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

[spunky_mutters]

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.

See, I think the role of the DM is to arbitrate gaps in player knowledge (about the world, NPCs, etc.) rather than to worry about mechanical systems. I'm perfectly happy having players with a rock solid set of knowledge and understanding of the rules by which the world works, but they will always need a DM to help lead them through the darkness of plots and perils.

I think 3e is an example that will likely support your point better than 4e will. Monster construction in 3e imposes an arthitecture that constrains you (want to make a fey warrior, or a high-level undead that is tough without a bazillion hit dice? Tough. ) by using type as an overarching baseline for too many mechanical factors. They appear to have learned this lesson for monsters, so I have little doubt that they will apply it to other aspects of the rules.

So, I think your arguments are actually more apt for 3e than they will be for 4e.

 

[Fifth Element]

For those, like myself, that like D&D the way it is and/or has been for 30 years, this is bothersome.

This again is selective. There are very few things in D&D that haven't changed in 30 years. To claim that D&D has been D&D for 30 years, and only now with 4E is there going to be significant change, is invalid.

 

[apoptosis]

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

I am not sure that this would mean.

 

[apoptosis]

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.

This I agree with D&D has never been the best toolbox. Rolemaster was better at being a tool box and GURPS and HERO even moreso.

On the other hand, I think most toolbox games tend to be very good at doing most things average and rarely anything poorly or anything really good.

 

[Reynard]

This again is selective. There are very few things in D&D that haven't changed in 30 years. To claim that D&D has been D&D for 30 years, and only now with 4E is there going to be significant change, is invalid.

Certainly many things have changed and not all of the changes have been good changes. I am concerned less with basic mechanical structures (there's actually a lot of 4E mechanics that sound interesting -- though we haven't seen too many of them in explicit terms) as I am about core assumptions both in play and implied setting. As far as this thread goes, it is the former that concerns me.

I'll admit to being pessimistic, though. There's some things about 3E that bothered me from the outset, but its initial "back to the dungeon" launch philosophy was, over all, a very D&D kind of D&D. The last couple years of 3.5 has seen some of the things I like least in the current edition, and these last couple years have been "alpha testing" for 4E. Moreover, most of the things that 4E Des&Dev articles have been calling out as badwrongfun are things that I *like* about D&D and was happy they survived in 3E.

 

[Dausuul]

Monster construction in 3e imposes an arthitecture that constrains you (want to make a fey warrior, or a high-level undead that is tough without a bazillion hit dice? Tough. )

Actually, I've never felt much constrained by those rules. If I want to make a monster tougher, I give it extra hit points. I don't worry about statting it all out. I have never yet had a player reckon up the stats of a monster and say, "Hey, how did it have so many hit points with only 10 Hit Dice?" And if I had one who did, I'd just shrug and smile enigmatically.

 

[king_ghidorah]

Wow. I'm not sure how you could have read that article and come up with less of a reflection of what was written. Not only does it not specify giving xp bonuses, and not only was the "quest card" noted as a sidebar suggestion and not a mechanical requirement (the mechanic was creating a system for setting experience awards for completing requests," but the idea that a DM could not affect how and when a quest is completed is spurious and illogical.

How is this different than when a character is told by an NPC, "stop the BBEG and I will pay you 1000 gold" in the game now. (Answer: it isn't, except that the character has a log of the promise.) If you as a DM change the outcome (the NPC double-crosses the character, the BBEG isn't really a bad guy, etc.), it wasn't a problem before per se and it isn't now. You may need to change out the quest card to help your PCs (get revenge on the jerk who double-crossed you, escape from prison, fix the mess before you are tarred and feathered) and (so long as you don't do this all the time), everyone is happy and, notably, NO MECHANICS WERE VIOLATED, since the quest card has always been a ritualized note-taking/reminder system and NOT the quest experience system. That has been the mechanic in he background where the DM decides once the quest AS THE DM DEFINES IT has been completing.

Your complaint is non-factual and not supported by anything actually said by WotC, just by your unfounded extrapolations and personal biases.

While I disagree with many of your other assessments (but I do think they were well expressed) I wanted to zero in on this one in particular simply because in all the bluster about "Quest Cards" I think the actual "Quest Mechanic" gets lost and people don't consider what it means and how it impacts play, particularly as it relates to the subject of this thread:

The first part of the "quest mechanic" is, as you suggest, no different than the way the game has traditionally been played: the PCs do this thing and get this reward for doing it. However, the similarity ends there and transfers power away from the DM and to the players because that "thing" the PCs are doing and the reward (in-game or meta-game) for doing it physically transfer (perhaps on a card, perhaps not) from the DM to the players. Once the "card" is handed over, so too is the DM's ability to adjudicate the quest handed over, as is his ability to manipulate the quest, its rewards or its details. Now the players are holding the "card" that says "Stop BBEG's plans and gain 1000gp and 1000xp". The tool of the DM to motivate the players to engage his adventure has become a weapon in the hands of the players against the DM's rightto judge whether the PCs did what they were supposed to do in a manner consistent with the game being played. With "card" in hand, the PCs can go KoDT on the local village just to get to the bad guy and still have a concrete backing for receiving their reward.

This is, of course, a worst case scenario, but it is illustrative of the kind of transfer of power I am talking about and the possible conflicts that can arise because of that transference.

 

[king_ghidorah]

Only because the definitions have changed. "Class" is no longer synonymous with "role" -- or maybe it is simply more explicit and hardcoded into the rules in a way that eleminates the possibility of a class not being able to fill its role. In either case, the existence of a Warlord might eliminate the need for a Cleric, but all signs point to needing a Leader in the party.

Yes, it will probably be the case that having a Leader in 4e is as important as having a cleric in 1st-3rd edition. However, with second wind rules and at least one Defender (like Paladins) having some healing power through Smites, that may not be a hard and fast rule. After all, the WotC information has depicted Leaders as the best healers, not necessarily the exclusive ones. This seems the case with all roles-- that they have a niche, but they do not necessarily live exclusively in that niche. It may become possible for the situation to become one in which it is best if you have a leader, rather than necessary. Hard to tell without the rules in front of me. We don't know how magic items or rituals, for instance, could play into this. We don't know what the natural healing rules are. There are a lot of things that could affect this....

 

[spunky_mutters]

Actually, I've never felt much constrained by those rules. If I want to make a monster tougher, I give it extra hit points. I don't worry about statting it all out. I have never yet had a player reckon up the stats of a monster and say, "Hey, how did it have so many hit points with only 10 Hit Dice?" And if I had one who did, I'd just shrug and smile enigmatically.

Exactly. You only use the rules when they work and facilitate the fun. It's been the same forever, so I don't buy Reynard's argument.

 

[I'm A Banana]

the answer to these DMs is simple: no players.

I think it is key to note that this is not an acceptable answer for WotC.

I mean, they WANT people to be playing.