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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6232116" data-attributes="member: 59082">Yes, sure.I like it. I haven't played Next yet so haven't thought about house rules, but this is the sort of thing I could see adding on - as you would put it, it adds dimensionality but without too much complication, and without (as I see it) the problematic AEDU paradigm...although it still gives a taste of that.Again, its not either/or. DM fiat fills the gaps (and there are always gaps, no matter how seemless the rules are), and also provides an over-arching "rule zero" that can be applied as deemed necessary by the DM, usually behind the screen.What you describe as the DM "cheating" has nothing to do with style of play, but who the DM is as a person - and thus can occur in any game, any edition. Not sure I buy this. This seems to be an underlying assumption in all editions of D&D, that rule zero always applies. I haven't looked, but I'm guessing that you could find mention of it in some form or fashion in every edition, probably every DMG.See, both of your reasons aren't a problem in any game I've ever run. Players always have a major role in "shaping the outcome of in-game events" and I never feel I have a conflict of interest because I emply fiat/rule zero sparingly, and only when I deem it necessary to improve the enjoyment of all...and, if at all possible, it won't be noticed by the players. I think the main problem I see with your logic is that you see it as a black-or-white issue: if the GM "meddles" at all, the whole thing is tainted. I think the main issue is how skillfully (or tactfully) the GM employs fiat, and for what end.Another variation on fiat is with critical hits and misses. I tend to find 4e's max HP rather boring, so I often throw in an added effect. The same with a critical failure. This effect is entirely subjective, entirely my choice, and the players have always been fine with it, even enjoyed the unknown quality of it.That goes back to the original post, which I just re-read and still feel in resonance with. But its important to realize that I was talking about something much larger than just RPGs or editions of D&D and applying that to how I see it manifest within the context of RPGs and D&D.Going back to my original point, another way of framing it is that as our technology develops, something is lost in the mix. The technology "fills in the gaps" but something gets obfuscated. One analogy is that of a going to the movie theater vs. sitting around a camp-fire and listening to a story. Another is that of the wonder and play of a child being obfuscated by the Important Activities of the Adult World. It is hard to pin-point exactly what it is in recent editions of D&D, especially 4e, that makes it more like a movie than a campfire story (for me), but I think it is related to the degree to which the rules cover everything, which is largely what we've been talking about. If there's a rule for everything then there is no room for rulings. If a PC has a whole list of powers with specific effects, its less likely that they'll improvise and come up with their own imagined action. That's the heart of it for me. This is a huge over-simplification, but its kind of like this: - In paradigm A a warrior can do one of two things: attack or do something fancy (improvise)- In paradigm B a warrior can do ten things, or "powers"; they can also do something fancy, but it won't be as effective as the ten things they can doI'd have no problem with paradigm B if it didn't obscure or marginalize doing something fancy. But, unfortunately, in 4e it does. Improvisation is put on the back-burner because A) there are so many pre-described options to choose from, and B) those pre-described options are generally superior and more failproof than making something up on the fly.To put it another way, I don't have a problem with PCs having greater control of their own resources, but that those resources are so clearly defined and obscure the option to improvise, both by "covering them up" with the drop-down menu of powers, but also because the powers are inherently superior to page 42.This is just one example, one area, in which I think "something has been lost," that the rules - both as written, but also as implied - limit the use of imagination and improvisation in 4e.I don't know where to go from here. We can continue to nit-pick the fine points of the rules of various editions, but I don't see much point in that - plus we'll just end up going round and round.</blockquote>

Verification