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

[pemerton]

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.

I thought my claim's truth was relevant too. That's why I made it.

Btw, I have never asserted that the GM will be primarily a combat adjudicator. I expressly denied this upthread - the claim is facile. What I did do is agree with Reynard that 4e appears to have certain goals to do with the role of the GM in the game (the relevant comparison class being especially AD&D).

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.

I agree with Reynard that prediction is more important for player than GM control. D&D has always assumed that a GM will jury rig things as s/he goes along to cope with failed predictions, whereas the players have never had any such power (eg if the PCs are losing a fight, the game does not give them the power to suddenly bring an ally into play, whereas if NPCs are losing a fight the GM has always had the power to bring an ally into play). So an increase in predictability changes the GM's toolbox, but does not increase the GM's power, whereas it does increase the players' power.

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

Well, "could" is a necessary condition of "does", and conversely "could not" entails "does not", so what you think I'm discussing is hardly irrelevant.

But I must admit I am now having trouble working out what you think would count as evidence that the rules of D&D are changing anything at all. Given the two passages quoted above, your argument seems to be "Because the GM can do whatever s/he wishes in terms of the introduction of game elements, mechanically defined however s/he wishes, s/he is not constrained." I point to comments from the designers (in W&M, on message board threads) that suggest that the system expcets the GM to do something different (and something different from what has been done in previous editions) and you reiterate that the GM can make up whatever game elements s/he wishes.

Well, nothing is physically stopping the GM sitting at the table and saying "Rocks fall, everybody dies". But I don't really see what that shows about the mechanics or gameplay of D&D.

There is no passage in the HeroQuest Narrators Guide (that I can remember, at least) that states that the GM may not introduce whatever game elements s/he wishes - I think it's just taken for granted that the GM will run the game as the rulebooks indicate. But would you deny that HeroQuest gives players more narrative control than 2nd ed AD&D?

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 is false of AD&D 1st ed. Nothing in the PHB or DMG for that game establishes safe havens, let alone establishes conditions under which only the players have the power to trigger adversity. In fact appendix C of the DMG includes random encounters for cities, which can include powerful undead and fiends.

The closest thing to a safe haven in that game is the iron-spiked room, which reduces the frequency of wandering monsters. But that is not perfectly safe, and is under the GM's narrative control.

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.

What, then, do you think is the point of the remarks in W&M p20, sidebar therein?

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.

Having read things that have given me that opinion, I'm sharing it. I'm not the only person to believe it - Reynard, Apoptosis, Hussar (in his gamism thread) are all saying similar things. Chris Sims comments on the healing thread also run in the same direction.

The only barrow I have to push is this: the 4e debate seems to me to include to much focus on trivial things like Gnomes and Brass Dragons, and too little focus on the actual design direction of the game.

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.

Well, you seem to view the entire scope of the game through what is, to me, one of its most trivial aspects, namely, from what list of game elements is the GM entitled to choose? As I've already said, 4e (like earlier editions) does not constrain the GM in this respect (subject to certain caveats I've noted in earlier threads, and the mechanics of these elements being constrained in certain ways, perhaps moreso than in AD&D). The separation of NPC and monster build rules from PC build rules are obviously necessary and conceptually trivial (though mechanically challenging to implement). I was debating the same issue in relation to RM and HARP, which like 3E suffer from overly simulationist NPC design rules, on the ICE boards well before 4e was announced.

But my argument rests on other aspects of the system than those of game-element-introduction.

I also don't see why you think that my analysis does not offer "perfectly fine design explanations". The success of player-oriented splatbooks, opening up new feat and PrC choices for players, suggests to me that players are looking for more control in an RPG than D&D has traditionally given them. The success of 3E compared to 2nd - a game that allows players to resolve PC action through a sophisticated set of mechanics, rather than rely on GM adjudication - suggests the same thing. Why wouldn't the 4e designers continue the trend? I think they have, and will succeed in producing a version of D&D that finally leaves the wargaming legacy, and the legacy of abusive GMing that (as an unintended consequence) grew out of it, behind.

 

[FourthBear]

I agree with Reynard that prediction is more important for player than GM control. D&D has always assumed that a GM will jury rig things as s/he goes along to cope with failed predictions, whereas the players have never had any such power (eg if the PCs are losing a fight, the game does not give them the power to suddenly bring an ally into play, whereas if NPCs are losing a fight the GM has always had the power to bring an ally into play). So an increase in predictability changes the GM's toolbox, but does not increase the GM's power, whereas it does increase the players' power.

How does it increase the players' power? They cannot bring allies into the fight in 4e any more than they could in 3.5e. The unpredictability of the system can benefit the players just as often as it can harm them. And DMs jury-rig to save the players just as often as they might to keep the players from an easy victory. The benefit to DMs is clear: the ability to better predict outcomes from the encounters they present. Yes, in a less predictive system a DM could apply fiat to gain his desired state. With a better system, the DM doesn't even need to do that. I am simply not seeing a clear increase in players' narrative control to match, let alone equal, this.

But I must admit I am now having trouble working out what you think would count as evidence that the rules of D&D are changing anything at all.

Since I've noted many times that I believe the rules of D&D are indeed changing significantly, I'm assuming that what you are actually asking is what would I consider a change in D&D in terms of narrative control (the subject of this discussion). As I noted, I am quite familiar with the various elements that *could* be clearly introduced into 4e to change narrative control. If 4e was going to introduce to players Drama Points that allowed them to dictate their challenges, call upon new allies to appear or any number of such mechanics, I would consider that a clear indication that D&D was increasing player narrative control. Also, a clear statement from the designers that increased player narrative control would also help. Nowhere can I find anything that indicates that increased player narrative control is a 4e design goal.

In point of fact, we do have notes from the designers about why they are making these changes. Mearls has listed what he noted as problems in the previous edition that the rules changes were intended to remedy. Nowhere on that list did I find decreased player narrative control. Further, most of the rules changes you have cited in this thread are actually aimed at solving those problems, not changing narrative control. The rules changes may incidentally change DM or player narrative control, but that is not their primary purpose.

There is no passage in the HeroQuest Narrators Guide (that I can remember, at least) that states that the GM may not introduce whatever game elements s/he wishes - I think it's just taken for granted that the GM will run the game as the rulebooks indicate. But would you deny that HeroQuest gives players more narrative control than 2nd ed AD&D?

No, because HeroQuest has honest to goodness player narrative mechanics. If you can produce that in 4e, then I will agree. I have disagreed with all of your examples to date (with the exception of Action Points), that does not mean you could not theoretically produce a HeroQuest quality example.

What, then, do you think is the point of the remarks in W&M p20, sidebar therein?

I thought you already admitted that this sidebar is not forbidding the DM to have hostile encounters in the Points of Light setting? Also, that the PoL setting is an example default setting only? OK, we can argue about this all over again. The remarks are *design notes*. Mearls' *own* PoL setting in Iron Heroes features numerous in town encounters! The Realms has been mentioned as being reworked into a PoL style setting. Do you think that in 4e, there will be no more city encounters in the Realms? Again, if in my campaign notes on a post-apocalyptic setting, I note that Bartertown can serve as a safe haven from the threats on the road, have I somehow limited the DM from having hostile encounters in Bartertown? Of course not and it wasn't my intention in the statement. I assumed that the person reading it was capable of understanding nuance, rather than reading it like a robot in a bad Sci-Fi film.

Well, you seem to view the entire scope of the game through what is, to me, one of its most trivial aspects, namely, from what list of game elements is the GM entitled to choose?

The reason I have been making statements on GM control is because that is the subject of this thread. I view the changes to the rules in 4e to be due to the various and explicitly stated goals of the designers. 4e isn't some step on the game evolution ladder as theorized by GNS theory, with 1e at the bottom and working its way towards some kind of player narrative empowerment. The changes to 4e are for design goals orthogonal to narrative goals. Some may increase DM/player narrative power as an incidental effect. However, you are far too quick to find some element that increases player narrative control and declaring victory. Those very same elements you cite also increase DM narrative control in various ways. I see no evidence that there is any overall increase in player narrative power relative to the DM in 4e.

 

[SSquirrel]

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

Funny I never said "Down w/DMs!". I said that your comments make it appear that anything that pushes D&D away from you being the godlike entity controlling everything and let the players fear you is a bad thing. I'm not anti-DM, I'm anti bad-stuck-in-the-early-80's-DM. Whether you fit this or not I don't know, but your comments sound like those I imagine of the people I know who do fit the description.

Why is wanting a game to be more collaborative a bad thing? Example from a past game. Yes the DM came up with a story, but our group is focusing on another aspect of the story ad it's making him flustered b/c he doesn't have plans and he wants HIS story to get told. Too bad his story doesn't sound that interesting to us or our characters and we're following this tangent of it. A good DM keeps the storyline he had developed in the back of his mind or works ways to have it dovetail w/the new direction of the game. A bad DM just says we can't do that or closes off every lead we try and follow so all we have left to do is his idea, which as I said sounded boring.

That group didn't stay together too long b/c the DM and players had very different playstyles. We all wanted to play D&D, but obviously D&D meant something different to us than to him.

You still seem to be barking up the wrong tree about the whole Quest card thing. I find Ari's comments from his blog about 4E very interesting as well. Here's the bit I found most interesting:

"It feels like they've managed to create a complete game that doesn't feel cluttered. In a way, it's a feeling I haven't had since the Red Box basic set.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that

A) 4E is as simple as Basic, or
B) That Basic didn't have a great many flaws and mechanical problems.

But I believe that Basic D&D did a good job of separating out what did and did not need hardwired mechanics. I don't need ranks in "tailor" on my character sheet, if that's never going to have a mechanical impact on gameplay.

I'm a huge believer in roleplaying. I don't want my D&D to be pure combat simulation. But I've also, after the mechanics glut of 3.5, come to realize that if something doesn't have a mechanical impact, it doesn't need to appear in the mechanics--and that doesn't make it any less real to the character. Roleplayers will roleplay because they want to; people who don't want to RP won't no matter what the rules say.

4E manages, IMO, to give you exactly the mechanics you need, without giving excessive mechanics to what you don't, in a way that no prior edition has managed."

The sky is not falling, you are free to customize how you want, and as previously stated, the quest card thing is just a snippet of what was already said in the game. Nothing restricts you from saying "You know I was just going to giv everyone 1k XP for that quest, but it turned out to be al ot harder and more involved than I originally imagined. You all get 2k.". It's not like you have to say "Well this was harder than I expected and if I could change it I would give you guys 2k each, but the card won't let me". You probably have an idea how much of a level you want everyone to gain from an adventure and maybe shoot for rough point totals for different spots. This is no different, you're just verbalizing what is already on your head and maybe on your paper behind your DM screen.

 

[Reynard]

Funny I never said "Down w/DMs!". I said that your comments make it appear that anything that pushes D&D away from you being the godlike entity controlling everything and let the players fear you is a bad thing. I'm not anti-DM, I'm anti bad-stuck-in-the-early-80's-DM. Whether you fit this or not I don't know, but your comments sound like those I imagine of the people I know who do fit the description.

I'm sorry. I misunderstood you. I thought you were making an insulting, blanket statement about DMs in general. Instead, you were just insulting me.

Why is wanting a game to be more collaborative a bad thing?

I wouldn't know since I never suggested such a thing and it runs entirely counter to my preferences as a DM.

You still seem to be barking up the wrong tree about the whole Quest card thing. ...
The sky is not falling, you are free to customize how you want, and as previously stated, the quest card thing is just a snippet of what was already said in the game. Nothing restricts you from saying "You know I was just going to giv everyone 1k XP for that quest, but it turned out to be al ot harder and more involved than I originally imagined. You all get 2k.". It's not like you have to say "Well this was harder than I expected and if I could change it I would give you guys 2k each, but the card won't let me". You probably have an idea how much of a level you want everyone to gain from an adventure and maybe shoot for rough point totals for different spots. This is no different, you're just verbalizing what is already on your head and maybe on your paper behind your DM screen.

Point of fact: your interpretation of the mechanic is no more valid than mine because the article in question doesn't say word one about how mutable the Quest reward is intended to be. This is totally ignoring (as you obviously have) the fact that I have already amended my position to "uncertain" reagrding that -- and many other -- aspects of 4E.

Discussion boards are for dicussion. Discussion exposes one to different opinions and ideas. Different opinions and ideas inform ones own and occassionally change them.

 

[SSquirrel]

I'm sorry. I misunderstood you. I thought you were making an insulting, blanket statement about DMs in general. Instead, you were just insulting me.

Not exactly. I was trying to figure out where you actually fit on this line of Bad DM---Good DM as it fit w/my experiences. The things you complained about losing and some of the examples of what you loved best made me feel you were of the type that run games that suck the joy out of gaming for me. Like I said I could be wrong, I'm sure I've read your comments in other threads over time, but I'm only recently spending time on ENWorld again. Real life has a way of messing up forum reading

When I stated that being a DM was not a thing of power b/c if you drive your group away you have no one to play with, I was called anti-DM, which made no sense to me. Do I want players to have lots of interesting choices in the game? Yes, it's much more fun that way.
To use a MMO example (since WoW is so popular in the 4E forums as a complaint device), when you're playing a rogue you can sit there and do nothing but Sinister Strike to 5 and Eviscerate, but that is terribly boring. It's much more fun to Gouge, Backstab, Vanish, Slice & Dice, etc. Same thing in D&D. I can have a longsword, roll my d20, see if I hit and repeat variations of that every round or I can use feats like Spring Attack to attack someone farther away and catch them unaware. Or if things are going badly and I'm almost out, use Second Wind to get myself back into a bit better shape to take one last swing at things.

The DM controls very little at the table in the end. If the DM forces too many limitations and makes it less fun for the players, they will be less enthusiastic about the game. That doesn't grow the hobby. I've viewed the DM/player relationship as much more synergistic for years, but maybe that was b/c I played so many different game systems (esp in college) and played w/so many different people. Not suggesting anyone in here hasn't had the same experiences to varying degrees, but I've noticed games where there was a lot of give and take happening at the table resulted in the best games w/my friends and I. Several different groups of friends over the years even

Upsetting you wasn't my goal, if I did I apologize. I think we may just have to agree to disagree when it comes to playstyles tho.

Point of fact: your interpretation of the mechanic is no more valid than mine because the article in question doesn't say word one about how mutable the Quest reward is intended to be. This is totally ignoring (as you obviously have) the fact that I have already amended my position to "uncertain" regarding that -- and many other -- aspects of 4E.

Of course if the article doesn't state either way in the beginning, why assume negatively? Maybe I'm just too optimistic, but it's how I am Actually I wasn't ignoring, I've been playing catch up on this thread for 3 days between work, keeping up w/my 2 year old and dealing w/complications from my wife's pregnancy. I have noticed that you have changed your opinion on some items during the course of this thread, but the things that you are sticking to as bad points about the game (which isn't even out for another nearly 5 months yet) just strike me as either things that are really non-issues or else as something that we are working on too little knowledge to really judge at this stage of things.

I haven't picked up the World & Monsters booklet yet, but I did pick up the Races & Classes book over the weekend. Hoping to get to read it some this week. Part of me wants to read every thread of the 4E forum and part of me wants to forget it exists. I love open discussions and all the information people bring up from various spots of the web I would have missed, but every new bit of info leads to more cries that the sky is falling.

I played a whole lot of 3E, don't think I've bought a single 3.5 book. Well, Serpent Kingdom is likely 3.5 I can't remember, but I just wanted the fluffy bits cuz I love Yuan-Ti I got very burned out of D&D for a long time and if I was going to play d20 right now, I would prefer something more open feeling like Arcana Evolved or to play in Ptolus. Or Ptolus set in AE, even better heh. A good campaign of Mage, Aberrant, Call of Cthulhu or maybe trying out Star Wars Saga Edition w/some friends of a friend could all be nice too. I'll likely buy the core books day 1 and get energized to want to play D&D again, and I really hope it does. I've gone from being annoyed that it was announced a bit earlier than it seemed like most folks wanted (myself included) to being excited about the edition. But I love new games, new nuances to explore, and anything that lessens the grip of alignment and Vancian magic on D&D has to get a solid YAY!* from me

*Yes I'm one of THOSE people.

Hagen

EDIT:Oh yeah, I also cant' stand all the GNS Forge crap that constantly gets brought up in discussions like this. I've read the documents before, but gaming just doesn't make sense to me to break down into the groups like that. Largely b/c I don't care to think about how doing X is more narrativist than gamist or whatever. I understand the need to have a common ground to stand on and many people like the GNS triangle of gaming, it's just always grated at me for some reason.

 

[pemerton]

How does it increase the players' power?

By allowing them to more rationally choose which encounters to engage, which to retreat from, which powers to use in which sequence, etc. In short, the more predictable the mechanics, the more the players are able to make meaningful choices with respect to them.

The unpredictability of the system can benefit the players just as often as it can harm them.

Yes. But "benefit" is not the same as "control". Thus, if I am playing Gary Kasparov at chess, I am guaranteed to lose. If instead we determined the outcome by tossing a coin, the unpredictability would give me much more chance of winning. But not only Gary but also I lose control when the outcome is determined by a toin coss.

To relate the analogy to 4e D&D: players who do not enjoy engaging with complex game mechanics will not enjoy doing what they have to do in 4e to exercise their power. They may well prefer to play RQ, or 1st ed AD&D, where in any given round there is almost always only one rational choice of action. This doesn't change the fact that 4e, with its suite of powers which feed into a rational way into a sophisticated and knowable set of outcomes, gives players more power than either AD&D or RQ does.

And DMs jury-rig to save the players just as often as they might to keep the players from an easy victory.

But this is not a case of the players having control. It is an instance of the GM exercising control.

in a less predictive system a DM could apply fiat to gain his desired state. With a better system, the DM doesn't even need to do that. I am simply not seeing a clear increase in players' narrative control to match, let alone equal, this.

<snip>

Those very same elements you cite also increase DM narrative control in various ways. I see no evidence that there is any overall increase in player narrative power relative to the DM in 4e.

So 4e makes it easier for the GM to exercise control. True. But it doesn't increase the GM's control. For, as I've mentioned, the GM already had as much control as it is possible for the GM to have short of the power to reset the players' dicerolls: namely, the power to alter NPC stats on the fly.

In fact, I think that increased predictability of mechanics actually reduces GM's narrative control, for the following reason: the more predictable the mechanics, the less scope for interpretation and adjudication (which is in D&D the traditional domain of the GM). So one of the major ways in which the GM exercises power will come up less often (assuming that the designers have done their jobs as they are promising to).

Thus the GM, in order to exercise control, will have to do so precisely by fudging. But no version of D&D seems so likely to discourage GM fudging as 4e does, because it is obvious that such a well-honed mechanical machine (again, assuming that the designers have done their jobs) is not one with which anyone is expected to tinker outside the mechanics.

As I noted, I am quite familiar with the various elements that *could* be clearly introduced into 4e to change narrative control. If 4e was going to introduce to players Drama Points that allowed them to dictate their challenges, call upon new allies to appear or any number of such mechanics, I would consider that a clear indication that D&D was increasing player narrative control.

OK. I think there are all sorts of other ways then Drama Points whereby a game can give the players' narrative control. For example, neither the Dying Earth nor HeroWars/Quest has Drama Points in the sense you describe above, but both give the player a degree of narrative control that s/he does not have in (to return to a tried-and-true example) RQ.

Rolemater does not have Drama Points, and yet it gives players a degree of narrative control that RQ does not via at least the following two mechanics: its ultra-complex, nuanced and highly metagamable character build rules; and its basic combat mechanic, which allows a player to allocate their attack bonus between offence and parry, varying that allocation from round to round.

I have listed what I think are the interesting features of 4e that resdistribute narrative control. Part of what I think is interesting is that they are ways of doing this which don't require really radical changes to some of the basic ideas of D&D mechanics (which Drama Points would) and yet seem well suited to supporting quite a radical change in D&D play.

Also, a clear statement from the designers that increased player narrative control would also help. Nowhere can I find anything that indicates that increased player narrative control is a 4e design goal.

I believe it is there in W&M. I also believe it is there in Chris Sims's remarks in the Healing thread - he expressly mentions the role that Second Wind can play in giving the players narrative control! Plus there are the (non-verbal) implications generated by the production of splat books all of which increase player control by giving them more character build optoins.

Now your criteria for "clear statement" may be different from mine. But to me all the eviddence points in one direction.

In point of fact, we do have notes from the designers about why they are making these changes. Mearls has listed what he noted as problems in the previous edition that the rules changes were intended to remedy. Nowhere on that list did I find decreased player narrative control. Further, most of the rules changes you have cited in this thread are actually aimed at solving those problems, not changing narrative control. The rules changes may incidentally change DM or player narrative control, but that is not their primary purpose.

First, a frequently stated goal is "fun". That is not very precise, but one way players have fun is playing the game, and one important way of playing an RPG is deciding what happens in the imagined world. So that goal does not oppose the one I am talking about.

Furthermore, I have never asserted that increased narrative control is a primary goal. In fact, I have asserted that a better gamist system is the primary goal. But better gamisim needs the players to be able to determine their PC's fates without unnecessary interference from the GM. In that sense gamist and narrativist goals can be complementary.

No, because HeroQuest has honest to goodness player narrative mechanics.

It doesn't have Drama Points. Its Hero Points play something like Action Points. Outside the context of character building, it gives the GM the principle prerogative to introduce new game elements (just as is the case for 4e D&D, as you have pointed out).

In HeroQuest players can (in extended conflict resolution) use their AP wagering to try and control and moderate the outcome of the conflict. 4e does not have strictly analogous mechanics - but it does have a complex currency of actions and powers (some per encounter, some per day, some at will) which allow players to make meaningful choices about what is at stake in an encounter, and what the implications of its resolution will be (eg by using Second Wind rather than surrendering, a player in effect raises the Death Flag). Again, the contrast to simulationist games is extremely marked: in RQ (or classic Traveller, or AD&D) there is nothing comparable the player can do control the stakes of a conflict.

I thought you already admitted that this sidebar is not forbidding the DM to have hostile encounters in the Points of Light setting?

The key word is "forbidden". As I've said several times, for various historical reasons that have been gone over in other posts on this thread (eg by Apoptosis) D&D is very hesitant to call its worldbuidling rules rules - it calls them guidelines instead (an example I already gave is that of wealth-by-level - as is well known, if one ignores these guidelines the game will break down - or at least won't deliver anything like the intended play experience).

Also, that the PoL setting is an example default setting only? OK, we can argue about this all over again. The remarks are *design notes*. Mearls' *own* PoL setting in Iron Heroes features numerous in town encounters!

Everything I say about PoL is derived from the discussion in W&M. If you think that a 4e preview book cannot be used to draw inferences about how 4e is intended to be played, fair enough. Likewise if you think that rules for a different game (Iron Heroes) are a better guide.

The Realms has been mentioned as being reworked into a PoL style setting. Do you think that in 4e, there will be no more city encounters in the Realms?

You seem to be equating "no adversity without player consent" with "no adversity". This seems to me to be a false equation. Why would players of a heroic fantasy RPG like D&D not want to trigger adversity?

Having said that, I do not know what the FR setting will say - I don't really follow the FR news and threads. But if FR were different, it wouldn't be the first time that a published setting has changed the rules from those of core D&D. (I am assuming here that W&M is a reliable guide to core D&D.)

Again, if in my campaign notes on a post-apocalyptic setting, I note that Bartertown can serve as a safe haven from the threats on the road, have I somehow limited the DM from having hostile encounters in Bartertown? Of course not and it wasn't my intention in the statement. I assumed that the person reading it was capable of understanding nuance, rather than reading it like a robot in a bad Sci-Fi film.

What, then is the point of the statement? If the intention is that Bartertown is a place in which encounters occur but are infrequent, why not say so - or why not say something like "After the apocalypse, nowhere is safe. Some places are safer than others, however, and Bartertown is one of them."

The text in W&M does not say that PoL are safer, but that nowhere is safe. It says something different (and I must ask - have you read it? If so, in what way do you think I am misinterpreting it?).

The reason I have been making statements on GM control is because that is the subject of this thread.

My point was that you talk about only one (in my view somewhat minor) aspect of control, namely, the power to put new game elements into play once the players have built their PCs. It is consistent with this narrow focus that you identify, as your sole expressly narrativist mechanic, Drama Points which empower the players to introduce game elements into play.

There are many other aspects of narrative control. In my view one of the most important (especially for a game like D&D, in which nearly all conflict is resolved as combat) is determining the outcome, in play, of conflicts. Another is determining the incidence of adversity. Another (important in a game of heroic fantasy) is the power to make judgements about the moral significance of ingame events. It is on these sorts of things I have been focussing.

4e isn't some step on the game evolution ladder as theorized by GNS theory, with 1e at the bottom and working its way towards some kind of player narrative empowerment.

I've not asserted that it is - and why would I? After all, the least narrativist version of D&D was pretty clearly 2nd ed AD&D.

The changes to 4e are for design goals orthogonal to narrative goals. Some may increase DM/player narrative power as an incidental effect.

Ultimately I don't really care about purpose, although I think I have some evidence (cited above) of purpose. I care about outcome. And for the reasons I have given I think that 4e will support narrativist play to an extent that no previous edition of D&D has done, or has tried to do. It will do so for the reasons I have identified.

Will all D&D players suddenly start playing narrativist? I doubt it. What I do predict, however, is a continuation of the threads that already proliferate in this forum, namely, complaints by obviously simulationist-oriented GMs and players that 4e has spoiled things.

However, you are far too quick to find some element that increases player narrative control and declaring victory.

I don't fully understand your apparenlty combative way of describing discussion ("backing down", "declaring victory"). I never "declared victory". I made some assertions, offered reasons for them, reiterated them at certain points, reiterated and elaborated my reasons, wash, rinse, repeat.

I continue to assert them because I continue to believe them. And I am becoming more convinced that your conception of what is important to narrative control is quite narrow (namely, the introduction into play of particular game elements) and thus that your conception of the ways in which mechanics can facilitate (or detract from) narrativist play is also somewhat narrow.

 

[FourthBear]

I continue to assert them because I continue to believe them. And I am becoming more convinced that your conception of what is important to narrative control is quite narrow (namely, the introduction into play of particular game elements) and thus that your conception of the ways in which mechanics can facilitate (or detract from) narrativist play is also somewhat narrow.

And, as should be quite clear, I consider the changes being made to the 4e rules set to be unrelated to an overall increase in player narrative power. Your examples of changes are actually intended to achieve goals other than the transfer of narrative control and can be flipped on their head easily to demonstrate the opposite conclusion.

At this point, we appear to be the only ones participating in this discussion. It appears unlikely either of us is going to persuade the other.I suggest we adjourn until more data on 4e becomes available to make new cases.

 

[Reynard]

At this point, we appear to be the only ones participating in this discussion. It appears unlikely either of us is going to persuade the other.I suggest we adjourn until more data on 4e becomes available to make new cases.

FYI, I was really enjoying the discussion -- it is just that I don't have much to add.

 

[pemerton]

FYI, I was really enjoying the discussion -- it is just that I don't have much to add.

Reynard, I'm curious - do the features I am pointing to in 4e, which I think make significant changes to the sort of play D&D can support well, connect at all to the features that you think constitute "DM-proofing"?

 

[Reynard]

Reynard, I'm curious - do the features I am pointing to in 4e, which I think make significant changes to the sort of play D&D can support well, connect at all to the features that you think constitute "DM-proofing"?

I think 4E is highly suggestive of player empowerment and system empowerment. Both of these thinsg work together to reduce the "power" of the DM. So long as there is a DM, though, there is no way to completely undo that power.

But I haven't seen anything, except perhaps the inclusion of Action Points, that is actually suggestive of narrative gameplay elements, and active narrative control in the hands of the players is the greatest "danger" to the DM's authority (whereas re-active narrative control is both essential to play and supportive of the DMs role as arbiter and "narrator", but I digress..)

"DM-proofing" means any element of the game, whether a rule or player-embraced guidelien (such as WLB), that puts the DM in the unenviable position of having to justify or lobby for a "No." Players already have all the "real power" because there DM is the DM at the pleasure of the player's in the first place. But if trust is so weak that players must constantly reference rule books in order to stop the DM from doing whatever it is he is doing, either the DM and the players are completely mismatched from a playstyle perspective, or someone is being an ass.