D&D 4E How did 4e take simulation away from D&D?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Those DMs would also be missing the fact that 'saying yes' to the player who wants his character to swing 50 feet across a room, on a chandelier, and then attack his opponent at the end of it can also be quite educational for that player, when his character goes splat, prone in front of that enemy, who then whacks him with CA.

Saying yes doesn't imply that the player ultimately gets his way.

Right. The 'yes' was firmly in the vein of "Yes, I'll allow you to try to do that. It may be ill-advised and the DC may be preposterously high, but go ahead." as being a perfectly legitimate response in some cases. Note too that the section on skill challenges discusses the narrative requirements for a player action as well. The overall advice is to let players try things, but the things they attempt still have to have narrative justification and may or may not produce the results desired.

"Say yes" certainly does also plainly aim at narrative/plot/setting input by the players. This is discussed in more depth in DMG2 (which has probably the best discussion of this topic in print anywhere). Several good examples are given. This kind of thing should be a significant tool in any good DM's toolkit. Notice also that DMG2 revisits the more specific 'say yes' advice, where it provides some more depth and notes that saying yes is indeed not a license for players to trample all over the DM (stated more in the line of 'yes... but ...' ).

I think 4e is pretty consistent in this regard and the advise they give is quite cogent. I'd say there are MANY DMs out there who might improve their games if they took it to heart. I know I've gone more out of my way in this regard in the last few years and it always seems to work well. I can imagine some players who might be unfit to wield such responsibility, but then if the DM is weak enough to be pushed around by those players there's more going wrong than a bit of advise is going to fix.

 

[pemerton]

4E's "Say Yes" and Dogs in the Vineyard's "Roll dice or say yes" are about two pretty different things. 4E's advice seems to be saying that you should give the players the ability to determine what's in the setting/the back-story of NPCs ("content authority"), and DitV's advice is about focusing on conflicts between characters.

I think you're right here, but also I think that the sort of content authority that 4e is envisioning handing to players isn't backstory of central NPCs so much as setting material that is closer either to PC backstory (my guy's village, family, friends etc) or colour (here's the shop I get my items from or the academy I make my research check at). Not to say that there can't be grey areas of overlap between this more peripheral content and central NPC/backstory content - and DMG2 I think pushes more into this grey area than does DMG.

 

[webrunner]

Right. The 'yes' was firmly in the vein of "Yes, I'll allow you to try to do that. It may be ill-advised and the DC may be preposterously high, but go ahead." as being a perfectly legitimate response in some cases. Note too that the section on skill challenges discusses the narrative requirements for a player action as well. The overall advice is to let players try things, but the things they attempt still have to have narrative justification and may or may not produce the results desired.

"Say yes" certainly does also plainly aim at narrative/plot/setting input by the players. This is discussed in more depth in DMG2 (which has probably the best discussion of this topic in print anywhere). Several good examples are given. This kind of thing should be a significant tool in any good DM's toolkit. Notice also that DMG2 revisits the more specific 'say yes' advice, where it provides some more depth and notes that saying yes is indeed not a license for players to trample all over the DM (stated more in the line of 'yes... but ...' ).

I think 4e is pretty consistent in this regard and the advise they give is quite cogent. I'd say there are MANY DMs out there who might improve their games if they took it to heart. I know I've gone more out of my way in this regard in the last few years and it always seems to work well. I can imagine some players who might be unfit to wield such responsibility, but then if the DM is weak enough to be pushed around by those players there's more going wrong than a bit of advise is going to fix.

Exactly. Player requests come in variouis forms:

"Can I try to jump across this 100 foot chasm"
"Yes, you can try. You probably won't make it."

"Is there a magic guild in this town."
"Yes, but it's more of a sinister Orcus cult."

"Is there a magic guild nearby?"
"You are told the nearst magic guild is [whatever the next destinationof the PCs was going to be anyway]"

"Can I buy a Holy Avenger"
"Roll streetwise. You are pointed to a guy in a back alley selling authentic holy relics, but you get the feeling something isn't quite right.."

"Can I run across and jump here and then attack them in mid air and while the sword is still in them swing it around to bash the two guys together"
"Well that'll be a move action then two standard actions, you could use an action point if you want?'

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I would hazard a guess that there are at least as many, if not more, GMs out there who are worried about other GMs who "might say yes too often and train players to become more entitled" than there are actual GMs saying yes too often and training players to become more entitled.

My guess is that the number of GMs that, and players pushing them to, say yes to everything is rather small. It is about the same number that get that extreme with the Viking hat, say no to everything.

However, it is also my guess that this small number is disproportionally represented on message boards.

 

[eriktheguy]

I want to add to this argument. In the case of saying "yes but..." when a character tries to do something stupid. Many DMs are content to allow the foolish hero to try something very stupid and allow them to suffer grievous consequences. I actually try to avoid this and warn the players out of game when they try something very stupid. Many DMs think this breaks the reality of the game world and is terrible meta-gaming. I strongly disagree. Why?

1. The scenario the player imagines and the scenario you describe are different, no matter how many adjectives you use. Maybe the player imagines the 'shallow pool' you described as being deep enough to soften a 30' fall when in fact it is not. Maybe they picture those three 'thugs' you described are homeless gang members when in fact they are well-armed 'thuggish' warriors.
2. It's hard to get a feel for what something is like without being there. A 20 foot drop off looks and feels a lot different when you are really there. Your character does not get that human 'twinge' that you would get standing at the top of a cliff. As a player you might not even know what '20 feet' means when it is abstracted as a number. It's about the third floor of an apartment building.
3. It's even harder to get a feel for what your character can do. Without understanding the system well, you may not know that a 30' fall is almost certain to knock you prone. If you are used to 3e you might think you can take on four orcs, when in reality you cannot. If you are new to RPGs, you don't know that you can't take on a mind flayer at level 3 ("It looked as weak as a human!").

So I often warn my players when they are about to do something stupid. Or at least when they are about to do something their characters would have known was stupid. This helps avoid many arguments with the players of dead characters after the session.
"But you didn't say the lava was deep, and I figured the water walking boots would get me across. You didn't say the lava would destroy my boots! I've fought fire monsters before and never had to worry!"

So this is the "Yes, if you really want to, but here's why you should say no" scenario.

EDIT: There's this great blurb on page 171 of Dungeon Master's Guide 2 (an amazing read by the way) called "Nudging". I strongly urge you to look it up. I won't reproduce it here for obvious reasons. It is a word from the author Robin Laws. He basically says that when your PCs are making plans or decisions you don't have to remain silent. You can drop helpful information, tell them what might work or might not, or otherwise 'nudge' them in the right directions. He uses the example of players making major party decisions, but this can apply to round-to-round decisions made by individuals as well. I think it's a novice mistake that some expert DMs make, refusing to speak directly to the players because they see it as meta-game. In reality you need to speak to them directly sometimes because of the three reasons above.

 

[KarinsDad]

Why?

And nothing states that "Saying No" doesn't mean that one cannot qualify it, just like one can qualify "Saying Yes, but...".

Player: "I want to jump off the 200 foot cliff and catch a branch 20 feet down."
DM: "Are you sure you want to do that? Are you sure there is a branch to even catch?"
Player: "Well, the DMG has a section on 'Saying Yes'."
DM: "Uh huh. Good luck with that."

The rest of the table laughs their butts off.

The DM didn't actually say no, but he might as well have.


An extreme example, but the point is that sometimes, the best thing a DM can do is basically say No and let the game move on such that the PC doesn't commit suicide (literally, or figuratively) or disrupt the game for the entire group.


What's worse, the player having the PC committing suicide because the DM said "Yes, but it will be really hard to pull off" and the player didn't quite get that really hard meant basically impossible?

Or the PC getting killed in combat?


I'll give an example in a 3E game I was a player in once. I had a PC that had a lot of escape options (potentially important to the final outcome). That PC had a background of being a captured slave. The DM added quite a bit of violence to that background. The DM then had quite a bit of violence in the adventure within the middle of town where press gangs and mercenary foes hired to attack the PCs. After one such encounter, the PCs went to the headquarters of the mercenaries in town. There were two guards out front. There was nobody else in sight (also potentially important to the final outcome).

We started talking to them and told them to take us to someone in charge (it was not a polite conversation) and they told us to go away. My PC had been trained over and over again in this campaign that violence was the answer to problems, so he pulled out his sword and killed the one guard and told the other guard to go get someone in charge. The DM suddenly had "dozens of mercenaries" coming out of the woodwork (out of the headquarters, from taverns down the street, etc.) as if their pagers all went off at the same time. Most of the party managed to flee, but without even running an encounter, my PC was "killed" and another PC who was sticking by my PC was "captured" (the player of that PC wanted to just waste these guys as well because they were the enemy as far as we were concerned, but my PC did it instead of his, so my PC was killed).

To me, I was roleplaying my PC based on the scenario and his personality/background. To the DM, I was being disruptive in his game. But instead of "Just saying No" and stopping the game and explaining ramifications, the DM "Just said Yes" and allowed my PC to commit suicide.

The player of the PC that stuck by my PC asked why we didn't actually run the encounter instead of DM fiat. The DM replied with "Running the combat is not worth my time", so although I wasn't too bothered about losing my PC before that comment, that ticked me off and I replied with "Well, this game is not worth my time" and I left and never returned. The DM could have run the encounter and my PC might have still died, but that's not the point. The point is that the DM could have averted the entire issue by just letting me know up front that this was the most likely response to such an action. Just say No.


When it comes to the player having his PC do something really stupid, possibly because what the DM is explaining is different than what the player is hearing, "No" or "No but..." is sometimes preferable to "Yes but ...".

 

[eriktheguy]

@ Karinsdad

I think I know the sort of DM you're talking about. Basically they respond to things they don't like with quick in-game vengeance. The 'pager going off' effect is a great example of this sort of mentality. I have a feeling that if you had played that combat out and used every one of your escape tricks, you would still have died even as the party escaped. The DM decided your fate as soon as you interfered with his campaign (by having the audacity to play in it).

I used to DM like this, although I've been DMing since I was very young so I don't apologize. I think leaving the table was probably the best call.

 

[Barastrondo]

Interesting angle to take.

Just an observation based on watching people talk on various forums and gaming blogs. There's a number of people out there, on every side of every argument, who extend issues from "that wouldn't work well for my group" to "that shouldn't work for any group."

Firstly, I did not say (nor mean to imply) that it's "that" lost [etc.], but rather, simply commenting on what I have observed, right in front of me. As in, "for some", and "it would appear". You know, the stuff I actually wrote, not the agenda you seem to be assuming I am pushing, defending, or what have you. See above as well, for more of that.

From what I've seen in this thread, I'd basically disagree with you. The art of saying no doesn't seem to be "lost" or "forbidden" even to some to me; rather, it seems that some people make a conscious choice to avoid saying no out of hand. That's very different from the implication of incapability, be it from a talent once possessed and now lost, or from a self-imposed rule that is seen as inviolate regardless as context.

It's a choice, that's all, and frequently a very informed choice at that. I am as disinclined to agree that people who prefer to say yes are somehow less capable of saying no as I am disinclined to agree that people who want to say no are somehow less capable of saying yes.

My guess is that the number of GMs that, and players pushing them to, say yes to everything is rather small. It is about the same number that get that extreme with the Viking hat, say no to everything.

However, it is also my guess that this small number is disproportionally represented on message boards.

I can prove nothing, but I believe your guess to be very accurate.

 

[Ryujin]

The scenario the player imagines and the scenario you describe are different, no matter how many adjectives you use. Maybe the player imagines the 'shallow pool' you described as being deep enough to soften a 30' fall when in fact it is not. Maybe they picture those three 'thugs' you described are homeless gang members when in fact they are well-armed 'thuggish' warriors.

There is definitely truth in that. Years back I recall a DM stating that a couple of Gypsies were hanging around, outside of a tavern. The players casually tossed some jibes their way and continued on to the tavern.

What the players 'saw': Old Gypsy women wearing bandanas over their hair, hawking cheap trinkets to passers-by.

What the DM had placed there: Two young and competent Gypsy rakes with sabres, and short fuses.

Much bloodletting ensued.

 

[KarinsDad]

EDIT: There's this great blurb on page 171 of Dungeon Master's Guide 2 (an amazing read by the way) called "Nudging". I strongly urge you to look it up. I won't reproduce it here for obvious reasons. It is a word from the author Robin Laws. He basically says that when your PCs are making plans or decisions you don't have to remain silent. You can drop helpful information, tell them what might work or might not, or otherwise 'nudge' them in the right directions. He uses the example of players making major party decisions, but this can apply to round-to-round decisions made by individuals as well. I think it's a novice mistake that some expert DMs make, refusing to speak directly to the players because they see it as meta-game. In reality you need to speak to them directly sometimes because of the three reasons above.

Too bad. I already gave you XP before you added this last bit.


I think it's a novice mistake to do what you suggest here. It's human nature to "add to the plan" by the DM, but it's not his role to do so. Just because it is in DMG2 doesn't mean that it's a good idea.

The DM should be impartial and keep his mouth shut UNLESS the major party decision will definitively lead to a TPK or something, and even then, he should be very careful how he "nudges" (shy of the situation where it is obvious that the DM did not hand out enough information and needs to fix that). Nudging should be things like reminders at best.

DM: "Remember, the Duke did say that you were only supposed to scare off the Orcs, not wipe them out."

Nudging should almost never be giving out information that the players do not already have (again, unless the DM forgot to hand out information that the players need). It's ok to stop the game, admit that the DM made a mistake and didn't give the players certain info that he was supposed to, and then continue the game. However, this should only be done for info the DM forgot to give out, not if the PCs avoided the location where that info was located and the PCs avoided it. In that case, the DM should not hand out that info for free. And even giving the players info that was supposed to be handed out but the DM forgot should be rare (that's not how the story orignally went, so let it play out and see where it goes).


As a general rule 99% of the time, let the players make their own decisions and don't try to influence it.


And this is an especially bad idea in combat except for the most obvious of combat tactics. For example, reminding the player this his PC will provoke an Opportunity Attack if he moves on the squares that he was planning, is probably ok. Telling the PC that if he moves to a certain square, he is setting himself up for an attack by every foe in the room shouldn't be done. IMO. Let the player make his own decisions.


To me, nudging is like fudging dice rolls or other forms of "DM cheating". I'm strongly opposed to the DM not being an impartial arbitrator and being a source of "Deus Ex Machina" guardian angel of the PCs and their actions.

With some rare exceptions, nudging is a way for the DM to partially railroad the story into the direction that he wants it to go into as opposed to the direction that the players want it to go into, even if that player direction is based on a lack of information or just based on a bad assumption or incorrect knowledge.

PC/player mistakes should be allowed the vast majority of the time.

The DM sets the scenario. The players decide actions for the PCs. The DM should only influence the decisions of the players if there is an NPC there to do so and that NPC has the appropriate knowledge and motivation for doing so (or if there is a terrain feature already there or some such). But the DM should not influence the decisions of the players for a DM metagame reason and not by just stopping the story and blurting out a nudge.