Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 4013645" data-attributes="member: 467">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.</blockquote>

Verification