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

[LostSoul]

The problem comes in on not when, but how. In the specific examples (the hydra, snake, etc), the DM is "modifying" a particular monster, during gameplay, after the player has chosen an action, just because he can't immediately picture a plausible scenario where the condition can be applied by a melee fighter. One of the posters arguing on that side already specifically stated he'd have no problem with spells or prayers, just melee powers. That is what is arbitrary about it. The player has already taken his action, an action that was well within the known rules, and then the DM trashes it on a whim. That creates just the kind of confrontational DM v. Player mentality we're trying to avoid.

I think the poster you are referencing is me.

I don't modify monsters on the fly, and I was talking about a specific rule in my "4E hack" - which is a pretty different game, and there's a lot more to it than that. I don't change powers on the fly; there is a rule that states when you can use Encounter Exploits, which is set up when the Exploit is chosen.

(In playtesting, Martial Exploits have been more flexible than Spells or Prayers, but I haven't tried to break the game.)

There's nothing confrontational about it, because as DM I don't care what happens. What I care about is maintaining the consistency of the game world and remaining impartial. If I don't do that, the game fails.

If my hack was written so that the DM was supposed to care about the outcome of actions or encounters, I'd use a totally different approach. Otherwise it's likely that you'd get the DM vs. Player result that you identify.

 

[TheUltramark]

well, since my style of play and/or dm has been called -in this thread- wrong, unfair, and "the worst ever", let me just share a few items from the rules:

page 277 of Dungeons and Dragons Players Handbook clearly states:
when prone you are lying on the ground...it is not some "mechanical affect" of "abstract combat rules"

 

[Thasmodious]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I apologize if this is not what you were intending... but, these two items seem (to me) to assume the following...

1) That every time a DM makes a change to a power, they are "trashing" it.
2) That ever DM has (at least some) prized monsters that they are willing to "trash" powers for in order to see them survive (longer).

Neither of those are the case for me, ever, and I think that if you are assuming this kind of "DM vs Player" mentality right off the bat, you are going to see that (whether it is there or not) all the time.

I think the word "trashing" was poorly chosen on my part. My example meant to paint a picture of an encounter that the players practically circumvent that the DM had spent considerable time and effort on and was looking forward to. Not that he wanted the snakes to win or survive, just that he figured this was going to be a dynamic, engaging encounter that would test their abilities and then one player one-shots it.

The bad DM response, my example, would be to thwart that player after he does so with a retcon'd immunity. If he did so, and the encounter went on to be dynamic and engaging all would likely be forgiven or forgotten or never noticed. But as DM policy, I think it's a poor way to go on a regular basis. The players thwarting a combat or trap is often a highlight unto itself.

Similarly, I think it would be a poor way to go to often thwart the effects of a PCs powers because it's a stretch in a particular situation. I would say doubly so in the case of doing it only to melee powers and not worrying about verisimilitude issues with magic, as that would tend to unfairly punish melee characters at the expense of the balance of the system.

Speaking only for myself, I have no personal stake in anything I lay down on the table. If I put it down, I do so expecting it to die/be destroyed - because I don't put anything on the table with the idea of "this will certainly wipe the party" or, "there's no way I'm letting the players mess this thing up".

Of course you expect it to die. But did you expect it die to one shot, in the first round, before it got to show off any of the things you had designed it to do? Have you never had a situation where the players skipped entirely some encounter you thought was going to be a highlight, or completely thwarted what you planned to be some wildly engaging, multi-dimensional super encounter (RP, combat, skill based, whatever)?

That situation doesn't compare directly to the DM disallowing a power because he can't make sense of it situationally, but from the player end, they are pretty similar - the DM countering PC abilities after-the-fact to service his own expectations. That's the crux of my examples.

It can be confrontational, sure - but in most cases, I think it's only confrontational if you (anyone) want it to be. To me, it would simply be odd. I would ask the DM (politely, after the game) if there were special reasons why there were a number of changes to my powers made at the table (assuming this was a regular thing), because there might be a good reason.

Oh definitely. Interrupting the game for that discussion is a no-no. But if the answer was, "it didn't make sense to me that your melee fighter could compel my creatures to move toward you, or that you could knock a snake prone, etc." I would explain how I could rationalize those considering the overall abstractness of combat. Now, if I was playing a melee fighter and the DM continued to modify his monsters and thwart my powers secondary effects because they don't make as much sense to him because they are "mundane" and not magical, we're going to enter Thunderdome territory, as that is contrary to the conceits of the agreed upon game system we are using, which brings us back to the core of this thread in general, I think.

Which, to Wik (see what I did there?), I would say, if it doesn't work you, even if you can't quite put your finger on it or whether or not the game has truly changed or its just your perception, play something else that DOES work for you and don't fret too much about it. We can have an interesting and varied discussion (and have) about whether the conceits of the game have really changed between how attacking against static defenses play out versus how the similar player-tells-your-monster-what-to-do abilities of previous editions worked or if its a more tenuous perceptual difference. But the end result is the same - if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you.

 

[Falstaff]

Oh, and please no edition warring. I'm not trying to do that. I'm seeing a fault with a current game, and can't figure out a way to fix it. I'm just wondering if other people have seen that fault... not whether or not that fault existed in 3e and other editions and how 4e actually improved yadda yadda yadda.

For what it's worth, once we finish up this 4e campaign, we're running an E6 Dark Sun campaign, because pretty much every player except one is basically sick and tired of 4E. Probably due to the fact that I have had very little fun running it, with a few major exceptions (and, to be perfectly honest, those exceptions probably would have been fun regardless of system).

I did see that fault, starting with 3rd edition. It is one of the main reasons I won't play or run recent/current editions of D&D.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I've never played 4e but I picked up the core books when they came out, and have given myself a working knowledge of the system (though without keeping up on all the errata etc.); and even on first reading this was something that kinda leaped out at me as well: if run as designed, where's the fear of death?

It's interesting to see someone else found the same thing.

Lan-"dying on a regular basis since 1984"-efan

 

[Falstaff]

I've never played 4e but I picked up the core books when they came out, and have given myself a working knowledge of the system (though without keeping up on all the errata etc.); and even on first reading this was something that kinda leaped out at me as well: if run as designed, where's the fear of death?

It's interesting to see someone else found the same thing.

Lan-"dying on a regular basis since 1984"-efan

I feel the same way. Without the fear of death (or some other serious result, such as mutilation) how can victory ever hold value? I want my PCs shaking in their boots in every combat encounter. I don't want them to be able to look at their hit points and say "I'm not afraid of a few orcs, their damage capacity isn't enough to kill me for many, many rounds". I can't get invested in such games.

It is one of the reasons why I play/run HackMaster. The simple Trauma rule makes every combat something to fear and seriously consider.

 

[Thasmodious]

I think the poster you are referencing is me.

I don't modify monsters on the fly, and I was talking about a specific rule in my "4E hack" - which is a pretty different game, and there's a lot more to it than that. I don't change powers on the fly; there is a rule that states when you can use Encounter Exploits, which is set up when the Exploit is chosen.

(In playtesting, Martial Exploits have been more flexible than Spells or Prayers, but I haven't tried to break the game.)

There's nothing confrontational about it, because as DM I don't care what happens. What I care about is maintaining the consistency of the game world and remaining impartial. If I don't do that, the game fails.

If my hack was written so that the DM was supposed to care about the outcome of actions or encounters, I'd use a totally different approach. Otherwise it's likely that you'd get the DM vs. Player result that you identify.

I was just going to respond with XP but "must spread..." Your hack sounds interesting and I'm clearer on your position now. Clearly, I took you to mean that magic requires no plausibility explanations. So, a question about your hack - do you play out combats in a less abstract manner so the triggers for exploits come up? Is it through structured rules with facing, positioning, and the like or more in DM and players being more descriptive at the table?

 

[Lanefan]

Of course you expect it to die. But did you expect it die to one shot, in the first round, before it got to show off any of the things you had designed it to do? Have you never had a situation where the players skipped entirely some encounter you thought was going to be a highlight, or completely thwarted what you planned to be some wildly engaging, multi-dimensional super encounter (RP, combat, skill based, whatever)?

Or write a complete adventure and have the party bypass it entirely due to sheer dumb luck on their part? Yep...

But two questions leap to mind here:

1. I thought part of 4e's design was intended to do away with one-shot kills or disables, so how are your monsters getting one-shotted?

2. There's been lots of talk about the party characters being able to use their abilities to "tell the monster what to do"; maybe there need to be more monster abilities that can, in effect, "tell the characters what to do". A good start might be something like (making this up here) Hyperactive --- Daily --- Duration: Encounter --- You win initiative and act first in any round. Use of this ability is a free action. Give this to every significant monster and that way at least it always gets one chance to show its stuff and mess up the party a little.

Lan-"it's not just an arms race - we're using legs too"-efan

 

[weem]

Of course you expect it to die. But did you expect it die to one shot, in the first round, before it got to show off any of the things you had designed it to do?

I go into combat not knowing what to expect - the encounter could be avoided entirely (which has happened) in which case it doesn't even see one round. So, do I expect something to die in one shot (aside from minions of course), of course not, but I think what you are getting at is when it happens, does it not get to me in some way (even if that is simply a pout, hehe).

The answer is, no, it doesn't bother me in the slightest - but here's why (and in this way I may differ from some methods)... I play as a cheerleader for my players. I find that the drama is more rich when I play this way. When the players do well, I will tell them (for example), "Damn, good job, that was awesome!" - I think that means a lot to a player when they get it from a DM in a sincere way. Players kill one of my mobs in one round? I might be shocked, but I make sure to express that shock so they really get a good feeling about the success.

On the other side of that, as the "cheerleader" (if you will), I also show sympathy when things don't go there way... you might hear me say "Damn man, that sucks, but I think you will have a shot at it next time... I predict you roll... an 18 next time!"

Have you never had a situation where the players skipped entirely some encounter you thought was going to be a highlight, or completely thwarted what you planned to be some wildly engaging, multi-dimensional super encounter (RP, combat, skill based, whatever)?

As I mentioned earlier in this post, yes, they have skipped encounters entirely, but in the event I put a lot of planning into an encounter that gets skipped, that's okay because I can often find a way to use it later, or tweak it to work for some new idea.

With that said, I try not to plan anything too time consuming for just this reason. I want to stay a step ahead of them, but not plot out so much that I put myself in the position of having to toss a lot of content that is skipped.

I hope that answers those questions - I'm typing this quickly as I have a lot of work to get back to!

Thanks again for the conversation so far Thas (in case this gets closed before I can make it back)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

if run as designed, where's the fear of death?

Death, IMO, is overrated as a penalty for poor play.

I mean, seriously, what happens when a PC dies?

1) If the specific character isn't intimately tied into the campaign's story arc:

The player gets sorta bummed out, spends the next XX minutes rolling up a new character (varying by edition and level), and somewhere around the next corner the party takes, "What ho! You seem a trustworthy fellow! Care to join us on our epic quest?"

And the player's character is back in the game - sometimes, looking suspiciously similar to the one that just expired.

2) If the specific character is tied intimately into the campaign's story arc:

Uh-oh. The Prince-Who-Was-Promised is sorta dead-on-arrival, or one of the Four Prophesied Heroes isn't going to be there to stand against the Final Darkness. I guess that just about wraps it up for that storyline, huh? Or, maybe we had it wrong, and Bob the Fighter wasn't actually the prophesied hero - the real prophesied hero was this guy, Bob 2 the Fighter!

3) If the whole party dies:

So, uh ... What campaign do you guys want to run now?

In short, I think that non-death consequences for failure are far more interesting and much farther reaching than death.