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

[Reynard]

What's really messed up is that the pit fiend article -- more precisely, getting to see how the game mechanics are actually going to be expressed in one of the rule books -- has me all confused because I see shades of both 1E and 3E in there, not to mention both support for and information against my basic premise here, and I am not sure what to make of it.

On the one hand, the stat block is concise, that's good. On the other hand, everything has been stripped out that defines the creature as anything more than a 26th level orc. that's bad. On the other hand, there's "blank space" between the crunch and the fluff. That's good. On the other hand, there's something about the flavor of the special abilities I don't like. That's bad.

I really, really hate it when my carefully crafted preconcepts get all messed up by actual hard data.

 

[Professor Phobos]

It's possible there's a section in the MM or DMG that talks about monster customization; granting rituals, non-combat abilities, etc. If they're really intent on only balancing out the critters for combat and leaving everything else up to the DM, I find it likely there'll be some support for that, somewhere.

 

[king_ghidorah]

The other element of the quest system is that it is a record of rewards, both in-game and meta-game. This is the part that concerns me. perhaps the intent isn't to write those rewards in stone prior to the accomplishing of the quest goals, but it seems like that could easily happen. I think that rewards, particularly the meta-game ones like XP or bonus Action Dice, should be determined and revealed to the players after all is said and done because how they go about achieving the quest goals is more important than actually doing so. In addition, goals change all the time -- it seems like wasted effort to bother with a Quest mechanic if the goalposts move based on the circumstances of play.

Again, you are not reading the quests article very well.

The article states the following about the so-called quest cards:

One of the suggestions in the 4th Edition Dungeon Master's Guide is to give players a visual, tactile representation of a quest as soon as they begin it. At the start of the adventure, after the baron has briefed the characters on their mission and been bullied into paying them more than he intended, you can hand the players an index card spelling out the details of the quest -- including the agreed-upon reward. In the middle of the adventure, when the characters find a key with a ruby set in its bow, you can hand them a card, telling them that finding the matching lock is a quest.​

So, the characters can optionally be given a reminder of the quest given them (the baron's mission) and the agree-upon reward (the money he will pay them if they do this.) It's a reminder. A post-it. A note. And it isn't a rule. It's a suggestion to help characters keep track of their objectives.

The quest mechanic is the system for assigning experience based on fulfilling the DM-defined quest:

Quests can be major or minor, they can involve the whole group or just a single character's personal goals, and they have levels just like encounters do. Completing a quest always brings a reward in experience points (equal to an encounter of its level for a major quest, or a monster of its level for a minor quest), and it often brings monetary rewards as well (on par with its XP reward, balanced with the rest of the treasure in the adventure).​

The article does not suggest that this information be put on the quest card. Not even slightly, since this isn't the "agreed-upon" reward -- that was the outcome of the negotiations with the baron.

This mechanic no different than knowing how much experience you will reward characters for killing a demon. It's what we called story-based awards in 2nd and 3rd edition (and what I used to fudge in 1st edition after I threw out the experience for wealth awards and began thinking about awarding things other than killing creatures and taking their stuff. )

The cards are not the mechanic, and the article clearly states them as separate things. Your conflation of the two again and again is not supported by reading the article.

 

[PeterWeller]

Something amusing about the whole quest system argument is that in the original thread, it was criticized by some as giving the DM too much power to railroad the party. Now we are seeing it brought up again, but as a way to marginalize the DM. Now, this could point to a cadre of posters who are willing to twist any tidbit to illustrate how 4E is going to ruin the game, but I figure what it really demonstrates is that different elements of the game piss off different people in different ways for different reasons, and that, IMO, is a good thing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

I really have a hard time imagining running with a different group. I've heard so many horror stories by now...

My group isn't perfect. I think we focus a little to much on combat & tactics, and deep, immersive role-playing is non-existent.
But then, we got a new, experienced player and he also DMed a Shadowrun session for us. The story was nice, but the characters (as in their rule-intepreration of them) didn't really have much tod do. The groups spellcaster was basically rendered useless (not that we needed him) by a heavy mana background. The Otaku/Technomancer guy went also into a black-out zone. Most of the time we went around and gathered information. At the end, even a kind of "DM PCs" appeared. They didn't steal the show, but the circumstances made clear that the DM saw these guys at too powerful or influential for us to handle directly. (I have no doubt that we should have been able to take these guys down) We had to compromise, and nobody had the real feeling we had a choice here.

In short - that was a different play-style. There was more role-playing, but at the expense of the things we also like (maybe even more) - "Auf die Kacke hauen"/butkicking - some nice and violent combats and more uses of our character skills/abilites are neccessary.

And I am afraid that if I ever have to find a different group, they will also have a different play style. And I really prefer to use my own style...

 

[Reynard]

The cards are not the mechanic, and the article clearly states them as separate things. Your conflation of the two again and again is not supported by reading the article.

I am not conflating them. i don't care about the cards at all. i am talking about the problems inherent in pre-determining the rewards for a quest before the PCs complete it. Either a) the rewards can in fact change based on the way the PCs go about the quest, in which case the mechanic is useless, or b) the rewards can't, in which case the DM loses his ability to properly adjudicate the actions of the players and is therfore marginalized.

 

[shilsen]

I really have a hard time imagining running with a different group. I've heard so many horror stories by now...

I was just talking with one of my players/DMs about the fact that I have absolutely no horror stories to relate, but have heard so many on ENWorld and elsewhere. As I told him, "Some poor bastard out there is getting my quota of lousy gamers."

My group isn't perfect. I think we focus a little to much on combat & tactics, and deep, immersive role-playing is non-existent.

I don't really think there is an platonic perfect state for a gaming group. As long as the group's perfect for itself, that's all you need. Yes, I know - very existential

My group tends to do both immersive role-playing and really enjoy kicking ass and taking names, so I get the best of both worlds.

And I am afraid that if I ever have to find a different group, they will also have a different play style. And I really prefer to use my own style...

I've DMed for some very different groups and thus far found it pretty easy to find some sort of meeting ground between the preferred styles of the players and mine. But going by some of the stories on ENWorld, I'm sure there are groups out there which I couldn't, or at least shouldn't, DM for.

 

[Jack99]

I was just talking with one of my players/DMs about the fact that I have absolutely no horror stories to relate, but have heard so many on ENWorld and elsewhere. As I told him, "Some poor bastard out there is getting my quota of lousy gamers."

I often print out some of the horror stories, either from these boards, or from WoTC's boards, and read them (or mail them) to my players. Sometimes they are quite hard to believe. Then again, we do know, we are lucky. 7 best friends who have known each other since kindergarden or so, who have played together for close to 19 years or so now. A few came in a bit later, but no one has been in the group less than 10 years.

So, as their DM, i often think the same (Some poor bastard out there is getting my quota of lousy gamers).

 

[Afrodyte]

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!

Same here. Thanks.

 

[AllisterH]

I think there is a point in here that is very valid and has been said.

D&D is focusing on being a game for a relatively specific type of heroic adventuring (basically conquering a series of mostly combat encounters where all characters are similarly effective in most situations) and somewhat simulating the heroic journey.

It wont be a game to do sword and sorcery very well, political intrigue or many other types of games. Nor will it be the game where wizards are capable of a scope of power that is inaccessible to the non-spell users.Because it is based on conquering a series of combats, it is balancing characters based on their abilities to have balanced effectiveness in a single combat with everything else being supportive.

Weird that I am looking forward to 4E based on the fact that it will EASIER to do non-combat social encounters than in 3.x. I find the SWSE method (which the Pit Fiend all but confirms) of dealing with skills much more conducive to social encounters than the 3.5 method.

In 4E, if I want to run a social encounter, I know for a fact that there is a range of basic competency among the players characters and I can set encounters that play on this whereas I'm not the only DM that has been frustrated to realize that nobody in the party at 10th level has any skills in Diplomacy.

Here, it is not even the fault of the players or DM as you can't fault players for not investing skill points in a skill that hasn't been used in 2 years of gaming and the DM can't as easily insure that Skill X will be used in an adventure.