D&D 4E 4E: DM-proofing the game

[Grog]

For the record, I agree with you. However, my experience is such that players do read the DMG and the MM and some players believe that the DM is "cheating" if he deviates from those rules.

Well, that's an issue of player behavior. What can the rules possibly do about that?

This isn't entirely unjustified, as some players build characters to interact with the game through the rules and rules changes affect their characters directly.

This has been true in every edition of D&D ever made.

 

[Grog]

There was an article back in 2000 that said the exact same thing about 3E.

It's also worth noting that there was no shortage of D&D PC games back in the 1E days. How many Gold Box games did they publish? 9? And there were lots of other D&D PC games besides those, too.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The OP claims that 1e and 2e are superior games because they empower the DM by being rules-lite. I don't think they're rules-lite at all, especially not 1e. It has all sorts of arcane and obscure rules. In many areas - weapon versus ac, space required, segments, saving throws - it's more complex than 3e. The OD&D/BECMI line is the only rules-lite version of D&D.

I think 1e is the worst edition of D&D evar. Here's why:

OD&D: Rules-lite, poorly explained.
B/X: Rules-lite, well explained.
1e: Rules heavy, many bad rules, poorly organised and explained.
2e: Rules heavy, some bad rules, well organised and explained.
3e. Rules heavy, good rules, well organised and explained.

The problem with 1e, and to a lesser extent 2e, is it does a bad job of rules-heavy. The rules get in the way and detract from the fun, which is one reason it was so heavily houseruled. 3e does rules heavy right.

 

[Spell]

I can't understand why people think that some of the new 4e paradigms are shackling DMs.

maybe because the same "but it makes the role of DMs so much easier" hype was thrown at us before 3e came out, and we were badly burnt by that ruleset?

i'm talking jsut for me, here.

i still remember the article on creating monsters for 3e in dragon which said something like "the monster /has/ to belong to one of these creature types. you shouldn't create new ones". i was shocked. someone sent a letter complaining that it was the first time in the history of D&D in which some designer said to DMs that they shouldn't make create new stuff, and they said: "oh, that slipped in from a draft that was meant to circulate in the office... of course we are not trying to limit your creativity!!!".

fast forward today and you see people reviewing monster manuals complaining that moster X doesn't have the exact number of skill points or enough feats.

like someone said: "just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not after you".


i *wasted* more than 200 dollars on 3e manuals. PHB, DMG, MM, psionics, and epic level campaign. i regard them as the worst game matherial i own, and the most boring reading that i can remember doing in anything related to RPGs.

excuse me if i am more than worried that, when i hear the same hype thrown at me, i might be getting the same stuff... or not, because this time i won't buy anything before i read it.

 

[Minicol]

a certain quality and minimum quantity of fun, if you will -- for the players.

.

You're right my friend ! Them () Do not deserve more than the minimum.

Fun is to 4e what the iron rations were for 1e.

 

[Spell]

From what I see, 4e seems to be rolling back some of the mechanistic decisions which took responsibility away from the DM in 3e, and giving more of a 'framework of guidance' within which to work.

the good thing is that this is just talk. until we see the books, there's nothing more we can do. i just hope that my sometimes negative feelings are just a sign of me getting old!

 

[Reynard]

The OP claims that 1e and 2e are superior games because they empower the DM by being rules-lite.

Actually, it's not. My claim is that 4E's approach to rules seems to be desigend to DM-proof the game by limiting fiat, which is hardly the same thing.

Let's examine the assertion that 1E was rules heavy. 1E had a lot of rules for combat and a very limited number of rules for things that weren't combat. The combat rules made fights gritty and often detailed if you used all of those combat rules. The slimmer approach to rules outside of combat made the game the DM's. This is the important thing -- this is where earlier editions outshine 3rd and (apparently) 4th edition. DM fiat exists because no rule set can cover all possible circumstances and certainly can't account for all possible playsteles and preferences. that is why the DM is there, to fill in the inherent, inevitible gaps in the rules. When there is fewer rules, the DM has more room to stretch in those spaces. When there are a lot of interconnected rules, he is more restricted in that endeavor. When those rules start to intrude on the DM's primary mission of deciding what makes a good, fun adventure/campaign for his players and begins to try and define "good" and "fun" as universal constants that can be met with "balance" and more rules, the rules have gone too far and the whole game suffers.

 

[Grog]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_&_Dragons_computer_and_video_games

By my rough count, starting with Pool of Radiance in 1988, there were about 50 D&D video games published in the 1E-2E days (about 4.2 per year until 3E was released). Compare that to the 20 or so published since 3E, starting with Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor in 2001 (about 2.9 per year). So the "more structured" 3E had fewer video games based off it than the "less structured" 1E&2E.

The idea that the rules are being made less flexible (if they even are) for the sake of video game designers is ridiculous. They clearly don't need the help.

 

[Doug McCrae]

One of the implicit design goals of 4E seems to be to reduce the influence the DM has over the game, particularly as it relates to "fun". Now, I say "implicit" because this goal is wholly unatainable so long as there is a DM at all.

I would *love* to see a DM-less D&D. Maybe in 6e.

 

[Spell]

The only difference between a DM's fiat rule and an explicit rule would occur in the first instance where someone tried to jump. After that first instance, everyone at the table would know how the rules work and what their chances are. The only thing you gain is an "aha gotcha" moment the first time the rule is devised through fiat. Nothing else.

well, not necessarily.
people tend to forget things that happened in the adventure last month, if they can't look it up in writing.
and i could be willing to pretend that joe the fighter can jump 20 feet while heavy encumbered this time, because it's good for the story to unfold, whereas next time i might have my reasons to call for checks, or simply saying: "i don't know, it doesn't seem that your PC has a reasonable chance of taking that action", for sotry reason.

i think it all boils down to this.

if you want D&D to be a simulation (realistic or not, it's not the point) of a world modelled after our own earth, then specific rules that everyone can see are good.
if you want a relatively complex system to resolve some situations (combat and magic), but you want the system to yield to the need of the story, then you want something else.

to a certain extent, that seemed to be the difference between AD&D and D&D. if you liked simulations, you played AD&D. if you felt like going more freeform, you played D&D. only, AD&D wasn't terribly rigid, if you didn't use optional rules scattered between different manuals and stuck to the core.