This mentality needs to die

[Primal]

As I watched the debated scene in the video, it did indeed look like Chris is a "bad" DM -- however, after watching the whole clip I have to say that his comments are taken out of context. Yes, he could have explained it better by describing the nature of the power and not given a bland mechanical reason why it doesn't work. Still, I see nothing in saying 'No' in this case, because letting 'Darkfire' melt the ice could potentially open a whole new can of worms about "creative" use of powers.

I also wouldn't reveal the whole complex map to my players (they'd have to map it room by room), and I felt that although it was nicely drawn, it wasn't particularly exciting or interesting for a dungeon map (as compared to maps in Paizo products, for example).

The only "mistake" he made happened when he role-played the dwarven spirit (Chris contradicted himself on the spirit not having talked to anyone in centuries, although the dwarf had already mentioned the other adventuring party) but that is a classic mistake for DMs who ad-lib a lot; I've done it more than a few times myself. Also, regardless of what the campaign guide says, I don't think a Melairkyn dwarf -- or any dwarf, for that matter -- would accept the idea of a drow entering a dwarven tomb in Undermountain.

That doesn't make him a "bad" DM, however. On the contrary -- after watching all the 'Robot Chicken plays D&D' clips, I'd love to sit at that game. Or any other game Chris would run. And I don't even particularly like 4E.

 

[nedjer]

If all you're going to do is play strictly by the mechanics and never try doing your own thing, regardless of the edition? Just play a video game.

That's why this thread is such a big thing - the issue wasn't one of creativity, and it wasn't even an issue of them trying to use a power to do something they couldn't - the issue is the reason he gave, which was rule minutia to the goddamn max. I don't think this is an X Edition Only thing, but getting caught in rule minutia and closing the box around is a problem.

You hit on the key difficulty with the future of tabletop RPGs. We distinguish ourselves from videogames through open-ended roleplaying and the options and flexibility that come with negotiating and patching rule sets, i.e. we have human imagination and co-operation on our side.

However, our rule sets have become increasingly like videogames to the point where I've seen GMs unpack a suitcase full of rule books and spend most of the game inside them.

The closer we move towards the videogame model and tie-in, the closer we move to losing our unique selling point/ character.

You would think, hope, tabletop players would recognise this and opt for/ demand rule sets that encouraged novelty and roleplaying but we're dragged towards the videogame model and the 'DRM' that goes with it.

This puts us in the position of kids receiving the handed down wisdom of marketing departments, instead of partners who shape and optimise play with open rule sets that are edited and moderated by players and GMs.

 

[Hussar]

I agree, which is why I would have the players use powers, which usually do more damage and/or have a better chance of hitting than basic attacks. A fight against an Ogre and two goblins would be a tedious, grind-fest if the players relied on nothing but basic attacks the whole fight.

That would be true, except the fight only lasted FOUR ROUNDS. That's right, it took THREE FRICKIN HOURS to play out four rounds of combat.

Because a couple of players, in a scene much like the one here, would spend half an hour doing a turn, because they had NO IDEA how their character worked or what they could do.

In this case, saying, "Ok, just attack, and we'll move on" would have cut the combat down to about half the time. And then spent some time between sessions, with the player tied to a chair, his eyes pinned open and forcibly made to read the bloody rules of his character at the very least.

 

[SkidAce]

That would be true, except the fight only lasted FOUR ROUNDS. That's right, it took THREE FRICKIN HOURS to play out four rounds of combat.

Where did you get the time scale from Hussar?

I count 7 episodes at 10 minutes each, so at the most it would be an hour and 10 minutes, and not everything on each episode was the battle?

Did I miss a clock in the background or something else obvious?

No malice intended, genuinely curious...

 

[Derren]

Did I get this right?
Because Chris didn't ignore a rule most people say it is silly, he is a bad DM?

Wouldn't you rather say that the problem is with the rule and not with the DM who decides to follow the rules?

 

[Mark]

Did I get this right? Because Chris didn't ignore a rule most people say it is silly, he is a bad DM?

No.

Wouldn't you rather say that the problem is with the rule (. . .)

Yes.

(. . .) and not with the DM who decides to follow the rules?

Maybe

 

[tylerthehobo]

WTF? Did I just watch someone spend about a month not opening a door. Wasn't even an interesting door. I assume the guy who left the table popped out to hang himself.

Was playing rules light with a kid last night. In almost the same amount of time as that video she knocked out a couple of goblins, then wounded, healed and befriended a timber wolf, duelled with a goblin shaman, interrogated another goblin who told her to drink from a fountain. Didn't drink from the poisoned fountain but evaporated some of the water to form a blade venom and . . .

Bingo - and that's the problem I'm finding the more and more I run 4e. It becomes about "but I have a card that does this" rather than, "Wouldn't it be cool if I tried this action that's vaguely justified by this elaborate game of pretend we play?"

 

[I'm A Banana]

Still, I see nothing in saying 'No' in this case, because letting 'Darkfire' melt the ice could potentially open a whole new can of worms about "creative" use of powers.

But in a one-shot with newbies, the idea goes, creative use of powers, in general, is probably a good thing, because it encourages them to do what they probably have the most fun doing, thus making them more likely to play the game again, rather than intimidating them with rules minutiae. I'd even say this is especially true with a one-shot, since the limits of abuse are rigidly defined.

You hit on the key difficulty with the future of tabletop RPGs. We distinguish ourselves from videogames through open-ended roleplaying and the options and flexibility that come with negotiating and patching rule sets, i.e. we have human imagination and co-operation on our side.

However, our rule sets have become increasingly like videogames to the point where I've seen GMs unpack a suitcase full of rule books and spend most of the game inside them.

I 100% agree. I think for tabletop games to keep an expand their base against videogames and the like, they need to leverage what they do that videogames don't. I've got an ENWorld blog post about this, too, the idea that the game should fit the medium it is played in best. It's something that's crossed my mind a lot while working on FFZ, since it is a tabletop game derived from a videogame, and the differences there are key to why you would bother playing a tabletop version. Namely, you get to create your own world, your own characters, your own villains, and run them however you decide to do it, rather than following a videogame script.

Creativity (and ambiguity) need to rise to the surface.

Bingo - and that's the problem I'm finding the more and more I run 4e. It becomes about "but I have a card that does this" rather than, "Wouldn't it be cool if I tried this action that's vaguely justified by this elaborate game of pretend we play?"

I think this is an issue that transcends editions, and it's still possible to do 4e without this problem, but the fact that 4e does come down more often on the "address" side than the "big house" side, and has unambiguous rules results and flexible flavor, subtly shifts this from where it was in previous editions. I don't think it's a catastrophic shift, but I do think that players looking at cards trying to pick the right power is something I do not ever really want to see at my table.

 

[ScottS]

I don't think it's a catastrophic shift, but I do think that players looking at cards trying to pick the right power is something I do not ever really want to see at my table.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Print (Rob Heinsoo) might interest you if you haven't already read it (in particular the "Powers for Everyone" section, which I think strongly implies that picking through power cards is exactly what they had in mind as being the "fun" part of the game).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Print (Rob Heinsoo) might interest you if you haven't already read it (in particular the "Powers for Everyone" section, which I think strongly implies that picking through power cards is exactly what they had in mind as being the "fun" part of the game).

I don't see it.

I see thinking that everyone should have powers, but, heck, 3e already had that basic concept (Cleave was a power, as was Whirlwind Strike, as were a lot of fighter feats), and it's a good idea to have specific abilities you can look forward to.

I, in fact, see that they stepped BACK from "lots of powers." Not far enough, IMO, but still.

I don't think that Rob was envisioning a situation like this, where the game stops while people debate which abilities they can actually use to overcome an obstacle. That's as bad as a newbie with a level 20 wizard in earlier editions.