh side.

A question: Has he ever used good old Page 42 of the DMG to adjudicate interesting stunts? Getting him to wrap his head around that might help him see the value of being able to represent a variety of different in-character actions with a simple core mechanic.

 

[EATherrian]

I think this thread really helped me figure out what about 4th Edition bothered me the most. Some of the powers I also ask myself why or how and the OPs example is one where I would. I still play it, but I know I couldn't DM it because the rules don't exactly make sense to me. I am a bit of a literalist though, and I admit my faults freely.

 

[Obryn]

I think the immobilization thing is simply poor DMing. He's basically turned Immobilize into Stun, and that's (IMO) a big no-no.

As for not being able to push a giant? Well, like I've said before, that's a judgment call. I agree with Mallus that basically the DM should try to allow powers to work on just about everything, unless it's pretty clearly absurd. In this case, I don't see what's crazy about a powerful fighter being able to knock a Large foe back a bit.

-O

 

[Mallus]

...a variety of potential maneuvers that the character can execute that are represented with the same mechanical effect.

Great description of a 4e martial power.

Maybe it's just me, but 4e exploits seem very similar to a 1e 'attack', which was really an array of (unspecified) actions that occurred during a whole minute's worth of time, potentially including, but not limited to, weapon strikes, feinting, tripping, intimidating, kneeing the privates, and so on.

A successful roll resulted in damage, but what that process looked like in-game was was left to the DM's narration (or the player and DM agreeing jointly on the narration).

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't consider the idea wrongbadfun (or badwrongfun ) to play 4E this way but I don't really see the point of it myself. 4E PC's are superheroes and should get to do superhero stuff. If that isn't the style of game desired then it's simply a matter of the right tool for the right job.

I would agree, but let me point out how many people have said that the DM in question is "lazy", "wrong", or "broken" (using those or similar terms).

If someone says "I don't like playing 4e because the PCs are superheroes" the first thing trotted out is that the game doesn't have to be played like that -- you can simply restrict powers on the basis of makes sense.

Yet, as soon as one hears of a DM restricting powers on the basis of what makes sense, he is a poor DM, lazy, and wrong. Or simply doesn't know the rules.

Catch-22.



RC

 

[Obryn]

What's the Catch-22? That different groups play 4e differently and therefore think about martial powers differently?

I don't think of that as a contradiction so much as simple differences in playstyles. :shrug: 4e players are not a monolithic entity who are expected to agree on everything.

-O

 

[vagabundo]

Unfortunately he is the DM and his rulings are final - rule 0 and all that.

However, you could point him to the part that allows players to reskin powers* and come up with narrative solutions of your own.

Playing a different class could be a solution, something non-martial, maybe a primal class.

* I know this is in the players handbook II but is it in the DMG?