D&D 4E 4E's New Direction: Giving the game back to the DM.

[Aegeri]

I don't follow your reasoning here.

Warforged are no less stupid or out of place in FR than Shardminds, Minotaurs, Wilden and Githzerai are as PCs either. As I allow PHB content as a general rule, there really isn't much of a point in banning one thing when there are a bunch of equally ridiculous things I've already said I won't ban (not to mention Dragonborn and Tieflings as well).

Warforged require no more exceptional an explanation for being in FR than Shardminds or any other of the menagerie of silly races they've made now.

 

[Greg K]

3.x removed DM control. 4e gave it back to some degree, but not so much wrt magic items. That has now been fixed.

3.5 perhaps. Not 3.0

Rule 0 (3.0 PHB p.4)

Sidebar: Access to Skills (3.0 PHB p.60): Tells the player that the DM can prohibit characters from taking certain skills

From the 3.0 DMG

"Let's start with the biggest secret of all: the key to Dungeon Mastering (Don't tell anyone, okay?). The secret is that you are in charge. That is not telling-everyone what to do sort of in charge. Rather, you decide how the group is going to play the game and "you decide how the rules work, which rules to use and how strictily to adhere to them."(3.0 DMG p.6).

"Good players will alway recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superceding somethng in a rule book" (3.0 DMG p.9)

"Every rule in the Player's Handbook was written for a reason. That doesn't mean you can't change them for your own game" (3.0 DMG p.9)

The 3.0 DMG even gave a bunch of optional rules for DMs to tailor the game

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

3.5 perhaps. Not 3.0

Rule 0 (3.0 PHB p.4)

Rule 0 only works when you don't have a section in the DMG telling you how balanced the rules are due to years of playtesting and that although you CAN change the rules, you shouldn't. It explains that players expect the rules to work a certain way and changing them without letting them know and discussing it with them can cause problems.

3.0 and 3.5 both were worded in such a way as to say "Here are lists of things you can take and exactly what they do when you take them. Oh....and incidentally, it's possible your DM says no to you taking one of them. But unless they say otherwise, this is how the game works."

This is in contrast to the way that 2e worked. For instance, in 2e there were a list of magic items. The book basically said "How you get these items is up to your DM."

In 3e, you get a list of "You should give out X magic items each level, as well as X gold. Magic items can be purchased for gold. If a PC has the correct amount of gold they should be able to buy an item provided they are in a big enough city. Here's how big a city needs to be to have magic items below a certain cost. Oh, and these rules can be changed if you really want to. But keep in mind these rules were playtested and are balanced and it's difficult to know long term what a change to the rules can do. So be careful."

And it was right. Change what magic items cost and you can make one item much better than all the others. Remove purchasing of magic items and then suddenly item creation feats become much, much more powerful.

It's a matter of expectations. Every player I've ever had in both 3.0 and 3.5 assumed they'd be able to buy the items they wanted for their character when they wanted as long as they had enough gold...and figured they would have enough gold since the guidelines for giving out gold gave them enough. If I decided to change something and use rule 0 it was filled with complaining and rewriting people's characters since they were no fun(or at least less fun) for people to play when the default assumptions weren't part of the game.

An example I always use is the time during our very first 3.0 game where our DM decided partway through our 4th or 5th session that he hated flatfootedness. He didn't read the book very effectively before he started DMing and had no idea that people lost their Dex modifier to AC before they first acted. He thought it was dumb and removed it. Which immediately removed about 30% of the time my Rogue with Improved Initiative got to use his Sneak Attack and caused me to ask him if I could make a different character.

 

[Jack99]

3.5 perhaps. Not 3.0

Rule 0 (3.0 PHB p.4)

Sidebar: Access to Skills (3.0 PHB p.60): Tells the player that the DM can prohibit characters from taking certain spells

From the 3.0 DMG

"Let's start with the biggest secret of all: the key to Dungeon Mastering (Don't tell anyone, okay?). The secret is that you are in charge. That is not telling-everyone what to do sort of in charge. Rather, you decide how the group is going to play the game and "you decide how the rules work, which rules to use and how strictily to adhere to them."(3.0 DMG p.6).

"Good players will alway recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superceding somethng in a rule book" (3.0 DMG p.9)

"Every rule in the Player's Handbook was written for a reason. That doesn't mean you can't change them for your own game" (3.0 DMG p.9)

The 3.0 DMG even gave a bunch of optional rules for DMs to tailor the game

I pretty much think Oakheart covered what I would have answered.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who has played the older editions can claim with a straight face that 3.0 didn't change perceptions around the DM's role. Maybe it was unintended, but we definitely went from "The DM is God" to "The DM might want to tweak certain rules".

I didn't like it, but that's just personal taste, so your mileage may vary..

 

[Tony Vargas]

Now, before you go crying and rattling off on some hyperbole about how the DM never lost control, that's not up for debate.

Right, it's not. DMs have always had and will always have complete control over what they allow into, add to, band from, or alter in their own campaigns. Of course, oganized play - like RPGA or Encounters is a different story...

With Essentials (based on previews) and notably, my read through of the Dark Sun Campaign Setting book, I'm noticing a new trend that seems to give DM's more options to limit or control material in their campaign.

Magic Item Rarity is one of these things, but also the language in the DS Campaign book indicates this as well. Phrases like, "at the DM's option" and such seem to be being used more than in previous 4E books.

You could consider that 'more DM control' (if the DM didn't already have total control. Or, more accurately, more 'explicit' DM control. What it really is, though, is incomplete design. Rather than settle on one way or another of doing things, the designer off-loads a decision about the product to the DM (the customer). That's not bad - sometimes it's the only way to expand the apeal of the product - but it's not good /for it's own sake/.

Are you noticing the change? Do you think it's for the good or detriment of the game? As a DM, do you like having more explicit control over the game, or no?

Yes, I've been noticing this trend. Magic item rarity puts the responsibility for imbalanced magic items on the DM - WotC /is/ going to create imbalanced 'rare' items that /might/ wreck your game, so you're going to have to be vigilant. Essentials puts the 'class balance' ball back in the DM's court - no longer are classes mechanically balanced out the gate, the DM will have to adjust encounters and campaign factors to achieve balance among the PCs depending upon what classes are being played.

I can do all that - I've been running D&D for 30 years, I can do a whole lot more than that - so it's not hurting me, as a DM. It /is/ hurting me as a player, because there are a lot of other, less experienced, more enthusiastic DMs out there - who could be running games for me! - who won't be able to do all that, but could have run a perfectly good 4e game prior to these changes.

Making 4e /very/ easy to run straight out of the box was a great thing, because it meant more DMs, which meant more games, which meant more and more engaged players. And, it didn't take away from more experienced DMs, because we could still change things around all we wanted.

That's the key. Keeping the game easy to learn and easy to run is more important than making it more 'flexible' for the experienced DM or rewarding the 'system mastery' of the experienced player.

As a player, do you prefer when the game text gives DM's final authority over the content and rules used?

Not so much, no. Inexperienced DMs can get themselves in trouble if they think they need to lord it over every detail of the game, rather than just play it straight unless there's a real problem. Of course, if they actually /need/ to go over every detail of the game to keep it from exploding, that's even worse...

Thoughts?

I think some people are entirely too eager to be pleased by Essentials - and others are entirely too eager to be outraged.

Hey, you didn't specify which thoughts.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Right, it's not. DMs have always had and will always have complete control over what they allow into, add to, band from, or alter in their own campaigns. Of course, oganized play - like RPGA or Encounters is a different story...

The difference is the ability to do this is directly related to what the players will let you do. In a home game you can make your players angry and lose players if you make changes that make the game no fun for them. Especially when they show up expecting one thing and get another.

Although Encounters and the RPGA are good examples of why it's a good idea to explicitly state where the DM gets to decide. I'm an Admin for Living Forgotten Realms and I like that there is a default in the rules as well as an option for those DM who don't like the default.

Yes, I've been noticing this trend. Magic item rarity puts the responsibility for imbalanced magic items on the DM - WotC /is/ going to create imbalanced 'rare' items that /might/ wreck your game, so you're going to have to be vigilant. Essentials puts the 'class balance' ball back in the DM's court - no longer are classes mechanically balanced out the gate, the DM will have to adjust encounters and campaign factors to achieve balance among the PCs depending upon what classes are being played.

You are reading too much into things. Rare items are balanced when used in the recommended fashion(1 per PC per tier with a 50/50 split between their common items and uncommon items). Essentials classes are designed to be balanced with all of the previous classes. DMs should not have to adjust any encounters at all simply because everyone is playing Essentials classes.

The reason magic item rarity is designed to give DM empowerment is because the system says "Players can't buy Uncommon or Rare magic items nor can they craft them without the express permission of the DM". It enables DMs to do LESS work to police their game. They can simply say "Make up characters using the default rules. Everyone starts at 15th level." and not worry that someone will come into their game with something like Frostcheese combinations. On the other hand, it provides an easy tool for DMs who prefer a more open game simply by changing the "slider". One DM can say "And you can buy Uncommon items if you want" if he wants to.

I can do all that - I've been running D&D for 30 years, I can do a whole lot more than that - so it's not hurting me, as a DM. It /is/ hurting me as a player, because there are a lot of other, less experienced, more enthusiastic DMs out there - who could be running games for me! - who won't be able to do all that, but could have run a perfectly good 4e game prior to these changes.

I'm not sure where any of this is making the new DMs job harder. It's all designed to make it easier.

I mean, the Magic Item Rarity system is designed to make players have less complicated magic items on their characters sheets and to remove the game breaking(or bending) items from being able to be freely brought to your table by every player.

The Essentials classes are designed to have less complicated status effects and game mechanics so they can be more easily understood by players and new DMs alike.

The default rules for Dark Sun are simply "No Divine Classes". But there is a side bar saying that a DM can break this rule if he wants. It gives the DM options without really adding complications. It's easy to say "No, I'm using the standard rules".

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As Tony has a point in "essentials classes are a bit differently balanced", i would tend to say, that a new DM that follows the guidelines will still make a balanced game.

Daily powers are only one thing that limits your adventuring day. The other thing is healing surges. Also there have been classes with differently balanced dailies (barbarian, who is much more powerful when he has a rage for every single encounter, or even worse, if he can rage strike).

He also has a point in "people tend to extremes"... yes, that is right... right there I see some changes I am curious about and some changes (feat balance, rogue tricks) i am more sceptical about.
But I certainly don´t see the sky falling or anything, that makes DMing harder.

 

[pemerton]

On the whole, I don't like this apparent feature of the Essentials design.

I've had a lot of experience playing a game which puts a huge burden on the GM to determine and adjudicate the ruleset - namely, Rolemaster - and one appeal of 4e was it indie-like promise of delivering a good game played as written right out of the box.

And for my group it has come very close to delivering on that promise - a few tweaks to some powers, action point options for skill challenges and some monster revisions have done the job.

One part of the game that I've quite liked, and that works well with "treasure parcels" and "wishlists", is the explicit incorporation of magic items as part of a PC's build. If Essentials is moving away from this, and putting more burdens on me as a GM to oversee my players in building their PCs, then I'm not that keen. I want balanced game elements that my players can pick and choose between as they see fit. If I wanted a system where the character build rules only work when the GM exercises tight and ongoing oversight, I'd be playing Hero or GURPS or something like that.

 

[Plane Sailing]

3.x removed DM control. 4e gave it back to some degree, but not so much wrt magic items. That has now been fixed.

I find it really ironic that this is the prevailing opinion, and that it was accepted by so many people, because the 3e books (far more than any previous edition) where chock-full of stuff about the DM setting the rules, DM saying what goes, DM adjusting things to suit their own campaign, rule 0 etc.

Monte etc had the plan to make it harder to be a poor DM by regularising a lot of stuff, but clearly wrote into the 3.0e books lots of stuff about the DM being in charge.

However, I presume because there was an implied underlying logic to stuff, and more and more players books were published, an expectation of player entitlement grew up. I further presume that many DMs bought into this for some reason, hence the prevailing wisdom that 3.x removed DM control.

But when I read my 3e books I don't see that at all.

Cheers

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

One part of the game that I've quite liked, and that works well with "treasure parcels" and "wishlists", is the explicit incorporation of magic items as part of a PC's build. If Essentials is moving away from this, and putting more burdens on me as a GM to oversee my players in building their PCs, then I'm not that keen. I want balanced game elements that my players can pick and choose between as they see fit. If I wanted a system where the character build rules only work when the GM exercises tight and ongoing oversight, I'd be playing Hero or GURPS or something like that.

But that's not what these rules do. Right now, if I say "Build whatever characters you want using the default rules, level 15 characters" I will end up with a couple of my friends building fairly broken characters. Mainly due to the combination of magic items they'd add to their characters. Most of the items they'd pick aren't that powerful on their own and certainly don't need to be restricted.

For instance, there is a magic item that increases the distance you can teleport by 1 square each time you use a teleport power. No big deal.

There is another item that allows you to split a teleport into 2 parts. Also, no big deal.

There's a class feature that lets you do damage(I believe it is a stat modifier in damage) when you teleport away from an enemy.

There is a utility power that lets you at-will teleport 1 square as a minor action.

All the parts aren't broken, but when combined together, you get a character who is able to teleport twice per minor action, doing damage to each enemy he is next to 6 times a round without making an attack roll.

Now, as a DM I have to police these sorts of things. I don't want to have to police them. I like the fact that the new rules say "Most items will be uncommon. If you want them in your game, you will explicitly put them into your game. Your PCs won't choose them."

I do think it'll have the side effect of having 90% of all items never see play again...but I'm willing to take that risk.