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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6197760" data-attributes="member: 22779">More gradual change with an epiphany.  I just became more and more disillusioned with games where the hand of the DM is so visible.  It's typically very obvious when the DM has decided, a priori that a given action simply will not work because the DM doesn't want it to.  As a DM, I don't want that level of control over the game and as a player, I constantly chafe at the restrictions.  One of the biggest reasons I switched from 2e to 3e was because I grew increasingly unhappy with Mother May I gaming, where the players are beholden to the DM for far too many things.  3e was great, IMO.  It took all this authority from the DM, wrapped it up in nice, well written rules that were very clear and moved the DM from Game Designer to Game Facilitator.  I no longer had to ad hoc rules on the fly whenever the players tried fairly common actions.4e takes that approach even further by having rules which are, by and large, crystal clear, written in a style which makes the game very, very transparent.  So, by and large, I have the players telling me how things work, because they know the mechanics and know the intention of how the game should work.  In the two years we've played 4e, I can only think of one time the DM had to step in and make anything resembling a fiat decision which wasn't completely supported by the mechanics.IOW, playing in a group of 7 experienced DM's means that we all know how the game works and the idea that the DM has to keep things going is alien to us.</blockquote>

Verification