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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dragonblade" data-source="post: 4037828" data-attributes="member: 2804">PCs and monsters must have different rules. The thinking that they should be the same is exactly the same road that lead to 3.x being a fun game to play but a horrible game to DM.Essentially the game becomes a tactical wargame with the PC's "warband" vs. the DM's warband. The DM is hamstringed creatively and stifled by the rules. Furthermore, the burden on maintaining and running the game is severe since NPCs and monsters must be painstakingly leveled up per the rules or the DM is "cheating".This is THE fundamental flaw in 3.x design. And I hope D&D never goes back to it.From my perspective, 1e/2e were much MORE fun to DM than 3.x. Because I as the DM had the power to do whatever I wanted and I could do it on the fly. If I wanted the PCs to fight a tough human warrior, I just made it so. I never bothered to level up a fighter. I just sat down, decided he should have these stats and BAM! done. Now, this may not have been in the 1e rules specifically. But it was taken for granted the DM could do this. And there were no cries of DM cheating.But all was not perfect. The enjoyment players got out of the game depended solely on whether your DM was good or not. On whether a DM could devise fun challenges without monty haul games on one side, or Gygaxian killer dungeons on the other.Then 3e came along and tried to fix this "problem". As it addressed this problem it started from the assumption that players and DMs have a semi-adversarial relationship. Therefore, a framework of rules equality that prevents the DM from handwaving should be laid down. The hope was to make the game "fair" for everyone. However, the problem with this approach is that it places an ENORMOUS burden on the DM. Not so noticeable at low levels, but at higher levels it is a huge problem. (1e/2e/3e has many other issues that have been passed through the prior editions also. Many of them I outlined in the Monte Cook 3.75 thread.)The problem with the concept of DM/Player Rules Equality in 3e is that the assumption its based on, that DMs and PCs have an adversarial relationship, is just flat out wrong. In this respect 1e got it right at least in feel (not so much in rules).The DM is not a player, nor is the DM an adversary. The NPCs and traps that the DM controls are potentially adversarial, but the DM himself is not. As such its not important that the DM follows the same rules as the players, because the game is not about pitting the PCs "warband" against the DM's "warband". The game is about having fun, enjoying adventures and facing exciting challenges.To achieve this end, the DM only needs rules to explain what numbers are appropriate to challenge PCs at a given level. And this is exactly what 4e seems like it will provide and why in my opinion, 4e is the true spiritual successor to 1e/2e in a way that 3e was not.</blockquote>

Verification