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

[BASHMAN]

In understand your point, but I submit that the DM is not the only one entitled to enjoy the game. I believe that DMs should get more say in the vision and direction of the campaign, since they/we put in so much more work than the players, but if you insist on your players simply being along for the ride, you may find yourself soon needing new players.

Everyone at the table has a right to enjoy the game. Keep in mind that your enjoyment (whoever you are) should not overshadow everyone else's.

Yes, but I think what he is saying is that you don't need the compulsory 15,000 gp in magic items for an X level PC to enjoy the game, nor do you need to allow every prestige class from every book. If the DM says "Only PHB" is allowed-- them's the rules-- and no whining.

3E has bred a sense of entitlement into players, whereas AD&D definately had the DM as the person calling the shots [for good or ill]. The mark of a good DM, IMO is one who can set limits and ensure that the game is so fun that nobody even notices. I am currently lucky enough to be in such a campaign [though it is on/off again] where the DM had us begin at 5th level with 0gp and no magic items in the slums of Sigil. He's not giving much magic items, not allowing many prestige classes, but we are having fun in the game.

 

[pemerton]

If you don't want a certain "core" class or race in your game, forbid it.

<snip>

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.

I don't entirely agree with this. You seem to be treating "mechanics" as equivalent to "action resolution mechanics" - but this equation does not hold. Character build is a huge part of the mechanical play experience of 3E, and its role will only be increased in 4e. And classes are huge parts of the character build rules. So for a GM to exclude a particular class is for that GM to make a significant change to the mechanics.

In my personal oppinion WotC's focus on Player options is a mistake which will hurt them in the long run. DM's are what make or break a game and they have been sorely laking throughout 3e with support material...even basic adventures.

I submit that the DM is not the only one entitled to enjoy the game. I believe that DMs should get more say in the vision and direction of the campaign, since they/we put in so much more work than the players, but

<snip>

Everyone at the table has a right to enjoy the game.

I incline to agree with Fifth Element more than Imaro. 3E combined a marketing strategy with a particular type of play experience. The marketing strategy is one of sell books to players as well as GMs - this is very rewarding for WoTC. The play experience is one of very heavy emphasis on character build, and on action resolution mechanics that interface in a complex way with all aspects of the character build - this is rewarding for players.

It is interesting to see that (from what has been released at 4e) the emphasis on character build is, if anything, becoming greater, and the action resolution mechanics are becoming more sophisticated (with rules for social and environmental challenges, every class having a mix of resources, etc). At the same time, the need for the GM to interact with those mechanics is being reduced (simplified monster build rules, monster abilities that don't requires referencing the PHB) and the default setting ("points of light") has the expressly-stated design goal of allowing GMs to run a game on the fly. Although this hasn't been mentioned, I would think it also makes co-GMing a lot easier (as the world is far less defined). Furthermore, some of the changes in the mechanics for action resolution (reduced contribution to PC power of per-day resources, SWSE-style skill bonuses ) will make it easier for commercial adventure writers to produce mechanically well-balanced scenarios that a GM can run with very little prep/rewriting time required.

So 4e seems designed to reduce the burden of being a GM, which also reduces the extra work done by the GM compared to the players. This makes it easier for players to become GMs - which is good for the game - but it also reduces the GM's claim to be a "special participant" with a greater right to control at the table. So I would predict that, if anything, 4e will be more of a players' game than 3E is, and certainly more than AD&D ever was.

 

[Sundragon2012]

In understand your point, but I submit that the DM is not the only one entitled to enjoy the game. I believe that DMs should get more say in the vision and direction of the campaign, since they/we put in so much more work than the players, but if you insist on your players simply being along for the ride, you may find yourself soon needing new players.

Everyone at the table has a right to enjoy the game. Keep in mind that your enjoyment (whoever you are) should not overshadow everyone else's.

I never, ever implied that the DM is the only one who should enjoy the game. All too often when someone suggests that DMs maintain their very necessary authority at the game table it is read as "DMs fun should trump player's fun" when this is usually not what is meant and certainly not what I meant. The DM maintaining the integrity of his or her campaign and being consistant and fair is, I would argue, necessary for the long term survival and fun of a campaign.

I have found that in over 20yrs DMing that a DM keeping control of his game allows for a far, far longer and ultimately satisfying campaign for all involved. DMs who allow unchecked "options" into their game are setting it up for eventual collapse unless he or she is able to weave these options into the setting effectively while maintaining versimiulitude. If a DM doesn't care about this, the whole point is moot.



Sundragon