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

[Xyl]

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.

We may have a terminology issue here. I am using mechanic to mean a rule that specifies exactly what the answer is, with minimal judgment on the DM's part. A guideline is a rule that suggests an answer, or a range of answers, but explicitly allows the DM to use his or her judgment in the result.

A quest mechanic would be something like "Every quest gives XP and treasure equal to two encounters of the party's level."

A quest guideline would be something like "A standard quest should give XP and treasure roughly equal to two encounters of the party's level. Easier or harder quests can give less or more, but you shouldn't give less than one encounters' worth or more than four encounters' worth without a good reason."

In that sense, I am fairly certain that whatever the rules on quests are, they will be guidelines, not mechanics. A rulebook putting specific rewards on quests is impossible, because the quests that are possible are only limited by the DM's imagination.

 

[Reynard]

A quest mechanic would be something like "Every quest gives XP and treasure equal to two encounters of the party's level."

A quest guideline would be something like "A standard quest should give XP and treasure roughly equal to two encounters of the party's level. Easier or harder quests can give less or more, but you shouldn't give less than one encounters' worth or more than four encounters' worth without a good reason."

I see your point, and agree with you in theory, but it happens that certain "guidelines" very quickly become "rules". Again, wealth-by-level serves as a great example. The intention of that system was, I think, to give the DM some solid guidelines about how to make sure his PCs stay in line with the CR/EL system. But it very quickly became a "rule" in all but name and many players referenced it as a "rule" as surely as they would a feat or spell.

I agree that the Quest reward "system" (see how I skirted the whole issue there?) will likely be introduced as a guideline. however, if there isn't any weight behind it, it really doesn't need to exist (and I seriously doubt we would have gotten a whole preview article about it if it were that minimalist). If it does have weight behind it, it is a likely candidate for the "guideline to rule" evolution that WBL undertook.

 

[The Little Raven]

Both of these thinsg work together to reduce the "power" of the DM.

How? You keep saying this is the case, but I haven't seen you actually explain how the DM loses anything. Saying the player's get more narrative power, as far as it concerns their character, is not an explanation of how the DM is supposedly losing anything.

 

[Reynard]

How? You keep saying this is the case, but I haven't seen you actually explain how the DM loses anything. Saying the player's get more narrative power, as far as it concerns their character, is not an explanation of how the DM is supposedly losing anything.

That's becaue you refuse to ackowledge anything I write that disgrees with your base assumptions, Mourn. If you really want to know why i think this is the case, there's plenty of explanation throughout the thread.

 

[The Little Raven]

That's becaue you refuse to ackowledge anything I write that disgrees with your base assumptions, Mourn. If you really want to know why i think this is the case, there's plenty of explanation throughout the thread.

And I don't see any explanation of what the DM is actually losing that isn't phrased as "The players are getting more control over their characters." Did the DM suddenly lose the ability to be the final arbiter of any decisions? Did I miss that memo? The DM has just as much power as he always has had.

I'm not seeing any rational explanation of what the DM is supposedly losing. You claim that the players have the 'real power' because they can stop playing with a DM they don't like, but ignore the fact that without a DM, the players aren't doing dick. The DM is losing nothing.

 

[Reynard]

And I don't see any explanation of what the DM is actually losing that isn't phrased as "The players are getting more control over their characters." Did the DM suddenly lose the ability to be the final arbiter of any decisions? Did I miss that memo? The DM has just as much power as he always has had.

I'm not seeing any rational explanation of what the DM is supposedly losing. You claim that the players have the 'real power' because they can stop playing with a DM they don't like, but ignore the fact that without a DM, the players aren't doing dick. The DM is losing nothing.

First of all, let me back up a second. In case you popped in late or stopped reading halway through or whatever, it is important to note that my position on my initial assertions has changed quite a lot due to the (very interesting and quite civil) discussion in this thread. that's a good thing. i jsut wanted to point that out to head off any suggestions of backpeddaling or moving goalposts.

What I do think, though, is that lots of rules, and rules that are highly specific, result in a general reduction in the traditional power of the DM -- often referred to as fiat, though that term often carries some (undeserved) negative connotations. In addition, rules that give players a high degree of influence over the application of those other rules exacerbates the problem.

For example, the "social conflict" system (which we haven't seen yet; I am just going on the idea that it is "like combat"). PC/NPC interaction is one of those situations that is traditionally an area where the DM and the players engage in a kind of negotiation as opposed to a rules arbitration. Ultimately, the DM is empowered to have the NPCs react in whatever way he feels appropriate (and, of course, a good DM will be swayed by good player negotiation). With the proposed system, however, the player -- armed with a selection of social combat abilities and tactics -- can, through the application of those rules, "force the DM's hand" regarding an NPC. if that NPC fails his "social save" or runs out of "argument points" or whatever, the player is the one deciding what the NPC thinks or does. that is a net loss for the DM.

 

[The Little Raven]

it is important to note that my position on my initial assertions has changed quite a lot due to the (very interesting and quite civil) discussion in this thread. that's a good thing.

I recognize this. I've been absent from the site for a week or so because of deadlines and crunch-time at work, but when catching up, I've noted a few occasions on which you (and Voss, too) have changed your mind based on information coming to light. You're a reasonable guy with a strong opinion and a willingness to go to the mattress to defend it... which is what separates you from people like Razz (the reasonable part).

For example, the "social conflict" system (which we haven't seen yet; I am just going on the idea that it is "like combat"). PC/NPC interaction is one of those situations that is traditionally an area where the DM and the players engage in a kind of negotiation as opposed to a rules arbitration.

And this is where I disagree. We don't require a player to be able to throw down (that's what combat rules are for) and don't require them to know esoteric bits of knowledge (that's what Knowledge skill rules are for), so I don't think we should require players to be able to socially maneuver (that's what Social rules are for). Sure, a good roleplayer/smooth-talker will get bonuses on his checks and all that, but letting player ability override character ability (the low Charisma character) is actually bad roleplaying (since you're ignoring specific parts of the role you're supposed to be playing).

Ultimately, the DM is empowered to have the NPCs react in whatever way he feels appropriate (and, of course, a good DM will be swayed by good player negotiation). With the proposed system, however, the player -- armed with a selection of social combat abilities and tactics -- can, through the application of those rules, "force the DM's hand" regarding an NPC. if that NPC fails his "social save" or runs out of "argument points" or whatever, the player is the one deciding what the NPC thinks or does. that is a net loss for the DM.

The DM can still say "No."

This "loss of power" is no different than combat rules "taking away the DM's power," since if the player kills your monster, you don't have much of a choice (except, as always, DM fiat). If the DM doesn't want someone to be able to bluff his particular NPC, then he can give them a huge situational bonus to their Defense that it doesn't matter.

 

[Hussar]

I see your point, and agree with you in theory, but it happens that certain "guidelines" very quickly become "rules". Again, wealth-by-level serves as a great example. The intention of that system was, I think, to give the DM some solid guidelines about how to make sure his PCs stay in line with the CR/EL system. But it very quickly became a "rule" in all but name and many players referenced it as a "rule" as surely as they would a feat or spell.

I agree that the Quest reward "system" (see how I skirted the whole issue there?) will likely be introduced as a guideline. however, if there isn't any weight behind it, it really doesn't need to exist (and I seriously doubt we would have gotten a whole preview article about it if it were that minimalist). If it does have weight behind it, it is a likely candidate for the "guideline to rule" evolution that WBL undertook.

But, this isn't a rules problem. It's a social contract issue at the table. If the players are demanding, say, that their characters have X gp at level Y and using the WBL table to beat the DM over the head, that's a player issue. The rules are pretty clear. WBL is simply a guideline, not a hard and fast rule.

And, the funny thing is, some time ago when I polled ENWorlders about how often they'd actually seen players demand exactly this, only a tiny, tiny minority had ever seen it once, let alone have it a widespread problem. The overwhelming majority had never seen this in play.

If the subscriptions still worked, I could find the thread. Sigh.

So, no, I think the problem you are pointing to is actually something that rarely comes up in play, but, has gotten far too much air time on message boards as the rallying cry for why CR and its associated mechanics suck.

 

[Reynard]

I recognize this. I've been absent from the site for a week or so because of deadlines and crunch-time at work, but when catching up, I've noted a few occasions on which you (and Voss, too) have changed your mind based on information coming to light. You're a reasonable guy with a strong opinion and a willingness to go to the mattress to defend it... which is what separates you from people like Razz (the reasonable part).

Shh. you're ruining the sparring.

And this is where I disagree. We don't require a player to be able to throw down (that's what combat rules are for) and don't require them to know esoteric bits of knowledge (that's what Knowledge skill rules are for), so I don't think we should require players to be able to socially maneuver (that's what Social rules are for).

But we do require a player to move his minis around the table in combat. That's player skill that matters a lot. So is negotiating with the DM (via PC/NPC interaction or searching for traps).

The DM can still say "No."

This "loss of power" is no different than combat rules "taking away the DM's power," since if the player kills your monster, you don't have much of a choice (except, as always, DM fiat). If the DM doesn't want someone to be able to bluff his particular NPC, then he can give them a huge situational bonus to their Defense that it doesn't matter.

See, here's the rub -- to my mind he can't. Once you get to the point of rolling dice for combat or anything else, the dice are the arbiters. You don't fudge. You don't pump hit points. you don't have allies appear out of nowhere. That's DM Skill and it is just as important as player skill.

 

[Reynard]

So, no, I think the problem you are pointing to is actually something that rarely comes up in play, but, has gotten far too much air time on message boards as the rallying cry for why CR and its associated mechanics suck.

Sadly, for me, it is something that has come up more often than the poll would suggest...