Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scylla" data-source="post: 5987799" data-attributes="member: 32833">Precisely, eh? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  I thought my original post was pretty clear, but to restate: I never said any DM powers were lost with 4e. And I can't yet speak about D&D-Next, because it's still in playtest. I was merely commenting on a recent "movement", primarily by a subset of 4e fans, to seemingly marginalize or limit the DM's role. It's possible that WotC may pay more attention to the voices in their own forums than those outside (though I hope they are wise enough not to), and this NMMI business could influence the development of D&D-Next, so I find it disconcerting.Do I think the style of DM-player interaction changed somewhat with 4e? Oh yes. I feel 4e made the overall D&D experience more metagame-ish, removed some of the mystery for players, and continues to facilitate power-gaming much as 3e did. But those are largely separate arguments from the subject of DM power. (I do feel there is some connection, in that rules/option heavy editions lead to powergaming lead to greater feeling of player authority lead to power players wanting to defy/reduce DM authority; but that's an admittedly looser theory.)The closest I'd come to saying DM power is reduced in latter editions (not counting D&D-Next because it's too early to speak for it) is: If no rule exists for something and the DM houserules it, the DM word is the sole authority. But if a rule exists and the DM tries to houserule it, a player can now reasonably object by stating that an official rule already exists for that action/situation.For instance, if in 1e or 2e someone wanted to grapple a displacer beast and wrest it to the floor, I could houserule that and we're done. (If any players objected to my proposed houserule I would of course hear them out and perhaps modify based on their input.) But in 3e, grappling rules, however convoluted, already exist. It's a lot harder for a DM to assert their house system over an existing rule—in fact, I'd feel obligated to discuss swapping in a simpler grappling system before the campaign started, rather than risk a debate about my system vs Monte's system in the middle of play. It's easier to paint on a blank canvas than to paint over an existing picture. I respect that that is your experience. Sitting back and watching things unfurl without being involved doesn't sound like an exercise in DM power to me, but I suppose having the freedom to do nothing is a type of freedom. For me, houseruling is fun. Again, I probably houserule like 1 - 5% of actions proposed. It's not a common thing. But I enjoy it when it comes up. Now maybe you find having to houserule annoying and prefer other aspects of DMing, which is fair enough.The other day I saw a post on the WotC board where a guy basically said, "If there aren't very specific climbing rules, the DM might be forced to [gasp!] make up climbing modifiers based on the surface being climbed!" And my first thought was, "Yes, it's called being a DM. If you're not comfortable making houserules or judgements on the fly, be a player instead." (First edition actually has climbing surface modifiers listed in the DMG, but that's a moot point.)</blockquote>

Verification