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

[Hautamaki]

no it isn't, FAR from it, in fact, it is my belief that 4e give the characters WAY LESS license that every before


I have never had that problem, usually at my table, the players never want to bypass anything, if the DM says, ok, blah blah blah this is the adventure, and the players say we teleport away, thats a whole night wasted...who wants that?

I think it is kind of a shame that all your players want to do is be the uberest they can be, and I guess I am lucky that my table is full of players who like to role play.

The key distinction is 'in battle' vs 'out of battle' narrative control. In previous editions players had way more out of battle narrative control in that they had much greater ability to determine which fights they fought and under what conditions. Of course players had some abilities they could use to force monsters to do what they want in battle, such as charm or even tripping or grappling, but as we all know that very rarely happened due to the cumbersomeness of the rules for some of those abilities, or the difficulty in beating a decent monster's saving throws for others.

In 4e on the other hand players have a lower ability to control what fights they get into and under what conditions because their out-of-battle spell casting has been slowed down and toned down to a large degree compared to 3.x. However, players have a greater ability to control monsters within the battles themselves thanks to dailies and encounters that all classes have access to that stun, knock down, or force movement on monsters automatically, no matter what monster it is, even on a miss.

BTW, I'm glad that your players are perfect, my players are perfect too, but that has nothing to do with the actual nature of the rules as written, which is what we are talking about.

 

[NoWayJose]

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!"

Interesting that this part of the OP hasn't been addressed so much.

I'm wondering if the players didn't try to climb because there was no 'Climb' skill listed on their character sheets?

Alternatively, in a narrative/cinematic game, it isn't obvious that ALL epic heroes can climb 200 foot walls. That's more a mechanical artifact of D&D rules. Maybe they reasonably assumed that only epic thieves can climb anything. If so, it's not their fault that there's a discrepancy between what the players assume the PCs can do vs what the PCs would know they could do. In which case, I'd allow a Wisdom check to clue them in.

 

[slwoyach]

Well you could always put it out that either you get to hand off the DM hat once in awhile so you don't have to deal with it or you'll be running a different game. Unless of course you feel 4e's positives outweigh its negatives.

 

[Beginning of the End]

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.

I'm guessing chopping a head off from the inside and causing the top of a cliff to collapse by punching it really hard would be right out, too?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=079Z1CRXDmM&feature=player_embedded]Video[/ame]

 

[NoWayJose]

I'm guessing chopping a head off from the inside and causing the top of a cliff to collapse by punching it really hard would be right out, too?

Comparing Hercules (epic level hero in a CARTOON) to a zombie rotter (1 hp minion in D&D) is comparing animated demi-gods to animated corpses (puns intended). So no, the analogy doesn't serve you well.

 

[the Jester]

That's how I think 4E was designed, not how I see the DM's role in general.

Aha- gotcha.

Still, I bet Irontooth would disagree.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Comparing Hercules (epic level hero in a CARTOON) to a zombie rotter (1 hp minion in D&D) is comparing animated demi-gods to animated corpses (puns intended). So no, the analogy doesn't serve you well.

Fair enough. I should have read Ultramark's original post closer to realize that he was completely full of . Wil Wheaton's PC may be a rotting zombie that serves as the party's minion, but he's clearly not playing a 1 hp minion. Nor does the MM's "zombie rotter" minion have the ability that Wheaton uses. A zombie hulk has something similar, but that's a Brute 8.

 

[Balesir]

I find much of this thread quite disappointing. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but it's still depressing that several GMs apparently feel this way.

Back in the, what, '80s and '90s, I went through this stage, too. "I am the mighty GM! This is my game - and I have full responsibility to make it great!!"

Then I wised up. One day, after reading and thinking about just what RPGs are "all about", I thought "why am I doing this crap?" The game is played by a group of people. The game is the responsibility of the whole group, not just one of its members. Trying to take control of it to "tell your story the way you want to" is just ego masturbation. "Ruling your table with an iron fist" is the same, even if your intentions are as pure as driven snow. I realised that, as a GM, I wasn't there to give some kind of performance - I was there to have fun with my friends.

Now, when we agree to play with a gamist focus, it's up to the GM to set up tough and interesting challenges, and it's up to the players to step up to those challenges, not try to avoid them or dodge the risk in them through tedious, finicky play. They are supposed to be playing heroes, dammit!!

When we play with an explorative focus, it's up to the group as a whole to take the previously established "facts" of a setting or a situation and develop it jointly. If the players are aiming to "win" in these games, they're missing the point (and the fun).

If we play with a narrativist focus, it's up to the GM to create a situation (and setting) ripe with plot potential - and it's up to the players to give their characters plot hooks and motivations. Players trying to make sure their characters have no weaknesses or strong desires ("dramatic needs", in the jargon) are short-changing both themselves and the rest of the group.

Giving the GM all the power demands that s/he is responsible, alone, for the fun in the game, because power and responsibility go together, always. That tends to drive players to avoid challenges and risk, to follow the GM's lead or try to "win" instead of trying to invent a new world, and to make characters with no flaws, aims or defining features. And all of that is just no fun at all.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I don't think that Wik is saying that the GM should have all the power.

I think he is saying that he currently feels he has no power, and that is where the problem lies.

Regards,

 

[slwoyach]

We're almost to the point that we don't need DMs. Just buy the module and go.