DM Empowerment vs. Player Entitlement - Is this really that prevalent?

[Kynn]

As much as you'd like to create an argument where this isn't one, ...

What?

 

[Dausuul]

However, I feel that what Wizards is saying by "empowering the DM" and what this poster is saying are different things. When I hear Wizards talk about "empowering the DM", I get the general feeling that what Wizards is trying to do is give the DM the ability to more easily break away from the pre-programmed systems and structures that are printed in the books. They are not attempting to establish the DM as the table dictator, they are attempting to establish a more clearly defined way for DMs to be creative without worrying about breaking the game or relying on highly rail-roady printed content.

This, exactly. As a DM, I don't want to spend my time wrestling the rules into the shape I want. I want to be able to say, "This is how things are going to work in this campaign," and pop! it fits together.

Basically, I want the kind of rules support 4E gives to the DM running a Standard 4E Campaign... but for my campaign. If 5E delivers that, that's the empowerment I need.

As far as terrorizing and abusing the PCs, I don't need any help from WotC to do that.

 

[Gryph]

In this specific example, in 4E at least, the game is designed around the presumption that the PCs will get items of a certain power level at particular levels. If they don't, the math breaks down and the game becomes increasingly difficult. Without the inherent bonuses from the DMG2 of course.

Yeah, I know that. Stylistically, I'm not a fan of treasure and rewards being baked into the mechanics of leveling. It's not a deal breaker for me and I've enjoyed playing and running 4e for the last 3 years, but I would prefer the treasure and leveling mechanics to be separate.

 

[Ratskinner]

I'm not sure I buy it, one way or the other.

I guess I don't like the term "Player Entitlement" because I don't think that it accurately describes the phenomenon. I feel that "Player Expectation" is more the issue. That is, more mechanics lead players (and DMs) to expect the game to work a certain way. This tends to pin games into a certain mode of operation.

This is, I feel the root of 4e's problems with acceptance. It really tended to lock down playstyle. While that was great for those who enjoyed that playstyle, it was very hard on those that liked other playstyles. That is, it made it hard to push the game in that direction.

"With fourth edition, there was a huge focus on mechanics. The story was still there, but a lot of our customers were having trouble getting to it. In some ways, it was like we told people, ‘The right way to play guitar is to play thrash metal,’ But there’s other ways to play guitar.” - Mike Mearls.
​

Personally, I feel 3e had this problem as well, just not as strongly and better hidden beneath the avalanche of supplements from 3PP who did the work for you.

On the other end, "DM Empowerment" seems to conjure up nightmare scenarios of cackling fiends in their basements torturing their friends. I'm not sure that's fair or prominent enough of a concern to warrant all the hand-wringing that its producing. Basically, in any edition, the DM has the power to just end it whenever he wants. If that isn't empowered, I don't know what is. (This is balanced by the players not having to show up and take abuse, either.)

I think, though, that what they're really talking about is just loosening up the screws a bit. It sounds like they want to make the game very flexible and a lot less defined. So individual DMs and groups could play wildly different games under the Aegis of D&D and have those games be inter-intelligible. I'm in favor of it, basically because I hope the game recaptures the wild feeling that seemed to die with 2e.

 

[Ratskinner]

I would rename the two ends of the scale: "DM as machine" and "players as puppets". The former is where the DM's job is just to follow rules and react to player input. The latter is when nothing the players do matters because the DM will just rule it so.

That way it is clear that what is really needed is a mid point somewhere along the line.

That's good way to put it, I think. I recall someone in another thread reacting with panic to the idea that DM could be empowered by saying that he wanted his DM to take the part of the Xbox360 in his game, just run the rules. To me, that's not good path for D&D to take.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

As long as we're "empowering" DMs to make fair and fun rulings on a consistent basis, then players can feel "entitled" to a consistently fair and fun game.

See? We can have it both ways.

 

[Lanefan]

I guess I don't like the term "Player Entitlement" because I don't think that it accurately describes the phenomenon. I feel that "Player Expectation" is more the issue. That is, more mechanics lead players (and DMs) to expect the game to work a certain way. This tends to pin games into a certain mode of operation.

It's not just "more mechanics", it's also more up-front information.

A few examples: (for these purposes, let's assume players do not also DM)

In 0-1-2e the players (usually) didn't know where their characters fit on the combat matrix (in 3e terms, they didn't know their BAB). 3-4e give this information to the players.

In 0-1-2-3e players did not know the cost of magic items nor what those items might be. 4e put this information right in the PH.

Giving more information to the players is great for the players but a nightmare for the DM if she wants to start changing things behind the scenes...because it ain't behind the scenes any more, and because the players have it in their hands they quite naturally expect that'll be the way it works.

It sounds like they want to make the game very flexible and a lot less defined. So individual DMs and groups could play wildly different games under the Aegis of D&D and have those games be inter-intelligible. I'm in favor of it, basically because I hope the game recaptures the wild feeling that seemed to die with 2e.

Sounds great from here!

Lan-"just another cackling fiend in the basement"-efan

 

[Mark CMG]

It's not just "more mechanics", it's also more up-front information.

A few examples: (for these purposes, let's assume players do not also DM)

In 0-1-2e the players (usually) didn't know where their characters fit on the combat matrix (in 3e terms, they didn't know their BAB). 3-4e give this information to the players.

In 0-1-2-3e players did not know the cost of magic items nor what those items might be. 4e put this information right in the PH.

Giving more information to the players is great for the players but a nightmare for the DM if she wants to start changing things behind the scenes...because it ain't behind the scenes any more, and because the players have it in their hands they quite naturally expect that'll be the way it works.

So, what's the solution to make a core game that keeps both DM and other players happy with 5E as a system that maintains the mystery and doesn't result in DMs making changes that players might find unfair?

 

[Lanefan]

So, what's the solution to make a core game that keeps both DM and other players happy with 5E as a system that maintains the mystery and doesn't result in DMs making changes that players might find unfair?

One possibility - perhaps not always practical for every group but hey, what the heck - might be to keep as much of the engine under the hood as possible. Present the players with the minimum amount of rules required to play the game and leave the rest with the DM. The DM can then tinker as she likes, adding modular rules sections as she goes, and present the end result to the players as her game the way it's going to be played.

Keep in mind that the DMG would then have to give lots of advice to new DMs on how to tinker to avoid each new DM having to go through a long trial-and-error period.

Further, players and DMs alike would be expected to keep the spirit of the game in mind and not intentionally set out to try and break it.

Lanefan

 

[Kynn]

In 0-1-2e the players (usually) didn't know where their characters fit on the combat matrix (in 3e terms, they didn't know their BAB). 3-4e give this information to the players.

Nitpick: We knew our THAC0s in 2e.

Also I really think the idea that only DMs would have access to the DM information is kind of silly. That's one 3e innovation that I hope sticks around: don't assume an artificial separation of knowledge between players and DMs, especially when it's something as vital as BAB.