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

[Felon]

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". Now, I say "implicit" because this goal is wholly unatainable so long as there is a DM at all. Even so, there are some design decisions that can be made -- and appear to have been made -- that can attempt to ensure a more standardized experience -- a certain quality and minimum quantity of fun, if you will -- for the players.

I was really hoping you could support this position using stronger examples.

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.

It's just a tool for the DM to use as he sees fit. You're not explaining how this reduces DM influence. You use the word "rigidly", but from what we've seen, there aren't any hard caps or limits that can be defined as 'rigid". If you want to throw an encounter that's too easy or pure murder, you still can.

Quests: While "Quest Cards" may be optioonal, it seems that Quests themselves are an inherent part of the rules for adventure design. What this does is clearly lay out the goals and rewards for achieving those goals at the beginning of play, thereby limiting or even eliminating DM interpretation of the players' performance as a matter of what rewards are gained.

???
If the DM is creating the quest, then he's setting the goals and deciding when they're accomplished and how well. Moreover, there's no indication that DM's can't allot rewards outside of the quest system.

Roles: PC roles, particularly in the sense of "minimum competency" in the role's specific field, in or out of combat, means that a party composed of the proper roles will always have the tools necessary to overcome a challenge. that is to say, if the DM also uses roles for monsters and other kinds of challenges, as has been suggested, the PCs are by default always equipped to meet the challenges head on (whatever that may mean for a particular challenge).

OK, where are you going with this? Players shouldn't be equipped to meet challenges?

I think your conclusion is a little hasty. Just because the party has a "leader" doesn't mean they automatically have the cure for every problem a leader might conceivably be able to resolve.

Magic Rings: This is a specific example of a general attitude toward codifying certain aspects of the game that were once open to DM interpretation and decision making. While all editions of the game have lobbied the DM to avoid giving PCs inordinately powerful and/or numerous items, and 3E went so far as to create quantified guidelines as to what this meant, 4E is the first edition to actively prohibit lower level PCs from using "inappropriate" iems (in this case, rings).

No radical new innovations here. There have always been magic items that were restricted in who could use them.

 

[FourthBear]

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.

In what way is it more specific than the current system? It gives ranges of suggested numbers, but does not restrict you in the way that the monster or NPC rules for creation in 3e does. Let's see all the ways I can think off the top of my head that the old rules restricted you that the new ones do not:

1) No formulaic relationship of hit dice to feats or skills
2) No relationship between creature "type" and hit die type, feats, skills and associated type properties.
3) Encouragement of the DM to simply assign the appropriate powers to an opponent, without having to find this ability and its prerequisites in relation to a PC style build.
4) NPCs can be generated without concern for the relationship between their combat prowess and the skills that would an appropriate challenge.

I cannot imagine how you can conclude that the 3e system with PC style generation could possibly be *less* restrictive than a system that notes suggested level values for stats and powers, but leaves the rest to the desired encounter.

 

[S'mon]

As a DM, I say:

"They may take my Viking Hat, but they'll never take my FREEDOM!!!"

 

[Reynard]

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.

But you haven't eliminated anything -- even in your example, you still have a "trap remover".

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?

Matthew Sernett had a lot to say about monsters:
"We are not going back to a 1st or 2nd edition means of creating monsters. Those editions had no standards for monster design. Everyone just eyeballed it and hoped it was fair and fun (often it wasn't).

Third edition gives the illusion of fairness by giving you formulas to rely on, but you can use all the formulas perfectly and easily end up with an unfair or unfun monster. Advancing monsters by hit dice is a great example. Depending on its type and ability scores, the CR raise you give it according to the formulas might work out okay, but just as often the monster ends up too tough for its CR or too weak.

CR is often just a shot in the dark. We usually get it right, but I'm betting you can think of some critters that are way out of their weight class.

For each level of play we're devising a range of numbers for monsters that provide fairness and fun. Those numbers are based on what the PCs bring to the fight in terms of their potency and defenses, and upon the general role in the fight a monster is likely to be in.

Thus, the ogre, who is most likely to be the tough brute in melee, uses the “brute” range of numbers for its level. The numbers in that range and their distribution are designed to be fair and fun in a fight while at the same time allowing the artillery monster (like maybe a gnoll archer) of the same level to feel different but still be fair and fun. Of course, an ogre can chuck spears and that gnoll archer can charge up and hit you, but the numbers are devised in a fashion to produce great results when the monsters are used how people normally would use them. The ogre that’s in your face has more hit points than the gnoll archer that is using the ogre as a shield.

Changing a monster will be easier and more fair that ever. Rather than jumping through hoops and doing a lot of math with uncertain results, you can just look at the numbers for where you want to be and put the monster there. You might get there by adding a class, by "advancing" a monster, by adding a template, or some combination. The key is that you'll know where you need to get to in order to make the monster work right."

 

[xechnao]

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.

Knowing rules for distance that are factors for choices of risk could only matter where you could measure this distance and this risk: in our case that is a tactical fighting game. Adding more strict rules regarding not only tactical risks but also the tactical set-up (the literal description) eliminates the need of a DM in d&d.

 

[FourthBear]

But you haven't eliminated anything -- even in your example, you still have a "trap remover".

Yes, but by allowing other classes beyond rogue to act as a trap remover, you have clearly made the system *more* flexible, not less. What this has to do with DM control over the game is unclear.

 

[Dragonblade]

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.

EXACTLY. And this is why I'm so pro-4e right now.

 

[Hussar]

Knowing rules for distance that are factors for choices of risk could only matter where you could measure this distance and this risk: in our case that is a tactical fighting game. Adding more strict rules regarding not only tactical risks but also the tactical set-up (the literal description) eliminates the need of a DM in d&d.

The only difference between a DM's fiat rule and an explicit rule would occur in the first instance where someone tried to jump. After that first instance, everyone at the table would know how the rules work and what their chances are. The only thing you gain is an "aha gotcha" moment the first time the rule is devised through fiat. Nothing else.

But you haven't eliminated anything -- even in your example, you still have a "trap remover".

That's the second time people have completely misread what I've said in this thread. Is there some fundamental flaw in my language capabilities?

You DO NOT NEED a "trap remover" when everyone is capable of removing a trap. However, if you want to play "trap remover" you can. And you'll be better at it than everyone else.

Instead of a simple binary - you do or you don't - now you have a range of choices, from "well, no one's an expert, but we can try" to "MacGyver".

In your quote, you highlight the arguments that defeat your point. He states clearly that there is a RANGE of numbers that make up its level. That's always been true. You don't have 1000 hp creatures that are meant to fight 1st level characters.

What in that quote limits your ability to make new monsters?

 

[Reynard]

1) No formulaic relationship of hit dice to feats or skills
2) No relationship between creature "type" and hit die type, feats, skills and associated type properties.

No, just role and level.

3) Encouragement of the DM to simply assign the appropriate powers to an opponent, without having to find this ability and its prerequisites in relation to a PC style build.

This is a time saver, to be sure, and a useful tool in that context.

4) NPCs can be generated without concern for the relationship between their combat prowess and the skills that would an appropriate challenge.

This is also a useful tool. I never said there was nothing good about 4e.

I cannot imagine how you can conclude that the 3e system with PC style generation could possibly be *less* restrictive than a system that notes suggested level values for stats and powers, but leaves the rest to the desired encounter.

Nor did I suggest that 3E was perfect. In fact, I gave an example of how 3E's assumptions and rules could create the same issues as those I see 4E creating.

I am of the opinion that 1e, and to a lesser extent 2e, were much more fun and effective games, in no small part because of the vast amount of combined power and responsibility granted to the DM. If there's a euphamism for DM/GM I think is least appropriate, it's "Storyteller" and if there's a most appropriate one, it is "Judge". What I think lots of hard coded rules does is make the DM a "Referee" with more responsibilities than powers.

 

[xechnao]

The only difference between a DM's fiat rule and an explicit rule would occur in the first instance where someone tried to jump. After that first instance, everyone at the table would know how the rules work and what their chances are. The only thing you gain is an "aha gotcha" moment the first time the rule is devised through fiat. Nothing else.

No. The question is how much this jumping action is important to the player character. With explicit tactical balanced rules you allready know. Without them it is up to you and the DM.