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

[Corinth]

The new edition is reducing the DM to being nothing more than a rules arbiter with a sideline of travelogue narrator, and that's if travel has any meaningful presence in the game.

 

[PeterWeller]

And MR was clearly complaining about the time those options took. To me that was time well spent and time enjoyed, and time that paid dividends at the table.

Actually, I think you're trying to red herring with the powers from the sample Pit Fiend. Munstrum sounded like he was complaining about all the irrelevant options that one must take into account when building a monster to 3E's formula, and the fact that those options were systemic. Under the 3E rules, if you wanted to add new powers to a Pit Fiend, for example, you would have to rejigger the entire stat block around those powers. You want him to have feat, skill, or spell like ability X? Well, you better figure out how to advance him to gain those abilities (and in the process, add a bunch of other ancillary stuff to the monster) or remove an equivalent feat, skill or spell like ability. With 4E, the system appears to be: you want him to have feat, skill or power X? Add it in. Don't worry if it upsets the number of skill points, feats, or powers the monster possesses. If it's an ability usable in combat, make sure it doesn't sway too far in effectiveness from the combat abilities he already possesses.

Now, I can see the merit in your argument that less monster powers leads to less DM options at the table, but remember, the system is no longer built around there being a systemic link between number of powers and overall power, nor is there a systemic link between in combat power and out of combat power. That means you have a lot more freedom in deciding which, if any additional powers a monster may have in combat or have out of combat.

 

[Professor Phobos]

The new edition is reducing the DM to being nothing more than a rules arbiter with a sideline of travelogue narrator, and that's if travel has any meaningful presence in the game.

And here I was saying that same thing about 3rd...

Plus, it seems like the overwhelming consensus here is that this is a good thing, as GM's can't be trusted.

 

[Grog]

The new edition is reducing the DM to being nothing more than a rules arbiter with a sideline of travelogue narrator, and that's if travel has any meaningful presence in the game.

How do comments like this add anything to the discussion?

 

[FourthBear]

The new edition is reducing the DM to being nothing more than a rules arbiter with a sideline of travelogue narrator, and that's if travel has any meaningful presence in the game.

Except for the fact that the DM chooses the environment the PCs interact with, the NPCs they encounter, the adventures they go on, the encounters they have, the challenges they must overcome and rules on the options the PCs may choose from when generating their characters and probably a bunch of other things that don't immediately leap to mind, the DM is clearly nothing more than a rules arbiter. Except for the fact that you are almost entirely wrong, you're quite right.

 

[apoptosis]

I think WotC intends us to look at its stat block more as what it can do in combat and less of a definition of what the monster is. I think the Monster-As-Definition is a part of 3e's highly definitive rule set, which will be done away with in 4e.



Not quite. If the DM is just guessing at what will happen, his control over the game is highly weakened. In other words, lets say the DM wants to create a challenging encounter to make the players scared of Monster X in the future. But, the rules make it difficult to gauge the monster's power, so the PCs wipe the floor wit it. The narrative has been maligned because of difficulty in prediction of the outcome.

We are using the term narrative in very different context. Narrative control is not about good or bad stories or scenes...it is about who is controlling details of a situation or event (in this case the narrative) the player, dictate of the rules or the DM.

DMs have been gauging challenges from the beggining of time and most games do not have CR type structures for DMs to use. They are not required and frankly I have never used them and my games work fine. This doesnt mean they are a bad tool, just for some a very unnecessary one.

 

[apoptosis]

I think we're using different definitions for both the DM-player relationship and what affecting it means. For me, personally, the DM-player relationship has much less to do with issues such as narrative control and the use (or disuse) of fiat, and much more to do with interpersonal issues. I game in what Mallus (both a DM and player of mine) called a high-trust environment, and that fact isn't changed by whatever system we use.

I agree. We were using the terms differently. Ideally your situation is the utopia of gaming, high-trust environments work the best for everyone involved.

Unfortunately you cant shape rules to control the high-trust/low-trust environment. You can have rules that work better or worse in the different types of environments.

 

[apoptosis]

The rules in D&D (all editions) have no control over what the DM selects as a monster. Therefore, in all editions, the DM has most of the narrative control, under this argument. With the exception of random encounter tables, can you tell me where the rules control what the DM selects as a monster? There are tools as to what would represent a challenging encounter, but the DM is under no restriction to use them. There is an assumption that a DM will keep his encounters within a range, but I cannot find any rule in any D&D edition to enforce it.

As a DM, I can plan trivial, easy, challenging, hard or overwhelming challenges. With a good system for predicting the likely outcomes of a given description of challenges, I can manage this reliably. This clearly grants me narrative control. I can choose an entire campaign filled with nothing but easy encounters, if so choose. A good system allows me to do this reliably.

Let us take an extreme example: a game system where the challenge system is utterly predictive. If a DM chooses a easy encounter, the PCs will always succeed with minimal resources expended. If a DM chooses an encounter that will kill one PC, that is also true. If a DM chooses an encounter that kills all party members, this will come true as well. The DM then chooses all of the encounters and how they interact with the party. How in the world can you argue that this does not give narrative control to the DM? Everything he chooses to happen comes true! I would judge it a crappy game, because DMs and players like an actual game rather than a predetermined set of encounters, but that's the result.

Absolutely in all editions of D&D the DM has had narrative control of challenges with the exception of wandering monster tables which then gives the power to the rules. 4E possibly might be giving some of this to the player...dont know the rules yet, these Quest cards *might* be a way of doing this (i just dont know enough to have any analysis of it).

But this does not have to be the case. If you set up rules that players only get XP when they are involved in challenges that impact their overall goals, that will then give the player some control over the encounters when the shape what their goals are.

Some games even give players the ability to determine what their challenges will be. Where a player can say, I want a scene with a dragon in it in this adventure and the DM basically has to supply one (i am simplifying the rules).

Challenges are just one level of narrative control. Results of challenges are another level (who gets to decide what happens if I succeed in a conflict), introduction of NPC and story elements is another.

Some games give players the ability to change the world in greater and lesser ways. They are fighting a dragon, a player can spend poiints to say..."all dragons have weak spots on their underbelly" and from then on this is a true fact of the world.

 

[FourthBear]

4E possibly might be giving some of this to the player...dont know the rules yet, these Quest cards *might* be a way of doing this (i just dont know enough to have any analysis of it).

The section on the Quest cards notes that they are composed and written by the DM when the players receive a in-game game goal. It describes what the goal of the quest it, who gave it and any other details the DM may wish to give. It's primarily note taking tool. And, yes, it does indeed resemble the quest logs of many CRPGs. It's an interesting idea for making things easier for beginning DMs, but I'm not sure if it's anything I would care to implement.

I've played a fair number of games where indeed the players have a significant amount of narrative control, by many of the various means you've noted. I can't say I've seen any indication that 4e will be using any of them in the core rules. The only things that *could* be considered close to that PCs will have Action Points, which could be used to avoid player death. It's not guaranteed that will be the way they work, but I believe that in Eberron they can be used in that fashion.

 

[Reynard]

The section on the Quest cards notes that they are composed and written by the DM when the players receive a in-game game goal. It describes what the goal of the quest it, who gave it and any other details the DM may wish to give. It's primarily note taking tool. And, yes, it does indeed resemble the quest logs of many CRPGs. It's an interesting idea for making things easier for beginning DMs, but I'm not sure if it's anything I would care to implement.

The other element of the quest system is that it is a record of rewards, both in-game and meta-game. This is the part that concerns me. perhaps the intent isn't to write those rewards in stone prior to the accomplishing of the quest goals, but it seems like that could easily happen. I think that rewards, particularly the meta-game ones like XP or bonus Action Dice, should be determined and revealed to the players after all is said and done because how they go about achieving the quest goals is more important than actually doing so. In addition, goals change all the time -- it seems like wasted effort to bother with a Quest mechanic if the goalposts move based on the circumstances of play.