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

[MarkB]

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.

One of the keys to Epic play is presenting Epic challenges. If the tower is climbable by even an untrained Epic character, clue them in during the description - i.e. "the walls, though sheer, would present little obstacle to practised adventurers such as yourselves".

If, on the other hand, it is a tower built to withstand assault by Epic creatures, then maybe those walls shouldn't be easily climbable - either they're built ultra-smooth and tough to grant no purchase, or there are defensive measures built in to discourage climbers, or maybe they're not physical walls at all, but planes of force that repel anything which touches them.

 

[TheUltramark]

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.

first off, everyone's players should be perfect
next, i DO see what you mean about the in-battle flavor of the fight. The pushes and pulls and slides and whatnot. My perfect players, though, have been doing this all along in all editions, mainly because we all thought the idea of a player and a monster standing toe to toe swinging away until one of them dropped was stupid.

 

[Wik]

I don't want to have to engineer my encounters to trick my players into using all their crazy powers on big monsters. I don't want to have to worry about doing design tricks to stop players from dictating the game. I want to play the game as written, have fun for a few hours, and spend the week thinking about the campaign outside of the rules.

I don't want to have players that can, regardless of the situation, tell me "I use this power. If I hit, THIS happens. If I fail, THIS happens." I want to be able to have some ability to take a player's input device (their powers, in this case) and use that to make a judgement on what happens in the game.

I DON'T want players essentially taking away my ability to react to and interpret their actions, which is what I'm finding 4E does. There are plenty of times where the game basically locks me into doing actions. And our group quite often doesn't even see the monsters they're supposedly fighting... they just see bags of hit points and tactical situations. And as a GM, I feel burned out because player actions are very rarely described (what's the point, when the effect is predetermined and description takes time in an already long combat?), and one thing could just as easily be another.

But I don't want all the power. I have no problem with my gibbering mouther getting one hit killed (even though I pretend to still hold a grudge). I have no problem with players solving problems creatively.

What I HATE is players TELLING me what happens, rather than telling me their actions, and ASKING what happens.

4E is doing that to me. And it makes me feel like I'm losing my GM chops.

 

[Thasmodious]

What I HATE is players TELLING me what happens, rather than telling me their actions, and ASKING what happens.

4E is doing that to me. And it makes me feel like I'm losing my GM chops.

Is this just a shift in the semantics of the game, though? Players have always been able to do this in various manner, and in many different systems, whether it be knockback rules for big weapons or the many D&D spells that grant the caster some control over a target, command, charm, dominate, etc. In other editions, the player cast their spell, the monster saved and the DM had to report the success or failure, but this is a meaningless difference in the game. You had no more control over the success or failure of a dominate spell then then you do a power now (unless you employed DM fiat to gain whatever outcome you desired and the DM rolls the save mechanic let you do this without notice).

In effect, what I am asking is, is there really a difference between:

"My power hit and the monster is rebuked three squares back and is prone until I break control"

"I roll a 24 on my turn undead"
"You now command the undead"
"I command it to go over there three squares away and cower until I say otherwise."

The player exerts the same level of control, the only different is the shift of the knowledge of the outcome of the attempt to a public awareness, instead of a behind the screen one.

 

[The Human Target]

All I can say is I don't feel that way at all DMing me 4e game.

If anything I feel like I have more control than I did in 3E.

 

[fuzzlewump]

All I can say is I don't feel that way at all DMing me 4e game.

If anything I feel like I have more control than I did in 3E.

This. No edition wars, since I won't say and don't care if it's better or worse. Me as dm: oh, you cast dominate monster? Oh you cast hold person? You cast any multitude of save or sucks/die? Guess my monster doesn't have a turn then.

I'm also not understanding why dm's care if their monsters get trounced? Is that the most important factor why dming is fun? Or even a factor at all?

 

[FireLance]

I don't want to have players that can, regardless of the situation, tell me "I use this power. If I hit, THIS happens. If I fail, THIS happens." I want to be able to have some ability to take a player's input device (their powers, in this case) and use that to make a judgement on what happens in the game.

...

What I HATE is players TELLING me what happens, rather than telling me their actions, and ASKING what happens.

4E is doing that to me. And it makes me feel like I'm losing my GM chops.

I get where you're coming from, but to me, a 4E power with miss effects is really quite similar to spells in previous editions with half or otherwise reduced effects on a successful saving throw. To my mind, the only real differences are:

1. The frequency. In previous editions, only spellcasters had abilities that always had some effect (even if the effect could be reduced with a saving throw). Now, every class in 4E has the potential to do this. If this is the problem, I think it's inherent in the system and there isn't much that can be done about it, short of restricting certain powers.

2. Who rolls the "save". Is it possible that you felt more in control in previous editions because the player stated his action (casting a spell) and you determined the effects by rolling saving throws for the targets? The shift from making saving throws to making attack rolls was intended to make the attacker feel more in control, even if the chance of saving/missing was exactly the same. The flip side, of course, is that the DM might feel a corresponding loss of control when the monsters are attacked. If this is the problem, switching back to a system of you making "defence rolls" for the monsters (at least, when the players use daily abilities) might do the trick.

 

[Umbran]

What I HATE is players TELLING me what happens, rather than telling me their actions, and ASKING what happens.

4E is doing that to me. And it makes me feel like I'm losing my GM chops.

I don't see how this is fundamentally different in the new game - in the old game, if a wizard cast Sleep (or used any number of other spells or powers), some number of monsters fell asleep(or had whatever effect happen to them) - the GM didn't generally get a say in the matter, if he was playing by the rules. There's a spell or power description, a saving throw, and there you were. The GM's say only came in when he wanted to break the rules, or there was no rule.

However, I'll note two things:

1) Monsters and NPCs don't use the same rules as PCs.

2) 4e uses "exception based design" - most of the powers are exceptions to the base rules, rather than an integral part of them.

It then follows that you can still do what you darned well please, as you can give your monsters "exceptions" to particular powers.

Be that as it may - I'm thinking that the issue isn't a fault in the game, so much as a mismatch with your own desired style. You say it yourself - as the GM you don't like the players telling you what happens. But, "I don't like it" does not equate to a flaw in the game. Pizza with anchovies is not flawed - I just don't care for anchovies.

 

[Zhaleskra]

While I still haven't actually played 4e, one thing I have seen is that it's not so much that too much is new -- it's that they gave things that they already had titles.

I also remember earlier editions having spells where X victims of Y Hit Dice or less are affected, no save.

 

[Wik]

Be that as it may - I'm thinking that the issue isn't a fault in the game, so much as a mismatch with your own desired style. You say it yourself - as the GM you don't like the players telling you what happens. But, "I don't like it" does not equate to a flaw in the game. Pizza with anchovies is not flawed - I just don't care for anchovies.

Oh, you're exactly right. That isnt' a fault with the game - it's a fault with my style. I was never really trying to hate on 4e... just grumbling about a facet of the game that really peeves me.

All I feel is that 4e seems less difficult to run. There is less room, in my opinion, for individual DM talents to shine through. If five 4e GMs were run a module, it'd probably turn out roughly the same... if those five GMs ran another module for another system, I imagine there'd be a larger difference in the play experience.

I really do feel like a player in a board game - and when you play a board game, being the guy destined to always lose kind of sucks.