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

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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

On the whole I agree with Apoptosis here.

Having said that, I can see what Reynard is getting at in relation to AD&D - the operational play that it supports creates a lot of room for a particular type of player to seize the game. Mechanics are so unimportant in that game that players who throw themselves into the duel of wits with the GM can really shine.

But the game, and player expectations, have (IMO) changed irrevocably.

Which brings me to social mechanics:

But we do expect them to be able to engage in the miniatures skirmish aspect of the game.

And exactly the same skillset, more or less, will be used by playes to engage in social interaction. Why is that a bad thing? (Obviously it is a different thing. But why bad?)

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.

I'm not all that surprised to hear you say this. The rules are set up to empower both the GM and the players in a certain respect, but not the respect you are after (I think). Both Orc-like stat block, and special ability flavour, are designed to allow the players to engage with the Pit Fiend by activating all the crunch at their command - a type of mechanically skilled play that is just not part of AD&D. And this excludes the sort of GMing tricks that are part and parcel of AD&D (especially 1st ed). Yes, the blanks are there, but they're not in the places that an AD&D GM wants them in.

 

[pemerton]

D&D is really not going to try and be the Fantasy toolbox anymore. Though it never was exactly designed to be that way, due to its popularity, the only game on the market (not really but at one time, it was pretty close) and ease of play it was used as a Fantasy toolbox. People knew the system so they adapted to whatever was at hand.

I think you are correct here. It is an odd thing about D&D (no one treats RQ in the same way, for example).

D&D is focusing on being a game for a relatively specific type of heroic adventuring

<snip>

Some of the narrative types of rules could be employed though to make it even better at delivering this specific heroic adventure type of goal.

I think you are right about this.

Btw, Chris Sims has a good post about the playstyle goals of 4e on Charwoman Gene's Simulationism thread (which I just noticed you've been posting in).

 

[Counterspin]

I was indeed talking to Reynard, under the presumption that a new poster would be viewed as talking to the OP.

 

[Thundershield]

I don´t think that DM is taken his freedom.

I perceive it just as the opposite:
the DM is once again expicitely allowed to make up monsters and NSCs, whithut referrng to many books and rules.

Most of the things you mentioned have either existed already (explicitely or implicitely) or should be taken as guidelines (IIRC it was stated that quest cards were optional) for new (and sometimes old DMs) to learn how to run a good game/run a better game.

Some arbitrary things of 3.x:
You could always wear only 2 rings, no matter how many fingers you have. Rings required caster Level 12+. Who crafted all those rings of protection +1, when they were able to produce +3 rings?

We don´t know what rings actually do, so maybe this restriction can easily be ignored or rather should not

In regards to the issue about rings, it is highly doubtful Rings of Protection will still exist as we know them once 4E hits. My primary reason for this reasoning is that it is solely the responsibility of your Armor to increase AC, and solely the responsibility of your neck item to increase your Defenses, so there's nothing left for the ring to statically increase. No, it seems much more likely Rings will be more like the Ring of Elemental Command, which is clearly not something characters of Heroic Tier should regularly boast.

However, the DM is always free to come up with items that are exempt from the Tier limitation on Rings, much like the One Ring could be used by anyone, although at a cost.

But I digress.

No, the power is still ultimately in the hands of the DM. More experienced DMs can still house-rule the system to suit their game, newbie DMs will have everything explained to them and be given a reasonable baseline to form an idea of what D&D is, and horrible DMs will - as with every edition of any game - stay horrible.

 

[apoptosis]

I was indeed talking to Reynard, under the presumption that a new poster would be viewed as talking to the OP.

Then I also apologize behind of time

 

[apoptosis]

Having said that, I can see what Reynard is getting at in relation to AD&D - the operational play that it supports creates a lot of room for a particular type of player to seize the game. Mechanics are so unimportant in that game that players who throw themselves into the duel of wits with the GM can really shine.

I agree. Some advantages of this are that immersion is never dropped to roll dice or go into some mechanics.

It really becomes a Player-to-DM type of contest (not good or bad just a different way of doing things) It though does become very susceptible to DM fiat.

Most people dont like DM fiat because of a DM being bad. I think DM fiat can also run into problems when the player happens to just not agree with the resolution the the DM came up with.

You could do combat via DM fiat as well and it could work just fine. You set up the scenario and explain why your tactic worked while the DM comes up with counter-reasons employed by the antagonist why it might not and then he decides what happened. This could even be used in conjunction with stats, skills scores, and resources (memorized spells, magic items etc.) available.

Most people generally would not like this. I think it might be very interesting and a different way to approach the game (Game companies would probably hate it as they would have a hard time selling it).

Apop.

 

[Reynard]

Even if we're to accept your argument, I don't see how it's a big deal. Given that statistically the GM is just as likely to be untrustworthy as the players, splitting up the power seems to be the ideal state, since it moves as much power as possible from the GM, who has the largest single person impact on the game, and spreads it across numerous players, who are no more likely to be irresponsible than the GM.

It is simply an issue of preference for the kind of game that AD&D was versus the kind of game that 4E appears to be. I beat my head against 3E for a long time -- sometimes I loved it and sometimes I hated it, simply because my preferences run a certain way independent of the game rules. As I stated earlier, my preferences were forged by an awesome campaign with an awesome group which started with AD&D (2E). Sometimes, 3E seemed to allow me to continue running things the way I wanted and was more fun for my players, and sometimes it didn't. increasingly, 3.5 and later stuff didn't. hence my concerns about 4E.

That said, I am slowly drifting toward "give 4E a fair shake". By that I mean "run 4E the way I run D&D". If it magically works, great. I'll have both the game I want and the benefit of playing a supported edition. If not, I'm in the same position I am now -- trying to find players willing to play older editions.

 

[apoptosis]

It is simply an issue of preference for the kind of game that AD&D was versus the kind of game that 4E appears to be. I beat my head against 3E for a long time -- sometimes I loved it and sometimes I hated it, simply because my preferences run a certain way independent of the game rules. As I stated earlier, my preferences were forged by an awesome campaign with an awesome group which started with AD&D (2E). Sometimes, 3E seemed to allow me to continue running things the way I wanted and was more fun for my players, and sometimes it didn't. increasingly, 3.5 and later stuff didn't. hence my concerns about 4E.

That said, I am slowly drifting toward "give 4E a fair shake". By that I mean "run 4E the way I run D&D". If it magically works, great. I'll have both the game I want and the benefit of playing a supported edition. If not, I'm in the same position I am now -- trying to find players willing to play older editions.

That is a completely valid reason to like a way of doing things. I had some great D&D and RM campaigns that I would love to be able to replicate even if now I tend towards BW and TSOY type of fantasy games.

 

[Xyl]

But the question still remains as to what the purpose of the Quest mechanic is, if it isn't intended to be either transmitted to the PCs or adhered to (the XP reward, I mean).

It's not a mechanic. It's a guideline.

Honestly, I find the entire discussion of how 4e is taking power away from DMs to be strange. As far as I can tell, the game is moving away from putting restrictions on DMs, and towards providing guidelines.

 

[pemerton]

No, the power is still ultimately in the hands of the DM. More experienced DMs can still house-rule the system to suit their game

This relates to a point that Apoptosis made and I agreed with - D&D has a somewhat unique status among RPGs in being treated as a vehicle for any sort of game (if only the right set of house rules is applied!).

I don't dispute that, by changing the rules of 4e, you can create a game which empowers the GM. But I am talking about my predictions for the RAW, and so (I think) is Reynard.