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

[Reynard]

So maybe the actual game will meet us both halfway.

I will say that, generally speaking, actual mechanical information tends to disturb me less than the "teaser information" that we get. i am not sure why that is, other than my own general pessimism tends to interpret vague information negatively in the same way that others' optimism creates positive interpretations. The fact is that only the final construction of the game, both mechanically and philosophically, can finally answer the question of wether it is a) a good game, and b) a good D&D game.

 

[Lizard]

I will say that, generally speaking, actual mechanical information tends to disturb me less than the "teaser information" that we get. i am not sure why that is, other than my own general pessimism tends to interpret vague information negatively in the same way that others' optimism creates positive interpretations. The fact is that only the final construction of the game, both mechanically and philosophically, can finally answer the question of wether it is a) a good game, and b) a good D&D game.

I am very certain it will be 'a'. I do not think the design team is capable of making a bad game unless they were involved in some sort of amazingly baroque and convoluted scam. I know they are damn good designers.

As for 'b'...THAT'S where I'm a lot less certain, but you and I have different ideas about what a 'good D&D game' is. I think they will please one of us, or neither of us, but not both of us, if you can follow that.

 

[shilsen]

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

Actually, I read the entire thread. And I'm still not seeing a good argument that the DM is going to be outmoded in any real way.

 

[Reynard]

Actually, I read the entire thread. And I'm still not seeing a good argument that the DM is going to be outmoded in any real way.

Care to elaborate. Specifically, if you disagree, then you must disagree with the basic premise that more rules reduces the game-space directly under the purview of the DM? If that's your view, what is the net effect of a desner rules set, and how does it impact the relationship between the Dm and the players?

or, to put it more directly: why bother joining the discussion if you don't intend to discuss?

 

[shilsen]

Care to elaborate. Specifically, if you disagree, then you must disagree with the basic premise that more rules reduces the game-space directly under the purview of the DM?

Yes, I disagree. The entire game is directly under the purview of the DM. The rules simply provide the DM with tools to use in carrying out his duties, but the choice of whether (and how) to use the tools is up to him. The more tools he has the better equipped he is, though there can naturally be problems if too many of the tools are required for his duties and/or badly designed. Of course, even if they are, he still has the freedom to change the existing tools or not use them or use them in ways they weren't originally intended, and the degree to which a DM wishes to do that (or is capable of it) will depend on the individual.

If that's your view, what is the net effect of a desner rules set, and how does it impact the relationship between the Dm and the players?

The effect of a designer (I'm guessing that's what you meant to type) ruleset is to provide a set of tools. How the ruleset affects the relationship between DM and players is that it provides them a shared code to work with. Of course, there's a whole lot more to the shared code beyond the ruleset, and how large a percentage of the code or how important the ruleset is will depend on the DM and players. For example, in my groups (and this means both those I am a DM and a player in), what system we use has an almost negligible impact on the relationship between DM and players. The systems do have an effect on the game, of course, but they don't affect the DM-player relationship.

or, to put it more directly: why bother joining the discussion if you don't intend to discuss?

Because, while I'm often happy to read an argument which I think is full of holes and be amused and pass it by, sometimes I feel impelled to put my two bits in about how cockeyed it is. Plus a lot of people have already poked holes in the argument quite eloquently earlier in the thread, and since it seems you're not paying attention to them, I figured you weren't going to be persuaded by me either. In short, it's not you, it's me

 

[apoptosis]

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.

Fiat is still there, but now it is under the umbrella that he said the jump is 20ft this time vs 100ft the next.

DM consistency is always an important part of a game.

What if the jump is downhill, the character is standing vs jumping etc. I feel the games work better by removing some of the narrative power from the rules.

 

[apoptosis]

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.

In this case no one gains narrative power. Tools that halp a DM gauge better challenges do not give the DM better narrative control (he already has it) just gives him a tool to use it without killing the PCs.

I think you are not using narrative control the way me and Peryton are.

Narrative control is about WHO is making decisions in a situation. Not the ability to make good or bad decisions.

If the guidelines must be used then the DM is losing narrative control (even if it is just the expectation that the guidelines must be used, the DM is losing it...though the players are not really gaining it either).

Narrative control in determining what monsters are in a classic type of encounter is a pretty trivial event in general. Generally the rules and the DM go for the same result so the results are pretty much the same.

IF the rules have no control over what the DM selects as a monster then the DM has most all narrative control which is not necessarily bad or good intrinsically

Narrative control and who has it is of less importance if your game is just a dungeoncrawl (I mean 'just' as dungeoncrawls lack complexity in general) and become more useful as the complexity of the story(events in the game) grows.

 

[apoptosis]

The effect of a designer (I'm guessing that's what you meant to type) ruleset is to provide a set of tools. How the ruleset affects the relationship between DM and players is that it provides them a shared code to work with. Of course, there's a whole lot more to the shared code beyond the ruleset, and how large a percentage of the code or how important the ruleset is will depend on the DM and players. For example, in my groups (and this means both those I am a DM and a player in), what system we use has an almost negligible impact on the relationship between DM and players. The systems do have an effect on the game, of course, but they don't affect the DM-player relationship.

This I think is kind of a problem in my opinion. Different game systems should affect the DM-player relationship as they should have different ways/means/levels of dispersing narrative control.

Most the early games that came out pretty much did have the same set-up. DM controlled the world and the Players controlled just the actions of their characters. Newer games started developing new ways to look at this relationship and actually empower the players a lot more.

For all of the improvements D&D has made over the years some of their base ideas of how an RPG works have not really changed (whether this is good or bad varies based on whether you like this idea).

If the DM has to negotiate an encounter with the players vs complete DM fiat create very different player-DM relationships.

A system that says I get no XP for any challenges that are not related to my characters goals shapes the DM-Player relationship very differently then if i get XP for anything I kill.

If a system says that when I get in involved in the conflict I determine what happens when I when and the DM determines what happens when I lose, creates a much different DM-Player relationship than a system that encodes the effects of winning/losing within the ruleset.

 

[Reynard]

Plus a lot of people have already poked holes in the argument quite eloquently earlier in the thread, and since it seems you're not paying attention to them, I figured you weren't going to be persuaded by me either. In short, it's not you, it's me

See, this is the kind of comment that makes me assume you don't actually read, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. because if you had, you would see that I have discussed the issue with people that vehemtnly, but eloquently, disagreed with me and even been swayed by them. i know, I know. Intelligent discourse actually having an impact on one's opinions on the internet? Heresy! But there you go.

I know it is more fun to assume that every opinion is a statement of objective fact and that it is more fun to assume people that hold a different position than you are trolls and worse. But if you want to hold on to those illusions for your personal amusement, leave me out of it.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

I think WotC intends us to look at its stat block more as what it can do in combat and less of a definition of what the monster is. I think the Monster-As-Definition is a part of 3e's highly definitive rule set, which will be done away with in 4e.

In this case no one gains narrative power. Tools that halp a DM gauge better challenges do not give the DM better narrative control (he already has it) just gives him a tool to use it without killing the PCs.

I think you are not using narrative control the way me and Peryton are.

Narrative control is about WHO is making decisions in a situation. Not the ability to make good or bad decisions.

Not quite. If the DM is just guessing at what will happen, his control over the game is highly weakened. In other words, lets say the DM wants to create a challenging encounter to make the players scared of Monster X in the future. But, the rules make it difficult to gauge the monster's power, so the PCs wipe the floor wit it. The narrative has been maligned because of difficulty in prediction of the outcome.