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

[GMforPowergamers]

I sometimes say no, but I also bilive that sometimes warnings are needed (um killing town guard may get u in trouble)

My big problem is players taking something toofar then expecting me to say "ok" just because they want me too. However I found that problem 15 years ago in 2e so I don't blame the edition change

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I think you're expressing far too rigid a position. The idea is to play the game and have fun. If things are going in a direction which the DM believes won't be fun for the players then doing nothing isn't serving the game well and it isn't a sign of good DMing. I feel relatively confident that there are MANY good to excellent DMs in this forum who would not agree with you and are probably not accurately classified as rookie DMs.

Now, there are going to be cases where eriktheguy pointed out that information isn't always adequately communicated and some reiteration is desirable. That can go well beyond reminding a player of a rule or of some information he may have forgotten. It could be like you say that the DM forgot to convey something or didn't realize he'd conveyed inadequate or confusing information. There could be a wide variety of other cases though. The PCs presumably have lived their lives in this world. They are surely going to understand many things (particularly social relations) in ways that the players cannot. There's nothing wrong with the DM interjecting and providing input as a way of explicating things. If the DM is in the process nudging the players, well he presumably has at least some reason for doing that. It could be no more than convenience, but so what? Unless the situation is one where the players expressed a genuine desire to follow a particular path and the DM is effectively railroading them out of it and they're just going along to please the DM then it should be fine. Most choices players make tend to be fairly arbitrary anyway.

Now, there is likely a better way to go about this in some cases. The DM can talk to the players at an entirely meta-game level. "OK, guys, you wanted to go kill some undead. I have that all set up, just follow my lead. If you've changed your minds and want to do something else instead then that's fine, do your thing and don't mind me." I have these discussions with my players all the time. Sometimes there will be several plot hooks. I might explain the reasoning behind them and let it be known that A leads to undead, B leads to a dragon, and C leads to a nasty intrigue. Now, maybe I know they want to kill undead, but in that case it is not really nudging, it is just giving them what they want.

 

[eriktheguy]

@ Karinsdad
What you said in your post covers most of what I consider to be 'nudging'. There are some other cases, especially those outlined by Abdul. I do agree with him that your limitations are rather strict. I'm guessing you run a very open world campaign (almost sandboxxy) by the fact that you don't nudge the characters too much. This is similar to my campiagn; I pretty much let the characters go where they want.

Not all DMs do this though. A DM who nudges the characters towards the adventure he has prepared has every right to do so. Some DMs may only take 2 hours to prepare each week and have nothing else ready for the characters. They need to keep the characters on track, unlike me and (I'm guessing) you who can afford diversions.

I also understand what you're saying about not correcting the characters. Personally I love it when parties take information, apply logic, and reach the wrong conclusion. I DO correct them if the mistake arises from something their characters ought to know about the world. This is especially common with new players. I DO NOT correct them if the mistake arises from their reasoning or logic. One of the best moments in my campaign involved killing a lich and inadvertently setting his previously docile undead minions free on the local populace. This mistake on the party's part had advantages and disadvantages, but it was terrific fun to play through the resulting chaos.

Not everything I mention when I nudge them is somethign that I 'forgot' to mention. Often it's something I did mention earlier, but the players forgot. If it's been a week since we last played, but only five minutes in-game, I will remind them of something that slipped their mind. Also, somethings I omit information because the game world is to huge to describe, not because I forgot. I'm fine with telling the players 'no actually, you know that's not true'.

But those are all things most DMs would agree on.

This is where I think you and I differ Karinsdad. I direct the players' conversation by pointing out contradictions, ending circular arguments, reminding them of options they have dismissed or pointing new options out. This is meta-game, but I do it to prevent discussions from going on too long. I think it's fair to throw the players a bone. I am forcing them to condense the hours their characters might take into about 20 minutes discussion at the table. But I think this is a line that many DMs take different sides of; do you help your players make decisions outside of reminding them of what they already know?

Finally, regarding correcting the players in combat: I tend to be very liberal, especially with new players. "You don't think that will work", "You're a defender, you should try to stick with the party", "I wouldn't do that, it would put you right next to the ogre and you aren't built for melee". Usually I am reminding new players of things that are already second nature for experienced players, so that's fine.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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."

Total agreement. I'd give XP with that comment, but I'll have to spread it around first.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This is where I think you and I differ Karinsdad. I direct the players' conversation by pointing out contradictions, ending circular arguments, reminding them of options they have dismissed or pointing new options out. This is meta-game, but I do it to prevent discussions from going on too long. I think it's fair to throw the players a bone. I am forcing them to condense the hours their characters might take into about 20 minutes discussion at the table. But I think this is a line that many DMs take different sides of; do you help your players make decisions outside of reminding them of what they already know?

Finally, regarding correcting the players in combat: I tend to be very liberal, especially with new players. "You don't think that will work", "You're a defender, you should try to stick with the party", "I wouldn't do that, it would put you right next to the ogre and you aren't built for melee". Usually I am reminding new players of things that are already second nature for experienced players, so that's fine.

The above is more or less what I do, except I guess i should extend that thought to that is what I happen to do now. The group I have now has been together a long time, but they are prone to get into a "planning rut" and waste an hour--and not have fun doing it. And they also tend to obsess over details too much if combat becomes, "I'll let you totally screw up, then I'll laugh, and then let you march off to your death."

But I don't nudge the current group because I think those are things that should be nudged all the time. I nudge them because those are things this group needs, and have frequently asked for help solving. And my nudge is often of the nature, "Hey, you guys can keep planning if you want and are having fun, but I noticed it going around the same track you just went down 15 minutes ago." That is, the nudge is just to step back a pace, look at the situation, and then decide what they want. Having made that part more and more explicit as time goes by, it is beginning to shape up where the players do it themselves, now.

The way I nudged these same people in 1987 was totally different. They had different needs then.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The irony about all the talk of 'Yes, And' and its roots in improvisation and its usefulness (or lack thereof) in roleplaying... is that despite it being the Golden Rule of improv instruction and the first rule that is taught to aspiring improv performers, at about Hour 7,500 of your 10,000 hours you finally learn--

"Hey, you know that 'Yes, And' rule we went on and on about? It's baloney. It's not true. You can actually say 'No' all you want in an improv scene and still have it come out fine, assuming your scene partner also knows what they are doing."

Because here's the thing... all saying 'Yes' does is help a less experienced improviser do something that in the long run will help them improvise better, and that is... get over their fear.

The main stumbling block to inexperienced improvisers (and inexperienced dungeon masters for that matter) is fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of not knowing where things are going. Fear of doing the 'wrong thing'. Fear of upsetting their scene partners or players. Making a choice has the potential of screwing things up horribly, and it is that fear which usually stops someone from making a choice. Any choice. If you don't make a choice, then you can't make a bad one. If you say 'No'... then you don't have to make a choice, and have that choice possibly be bad. As a result... most beginning improvisers and DMs say 'No' reflexively, because it's a way to protect themselves from screwing up and making a bad choice.

But the thing we learn in improvisation later on (and I think is the point KarinsDad and others are making about DMing, if I understand them correctly) is that sometimes saying 'No' *IS* a choice. It is a very powerful one. And it is just as valid a move in improv and roleplaying as saying 'Yes', because the 'no' comes from a position of strength, not a position of fear. Saying 'No' does not automatically mean the death of the scene, assuming that the person saying it does so to give a Negative Choice, rather than avoid making a choice. And they are definitely two different things. No choice means a scene is stalling and not moving... a Negative choice means that a scene is is still moving, just not moving in a specific direction.

But the thing about this though... is that at the beginning it is very hard for new players and improvisers to recognize the difference. Because if you say 'No'... both players have to be confident in taking this result and running with it. One has to be in a position of strength within himself to say 'No' as a choice, not as reflexive fear... and the other has to be in a position of strength to immediately (and without getting upset or confused) move around the roadblock... or sometimes even more fun, move directly into the roadblock and see how things play out. If the players on both sides are on their game, they can 'No' their way through a scene quickly, easily, and without any stalling, problems, or hiccups along the way. But you have do be really comfortable to do it. And most new improvisers and roleplayers aren't there to start with.

So what many introductory improv teachers and the DMG are trying to do by telling you to say 'Yes, And' is to try and break that reflexive first habit of saying 'No' because of fear and not because of choice. It's the process of starting off slow... trying to break habits and instincts that have been in place for centuries. But what's truly important here is that the BEST improv teachers can get their students over their fears and can get them making choices without actually ever teaching them the 'Yes, And' rule, because it's teaching a rule that really doesn't even exist. And they'd rather just skip over it altogether than give a rule only to eventually take it away. And for DMs like KarinsDad and the others... it sounds like they follow this same philosophy.

So when they say things along the lines of "I wish WotC had written those sections better"... what it sounds like they mean is that they wish WotC could articulate how to get the results that are wanted without needing to actually throw in the artificial rule of 'Yes, And'. The best improv teachers can do it, and a better-written section of the DMG could possibly have done it too.

Although to be perfectly honest... I've seen so few improv instructors who can actually accomplish this that it's exceedingly rare for beginning improv instruction to not include 'Yes, And'. And I also do not think that a written instruction in a DMG with no possible give and take between the writer and the reader to help explain things could actually get the desired results either. It's just too hard. Now like everything else... if there was an experienced DM right there next to the reader to help explain everything as the person was reading the book... then yeah, skipping over the whole 'Yes, And' thing could be done in the DMG. But the long and the short of it is that the rule is an easier and more understandable shortcut that will usually generate positive results more frequently when all the reader has to go on is just that section of the book. So I definitely see why WotC included it.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think you're expressing far too rigid a position. The idea is to play the game and have fun. If things are going in a direction which the DM believes won't be fun for the players then doing nothing isn't serving the game well and it isn't a sign of good DMing.

Note the word "believes" in your argument.

You are assuming here that the DM is the final arbitrator of fun.

This is a re-occurring POV that has been espoused here on the boards and within the community for quite some time now.

What the players want to do and where the players want to go isn't as much fun as what the DM wants the players to do and where the DM wants the players to go. Another word for this is railroading (even if only done to a mild level).


Take a simple example.

The DM has an adventure set up in the hills next to the town. Orcs from the hills are sneaking down and stealing cattle.

The players hear that on the other side of the town is a swamp. The players decide to go to the swamp to find these cattle stealers.

The DM has 3 basic choices:

1) Interfere with the player decision and tell them "Nope, you are going the wrong way". (your basic choice). This could also be a more mild suggestion, but in either case, the DM is interfering with the player decision.

2) Let the players go to the swamp, but don't create anything interesting there for them to investigate (nobody's choice).

3) Let the players go to the swamp, but create a different interesting adventure there for them to investigate (my choice). They'll eventually get back to the hill adventure. Or not. (or the DM could just introduce clues in the swamp that will eventually lead back to the hill adventure).


Sure, if the only choice is between #1 and #2, then yes. The DM will know that #1 is more fun than #2.

But if the choice is between #1 and #3, then no, the DM does not know that #1 is more fun than #3 unless he creates a fairly subpar adventure #3. And even then, the players might think that the swamp adventure was as much or more fun than the hill adventure, even if the DM doesn't think that.


This is a simple example, but it illustrates the point. This gaming community concept that that DM knows more about what is fun or not for everyone without even attempting to allow the players to make their own decisions and reacting to those decisions is in error from my POV.

Let the players play.

Let them make mistakes.

Don't make decisions for them.

The game can be just as much fun or more fun doing that then to be their wetnurse.


No doubt. This is an interactive game where the DM is there as well and even minor statements by the DM will be strongly considered by the players.

But, the role of the DM is not the role of the player. He should not be making party decisions and directly influencing the group. He will be presenting information and indirectly (and for some people, directly) influencing the group already because that is part of his role. But as a general rule, he should not cross the line into being the equivalent of a strong influential party member or PC. He has too much influence at the table already and giving him more, as per your vernacular, "isn't a sign of good DMing". Obviously, IMO, YMMV.


I cannot tell you the number of times that I've seen in a game where it went something like:

Player 1: "I think we should go down to the markeplace late tonight and try to sneak into that building."

DM: "The building will have heavy guards." (not that this was mentioned before, the DM is throwing out something new that the players may or may not have known or thought of previously, just because the DM is omnipotent for his world)

Player 2: "Let's not do that. Those guards were tough last time and we don't want to get into a fight."

What a way to shut down a good potential adventure Mr. DM. There is nothing wrong with Player 2 coming up with the idea to not do so because of the guards, but it's problematic when the DM throws in his 2 cents and throws the game into a totally different direction. He's not playing a PC. He shouldn't be "nudging".

 

[Scribble]

I personally don't believe D&D is like a math problem. There isn't a single way that is guaranteed to cause the most fun at the table for any given group- It's pretty variable.

So anytime I see someone arguing how doing X or Y is bad DMing, it bugs me.

In my opinion, a good DM reads about and absorbs all different playing styles, ideas, tips, and techniques then finds what works best for his or her own group.

(And I think a great DM can even utilize techniques he might not always agree with if it's what makes the most fun for the group as a whole.)


Part of why I used to love running and playing in Con games so much... Exposure to so many different playing styles is great I think... You never know when experiencing something you thought was a waste of time just a few minutes might change your POV 360 degrees!

 

[KarinsDad]

This is where I think you and I differ Karinsdad. I direct the players' conversation by pointing out contradictions, ending circular arguments, reminding them of options they have dismissed or pointing new options out. This is meta-game, but I do it to prevent discussions from going on too long.

Nothing wrong with most of these. Pointing out new options that the players haven't though of, though, is something that I would try to avoid.

I think it's fair to throw the players a bone.

I think that good DMing means to throw out enough information so that the players can come to a reasonable descision without the DM having to throw out a bone.

But even the best group will grind to a halt on occasion, so bone throwing is sometimes required. I consider it the exception instead of the rule.

It also depends on your players. The more inexperienced your players are, the more bones a DM has to throw out.

Experience players will often cut to the chase on their own though.

I am forcing them to condense the hours their characters might take into about 20 minutes discussion at the table. But I think this is a line that many DMs take different sides of; do you help your players make decisions outside of reminding them of what they already know?

I find that because of weeks going by, it's the earlier session (or earlier in the same session) information dropped on the floor that is the missing crucial piece. Many people forget easily. Nothing wrong with recapping the important info and even throwing it out mid-game.

I'm not talking too much about the DM sharing known information as the DM sharing his opinion (overtly or covertly) on what the PCs should decide.

It's sometimes seen as the player coming up with the kernel of an idea and the DM running with it and fleshing it out to the nth degree. Let the players flesh it out to the nth degree. It's their idea.

Finally, regarding correcting the players in combat: I tend to be very liberal, especially with new players. "You don't think that will work", "You're a defender, you should try to stick with the party", "I wouldn't do that, it would put you right next to the ogre and you aren't built for melee". Usually I am reminding new players of things that are already second nature for experienced players, so that's fine.

No problem with that. Especially for new players.

Even as an experienced player, I sometimes think that someone at the table did something tactically stupid and it ends up working out well. That's another reason why as a DM, I try not to give free combat tactical advice. The DM's advice in combat sometimes works out bad for the PCs. In fact, I sometimes think that this happens more than most DMs are willing to admit (or even notice at their game for that matter). None of us are totally omnipotent. Charging this round might mean getting caught in an area effect next round.

 

[eriktheguy]

@ Karinsdad
I don't think Abdul has anything against your swamp adventure idea. I personally think that option 3 is the best as well, and at the risk of speaking for someone else I think Abdul would agree.

I think abdul was talking about players who miss the adventure entirely and need a shove in the right direction to actually end up on the adventure.
If the swamp is 1 week away and there are tons of dangers on the road there, dangers you were planning on including in a future session that you haven't planned yet, then maybe it IS better for the players to go to the hills instead. It wouldn't be a bad idea to nudge them in that direction.

You could improv. You could already have the swamp adventure planned. But if you are a casual DM, the only adventure you have planned is in the hills, and you aren't too good at improv, then you don't want the players to go to the swamp. The DM would be right to assume the hills will be more fun if the hills are the only thing he is prepared to DM.

And if the players continue to follow bad lead after bad lead, perhaps remind them of something they missed in the first place. Sure realism is sacrificed a bit, but being off track for a long time might not be fun for some groups. Especially if poor communication by the DM was the reason for the confusion in the first place. Nudge, nudge, nudge!

Of course the DM should make note of the adventurers' interest in the swamp and have something ready for future sessions. But nudging the players in a direction that keeps them 'on track' is okay if you aren't prepared to go off track at all, if you aren't capable of running a game that goes that far off track.