D&D 4E 4E's New Direction: Giving the game back to the DM.

[P1NBACK]

Now, before you go crying and rattling off on some hyperbole about how the DM never lost control or that players still have control or whatever, that's not up for debate.

My point is, there is a remarkable difference in the tone toward giving DM's control over certain aspects of the game that wasn't as clear previously. With Essentials (based on previews) and notably, my read through of the Dark Sun Campaign Setting book, I'm noticing a new trend that seems to give DM's more options to limit or control material in their campaign.

Magic Item Rarity is one of these things, but also the language in the DS Campaign book indicates this as well. Phrases like, "at the DM's option" and such seem to be being used more than in previous 4E books.

I personally find this an excellent change of direction. What do you think?

Are you noticing the change? Do you think it's for the good or detriment of the game? As a DM, do you like having more explicit control over the game, or no? As a player, do you prefer when the game text gives DM's final authority over the content and rules used?

Thoughts?

 

[renau1g]

I like it personally, towards the earlier parts of the game certain players had a sense of entitlement about items/options/etc, which I felt was further pushed by LFR and making everything "in".

As a DM when I nerfed/disallowed something I felt was broken or not what I wanted in my own game, I had significant pushback, although I thought it was funny there nobody balked when I said "free expertise feat at 5th level"

The DM is the one who spends hours more on preparing the game than the players, the least they could do is respect the DM as adjudicator of his own game. That's one of big things I think was lost from the earlier editions.

 

[MrMyth]

It's interesting. I think it was already there already (I've felt much more room to change things as a DM in 4E than I did in 3.5), but the new changes help.

For example - previously, the rules for buying magic items imply that the players might need to hunt down the right item, bargain for it, etc. I tended to have them check with me to see what was available, possibly make them spend some effort finding more esoteric things, etc.

But by the time they had reached epic levels, they could readily travel to the realms of the Gods - to Sigil, to the City of Brass. It no longer made sense for items to not be available - and it became more and more work as a DM to approve every item, when they had so much money they might just buy dozens of lesser items, or any number of other things.

I would still have liked to have some control over item access... but it was just too much hassle to do so.

On the other hand, being able to say, "Here are common items you can get as needed, anything else needs to go through me"... that seems to get the best of both worlds.

I don't think the new system is a perfect one, mind you. But I think it does help the DM keep control of the game without needing to micromanage everything to do so.

 

[Scribble]

I'm happy so far...

That said I don't want them to go TOO far into- "The DM has Ultimate Power!!!!"

It's a game you play with friends, so ultimately I think everyone should have a say in how to best make it fun, not just the DM, and not just the players. (It's a give and take thing.)

I like what they did in places in DS that basically boil down to- These classes/races don't exist, but talk to your DM like an adult, and you can probably come top a compromise that's fun.

 

[renau1g]

I'm happy so far...

That said I don't want them to go TOO far into- "The DM has Ultimate Power!!!!"

Well he/she already does. "Boom a comet falls on you, game over" "A god shows up and knocks you out, taking your stuff" blah blah blah. The DM has access to everything in the universe, therefore in their own world they are the Ultimate Power. However, there's a social contract that usually exists between players and DM's. The DM won't arbitrarily kill the PC's as long as the PC's don't begin arbitrarily being stupid (i.e. killing townspeople for no reason - unless they're into that stuff, but it's outside the norm).


Edit - Oh, and I always thought the idea of magic item shopping was silly. I started in 2e and there was never magic item emporiums in the world. I like it, magic items seemed more unique and special. We finished our campaign at 12 or 13th level with only a +2 sword and cherished that blue-glowing blade.

 

[Jack99]

3.x removed DM control. 4e gave it back to some degree, but not so much wrt magic items. That has now been fixed.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes, I also recognize a changed tone. There is still much freedom in player´s hand, but it is not implyed anymore, that players get what they want. (Magic item wise.)

Although i like skill challenges in players hand, it must be in the DM´s hand, which options are available, how much magic there is etc.

Magic item rarity is a real good change, as it allows the DM to disallow magic items, by making materials to craft them very very rare.

I am also impressed, that rare items will now be real cool magic items. If not per RAW, you can easily create them yourself, without worrying that players insist on beeing able to copy them as they wish.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

There's an obvious reason why WotC would want player's to have more control: there's more of them than there are DMs.

At an average table, there's one DM, but 4-6 players.

That means there's primarily one person buying products intended for DMs.

But there are 4-6 players buying products intended for players.

So encouraging players to buy those products to make their characters uber, and encouraging DMs to allow their players to use those products that make their characters uber, is really WotC maximising their profits.

What this slight change in focus implies is that the pendulum swung too far in one direction, especially amongst new players who don't have a history with different editions and their different philosophies, and it is hurting the game causing players and DMs to leave and thus stop buying stuff.

At my tables I'm always straightforward with my players and let them know before their first session what I allow and don't allow and advise them not to spend money on stuff needlessly.

In my case, it's not so much about control of the game (though I do prefer to limit race selection to what makes sense for my setting) as it is mostly out of concern for pocket books. I don't want my players thinking they have to or even should buy everything that comes out of WotC in order to have a good time.

 

[Scribble]

Well he/she already does. "Boom a comet falls on you, game over" "A god shows up and knocks you out, taking your stuff" blah blah blah. The DM has access to everything in the universe, therefore in their own world they are the Ultimate Power. However, there's a social contract that usually exists between players and DM's. The DM won't arbitrarily kill the PC's as long as the PC's don't begin arbitrarily being stupid (i.e. killing townspeople for no reason - unless they're into that stuff, but it's outside the norm).

Well yeah- but that's not really what I was talking about.

Some people have read the older rules as "The DM decides everything, you play how he/she wants it, or you don't play."

Some have read newer rules as "The DM shouldn't be able to negate anything the players want to do."

Currently they seem to be doing a good job with the idea that "We're all rational human beings that should be able to give and take on certain likes and dislikes in order to have fun together."

I like that last approach- That's all.

It also seems to be trying to push players (both DM and Player) back away from the concept of the Rules as Written as the one true god. IE- Don't be afraid to change something if you think the change will be fun. (IE if you want a divine character on DS go for it.)

 

[P1NBACK]

It also seems to be trying to push players (both DM and Player) back away from the concept of the Rules as Written as the one true god. IE- Don't be afraid to change something if you think the change will be fun. (IE if you want a divine character on DS go for it.)

This is a great point, and I almost mentioned it my original post but didn't want to have the thread focused on it. But, yeah, I agree that giving the DM more explicit control does good to not say, "Hey, your DM is all powerful."

Instead, it's more like, "Hey, this is YOUR game. RAW isn't the final word. Make it what you will and the DM can be the final arbiter of such things as the need arises."