Player Control, OR "How the game has changed over the years, and why I don't like it"

[Wik]

We played our first session of Epic-level 4th edition the other day, and I was definitely nonplussed. It was a bizarre little game, where the Players felt almost paralyzed and powerless in some situations, and yet had the ability to basically dictate the course of the game in others.

For example, there was a tower, two hundred feet high. They couldn't figure out a way to ascend it. Even though, if they made a climb check, they'd only fail on a natural 1. After half an hour of them making plans and scratching them, I just had to snap and say "Geez. You guys are $@^#ing epic!"

And then, in a fight, they had powers that would stun monsters before they could act, that would guarantee monster movement, and interrupt powers that basically said "no, Wik, you can't do that".

And that's when I had an epiphany.

My beef with 4e has been growing for awhile. And it's not really about the rules. Or the power system. Or feat bloat. Or CrazyStupid MonsterName.

It's about the fact that my players now have the ability to say to me "No. I am doing this, and you have to adjust".

It's about the fact that, no matter what, our fighter can blow Come and Get it, and dictate the movement of my monsters. It's about the fact that, in a big fight, my players can basically stun-lock my big bad monsters, and if I say "no, that doesn't happen" I am breaking the rules and depriving them of their core strengths. It's about the fact that, if I want to do something, my players feel they have the right to say "no, this doesn't happen."

I compare this to other games (not necessarily D&D), where that was never the case. It was instead a case of me saying "the bad guy does this" and the players TRYING to prevent that from happening... not from saying, outright, that because of power X, Y happens.

Or, in other words, in other games, the players would try something and run the risk of failure, or the GM having the potential to say "no, that doesn't happen". Now, it's a matter of "Well, I missed on the attack, so he's only stunned until the end of my next turn. Now, everyone, Coup de gras him!".

Essentially, my problem is that I feel the DM has less power than he used to at the actual table, and it makes me feel like my role is somehow less important. DMing 4e is, in my experience, less fun than DMing in other games, because it feels like less of an art, and more like a trade. If that makes any sense at all.

Am I the only one who thinks like this? Does anyone have any ideas on how to fix it? Preferably BEFORE I storm out on my players in abject disgust and declare "From now on, we're only playing Call of Cthulu! Everyone dies!"

 

[Wik]

Oh, and please no edition warring. I'm not trying to do that. I'm seeing a fault with a current game, and can't figure out a way to fix it. I'm just wondering if other people have seen that fault... not whether or not that fault existed in 3e and other editions and how 4e actually improved yadda yadda yadda.

For what it's worth, once we finish up this 4e campaign, we're running an E6 Dark Sun campaign, because pretty much every player except one is basically sick and tired of 4E. Probably due to the fact that I have had very little fun running it, with a few major exceptions (and, to be perfectly honest, those exceptions probably would have been fun regardless of system).

 

[TheUltramark]

i can't help ya - we're only 3rd level

one thing I do make the guys do is say everything that is going to happen BEFORE they do it. I hate the ... "oh, wait, I rolled a 1, but this ___ happens"

there is a vid on youtube that maybe everyone has seen of Chris Perkins DMing for Acquisitions INc. in a live session during a convention. During the fight, a zombie rotter (yes a minion) knocks a hydra prone with a smash...I tell you this, NO CHANCE I let that go down at my table...I don't care how pretty and colorful your little sheet with your powers on it is, and i don't care what it says I say what happens, and that just don't.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM7xJ84LMA0&feature=related]YouTube - PAX Celebrity Game, Part 9[/ame]

 

[Lanefan]

Essentially, my problem is that I feel the DM has less power than he used to at the actual table, and it makes me feel like my role is somehow less important. DMing 4e is, in my experience, less fun than DMing in other games, because it feels like less of an art, and more like a trade. If that makes any sense at all.

Of course it does. Taken to its ultimate end in such systems, the role of DM becomes that of a CPU; processing player input and giving out result according to a predetemined program. This is a direction the game should be trying to move away from, but its designers keep pushing it toward instead.

Lan-"my DMing processor about equates to an 8088"-efan

 

[Ringlerun]

After watching that vid i felt a little ashamed at being a gamer.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think you just need to adjust. That'll take time, probably a few sessions.

The XP budget is just a guideline, for starters. You don't need to tell your players what the budget is, what level monsters are, etc.

If PCs can control your monsters, use more monsters (without adding to XP necessarily, at least until after the encounter, and only if they were able to contribute), and the occasional well-designed solo that can deal with stun locking. (A really good example would be any dragon in the Monster Vault. They each get an additional attack that they "sacrifice" in order to remove a daze, dominate or stun effect.)

I've never played epic, but I hear this complaint all the time. Which classes can keep doing this? Is it just wizards, or can the barbarian dominate enemies? (I actually read that once on this forum.)

Epic-level monsters should be rare anyway, which means you'll be designing plenty of your own monsters. Be sure to use the DMG2 damage guidelines, and toss in some controller monsters who can either stun lock PCs or, even better, use monsters with Esuna-like effects to reverse stun locking. (This is better than giving lots of monsters immunity to stun, as the PCs can spend a few rounds ganking the leader-type and then use their stun locking abilities, but that gives your other monsters a few rounds to strut their stuff.) An example of the latter; an NPC cleric-flavored leader with the Sacred Flame ability. That's granting a saving throw at-will, and could be done by a 1st-level NPC.

If you have a super-assassin who always surprises and ganks a monster in the first round, add an extra monster, preferably an attractive target (like a spellcaster) to draw their attention. They feel special, and you didn't include that monster in the budget. Or sometimes toss in a monster with tremorsense, so their tactic isn't 100% successful.

Naturally the XP "cheating" should diminish once you've got a handle on your players' tactics and can design encounters better suited to them.

Come and Get It has been errata'd, on the ground that fighters aren't capable of mind control.

I compare this to other games (not necessarily D&D), where that was never the case. It was instead a case of me saying "the bad guy does this" and the players TRYING to prevent that from happening... not from saying, outright, that because of power X, Y happens.

That happened even in 2e DnD. You could try to prevent an NPC from doing something by grappling him or casting a spell like Sleep or Power Word Stun. And I say "try" because the NPC could still make their save (or in 4e, your PC could miss with their attack).

Or, in other words, in other games, the players would try something and run the risk of failure, or the GM having the potential to say "no, that doesn't happen". Now, it's a matter of "Well, I missed on the attack, so he's only stunned until the end of my next turn. Now, everyone, Coup de gras him!".

If they have powers that can stun on a miss, they're using a broken power. Are you sure that's what the power says? Maybe you've run into the "psionics problem" -- the player knows more about the game or subsystem than the DM does, and takes advantage of you that way. Or maybe 4e epic is unalterably broken, if tons of powers like that actually exist.

 

[chaochou]

I've not played 4e at Epic level, so I don't know the specifics of how ridiculous PCs can get by that point, but I think this is a really interesting topic.

First page of the 4e DMG says the DMs role is not to be an adversary of the PCs, but to be a fan of the PCs who provides them with a challenge. When I read that, I thought 'Okay. So what is a player's role?'

Because I think a lot of players' natural instincts are to try and minimise the challenge, to minimise the risk and danger, and in doing so they are short-changing themselves.

Taken to an extreme, if I give a character Armour of Invulnerability to Everything Ever and a Sword of Instant Slaying of Everything Ever, my guess is the fun is going to wear thin in minutes. Want to kill Orcus - okay he dies. Tiamat - okay, dead. Asmodeus - yep, dead. The Tarrasque, yep that dies too. I mean, what's the point?

So I think there's an implicit contradiction if I, as a player, try and max my character and then complain about a lack of challenge, when a lack of challenge is exactly what I've attempted to engineer. If I'm uber-ing a character then a lack of challenge might be considered a roaring success.

And I think that's a pretty selfish way to look at things. I think of my primary role as a player as: To have fun, without stomping on anyone else's fun. Which includes the GM. So if my carefully maxed character is battering everything the GM throws at me, and the GM isn't enjoying it, then I wouldn't be calling that good or successful play. For me, that would suck.

So I can empathise with the OP, and the only answer I see is that it's not the sole responsibility of the 4E GM to provide the challenge and the fun. Players have a shared responsibility.

 

[IronWolf]

NO CHANCE I let that go down at my table...I don't care how pretty and colorful your little sheet with your powers on it is, and i don't care what it says I say what happens, and that just don't.

I watched the video, why would you veto this? It seems like a legit use of powers and some luck. Let the players be heroes when it happens. It is fun!

 

[wayne62682]

I understand your points but I can't agree. IMO the worst thing of the old versions of D&D was this whole "The DM is God" nonsense, that the DM could dictate to the players anything he wanted, that the players had NO control over anything, often not even their own characters. That mentality fostered entire generations of, to be frank, asshat DMs that run "their" game with an iron fist, and we are only now trying to get away from that mentality with a joint game where both sides can do things, instead of one side having all the power and the other being thrown a bone to give the illusion of free will.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My beef with 4e has been growing for awhile. And it's not really about the rules. Or the power system. Or feat bloat. Or CrazyStupid MonsterName.

It's about the fact that my players now have the ability to say to me "No. I am doing this, and you have to adjust".

Interesting. Maybe it's partially playstyle, but I usually love it when that happens. Outside of combat at least, I love it when a player takes control of the narrative and all I need to do is describe the painful fallout from their actions.

In combat....eh....I've had plenty of issues I struggle with in 4e combat, so this doesn't really stand out at me, but I think I can see what you're saying from my own experience.

The thing is that this "DM control" helps a party feel that there is a risk in the game, that anything could happen. When the players get more control, there is less perceived risk, so it takes some of the bite out of big encounters.

The combat minigame is heavily weighted in favor of the PC's in 4e, and it can take a DM a lot of advanced prep and work to make sure the party actually feels like they're being challenged, that there is risk. 4e generally doesn't want the PC's to fail, which can make the game feel very much like everything is a speedbump, just there to get you to roll dice in between inevitable plot points.

I don't have a problem with player control per se -- the situations you mentioned seemed to have design problems aside from "player control" (Solos not being able to throw off statuses, size not affecting forced-move powers, stun being a surprisingly harsh status effect, etc.). You might want to take a look at this article (it's free to all!) to see a pretty good example of some specific guidelines for solos, especially epic-level solos, and try to match up your enemies with monsters from the MM3 and MVs, not the earlier models (the design keeps getting better!).

Something you might want to consider doing is, instead of having your players roll for attacks, you get to roll for your monsters' defenses. This brings back the old "saving throw" dynamic, and uses a defense to say "No!" rather than attack roll that the player gets to say "Do it!" on. There's still dailies and encounter powers with powerful effects or miss lines that'll make stuff happen anyway, but that's part of 4e's "never shall you totally suck" philosophy. Which I don't think is going away, really.