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

[Hussar]

Which makes me wonder if you've ever played this game.

I get soundly rebuked when I mention that we don't use 'skillmonkeys' or 'trapfinders' in our games, because nobody I game with wants to play them. When I mention that I've played in a game with no clerics (or mages, actually), just a team of warrior types who made use of a Ranger with a Wand of Cure Lt Wounds for the emergency healing, I also got crapped all over by multiple posters over on the WotC boards, who insisted that I 'playing the game wrong' and 'deliberately gimping myself' and 'if you want to not have fun, go ahead.'

Not only is it believable that people would defend the idea that you *must* have certain classes, it's a de facto assumption. Every Origins or GenCon I go to, the people at the table bargain over who has to 'play the Cleric,' and the RPGA *even has a system for that,* where a player can 'take one for the team' and use one of the pregenerated Fastplay Characters and apply the adventure credit to the character you wanted to play, if the group needs you to play a healer instead of your RPGA character!

It's a base assumption of the game, so much that their are official rulings to accomodate it!

At this point, I stop reading your post. You've gone off the deep end here in your attempts to rebut the OP (whom I don't completely agree with either, but he at least seems to be familiar with how the game is played).

Set, you might want to go back and reread my post, because you took it to be the opposite of what I actually said. Reynard is the one defending the idea that D&D, by its rules, should impose those restrictions on every group. I'm saying that, by allowing other classes to have basic competence in multiple roles, you can finally have the freedom to have a group that doesn't have a cleric.

 

[Hussar]

Actually, it does, at least in the context of the assumed social contract when sitting down at the table. That assumed contract is written in the rules of the game and is modified by clear communication of changes from the rules. Players have every right to be upset at a 3.x DM that consistenly ignores the stated CR and wealth-by-level (for example) guidelines without communicating that to the players and reaching an agreement with the players on the subject.

Just going to stop you there for a second. What stated CR guidelines are you referring to? The ones that state that the DM should use a mix of various EL's when designing an adventure? Or the ones whose only function is to predict the result of a given combat?

Generally speaking, that which isn't explicitely agreed upon to deviat from the core rules of the game is implicitly agreed upon to adhere to the core rules of the game. Therefore, the more specifc the rules are and the more specific situations they cover is a transference of power -- perhaps not to the players, but to the rules in the benefit of the player and detriment of the DM (who still assumes the vast majority of responsibility for the game, but now has fewer tools with which to achieve meet that responsibilty).

I disagree with this premise. For one, you assume that rules somehow benefit the player to the detriment of the DM. Can you give an example please? What rules exist that hurt the DM but help the players?

 

[Propheous_D]

Not only is it believable that people would defend the idea that you *must* have certain classes, it's a de facto assumption. Every Origins or GenCon I go to, the people at the table bargain over who has to 'play the Cleric,' and the RPGA *even has a system for that,* where a player can 'take one for the team' and use one of the pregenerated Fastplay Characters and apply the adventure credit to the character you wanted to play, if the group needs you to play a healer instead of your RPGA character!

The fault of this is more game design and bad DMing then anything else. Alot of games are setup so that you are required to blow alot of healing regardless of how tactically you play. Not to mention that 90% of gamers are lazy and never play tactically.

Anyone can play a game with out the defacto party make up if they are a little smart about it and the DM isn't a prick. However, this is not the normal way of playing nor is it possible in a large demographic of games that are played.

So while your point is valid it is pretty much moot in the larger scheme of things. Games are designed with the idea that clerics will heal, mages will nuke, and thieves will uncover and disarm. Just like the rules in 4E though it doesn't mean we all have to follow suit, cause we are in control and can change it as we wish.

 

[Reynard]

Quests. This is one of the recurring debates on the EN World forum that infuriates me, because it seems as if those freaking out about quest cards and quests are being willfully obstreperous. Quest cards are just a variant on the age old system of having one player keep notes, and as for how the game will encourage or require quests, it is beyond me. The absolute best I can come up with to justify my debate opponent's side in this fight is the possibility that the game will recommend coming up with goals, assigning them XP values, and awarding those values upon completion of the goals. If this is the case, it will be just as restrictive to DMs as was previous advice on assigning XP values- namely, not very restrictive at all, with lots of little notes about adjusting things to fit your judgment. It seems the greatest likelihood, though, that this entire issue is a mere bugaboo of the imagination. As I cannot analyze the possibility of a reduction in DM control of the game as a result of an inchoate wraith of an idea, I must pass this point by. If or when someone other than me decides to develop this fear into an actual idea, I will consider it.

While I disagree with many of your other assessments (but I do think they were well expressed) I wanted to zero in on this one in particular simply because in all the bluster about "Quest Cards" I think the actual "Quest Mechanic" gets lost and people don't consider what it means and how it impacts play, particularly as it relates to the subject of this thread:

The first part of the "quest mechanic" is, as you suggest, no different than the way the game has traditionally been played: the PCs do this thing and get this reward for doing it. However, the similarity ends there and transfers power away from the DM and to the players because that "thing" the PCs are doing and the reward (in-game or meta-game) for doing it physically transfer (perhaps on a card, perhaps not) from the DM to the players. Once the "card" is handed over, so too is the DM's ability to adjudicate the quest handed over, as is his ability to manipulate the quest, its rewards or its details. Now the players are holding the "card" that says "Stop BBEG's plans and gain 1000gp and 1000xp". The tool of the DM to motivate the players to engage his adventure has become a weapon in the hands of the players against the DM's rightto judge whether the PCs did what they were supposed to do in a manner consistent with the game being played. With "card" in hand, the PCs can go KoDT on the local village just to get to the bad guy and still have a concrete backing for receiving their reward.

This is, of course, a worst case scenario, but it is illustrative of the kind of transfer of power I am talking about and the possible conflicts that can arise because of that transference.

 

[vagabundo]

Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is deopendent entirely on playstyle, preference and expectations. I consider it a bad thing -- I think the game should give the DM both more powers and more responsibilites, going "backwards" away from 3E's highly structured ruleset toward earlier editions' more open rulesset. And while I do understand that bad DMs exist that use Fiat and vague rules to shine their viking hats, the answer to these DMs is simple: no players.

I consider all these things tools that the DM can use or not. I like the way WOTC is attempting to decouple and untangle all the different sub-systems. At the end of the day the DM is putting all this together, the more tools I have to create the adventures and the world the better.

 

[Propheous_D]

As for the points of the original poster I mean grow up and take responsibility. You want more freedom for your game then take it. The rules have never been hard and fast. They have however all ways been very scary to new people trying to learn the game. The responses are right in that first time gaming with inexperienced DMs especially in 3E is horrific at worst stomachable at worst. This is because they get bogged down in mechanics.

How many first time DMs have spent 4 hours designing a BBEG to have it downed in 4 rounds because the PC's came up with a brilliant tactic out of left field? I can't count how many DM's I have driven to drink by doing this. They learn real quick to spend less time with the rules and more time with the design and fluff elements.

My biggest problem with 2E was that the rules were crap and had to be jerryrigged into position to make a playable game worth playing. My biggest problem with 3E was that the rules were all there but you got overwhelmed by them and they became the focus. I am looking forward to 4E because we can play the game again and not have to program it. At least that is my vote.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Level/Tier Based Encounter Design: The successor to the CR system, this system seems to be designed to ensure parity or balance between the PCs and their opposition even more rigidly than the CR system with the inclusion of tiered monsters. moreover, monster/encounter design has gotten a lot of attention, it seems, all with an eye toward balance..

Seems to me a tier system leaves a DM with a wider range of options then slavish adherence to CR would. A tier is a 10 level spread looks like there is much more room for the DM there.

 

[Hussar]

The fault of this is more game design and bad DMing then anything else. Alot of games are setup so that you are required to blow alot of healing regardless of how tactically you play. Not to mention that 90% of gamers are lazy and never play tactically.

Anyone can play a game with out the defacto party make up if they are a little smart about it and the DM isn't a prick. However, this is not the normal way of playing nor is it possible in a large demographic of games that are played.

So while your point is valid it is pretty much moot in the larger scheme of things. Games are designed with the idea that clerics will heal, mages will nuke, and thieves will uncover and disarm. Just like the rules in 4E though it doesn't mean we all have to follow suit, cause we are in control and can change it as we wish.

I'm not really sure how much of that you can lay at the feet of DM's though.

By current rules, D&D will feature a LOT of combat. Unless you are running a very non-standard game, most campaigns will have about 5-12 combats per level. Somewhere in that neighbourhood anyway. That's a whole lot of hit points going up and down. It isn't that the player's are playing badly or are tactically unsound (although that could be a reason), it's just that the basic assumption of most D&D games is that you're going to be killing stuff and taking its treasure.

This is hardly new.

The game has always needed a cleric in the group. Look at the foreward of just about every module produced by TSR. You'll see a paragraph that suggests pretty strongly the classes you need to complete that module. There's a reason that the traditional party was 3 fighter types, a cleric, wizard and thief. You needed all those roles to be filled. Not having a thief meant that you were getting smacked with traps, some of which didn't have saving throws. Not having a cleric meant you died. A lot.

So on and so forth.

This has always been a feature in D&D. Nobody is stating anything new here. If you go back into Dragon, you'll see this talked about decades ago. However, for the first time, it appears that we may actually get a break from this paradigm that group's are forced, by the rules, to cover the class spread.

Whether this is true or not remains to be seen.

 

[FourthBear]

I believe that the proposed rules for making opponents (both monsters and NPCs) without having to follow some kind of PC-like generation process completely swamps all of the issues you've raised in favor of DM control. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing threads after the generation system is unveiled that complain bitterly about the DM having too much fiat and arbitrary power in the default system.

Along the same lines, it appears that 4e will encourage the DM to simply use "plot device powers" for the creation of artifacts and rituals. If Iron Heroes is any hint, we can anticipate that these will not be concerned with if these elements will be balanced with PC abilities. In that sense, I also anticipate that DMs will be encouraged to take more control at the table. Of course, they could always do so, but the design assumptions of 3e often encouraged the DM to "color within the lines", IMO.

 

[Reynard]

However, for the first time, it appears that we may actually get a break from this paradigm that group's are forced, by the rules, to cover the class spread.

Only because the definitions have changed. "Class" is no longer synonymous with "role" -- or maybe it is simply more explicit and hardcoded into the rules in a way that eleminates the possibility of a class not being able to fill its role. In either case, the existence of a Warlord might eliminate the need for a Cleric, but all signs point to needing a Leader in the party.