Editorial: Back Behind the Screen

[catsclaw227]

I couldn't find a thread about this, but Bart Carroll put up an editorial about getting back behind the DM screen for 4e. He makes some observations about the social contract between players and the DM, and how it has evolved between editions.

Here are some select quotes:

First Edition, in many ways, placed the power of the game in the hands of the DM. “Can I do this…?” and “What happens if I…” were essentially questions posited by the players to be answered by the DM. Not quite sure how a rule worked? Wondering what actions your character can perform? In the First (and largely Second) Edition campaigns I played, these were all questions that often needed answers from the DM. That was the relationship. You tell the DM what you want to do, the DM tells you if you can, you roll some dice, and the DM provides the result.

Third Edition shifted this relationship, in my opinion, into the players’ hands. The DM still ran the game and mediated the story. But as far as the rules went, the players had much greater power in how they built their characters and what they could pull off. Pun-Pun is an example taken to the extreme, but min-maxing characters was commonplace, often limited only by the players themselves. In several campaigns, I witnessed the tension this caused between experienced players looking to build the most powerful character they could, and newer players using the character they were most comfortable with—usually, a simpler, less tricked-out character.

I have had this experience as well. Though he goes on to say that he has nothing against min-maxing, and I don't either, I have also observed that the relationship between DM and player has changed over the editions as the rules have become more specific/unified/encompassing.

Good or bad? That is a rather significant discussion, and I imagine that it has been done to death at this point, but he posits that going to 4e brings this together to a fair middle ground. I would agree, at this point, with my 4e experience as a DM.

We are converting Age of Worms and there have been a host of hurdles to overcome, but it has been worth it for us, to this point.

Note, we went against advice and converted 8th level PCs (to 11th level to match the level scale of 1-30) and this has been a challenge.

One thing about 4e that is similar to our 3.x experience is the change in gaming perspective when we go from RPing to combat and back to RPing. The game goes from being a narrative/storytelling game to the tactical game and the players sorta, rise out from a first-person perspective into a third-person perspective as the battle maps/tiles come out and the minis drop.

Good or bad? That is ANOTHER rather significant discussion, and I imagine that it has been done to death at this point as well.

What are your thoughts about the evolution in social contract between DM and player over the editions and the change in perspective that occurs mid game when it goes from RPing to combat?

 

[JeffB]

I read that last night on the website. I totally relate with the whole thing, including the middle ground he has found with 4E- mirrors my experience.

In particular I could identify with and am not a fan of the "build" mentality that seems so prevalent with 3E players. I couldn't stand it in OD&D/1E either with the players who were always writing up Ninja and Samurai classes that were beyond munchkin. But thats just my personal hangup..to each their own.

 

[buzz]

My experience has been that the min-maxing encouraged by 3.5 works just fine... as long as everyone at the table is (roughly) equally good at it. When only one or two people are, games can break completely.

The prime example of this was a gnome wizard my buddy had created for our Eyes of the Lich Queen campaign. It may partly be poor design of the adventure (which, mechanically, was quite poor IMO), but that gnome could pretty much walk through the encounters by himself.

Granted, this is true of any game with a tactical or build emphasis, but at least 4e has ditched all the "false choices" in 3.5. I remember a Mearls quote where he said that there was no reason to make chagren a competition since the players were intended to be working together. I love that.

As for social contract suggested by the text, I was very happy with the attitude in the 3.5 DMG, and am even happier with the 4e DMG. The fact that some version of "Roll the dice or say yes" made it into 4e just blows my mind (in the good way).

 

[Cadfan]

I have mixed feelings on the whole "Edition [X] gave [too much/too little] power to the [insert group here]" argument.

I think that 2nd edition definitely required that the DM have more authority, and that by comparison 3rd edition, having more rules and therefore less need for DM intervention, gave less. But I also think that 2nd edition was aberrationally bad in this regard, so I can't automatically conclude that 3rd edition was above or below par. My entire conception of par is screwed up now.