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

[Professor Phobos]

Ah. EN World's institutional anti-DMism rears its head again.

I'm glad I'm not the only one to have noticed it.

 

[apoptosis]

Just because you hand them the reigns doesn't mean they'll drive. Active players will take control of a table regardless of how stringent the game system is; passive players will sit like lumps even if they are given the keys to the kingdom. Nothing kills a game like player apathy.

Passive players are no good no matter what the system (same with bad DMs).

But giving active players the ability to take greater part in the shared environment is beneficial to the overall game.

It used to be with us to play a game, a guy would say I will DM and they would then come up with the adventure. The players then made characters and would embark on the DMs adventure.

Now. Some guy (or the group) wants to run a campaign of this type of genre (say more generic fantasy), now the players come together and make characters that are connected with histories and then after the group bats around different ideas, the beginnings of an adventure (and campaign starts) based off of the players (and the DM as well) ideas for their characters with the campaign completely based off of what the players wanted out of it.

I without a doubt think that scenario 2 is way better than scenario 1. So much so that we never begin games like scenario 1 anymore.

Rules that can increase the ability of the game to satisfy the players (and characters) goals, tend to improve the game.

 

[Reynard]

I'm glad I'm not the only one to have noticed it.

Actually, I should have said "The EN World 4E Forum's Institutional Anti-DMism" because it is really only bad in this forum. I figure that has to do with the fact that prior to the 4E announcement, EN World was DM heavy; 4E brought out a lot of players and most of them, obviously, concentrate in the 4E forum. The "DMs are bad" part is just a function of the pervasiveness of the archtypical viking hat DM -- an stereotype that extends well outside of gaming, even -- and the "Bad DMs" urban legends that get passed around.

 

[Grog]

Actually, I should have said "The EN World 4E Forum's Institutional Anti-DMism" because it is really only bad in this forum.

For the record, I agree with you. However, my experience is such that players do read the DMG and the MM and some players believe that the DM is "cheating" if he deviates from those rules.

Hmm. It looks to me like there's some Anti-Playerism around here, too.

(Spoken as someone who mostly DMs these days).

 

[Professor Phobos]

Hmm. It looks to me like there's some Anti-Playerism around here, too.

(Spoken as someone who mostly DMs these days).

Eh. If being against players who read the Monster's Manual and then complain if they face a Hobgoblin that deviates from it is wrong, I don't want to be right.

 

[Grog]

Eh. If being against players who read the Monster's Manual and then complain if they face a Hobgoblin that deviates from it is wrong, I don't want to be right.

You missed the point of my post. The purpose of my post was to point out that, if it's valid to use the specter of bad players to support one side of an argument, it's equally valid to use the specter of bad DMs to support the other side.

 

[Reynard]

Hmm. It looks to me like there's some Anti-Playerism around here, too.

(Spoken as someone who mostly DMs these days).

Look on the bright side -- we have something to fight over besides Edition Wars.

 

[Professor Phobos]

You missed the point of my post. The purpose of my post was to point out that, if it's valid to use the specter of bad players to support one side of an argument, it's equally valid to use the specter of bad DMs to support the other side.

Oh, certainly, I can't dispute that. I just find both lines of argument so...irrelevant? Pointless? Futile?

Bad player? Don't game with them. Bad GM? Don't game with them. These are the only solutions that work.

 

[Reynard]

But giving active players the ability to take greater part in the shared environment is beneficial to the overall game.

My preferences, expectations and style as a DM are the result of not my formative years as a gamer, but The Best Group Ever. I started playing with these guys when I lived in Savannah, GA and their apartment was 100 feet down on the same block. We played at least weekly, for anywhere from 8 to 16 hours (imagine the trouble I got in with my live in SO -- to whom I am now married, btw). The campaign started with 2E, 1st level, roll stats in order.

These guys not only reigned in my GM ADD and indulged my creativity (even the wild magic/fey Hut of Many Stupid Rooms, and the Hey Look, it is Days of Future Past in D&D), they also engaged the game and the setting full heartedly. they did as much or more world building as I did. I moved from Savannah to Connecticut and they moved to Pittsburgh, and you know what, the game went on.

It was that good, that right. Three or four times a year, I would drive 500 miles to play for 36 hours of actual table time in a 4 day weekend. half the group had moved to Pitt, and the other half, the new people, were equally awesome. The campaign ended when 3E was imminent and the follow up campaign -- same setting, characters being the offspring of the first campaign's PCs and/or NPCs -- was just as good, despite reservations about 3E, fighting with the rules set and so on.

It wasn't until I had kids and could only make the trip every 6 or 8 months that the campaign started to die. But you know what really killed it? The PCs "won" and we tried to decide what to do. We had planned a HERO campaign set in the worlds far future (aka the modern era) when the old D&D-esque magic was returning (sort of a super-hero/Shadowrun cross) or to go Epic. We decided to go epic and the last session lasted 8 hours. Six of those hours -- no exageration -- were spent in a massive combat with a pit fiend and its minions guarding a prison in the Astral Plane. Six hours of combat -- unfinished. ugh.

Anyway, where was I? oh, right. Awesome players that engaged the setting on every level. Every game I have run since has suffered becaue no group has had the same drive, taken the same inititiative. They peter out or I get an GM ADD bug and no one stops me. or -- as has happened more than once -- a PC dies and players revolt (I still don't understand this one -- especially since the player most likely to revolt is also the most killer DM I have ever played under).

I really don't have a point. I just needed to get that off my chest.

 

[Leugren]

And while I unserstand your position, I see this as all 'good things'.

The less time I must spend fiddling with purely mechanistic elements, the more time I can spend on planning the *fun* stuff.

This sums up my own opinion on this topic precisely. Thanks, Wormwood!