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

[apoptosis]

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.

This is where I think D&D made some errors. Distance is really not important but the difficulty. They would have been better off simplifying things such that the difficulty checks were LESS granular and were just easy, medium, hard, very difficult, crazy impossible etc. I think this is true for most all types of checks.

You mentioned that Power is not a zero-sum game between DMs and Players, which I agree. It is a zero-sum game between DMs, Players and the Rules. By that I mean in the case above...

The DM could set the difficulty
THe player could set the difficulty (unusual but could involve negotiation)
The rules could set the difficulty.

For say jumping, if you have DCs based on distance then it is really the rules setting the difficulty, the player didn't get any more power out of the deal vs if the DM sets the difficulty.

Now if it is more of a negotiation (The DM says it is a hard maneuver but the player says he will jump off a horse to get more distance, or that this jump is really important to him so the DM lowers the difficulty or gets a bonus...whatever) then both the player and the DM get more power.

[Actually the way I describe it, if the rules basically call for DM vs Player negotiation then it is not longer a 2-way 0-sum game but I dont want to complicate matters]

Apop

 

[Hussar]

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.

It really isn't. At least, not after the first time. The first time, the DM has to make an adjudication. Say he decides that you must make a save vs paralysis (to use an older edition mechanic). If he then changes that for the next time I jump and decides I need to use a Dex check, then he is being inconsistent and most would agree that this is a bad thing.

So, other than the first time this comes up at the table, you don't actually gain any power by not having an explicit rule because, AFTER the first time, you have an explicit rule anyway. After the first time, I know that if I want to make a jump, I have to roll a save vs paralysis. If my character needs a six or better to make that save, then I know EXACTLY my chances of success. That this chance was written in the rules or added by the DM, it doesn't matter.

The only time it actually matters is the first time. That seems like an awful lot of waste for something that only happens once at any given table.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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.

Ah, another proxy edition war thread. Gotcha. Cya.

 

[xechnao]

This is where I think D&D made some errors. Distance is really not important but the difficulty.

In d&d which is a tactical game distance is important. You have reach, movement, spell distance and many other stuff.

 

[catsclaw227]

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.

When I was in my teens and early 20's 1e was a fun and effective game. But as I played more and was exposed to more varied role-playing games and styles, I found that 1e was loaded with clunky mechanics (arbitrary save mechanics, thief skills, inverted AC/hit mechanics, etc), rules that made no sense (racial level maximums), and wildly varied subsystems.

3e was a gynormous step in the right direction, but in some ways it over codified things. 4e is taking the good of 3e and adding in some flexibility for DMs.

And, in my experience, DM/GM is synonymous with "Storyteller", "Judge", and "Referee" equally.

 

[Reynard]

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.

We're definitely havinga communication error on this subject and I think it has to do with how we are reading each other's terminology. When I said you still needed a "trap remover" i didn't mean "a trap remover class", I meant simply a character that is capable of "removing traps". In other words, just becasue you eliminate the class doesn't mean you eliminate the role.

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

You can make as many new monsters as you want, so long as their abilities fall within the appropriate range. Remember, I am not talking about the inability for DMs to ignore or go beyond rules, I am talking about the reduction of DM power -- perhaps authority is a better term? -- in doing so by arming the players with a codified ruleset that tells the players what is or is not appropriate based on their level and other details. 3E's wealth-by-level and CR systems are perfect examples of this. If a player adds up all the value of his magic items/other gear and comes up short with respect to WBL, or the party gets creamed by a creature they look up in the MM and see it has a too-high CR, the rules of the game transfer to them the authority to argue. That's why I said it is important to clearly communicate differences between the written rules and the DM's method of running the game in order to head off these kinds of conflicts.

Mostly, it is a "culture" thing. IME, the more heavily codified the rules are and the more explicit issues of "balance" are made in the game, the less like an art and more like a science DMing becomes.

 

[Reynard]

Ah, another proxy edition war thread. Gotcha. Cya.

You are certainly welcome to be dismissive, but I fail to see why discussing a new edition of D&D with respect to its previous editions would be considered verboten. After all, it isn't a "new game". It isn't "Point of Light: WotC's New Fantasy RPG". It is D&D and should be examined and judged as D&D, in light of D&D's 30+ years of history and legacy.

 

[apoptosis]

This is where I think D&D made some errors. Distance is really not important but the difficulty.

In d&d which is a tactical game distance is important. You have reach, movement, spell distance and many other stuff.

But many things in D&D are changing (for instance it was also more of a strategy game, resource management being a strategic aspect vs a tactical one).

I say D&D would be better off lessening this dependency on mechanical-based tactics (which is what you are really talking about) while still allowing for narrative-based tactics.

The advantage to this is that it allows greater creativity from the players and the DM, is more malleable to the situation (where the rules might not be particularly realistic by any stretch of the imagination) and doesnt bogg down the game.

 

[Dausuul]

Honestly, any DM who is good enough not to need these restrictions and guidelines will know how and when to ignore the restrictions and guidelines. Quest Cards in particular are a useful aid to the inexperienced and an amusing but impractical idea to veterans.

Well said. All this stuff is clearly designed to make life easier for novice DMs. Indeed, I think it will make life easier for experienced DMs too. You can still apply DM fiat to your heart's content, but you're no longer required to do so in so many areas.

 

[xechnao]

It really isn't.

Ruling the balance of things regarding known situations does not need a judge if all situations are known. The more you define situations by the rules the less you need one to judge them. Since d&d is so limited in scope since it enforces by its rules to follow known situations to play it (kill monsters and take their stuff), it eliminates the need of a judge or DM.