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

[FourthBear]

None of your examples hold under any scrutiny. Let us examine them one at a time.

*the abolition of mechanical alignment removes the rules that (in earlier editions) allowed the GM to impose his/her moral vision on the game unilaterally;

The alignment system in previous editions does nothing of the sort. The alignment system involves a set of *prewritten* descriptors given in the rules book that describe the qualities for each alignment axis. Does the DM get to override the descriptions in the books *by the rules*? No? Then the DM follows the predetermined morality described in said rules in assigning alignments and determining the effects of mechanical alignment. If the DM disagrees with the description of Evil and Good in the core rules, can he then declare that a creature assigned by the core rules' alignment is not detected by the appropriate Detect Alignment spells under the *DMs* interpretation, not the *rules* interpretation. Not if he's following the rules, he's not.

I will further note that this example fails because the alignment system is *descriptive* and does not prohibit actions in the game. The DM may assign a player's actions as Evil according to the alignment system. How then does the alignment system enforce the DMs moral vision? Do bolts of blue appear from the sky if a player is Evil in the rules? No. The DM will act in the same way he is free to act in 4e: to arrange encounters and circumstances as he sees fit to "impose his moral vision".

*tighter action resolution rules reduce the role of the GM in adjudicating the details of play (I think this is Reynard's main concern) - social challenge rules, in particular, will mean that the GM is no longer solely in charge of determining the reaction of NPCs and monstes;

Tighter action resolution mechanics than in 3.5e? Where is the evidence for this? Your specific example of the social encounter rules fails because the social encounters will be used by the DM, when he chooses, it will not be forced by the game. The DM is no more constrained to use the social encounter rules than he is constrained to draw out maps in his adventures. They are a tool to organize group play. If the DM wishes to use the 3.5e method of social interactions (roleplaying and social skill roles) he is free to do so. The fact that we haven't even seen the details of these social encounter rules might also be a minor flaw in your argument as well. But please don't let it keep you from making sweeping statements of judgment.

*the PoL setting (sidebar, W&M p 20) gives the players a role in determining the incidence of adversity, something which earlier editions reserved to the GM;

Is the DM forced in 4e to use the PoL setting? No and therefore this is also incorrect. Further, do you honestly argue that this sidebar indicates that DMs are somehow forbidden by 4e rules to have hostile encounters inside the various "Points of Light?" It is a world-building descriptor, not a literal prohibition. In the Ruins of Waterdeep boxed set, it mentions that Waterdeep is intended a safe base from which players mount expeditions. Does this somehow constrain the DM to not have challenging encounters in Waterdeep? No, in fact the set later has adventures within the very city.

And, again, I'll note that you are ignoring the fact that in Points of Light settings, the *DM* has far greater exclusive control over large portions of the map. Since such campaigns encourage mysterious areas, the DM is justified in keeping more information exclusive.

*APs and Second Wind give the players a much greater role in determining the unfolding of play then previous editions have given them, by allowing players to change the implications for an encounter of the die rolls made for success and damage - with these mechanics in play, the GM couldn't just, by fiat, set up the transition from A3 to A4 (in which the PCs fall unconscious and wake up stripped of their gear).

A *much* greater role in determining the unfolding of play? This isn't some kind of narrative rules coup here. First, the *DM* and his villains also have access to Second Wind and Action Points. Therefore, whatever advantage is putatively gained by the players to keep their heroes alive can be applied to the characters under the DMs control. As to your claim that the rules could not allow for the A3 to A4 transition, it is absurd. What makes you think that action points would prevent this? Even in Eberron, Action Points allow a character to avoid *death* not unconsciousness. If A3 to A4 isn't allowed in 4e, then it isn't allowed in any edition.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Agreed. GM fiat-style play is very prone to breaking down at the table due to poor GMing, or just intractable differences of opinion between GM and players.

This is why I think that AD&D has a reputation for abusive GMing - its (lack of) mechanics really created a space for such GMing to emerge.

 

[apoptosis]

None of your examples hold under any scrutiny. Let us examine them one at a time.

The alignment system in previous editions does nothing of the sort. The alignment system involves a set of *prewritten* descriptors given in the rules book that describe the qualities for each alignment axis. Does the DM get to override the descriptions in the books *by the rules*? No? Then the DM follows the predetermined morality described in said rules in assigning alignments and determining the effects of mechanical alignment. If the DM disagrees with the description of Evil and Good in the core rules, can he then declare that a creature assigned by the core rules' alignment is not detected by the appropriate Detect Alignment spells under the *DMs* interpretation, not the *rules* interpretation. Not if he's following the rules, he's not..

In previous editions, not acting your alignment did have consequences including the DM being able to change your alignment to what he thought you were acting.

Tighter action resolution mechanics than in 3.5e? Where is the evidence for this? Your specific example of the social encounter rules fails because the social encounters will be used by the DM, when he chooses, it will not be forced by the game. The DM is no more constrained to use the social encounter rules than he is constrained to draw out maps in his adventures. They are a tool to organize group play. If the DM wishes to use the 3.5e method of social interactions (roleplaying and social skill roles) he is free to do so. The fact that we haven't even seen the details of these social encounter rules might also be a minor flaw in your argument as well. But please don't let it keep you from making sweeping statements of judgment.

I am not sure what the social challenge resolution mechanics are so it is hard to say. But the use of these is supposed to keep the DM from making social encounters DM fiat.

You could also say that combat mechanics are optional. The DM could just handwaive the encounter away and say the PCs win (or lose). But that is generally frowned upon in most instances and is not really supported by the rules.

Is the DM forced in 4e to use the PoL setting? No and therefore this is also incorrect. Further, do you honestly argue that this sidebar indicates that DMs are somehow forbidden by 4e rules to have hostile encounters inside the various "Points of Light?" It is a world-building descriptor, not a literal prohibition. In the Ruins of Waterdeep boxed set, it mentions that Waterdeep is intended a safe base from which players mount expeditions. Does this somehow constrain the DM to not have challenging encounters in Waterdeep? No, in fact the set later has adventures within the very city.

I cant say for certain for the PoL but I think they might actually have rules where you cant have hostile encounters in the certain areas. I could be wrong about this, some people more knowledgeable in PoL stuff should chime in.

 

[FourthBear]

In previous editions, not acting your alignment did have consequences including the DM being able to change your alignment to what he thought you were acting.

And according to the rules in each edition, was that alignment assigned by the DM according to his own moral vision? No, it was made in accordance to the descriptions of alignment in the edition being used. Thus, alignment rules were just as restrictive to the DM as they were to the players.

I am not sure what the social challenge resolution mechanics are so it is hard to say. But the use of these is supposed to keep the DM from making social encounters DM fiat.

Where is the second conclusion coming from? Every time the social encounter rules have been brought up, it is to note that they are there to encourage group play and prevent cases where the rules were little more than a few social skill checks. There is nothing announced to prevent any more DM fiat in social challenges than in any other editions. As I noted, no DM is forced to use social encounters. Even the rules were bizarrely restrictive, a DM wishing to employ fiat wouldn't use them any more than he would use the social skills in 3.5e.

You could also say that combat mechanics are optional. The DM could just handwaive the encounter away and say the PCs win (or lose). But that is generally frowned upon in most instances and is not really supported by the rules.

Is the use social skills in 3.5e in all encounters and interactions optional for the DM? Do they constrict the DM and must they be used? If so, then then 4e is simply in the same boat as 3.5e, since both have the same social skill sets. It is no more constraining.

I cant say for certain for the PoL but I think they might actually have rules where you cant have hostile encounters in the certain areas. I could be wrong about this, some people more knowledgeable in PoL stuff should chime in.

I cannot believe there are now *two* people who believe this. You seriously believe that 4e D&D will *forbid* the DM to have hostile encounters in certain areas. This based on a descriptive claims of example areas in a world-building book. It's just a description of the areas intent. If I was describing a tavern in a city I had created, I might tell the DM that the tavern is intended as a safe haven. That's a design note, not a prohibition!

 

[Reynard]

Where is the second conclusion coming from? Every time the social encounter rules have been brought up, it is to note that they are there to encourage group play and prevent cases where the rules were little more than a few social skill checks. There is nothing announced to prevent any more DM fiat in social challenges than in any other editions. As I noted, no DM is forced to use social encounters. Even the rules were bizarrely restrictive, a DM wishing to employ fiat wouldn't use them any more than he would use the social skills in 3.5e.

Except that the social mechanics system has been described "like combat". This implies a mechanical system with various actions that have predictable results. In addition, just as with combat, there is nothing to prevent a player from starting a "social contest". Unless you have been playing a game where the DM handwaives/fiats to-hit rolls and damage, I don't see how a social system that is "like combat" can be just as prone to DM fiat as in previous editions.

 

[FourthBear]

BTW, since we have been citing Action Points and their possible role in 4e, I should note that I have incorrectly assigned too much power to the Eberron Action Points system. In Eberron, all Action Points allow you to do is to automatically stabilize, not narratively control away your own death. In Star Wars Saga, Force Points, do allow you to use a Force Point when you drop below zero hit points to avoid death. I'll note that there is no further narrative power (you don't get to declare that you actually didn't land in the pool of lava, just that you didn't die that round by the rules).

 

[FourthBear]

Except that the social mechanics system has been described "like combat". This implies a mechanical system with various actions that have predictable results. In addition, just as with combat, there is nothing to prevent a player from starting a "social contest". Unless you have been playing a game where the DM handwaives/fiats to-hit rolls and damage, I don't see how a social system that is "like combat" can be just as prone to DM fiat as in previous editions.

Without the system in front of us, it is difficult to argue this any further. I believe the system is indeed an attempt to facilitate group play by organizing social encounters in a combat like way to engage the entire group. I find the claim that DMs can somehow be *called out* and forced to use the encounter system in 4e hard to credit. As I was saying before, what makes any of this more restrictive than the 3.5e social skill rules? Under 3.5e, can a player demand to make a Diplomacy check at any time to determine social outcomes? If that is the way that you interpret the 3.5e rules, then 4e will be limited in the same way. I don't see why I would be more so, though. Of course, I've never heard of a group treating the social skills that way, able to somehow override DM's decisions.

 

[Fifth Element]

That said, I am slowly drifting toward "give 4E a fair shake".

Reynard, I think you've done quite a good job in explaining your feelings about 4E without getting excited or upset. But I had to laugh when I read this - essentially "after some thought, I might actually give the game a try before judging it". I know that's not exactly what you meant, but it's still funny.

 

[pemerton]

The alignment system involves a set of *prewritten* descriptors given in the rules book that describe the qualities for each alignment axis.

<snip>

I will further note that this example fails because the alignment system is *descriptive* and does not prohibit actions in the game.

It is true that alignment is determined in part by the mechanics. But I think it is widely believed (not universally, though) that the rules can be very hard to apply. I am one of those who believes so - part of the problem is that alignment is defined simultaneoulsy in a consequentialist and a deontological fashion. In practice, I think the GM looms large in alignment determinations, and in working out the implications in play of an alignment imputed by the rules.

Furthermore, in actual play alignment is often exerienced as prescriptive, in this sense: many GMs forbid evil PCs in their games. The PHB encourages this prescription by describing the Evil alignments purely by reference to the wickedness of such enemies, as opposed to the properties of such heroes. Alignment thus becomes a tool for limiting player choices.

Tighter action resolution mechanics than in 3.5e? Where is the evidence for this?

The frequent remarks to this effect by the designers, and especially James Wyatt in his discussion of the power suites they are designing to eliminate the 15-minute adventuring day problem.

Your specific example of the social encounter rules fails because the social encounters will be used by the DM, when he chooses, it will not be forced by the game.

On this I agree with what Reynard and Apoptosis have said.

Is the DM forced in 4e to use the PoL setting? No and therefore this is also incorrect.

Presumably it can be ignored. But I regard it as an interesting indication of the designers' expectations about how the game will be played. And it is a noticeable difference from earlier editions.

Further, do you honestly argue that this sidebar indicates that DMs are somehow forbidden by 4e rules to have hostile encounters inside the various "Points of Light?"

Not forbidden. Part of the complexity here is that D&D has always had a funny relationship to the setting side of its system, sometimes trying to pretend that the system and setting are entirely independent. I think 4e is deliberately being more upfront about this, indicating what sort of setting presuppositions best support the game in play.

you are ignoring the fact that in Points of Light settings, the *DM* has far greater exclusive control over large portions of the map. Since such campaigns encourage mysterious areas, the DM is justified in keeping more information exclusive.

I'm not ignoring this. I already agreed that the GM has no reduction in his or her power to introduce game elements (subject to earlier caveats about (i) adversity and (ii) when background becomes an encounter). It is everything that happens after a world element comes into play that I am focussing on (as well as the caveated preludes thereto).b

First, the *DM* and his villains also have access to Second Wind and Action Points.

This is probably false (see Chris Sims's posts wrt Healing). But anyway it is irrelevant, because GMs in D&D (especially in 2nd ed AD&D) have nearly always regarded themselves as free to tweak a monster's hit points or dice rolls on the fly in order to better enhance the play experience. What 4e is doing is giving this power to the players instead.

As to your claim that the rules could not allow for the A3 to A4 transition, it is absurd. What makes you think that action points would prevent this?

On the Stunned vs Dazed thread, I predicted that there will be mechanics that permit AP to be used to avoid the consequences of stun, paralysis etc. My evidence is the Paragon feat we have seen that allows AP to be used to avoid the consequences of surprise - there is no good design reason to privelege surprise as a status in this respect.

Only time will tell whether or not my prediction is absurd.

 

[Lanefan]

A few stray pebbles to throw in the pond here; pemerton has touched on some so if I may I'll use that post as a jumping-off point...

I think that all the examples you give can be summarised as "the GM's freedom to introduce game elements". I don't disupte what you are saying in this respect. The features of the system that change the GM's role are all the other things I have pointed to:

*the abolition of mechanical alignment removes the rules that (in earlier editions) allowed the GM to impose his/her moral vision on the game unilaterally;

True in mechanics, untrue in flavour. For example, if a particular DM wants to portray a particular real-world (or fantasy, even) religion or creed as good, or evil, there's nothing to prevent this. In fact, I'd say the abolition of alignment removes a mechanical check-balance for the players here.

*tighter action resolution rules reduce the role of the GM in adjudicating the details of play (I think this is Reynard's main concern) - social challenge rules, in particular, will mean that the GM is no longer solely in charge of determining the reaction of NPCs and monstes;

If social-interaction rules work out they way it seems they might, this is very true. That said, the one place in older editions where monsters' reactions *could* be determined - the old morale rules - no longer exists. Interesting dichotomy there.

*the PoL setting (sidebar, W&M p 20) gives the players a role in determining the incidence of adversity, something which earlier editions reserved to the GM;

To a large extent this would be a bad thing, if true. If the setting is so cut-and-dried that the PCs know a particular place is *always* going to be safe, that detracts from the DM's freedom to desing in a big way...assuming no houserules. Incidence of adversity should be *somewhat* predictable - the PCs know the mountains are dangerous but the port city is well-defended - but never cast in stone.

*APs and Second Wind give the players a much greater role in determining the unfolding of play then previous editions have given them, by allowing players to change the implications for an encounter of the die rolls made for success and damage - with these mechanics in play, the GM couldn't just, by fiat, set up the transition from A3 to A4 (in which the PCs fall unconscious and wake up stripped of their gear).

Mechanics like these are simply ways around randomness-caused bad events. 4e seems to have a built-in dislike of bad events...yet it is part of the DM's job to attempt as hard as possible to cause bad events. In this respect 4e is very anti-DM.

Now, a few other things:

1. I see part of the DM role as being storyteller, pure and simple. Even when the players take over and drive the story, it's still up to the DM to make something cohesive out of it and fit it in with the gameworld somehow.

2. There are more ways to customize monsters/opponents than purely mechanical. The most obvious is to give them some character and let that character come into play during both combat and non-combat situations. The party meets 6 Orcs. 2 of the 6 charge in and mean it; the other 4 charge in only to impress the first two but if those two go down they'll surrender. The party only sees 6 charging Orcs, but during melee they might notice that for some of them their heart really isn't in it... The rules cannot take this away from the DM, nor should they try.

3. To counter something said (way) above: 1e did have a rudimentary non-combat "past profession" or "secondary skill" system - you could roll to see if your non-adventuring profession was engineer, or jeweler, or farmer - whatever. It gave you something to build your character around, reminded you that there was more to the world than adventuring, and sometimes - depending on the DM - could affect gameplay. A jeweler, for example, would be better able to appraise gem values than a non-jeweler. 3e tried to advance this a bit with craft-profession-perform skills; a fine idea except that "optimum character building" almost always needed those skill points for other things, and c-p-p got ignored. A better idea, in hindsight, might have been to give each character a number of skill points at initial roll-up, that could be used only for c-p-p skills...if only to provide a non-adventuring background and a bit of flavour.

4. When everything gets stripped away, it's the DM's game. That said, it then becomes the DM's role to design a game/setting/atmosphere that will keep the players interested enough to keep coming back.

Lanefan