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

[Mort]

Another issue: as discussed in this thread. Early monster design for paragon and especially epic tier play failed to consider just how many options 4e characters have as they advance in level. This resulted in stun-locks and other problems for DMs who thought they were presenting a challenge but in fact - it really wasn't. MM3 and beyond has reconfiggered the math a bit, and more importantly introduced monsters that supposedly don't suffer from these issues (such as a new approach to solos for example as they are the most prone to lockdown).

As Wik's game is in epic levels I can certainly see how this might contribute to the issue he's expressing (the feeling that players just have too much control over the actions of your monsters).

 

[Umbran]

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.

Well, here's a question: are you playing with the same people as before? Because, at the moment, it sounds a lot more like the issue is not the rules themselves, but the player's behavior and expectations.

Now, we can argue over whether the rules themselves set up those expectations, but ultimately you cannot leave your relationship with your players up to a rulebook, nor blame the rulebook for it - in the end, if you cannot exert personal leadership, and your players cannot accept it, then the rule set you're playing with is moot.

You see, if I recall correctly, the rules already have examples of what we are talking about. I'll have to go look at my books when I get home to find an example....

 

[Wik]

Well, here's a question: are you playing with the same people as before? Because, at the moment, it sounds a lot more like the issue is not the rules themselves, but the player's behavior and expectations.

Now, we can argue over whether the rules themselves set up those expectations, but ultimately you cannot leave your relationship with your players up to a rulebook, nor blame the rulebook for it - in the end, if you cannot exert personal leadership, and your players cannot accept it, then the rule set you're playing with is moot.

You see, if I recall correctly, the rules already have examples of what we are talking about. I'll have to go look at my books when I get home to find an example....

I've been with the same group, more or less, for a couple of years. And we actually have stopped playing 4e a few times for other games, and this problem would disappear. We might have people assuming they auto hit in 3e, or something, but never players basically taking turns with little GM input on the effects.

Hell, even 4e Gamma World didn't have this problem, and it's basically the same system (although it was crazy and wild enough that I think it was more due to the board game vibe more than anything else).

But really, we're just a beer and pretzels group, and I don't wanna get all "draw the line" on my players. I just want to finish the campaign, give away all my 4e books, and switch to a game I enjoy more. I've been trying for a while to figure out what I don't like about 4e, and I figured it out a few days ago.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Wik did request no edition warring, and this strays awfully close in that it is an utter misrepresentation of how the game works in 4E.

You're way off base. First of all, I haven't even read any of the 4e books. I have zero interest in 4e. Secondly, I've had plenty of experience with bad players and bad DMs. Those were general statements meant to address that point and his as well.

Thirdly, I hate edition warring too.

Before accusing people you should learn to ask first.

 

[Dannager]

This looks a lot like a power struggle to me. The DM is used to have a crapton of power to exert over the game: narratively, mechanically, structurally, and so on. The players, in ages past, have had almost zero power over the game - their power begins and ends at the reach of their character's personal ability.

This power disparity is what has given rise to the "asshat DM" trope over the years - by putting all the power in the DM's hands, you're just asking to have it abused by DMs who don't know any better or simply don't care. Recent games (and not just 4e) have started to shift away from this, encouraging players to help dictate the flow of the game. In 4e, we saw this mechanically as early as the PHB's Deadly Trickster epic destiny, which actually allows the player to tell the DM that the die the DM just rolled came up as a 1, and that he can't reroll it. This firmly places the narrative control, for a brief moment, in the player's hands. The roll being manipulated doesn't even have to have anything to do with the Deadly Trickster - the player is, very briefly, sitting in the DM's chair and saying "I just rolled a 1."

This is a good thing. The idea of the DM as the all-powerful decider is a dying idea. It's on the way out. I popped into this thread and saw the whole "I'd never let a zombie knock a hydra prone in my game," bit and just started laughing. You'd shut down an intelligent move by your players that they probably thought was very clever and were looking forward to seeing it happen? That's pretty awful.

 

[Diamond Cross]

If players get to dictate the flow of the game then what use is the DM?

 

[jaerdaph]

A wise man once said the following on these very message boards, and it has always stuck with me:

I'd rather compare adventure creation to writing HALF a story, realizing that the players and their PCs will fill in the other half. - Dave Stebbins

Now I don't play 4e, but I have been playing a lot of ICONS Superpowered Roleplaying lately, and that game allows for player control and retcon. And I have to say I really enjoy it, both as a GM and player.

 

[Dannager]

If players get to dictate the flow of the game then what use is the DM?

No one is talking about players dictating the flow of the game in a total sense. We're talking about the idea that the DM no longer has absolute control of the flow of the game. The players can share in that responsibility. The DM still retains direct control of all the monsters/NPCs, crafts the encounters/over-arching story, acts as primary rules arbiter, and so forth.

It's the difference between Situation A:

PLAYER: I want to do Thing X!
DM: You can't do Thing X because I don't like it!

...and Situation B:

PLAYER: I want to do Thing X!
DM: I might not want you to do Thing X, but the game gives you the ability to do so. My personal desires do not exceed yours, especially when the rules of the game itself are on your side.

I typically like to shy away from blanket value judgments, but Situation B is just better.

 

[Fifth Element]

If players get to dictate the flow of the game then what use is the DM?

Players get to briefly and occasionally dictate the flow of the game. No one has suggested that players have complete control over the game in 4E.

Also, see Dannager's post above.

 

[NoWayJose]

A wise man once said the following on these very message boards, and it has always stuck with me:

I'd rather compare adventure creation to writing HALF a story, realizing that the players and their PCs will fill in the other half. - Dave Stebbins

Good quote, but two counterpoints:
1) DMs usually invest/waste/sacrifice more time prepping for a game (compared to the players) with possibly diminishing returns (as per the complaints here)
2) A fair DM writes his/her HALF of the story for the sake of a good overall story (that is, not biased towards the monsters per se). Most players write their HALF of the story for their own sake (that is, they're biased towards the betterment of their PCs, and not the story overall).

The quote makes it sounds as if a game is always a wonderful equal marriage between DM and player, which I hope is usually true, but sometimes it could be more like a husband working 80 hours/week to support his self-indulgent wife. If that's the case, at least he could have some control when she goes spending all his money.