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

[gizmo33]

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. 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.

But why begrudge the 4E system and designers the ability to create helpful guidelines just because they are used inappropriately? (If I understand you correctly.) The rule system IMO isn't "taking power away from the DM" in the cases where the DM won't stand up and exercise reasonable authority over the game. What you describe as not "entirely unjustified" is something I'm sympathetic with. I'll tell players, for example, if horses are extinct IMC rather than have them build a cavalier type character and then find out the hard way - after all, it's reasonable to assume that the character would not have trained themselves as a cavalier if there were no such things as horses in the world in the first place. Players should be informed of common knowledge at the start where practical. How much more powerful will you be if you kill a minotaur? Well that's something you'll just have to find out.

Rather than throw out every guideline in the DMG, I'd rather the DMG just say "your DM has the final decision on how he implements any of the guidelines in this book, don't base your character build on them without consulting with her first.". But even the most rules-lawyerish people I've played with don't seem to have a problem knowing their boundaries, and I wouldn't have a problem reminding them (politely of course, we're friends mostly) if they did.

 

[Spell]

They would have been better off simplifying things such that the difficulty checks were LESS granular and were just easy, medium, hard, very difficult, crazy impossible etc. I think this is true for most all types of checks.

which is what other system do, like cyberpunk 2.0.2.0., if i remember well.
anyway, i would have liked that approach much better.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Reynard, as far as I can see, your complaint about 4e is that it hasn't been specifically designed with you in mind*. Hence your massive difficulty with the designer's use of the word 'fun'. What they call fun you call unfun and vice versa.

4e is a product of both market research and the designers and playtesters views of what is fun. Which is exactly as it should be. 4e should not be a product of what I find fun. It should not be a product of what Reynard finds fun. We're irrelevant.

This is, of course, a damn good thing.


*Far from uncommon in the 4e forum.

 

[Fifth Element]

If that is in fact true, please direct me toward the appropriate posting. the way the rules were described in the section I previously quoted was highly suggestive of "hard limits" (within a range) for encounter design.

Do you mean this bit here:

For each level of play we're devising a range of numbers for monsters that provide fairness and fun. Those numbers are based on what the PCs bring to the fight in terms of their potency and defenses, and upon the general role in the fight a monster is likely to be in.

I don't know how "fair and fun" equals "hard limits". They're providing a range of numbers for monsters that they think is most fair. I don't see anything there that suggests you won't be able to give the PCs a walk-over encounter, or a near-death experience if that's what you want.

Changing a monster will be easier and more fair that ever. Rather than jumping through hoops and doing a lot of math with uncertain results, you can just look at the numbers for where you want to be and put the monster there.

This frames monster design in terms of where you (as DM) want the monster to be, and claims that adjusting monsters based on your desires (as DM) will be easier than in 3E.

 

[Spell]

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.

and, reading from the posts in these very forums, is equally heavily houseruled by many players, too.
maybe it doesn't do rules heavy right then.

in my opinion, GURPS does rules heavy right. you don't like this subset because your campaign is cinematic? you might try the one on page Xxx. that's what i want to see in a rules heavy system done right.
not "these are the rules, if you don't like it, tough".

 

[gizmo33]

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.

Really? I don't remember it that way at all. The "percentile strength" system of AD&D wasn't partiulcarly better suited to simulation (edit: or freeform/freedom of design) than the 3d6 scores of DnD for example. In fact, what's "freeform" about every elf having to be both a wizard and fighter? DnD actually had rules for running a barony and fighting a large battle, whereas the core of the ADnD rules really only had guidelines at best. ADnD may have had tons more details and options but I don't see how one system was inherently more freeform than the other.

 

[Reynard]

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

I can't quite tell whether you are being serious or not (about wanting DM-less D&D, not 6e).

If you are, it isn't a huge step to DM-less D&D. Flip a few "suggestions" like the round by round tactical breakdown for monsters to "rules", produce module-packs in the Delve format use cards/charts/other fiddly bits to cover random bits and distribute the few remaining "DM responsibilities" to the players and you'd be there.

 

[Doug McCrae]

and, reading from the posts in these very forums, is equally heavily houseruled by many players, too.
maybe it doesn't do rules heavy right then.

in my opinion, GURPS does rules heavy right. you don't like this subset because your campaign is cinematic? you might try the one on page Xxx. that's what i want to see in a rules heavy system done right.
not "these are the rules, if you don't like it, tough".

ENWorld attracts tinkerers. By all accounts 1e was houseruled a lot more than 3e. That doesn't square with my own experience I must admit but it seems to be the prevailing wisdom.

Interesting point about GURPS. Although many see it as such I don't think D&D has ever been a toolbox, at least not compared to the likes of HERO and GURPS. No magic but Vancian, arcane/divine split de rigeur, insufficient advice for adjusting the magic level (in any edition).

Sure it's a toolbox if you want to run Greyhawk with the names changed and no gnolls. But that's pretty tame in terms of what a fantasy world could be.

 

[xechnao]

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

Have you tried Warhammer Quest?

 

[Reynard]

Reynard, as far as I can see, your complaint about 4e is that it hasn't been specifically designed with you in mind*.

True to a degree, of course. I hardly think I am a unique snowflake, though. Many of the concerns I express I see shared by others. With 4E, the game is changing in a lot of fundamental ways -- I think even the most ardent 4E supporter will admit that. For those, like myself, that like D&D the way it is and/or has been for 30 years, this is bothersome. In much the same way, you and others are happy that 4E is hewing closer to your particular preferences. And that's to be expected and is a good thing (for you). But the same freedom of opinion and expression that allows you to be happy about it allows me to grouse about it -- I just try (not always successfully) to enumerate why 4E bothers me, rather than simply calling it names.