D&D 4E 4E: DM-proofing the game

Reynard said:
Serious question: you don't think that an increase in the quantity and explictness of the rules inhibits the DM's ability to apply fiat?

It depends on the rules in question. Rules that are used by the players, yes. When 3E added social skills, DMs who didn't want to use those skills had to explicitly house-rule them away, and players only have so much conceptual space in their brains for house-ruling. However, most of the rules/guidelines you cite don't fall into that space.

Monster tiers are firmly in DM-only territory. If my players run into a monster that's way out of their tier, that's my business and my decision, and I will frankly laugh at any player who complains that they shouldn't meet stuff that isn't in their tier. (Now, if I forced them to fight it and get slaughtered, or tricked them into engaging it, they'd have a legitimate complaint; but in that case the complaint is me inflicting arbitrary death on the PCs, which has nothing to do with the rules.)

Quest cards are an option which the DM can choose to use. Nobody says you have to use it if you don't like it. Personally, I'm still on the fence on this one.

PC roles have nothing to do with the DM at all. They're just a guide for players to help build an effective party.

Magic rings are the only one of these examples that would actually require an explicit house rule. And that's not much of a house rule.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

xechnao said:
When a game that is about killing mosters and taking their stuff becomes perfect regarding its rules it does not need a DM anymore. Just another player that plays the monsters.

That depends on your definition of "perfect" I suppose.
 

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
I disagree with the idea of "taking powers from the GM and giving it to the players" on the basis that it seems to assume that the GM is in a adversial role to the players. But he is not.

The NPCs he controlls are in adversity to the characters the players control.
That might seem like a tiny difference, but it's an important one.


In relation to encounter & monster design:
If anything at all, he is a "trainer" - he challenges the players to do their best, but he avoids demanding too much of them.

The rules are there to gauge whether the things you puts too much demand on your players, to avoid sitautions where, no matter how clever the players are, their characters can't succeed. Or to determine that even if the players don't do anything smart, their characters can't really fail.

I would counter that a certain degree of competition and friction between players and the DM actually improves the game. Obviously, this is a playstyle issue and therefore subject to no objective measure, but I don't see RPGs in general or D&D as "storytelling" games. That a story -- or many stories, in fact -- may arise organically from play is an added benefit that makes the experience more worthwhile, but at its heart D&D isn't particularly good at telling stories.

Now, my premise is that a higher "density" of rules reduces GM fiat based on the idea that players who are inclined to point to their rule books will have more, more specific things to point to. I know some people disagree with me on that basic premise, and I appreciate that, but humor me for a sec. Fiat is what allows a good DM the ability to craft an adventure or campaign for his very specific set of players. To go back to my original list of examples/evidence for my premise:

Part of the Des&Dev discussion regarding monsters covered random encounters/wandering monsters and how that artifact of play was too random and too difficult and led away from fun, so "wandering monsters" are wrapped up in the level/role/tier poaradigm of 4E monster/encounter rules. But wandering monsters and random encounters (which are actually two different things, but that's an issue for another thread) as they have existed previously are a province of explicit DM fiat that allows the DM to establish tone, mood and setting. If going out into the wilds results in more owlbears athan ogres, that says something about the world. If there's a static chance, not related to party level, of running in to a dragon, that too says something about the world (and the PCs' place in it).

Quests are something that aren't really necessary -- or at least, mechanics wrapped up in quests are wholly unnecessary. Assuming that one uses the Quest mechanic as it was presented -- determine goal, determine rewards, record information and pass that information along to players -- it inhibits the DM's judgement by fiat by asking him to both determine what value a particular action the PCs will take has, before the PCs take that action, and then promissing rewards to the PCs for taking that action. Fiat, on the other hand, allows the DM freedom to assess the PCs actions throughout and determine what an appropriate reward is taking the entirety of the circumstances into account.

PC Roles, especially as they relate to combat and adventuring, are designed to enforce a particular style of play through ensuring that all characters fit neatly into a category. The problem is that playstyle, as it relates to both players and DMs, is a highly variable thing and attempting to hardcode it into something as fundamental as character roles is both mechanically restrictive and limiting from a creative perspective -- especially when you consider that "archetypes" has been replaced by Combat Roles. 1E had few rules for character capabilities outside of combat, so it was easier for the DM, by fiat, to allow the fighter characterto be a woodsman type (for example). in 2E, some loose rules were added (NWPs) that while still subject to fiat regarding when a NWP came into play still required more consideration of rules to adjudicate. Of course, integrating the skills system with the class system in 3E only exacerbated the problem, and that seems to be the course 4E is continuing on (with the change that the degree to which a character is or isn't capable of characteristics outside of his role is less in the players hands and more in the rules' hands).

"Magic rings" is just one of those thinsg that begs to be houseruled so it has no real reason to exist in the first place. Only the DM can determine what an appropriate level of magic or treasure is for his group, based on the players as people and the circumstances of the game. Soemthing like the "rings" rule is so likely to be subject to change to fit the desires of any particular group that it only exists as a limitation and one so easily bypassed that it doesn't need to be written at all.
 

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.
Er? I don't see how "3rd level" monsters is any more or less rigid than "CR 3" monsters. All they've done is make the verbiage the same as that which describes relative PC power ("I'm a 3rd level Wizard") and (now) magical items. That's called consistency, not rigidity.

And I'm not sure how the "tiered monsters" thing supports your contention at all. The introduction of minions, elite and solo monsters at every level seems to drastically increase the flexibility of monster and encounter design. The DM has way more toys to play with, and all the math is worked out ahead of time. That's a good thing.

Quests: While "Quest Cards" may be optioona [sic], 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.
What? The "Quest Cards" are just a to-do list. They're a way to keep things organized. I've been using a system like them for years (as PC and DM) and they're tremendously helpful. As for your contention that they somehow reduce a DM's control over his game, I can assure you from experience that this contention is total bunk. I can write whatever I want on the card - but only stuff the DM has confirmed is "true" counts for anything, just like always.

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).
Roles and niche protection are an inherent part of ANY game that uses class-based character design. They've been fundamental to D&D since EGG released the original book, just not as explicitly defined as before.

And who said the PC's will always have all the Roles covered, or that the Fighter won't be out of commission for some reason? The only thing Roles do is help the DM smartly judge what his group is and is not capable of handling. It's spelled out in crayon that "If you don't have a Defender, this is what you're more vulnerable to." but this is a Good Thing(TM). It means I'm that much better able to judge what my group can handle, and what's going to result in a TPK.

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).
Good luck using a Scroll with a 7th level spell when you're a 3rd level 3E Sorcerer. While you're at it, try casting a Fireball when you're 2nd level. Or taking the Archmage PrC at 4th.

D&D has had level requirements for things forever. Just because this is the first time (I can think of) that it's applied to a non-consumable magical item hardly means it's a new concept.

Besides, you have no way of knowing what Rings are capable of in 4E. Once you've actually seen the system you can intelligently comment on whether their level-cap rule is a good idea or not.

In general, the more codified a set of rules is and the more specific the guidelines for a greater number of aspects of play, the fewer aspects remain in the hands of the DM.
The more codified, transparent and sensible the rules are, the easier it is for the DM to think intelligently about this game and make informed decisions as to what to leave as is and what to house rule.

With fewer gaps, there's then less Fiat.
When it comes to rules (the number that result in game balance), fiat is over-rated. Mearls et. al. have way more time and resources than I do to figure out what's balanced. The more tools they give me, the more time they save me, the better. I can spend my time on plots, NPC's motivations, world design, etc.

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.
I think it does do this. By drawing back the curtain and showing the inner workings of the game that were hidden in 3E, I have more power and responsibility.

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 utterly disagree. Where you see control I see structured thought and intelligent guidance. I already can tell, from what limited previews we have seen, that 4E will be much, much more under my control than 3E ever was.
 

Counterspin said:
Xechnao - Presuming of course, that you suffer some sort of terrible brain aneurysm and forget NPC interaction, plot, dungeon building and other things which are vitally important to the game.

If d&d was a game vitally about what you are saying it would better have one combat rule:
The DC to win this combat is X: roll the dice and lets see if you succeed or fail.
Instead what my brain remembers is the dozens of books filled with rules regarding combat.

But better answer me this. How much time does combat take of your sessions?
10%, 20%, 50% or 90% ??

And by saying combat I am not talking about actual fighting only, but whatever adds to this. Magic item optimization, combat spell selection, character development-optimization (choice of feats) and many, many other stuff.
 

Reynard said:
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".

The role of the DM is to facilitate (and participate in) the fun of the Players. Having a rules set that implicitly seeks to make the experience more fun for the players is having a rules set that is implicitly seeking to make the DM's job easier, and more fun.

You use the word "influence" but I think you are more concerned about control, and so I think you would hate me as a player - my DMs have learnt that having anything planned in detail is a bad plan. I either take an entirely different (and entirely character driven) route, or I find some previously unforseen solution that circumvents 90% of the planning (as I did last Friday to my L5R GM).

This is where those things you are railing against become really good DM tools.

Through RP the players take a radically different aproach to the quest to what you originally planned - the new generic monster stat blocks (if they exist) mean in moments you can have new encounters if needed. The Quest system means that you already know what the characters are trying to do and how much XP they are going to get if they do it. The class Roles means that the Players have more control over their characters abilities and options without gutting the parties mechanical effectiveness - better RP withour mechanical interference = more fun for my players (and me as a player or DM).

As to the Quest system...

Quests consist of a few basic parts;
- A Quest Giver
- The Quest Locations
- The Quest Targets
- oh and the PC(s)

The Quest Giver is that situation that triggers the PCs to undertake the quest, it usualy involves the PCs establishing the task to be done and what (if any) IC rewards will be given (treasure, glory/fame, favors, poltical power etc etc). In a computer game the game will then store away somewhere (a Journal or Quest Log typically) the Quests you have agreed to undertake and what IC reward you are getting - this is the role of the suggested Quest Card.

The Quest Locations are those places you must go to complete the quest. Players never have to go directly from one place to another, and clever PCs might find ways to circumvent going to certain locations even. At least 2 quest locations are always known to the PC - where the Giver is and where the First, and Last Targets will be.

The Quest Targets are the things (objects, places, monsters, people) that the PCs must interact with to complete the quest. The Quest Giver is often the last Quest Target. There may be many quest targets, there might only be one. It all depends on the complexity of the quest. The Players need to know when they have achieved certain quest targets of course.

Here's a simple (and typical) quest;
The PCs enter a bar (Location), the Barkeep (Quest Giver) sees their weapons, or otherwise knows them to be adventurous. He asks them if they can help with the rat problem in his basement (Location) and offers them 1gp for each rat tail the PCs bring him. (The reward and the first and second targets).

Now even if the PCs take the Quest there is nothing that requires them in this example to go immediately down stairs and start hunting rats. They can do as they please still, but the quest is still there in the background. To get verisimilitude, if the PCs leave it to long you might have them hear that some other group finished the quest for them - sorry missed out folks. (You can bet they will not go wandering off away from the next quest if this happens ;))

But nothing about this arrangemet is new - its the way Modules and DMs have been doing things for ages, its just got better scaffolding for DMs - its apparently made explicit which means overall design going to be better and easier for DMs. There is nothing new here except for people protesting about someone making it clear what other people have known and done for a long time.
 

Doug McCrae said:
Reynard, do you think the recommended level range on the covers of the old 1e modules inhibited the DM's power?

No because the choice of module, if any, is a function of the combined power and responsibility of the DM and is, essentially, a choice by fiat.
 

Reynard said:
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.
I can see where you're coming from, but it sounds to me like the main reduction in power or authority is that the DM is expected to say to the players first that he intends to run a low-treasure or high combat difficulty game to the players first instead of just springing it on them.

Although I didn't play much 1st edition, my understanding is that there always was a measure of how difficult a monster encounter was, either through hit dice or XP value, so I'm not sure there ever was a time when the players didn't have the authority to argue that a given encounter was too tough. So I can't really agree that this is something in 3rd/4th edition that takes power away from the DM.

I do somewhat agree that the wealth-by-level system takes some power away, although it does so in order to make the game easier for everybody to play. In 2nd edition and earlier, if a new player joined, it was completely up to the DM as to how much money or equipment he had. He might give the PC as much equipment as the other players, give the new player less, or none or whatever. Now, the most likely answer is that he'll give the new player the amount that the table says is appropriate. This is generally an easier solution, especially if it's not easy to add up the GP value of the other PCs' equipment (due to custom items, or other rewards not found in an equipment table.)

The thing is that while the new systems do reduce the power of the DM to just make up numbers and say that they're final, that kind of power is only maintained in a vacuum. You could get the same kind of power just by never letting the players see the monster manual or DMG. In addition, while the DM was free to say that it's perfectly appropriate for a 2nd level PC to have a vorpral sword or fight a purple worm, players with experience in other games or as DMs themselves would know that's false.

In the end, all of the DMs power in a game is dependent on the will of the players to play his game. While codifying some of the information in 3rd and 4th edition reduces the DMs ability to just make stuff up, it also helps him keep a challenging game going by reducing his chances of making disastrous mistakes. I think the powers gained by increasing the DMs knowledge greatly outweigh the power lost in the DMs ability to rule by fiat.
 

Reynard said:
No because the choice of module, if any, is a function of the combined power and responsibility of the DM and is, essentially, a choice by fiat.
...which is no different from a DM deciding what challenges (monsters, traps, etc) the characters will face. You seem to be holding on to the mistaken impression that according to the rules, 3rd-level characters are only supposed to fight 3rd-level monsters (or CR 3 monsters). This is bunk and has been debunked several times in the thread.

How is choosing a module to run any different from choosing specific monsters to fight or specific challenges to overcome? The DM is supposed to choose challenges from a range of possibilities. WotC will apparently provides recommendations on what range of difficulty they think best suits characters of a particular level. The DM then is free to choose from that range, or go beyond it, as he sees fit.
 

Inhibit is probably the wrong world. Unless the online gaming table from DDI enforces the rules the DM is free to do what he pleases.

The question is how much effort (both writing and thinking) it takes for the DM to use rule 0.
And imo the effort is quite low for combat encounters as the primary goal of most rules seems to be to ensure balance and make encounters easy to run/plan.
Of course that comes with the downside that other parts of the game might require quite a lot effort because the streamlined rules don't address this issue.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top