I was DMing a session of D&D 4E Lair Assault this weekend and noticed how ridiculous one of the combats turned. One of the characters was pushing and knocking prone every enemy that started a turn within three squares, another causing 5 ongoing damage if he was within two squares of him, another who was immobilizing, etc. While I am aware that the game was Lair Assault and the name of the game is to min/max to survive a deadly encounter, I am noticing a similar trend in my other two regular 4E games (one 4th the other 7th level).
There are simply too many powers causing too many conditions with too many options that – as the DM – I can’t even establish a set of working tactics for my monsters to follow. Even at these relatively low levels (4, 7, and 8), I’m having difficulty keeping up with my players. Each player has at least a half dozen different powers taken from numerous sources that I have no hope of learning the workings of each one. I am put in the unenviable position of being a DM that simply has to trust what his players’ understanding of their powers while being unable to provide any oversight in the process or even serving as a real rules arbitrator. (Instead, I’m simply the controller of the monsters.)
These experiences occurred close to the same time as two others - the announcement of the “new iteration” of D&D and my obtaining the Pathfinder Beginner Box - both framing my experience with 4E.
I think that my group has experienced an unprecedented level and expedience of rules bloat with 4E due to the “everything is core” mentality and the Character Builder’s ease of access to every resource (including online articles from Dragon magazine).
As DM, I could easily state “we’re using only Player’s Handbook 1” or “make an Essentials character” and limit the options. For example in 3.x edition, I would typically limit my players to only core rulebook classes and races – or depending on the setting add something with a little flavor – such as psionic classes. However, I’m finding that the mindset of the two different groups I DM is that they want to have access to all of the resources – which is fine since they’ve paid for them – but it does get unwieldy, especially since Wizards of the Coast’s mantra has been that DMs should allow all resources in their game.
So now the WotC designers are talking about getting us back to the “core D&D experience” with the new iteration. Likely this means they are cutting out the unusual races such as Shardmind and classes such as the Avenger. Not to say that the Shardmind is a bad race or that the Avenger is a bad class, but when we want a simpler, more streamlined D&D, will we pick the Shardmind or the elf; the rogue or the Avenger? Old school seems to win these debates every time.
Looking at the Pathfinder Beginner Box, I can see a streamlined “iteration” of Pathfinder with three races, four classes, greatly reduced spell and feat selections, fewer monsters, etc. It is a distilled version of the game. In addition to the great production values, I argue that it is also this distillation that has earned a lot of the praise I’ve encountered.
I am now considering that richness in a game system should not come from a large number of rule books and player options. Instead, the DM should provide that richness with choices characters can make during the game through roleplaying interaction and exploration of the campaign world.
For my next game, I am considering running Chris Perkins’ reimagining of “The Steading of the Hill Giant Chieftain,” allowing only Essentials characters and utilizing inherent bonuses. This should allow a more “classic D&D” feel to fit the origins of the adventure and have the added effect of limiting options to the players.
Do you think that fewer options that better fit a unifying theme can improve a player’s experience with the game? Do you find yourself, like me, wanting to go back to the basics of the game and have fewer options?
There are simply too many powers causing too many conditions with too many options that – as the DM – I can’t even establish a set of working tactics for my monsters to follow. Even at these relatively low levels (4, 7, and 8), I’m having difficulty keeping up with my players. Each player has at least a half dozen different powers taken from numerous sources that I have no hope of learning the workings of each one. I am put in the unenviable position of being a DM that simply has to trust what his players’ understanding of their powers while being unable to provide any oversight in the process or even serving as a real rules arbitrator. (Instead, I’m simply the controller of the monsters.)
These experiences occurred close to the same time as two others - the announcement of the “new iteration” of D&D and my obtaining the Pathfinder Beginner Box - both framing my experience with 4E.
I think that my group has experienced an unprecedented level and expedience of rules bloat with 4E due to the “everything is core” mentality and the Character Builder’s ease of access to every resource (including online articles from Dragon magazine).
As DM, I could easily state “we’re using only Player’s Handbook 1” or “make an Essentials character” and limit the options. For example in 3.x edition, I would typically limit my players to only core rulebook classes and races – or depending on the setting add something with a little flavor – such as psionic classes. However, I’m finding that the mindset of the two different groups I DM is that they want to have access to all of the resources – which is fine since they’ve paid for them – but it does get unwieldy, especially since Wizards of the Coast’s mantra has been that DMs should allow all resources in their game.
So now the WotC designers are talking about getting us back to the “core D&D experience” with the new iteration. Likely this means they are cutting out the unusual races such as Shardmind and classes such as the Avenger. Not to say that the Shardmind is a bad race or that the Avenger is a bad class, but when we want a simpler, more streamlined D&D, will we pick the Shardmind or the elf; the rogue or the Avenger? Old school seems to win these debates every time.
Looking at the Pathfinder Beginner Box, I can see a streamlined “iteration” of Pathfinder with three races, four classes, greatly reduced spell and feat selections, fewer monsters, etc. It is a distilled version of the game. In addition to the great production values, I argue that it is also this distillation that has earned a lot of the praise I’ve encountered.
I am now considering that richness in a game system should not come from a large number of rule books and player options. Instead, the DM should provide that richness with choices characters can make during the game through roleplaying interaction and exploration of the campaign world.
For my next game, I am considering running Chris Perkins’ reimagining of “The Steading of the Hill Giant Chieftain,” allowing only Essentials characters and utilizing inherent bonuses. This should allow a more “classic D&D” feel to fit the origins of the adventure and have the added effect of limiting options to the players.
Do you think that fewer options that better fit a unifying theme can improve a player’s experience with the game? Do you find yourself, like me, wanting to go back to the basics of the game and have fewer options?
