Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[JamesonCourage]

Don't you find a contradiction there though?

Slightly, yes. That's why I brought it up. I find that the system should give as much solid support to the players as possible, and -at least for my group- the GM should then say "and this is how the game is different." This means that players are empowered in nearly everything, though they lose some power when the GM changes how something works every so often (though this leaves nearly everything else there to empower them).

It admittedly wouldn't work for every group, but the dynamic works well for mine. I can say "here's the insanity mechanics for using magic" and the players are still massively empowered by the rest of the rules.

If you like systems that codify elements so as to empower the player, how do you rationalize having a DM/GM who can, at any point in time, invalidate any rule?

Social contract. I think that a good GM generally won't do this in a way that won't work with long term players (because if he does, the players with which this isn't a fit will leave his group). Additionally, poor GMs who abuse this rule are more likely to be poor in other areas, from my experience (Rule 0 abuse from the GM is commonly found with GMPCs or railroad plots, from my experience).

Basically, empower the player as much as possible, and give the GM control enough to change the world to suit his creative needs, fix holes in the rules when "common sense" (as it applies to the social contract) makes sense, and the like. Does that answer your question sufficiently? As always, play what you like

 

[Lanefan]

Out of curiousity, wasn't the original Rule 0 basically a means by which DM's could move forward from stalemates? It's been a really long time, but, as I recall, Rule 0 in AD&D basically said that whenever conflicts of interpretation arose, the DM has final say.

In the 1e DMG the preface and the first few pages strongly indicate the game is the DM's to do with as she will, within reason. I'm not sure (or simply can't find) where rule 0 is explicitly stated...is it in the PH?

I think that that definition has been broadened considerably since then to encompass the idea that the DM can and should change rules whenever he or she feels compelled to do so. And I really don't think the game has been improved by that. Far too many DM's have simply changed rules, whether rightly or wrongly (and we all have made mistakes) and when challenged on the point, gesture in the direction of Rule 0 and say, "The DM is always right! The books say so!"

In part that's due to how it is presented; and in principle the idea of the game rules being in the DM's control is not a bad thing. Where it goes wrong is when rules are changed on the fly (as opposed to after some forethought ahead of time) and-or the rules whether changed or not are not applied consistently.

I really think that this pyramidal style of gaming has been one of the biggest mistakes in game design ever. By setting up this top down management style over the game, and either implicitly or explicitly saying that one player is "always right" we've made for so many poor games and poor game sessions.

This, of course, depends on the DM and players involved.

Can a DM fix any problem? Sure. That's probably true. Should a DM step in and fix a problem? That's a question I'm not really sure has been addressed in any significant depth in the game.

If a DM sees a problem and thinks she knows how to fix it she should try.

The challenge is admitting after a while that the fix is worse than the original problem, on those occasions when such turns out to be the case.

Lost Soul, a few pages back, talked about having sections of the DMG devoted to resolving conflicts at the table between the DM and the players. I think that's probably some of the best advice you can ever have in a DMG.

I'd also like to see a section devoted to resolving conflicts between the DM and the rules. In other words, a primer on how to kitbash the system.

Lan-"making a system that is coarse-grained enough to stand up to kitbashing helps too"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

"You find 500 gp in goods & coin each & that magic item of level 7 or less that you always wanted. Plus a fragment of the crown of Grabzul a minor artefact"

Ignoring the artifact for a minute, how do you determine who in the party gets said level-7 magic item? And who determines what exactly it is, you or the DM? And what if the character who just got the level-7 item turns around and sells it - now you've got a serious cash imbalance in the party...

Yeah it's not really satisfactory for the magic items. I have not found a happy balance between feeling my character was simply a list of magic items chosen by my DM & the totally demagicified items as cyberenhancement 3e+/computer RPG model.

I've always held that magic items found in an adventure should either be a) somewhat random, or b) things the dungeon inhabitants would likely possess and-or use.

Just because you rolled up a character whose focused and specialized weapon is the otherwise-never-seen goupilla (3-headed flail) doesn't at all mean there should suddenly be an increase in magic goupillae found in dungeons! In your first adventure the weapons you might stumble on are a magic shortsword, a couple of fine masterwork maces, an enchanted clutch of arrows, and a miner's pickaxe that for some reason has been magicked up to do extra damage when used as a weapon. That's it, and that's what's gonna be there no matter who goes in looking for 'em.

Problem still exists, though: how is the stuff going to be divided so everyone gets a fair share?

Lan-"and how do you calculate the share for the cleric who joined the party halfway through the adventure"-efan

 

[pemerton]

I'm overstating it to make the point clear

I think for those poster, there is a big difference between designing an RPG and playing one. And for what it's worth, I agree with them.

I think it also depends a bit on what the game mechanics are meant to do. If they meant to provide a process simulation, then I guess that anyone might have a better view of how that simulation should be implemented. But if the mechanics are meant (for example) to distribute spotlight time among the participants, and have been designed to do this via careful reference to the abilities that participants get via the PC-build rules, then I would think you might want to play as written for a bit before toying with them.

And sometimes you can see where a designer assumption doesn't work out. In 4e, for example, clerics' turn undead ability got a bigger AoE at higher levels. The design intention was that combats at higher levels would be more epic and happen on larger spaces. Play experience over time showed that this wasn't happening (as one designer put it, "People's living room tables don't get any bigger as the PCs level") and so it turned out that Turn Undead at high levels was over-powered. It ended up getting errata-ed, but would have been obvious house rule bait prior to this.

But changing that part of the game - one parameter of one effect where the rationale behind the design, and the flaw, are obvious - is very different from (say) tweaking with the action economy, or the basic logic of class builds.

 

[pemerton]

Out of curiousity, wasn't the original Rule 0 basically a means by which DM's could move forward from stalemates? It's been a really long time, but, as I recall, Rule 0 in AD&D basically said that whenever conflicts of interpretation arose, the DM has final say.

Basic D&D talks about the rules as guidelines. I don't recall if it says that the GM (as opposed to the group in general) has special authority to change them. It certainly doesn't imply that the GM can suspend them at will.

Gygax's AD&D talks fairly insistently about the virtues of the published rules, including the effort that has gone into testing, balancing and standardising.

I think that that definition has been broadened considerably since then to encompass the idea that the DM can and should change rules whenever he or she feels compelled to do so.

The idea of disregarding the action resolution mechanics "in the interests of the story" comes out in 2nd ed AD&D, and is picked up again in the 3E DMG, and in the 4e Rules Compendium. (It's not in the 4e PHB - the RC changes the relevant bit of text, in my view in a retrograde fashion.)

In Gygax's DMG he canvasses fudging to keep a PC alive when the player has played well and the dice still come up badly - but even then, cautions against it. This is different from 2nd ed AD&D in two ways: (i) the caution, and (ii) the rationale - not story, but rather ensuring that skilled players aren't nevertheless punished by bad luck.

The 4e DMG says this:

Rolling behind the screen lets you fudge if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you might want to change the second critical hit to a normal hit, or even a miss. Don’t do it too often, though, and don’t let on tha t you’re doing it, or the other players feel as though they don’t face any real risk—or worse, that you’re playing favorites.​

That seems closer to the Gygaxian than the 2nd ed rationale for fudging, or maybe some mix of them. Other than the RC passage, the 4e rules don't go more broadly into the idea that the GM might suspend the action resolution rules. I think the game takes for granted that the published rules work!

 

[Scylla]

Yes. Rule Zero is the foundational rule of rpgs. What the DM thinks is reasonable is what goes. If the DM thinks that playing by the book is reasonable, he can say so, but it's still his decision. The DM's vision always defines the game, not the rules. Always.

Hopefully the DM is open and honest enough that there isn't much of this guessing, but it is part of the game.


Sure, but not in metagame terms, I hope. A game that sets up a spiked chain trip fighter who is virtually unbeatable in melee encourages players to either cheese out or play "suboptimally". This is not good. Take that away, and the player's goal can simply be "I want to win X gladiator tournament" or "I want to be the best fighter I can", more meaningful and open-ended goals.

I find that a lot of rules lawyering happens when there is a clear rule and the DM goes against it. While that is the DM's prilevege, it's better to have some latitude built in.

If the DM and the player conflict, the DM should listen to the player, thoughtfully consider all possibilities, and make a decision. Ultimately, D&D is not a democracy. While a DM should be a benevolent dictator, his opinion is ultimately the only one that matters.

I couldn't agree with the above more. Well stated.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've always held that magic items found in an adventure should either be a) somewhat random, or b) things the dungeon inhabitants would likely possess and-or use.

I think that advice was right in the 1e DMG, wasn't it? For once, I agree with you. I guess that portion of the indoctrination took.

Just because you rolled up a character whose focused and specialized weapon is the otherwise-never-seen goupilla (3-headed flail) doesn't at all mean there should suddenly be an increase in magic goupillae found in dungeons!

You wouldn't think so. Yet, if weaker and less versatile class are 'balanced' by gaining exclusively-useable magic items, the DM has to make sure those sorts of items show up. In 1e it was averaged into the random charts - giving you random treasure (a) that might not fit (b) nearly so well - which meant it would balance, if you played long enough for the 'law of large numbers' to kick in. In 3e and 4e, magic items were pegged to costs and made fungible, which exacerbated and alleviated the problem at the same time (get a longsword when you need a behemian ear-spoon, sell it & buy what you need - or get your best friend the wizard to blow a few exp to make something better). In 4e, it got particularly egregious since enhancement bonuses were so explicitly and obviously assumed just to 'tread water' - though inherent bonuses make that go away, of course.

The solution is obvious: don't make any classes magic-item-dependent.

At first it looked like 'bounded accuracy' was going to deliver, but, no, there are still going to be +X weapons...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes. Rule Zero is the foundational rule of rpgs. ... None of them can require you to use the rules over your own judgement. That's the issue.

That's not so much a foundation as a simple reality. You can't send the rules police into people's games to get them to stick to the rules. Heck, it doesn't just apply to RPGs, any game can have 'house rules.'

Really, kind of a moot point. Yes, you can change any rule of any game you play, whether the game says "Rule 0" or "Golden Rule" or "Thou must not changeth thou the sacred rules on pain of damnation."

I find that a lot of rules lawyering happens when there is a clear rule and the DM goes against it. While that is the DM's prilevege, it's better to have some latitude built in.

Not my experience. Rules lawyering thrives on uncertain rules, ambiguity is the species' natural prey, clarity it's deadly enemy. With a clear rule, the DM sees the rule, says to himself "this is clearly a bad rule" and changes it, letting the players know up-front, the rules lawyer can whine about it, but it's a simple case of rule-0. With a murky rule, the DM doesn't see a need to change it, and merely 'interprets' it (perhaps doesn't even realize there may be alternate interpretations) and the rules lawyer makes a case for a different interpretation that he argues is 'more valid' or 'RAW.'

If the DM and the player conflict, the DM should listen to the player, thoughtfully consider all possibilities, and make a decision. Ultimately, D&D is not a democracy. While a DM should be a benevolent dictator, his opinion is ultimately the only one that matters.

Meh. Neither is it an iron-curtain dictatorship. Players are free to leave a tyrannical DM's game, and one doing so can open the floodgates... The DM has a role of arbitrator, but the opinions of others should still /matter/ to him, he is running the game for their enjoyment, as well, afterall - something that's easy to forget if much of his energy goes to 'fixing' the system.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's not so much a foundation as a simple reality. You can't send the rules police into people's games to get them to stick to the rules. Heck, it doesn't just apply to RPGs, any game can have 'house rules.'

Really, kind of a moot point. Yes, you can change any rule of any game you play, whether the game says "Rule 0" or "Golden Rule" or "Thou must not changeth thou the sacred rules on pain of damnation."

Not my experience. Rules lawyering thrives on uncertain rules, ambiguity is the species' natural prey, clarity it's deadly enemy. With a clear rule, the DM sees the rule, says to himself "this is clearly a bad rule" and changes it, letting the players know up-front, the rules lawyer can whine about it, but it's a simple case of rule-0. With a murky rule, the DM doesn't see a need to change it, and merely 'interprets' it (perhaps doesn't even realize there may be alternate interpretations) and the rules lawyer makes a case for a different interpretation that he argues is 'more valid' or 'RAW.'


Meh. Neither is it an iron-curtain dictatorship. Players are free to leave a tyrannical DM's game, and one doing so can open the floodgates... The DM has a role of arbitrator, but the opinions of others should still /matter/ to him, he is running the game for their enjoyment, as well, afterall - something that's easy to forget if much of his energy goes to 'fixing' the system.

Yup. Agreed.

As for the status of 'rule 0' in AD&D... First of all the 1e DMG very clearly states that the rules are 'a toolbox' and 'guidelines'. Secondly it states in no uncertain terms that the DM's word is law at the table. Gary does also say some things about the virtue of standardized rules, but that seems more in the way of an explanation for why AD&D was written than a statement that everyone should play exactly by the rules presented.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The idea of disregarding the action resolution mechanics "in the interests of the story" comes out in 2nd ed AD&D, and is picked up again in the 3E DMG, and in the 4e Rules Compendium. (It's not in the 4e PHB - the RC changes the relevant bit of text, in my view in a retrograde fashion.)
!

It is possible I am not remembering well, but the whole suspend the rules for story thing (which was a problem in 2E imo) wasn't so much a feature of the core books (PHB and DMG) but rather appeared with increasing frequency in supplements (though it is possible it made an appearance in the later revision of the 2E PHB or DMG). In the original DMG and PHB, as far as I can recall, they were not pushing this at all or at least nearly as much.

I do think the 2E dungeon masters guide isn't all that great though (and i am a fan of the system). For me the 1E and 3E DMGs really stand out as great (though both do have their flaws---there are many suggestions and rules in the 3E DMG I ignored). The 2E DMG just didn't feel all that inspired and frankly didn't get into some stuff that a good DMG ought to address. It has some decent content, just not the kind that makes you come back for seconds.