Inherent PC Superiority?

[pemerton]

profitability and playability may well serious conflict with each other in the RPG industry.

This may well be so. The suggestion goes back at least to Ron Edwards "nuking the applecart" essay.

But this is pretty orthogonal to magic item wishlists, "say yes", etc. There is no evidence that I'm aware of that links those aspects of a game to unplayability, or to the prioritisation of commerce over play (for example, they are techniques invented by, or derived from, the small press games that you laud).

As it happens, I don't find WotC's publication of long lists of PC build elements particularly problematic. The cluttering of the game with cruft is offset to a significant extent (at least in my view) by the increase in options for players to build the PCs that they want to play. 4e doesn't suffer from a proliferation of mechanical subsystems or "optional expansions" of the Frostburn/Stormwrack/Wilderness Survival Guide etc variety.

The other sort of supplemental material that I find tends to impede playability is setting/story material that dictates how the fiction is to unfold and (in part by creating default expectations) interferes in the free development of the story by the players and GM. Up until recently, 4e has also been relatively free of this sort of material (there is some of it in Manual of the Planes, Underdark, Plane Above and Plane Below but in all but the first of those books its in the minority). Gloomwrought looks like it's going to provide more of it.

EDIT: We cross-posted. I agree with what you say about "say yes or roll the dice" - although I think 4e's "say yes" is also about creative control/collaboration, as Mallus said upthread.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In my neck of the woods (and, by that, I mean anywhere I have ever been, for any length of time, regardless of population density), players are easy to find. Game Masters, and especially good Game Masters, are another story.

...

This may be a good business model.

I am very far from convinced that it is good for the game.

I currently run two tables. In one game there are four players plus me. One is running alternating fortnights with me and a second is not currently DMing but I think that 2011 is the first year in at least the past fifteen where this isn't the case. And the other table has six players (no overlap), two of them currently running campaigns (I think - this was certainly the case a few months ago) and one more with DMing experience.

This is new with 4e. DMing is much easier, and there's a much lower barrier for entry. So as well as the players being empowered, the barrier for DMing has been dropped through the floor. And that is good for the game.

The "Say Yes" philosophy, when applied to anything else, is called "Pampering" or "Spoiling".

The "Say Yes" philosophy, when applied to Improv Drama, is called "The only way to make it work." It's not even "Say yes or roll the dice" there. It's "Always say yes." And if pampering is what you need to be able to improvise an entire and unique half hour musical while up on stage off a handful of prompts (and yes, I know people who do this reliably), bring on the pampering say I.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is, I believe, at least partly based on your misunderstanding of what "Say Yes" is supposed to accomplish, which you have demonstrated at times in the past.

And I think that this is, at least, based on a misunderstanding of what "Say Yes" is supposed to accomplish....For WotC, and the way it is described in the WotC materials. There are posters on EN World with a different vision of "Say Yes" than that espoused by WotC, which I do not view in the same light.

I also agree that casting the DM as parent and the players as children is more than a bit misguided.

Absolutely! The GM is, in part, there to provide adversity, and should not be treating the players as children. He should be able to assume that they are adults, and are capable of being treated as such. That players should be treated like children may not be what WotC meant to say in their "Say Yes" philosophy, but it's very strongly implied by the way they said it.

IMHO. YMMV.


RC

 

[RedTonic]

The style of roleplay I've grown with is extremely collaborative. The earliest RPs I can remember had no numerical systems and the content and outcome of combat (usually between PCs with different agendas and factions) was decided consensually. Most of this gaming happened online via email groups, chatrooms, bbses or IRL round-robin style. And we were adolescents. The goal was to find an option pleasing to everyone in that it made the game more interesting... And PCs did die--regularly. No applecarts were nuked (except that once).

What it boils down to is the tastes of the players. Most of the time these games had no one acting in a recognizable DM fashion. I still run and play games of this type, though they're exclusively online for me these days. Collaborative RP doesn't require a single arbiter of choice and outcome.

I would argue that a group could set up a campaign such that there's no need for a DM. --As always, these things depend on the "people" factor and are, IMO, entirely independent from the mechanical structure. Given that at least in the 3.x books, the rules are up to the discretion of the DM, I believe this is a given. The main trend in D&D style gaming is that of a DM with a vision and players mostly (not exclusively) along for the ride, but that isn't always the case, nor need it be.

OP is right; it's up to your own taste.

Personally, I tend to prefer videogames where player-controlled characters are statted out similarly to NPCs (like FFT, Vagrant Story, etc.). In table top and online, however, my groups tend to play the "extraordinary people, extraordinary circumstances" type. We're pretty ordinary in real life, and we like some escapism. The games are no less challenging for the increased stats, but the PCs are inherently superior (usually) to the average members of their societies in terms of resources. I enjoy a grittier (and some might say nitpickier) style of resource management play which often lends itself a little better to more average or even suboptimal (mechanically speaking) PCs. Others really dig the buff teleport attack method (it's certainly fun to turn the tables with it).

 

[Fifth Element]

That players should be treated like children may not be what WotC meant to say in their "Say Yes" philosophy, but it's very strongly implied by the way they said it.

Not sure what you're referring to specifically. Fr'ex, the first result for a "D&D say yes" google search at wizards.com are this and this, which to me hardly describe spoiling or pampering.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm referring to the books, going back at least as far as the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium, which told GMs that, if the players want to buy any item in the book, the DM should just Say Yes.

(After all, that makes buying the MIC a good investment for the players, and now the Saying-Yes GM better buy one too.....)

EDIT: I would love to change my mind about this. And, if you have anything from the books that shows me wrong, please, please, please quote it. I haven't been keeping up with everything WotC puts out, by a long shot, and if the balance has shifted, I would be very happy to learn of it!

 

[RedTonic]

Pages 4 and 6 of the 3.5 DMG clearly say that the DM is the final arbiter of the game and the DM's authority supersedes that of the books for any given game. How a GM actually acts on that is up to the GM. It means that the GM doesn't need to follow the suggested "say yes" policy regarding magical items or really anything else; the hope is, though, that the GM will be consistent, rational, and fair. I believe that's more than enough.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, I would say that 4e is clear in this as well, but OTOH, I am embroiled in what -- 3? 4? -- threads where it is argued that the DM cannot or should not "Say No" to knocking a snake prone. A lot of folks reading the later materials seem to have gotten a different idea.

For example, I am responding to 5th Element here, but in the other thread, when I pointed out that the ability of the DM to supercede the rules is explicit in 4e, we still haven't gotten past "But it's in the rules! That makes changing a PC's power different" there (not an exact quote, but I can get one if I need to).

It seems to me that the "Say Yes" philosophy espoused by WotC is fully embraced to mean "Say Yes to the Players, regardless" when it suggested that the DM not do so, but instantly means something else when that philosophy is criticized in any way, shape, or form.

Also, I note that the 3.5 DMG predates (AFAICT) the "Say Yes" meme, which is directly related to (IMHO) "Everything's Core" and "Pay For Our Subscription Model, Please, You Really Do Need It To Keep UP!".

YMMV.


RC

 

[JamesonCourage]

I just kind of wish the thread would float back towards what it's about: preferences. Not right or wrong preferences. Just what other people like. That should be good enough for people (in this thread).

 

[Raven Crowking]

My apologies for my part, JC.

RC