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

[Doug McCrae]

Pemerton, how do you distinguish between control over the narrative and a PC using a power? Second Wind could be justified as the PC gritting his teeth and ignoring the pain for as long as it takes to get the job done. Yes, the player decides when to use it, but the player decides when to hit something with his sword, cast fireball, etc.

To involve control of the narrative I would say it has to be something the PC could not control, but the player does. An example would be the one from James Bond 007 - the player controlling James Bond spends a hero point to have a gold bar be lying cnveniently within reach to use as a makeshift club.


PS Good points about the assumptions of old school D&D and the time that changed.

 

[apoptosis]

Pemerton, how do you distinguish between control over the narrative and a PC using a power? Second Wind could be justified as the PC gritting his teeth and ignoring the pain for as long as it takes to get the job done. Yes, the player decides when to use it, but the player decides when to hit something with his sword, cast fireball, etc.

To involve control of the narrative I would say it has to be something the PC could not control, but the player does. An example would be the one from James Bond 007 - the player controlling James Bond spends a hero point to have a gold bar be lying cnveniently within reach to use as a makeshift club.


PS Good points about the assumptions of old school D&D and the time that changed.

Sometimes they are the same thing.

The Circles role in BW..it is a skill that the character purchases (kinda) but allows control over the introduction of new NPCs.

A good example is in the Shadow of Yesterday. There is a goblin ability that allows you to to hide mundane objects and can produce them when you want at a later date.

The DM can say you are stripped naked, and every cavity searched but the player still can utilize this ability to produce a set of lockpicks (it is not magical, so basically there is some narrative control the player has to change the story to say that for whatever reason the guards did not look at some area or missed this set of lockpicks). That would be an ability that allows player narrative control.

 

[Doug McCrae]

*consolidates those aspects of 3E which empower the players over the GM (like character build and action resolution mechanics);​

Does that really empower the player? In games without skill systems like B/X it could be a lot easier for a player to decide his character is, say, a good fisherman. In 3e if my PC has a Wis of 6 and no skill points free, that would be much harder.

*making Demons, Devils and other monsters more immediately recognisable to the players, and gives them distinctive tacics (thus allowing the players to recognise a monster and take account of its known and distinctive tactics in their play choices);

Whether demons and devils look different or similar is inconsequential, what matters is whether the players can work out a monster's powers from its appearance. Which they have always been able to do in every edition of D&D unless the monsters are disguised or the DM changes the description.

*giving all PCs per-encounter abilities (which mean that players are no longer hostage to the GM's decisions about the overall passage of time in the gameworld);

But instead hostage to the DM's decision about when an encounter ends. The only change here is that the DM's decision is easier. There's no increase in player power.​

 

[FourthBear]

Actually this is really giving power to the rules and neither the player or the DM.

Again, a system that allows the *DM* to better predict the outcomes of encounters definitely increases the DMs narrative power. If the DM cannot well predict the outcome of his encounters, this obviously leads to a potential loss of narrative control. The DM is the one that creates and chooses the placement of encounters. The rules only serve to execute the DMs predetermined encounter. The rules have no control over if the DM selects a easy or difficult encounter. It's the DM's choice.

 

[Reynard]

Again, a system that allows the *DM* to better predict the outcomes of encounters definitely increases the DMs narrative power. If the DM cannot well predict the outcome of his encounters, this obviously leads to a potential loss of narrative control.

If the DM can predict the outcome, so can the players. My original point about monster design based on the Des&Dev article was that, in combination with the level/tier system, there are concrete number associated with any given monster. the players, who have as ready access to the DMG and the MM as the DM does, are aware of this. So, even if the DM has a toll with which to more easily create custom creatures, those custom creatures will fall within a predictable range of power and ability. The article also states that there's a list of abilities from which the DM will be able to choose for a monster within the appropriate role/level/tier range. More predictability. Even if an experienced DM chooses to create something from whole cloth, his design will be informed by the guidelines set forth and, again, the new creature falls easily in a predictable range of ability that the players can use to their advantage. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, from a player's perspective: knowledge is power, after all, and having a clear idea of the capabilities of any particular threat ("there's four of us and only one of it -- it's an Elite!) provides the players with a distinct advantage in play. The advantages to the DM are all in prep time -- nothing to sneeze at, but hardly the same thing.

Contrast this with the 3E CR system and you can see how it has changed (which is why I call the level/role/tier system the successor of the CR system, though "evolution of" is probably more accurate). A CR 3 creature is intended to be a reasonable challenge for a 3rd level party of 4. Beyond that, though, no account is taken for what the actual capabilities of that creature might be. So even if the players can assume with some degree of certainty that the encounter is appropriate to their level, and therefore judge the CR, they have little information above and beyond that. Just for reference, a large animated object, a cockatrice, an ogre and an ethereal marauder are all CR 3 creatures and every one has very different abilities that would have a huge impact on whether or not it is actually an appropriate encounter for any given level appropriate party.

The DM is the one that creates and chooses the placement of encounters. The rules only serve to execute the DMs predetermined encounter. The rules have no control over if the DM selects a easy or difficult encounter. It's the DM's choice.

This is absolutely true, but the argument goes with the baseline assumption that we are talking above "level appropriate" from a rules/mechanics perspective.

 

[Reynard]

I am not a fan of "narrative control" mechanics in general. they have their place in certain kinds of RPGs, just not ones I am a huge fan of.

My concern with 4E isn't so much that it will have these kinds of mechanics but that through a codified rules set, power is transferred to the players through the simple fact of the reduction of reliance on DM fiat. "Fiat" tends to get used as a four letter word, but in the end it is just another tool -- it is neither good nor bad on its own. Only how it is used can determine whether it turns out to be a bad thing.

I'll certainly admit to being off the mark a little in my OP on some specifics (in particular, with the Quest thing -- I went and re-read the original article and I don't know where I came up with half the stuff I wrote) but I think the larger point stands: between being designed with inexperienced DMs in mind and with a strong pro-player bias, the DM as judge and arbiter and authority is the one taking the hit. it's not something that started with 4E, of course, as pemerton pointed out above, but a continuing track down a path that I think moves the game away from what makes RPGs unique and special toward general "gamism". Board games and card games and miniatures games are all very fun, but they aren't RPGs -- they lack the fuindamental element of what (IMO, of course) makes an RPG an RPG -- the GM/DM.

 

[Lackhand]

It's not something that started with 4E, of course, as pemerton pointed out above, but a continuing track down a path that I think moves the game away from what makes RPGs unique and special toward general "gamism". Board games and card games and miniatures games are all very fun, but they aren't RPGs -- they lack the fuindamental element of what (IMO, of course) makes an RPG an RPG -- the GM/DM.

Also plot. Actually, I'd go so far as to say "More importantly, freeform plot".

The GM is a nice touch, but blackjack has a DM, for goodness' sake!

Erm, ahm -- but I wasn't saying that therefore you should love games that distribute the narrator across the players, just pointing out that there's a spectrum here.
Also, the DM in blackjack is ultimately constrained in her actions: the game rules determine how she (and she alone!) must play. Wacky!

Poker also has a GM, though with absolutely no way to participate in the game, of course. What about something like Betrayal at the House on the Hill? Plot, antagonistic fellow player, but everyone is just a player -- contrast with Arkham Horror, where the game board itself is the antagonist!

I like games

 

[Celebrim]

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

Yes, but the point is that they got it 'wrong' for 3E. They've had major experiments like 'Neverwinter Nights' to see what needs tweaking in a cRPG, and they've seen the market get apparantly stolen by WoW. 4E is intended to 'fix' what was wrong with 3E, and based on the design by that they largely mean 'things that would make translating it to a computer hard'.

Ok, just in case anyone is still not seeing it, the reason you have to have level limits on magic items is in a persistant online world, you want to have some means of limiting trickle-down buffs to low level players so that they aren't 'deprived' of the intended experience by the presence of pervasive powerful magic. Also, if powerful buffs are trickling down, those that don't get them will percieve the game as unfair and will become frustrated by 'having to do it the hard way'. In a PnP game, that's not a problem. Everyone in the game is in the same 'party'. So items have to have level limits and restrictions in 4e to ensure the math works at every stage of the game, because the goal here is to make the online experience and the PnP experience as close to the same as possible.

Once you realize that, alot of the question of 'Why are they doing THAT?!?!?' goes away.

 

[Counterspin]

Fiat is bad because it makes it impossible for the players to know their character's actual capabilities. If you character can easily make a 20 ft jump, they know it under a set DC system. In a fiat system, maybe it's easy this time and hard next time.

 

[thatdarnedbob]

Ok, just in case anyone is still not seeing it, the reason you have to have level limits on magic items is in a persistant online world, you want to have some means of limiting trickle-down buffs to low level players so that they aren't 'deprived' of the intended experience by the presence of pervasive powerful magic. Also, if powerful buffs are trickling down, those that don't get them will percieve the game as unfair and will become frustrated by 'having to do it the hard way'. In a PnP game, that's not a problem. Everyone in the game is in the same 'party'. So items have to have level limits and restrictions in 4e to ensure the math works at every stage of the game, because the goal here is to make the online experience and the PnP experience as close to the same as possible.

So the reason 4E won't let PCs below 11th level use rings is that the fourth edition MMORPG will have the same restriction? That strongly resembles claiming that the cart pushes the horse.