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

[Lanefan]

From a realist's perspective, and applying Sit Down and Shut Up to the rules for a moment, I would say:

can something without feet be tripped?

Almost always no, though there might be exceptions. Flicking a snake (that has no feet) a few feet into the air would give the same mechanical effect, IMO; but I can't think of what you could do to "trip" an ooze that wouldn't just damage it instead.

can something already laying on the ground be knocked prone?

Again, almost always no; but see example re 'trip' above.

can something that moves 2 already, be slowed?

Of course it can. Its move can be reduced to 1. Something that already has move 1 can be reduced to move 1/2. And so on.

can bats be blinded?

Before reading this thread I would have said yes, by use of a Silence effect. Now I'd say it'd depend on the bat species: some can be blinded by Blindness (or Darkness, whatever), others by Silence.

can a stone golem be petrified?

Yes; the moving stone parts become rigid stone. (not that most players would ever think of trying this)

Lan-"if a blinded bat gets tripped and flies into a petrified stone golem does that make the dungeon collapse?"-efan

 

[FireLance]

The DM might want to say "no" for more reasons than "Because I say so!"

My hack tells the DM to say "no" when the action breaks the consistency of the game world. It's the DM's job to maintain that consistency, because he can - and must - make impartial decisions. Players can't make those decisions because they must advocate for their characters. The DM doesn't have a conflict of interest; the players do. My hack falls apart if the DM and players don't do their jobs properly.

That's not a bad approach, but I would go one step further. If the player uses an ability which affects a monster in a way which the DM thinks is implausible or would break the consistency of the game world, the DM should substitute that effect with something of similar value instead of simply negating it. If the DM decides that a snake can't be made prone, then an attack that would knock a normal opponent prone could do extra damage instead. The exchange might not always be exactly equal (how much extra damage is being knocked prone "worth", for example?) but it would seem to me, at least, that the DM is trying to be fair instead of simply blocking me.

 

[Hussar]

Just read the thread from the beginning and this was on page 1.

/snip.

The game should be collaborative, not combative.

But neither should the DM have to give in to every single whim of the players either. The final decision should always go to the referee. /snip

Umm, I do not think collaborative means what you think it means if all final decisions are left up to one person.

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

Funnily enough, I played more than a few 1e modules this way back in the day.

The DM might want to say "no" for more reasons than "Because I say so!"

My hack tells the DM to say "no" when the action breaks the consistency of the game world. It's the DM's job to maintain that consistency, because he can - and must - make impartial decisions. Players can't make those decisions because they must advocate for their characters. The DM doesn't have a conflict of interest; the players do. My hack falls apart if the DM and players don't do their jobs properly.

The problem is, what happens when the player decides that an action is consistent but the DM doesn't? The DM over rules the player and the player is basically SOL. The idea that a player is automatically more biased because he's playing a character ignores the large amount of DM's out there for whom the setting is more important than the players. It is quite possible for a player to be just as impartial as the DM.

Arbitrary is "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system". Ruling that a zombie can't trip a hydra isn't arbitrary, it's based on reasons of subjective plausibility. I think the real problem is that you believe that the rules supersedes the DM's right to prioritize the narrative when it feels appropriate.

There's one way to play chess. How many different ways can you play D&D? Just one way?

Isn't it arbitrary specifically because it's "subjective"? If it wasn't subjective, it wouldn't be arbitrary.

Do the players not have any rights to prioritize the narrative when they feel its appropriate? Why should the DM be the only person who gets to decide what is "plausible"?

player: I knock the hydra prone with a punch

Me (dm) : No you don't, you do what for damage?

player: it says right here, target knocked prone ! ! !

Me: Hydras are immune to getting knocked prone

player: no they aren't ! ! ! (tears starting to form)

Me: this one is

player: that's not fair ! ! ! ! (kicking of feet about to commence)

Me: If you don't tell me the damage, I'm gonna assume it's zero...

player: that's B---S--- this is my power, it says I knock it prone, damnit, it gets knocked prone!!!!!!

Me: OK, the Hydra falls over, shaking the ground, everyone make a athletics check to stay standing {{DC 50 }} - whoops, looks like everyone's prone...good job

Funny how in all these examples, it's always the whiney player kicking up a fuss over the perfectly reasonable DM. It's never the other way around. Hrm, wonder why that is?

can you knock a snake prone?

The problem Ultramark is that you are conflating the plain English definition of Prone (lying on the ground) with the game defined condition of being Prone. These are not the same thing.

If I move half my speed (in any edition) in a round, but a I narrate that I'm running, do I apply the Running condition? No, I don't. Because I can narrate that I'm running, skipping or doing the boogaloo for that distance and, because I have not exceeded my base movement, I do not apply the Run condition. In 1e and 2e, I may still make a melee attack, in 3e, I can make a single attack, and in 4e, I have just used my move action (probably). No conditions would be added despite the real English definition of my narration.

 

[Hussar]

That's not a bad approach, but I would go one step further. If the player uses an ability which affects a monster in a way which the DM thinks is implausible or would break the consistency of the game world, the DM should substitute that effect with something of similar value instead of simply negating it. If the DM decides that a snake can't be made prone, then an attack that would knock a normal opponent prone could do extra damage instead. The exchange might not always be exactly equal (how much extra damage is being knocked prone "worth", for example?) but it would seem to me, at least, that the DM is trying to be fair instead of simply blocking me.

Honestly, why bother with the extra work? Your attack disrupts the targets movement such that it takes an action to right itself in some fashion and grants a bonus to melee attacks until such time as it rights itself.

That's an extremely wordy definition of the Prone condition.

I wonder if those who won't allow an ooze or snake to be knocked prone grant bonuses to attacks. After all, it's already lying on the ground and can only move in a limited fashion. Shouldn't I get a bonus to attack since I occupy the higher ground?

Conversely, I wonder how many apply penalties to ranged attacks as well.

 

[FireLance]

Honestly, why bother with the extra work?

In all honesty, I probably wouldn't bother with the extra work. However, if the DM already intends to change the rules by saying, "No, [monster] can't be knocked prone," the least he could do (IMO) is to follow up with something along the lines of, "But your [ability] does [this] instead."

After all, (again, IMO) the DM must not only be fair, the DM must also be seen to be fair.

 

[LostSoul]

That's not a bad approach, but I would go one step further. If the player uses an ability which affects a monster in a way which the DM thinks is implausible or would break the consistency of the game world, the DM should substitute that effect with something of similar value instead of simply negating it.

I've never negated the effects of a power.

I altered Martial Encounter Exploits to be At-Will, but they have "Triggers". Triggers are fictional details that you need to have set-up in order to use the Exploit. One of the PCs has Spinning Sweep; her player defined the Trigger as "When the target's legs are exposed," based on how she sees her PC using the Exploit.

Obviously that won't work against oozes since they don't have legs. It would work against a hydra, though there would probably be some modifiers to its defence.

Spells and Prayers are magic so I don't worry too much about those.

Honestly, why bother with the extra work?

The change was made to get players to think about - and take advantage of - what's happening in the game world.

 

[weem]

The combat rules are abstract. The power rules ought not to be unilaterally messed with for arbitrary reasons.

Bonus points if you read all of this [MENTION=73683]Dannager[/MENTION]

I have read through everything up to this point and just wanted to ask you, what about cases where it is not arbitrary? Cases where the decision is not random, or simply based on a whim - but rather where the DM put some thought ahead of time and said, "quick note to self... this guy can't be made prone".

I ask this with total respect, and not looking for an argument - I simply want to clarify as you seem to refer to "arbitrary" reasons being unreasonable... so I'm curious about pre-determined (non arbitrary) reasons (and if you referenced those already somewhere, I apologize - been reading this thread for a while now and things are getting blurry).

In other words, would you be cool with the situation if the DM said, "Well, it was something I decided ahead of time", or do you need something more - perhaps the DM telling you in advance, before the game started? Where is the line, essentially?

I feel like (and I could be wrong) you would be okay with a DM modifying a creature BEFORE the game, making it impossible to knock it prone (as in this case it would not be an arbitrary change) - after all, monster modding/reskinning is a big part of the DM's toolbox. However, a lot of DM's (myself included) do a lot on the fly and some decisions such as these come right to our mind in the midst of the game.

The problem here is that if you are allowing it when it is planned, but not allowing it on the fly, then I feel like it becomes a gotcha game - where it is now the player vs the DM - "no way DM, you didn't say it before we starting playing" etc. Sometimes the player vs DM is a good/fun/intentional thing (see Fourthcore), but it has never been so in my case, with any of my players, ever for over 20 years now.

In fact, if I told my players "I will make no snap decisions on powers during play - rather, I will let you know ahead of time the changes I am making to monsters" my players (any/all of them, ever) would cock an eyebrow and ask, "why not?".

I'm going to quickly touch on this specific comment about power rules and that they "ought not to be unilaterally messed with for arbitrary reasons". I get the feeling here that your argument stands on the idea that, "the power says it does X, so you can't change it... it's in the book". The problem for me is that in the DMG, page 4 under "How to be a DM" it says...

"The DM's goal is to make success taste it's sweetest by presenting challenges that are just hard enough that the other players have to work to overcome them, but not so hard that they leave all the characters dead"

...this is also in the book. And in fact, it doesn't say anywhere that powers can't be tweaked. In fact, nothing is locked down as far as rules go. There is more to be said about the freedoms a DM does have than there is anything about what can't be changed by anyone.

With that in mind, remember that often times, the balance they talk about there (between too hard and too easy) can not fully be determined until you are in the midst of the battle. Sometimes what you think will be easy turns out to be very difficult for the players, and the other way around. The XP budget helps here (I'm speaking of 4e specifically here) but there are too many variables sometimes to know for sure. A DM needs to be able to manage the balance during the challenge. In some cases, the DM can achieve this by tweaking powers, or the results of them, like previous examples of the ooze not being knocked prone. And in that case to me it's not all that arbitrary - at least there is an argument to be made there. To me, arbitrary in this case would be rolling a % change for your power to fail "just because", or just saying "no" every once in a while for no other reason than to hear themselves say it - I hardly think these are reasons behind Wik's tweaking (I assume anyway).

Here's a quick question related to this as well... what if the DM had said, "Ok, he is knocked prone. In fact, he's also... I don't know... blinded for smacking his head on the ground?... 2 rounds blinded, save ends" - is this change acceptable or arbitrary, and as such something you would prefer left out?

To give you a quick story, I never stepped out of a D&D game as a player for any reason other than a scheduling conflict until last year. Why? The DM did not make the game challenging enough. He upped encounters here and there, and did what he could, but our group was so well organized (nothing to do with me) that it continued to steamroll everything. This game was no longer fun for me and after our 18th game of the campaign, I finally stepped away - it just wasn't challenging enough. I told him previously, "I'm just not invested in my character because there is no reason to believe we will ever be challenged - there is no fear of death here". Of course, that doesn't mean you have to "break" the rules to make the game challenging, but I would have certainly welcomed it if he had.

Anyway, again, I'm not trying to call you out and pin you to anything specific - it's just a genuine question is all, one I kept asking myself as I was reading through the middle part of this thread. If this sounds like I am trying to be an arse, then we'll blame it on me being very tired at the moment (I hope the post makes sense)

--- EDIT ---

One quick addition since there has been no response after this yet (I added a question a few paragraphs up)

 

[Celtavian]

re

The nice thing about 3E was that you could create counters fairly easily. You may be able to do this in 4E, but I'm not sure how without making things up that aren't inherent in the game. Just as an earlier poster stated, you'll have to do ridiculous things like make up some attack the monster can sacrifice to break a daze or stun.

If the designers are doing things like the above, maybe you should make up abilities the monster has to deal with what the players are throwing at him. Make it immune to stun if that allows it to be more of a challenge. Just outright immune. Or give it some ability that allows it a saving throw against abilties that don't normally allow a save. With its +5 solo save, it should make it. Make it so that it can save immediately rather than on its turn.

If you want to keep playing 4E because your players enjoy it, then tailor the game to suit what you want as a DM. That is what I do even with Pathfinder. Pathfinder has toned a lot of things down, but at the same time ramped some things up. I have to create challenges to deal with all these different abilities the players have. I calculate probabilities and scenarios mathematically and create monsters based on my calculations.

For example, if I calculate the party can output a 100 points of damage a round and I want a combat to last 6 or more rounds, I give the monster 600 or more hit points even if the rules only say 200. If someone casts a spell with a DC of 25, I want the monster to save the majority of the time I work its save up to +23.

I work on how an encounter should feel as a DM versus strictly following the rules. If the players are using their abilties in a fashion to dictate to you the feel of the encounter, that is rubbish. You should as a DM do what you wish with the monster to get the feel you want.

If you want your players to be in a knock down, drag out fight where they feel their lives on the line if they don't win, then design a monster to make them feel this way. To hell with following the rules absolutely. You make the monster and get the feel you want.

If the players beat it, they'll feel a whole lot better than if they beat pg. 32 Monster Manual solo using standard party tactic number 3 that works exactly as they want it to work.

DMs should not as some say run a game with an iron fist. I've never viewed DMing in that fashion. But DMs should know their players well and be able to design encounters that challenge them and make them feel like they had to work to win even if it leaves the players going "This isn't how the rules work". If the players are relying on the rules for easy wins, sitting around reading their rule books figuring out the best possible group combos, you need to punch them in the mouth so they feel a little stunned that things aren't working out the way they planned. Make them feel like they're in a fight and make them sweat some. That's what makes DMing fun, at least it does for me.

Might be a problem in 4E given that players are extremely limited. If you create encounters to overcome their powers which are limited, they don't have other options like previous versions of D&D. So I would be careful doing that in 4E. But I know in Pathfinder I mess up their standard strategies all the time, so they have to devise new ones to overcome a new obstacle. That's part of the fun of the game.

I would be in the same boat as you if I didn't have a great deal of latitude in encounter design. Probably why I tend to gravitate towards game systems with lots of open-ended options for the players with their abilities. I hate it when character and strategy is set in stone. Hard to get a dynamic feel to combat when the game is rigid in terms of how things work.

And I too hate Come and Get Me. That power drove me bat crazy trying to imagine how that worked within the narrative flow. You might want to ban that power to put your mind at ease.

But start making stuff up. See how it works in 4E. Throw your players for a loop. Creating narrative challenges is huge fun for the DM. The players, even if they complain, feel a lot better when they beat something really challenging versus an easy win against a by the book opponent.

 

[FireLance]

I've never negated the effects of a power.

I altered Martial Encounter Exploits to be At-Will, but they have "Triggers". Triggers are fictional details that you need to have set-up in order to use the Exploit. One of the PCs has Spinning Sweep; her player defined the Trigger as "When the target's legs are exposed," based on how she sees her PC using the Exploit.

Obviously that won't work against oozes since they don't have legs. It would work against a hydra, though there would probably be some modifiers to its defence.

The underlined bit, to me, is negating the effect of a power. I do appreciate that the reduction in effectiveness against certain targets might be balanced by the possible increased frequency of use against other targets, though. Still, while it works for you and your group, it would not be my preferred approach.

Spells and Prayers are magic so I don't worry too much about those.

Given this set-up, I would simply avoid playing martial characters. If using magic will bypass all the considerations about being realistic, I'd rather just do that and make things simpler for everyone.

 

[FireLance]

The players, even if they complain, feel a lot better when they beat something really challenging versus an easy win against a by the book opponent.

I agree that a DM should challenge his players. However, some ways of challenging are (IMO) better than others.

I personally tend to favor giving the players secondary objectives in addition to simply defeating the monsters. For example: running a gauntlet of monsters while staying ahead of an advancing wall of magical fire; encountering monsters enhanced by a magical effect and choosing to either focus on fighting the monsters in their more powerful state, or attempt to dispel the effect first; fighting on a sheet of moving ice that threatens to drop the PCs over a ledge (this is especially interesting when combined with monsters that slow or immobilize).

Alternatively, I could simply increase the challenge level by using a higher-level by the book opponent or advancing a by the book opponent to a higher level.

I try to avoid simply negating the PCs' abilities by using either monsters with specific immunities or environmental effects that shut down specific abilities (the latter was more common in previous editions - anti-magic zones being a prime example). This is the sort of challenge which tends to annoy me most as a player, especially if it gets used frequently.