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

[Wik]

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.

Well, I can't think of a single pre 4e power, or from another game, that will always work, regardless of situation or target, and have a miss effect that is almost as good.

It's mostly just a shift in how the game is played, for sure. But it bugs me being TOLD to do something, as a GM. I've never encountered that, save in 4e. And it's not just my players, because I've played other games with them.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Fair enough.

Though, again - I don't like anchovies, but the existence of anchovy pizza doesn't cheese me off. It is there for those who like it, and there are other pizzas (or, by analogy, games) for those who don't.

There is less room, in my opinion, for individual DM talents to shine through.

I think this is an illusion. As I've noted - in the past the rules dictated many effects on monsters. If I didn't want those effects to happen, I'd have to break the rules. I don't see how things are any different now.

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 am not sure that's the case*. However, if it is, some would call that a feature, rather than a bug in the system.



* I think it largely depends on how you tell them to run it - tournament-style and "in your own campaign"-style are different beasts.

 

[C_M2008]

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.

After 2 years of 4e (release to mid 2010) I couldn't quite put my finger on what I didn't like about the system other than the overly long drawn out combats. This sums up my feelings on the matter rather nicely.

Players dictating the opponents actions in combats is mildly annoying to extremely aggrevating depending on the circumstance and never really felt appropriate even when I was the player and not the GM. It always felt like the combat became about status effects and not the story/narrative reason for the combat in the first place.

This is different than in prior versions of D&D as there was a saving throw for any sort of status effect (with the exeption of a couple overpowered spells) and they weren't available to everyone. Now they're everywhere and even if there is a "saving throw"(attack roll = saving throw) there's a miss effect that does the same thing or similar enough. It is true that all versions enable a player to decide what happens to their opponents - 4e just guarantees that decision bears fruit however.

Its not about being in control or beating the players, it's about the GM role/player role more than anything. Is the GMs role in a combat to interpret player actions and decide how the NPCs respond to the player actions; to challenge the players and provide excitement ? Or is it merely to roll dice for the meatbags until the inevitable conclusion?
If it's the latter than the GM isn't really required for the combat, might as well go read a book for an hour until it's over.

 

[Mort]

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.

Interestingly, I've had the exact opposite feeling and experience. To me, running 4e subtly allows me to be more individual and/or arbitrary. Since there is no push at all to make the monsters use the same rules as PCs – I can have the monsters do what I need them to do. For example, if I don’t want a monster to be knocked prone I can a) just say it can’t be knocked prone, all such attempts simply fail or b) give the monster a saving throw vs. any imposition of the prone condition (with a + to the save if I want) – either way the game does what I want easily.

And that’s combat, outside of combat 4e took away much of the tools players had to circumvent plot that were readily available in prior editions. High level murder mysteries, for example, no longer have to account for all sorts of things that would throw in a wrench.

One issue I have had with 4e: having to remind players that their power cards are not the be all end all, there are other options (Despite the power cards being large, bold and even in color). With the codification of powers in the way 4e does it is very easy for players, and often the DM to forget many other options exist and going off script is not only valid, but should often be encouraged.

As to your assertion that 4e “normalizes” the DMing experience, I can’t say I’ve seen that either. At GenCon last year, I was a player is several 4e adventures some of which had a very similar plot (the mcguffin was different and the monsters differed but the flow seemed extremely similar), yet with different DMs the feel of the adventures was completely different. The best were the ones that ran with the “outside the box” thinking of the players and really made the adventure their own. The least satisfying were the ones where the adventure seemed canned or pre-ordained. But the point is they played very differently, a great DM still made a great difference.

 

[Mort]

Its not about being in control or beating the players, it's about the GM role/player role more than anything. Is the GMs role in a combat to interpret player actions and decide how the NPCs respond to the player actions; to challenge the players and provide excitement ? Or is it merely to roll dice for the meatbags until the inevitable conclusion?
If it's the latter than the GM isn't really required for the combat, might as well go read a book for an hour until it's over.

This whole, the 4e DM is reduced to a rolling machine with meatbags for monsters, assertion is just so foreign to me. As the DM, I dictate almost every facet of the players play experience, in and out of combat. When the players fight a monster, I control the monster, its motivations and its reactions. I control, for the most part, which actions by the PCs are likely to result in vanquishing the monster (frankly I love it when the PCs come up with something I haven't thought of, means they're engaged, paying attention and are invested in the outcome).

Giving the players a portion of narrative control, in and out of combat makes the players (IMO of course) more heavily invested in the game and is a great thing. But it's only a portion, I've never felt that my presence was even remotely unnecessary or that my ability to convey the world and story I want is the least bit reduced (and again, I actually think it's become easier under the current rule set).

 

[Balesir]

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.

Nice point - but unless he's running a published scenario with very boring monsters exactly as written, I don't see how that can be so - even in the combat encounters.

 

[Wik]

Nice point - but unless he's running a published scenario with very boring monsters exactly as written, I don't see how that can be so - even in the combat encounters.

Oh, I run interesting fights. I've got one coming up for tonight that is a combo action scene, puzzle, and violent tactical challenge. Running interesting fights has never been a problem for me.

What's become a problem is that there's less room in my mind for the fun, random stuff I like, and that I believe players having the ability to dictate the game is part of that. While I KNOW there are "players dictate the choices" powers in other games, in my experience, they'd always wait until I said "yeah, it works" before they'd move the pieces on the battle map or something.

Because even Wish had a counter. Finger of Death didn't work on everybody. Even if you cast your disintegrate spell, there were ways around it.

Nowadays, they can use a power that says "you slide the target three squares before attacking", and even if they're fighting Gandalf who is shouting "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" they can easily slide him out of the way and get what they want.

And if I say "well, he said you shall not pass" they can point at their power card and say "but it says here he does" and come up with all sorts of creative reasons why that is. And if I say "no", I'm essentially breaking the rules of the game for personal story reasons, and nullifying a player's character choices. And if I allow it to happen, well then, really, what point does description and fluff play in the game, if it's all so bendable?

Now, I KNOW I can add on exception-based effects. I get that. But I don't want to have to add them all the time, and basically have boss fights be immune to crafty powers. I LIKE players being creative with their powers. But when our cleric plops down a power card, moves Orcus across the board because the power card says so, rolls a d20, declares he hit, and then rolls damage - all without even asking me to see if anything happens - then I get a mite tetchy.

I guess it might just be my experience, and others haven't encountered it, but it's definitely something I've seen. And it doesn't make me a bad GM, or anything like that.

 

[MarkB]

It occurs to me that this may be the first ever thread started by a DM complaining about being railroaded by his players.

I'm not sure how I feel about that, but it may be progress, of a sort.

 

[Thasmodious]

While I KNOW there are "players dictate the choices" powers in other games, in my experience, they'd always wait until I said "yeah, it works" before they'd move the pieces on the battle map or something.

That's what I was talking about. The difference is an illusion. If the PC uses a spell, and it works, they had to wait for you to nod sagely and say "yes, your targets fall asleep", but there is no real difference between the two. There is no loss of control just a quicker resolution.

Strangely, I have the opposite feeling in many cases. As a player, while I knew it was the rules of the system, I *hated* casting spells and waiting for the DM to make his save roll behind a screen and declare for me whether the spell I used worked or if my whole round, and spell slot had just been wasted. I love stating my action, rolling the results, and applying the action. If I miss, I don't feel as if the DM stole my action. It was an illusionary feeling in the first place, like yours, but there none the less.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Nowadays, they can use a power that says "you slide the target three squares before attacking", and even if they're fighting Gandalf who is shouting "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" they can easily slide him out of the way and get what they want.

And if I say "well, he said you shall not pass" they can point at their power card and say "but it says here he does" and come up with all sorts of creative reasons why that is. And if I say "no", I'm essentially breaking the rules of the game for personal story reasons, and nullifying a player's character choices. And if I allow it to happen, well then, really, what point does description and fluff play in the game, if it's all so bendable?

I've always had the possibility of this kind of problem in any game I ran, though not the particular one you mention here. (The 4E player combat options don't particularly bother me, though excessive stunlock might eventually.)

My answer has always been the same: Talk to the players outside the game, decide how we want it to work, and anything they do is fair game for the opponents. Occasionally, if I think they might not like that last part, or perhaps did not fully consider the implications of their actions, I'll ask. They set the tone of what is possible. I let them have it with everything implied therein.

Every now and then, though, this gets out of hand. I think this might be what has happened in your game. An arms race develops, and none of us are really happy about it. Repeating the same uber tactic over and over is often a dead giveaway that such has happened. The only thing I've found to do then is negotiate our way out of the arms race.

If interrupt and other action economy items are causing you so much stress that you are stuck either escalating to an arms race you don't want, or letting the players walk all over every combat, then they should be backing off some. Period. This isn't about how good the system is or how good your or the players are, but an out of game problem, that can only be solved out of game.

How you solve it can be any number of things, including in-game changes, from nerfing such powers to going back to that gentleman's agreement you referenced.