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

[The Shaman]

But why stick to worst case outcomes of character death? Why not:

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

Player gets a chance to try out another character concept he has. I'm usually trying to decide between several when I make up a PC for a campaign. Character death gives me a chance to work up another one, perhaps one even better suited to the campaign now that I know more about where and how it's going.

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

The situation changes in ways nobody could immediately predict. As a frequent DM, these circumstances can be pretty awesome as they really get creative juices flowing. It will get most people thinking of the campaign in a fresh way.

Novel-by-proxy games tend to be problematic for reasons like this.

I partly agree with the OP, but less from a standpoint of losing control as a DM. I'm just not that keen on the reliability of powers (or specific tactics) in nearly any/all circumstances without consideration for the nature of the target. A creature's offensive or powers may be interesting in themselves as it acts, but, with respect to what my PC is doing to it, I may as well be hitting a generic target with X defense and Y hit points. It's like considering only a subset of possible factors that could reasonably affect a fight.

If the players can trip nearly anything, including oozes, carnivorous trees, and snakes or terrify undead creatures, the game's rules may work consistently, but I don't find that very valuable in presenting a consistent setting that has much verisimilitude. Instead of developing sets of tactics and powers against different kinds of opponents, my effort as a player is better spent in picking a few powers with a lot of synergy. I'm building to generate spikes in effectiveness rather than broad competence because that's the incentive the game provides. The challenge in the game is less "What's our best strategy in this case?" and more "How can I implement my standard strategy in this case?"

4e may have been designed to give players an option to do things other than standing and swinging or being a trip monkey with a spiked chain, but I don't think it has gotten away from the one-strategy pony school of character design. Not with the behavior of powers, anyway.

It's in the role playing, Umbran. As a player, death isn't that big a deal. It takes time to whip up a new character, sure, and that take me out of the action for a little while. But my characters... most of them don't like dying for some reason. They totally rage against the dying of the light.

I am regretfully out of XP for the day, so I'll simply say, Worth repeating.

 

[samursus]

Well, I made it to the 3rd page (around 60 posts) of this thread and realized it essentially people debating the merits and defending play styles.

Thats what we do

Personally, when I DM games I do it to tell my players a cool story, and my players bought into that paradigm. I allow them to co-create within my concept as they will, as long as they don't try to completely over haul it.

Combats mean little to me... I find them FUN tactical mini-games. Whether the PC's win or lose, the story goes on, just as interesting in its losses as its wins.

So 4E works well for my style, and my players all know what kind of game I run.

If they want a sandbox game, they know to find another DM.


So Wik, nothing wrong with your desires. I know you asked for advice or similar experiences, but honestly I wouldn't waste your time. You have said the annoyance factor with 4e has been building up, so take a break from it. I am also a HUGE BECMI fan, and it sounds like you had a blast with it.

Follow your bliss man!

 

[Umbran]

It's in the role playing, Umbran. As a player, death isn't that big a deal.

For you, maybe, and that's great. More power to you.

But most of the players I've worked with get somewhat more attached to campaign-characters than you seem to. Losing them means somewhat more - and GMs need to be aware of that. They can use the fact to their advantage with those players, and avoid pitfalls with those players as well.

 

[billd91]

For you, maybe, and that's great. More power to you.

But most of the players I've worked with get somewhat more attached to campaign-characters than you seem to. Losing them means somewhat more - and GMs need to be aware of that. They can use the fact to their advantage with those players, and avoid pitfalls with those players as well.

I would recommend more people play Call of Cthulhu. Great remedy for over-attachment to character tendencies.

 

[Fifth Element]

I would recommend more people play Call of Cthulhu. Great remedy for over-attachment to character tendencies.

This assumes that such attachment is in fact a negative thing?

 

[billd91]

This assumes that such attachment is in fact a negative thing?

I figured that my use of the term over-attachment would have indicated that I meant something crossed over into the realm of being a negative thing. Exactly where the line between attachment and over-attachment is will depend from player to player and play style to play style. But if you recognize there's a problem at your table or with your levels of attachment, I recommend a course of Call of Cthulhu therapy.

 

[Fifth Element]

I figured that my use of the term over-attachment would have indicated that I meant something crossed over into the realm of being a negative thing. Exactly where the line between attachment and over-attachment is will depend from player to player and play style to play style. But if you recognize there's a problem at your table or with your levels of attachment, I recommend a course of Call of Cthulhu therapy.

Oh sure, but Umbran's post which you quoted did not refer to such negative things, but player preferences.

 

[Lanefan]

And, let's face it, really experienced DMs (the ones who tend to be good at thinking on their feet) also tend, IME, to avoid tying the campaign plot too tightly to specific characters specifically to avoid this problem.

It's not often I agree with you but this time you've nailed it in one. Well put.

As for the idea of Cthulhu therapy, nobody would notice much of a difference in my game - they're all bat-guano crazy to begin with!

Lan-"tying your campaign plot to Cthulhu is never a bad idea"-efan

 

[Beginning of the End]

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)

If you're not interested in having the players make important choices and contributions to the "story" of the game, then one is forced to wonder why you're playing an RPG at all. It would seem that writing some fiction would be a more effective way of meeting your interests.

 

[Heathen72]

This assumes that such attachment is in fact a negative thing?

Of course it is. That is what 'over' generally means. Or at the very least superfluous.

Attachment is of course A wonderful thing, unless you have a kill happy GM, or if it leads you to being overcautious as a player.