D&D 4E 4e - Opportunity for DMs to Take Your Power Back

Sundragon2012

First Post
Hello,

Note, this thread is NOT about DMs abusing players, that is not the kind of power I'm referring to, so lets not derail this with an argument that is not being made or implied.

In the 24yrs I have been a DM/GM I have seen the evolution of dungeonmastering behavior from being Tomb of Horrors Rat Bastard DM to being Soft, Squishy Spineless DM. Maybe I shouldn't call this evolution because there is the idea that evolution is about objective improvement or betterment. However, I have decided to call it evolution in the real sense of adaptation to environment ie. adaptation to the game of D&D.

Over the last weeks I have seen a lot of angst and anger by DMs who feel that the changes to the core millieu will somehow make D&D other than D&D, that removing the Great Wheel Cosmology, that changing the backstory of demons and devils, that disagreeable names of magical orders in the 4e PHB, that the succubus will become a devil and the erinyes will become more like the mythic Fury, that tieflings will be in the PHB, etc....will destroy D&D for them. Somehow these changes will destroy their campaigns.

AD&D suffered early on from EGG's idea that there was one true way to play D&D but we've gotten away from that...or have we? In the 3e era tons of optional splat material was released that somehow magically got treated as core by DMs who didn't have the nerve to "just say no" to things that were mechanically broken or things that didn't fit in their games. The initially reasonable mantra of "Options not restrictions" became the battlecry cry of players who honestly believed that a DM who wouldn't let them have anything they wanted from whatever splatbook du jour was just produced was "denying them the fullness of the D&D experience." Yeah I actually saw that written and up to that point had never heard of such a thing in all my years of gaming.

WoTC made a clear marketing decision based on financial realities to market less to DMs and more to players with 3e and 3.5. This made financial sense because players dramatically outnumber DMs. This decision was not, however, about the benefits or damage that this philosophy could cause in any given DMs campaign. The empower the players idea was intimately tied to this marketing strategy. Empowering the players translates into players spending more money on splatbooks under the guise of greater choice. Oh yeah, it engendered choice to the point where it seemed to term DMs into jellyfish.

DMs need to resume their rules as rules arbiters, setting builders, adventure creators and storytellers. The changes 4e is bringing about will put many DMs who slavishly followed core idea in a tough position, but no tougher than the position non-core DMs have been in since the game began. I have long ago accepted that Jams Wyatt, Rich Baker, Monte Cook, etc. don't share my complete vision of the ideal game or game world. C'est la vie. It is what it is.

My job as DM is to sift for the diamonds in the dung (and my dung may be your diamonds) and not to sit on my rump waiting to be spoon fed other DMs (ie. game designers) visions of good fantasy. The recent bruhaha about Frost Giants not being included in MM1 is indicative of the mindset of many DMs unfortunately in that they feel frustrated that a monster they wanted to use isn't going to be in the new book. Well, what I say to that is...Be a DM and either adapt an existing giant in the MM1 or create one whole cloth. That solves the problem.

I completely understand that mechanical changes are harder to make and I can't speak on them because I know as little as anyone else regarding the number of changes 4e wil bring. In regards to new 4e lore, if you don't like certain things as they are going to appear in the 4e lore, change it. If you want you succubi to be demons make them demons, what the core says on this is irrelevant to your game (unless you are a PS DM then I can sympathize). If you want the Great Wheel in your game, stick in the Astral Sea. If you want modrons in your game write them up as needed for your PCs to encounter. If you want Grazz't to be the crossdressing, nose-picking, jig dancing lord of the 10th layer of Hell...do it.

If you don't want a certain "core" class or race in your game, forbid it. You know your setting and what will fit. If your setting's continuity doesn't allow for tieflings, then : poof : they don't exist and never have. Core is NOTHING more than the baseline of what you NEED to play the game. At its heart, core is only the mechanics and not the classes, races or lore. You can create entirely new classes, races and lore and still be as legitimately DMing D&D as the guy next door who insists that only what is in the PHB, DMG and MM enter his game.

It isn't WoTC's job to maintain the feel and integrity of your game. Their job is to come up with shiny new products that may or may not suit your campaign. It is YOUR job to maintain the integrity of your campaign and setting. It isn't your player's job either. Good players do care about the setting they play in and won't request things that will screw with it. However many don't think along those lines because it isn't their job to do so, its yours.

Empower yourself, be a DM. Decide, create arbitrate.....that is why your role at the table even exists. Maybe instead of doomsday, 4e is the chance to start fresh as a DM. Why not?

As always, feel free to discuss.



Sundragon
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Sundragon2012 said:
...4e is the chance to start fresh as a DM. Why not?

Because for some, the 4e rules as presented will "destroy their campaigns". My campaign is relatively new; I would prefer to convert the campaign, if possible. Yet from what I have seen, it would be nigh impossible to run my game, set entirely underwater in the World of Greyhawk with monster races for PCs, a bard as the BBEG, and loads of flavor from 3e/3.5e supplements, using the initial 4e releases.

So, instead of creating a boatload of house rules from the get-go, why not stick with 3.5e instead? I skipped 2e, when I felt the ruleset wasn't mature enough for my style of DMing. I'd have no trouble whatsoever with skipping 4e.
 

I think that good DM's are good no matter the edition, and lesser DM's will always have trouble with their players.
 

Sundragon2012 said:
Hello,



In the 24yrs I have been a DM/GM I have seen the evolution of dungeonmastering behavior from being Tomb of Horrors Rat Bastard DM to being Soft, Squishy Spineless DM. Maybe I shouldn't call this evolution because there is the idea that evolution is about objective improvement or betterment. However, I have decided to call it evolution in the real sense of adaptation to environment ie. adaptation to the game of D&D.

Over the last weeks I have seen a lot of angst and anger by DMs who feel that the changes to the core millieu will somehow make D&D other than D&D, that removing the Great Wheel Cosmology, that changing the backstory of demons and devils, that disagreeable names of magical orders in the 4e PHB, that the succubus will become a devil and the erinyes will become more like the mythic Fury, that tieflings will be in the PHB, etc....will destroy D&D for them. Somehow these changes will destroy their campaigns.

AD&D suffered early on from EGG's idea that there was one true way to play D&D but we've gotten away from that...or have we? In the 3e era tons of optional splat material was released that somehow magically got treated as core by DMs who didn't have the nerve to "just say no" to things that were mechanically broken or things that didn't fit in their games. The initially reasonable mantra of "Options not restrictions" became the battlecry cry of players who honestly believed that a DM who wouldn't let them have anything they wanted from whatever splatbook du jour was just produced was "denying them the fullness of the D&D experience." Yeah I actually saw that written and up to that point had never heard of such a thing in all my years of gaming.

WoTC made a clear marketing decision based on financial realities to market less to DMs and more to players with 3e and 3.5. This made financial sense because players dramatically outnumber DMs. This decision was not, however, about the benefits or damage that this philosophy could cause in any given DMs campaign. The empower the players idea was intimately tied to this marketing strategy. Empowering the players translates into players spending more money on splatbooks under the guise of greater choice. Oh yeah, it engendered choice to the point where it seemed to term DMs into jellyfish.

DMs need to resume their rules as rules arbiters, setting builders, adventure creators and storytellers. The changes 4e is bringing about will put many DMs who slavishly followed core idea in a tough position, but no tougher than the position non-core DMs have been in since the game began. I have long ago accepted that Jams Wyatt, Rich Baker, Monte Cook, etc. don't share my complete vision of the ideal game or game world. C'est la vie. It is what it is.

My job as DM is to sift for the diamonds in the dung (and my dung may be your diamonds) and not to sit on my rump waiting to be spoon fed other DMs (ie. game designers) visions of good fantasy. The recent bruhaha about Frost Giants not being included in MM1 is indicative of the mindset of many DMs unfortunately in that they feel frustrated that a monster they wanted to use isn't going to be in the new book. Well, what I say to that is...Be a DM and either adapt an existing giant in the MM1 or create one whole cloth. That solves the problem.

I completely understand that mechanical changes are harder to make and I can't speak on them because I know as little as anyone else regarding the number of changes 4e wil bring. In regards to new 4e lore, if you don't like certain things as they are going to appear in the 4e lore, change it. If you want you succubi to be demons make them demons, what the core says on this is irrelevant to your game (unless you are a PS DM then I can sympathize). If you want the Great Wheel in your game, stick in the Astral Sea. If you want modrons modrons in your game write them up as needed for your PCs to encounter. If you want Grazz't to be the crossdressing, nose-picking, jig dancing lord of the 10th layer of Hell...do it.

If you don't want a certain "core" class or race in your game, forbid it. You know your setting and what will fit. If your setting's continuity doesn't allow for tieflings, then :poof: they don't exist and never have. Core is NOTHING more than the baseline of what you NEED to play the game. At its heart, core is only the mechanics and not the classes, races or lore. You can create entirely new classes, races and lore and still be as legitimately DMing D&D as the guy next door who insists that only what is in the PHB, DMG and MM enter his game.

It isn't WoTC's job to maintain the feel and integrity of your game. Their job is to come up with shiny new products that may or may not suit your campaign. It is YOUR job to maintain the integrity of your campaign and setting. It isn't your player's job either. Good players do care about the setting they play in and won't request things that will screw with it. However many don't think along those lines because it isn't their job to do so, its yours.

Empower yourself, be a DM. Decide, create arbitrate.....that is why your role at the table even exists. Maybe instead of doomsday, 4e is the chance to start fresh as a DM. Why not?

As always, feel free to discuss.



Sundragon

No one needs 4eeech to start fresh and no one needs you to tell them howto DM. Thanks though.
 


Sundragon,

I won't disagree with your premise; some DMs are bulldozed by their PCs. There are more of them then there are of you.

However, I think I take offense to the idea that DMs who allow all options are "squishy and spineless" and that PCs who wish to take advantage of them are "whiny". I allow a lot more options than my other DM friend, but I don't feel I'm caving in on options. I disallow anything that doesn't fit the setting (and running Eberron, that's very little) and modify the rest. No one complains. I don't use Incarnum, ToM/ToB:Bo9S, or WoL. My players respect that.

That said, I do make compromises with my players. Its a two-way street. A player who knows you'll make an exception on some race (like goliath) might be willing to have his class (warmage) vetoed or vice-versa. Coming down on high with the "Ten Commandments" and the "Ban Stick" usually raises player ire, but being reasonable and working with them for some options usually works.
 

Gwathlas said:
No one needs 4eeech to start fresh and no one needs you to tell them howto DM. Thanks though.

I understand that the internet breeds rudeness like old bread breeds fungus. If you could drop the attitude, maybe you can see that what I am saying is:

You are the DM, you call the shots and you don't need to feel tied to anyone else's vision of your game but your own. A lot of DMs now feel that the game is less in their hands than it used to be due to nothing more than a philosophical shift in the design/marketing philosophy of the game.



Sundragon
 

Remathilis said:
Sundragon,

I won't disagree with your premise; some DMs are bulldozed by their PCs. There are more of them then there are of you.

However, I think I take offense to the idea that DMs who allow all options are "squishy and spineless" and that PCs who wish to take advantage of them are "whiny". I allow a lot more options than my other DM friend, but I don't feel I'm caving in on options. I disallow anything that doesn't fit the setting (and running Eberron, that's very little) and modify the rest. No one complains. I don't use Incarnum, ToM/ToB:Bo9S, or WoL. My players respect that.

That said, I do make compromises with my players. Its a two-way street. A player who knows you'll make an exception on some race (like goliath) might be willing to have his class (warmage) vetoed or vice-versa. Coming down on high with the "Ten Commandments" and the "Ban Stick" usually raises player ire, but being reasonable and working with them for some options usually works.

If you allow the options because you want to, you are acting as a DM. If you are allowing the splatbook options despite the fact you don't want to, then you are not acting as a DM but as merely a rules arbiter who simply gives the ok to everything in print because it is in print. You are in the former camp. One set freely chooses, the other feels powerless to say no.

I compromise all the time when it suits my game and when it helps my players recognize their character vision. There is a balance of course. However, those DMs who feel obligated to allow every splatbook class, race, mechanic, piece of lore, etc. into their games no matter that they feel that ultimately its against the best interest of their game are the squishy and the spineless. I don't even blame DMs who feel disempowered, I understand why. The entire thrust of 3e's maketing philosophy was to market to players and in so doing downplayed the DMs role as final authority in his game. This was a marketing decision that was good for making money, but made many DMs feel powerless.



Sundragon
 
Last edited:

Jack99 said:
I think that good DM's are good no matter the edition, and lesser DM's will always have trouble with their players.

True.

However, I think it would be nice for WoTC to empower the DM by giving them the tools to do effective setting building, adventure creation, NPC creation and role-playing, plot development, creating color and atmosphere, etc. These things should not be in a splatbook next to player's materials and hopefully this will be done in a more focused manner through 4e's yearly DMGs.


Sundragon
 

So, I was talking to my next-door neighbor the other day, who is also a DM and has been playing for about twelve years (I've played for 14). Neighbor is always trying to recruit me for his campaign, but our group plays on the same night his does, so it's not going to happen. Anyway, he's showing me the Spell Compendium, which he has just bought, and telling me about some of the cool spells in it. He offers to let me borrow it. Then he says, "And your DM will have to let you use it, 'cause it's WotC." That's right, my neighbor, who's been a DM for more than a decade, actually believes that as a DM he is required to allow anything in any book published by WotC.

I wonder how common this belief is? Don't some of the books published by WotC explicitly contradict this? Possibly relevant data: he doesn't read ENWorld or other D&D sites on the internet.

By the way, I pretty much agree with the OP.
 

Remove ads

Top