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

[Counterspin]

Depends on the kind of game I'm running. My current campaign is maybe 25% combat by playtime. I've run campaigns where it's more like 90%. And regardless, I like more rules, because I feel that as a combat system, there should be very little I need to adjudicate. I don't want to spend time in combat making up distance DCs, I want to spend it describing the action or moving on to the next round. Player decision making is the meat of combat, and I want to make that take center stage. Let them hang themselves with the rope you gave them

 

[gizmo33]

Actually, it does, at least in the context of the assumed social contract when sitting down at the table. That assumed contract is written in the rules of the game and is modified by clear communication of changes from the rules. Players have every right to be upset at a 3.x DM that consistenly ignores the stated CR and wealth-by-level (for example) guidelines without communicating that to the players and reaching an agreement with the players on the subject.

I would agree as far as rules in the players handbook go. I don't think that either wealth "guidelines" or CR rules count. In fact, is the CR stuff even a rule? The older versions of DnD told you how many xp you got for killing a monster, and I don't see the CR rules as doing much more than that. The guidelines with CR say something like "hey, keep in mind that CR equates to power, so here's some expected results if you attack PCs with monsters outside of their challenge rating". I don't see "informative" as being the same thing as "restrictive".

For example, the Monster Manual doesn't say that orcs are allergic to healing potions. It also doesn't mention that in the DMG under the entry for a potion of cure light wounds. However, I feel (and in practice, have had) every right to make such a rule for my campaign. Of course the "good DMing" guidelines apply to how to manage PC access to such information in the game.

So I don't think that players "have every right" to be upset about what the DM chooses to follow out of their DM Guide. IMO it's the players job to play the game. Worry about how you're going to survive the encounters and what you're going to do. It's fair that you have a reasonable assessment of your climbing skill for example, so rule changes in those areas should be communicated up-front. Wealth, monsters, and all of that are features of the campaign world, not your character, and not entitlements of your character implicit in the way DnD works.

 

[Reynard]

So I don't think that players "have every right" to be upset about what the DM chooses to follow out of their DM Guide. IMO it's the players job to play the game. Worry about how you're going to survive the encounters and what you're going to do. It's fair that you have a reasonable assessment of your climbing skill for example, so rule changes in those areas should be communicated up-front. Wealth, monsters, and all of that are features of the campaign world, not your character, and not entitlements of your character implicit in the way DnD works.

For the record, I agree with you. However, my experience is such that players do read the DMG and the MM and some players believe that the DM is "cheating" if he deviates from those rules. This isn't entirely unjustified, as some players build characters to interact with the game through the rules and rules changes affect their characters directly.

 

[Reynard]

...which is no different from a DM deciding what challenges (monsters, traps, etc) the characters will face.

True.

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.

If that is in fact true, please direct me toward the appropriate posting. the way the rules were described in the section I previously quoted was highly suggestive of "hard limits" (within a range) for encounter design.

 

[Spell]

How many "horrible DM stories" have we all heard around the internet?

for every one of them, you can probably find one or more "horrible player story".
hell, there is an issue of knights of the dinner table put out EVERY MONTH, full of jokes about horrible players!

so, what's the next step? marginalise the role of the players?

 

[Celebrim]

The new rules aren't for DM's.

They are for software designers.

The goal of these rules isn't to reduce DM participation, per se. The goal of these rules is to minimize the difference between a computer arbitrated experience and a player arbitrated experience, and to do that requires minimizing DM participation as a consequence.

I know a requirements document when I see one.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

The new rules aren't for DM's.

They are for software designers.

The goal of these rules isn't to reduce DM participation, per se. The goal of these rules is to minimize the difference between a computer arbitrated experience and a player arbitrated experience, and to do that requires minimizing DM participation as a consequence.

I know a requirements document when I see one.

There was an article back in 2000 that said the exact same thing about 3E.

 

[Spell]

I disagree with this premise. For one, you assume that rules somehow benefit the player to the detriment of the DM. Can you give an example please? What rules exist that hurt the DM but help the players?

well, to be fair, you have to compare apples to apples.

you are saying that the DM-proofing angle with which the rules are written is good, because it makes easier for inexperienced DMs to jump into the game.

it totally agree with you.

on the other hand, consider what happens to novice players. they don't have years of experience with older editions of the game, or with other games. all they know is that CR1 (for example) means that that monster should consume 1/4 of the resources of every party member when encountered, and it's considered a fair challenge for a group of 4 characters of 1st level.

sure, there are indications that you are welcomed to mix and match the CR level, but i think that, to some extent, that indication is irrelevant.

the message that the average newbie will get, i think, is that if you are putting a CR3 monster against the 4 1st-level PC party, you are being a sadistic "BAD DM!!!!". there is also some implication that the rules are there to somewhat defend the players from DM fiat, which colours the role of the DM in a negative light and makes you look like an ogre when you want to enforce rule 0 for whatever reason.

these perceptions are obviously wrong, and no group of veteran players in their right mind will read the rules with that in mind. but novice players might.

and why shouldn't they? there is a big talk about how D&D is trying to get WoW players right now. well, in WoW you side with your friend to fight the monster. from the little i know about the game, there is no player commanding the monsters or the NPCs. you are a player, you have your character, you kill the monsters and interact with other characters. end of the story.

now you start playing D&D and there is a guy running the monsters... is it really that difficult to understand how a certain way to present the rules might be presenting the DM in a bad light? after all, he's running the antagonists... makes sense that he's "evil" and wants to "win" and that joe the player needs rules to defend his characters from him.



to me, that's the main problem of the rules as they are presented now. i might be wrong, but there are many many many other way to make the job of a DM much simpler: makes the system rule lighter, for example.
or, if you don't want to, but at the same time you don't want to risk that the DM is assumed to be "the enemy", then repeat ad nauseam that he is free to change the assumptions in his campaign, that you might want to check with him to see what feats you are allowed to take, or what spells, that cohoperation with him is a good thing for everyone, and so on.

just sticking rule 0 in the introduction, to me sounds like saying: "oh, yes, then there is this rule, but we don't really use it that much, and we just mention it because some dude has to DM, after all..."

 

[spunky_mutters]

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?

Hell no. There was no shortage of rules in previous editions that were both extensive and explicit, over which I applied fiat.

Having more extensive and explicit systems in the base ruleset does is create a baseline that makes playing with others require less initial discussion. As long as my group knows and agrees with how I use my fiat, we're going to be fine. If they don't, we'll have problems. In any edition.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I agree that the CR system and wealth-by-level guidelines create certain expectations for 3e players. That's a good thing, imo, because if the game does adhere to those guidelines, less communication is required at setup time.

Only a DM who has failed to communicate or miscommunicated his game at the start will get bitten on the ass. That's a good thing, too.

No DM is perfect. This 'good DM' and 'bad DM' suggests that all DMs either make 100% good decisions or 100% bad, which is nonsense of course. Even the best DM can make mistakes. Here the CR system can serve another function as an extra level of checks.