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

[shilsen]

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.

...

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.

I think we're using different definitions for both the DM-player relationship and what affecting it means. For me, personally, the DM-player relationship has much less to do with issues such as narrative control and the use (or disuse) of fiat, and much more to do with interpersonal issues. I game in what Mallus (both a DM and player of mine) called a high-trust environment, and that fact isn't changed by whatever system we use.

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.

I did read the pages quite fast and so may have missed or misread some things, but it seemed to me that generally your discussion of the opposing positions (which was certainly a lot more civil than many I've seen, esp. on the 4e forum) hadn't really led to any major change in your original position. That said, my choice of the words "you're not paying attention to them" was very poor for what I intended to convey, namely that I didn't think you were being persuaded by people making more detailed and better arguments than me. Sorry about that.

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.

Actually, one of the main reasons I generally don't get excited about any of the opinions I see expressed at ENWorld is because I figure that every gamer has very different tastes and that as long as their opinions work for them and let them have a good time with the game, they're doing fine. I don't think I ever had the illusion that people should share my opinions or are wrong simply because they don't do so.

 

[FourthBear]

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

The rules in D&D (all editions) have no control over what the DM selects as a monster. Therefore, in all editions, the DM has most of the narrative control, under this argument. With the exception of random encounter tables, can you tell me where the rules control what the DM selects as a monster? There are tools as to what would represent a challenging encounter, but the DM is under no restriction to use them. There is an assumption that a DM will keep his encounters within a range, but I cannot find any rule in any D&D edition to enforce it.

As a DM, I can plan trivial, easy, challenging, hard or overwhelming challenges. With a good system for predicting the likely outcomes of a given description of challenges, I can manage this reliably. This clearly grants me narrative control. I can choose an entire campaign filled with nothing but easy encounters, if so choose. A good system allows me to do this reliably.

Let us take an extreme example: a game system where the challenge system is utterly predictive. If a DM chooses a easy encounter, the PCs will always succeed with minimal resources expended. If a DM chooses an encounter that will kill one PC, that is also true. If a DM chooses an encounter that kills all party members, this will come true as well. The DM then chooses all of the encounters and how they interact with the party. How in the world can you argue that this does not give narrative control to the DM? Everything he chooses to happen comes true! I would judge it a crappy game, because DMs and players like an actual game rather than a predetermined set of encounters, but that's the result.

 

[Grog]

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.

Well, then it's funny that most items in 4E don't have level limits, and in the one instance where they do (rings), the limit is nothing like what you claim an MMO needs (the limit is just that you have to wait until 11th level to use a ring, so a PC could wear a Ring of Supreme Godly Power at 11th level if he found one and easily be "deprived" of the intended game experience).

So either your argument that the 4E rules are being designed to be MMO-friendly is complete nonsense, or the designers are just really inept at meeting that goal....

 

[BryonD]

Previously, you looked into the feats table: "What can I do to make this orc a better archer/axe-swinger".
Now, you look at the monster guidelines and look: "What would an Orc with the archer role look like".

Previously, you looked at dozens of feat tables, opened various splat books, to finally find the right combination of feats and skills. Now, you just follow a set of guidelines.

At the end, the PCs will fight your Archer-Orc or your Axe-Swinger Orc. But in the first case, you wasted a lot of time finding the right stats, in the second time you had some spare time to flesh out the look of Archer-Orcs and the reason why he and the Axe-Swinger Orc work together in this particular scene, and even remembered to give the Axe-Swinger a sheet of paper with some map sketches that might lead to the next adventure of the PCs.

I think you pretty well made the case of 4E marginalizing DMs right there.

The problem with your assessment, at least for my gaming style, is the claim that one will find "the right combination of feats and skills". The reality for me has always been that you can find dozens of interesting and fun builds for foes. In 4e, you pretty much follow a script.

The designers have bragged that 4E will be easier to DM and thus, they expect, it will grow the DM base. I agree it appears it will be much easier to DM. Whether or not great numbers of people who won't DM 3E decide to dive in for 4E remains to be seen. But IME good GMs don't grab whatever system they see and houserule it into their own game. They pick the system(s) that fit what they are going for and houserule it into a polished version of what they want. So I think it is a bad assumption that good DMs will just jump over to 4E and keep rolling through houserules. And before I get flooded, I know, I know, YOU'RE DM is one of the best DMs you ahve ever played with and he is thrilled with what he sees in 4E and can't wait to get rolling. Congratulations. You are very fortunate.

I think the DM will still be critically important in 4E. But the DMs role will be marginalized and that is a bad combination. If 10% of the great DMs don't go to 4E and every one of them is replaced by 5 weak DMs, then that will be a bad thing for 4E. And I think I'm giving 4E a major benefit of the doubt on both those numbers.

 

[BryonD]

So either your argument that the 4E rules are being designed to be MMO-friendly is complete nonsense, or the designers are just really inept at meeting that goal....

I'm convinced that somewhere up the food chain the marching orders were issued that 4E would be built so that a conversion into DDO2 would be much easier to do.
If DDO2 makes 10% of the money that WoW makes, the success or failure of 4E PnP will be moot.

That doesn't mean that Mearls and Co are designing a MMO. It means they are designing the best PnP game they possible can within the constraints put on them.

Do you really think that the people who own the D&D brand are ignoring the $100 Million a MONTH figure? How long do you think it will take 4E PnP to generate its first $100 Million?

 

[FourthBear]

I think you pretty well made the case of 4E marginalizing DMs right there.

The problem with your assessment, at least for my gaming style, is the claim that one will find "the right combination of feats and skills". The reality for me has always been that you can find dozens of interesting and fun builds for foes. In 4e, you pretty much follow a script.

I cannot for the life of me work out how your conclusion about 4e marginalizing DMs is related to anything that Mustrum_Ridcully said.

There is nothing in anything he said that involved 4e forcing DMs to follow a script in any way. He was talking about the fact that monster generation no longer involves a PC-like generation process, but simply involves assigning those abilities that the DM feels are appropriate. So using the monster advancement rules, templates and class leveling are now somehow DM empowering? And using guidelines in which you simply pick those abilities you want without the system restrictions are marginalizing?

The only thing I can work out is that you are referencing not anything in his post, but things like the Pit Fiend stat block, with suggested combat tactics and powers. Those aren't scripts, by the way.

 

[BryonD]

I cannot for the life of me work out how your conclusion about 4e marginalizing DMs is related to anything that Mustrum_Ridcully said.

There is nothing in anything he said that involved 4e forcing DMs to follow a script in any way. He was talking about the fact that monster generation no longer involves a PC-like generation process, but simply involves assigning those abilities that the DM feels are appropriate. So using the monster advancement rules, templates and class leveling are now somehow DM empowering? And using guidelines in which you simply pick those abilities you want without the system restrictions are marginalizing?

The only thing I can work out is that you are referencing not anything in his post, but things like the Pit Fiend stat block, with suggested combat tactics and powers. Those aren't scripts, by the way.

The sets of guidelines and Pit Fiend stat block simplification will both result in easier to implement but far less frequently varied outcomes. The term "script" is easily close enough for me.

 

[FourthBear]

The sets of guidelines and Pit Fiend stat block simplification will both result in easier to implement but far less frequently varied outcomes. The term "script" is easily close enough for me.

I'll take that to mean that, no, nothing in your argument about DM marginalization had anything to do with what M_R posted.

The script in this case is merely the same as the "During Combat" paragraphs and suggested tactics given in many 3e books, adventures and supplements. If those are scripts, then D&D as been scripting since the first D&D module with suggestions as to what the monsters do when the PCs open the door. These are for the use of less experienced or simply tired DMs who wish have suggestions for interesting and effective tactics. All experienced DMs can do what they've always done: improvise or plan encounters with their own particular abilities and strategies.

 

[BryonD]

I'll take that to mean that, no, nothing in your argument about DM marginalization had anything to do with what M_R posted.

The script in this case is merely the same as the "During Combat" paragraphs and suggested tactics given in many 3e books, adventures and supplements. If those are scripts, then D&D as been scripting since the first D&D module with suggestions as to what the monsters do when the PCs open the door. These are for the use of less experienced or simply tired DMs who wish have suggestions for interesting and effective tactics. All experienced DMs can do what they've always done: improvise or plan encounters with their own particular abilities and strategies.

Then you take it quite incorrectly.

If you can't see the difference in the variety of options available in 3E vs. 4E then I'm sorry for you. You are trying to obscure the conversation with a red herring about suggested tactics and options, while I am talking about options that are there to choose from, regardless of what WotC suggests.

And MR was clearly complaining about the time those options took. To me that was time well spent and time enjoyed, and time that paid dividends at the table.

 

[FourthBear]

Then you take it quite incorrectly.

If you can't see the difference in the variety of options available in 3E vs. 4E then I'm sorry for you. You are trying to obscure the conversation with a red herring about suggested tactics and options, while I am talking about options that are there to choose from, regardless of what WotC suggests.

And MR was clearly complaining about the time those options took. To me that was time well spent and time enjoyed, and time that paid dividends at the table.

OK, let's try to untangle this:

In your first post, you claimed that M_R was making the case for DMs being marginalized in 4e. M_R's post had to do with the amount of time it took to assign abilties to opponents in 3e versus the 4e method. None of this has to do with the quantity of options available, it had to do with the amount of time and the system used in 3e for assigning such options. Nowhere does he reference the amount of options available in either edition, except to note that in 3e you had to reference many PC-like options in splatbooks and the like

When I asked what DM marginalization you were seeing M_R making the case for, you talked about opponents now having to obey scripts, something I can't find in M_Rs post at all.

Now, apparently the problem is not really the time or method the editions use to assign options (which is what M_R was talking about) OR scripts, it's all about the number of options that the DM has at the table. Which M_R didn't bring up at all in his post. Note that in both cases the M_R talks about, the opponent ends up with the *same* options. It's the manner in which the DM selects those options in 3e versus 4e that he's discussing.