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

[FourthBear]

Furthermore, in actual play alignment is often exerienced as prescriptive, in this sense: many GMs forbid evil PCs in their games.

In 4e, I predict that many DMs will continue to forbid evil PCs in their games. I haven't used alignment for decades and I almost always forbid them. I also do so in many other game systems, such as HERO. How, oh, how will the DMs manage this without mechanical alignment? Easily. By telling the PCs at the start of the game what kind of play is expected and encouraged. The DM can ask any player at his table to leave.

I will also note that I almost exclusively DM and I loathe the alignment system. I feel it limits the DM and his ability to worldbuild to a far, far greater extent than loss of my mighty DM power to change a two letter code on a character sheet. I'll also note that I have been party to many alignment discussions. In every one, I have been assured, at length and in tedious detail that No! No! No!, the alignment system is not for DMs to apply punitively. Now I find I could have been using it to punish my players all along!

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.

Yes, they are designing this to eliminate the 15-minute day. This makes the rules *different*. I asked you what made them "tighter", as you claimed. Remember, in D&D the DM creates and triggers all encounters, so it can't be due to pacing issues. Also remember that most of the complaints on the 15 minute adventuring day came from *DMs* who didn't like what it did to their adventure pacing, not players.

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.

At this point, you seemed to have backed completely down from your original point that the section in W+M constrained DMs. This and the rest of your text on this is merely musings as to the designers possible preferences, not rules issues.

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.

First, note that the new opponent creation rules will likely allow the DM to assign whatever abilties the DM wants. So, yes, the DM will be able to give the villains full use of Action Points and as many Second Winds as heart desires.

That players can do more does not somehow constrain the DM. This isn't some kind of zero sum game you seem to be treating it as. Is this the way you treat all player's choices? Whenever a DM creates a new PC abilitiy or allows a new spells into his campaign, this somehow weakens his control because the player can do more?

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.

You're quite right that now you are making conclusions about the game prematurely. However, even if your prediction is true, that does not prevent an contrived A3 to A4 style capture. The DM can continue to throw enemies at the party until they run out of all resources, including action points. Or, he can create a leveled opponent or power far greater than they can handle and disable them all that way. Or, he can create a ritual or artifact that does not obey the typical rules and simply knock them all unconscious. Unfair? Sure, but we *are* trying the simulate the completely unfair transition of A3 to A4, right?

 

[king_ghidorah]

Noted and appreciated.

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 may simply be an issue of language: Quest is an implicitely more specific term than "story award". The article seems to suggest that the Quest mechanic is an evolution of "story awards" which suggests that it is more robust and involved than simply stating XP above and beyond that gained from overcoming challenges, defeating foes and such like. Perhaps that is not the case and it is just a euphamism for "story" award and is as easily ignored.

The quest mechanic looks to be an elaborated story award, from what I can tell. To be honest, if I run 4e any time soon (and I'm not sure I will, though reasons would involve time, money and the kinds of players and play I would prefer), I would likely do with XP what I have done for a while, which is fudge XP rewards based on the frequency I would have them level up.

As for the cards... they look like they are intended to be training wheels for DMs and players to clarify intent, focus, and plot hooks. You could do the same with a campaign web site or newsletter, or having people or the DM keep logs....

What interests me is that XP appears to be awarded by monster and by encounter, and that those amounts differ, which is an interesting paradigm, though not a radical shift from killing things and taking their stuff....

 

[Hussar]

The fewer rules for social interactions, the better. Players and DMs should be able to sit across from one another and negotiate those aspects of the game without the system getting in the way.

I strongly disagree with this point. Mostly for the reason that I prefer people to play the character in front of them. If you're playing a 6 Int Half-orc with a 5 Cha, you are NOT going to be making speeches. Ever.

While yes, minis do introduce a tactical aspect to combat, it's not exactly difficult to assume. None of us, or at least not many of us, are expert tacticians. However, it does not take tactical brilliance to think that surrounding your enemy is a good idea and getting surrounded is bad.

In other words, there is a qualitative difference in the level of expertise between eloquent social dialogue and stepping 5 feet to the left so you get out of the way of that charging elephant.

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.

No, it really, really isn't. It is not the DM's job to cause bad events. It is the DM's job to set up the situation. Whether the situation is good or bad is the job of the players to determine. If the DM chucks a hard fight at the PC's and they simply run away, that's not a "bad event". No one died, no one even took any damage.

And that result was entirely controlled by the players.

The idea of DM as Story Teller is really divorced from any edition of D&D. 2e came closest to this point of view and it was almost universally seen as bad. The DM as Referee has generally been seen as the best position for a DM to take.

 

[Lanefan]

No, it really, really isn't. It is not the DM's job to cause bad events. It is the DM's job to set up the situation. Whether the situation is good or bad is the job of the players to determine. If the DM chucks a hard fight at the PC's and they simply run away, that's not a "bad event". No one died, no one even took any damage.

And that result was entirely controlled by the players.

Agreed. However, if in playing by the RAW I as DM am somehow prevented from even setting up that situation because it might lead to bad events then we have a problem. Ditto if the PCs decide not to run away but instead get clobbered, yet the RAW won't let them die.

The idea of DM as Story Teller is really divorced from any edition of D&D. 2e came closest to this point of view and it was almost universally seen as bad. The DM as Referee has generally been seen as the best position for a DM to take.

The DM is a number of things: Referee, Storyteller, Designer, Host (usually). All at once. It's when one of these gets overemphasized by design at the expense of the others that things get screwy, as per your example for 2e.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

Agreed. However, if in playing by the RAW I as DM am somehow prevented from even setting up that situation because it might lead to bad events then we have a problem. Ditto if the PCs decide not to run away but instead get clobbered, yet the RAW won't let them die.

But, some games do exactly this. Action points, for example, let you stabilize. However, if the entire party gets clobbered, you all die. Or the DM has to take you prisoner. Or whatever. But, these points are known beforehand and are not under the entire control of the DM.

Heck, even the chances of getting clobbered isn't under the control of the DM. The monster might roll badly, the party might get a string of luck. They might win. At no point is the result controlled by the DM.

I highly, highly doubt you will ever see mechanics that say, "THOU MUST NEVER BE TOO HARD" on your players. Those that try to claim that for the CR/EL guidelines have consistently ignored the fact that those rules specifically tell you to use encounters above and below the party level. At no point do the rules say that EL must equal party level. In fact they say the opposite.

Yet, time and again, we see people try to claim that players will complain if the DM deviates from EL=APL. Who cares if the players complain? The rules empower the DM specifically to do that. What else can we ask from the rules?

 

[pemerton]

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.

Yes and no. But it also frees up the players to contest, in play, the GM's portrayal. For example, what happens if one of the players decides to align her PC with a human sacrifice cult? With mechanical alignment rules we already know the answer - without them, this is something the implications of which have to get resolved at the table.

Of course the GM might just say "The Gods strike you down" but that would be fairly poor GMing, I think. Once things unfold in a more likely fashion - NPCs react to the PC in a different way, she finds herself trying to justify her decision to them and/or to her fellow PCs (which means also to the GM, and to her fellow players) - then we have RPGing right there which is driven by the players and not solely by the GM or the designers own choices.

I'm not meaning anything very profound by this example - just trying to illustrate one loosening of a bond on players.

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.

The question is, why not cast them in stone? I'm sure you have a reason not to. I have my reasons, derived from my own play experience and preferences, for preferring the "cast in stone" approach for at least some locations. As I see it, at least in this respect 4e is being written to better support someone with my preferences.

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.

That last sentence is too strong even for me! It's just that the bad events the GM can set up are challenges, not outcomes of those challenges. The latter are to be worked out jointly between the players and the GM, by using the relevant mechanics (including APs and Second Wind).

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.

I'm not sure how 4e approaches this issue. It is still true to a significant extent, but we haven't seen what role (if any) players will have in deciding gameworld elements outside their own PCs (eg can players specify mentors, safehavens, guilds etc which the GM is then obliged to incorporate into the gameworld?).

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.

Now this is good stuff! Within the logic of 4e, what is wanted is some mechanical way of modelling this (eg half-hearted Orcs never gain Combat Advantage, and/or are easily persuaded to retreat in a social challenge, or whatever) so that the players can take note of it and factor it into their mechanical decision making.

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.

The "that said" is doing a lot of work there! Unless your players are desperate, it's always going to be a game shared between the players and GM. What I think 4e is doing is putting more of that sharing into the system. The GM no longer has to guess what his or her players want, because they can (to an extent, at least) produce it themselves in the course of play.

 

[pemerton]

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

Quests have an associated XP mechanic.

Unless you regard the whole of the reward mechanics as merely guidelines. But in exactly the same sense, the whole set of game rules are guidelines - guidelines as to how to go about having fun with high-heroic fantasy RPGing.

 

[pemerton]

In 4e, I predict that many DMs will continue to forbid evil PCs in their games. I haven't used alignment for decades and I almost always forbid them.

<snip>

How, oh, how will the DMs manage this without mechanical alignment? Easily. By telling the PCs at the start of the game what kind of play is expected and encouraged. The DM can ask any player at his table to leave.

There are two ways of looking at this.

First, the practical social one: as you say, no on is forced to game with anyone else. This is not a mechanical issue. Nor does it have anything to do with GMs. I almost always GM, but play occasionally. My group has never had to evict a non-GM player, but once many years ago we did evict our GM. Since then, when we have an issue about taste or direction in the game we discuss it and reach a consensus. None of this counts as playing the game - it is a prelude to it.

Second, let's look at the issue assuming that the game is being played (and what follows may or not be similar to how you play the game - your post leaves me unsure). Instead of alignment the GM has a long list of forbidden actions. How does this work, mechanically? Presumably it operates at the metagame level, in one of two ways: either such actions always fail if attempted by PCs, or in-game these actions are never actually attempted by PCs even if declared by that PC's player. This is not what I have in mind by abolishing alignment. It is simply a mechanical alternative to it, in which players are deprotagonised from time to time at the discretion of the GM.

Now, suppose that players also had such a power (for example, they could develop a list of things the GM may not do in introducing world elements - perhaps the GM is forbidden from depicting rape in the game). Then we could broaden out the mechanic to be one which distributes narrative control from players to the GM.

But my prediction is that 4e will not use such a mechanic (either in the GM-only or shared-narration variant). The very mechanics of the game will foster a certain sort of action, and the reward mechanics (including such elements as the Quest system) will direct players' attention a certain way.

I imagine that the DMG will suggest that, should conflicts concerning taste, themes or the direction of play emerge, the play groups should try to reach a reasonable consensus. I don't think it will introduce (or hint at) any sort of mechanical system which would empower the GM to solely resolve such matters as an aspect of actually playing the game, which is what alignment does. There will be no such nonsense as "Evil PCs become NPCs under the GM's control", which is another attempt to make the resolution of these social aspects of playing a part of the game itself.

Yes, they are designing this to eliminate the 15-minute day. This makes the rules *different*. I asked you what made them "tighter", as you claimed.

I can only rely on the word of the designers, and the examples they discuss. But an example of "tightening" would be better considering the interaction between Barbarian Rage as a class ability, and the passage of time in the gameworld which at the moment is an important aspect of it. Another would be paying more attention to the cost, in actions, of using different powers. Another would be adjusting the damage caused by various spells to better align it with the mathematics of the game's combat system. These are all examples of tightening.

My view is that a tighter action resolution system on the whole empowers the players, at the expsense of the GM, because it reduces the scope of the GM to influence the outcome of a player's decision by the need to adjudicate. In this respect (as I think Reynard agrees) AD&D had one of the loosest action resolution systems ever seen in an RPG.

Remember, in D&D the DM creates and triggers all encounters

In 4e that may well be up for grabs, as I have pointed out in several posts. I have in mind here the (by now notorious?) sidebar on p 20 of W&M, and also the discussion (I think on the same page) of the grey places between the PoL and the darkness, which at least hints at ways in which players, rather than the GM, might have a role in triggering encounters (depending on how they interact with these grey zones).

so it can't be due to pacing issues.

I'm not sure what the "it" in this clause denotes (the grammar suggests the alleged tightening of the action resolution mechanics, but I'm not sure that that makes sense). But anyway I will re-iterate that per-encounter abilities mean that, while the GM may control the flavour of pacing (eg how much ingame time passes) the players are no longer hostage to that control when it comes to their own ability to affect the gameworld (by having their PCs perform actions).

At this point, you seemed to have backed completely down from your original point that the section in W+M constrained DMs. This and the rest of your text on this is merely musings as to the designers possible preferences, not rules issues.

Well, as I've said, a GM can always run things differently from what the book says. Like Reynard, I am doing my best to discuss the RAW.

As I already noted, a complication here is that D&D has a curious relationship to its setting, and from time-to-time tries to deny that the setting is relevant to the system (and, as Apoptosis noted above, has a curious conceit of itself as "generic" or "a toolbox"). Thus, wealth-by-level rules in 3E get presented as guidelines, despite the fact that they are far more important to the way the game plays then the range of a fireball spell, which is presented not as a guideline but as a rule.

My original contention was, and continues to be, that the 4e setting (as described in W&M) is one in which players have a degree of control over the incidence of adversity which is new in D&D. For reasons of D&D style, I suspect that this will not be presented as a rule which forbids certain things, but as a "guideline" or a "default setting".

You seem to think that there is an important difference between the rules, and the designers' preferences. I don't quite follow this, because all the rules do is encode certain preferences of the designers.

First, note that the new opponent creation rules will likely allow the DM to assign whatever abilties the DM wants. So, yes, the DM will be able to give the villains full use of Action Points and as many Second Winds as heart desires.

First, did you read the thread I referred to? Chris Sims has already denied what you assert with respect to Second Wind - though some monsters will have, as immediate actions (or perhaps other sorts of actions) the ability to regain a determinate number of hit points (this will be replacing regeneration and fast healing, I think).

Second, the abilities will (I imagine) be in an actual and nominal list, designed with an eye to balance of various levels of encounter. So the GM's hand is not entirely unbound in this matter.

Third, as I noted D&D GM's (at least since 2nd ed) have always claimed the right to adjust monsters' attack rolls and hit point totals on the fly (in the interests of the game) so it would not increase the GM's power to formalise this via Second Wind and AP.

Fourth, what would be the point of giving NPCs AP (I can see why you would want to give them Regeneration)?

That players can do more does not somehow constrain the DM. This isn't some kind of zero sum game you seem to be treating it as.

Actually, to a significant extent it is a zero-sum game. Either the ceiling in the throne room is red, or it isn't. If the GM has the power to say that it is, then the players lack the power to say otherwise. And vice versa.

Is this the way you treat all player's choices? Whenever a DM creates a new PC abilitiy or allows a new spells into his campaign, this somehow weakens his control because the player can do more?

I'm not sure that you are talking about the same sort of thing as I am. You also seem to be implying that I think reducing the GM's narrative control is a bad thing, whereas in fact I think it is a good thing (so I agree with Reynard's factual contention, but not his evaluation of it).

But to answer the questions: yes, giving the players a new choice typically does weaken the GM's narrative control. For example, in vanilla Basic D&D there is no parry mechanic. Thus, if the monster misses a character, there is no way of knowing whether or not that reflects a successful parry, or a dodge, or near-sightedness on the part of the monster, or what. Who gets to describe what happened? According to most GMing advice written for D&D, the GM does (such advice tends to urge evocative descriptions of the ingame event).

In HARP there is a parrying mechanic and a dodge mechanic. In any given round of combat a player can activate one or the other (typically not both). Depending on which they do, they are asserting a degree of narrative control over the events of the round. As it stands, this is a somewhat trivial example. But once you notice the different mechanical aspects of Parry and Dodge, you see that the player can exert more control over his or her PC's fortune by making these sorts of choices - and thereby more control, ultimately, over the gameworld itself (eg by determining which NPCs die and which live). Everything else being equal, the richer the mechanical environment, the more scope the player has to make meaningful choices which impact on the gameworld.

 

[pemerton]

The idea of DM as Story Teller is really divorced from any edition of D&D. 2e came closest to this point of view and it was almost universally seen as bad. The DM as Referee has generally been seen as the best position for a DM to take.

We're agreed on 2nd ed, then. I've always thought the opinion that TSR's problems were due entirely to poor management, and had nothing to do with D&D itself, reflected a degree of wishful thinking by 2nd ed's defenders.

3E wasn't just a better-marketed game. For most players of D&D, it's a better game full stop. I suspect that 4e will continue this trend.

 

[FourthBear]

<Snip>But my prediction is that 4e will not use such a mechanic (either in the GM-only or shared-narration variant). The very mechanics of the game will foster a certain sort of action, and the reward mechanics (including such elements as the Quest system) will direct players' attention a certain way.

Again, this entire discussion began based on your claim that the design changes in 4e were such that they would transfer narrative control over to the player. Now you seem to want to discuss ways in which the game *could* transfer narrative control. I assure you that I am aware of many ways the game *could* do so, I have been part of many Forge-inspired and similar discussions. My disagreement is with your previous claim, that 4e design *is*, in actual reality, going to do any such thing. Given that we are currently in a thread titled "4e: DM-proofing the game"with claims floating around that 4e will somehow reduce the DM to a combat adjudicator, the truth value of your claim is highly relevant.

My view is that a tighter action resolution system on the whole empowers the players, at the expsense of the GM, because it reduces the scope of the GM to influence the outcome of a player's decision by the need to adjudicate. In this respect (as I think Reynard agrees) AD&D had one of the loosest action resolution systems ever seen in an RPG.

The action resolution system in 4e and the mathematics associated with the resolution system are indeed being overhauled to allow the DM more predictive control over play. The shifting of powers from strict per day in the core rules to per day, per encounter and at will is designed to prevent the expenditure of the extremely powerful per day abilities of some classes from dictating adventure pacing. In terms of player/DM control, the issue is almost entirely orthogonal. As I noted, the whole issue is easily turned on its head to note that the DM can now pace and predict the outcome of adventures as he wishes to a greater extent.

My original contention was, and continues to be, that the 4e setting (as described in W&M) is one in which players have a degree of control over the incidence of adversity which is new in D&D. For reasons of D&D style, I suspect that this will not be presented as a rule which forbids certain things, but as a "guideline" or a "default setting".

And my counter-contention is that this is simply false. Campaign guides in D&D since the dawn of the game have explicitly designed safe havens for PCs to rest and train in when they are recovering from adventuring. This situation in 4e has not changed one jot or tittle. The PoL campaign puts more control into the DMs hands by making the game world as a whole mysterious and under his exclusive purview, as opposed to campaign settings where the player's characters know well what lies over the next hill.

You seem to think that there is an important difference between the rules, and the designers' preferences. I don't quite follow this, because all the rules do is encode certain preferences of the designers.

I think that the designers statements indicate what they intend, yes. And nothing I have seen in those statements indicate that they intend as a design goal the transfer of narrative power away from the DM. Their preferences are to making a system that allows the DM to better predict outcomes with improved systems, to change adventuring pacing by allowing all PCs per day, per encounter and at will abilities and many different design goals.

First, did you read the thread I referred to? Chris Sims has already denied what you assert with respect to Second Wind - though some monsters will have, as immediate actions (or perhaps other sorts of actions) the ability to regain a determinate number of hit points (this will be replacing regeneration and fast healing, I think).

Yes, I did read that thread. A statement about monsters not having as default a PC ability has nothing to do with constraining the DM. It makes an assumption about the DMs wishes about combat (that most opponents are intended to be defeated without taking up as much narrative time as others). However, if the DM wants all of his opponents to have Second Wind, they do! Heck, he could make them all unkillable. This does not in any way, shape or form constrain the DM.

Second, the abilities will (I imagine) be in an actual and nominal list, designed with an eye to balance of various levels of encounter. So the GM's hand is not entirely unbound in this matter.

Lists of suggested examples do not constrain the DM.

Third, as I noted D&D GM's (at least since 2nd ed) have always claimed the right to adjust monsters' attack rolls and hit point totals on the fly (in the interests of the game) so it would not increase the GM's power to formalise this via Second Wind and AP.

Fourth, what would be the point of giving NPCs AP (I can see why you would want to give them Regeneration)?

Apparently giving players Action Points somehow gives the players narrative control. Remember, that *is* your contention here, remember? If these mechanics grant such power, then the DM can grant it to his opponents to reap those benefits just as well. Why would he? I don't know, however he's not constrained by the system.

Actually, to a significant extent it is a zero-sum game. Either the ceiling in the throne room is red, or it isn't. If the GM has the power to say that it is, then the players lack the power to say otherwise. And vice versa.

That pretty much sums it up. So because the DM now has more power over monster creation by the 4e rules, he clearly has seized more power in your zero sum universe.

To me it sounds as though you have a theory about this upcoming edition and narrative control and you are carefully selecting examples to justify your predetermined conclusion: that 4e will be transferring narrative control to the players. Most of your examples have perfectly fine design explanations that have nothing to do with the DM/player narrative control interactions, they have to do with worldbuilding, more predictive encounter mechanics and less constraining rules on DMs during design. You seem to be viewing the entire scope of game design through the narrow lens of player narrative power. It's like someone who wants to put all social dynamics viewed through the lens of class.