D&D 4E How did 4e take simulation away from D&D?

[Crazy Jerome]

Again, no.

Re-read the advice. It specifically says:

"That wasn’t a possibility you’d anticipated, and you don’t have anything prepared for it. Many DMs, at this point, would say, 'No, there’s no
wizards’ guild here.'”

The advice is specifically for improv and on the fly judgment calls, not for prepared campaign material (like, there not being Ye Old Shoppe of Magic in your campaign world).

If you've already decided that such a place does not exist, then adhering to your prep is absolutely the right thing to do.

This is what some of them probably meant. The impression they created with too heavy emphasis on the "yes" part is the one that KarinsDad got. I feel very free to say, "No," when warranted, but the DMG text really grates. This is what I referred to early as their "wimping out," on DM advice that was portrayed inconsistently with the game otherwise created.

However, to be fair I don't really know whether they wimped out, had a disagreement among the staff that was never resolved, tried too hard to simplify the advice for beginners, or simply wrote poorly. Given the nature of some of the DM advice in other products by some of the DMG authors, I'm inclined to believe it was wimping out. Given the effort made to make the game beginner friendly elsewhere, i'm inclined to be more charitable at times.

 

[Harlekin]

Within the context of the DMG page 28 and 29 where the terminology "Saying Yes" originated, the second example is saying No.

The DM is not allowing there to be a Magic Shop in that town which according to the DMG is a campaign loss and "cutting off possibilities".

It is my contention that doing this is often OK.

It's not required that the DM allow his players to often or even sometimes dictate what elements of the campaign world exist and where they exist.

It's the DM's world. He decides what is there or not.

The concept of empowering the players to the point that "Saying Yes" to many of their ideas with regard to what exists in the campaign world is not preferable in many cases.

The concept of having the DMG tell a DM that doing this is wrong is worse. Having it as a suggestion is fine. But the way "Saying Yes" is worded implies that "Saying No" is badwrongfun and frustrating to players. That's what I am disagreeing with and discussing.

Not the semantics that the DM allowed the PC to go look for a Magic Shop that didn't exist. The DM still said "Nope. No magic shop.". He still said No and that's sometimes a good thing.

I think though, you can do even better in this situation and that involves saying yes. Say you have established that there are no Magic Emporium type stores in your campaign. There are likely still wisewomen or charlatans selling "magic" gear to the guillible. The player could therefore be directed to a seedy part of town giving you the opportunity to add color to you campaign. There may be an attempted robbery. You can introduce interesting NPCs that you can reuse later. And who knows, there may be one true magic item in that store, and it happens to very similar to what the player wants. It's dirt cheap too. But something doesn't feel quite right about it...

This is how I understand the advice. Find a way to turn the player's suggestion into something interesting that fits with your vision of the world has two benefits:
1. An outside source of scenario ideas.
2. More opportunity for the players to be involved in your world.

 

[KarinsDad]

Again, no.

Re-read the advice. It specifically says:

"That wasn’t a possibility you’d anticipated, and you don’t have anything prepared for it. Many DMs, at this point, would say, 'No, there’s no
wizards’ guild here.'”

The advice is specifically for improv and on the fly judgment calls, not for prepared campaign material (like, there not being Ye Old Shoppe of Magic in your campaign world).

If you've already decided that such a place does not exist, then adhering to your prep is absolutely the right thing to do.

Maybe you should re-read it. You've skipped some sections that are pertinent.

The advice is in the improv section, but the terminology in it is still anti- "Saying No".

You might even be surprised to realize that the game is better than it would have been if it had stuck to your original script.

Wait, it's in a section on improv, but it talks about changing your original script and claims that it "might be better", but that it actually "is better".

One of the cornerstones of improvisational theater technique is called “Yes, and . . .” It’s based on the idea that an actor takes whatever the other actor gives and builds on that.
That’s your job as well. As often as possible, take what the players give you and build on it.

Err, no. That's not my job. I'm not playing improv which has a totally different set of rules and expectations than what I am playing.

What a loss! The players end up frustrated, trying to come up with some other course of action. Even worse, you’ve set limits to your own campaign.

Not "the players might end up frustrated", but that they actually do end up frustrated.

Instead of cutting off possibilities, you’ve made your campaign richer, and instead of frustrating your players, you’ve rewarded them for thinking in creative and unexpected ways.

If you do not see how condescending the way this was written, it's not worth discussing. The intent is fine, but the way it is written is very poorly done.


This is not the only way to play the game, this is not the preferred way to play the game for many players, this is not even necessarily a good way to play the game.

This is not the way I've ever seen the game played where the DM is unprepared and then plays improve theater with his players.

In our games, the DM is prepared. The players sometimes go off on a side trek, but the DM decides what is observable on the side trek or not. The players do not.

If a given DM needs that crutch and has difficulty thinking on the fly without leading player input, fine. But the DMG shouldn't be telling everyone to do it that way and imply that it is badwrongfun if we don't.



You'll also note that there are other sections in the DMG where other styles of DMing the game are discussed. In those sections, the DMG generally does not support one style to the exclusion of others. For example, on rolling behind the screen, it states the pros and cons of doing so and doesn't make a judgement call.

In the Improvisation section, it makes a judgement call. One way is good, not doing so is "a loss". I happen to disagree with that judgement call the majority of the time and I also thought that it was poorly written. You might happen to agree with that judgement call.

 

[eriktheguy]

To be fair, a suggestion on how to run the game philosophically is not a rule, and not really a difference between D&D versions. Most people who have only seen the 4e philosophy and not the 3e philosophy are never going to play 3e anyways.

And I think we are a bit (way) off topic from the OP.

 

[Zaran]

Just one thing:

i bet the one who put that come and get it power into the PHB is getting beaten everytime someone mentions it in a forum as the source of suspension of disbelief.

So for heaven´s sake. Just don´t.

There is a ranger utility that makes steps up the side of a wall using arrows. My first thought was: How many arrows does that use up? There are a few powers that really stretch the imagination. Come and Get is just one of the worst.

 

[Barastrondo]

Saying no is just as valid a response as saying yes (or any variant thereof), for a DM. Just as appropriate, necessary, useful, for good gaming.

Being able to do so is a lost (forbidden?) art for some, it would appear. But, to say the least, no less valuable for it.

I would hazard a guess that there are at least as many, if not more, GMs out there who are worried about other GMs who "might say yes too often and train players to become more entitled" than there are actual GMs saying yes too often and training players to become more entitled.

Seriously, if saying no was all that lost or forbidden an art, it would never have occurred to WotC to publish advice on saying yes. It would be the assumed default that every DM says yes more often than no. It's like handing out free condoms on a college campus to reduce the risk of STDs: you don't do that because you assume that only a rare few students are having sex.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I would hazard a guess that there are at least as many, if not more, GMs out there who are worried about other GMs who "might say yes too often and train players to become more entitled" than there are actual GMs saying yes too often and training players to become more entitled.

Interesting angle to take.

Seriously, if saying no was all that lost or forbidden an art, it would never have occurred to WotC to publish advice on saying yes.

Firstly, I did not say (nor mean to imply) that it's "that" lost [etc.], but rather, simply commenting on what I have observed, right in front of me. As in, "for some", and "it would appear". You know, the stuff I actually wrote, not the agenda you seem to be assuming I am pushing, defending, or what have you. See above as well, for more of that.

Oh, and secondly, "Say yes or roll the dice" is [or at least was, leading up to 4e's launch] quite the trendy catchphrase. Mike Mearls is on record expressing admiration for the "movement" pushing that PoV, such expression being, naturally enough, politically savvy in its own way. If as divisive as various other moves obviously were - or have later proven to be - along the way...

Not surprisingly I suppose, quite apart from the fact that "d20 is no longer so threatening" (yes, well), 4e has been received rather warmly, by and large, by the story games / Forge / indie folks. No, not by every single one of them. I do mean generally speaking here. Being perceived to be no longer stomping toes all over the damn place must yield some kind of benefit, somewhere.

It would have been quite the "coup" if the OSR could have been likewise wooed. It was attempted, right enough. Just... not sure that went all that swimmingly.

It would be the assumed default that every DM says yes more often than no. It's like handing out free condoms on a college campus to reduce the risk of STDs: you don't do that because you assume that only a rare few students are having sex.

Well, it's witty. I had to chuckle, even. But otherwise, it's completely irrelevant. I can only assume you didn't already know that, so it must be a case of crossed wires. As evidenced by the first quoted paragraph, I guess.

 

[LostSoul]

4E's "Say Yes" and Dogs in the Vineyard's "Roll dice or say yes" are about two pretty different things. 4E's advice seems to be saying that you should give the players the ability to determine what's in the setting/the back-story of NPCs ("content authority"), and DitV's advice is about focusing on conflicts between characters.

 

[NoWayJose]

There is a ranger utility that makes steps up the side of a wall using arrows. My first thought was: How many arrows does that use up? There are a few powers that really stretch the imagination. Come and Get is just one of the worst.

In a world of Hollywood-fantasy logic, I don't worry too much about 'how many arrows does that use up?' per se.

However, I would strongly question 'how is it believable, even in fantasy fiction, that can a ranger can miraculously shoot x number of arrows so quickly and powerfully to riddle a wall in a single round, BUT he can't seem to summon the same powerful flurry towards anything else other than a wall?"

It's these arbitrary straight-jacketed one-trick pony powers that bother me the most in terms of simulation. The fluff tantalizingly suggests fantastic possibilities, but the crunch only allows 'push 1 square' or whatever else fits into the game rules box.

 

[Ryujin]

I would hazard a guess that there are at least as many, if not more, GMs out there who are worried about other GMs who "might say yes too often and train players to become more entitled" than there are actual GMs saying yes too often and training players to become more entitled.

Seriously, if saying no was all that lost or forbidden an art, it would never have occurred to WotC to publish advice on saying yes. It would be the assumed default that every DM says yes more often than no. It's like handing out free condoms on a college campus to reduce the risk of STDs: you don't do that because you assume that only a rare few students are having sex.

Those DMs would also be missing the fact that 'saying yes' to the player who wants his character to swing 50 feet across a room, on a chandelier, and then attack his opponent at the end of it can also be quite educational for that player, when his character goes splat, prone in front of that enemy, who then whacks him with CA.

Saying yes doesn't imply that the player ultimately gets his way.