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

[Doug McCrae]

It's funny -- Lizard and I share a general distrust of 4E but that's about as far as our opinions coincide. I think the game should be taken back to the 1E days, while I gather that Lizard thinks the game should be more like the "good" parts of 3E.

Lol, yeah. You're saying that 4e is removing the DM because it has too many rules, while Lizard is saying that 4e is removing the DM because it has too few.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Monsters have no interesting "flavor' abilities or much of anything of use outside the rigidly defined bounds of the encounter,

The pit fiend has the 99 year wish power. But yeah, there are no non-combat powers and weird irrelevant SLAs in the combat block any more. That's 100% a good thing. The combat block is for combat. That's its job. The flavor text at the top gives a DM a start regarding non-combat uses for the monster. If he wants more info he'll need to look out articles elsewhere or (shock, horror!) use his imagination.

so there's no need to wonder what the pit fiend might be doing while the PCs are just beginning to investigate his schemes, or work out how the pit fiend controls the arch-lich who is his putative ally.

There's just as much need as there's always been, which depends entirely on the sort of game the DM and players want. Those needs are in no way driven by what is statted and what isn't.

 

[Reynard]

The pit fiend has the 99 year wish power. But yeah, there are no non-combat powers and weird irrelevant SLAs in the combat block any more. That's 100% a good thing. The combat block is for combat. That's its job. The flavor text at the top gives a DM a start regarding non-combat uses for the monster. If he wants more info he'll need to look out articles elsewhere or (shock, horror!) use his imagination.
There's just as much need as there's always been, which depends entirely on the sort of game the DM and players want. Those needs are in no way driven by what is statted and what isn't.

I find it disconcerting that I am agreeing with Doug.

 

[shilsen]

I don't want to be dismissive of these so called 'concerns' about the DM's place, but... I really can't find a way to finish that sentence.

You don't? Then you're a way nicer person than me. I, on the other hand, find them amusing as heck and lacking any real basis in fact. If D&D consisted only of combat encounters and if WotC sent the gaming police over to your home to break your kneecaps if you made a single ruling that was not covered in the books, then maybe it would seem like the OP has something of a leg to stand on. But considering that D&D has a whole lot more to it than combat, and also considering that combat in D&D involves so many possible variations and permutations that no book, however comprehensive, can cover every variable, the DM is going to be just as vitally important to 4e as DMs were in any earlier edition. There will be good DMs and bad DMs and people complaining how it's not as good as the good old days and others saying that 4e is the greatest edition of D&D ever. Just as was the case with every edition that has come out. Some things never change.

 

[SkidAce]

If any of the players in my groups were to actually do either of these things, they wouldn't be in the group for very much longer, I don't think. CR and WBL are guidelines for a reason, and if a player wants to argue about it, tough.

I totally agree with you. But I would wager we learned to use guidlines in a previous edition. Will the DMs learning from 4th edition gain that flexibility of mind set or will they be more influenced not?

The rule system (in games, work, life) you start with has a great impact on your paradigm towards play style. Not a straitjacket, but certainly a massive influence towards a style.

 

[Reynard]

You don't? Then you're a way nicer person than me. I, on the other hand, find them amusing as heck and lacking any real basis in fact. If D&D consisted only of combat encounters and if WotC sent the gaming police over to your home to break your kneecaps if you made a single ruling that was not covered in the books, then maybe it would seem like the OP has something of a leg to stand on. But considering that D&D has a whole lot more to it than combat, and also considering that combat in D&D involves so many possible variations and permutations that no book, however comprehensive, can cover every variable, the DM is going to be just as vitally important to 4e as DMs were in any earlier edition. There will be good DMs and bad DMs and people complaining how it's not as good as the good old days and others saying that 4e is the greatest edition of D&D ever. Just as was the case with every edition that has come out. Some things never change.

Youreally didn't bother to read much of anything in the thread, did you?

 

[zoroaster100]

Even if the assumption is that most parties will need a leader, the fact that there will be alternatives to cleric that can fill that role equally well is a great advance in my opinion.

 

[Lizard]

Lol, yeah. You're saying that 4e is removing the DM because it has too many rules, while Lizard is saying that 4e is removing the DM because it has too few.

So maybe the actual game will meet us both halfway.

 

[Reynard]

Even if the assumption is that most parties will need a leader, the fact that there will be alternatives to cleric that can fill that role equally well is a great advance in my opinion.

I really think there are two aspects to the game that are sometimes in concert and sometimes in conflict: character rules and DMing rules. When these two things are less closely linked, as they were in earlier editions, I think it is easier for any particular group to determine how they interact in play (through preferences and playstyle choices). When they are bound more tightly together (such as through "core mechanics" and characters and creatures using the same rules) there's less flexibility for the individual group to determine for themselves how they interact. The "density" of the rules has a major impact as well, and of course the quality of the rules.

I consider the pit fiend MM entry a "promise kept" and think it is an example of where 4E may provide some of that necessary seperation distance. While I am not necessarily a big fan of the specifics of the pit fiends design, the construction of the stat block and the design philosophy of the abilities are very cool, IMO. It is kind of a return to 1E/2E, where creatures were both a) less complex than characters, and b) designed under a different paradigm than characters. The ability to grab a quick creature without having to modify it is a boon to DMs and increases the authoritative control of the DM. Obviously, we want to be able to design creatures from the ground up -- that's part of the DM's job, too -- but creatures that run faster and are easier to grok give the Dm more game-space to work with. likewise, creatures that have unique abilities not dependent upon the same concrete list of abilities available to players provides more game-space, too.

In short -- the monster end of 4E is looking up from perspective. I am still concerned about the rigidity of roles and rules and how those things affect the interaction between DM and player, but there seems to be at least one "point of light".

 

[Lizard]

The pit fiend has the 99 year wish power. But yeah, there are no non-combat powers and weird irrelevant SLAs in the combat block any more. That's 100% a good thing. The combat block is for combat. That's its job. The flavor text at the top gives a DM a start regarding non-combat uses for the monster. If he wants more info he'll need to look out articles elsewhere or (shock, horror!) use his imagination.

I guess I lack imagination if I think a monster described as a master plotter/overlord should have some mechanics to reflect this besides two skill picks. Especially when any monster of similair power, regardless of flavor text, will have nearly-identical skills, making them hard to mechanically distinguish. Yes, I can add class levels or feats or what not -- but if there are "social encounters", what guidelines do I have for balance? Will we have Solo Intimidators? Elite Negotiaters? Minion Flatterers? Can a 20th level Erinyes (or whatever) out-manipulate a 26th level Pit Fiend? (And how MANY feats can I add before I need to change the XP value of the monster? Maybe this will be in the DMG...nice, crunchy, rules...I can haz crunch? Plz?)

"You can just do what you want!" flies in the face of the putative goal of 4e providing guidance for new DMs. That is, after all, why we're getting all the "assumed setting" fluff crammed into the core rules. So if we assume a new DM can't make up a basic world, why assume he can balance a monster for social encounter (a much more complex process than mere worldbuilding) without rules?