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

[withak]

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.

If any of the players in my groups were to actually do either of these things, they wouldn't be in the group for very much longer, I don't think. CR and WBL are guidelines for a reason, and if a player wants to argue about it, tough.

 

[Henrix]

It seems to me that what WotC is doing is giving DMs a bigger and more powerful box of tools.

Tools that can take some of the work load of a DM. I don't know about you guys, but anything that makes my job easier means that I can spend more time thinking up fun stuff.

Tools that can be used by an inexperienced DMs and groups to get a better, if perhaps still cludgy, play experience. That make it a lot easier to start DMing.

Tools that can be wielded to great effect, or ignored, by more experienced DMs.

And perhaps, tools that can, if wielded by a mad-eyed fanatic, can be used to smash the game to smithereens. But the game can be smashed very easily without them as well.

Sounds pretty good to me

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

 

[ThirdWizard]

4e could, quite possibly, be the best edition yet for DMs.

 

[xechnao]

4e could, quite possibly, be the best edition yet for DMs.

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.

 

[Reynard]

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.

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?

 

[Doug McCrae]

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 removes the *necessity* to apply fiat.

It gives the DM the choice of using RAW or a houserule. Without an explicit book rule the DM has only one option - houserule.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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

 

[Counterspin]

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. D&D combat is a tactical wargame, and I want the players to understand what their odds of doing things are without needing me to step in all the time. What do we gain from the ability to change jump DCs, beyond modifiers, other than the ability to screw characters out of actions they've had no problem with in the past? Players have the right to know their character's capacities, and set DCs give them that.

 

[jaer]

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.

Wow. I like to think I do more as a DM then simply play the monsters. Even if the rules were so 'perfect' and universally defining that I never needed to arbitrarily figure out a DC for a check, I still see myself as much more than the player who plays the monsters. So long as my creative efforts flesh out the world and help to create the plot and intrigue of the game, I am more than just controlling everything that is not a PC.

In fact, I'd be slightly hurt if my players thought only of me as the rule adjudicator and monster-player. Though, I guess what I'm really reacting to is the statement that the game is about killing monsters and taking their stuff. For me, that happens...but that's not what the game is about. Board games and computer games are about killing monsters and taking their stuff. I want my role-playing gaves to have a litte more meat on their bones then just slash-and-grab.

It removes the *necessity* to apply fiat.

It gives the DM the choice of using RAW or a houserule. Without an explicit book rule the DM has only one option - houserule.

I think this was excellently put.