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

[Lord Zardoz]

More like Idiot Proofing

One of the implicit design goals of 4E seems to be to reduce the influence the DM has over the game, particularly as it relates to "fun".

I think you are slightly off the mark here.

Lets assume that one of the priorities for 4th edition is to make the game more accessible for people who have never played before, and who do not have a friend on hand to teach them how to play it. This may not be the way that the game usually gets new players. As far as I now, outside of the 1st generation of players, most people get into the game via a friend who already knows how to play. This is how I got into the game with 2nd edition.

Now, the hardest thing to do when learning how to play 'cold' is to be an effective DM. It is too easy to screw up combat. You can eyeball how difficult something may be to kill. For Ogres / Giants, this is easy. For creatures that inflict effects like Stun or Daze, this is harder. Running an adventure can also get difficult. Another problem you can run into is figuring out when to give out magic items. If you start handing out +2 swords and the like around level 3, you are very quickly going to find out that your players are killing things way too easily.

The way to avoid most of these problems is to provide clear guidelines on what kind of treasure a player ought to have at any given level, and also to let the newbie DM know which monsters are generally the right power to throw against your PC's at any given level.

Now, I suppose that the arbitrary level limit on ring usage is a fair target for criticism. It is a purely mechanical contrivance, and they could just as easily tried to have a variety of rings that scaled with level. I think the reason they used the approach that they did had more to do with Rings being the only magical item that you could conceivably use 2 of at a time, (ignoring dual-weilded weapons). Having a ring of Resist Energy might be balanced at level X, as might having a Ring of Fast Healing. But is a character having both balanced? Not for me to say.

But Roles, the idea of Quest Cards for adventure management, and level / tier based adventure design all seem to be aimed at helping new DM's get started. In any event, I do not see how any of the things you have described actually reduce the influence of the DM over the game in any meaningful way. The only thing that does come close is the magic item restrictions. Even then, that would only have an impact on the ability of players to use plot critical magic items. I am not really sure there are many situations where this would come into play, however.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[jaer]

I don't think these design issues are meant to "fool-proof" the game on the DM side. I see these as good introductions for new DMs, of breaking the idea that only DMs can DM.

My biggest complaint about the 3e DMG was, as an experienced DM, it had little info form me that I couldn't get in other books except magic items and examples of traps (and even those seem a little weak!) It didn't teach me anything about running a game or what makes a good encounter or really how to properly balance CR vs party level (because, what could teach you that? It's all look and feel to me).

But on the other side, when one of my players said he wanted to DM and was going to use a 2e module and convert it to 3e for the plot, the DMG did not teach him, the novice, how to be a DM. He would come to me for advice, sure, but he didn't want to come out and ask me to help him design encounters I would be playing through. He had a tough time creating challenges, and we often ended up dominating every battle because of it.

He had a tough time making and running larger encounters, so it was often the party vs one or two creatures, and often they were of the beatstick variety (no finesse, no tactics, just muscle).

We did not go up against many spellcasters - where I can make a 14th lvl wizard without cracking a book, he found it too time consuming, and the NPCs listed in the DMG can only be used so often before the PCs know exactly what to expect.

He had a hard time knowing what sort of creatures would work well together or what kind of magic gear was balanced for our level (after all, the minor, medium, major list ing the DMG for random treasure can easy give unbalanced treasure!).

We still had fun, sure, but the DMG was not set up to teach a novice how to play and balance the game. The new changes such as magic item level, creature level, and creature rolls goes a long way to putting up front what is balanced and challenging for a party.

Putting the responsibility on a DM to have to balance the game makes it difficult for someone to break into DMing. Some of my players have tried it, and they said they would never try it again.

 

[Reynard]

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.

I am not sure where this idea comes from. What has been suggested is that there will be clear, specific guidelines on how to build level appropriate, role specific creatures. it has even been hinted there will be a handy little chart with appropriate stats for, say, a level 3 Brute. This is far an away a morwe specific, and therefore inherently more restrictive, system than CR.

 

[xechnao]

Power in an RPG is not a zero sum game. Giving power to the players does not take it away from the DM.

Not in d&d.
Yes, RPGs are about crafting a story.
But d&d has a certain structure: it plays as a mini army that is controlled by the players and has to fight and win certain challenges. The more these challenges are defined with rules the less a DM is needed.
Threre are other RPGs where players assume other roles than the one in d&d and in a rules defined fashion. But yet, even some of them do not have a role of a DM.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Why are you ignoring the other things that have been said though. Like the idea that say, Paladins (defender) can heal?

Since skills are unbolted from class (more or less) that means you no longer MUST HAVE a rogue to find traps. A rogue will be able to find traps easier than anyone else, true, but, not having a rogue doesn't mean that you now set off every trap in the dungeon.

I am not sure where this idea comes from. What has been suggested is that there will be clear, specific guidelines on how to build level appropriate, role specific creatures. it has even been hinted there will be a handy little chart with appropriate stats for, say, a level 3 Brute. This is far an away a morwe specific, and therefore inherently more restrictive, system than CR.

No. I've really got to ask, where are you reading these things? Are you actually taking the time to read the articles or just going with what you think they say?

What has been said is that the DM will decide a fixed xp value for a given encounter and then will use that number to build an encounter. Thus, a 3000 xp encounter could be a very large variety of monsters from a single elite creature to a mob of minions.

What has also been clearly stated is that building a specific creature will no longer mean that you have to jump through the 3e hoops based on hit dice. If you want a creature with lots of hit points, you give it lots of hit points. You don't have to give it six feats and 15 levels of skill points.

Y'know, meaning that the DM has far greater flexibility and control without losing the ability to judge his creation from a baseline selection?

 

[TerraDave]

Reducing the role of DM judgement was an explicit goal of 3rd edition. It has been stated multiple times in multiple places.

I don't really get that from 4th ed. The CR system is gone, and they have promised over and over that you can be flexible with monster levels. Monster design by HD is gone, and they have promised over and over that you will have guidelines to easily make the monsters you want. All NPCs are leveled charecters is gone, and they have promised...you get the idea.

Lets take some things that we know stuff about. One: charecter roles. The great thing about this. If I wanted, I could ban clerics. I could ban warlocks. I could even ban wizards, but would have to be carefull not to throw too many mooks at the party. And the kind of unintended consequances you saw in past editions would be greatly reduced. Options and information gives me more freedom, not less (dealing with my players is another story, but that is an old story).

Lets take another: magic items. There is another thread on this page where the OP figured out how to take them out, and Mike Mearls posted to say: yes your are right. Having a more transparent and simpler system of magic items gives all kinds of freedom back to the DM.

I have plenty of issues with 4thed, but I have no fear that my "influance" as a DM will be reduced.

 

[catsclaw227]

Well, Reynard, you've been beating this particular drum for a while, but, let's look at each point in order.

<snip>

I have to disagree.

<snip>

I agree with what you two said, though I don't have the time or energy to put it to words. I can't understand why people think that some of the new 4e paradigms are shackling DMs. I have always looked at them as liberating, freeing me to spend time on SETTING and the ADVENTURE, not on monster/NPC stat grinding.

 

[Hussar]

Not in d&d.
Yes, RPGs are about crafting a story.
But d&d has a certain structure: it plays as a mini army that is controlled by the players and has to fight and win certain challenges. The more these challenges are defined with rules the less a DM is needed.
Threre are other RPGs where players assume other roles than the one in d&d and in a rules defined fashion. But yet, even some of them do not have a role of a DM.

I'm sorry xechnao, I do not understand what you are saying. Could you please explain again?

Take the rules for jumping as an example. Lacking any specific rule about jumping distance, the game once relied entirely on fiat for determining how far a PC could jump. However, assuming for a moment that our imaginary DM is consistant, any ruling he came up with should be applied equally to all PC's and NPC's from that point on.

In 3e, the rule is stated at the outset. Thus, it's not created by fiat. However, its application is EXACTLY the same. Equally applied to all PC's and NPC's. While the actual mechanic may vary from what our imaginary DM created, after he's rules, there is no real difference between the two.

In other words, all fiat did was force the DM to craft a rule. Once the rule is crafted, the DM should be equally bound to it as if it were a prescripted rule. Once the determination is made, the DM has exactly the same power in both situations.

 

[Plane Sailing]

One of the implicit design goals of 4E seems to be to reduce the influence the DM has over the game, particularly as it relates to "fun".

Funnily enough, I look at the thing

1) Tiers - aims to expand the range of things that DMs can do, helps and encourages DMs to extend the range of adventures at higher levels, keeps monsters viable over a wider range. It isn't "forcing" the DM into anything, but giving better tools to make anything he wants to do work well.

2) Quests - empowers the DM in the matter of setting story based awards rather than mechanistically giving xp for killing creatures; makes it easier to handle multiple independent quests rather than one big quest for everyone. Empowerment for the DM!

3) Roles - PC roles just helps the PCs out, but they no more have to choose complementary roles than they have to choose ftr/cleric/rogue/wizard as a 3e party. Monster roles seems like it will make it easier than ever for DMs to put together parties of mixed opponents. Empowering the DM again!

4) Magic Rings - OK, I don't know what their thinking is here, but I don't see it as limiting DM freedom one iota, since they can easily declare for their own game that anyone can use rings... and we don't know what kind of power rings have at the moment either (although it is a fair bet they are more powerful than the old 'ring of jumping').

From what I see, 4e seems to be rolling back some of the mechanistic decisions which took responsibility away from the DM in 3e, and giving more of a 'framework of guidance' within which to work.

Cheers

 

[Fifth Element]

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, to be blunt, a ridiculous example. The quest card is supposed to be a tangible reminder of the quest. Where did WotC say that once the DM gives the players a quest card, the players become the arbiters of when the quest is complete? How would a card the players (not the characters) have allow the PCs to slaughter a village to complete a quest? If the PCs are out to stop the BBEG, with or without a quest card in the hands of the players (not the characters), they still need to do it in-game, and in-character. Characters who would slaughter a village to stop the BBEG would do it, regardless of whether the players have a quest card or not.

If this is your strongest argument against the quest system, you are going to lose the argument. It is a very weak argument built upon some very weak assumptions. Why are you assuming that once a quest of "stop the BBEG" is given to the players, the DM loses all control over what happens? There's nothing to support that position.