Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")

[pemerton]

I recall an earlier discussion we had on skill challenges. Again, I have to say it's a case of a skilled DM turning water into wine. (or flip it around to wine into water - I'm not trying to make a qualitative judgment here). You seem concerned that WotC isn't pushing what YOU believe the system to be capable of. Bluntly, I think that's only because you can personally make the system support that capability, not because the system is naturally capable of it.

<snip>

If you have found ways to massage the system into a grand, thematically deep collaborative story building system, hey, more power to you. But the fact of the matter is, 4e truly is a game centered around dungeon delving / skirmishes.

Well, we have different views on this.

My view as to what the system is intended to support is based on:

(i) stuff the designers said around the time of release (like Rob Heinsoo's reference to indie design);

(ii) the obvious resemblance to indie game design (nowhere more obvious than in DMG2, where some of it is literally Robin Laws copying and pasting from HeroQuest 2nd ed);

(iii) the inclusion of so many rules - like treasure parcels, skill challenges (including the various examples in DMG, DMG2 and other hardbacks), quest XP (including player-designed quests in the DMG), etc - that make it feasible to run a non-exploration, non-AD&D-style game;

(iv) the contents and approach of books like Underdark, Demonicon and The Plane Above;

(v) discussions on these forums.​

And my own experience running the game is, for me, confirmatory of my view.

I don't know if your view is based on anything other than play experience. (Also, I don't know how familiar you are with the indie games that, in my view, have heavily influenced 4e's design.) If the only evidence a person had was the WotC modules than I think that they would agree with you. But my claim is that there is a huge dissonance between those modules and the hardbound rulebooks. Whatever The Plane Above is, it's not a recipe for a skirmish game. And just ignoring books like that doesn't make WotC's dissonance go away.

I also think they may have intentionally wanted to divorce the collaborative story idea - or at least let 4e boil back down to the "dungeon delving, skirmishing combat fests" that made up many early DnD modules.

If this was their intention, then why would they publish the first version of D&D which has rules for player-designated quests that will earn quest XP?

Or passages like this, in the rules on skill challenges:

Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail…

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it…

In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth…

However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing​

(The quotes are from the PHB and the DMG.)

 

[CuRoi]

Well, we have different views on this.

My view as to what the system is intended to support is based on:

(i) stuff the designers said around the time of release (like Rob Heinsoo's reference to indie design);
​

First off, awesome link! Thanks for the info it was a great read. However, many things said also completely support EXACTLY what I was saying in my previous post about DMing and how 4e does not fit my style.

Ron Heinsoo: One of the challenges for us with this edition is recognizing that the 3.5 sweet spot was real, it was this element where when the Game Master gets to the point around when their players are using 6th-level spells, all of the sudden the GM’s ability to really understand what’s going to happen in their game is a little bit gone. I’ve seen too many plans of GM’s lovingly figuring out what they want to do, and all of the sudden the PC’s say, “bop!”, and it’s like game over! The GM thinks, “I don’t know what to do.”

There are people who can handle it, I’m sure in our audience we have people who are intensely proud of being really good GM’s and can manage to handle it. But I, perhaps, am like the part of the audience who really didn’t want to have to learn 3.5 according to its rules. I could just make up rules when needed to help everybody have fun, but that isn’t really how the game is supposed to be played. What we’re trying to do with 4th Edition is make a game where the Dungeon Master is given enough tools, and enough SIMPLE ways of making the game fun, that the amount of time that 3.5 would force you to spend doing math is actually used by the GM on their story. Go ahead and finish figuring out your story and what seems cool to you, not just dealing with leveling up this monster or figuring out the math.
​

I am that guy. That guy that loves "handling it" when the players go off the map. The guy that lets the players completely trash the module because its "more fun that way". Take me off the freakin' rails please The "simplicity" in 4e which is intended to help the DM with the story and take more spontaneous control out of players hands does not at all help me in crafting a story the way I do it. If you want a system that can ensure players stick to the script, then yes, 4e accomplishes that better than 2e, 3e, etc. My style really doesn't want or need that.

Mr. Heinsoo in the above assumes that a) There is a way the game is "supposed to be played" and b) DM's having to ad lib campaigns is a "bad" thing. My games are the antithesis of that. I have never really seen any roleplaying game's rules as anything more than a shared structure for a story. If the story demands the rules be bent, broken or twisted, I'm happy to oblige. The rules, for me, are shared guidelines, nothing more.

3e I think had so many simulationist rules that it encouraged players not to move outside the rules when the story or plot demanded it. It gave the impression that "gee, there's a rule for this, we must follow it at all costs". In many cases that thinking was right - because if you altered that rule you'd break something else.

However, I do not think the rules bloat of 3e means the idea of DMs having to improv or react to a players wild suggestions was ever a bad thing that needed to be exorcised with a new rule set. It does mean that the DMs were possibly overwhelmed with rules and needed some simplicity but I do not necessarily think many DMs wanted less flexibility as a result.

If this was their intention, then why would they publish the first version of D&D which has rules for player-designated quests that will earn quest XP?

Or passages like this, in the rules on skill challenges:

I snipped the skill challenge quotes for brevity.

As previously discussed, you have enlightened me on the value of skills challenges. I think it might make a great foundation for future DMs, but still feel it is unnecessarily restrictive if a DM is never encouraged to move on to a more flexible style. My issues are precisely with how the skill challenges are presented and confirmed by Mr. Heinsoo's interview. The system makes several assumptions which Mr. Heinsoo alludes to in the above: Players shouldn't just say "bop" and challenge the DM / pre-written story as he states. The system also assumes the DM will have a nice laundry list of skills challenges all laid out ahead of time which the players will necessarily follow because the DM "lovingly figured out what they want to do" some time prior to the session. They will then all follow the script to its conclusion.

Yes, you can alter this approach and take skill challenges and put them together on the fly for a more "free-form" game. I still contend the system is not designed for this, doesn't allude to the budding DM for a future need to do this, and it is a matter of a talented DM "making water from wine" so to speak.

So I'll stick by everything I said previously - 4e's intent was to lower entry level DM barriers and to further divorce collaborative storytelling from the mix so players had less say in the overall direction of a story. Sure, the skill challenge system lets them mechanically interact with the established story in a structured, localized, basis and it is an excellent framework. However, I think the designer made it clear that players fundamentally altering the some "lovingly crafted" plot was something 4e wanted to move away from.

EDIT - Rob says the "I don't know what to do" moment for DMs comes at 6th level spells. I'd lower that to 5th with Teleport, Commune, Commune with Nature, Plane Shift, Overland Flight etc. Heck, just having a druid that can change into a small bird forces you to expand your DMing horizons to aniticipate the extremely unexpected. I love those spells when players cast them frankly. I don't want to see a game where those things are deemed "too difficult for a DM to deal with" and shunted off to some red headed step-child system. Those instances have made for some of the most memorable times I have experienced in RPGs. Again, this is all by my play style which has never followed the typical "module of the day" path.

 

[nnms]

Mr. Heinsoo in the above assumes that a) There is a way the game is "supposed to be played" and b) DM's having to ad lib campaigns is a "bad" thing.

I didn't get that from what he was saying at all. Not one bit. I think you might be reading that into it.

What I thought he was talking about is that after around 6th level, certain characters gain abilities that can do so much in terms of solving problems and facing challenges that the average DM has no reliable way to challenge the players and create interesting situations.

The only thing it has to do with DM improv is that you better be good at it when a player says "I cast this spell" and the situation you've presented them with is suddenly solved and the challenge met, 15 minutes into a 4 hour play session.

So I'll stick by everything I said previously - 4e's intent was to lower entry level DM barriers and to further divorce collaborative storytelling from the mix so players had less say in the overall direction of a story.

No, the intent was to make it easier to DM, in whatever approach the DM wanted to take regarding the group's level of improv and collaboration.

What it was meant to stop is:

DM: "So you just finished examing the prince's body. It was definitely murder."
Player1: "Do you think it was assassination?"
Player2: "Probably a local issue-- a crime of passion perhaps?"
Player3: "I cast UltraDivination!"
MYSTERY SOLVED!

However, I think the designer made it clear that players fundamentally altering the some "lovingly crafted" plot was something 4e wanted to move away from.

No, Heinsoo made it clear that the players shouldn't be able to just press the easy button (bop) and resolve the situation by one declarative statement of which spell was cast or which ability was used.

I don't want to see a game where those things are deemed "too difficult for a DM to deal with" and shunted off to some red headed step-child system. Those instances have made for some of the most memorable times I have experienced in RPGs.

First of all, just let yourself be one of the good DMs he talks about. Now see if you can't put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't have your mad skills. You've just prepared a murder mystery that's heavy on the improv and with no set way that you've chosen that the myster must be solved. They can make any assumptions they like, talk to whom they like, etc.,. And then with the casting of a single spell it's all gone. All that prep. The entire situation.

You might be able to go "awesome!" and instantly change the game session from a murder mystery to an attempt to capture the perp. From a procedural to an action chase scene. But not everyone will be able to do it, and for those DMs, the system gives them a big groin punch.

Also, if these instances are always possible and a PC of appropriate level will pretty much reliably have the ability to create them, then that's an exclusion of play styles just as much as a system where you can't just say "I cast fly" and bypass an interesting terrain related puzzle.

 

[pemerton]

I am that guy. That guy that loves "handling it" when the players go off the map.

<snip>

Mr. Heinsoo in the above assumes that a) There is a way the game is "supposed to be played" and b) DM's having to ad lib campaigns is a "bad" thing.

<snip>

I do not think the rules bloat of 3e means the idea of DMs having to improv or react to a players wild suggestions was ever a bad thing that needed to be exorcised with a new rule set.

<snip>

4e's intent was to lower entry level DM barriers and to further divorce collaborative storytelling from the mix so players had less say in the overall direction of a story.

I don't really agree with your description of what is going on here. What Heinsoo says isn't that the players shouldn't be able to affect the story. What he says is that the GM should have control over the framing of the situation. These are two very different things, as explained by Ron Edwards:

Content authority - over what we're calling back-story, e.g. whether Sam is a KGB mole, or which NPC is boinking whom

Plot authority - over crux-points in the knowledge base at the table - now is the time for a revelation! - typically, revealing content . . .

Situational authority - over who's there, what's going on - scene framing would be the most relevant and obvious technique-example, or phrases like "That's when I show up!" from a player

Narrational authority - how it happens, what happens - I'm suggesting here that this is best understood as a feature of resolution (including the entirety of IIEE), and not to mistake it for describing what the castle looks like, for instance; I also suggest it's far more shared in application than most role-players realize . . .

There is no overlap between those four types of authority. They are four distinct phenomena. . .

I was working with a relationship map, not with a plot in mind. I had a bunch of NPCs. Whatever happened, I'd play them, which is to say, I'd decide what they did and said. You should see that I simply gave up the reins of "how the story will go" (plot authority) entirely. . . [but] I scene-framed like a mother-f*****. That's the middle level: situational authority. That's my job as GM . . . players can narrate outcomes to conflict rolls, but they can't start new scenes. But I totally gave up authority over the "top" level, plot authority. I let that become an emergent property of the other two levels: again, me with full authority over situation (scene framing), and the players and I sharing authority over narrational authority, which provided me with cues, in the sense of no-nonsense instructions, regarding later scene framing.

And similarly, like situational authority, content authority was left entirely to my seat at the table. There was no way for a player's narration to clash with the back-story. All of the player narrations concerned plot authority, like the guy's mask coming off in my hypothetical example [of a dramatic revelation] above . . .

I think [good gaming in this style of play] has nothing at all to do with distributed authority, but rather with the group members' shared trust that situational authority is going to get exerted for maximal enjoyment among everyone. If, for example, we are playing a game in which I, alone, have full situational authority, and if everyone is confident that I will use that authority to get to stuff they want (for example, taking suggestions), then all is well. . . It's not the distributed or not-distributed aspect of situational authority you're concerned with, it's your trust at the table, as a group, that your situations in the S[hared]I[maginary]S[pace] are worth anyone's time.​

4e is a great game for collaborative story telling, in which the players resolve the situations the GM establishes. Features like skill challenges, the combat rules and so on are all designed to this end. (As per the quotes in my earlier post.) In Edward's terms, they give the players a degree of authority over plot and narration (not full authority, because the GM gets to decide to some extent what NPCs do, and how they do it).

4e is also a game that, like many indie games (eg HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth, Maelstrom Storytelling) gives the GM control over framing the situations that the players have to resolve. This is what makes the mechanics that give the players authority over plot and narration work! (What makes 4e combat fun, for example, is that the GM establishes a situation and the players have to fight their way out of it. 4e doesn't support, for example, a teleport-and-ambush style of play, where the PCs always fight with an overwhelming tactical and logistical advantage from the start - those sorts of combats will be boring in 4e. Similar remarks apply to skill challenges.)

And Heinsoo's point is that a game like 3E makes it hard for the GM to exercise this sort of control, because there are too many variables and powers (particularly at higher levels). The game is therefore, to a degree, incoherent - it has all these guidelines on encounter design, adventure design, running a campaign, etc - all of which presuppose that the GM has primary authority over framing the situations - and at the same time it gives the players (mostly via the higher-level spells granted to wizard PCs) the power to compete with the GM over who will exercise this authority. 4e resolves this incoherence in favour of the GM. To borrow Edwards's phrase, it assumes that the GM will establish situations that are worth anyone's time, and that the players will use the abilities of their PCs to resolve those situations, and thereby drive the plot of the game.

If you think that the only way for players to affect the story is to exercise authority over the framing of situations, then I tend to assume that you don't have a lot of familiarity with those indie games I am mentioning. Because these games makes the sorts of distinctions Edwards is drawing - between situational or scene-framing authority, on the one hand, and plot authority, on the other - pretty clear at the level of practice and not just theory.

Also, in case anyone is tempted to equate a GM's situational authority with railroading, then as well as the games I've mentioned I'll finish with this favourite quote of mine from Paul Czege:

I think your "Point A to Point B" way of thinking about scene framing is pretty damn incisive. . .

There are two points to a scene - Point A, where the PCs start the scene, and Point B, where they end up. Most games let the players control some aspect of Point A, and then railroad the PCs to point B. Good narrativism will reverse that by letting the GM create a compelling Point A, and let the players dictate what Point B is (ie, there is no Point B prior to the scene beginning).​

I think it very effectively exposes, as Ron points out above, that although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.

"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. Tim asked if scene transitions were delicate. They aren't. Delicacy is a trait I'd attach to "scene extrapolation," the idea being to make scene initiation seem an outgrowth of prior events, objective, unintentional, non-threatening, but not to the way I've come to frame scenes in games I've run recently. More often than not, the PC's have been geographically separate from each other in the game world. So I go around the room, taking a turn with each player, framing a scene and playing it out. I'm having trouble capturing in dispassionate words what it's like, so I'm going to have to dispense with dispassionate words. By god, when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. We've had a group character session, during which it was my job to find out what the player finds interesting about the character. And I know what I find interesting. I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this. And like Scott's "Point A to Point B" model says, the outcome of the scene is not preconceived.

How does it feel? I suspect it feels like being a guest on a fast-paced political roundtable television program. I think the players probably love it for the adrenaline, but sometimes can't help but breathe a calming sigh when I say "cut."​

 

[CuRoi]

I didn't get that from what he was saying at all. Not one bit. I think you might be reading that into it.

Well, that makes two that believe I am reading things into it so I'm fine with giving ground to the majority. However, perhaps its agreeable to say he indicates that having to DM versus "powerful spells" is just too complicated. I'm not arguing that it isn't complicated. What I am arguing is there's no reason to shut it down, but instead DMs should feel free to repsond with out of the box solutions. This however seems to be a bad option in the previous text because this might require a DM to sometimes "make up rules that people enjoy" instead of playing by the rules. It might also require DMs to grow and learn how to adapt (see below to follow my quite possibly bizarre and I'm sure again minority viewpoint.)

As noted, this is all from my play experience and I frankly have no problem doing just those things 4e is supposed to "solve" according to the above passage. I find removing those DM challenges detrimental -see below.

What I thought he was talking about is that after around 6th level, certain characters gain abilities that can do so much in terms of solving problems and facing challenges that the average DM has no reliable way to challenge the players and create interesting situations.

The only thing it has to do with DM improv is that you better be good at it when a player says "I cast this spell" and the situation you've presented them with is suddenly solved and the challenge met, 15 minutes into a 4 hour play session.

Again, I think I have made this clear, but this is so far removed from my play style - and I am only speaking from play style. I am not calling on various industry veterans, designers, the local comic book store owner, the uber 4e DM, etc. etc. It's just my opinion. So, for the record, I never sit down at a table with a planned "scenario" to present my players. I know where we left off last game, I know the various intricacies and movements in the world I have created and I have a loose idea of possibilities players could or could not pursue. This coupled with sometimes extensive, sometimes loosely skecthed maps and a database of NPCs in key positions in the major "plot" are all I really need to run a game. They can't ever "win" with one spell. If they do, well, that's dandy. All they've really done is fast track the plot and probably done something we will talk about for years to come.

No, the intent was to make it easier to DM, in whatever approach the DM wanted to take regarding the group's level of improv and collaboration.

What it was meant to stop is:

DM: "So you just finished examing the prince's body. It was definitely murder."
Player1: "Do you think it was assassination?"
Player2: "Probably a local issue-- a crime of passion perhaps?"
Player3: "I cast UltraDivination!"
MYSTERY SOLVED!

Again, due to the way I've run things, I have never encountered that issue. I'm not working from a rigidly pre-defined scenario, ever. I present the PCs with a large scale problem and let them pick it apart however they want. If the players in my games do cast "UltraDivination" and magically solve some puzzle in 4 minutes, I don't care. They've got an entire world to explore.

To me, deciding that the above "I win Scenario" is inappropriate is just as I pointed out - a capitulation that the game needs to follow set rigidly defined modules which players can't use powers to derail and can only interact with as the script requires. People will argue with me because they think I am saying that means 4e sucks. It doesn't. It means there is a different experience that 4e is trying to create and it is not how I personally run an RPG. It means that IMO, 4e is a bit better suited to skirmishing and dungeon crawling for those reasons. So was Basic DnD, so was 1st Edition, so what, they're still fun games.

First of all, just let yourself be one of the good DMs he talks about. Now see if you can't put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't have your mad skills. You've just prepared a murder mystery that's heavy on the improv and with no set way that you've chosen that the myster must be solved. They can make any assumptions they like, talk to whom they like, etc.,. And then with the casting of a single spell it's all gone. All that prep. The entire situation.

Ok, if the DM preparing this murder mystery just completely ignored the fact that the players have access to Find the Path, Commune, Divination, Speak with Dead, whatever "I win" spell you are thnking of, then they simply were not prepared. They then learn from their mistakes and craft an adventure next time that takes the power of the PCs into account.

This is entirely the point. I'm NOT necesarily a great DM because I have some misguided ego. I'm a great DM because I have been in those positions, made those mistakes, keep making those mistakes, and slowly learned how to run a better game. Making a ruleset that explicitly sets out to remove the "diffcult" or tough decisions from DMing is tantamount to saying "lets all be average DMs forever".

You might be able to go "awesome!" and instantly change the game session from a murder mystery to an attempt to capture the perp. From a procedural to an action chase scene. But not everyone will be able to do it, and for those DMs, the system gives them a big groin punch.

Then punch 'em in the groin!!! I swear they'll but up a nice low block next time and counter with head butt

say "I cast fly" and bypass an interesting terrain related puzzle.

Again, if I am a DM and designing adventures based on "interesting terrain puzzles" for say a party of druids or Harrry Potter wanna-bes on broom sticks, thats my own darn fault. I don't need the rules to save me from myself.

 

[CuRoi]

First off, delicious quotes. Thanks

Second, yep I'm not familair with many indie games. I have read about them, worked with Fudge for a bit (designed a game system for our group for The Matrix based loosely on FUDGE) I am interested in what the guys at Evil Hat are doing, but have only vaguely looked into it.

I am familiar with DnD

The arguments I'm getting though don't seem to apply to my style in the least. I've never had a player cast an "I win" spell. I enjoy sweating it out when a player puts me on the ropes through creative use of their abilities, I in turn do the same to the players when I play out their encounters with "smart" opponents.

What makes 4e combat fun, for example, is that the GM establishes a situation and the players have to fight their way out of it. 4e doesn't support, for example, a teleport-and-ambush style of play, where the PCs always fight with an overwhelming tactical and logistical advantage from the start - those sorts of combats will be boring in 4e. Similar remarks apply to skill challenges.

Right, I get that completely. This is not fun to me. I prefer to present the players with a loosely defined challenge and let them throw the kitchen sink at it while I respond with what obstacles I have at hand. We collaborate on a story and an outcome. If there is an enemy fortress to infiltrate, I let them do it however they desire. If they come up with a combination of spells or abilities the circumvents the "lovingly crafted" defenses, very cool - I've now got a fortress full of angry guys to start hunting them down next game. If they try to execute this "perfect" plan and end up bogged down in a major slugfest (which is often what happens) with every defender in the place, hey, tough break, but also very cool.

I want my players to step outside the frame as it were. I don't care if they can cast spells that obliterate the scene if it is within their power to do so. They own this story as much as I do. I just help adjudicate the outcome. Sure, I have final say and I set out the ground rules, but I won't even pretend to know what they are planning next. I won't even assume they can't jump from page one to page 45 through creative use of whatever spell or ability they might have. If they catch my bad guys and their minions with their pants down with "ambush play" wow, that's completely awesome. I garauntee it won't happen everytime, but we will both revel in it because ultimately it makes for a great story. Making "ambush play" boring as you say 4e does, again steers everything toward pre-defined, scripted, toe to toe fights. Also very fun, but not at all how I run a game.

all of which presuppose that the GM has primary authority over framing the situations - and at the same time it gives the players (mostly via the higher-level spells granted to wizard PCs) the power to compete with the GM over who will exercise this authority.

Ok...I keep seeing this concern about "well a wizard can cast a spell and win the game" thing over and over. Someone give me a concrete example here. I've been playing/DMing DnD for years, I've had players catch me with my pants down before. It has NEVER however spoiled a session or ruined an entire campaign. It's generally great fun and I don't see why all the concern about it and why you say 4e had to "resolve" this travesty

4e resolves this incoherence in favour of the GM. To borrow Edwards's phrase, it assumes that the GM will establish situations that are worth anyone's time, and that the players will use the abilities of their PCs to resolve those situations, and thereby drive the plot of the game.

Again, see my response to nms - I've never needed this resolved. Sure, there were maybe some times where players as I mentioned caught me off guard and I just took it from there and ran with it. That's the whole fun behind it. And you know, sometimes my imagined "situations" just plain stink and need some spice! If a player gives me something juicy by intentionally or inadvertently grabbing hold of my precious plot, I'll probably incorporate it and do it in such a way that they thought it was my idea. I don't mind at all stealing a good pointer or two for everyone's enjoyment. (Oooh that's a bad thing right?, heh)

The whole key is that we all have fun and enjoy the game. My current group would loath being told they were entering a scenario with limited options just so I the DM could feel comfortable doing my job. Please, they want to smack me around and I'll do the same to them for good measure and all in fun and friendship. It's a game of strategy in a sense that I relish. So, I'll stick to the ugly, messy, "Oooh my PC just cast the I win spell" version of things.

 

[Tuft]

Right, I get that completely. This is not fun to me. I prefer to present the players with a loosely defined challenge and let them throw the kitchen sink at it while I respond with what obstacles I have at hand. We collaborate on a story and an outcome. If there is an enemy fortress to infiltrate, I let them do it however they desire. If they come up with a combination of spells or abilities the circumvents the "lovingly crafted" defenses, very cool - I've now got a fortress full of angry guys to start hunting them down next game. If they try to execute this "perfect" plan and end up bogged down in a major slugfest (which is often what happens) with every defender in the place, hey, tough break, but also very cool.

I want my players to step outside the frame as it were. I don't care if they can cast spells that obliterate the scene if it is within their power to do so. They own this story as much as I do. I just help adjudicate the outcome. Sure, I have final say and I set out the ground rules, but I won't even pretend to know what they are planning next. I won't even assume they can't jump from page one to page 45 through creative use of whatever spell or ability they might have. If they catch my bad guys and their minions with their pants down with "ambush play" wow, that's completely awesome. I garauntee it won't happen everytime, but we will both revel in it because ultimately it makes for a great story. Making "ambush play" boring as you say 4e does, again steers everything toward pre-defined, scripted, toe to toe fights. Also very fun, but not at all how I run a game.

Ok...I keep seeing this concern about "well a wizard can cast a spell and win the game" thing over and over. Someone give me a concrete example here. I've been playing/DMing DnD for years, I've had players catch me with my pants down before. It has NEVER however spoiled a session or ruined an entire campaign. It's generally great fun and I don't see why all the concern about it and why you say 4e had to "resolve" this travesty

Getting to solve the scenario your way is so worth it.

The other week, in a home-brew I am playing in, the party's swordsman used sheer persistence to find the Big Bad ahead of time, which meant that we ran that encounter before the minor encounters that were supposed to lead up to it, and those minors had to be handled afterward. Anticlimactic, you might think, but everybody loved it, just because we had managed to put our own spin on the solution.


Similarly, a few years ago, in an 3.5 adventure, my pixie sorceress managed to use a series of "benign transportations" to teleport the party through a narrow arrow-slit. What that meant was that we solved the entire dungeon backwards. The scenario, as written, was written with all descriptions intended for the "proper" way, so my DM had to struggle with the descriptions. "To the right is an ornate urn... I mean, to the left..." It might have been naughty of me, but I loved every time that happened...

 

[nnms]

If the players in my games do cast "UltraDivination" and magically solve some puzzle in 4 minutes, I don't care. They've got an entire world to explore.

Right. So let yourself be a good DM. Heinsoo specifically said that a sufficiently good DM can compensate for this issue. So let yourself be that sufficiently good DM.

To me, deciding that the above "I win Scenario" is inappropriate is just as I pointed out - a capitulation that the game needs to follow set rigidly defined modules which players can't use powers to derail and can only interact with as the script requires.

What I'm talking about is situation not plot (where a script might come into play). I'm not talking about rails or scripts or anything. I'm a completely imrpov DM myself.

The spells available in 3.x to sufficiently high level characters means that a DM has to drastically compensate for their ability to solve mysteries, bypass barriers, etc.,. As well it means that many interesting situations are no longer appropriate or viable for play.

Now imagine your not as good a DM as you are. Imagine someone else on the spectrum of DM experience/ability. What if someone can't as easily recognize how their situation is instantly solved by one declaration of spell casting? Is the answer really to have one bad session after another until they fight their way to your level of competency?

People will argue with me because they think I am saying that means 4e sucks. It doesn't. It means there is a different experience that 4e is trying to create and it is not how I personally run an RPG.

No. People are trying to tell you that 4E doesn't do what you think it does. I run 4E totally unscripted, 100% improv. I have no preplanned idea of what might happen or who might do what. And 4E does not in any way work against me in this regard.

What it does do, is expand my options when it comes to making interesting situations. I can spend less time thinking about the implications of UltraDivination and spells like it and more time thinking about the situation and conflict between different characters and their motivations (PCs and NPCs). I find 4E does the exact opposite of what you've assessed it as doing.

It means that IMO, 4e is a bit better suited to skirmishing and dungeon crawling for those reasons. So was Basic DnD, so was 1st Edition, so what, they're still fun games.

I wish that were the case. I have another campaign starting where we want to play a very traditional mega/campaign dungeon exploration game and I'm brainstorming like mad to figure out the best way to make 4E work in the same manner as Basic DnD and 1st Edition do for this type of game. 4E has pretty jarring shifts between different modes of play that make it less than ideal for exploration heavy dungeon campaigns.

Ok, if the DM preparing this murder mystery just completely ignored the fact that the players have access to Find the Path, Commune, Divination, Speak with Dead, whatever "I win" spell you are thnking of, then they simply were not prepared. They then learn from their mistakes and craft an adventure next time that takes the power of the PCs into account.

Exactly. The system lets down those who don't have the forsight and experience at a certain level. You and I might have no problem realizing that those spells will instantly resolve the dramatic situation with one word. But what about the lesser skilled DMs?

Then punch 'em in the groin!!! I swear they'll but up a nice low block next time and counter with head butt

This sums it up perfectly. I have one question:

What if you could have a system that supported you rather than one you fight against until you're strong enough to beat it into submission?

 

[CuRoi]

Right. So let yourself be a good DM. Heinsoo specifically said that a sufficiently good DM can compensate for this issue. So let yourself be that sufficiently good DM.

Better yet, let's show everyone how to be that sufficiently good DM and continue to challenge them.

What I'm talking about is situation not plot (where a script might come into play). I'm not talking about rails or scripts or anything. I'm a completely imrpov DM myself.

The spells available in 3.x to sufficiently high level characters means that a DM has to drastically compensate for their ability to solve mysteries, bypass barriers, etc.,. As well it means that many interesting situations are no longer appropriate or viable for play.

Drastically? What, by adding Mind Blank to the mix if they need to protect a plot device from Discern Location? By actually using Misdirection on key NPCs/objects? I'm still not following the drastic difficulty of reading the spells in the book, some of which outline ways to possibly foil them in their description. I don't see the difficulty. IMO, if you are DM that has yet to read the PHB cover to cover and at least retain a little bit of info, you might want to consider a different system.

Now imagine your not as good a DM as you are. Imagine someone else on the spectrum of DM experience/ability. What if someone can't as easily recognize how their situation is instantly solved by one declaration of spell casting? Is the answer really to have one bad session after another until they fight their way to your level of competency?

It can be the same with any system really - I imagine 4e bewilders some people (obviously I am much more bewildered by it than you as an example!)

First - if you are a "new" DM and you decide to run an adventure for players with 5th level+ spells its going to be a trainwreck. I've seen it happen. You traditionally start at low level and following the normal XP progression, you will have quite a few sessions under your belt before PCs hit 10th level. If you still don't get how to craft an adevnture for PCs of that level, maybe DMing isn't your gig. Or, maybe you should wrap the game up at a nice end point right then and there. Then start another campaign and work your way through the levels you are comfortable with until you can start to understand what is necessary at higher levels.

Second - Look, in any game, sport, etc. there is a learning curve. If your players are "suffering" through your attempts at DMing presumably it is in a charitable sense. And if it never gets better, presumably they are good enough friends to step up and say "Hey, look, this just isn't working out. Why don't we let the player who is able to dismantle everything you throw at him in a standard action run the game for a bit?" However, the bottom line is people learn from their mistakes, they learn to be good at something they are motivated to do. I'd rather cultivate Great DMs then rearrraneg a system to accomodate so-so DMs.

I suppose your friends could step up and say "hey let's all play system X so it's not so hard for you to run a game." In which case, at my table, dice would be thrown on both sides, heh.

I find 4E does the exact opposite of what you've assessed it as doing.

Ok, you have more experience with the 4e system, so I won't argue about how well it works for you or it doesn't. However, again, removing things just because they could be challenging to a DM seems a bit silly.

You have to understand though, when I say I want to be challenged as a DM, it does not mean I want to be assaulted with tedium.

In that respect, if you say streamlining the rules would be a good idea, I'm completely on board. I was immediately sold on ditching the 2e THACO chart when 3e came out. I also really like some of the things 4e did to follow this route like the skills consolidation. Or the idea of Defenses and the idea of Attributes making attacks (though I don't think they took this far enough IMO). I like the HP boost at first level. I like that they attempted to flatten the power curve a bit between classes (but really dislike the end result). I could go on and on with things I -do- like about the system. All of those things do make a DMs job easier so they can focus on the creative aspects - like adjudicating really interesting plot twists introduced by Divination spells.

Rules bloat is not a DM "challenge" it is an exercise in sheer tedium. If you tell me they should remove spells that give attribute bonuses I'd be more likely to agree with that before agreeing to removing high level divination spells.

Why? Because challenging me to think creatively and out of the box in response to interesting and possibly powerful spell effects is not tedium. Giving players the opportunity to dramatically alter the course of a game or plot with a spell is also not tedious - it's chaallenging, yes, but not tedious. And it's just plain fun. I will plainly submit that I am perhaps very much in the minority on this thinking.

I wish that were the case. I have another campaign starting where we want to play a very traditional mega/campaign dungeon exploration game and I'm brainstorming like mad to figure out the best way to make 4E work in the same manner as Basic DnD and 1st Edition do for this type of game. 4E has pretty jarring shifts between different modes of play that make it less than ideal for exploration heavy dungeon campaigns.

See, again this is where I am obviously bewildered by 4e. I can very clearly see a way to modularly chain room after room and skill challenge after skill challenge to create a dungeon in 4e. Frame "Scenes" players can't leave, etc. which they can plow through with encounter powers, healing surges and second winds. Its darn near perfect for it in the really odd version of 4e I guess I have in my head. 3e not so much. In fact, I've almost never run a dungeon crawl with 3e. Not saying it doesn't work, just saying I don't do it.

This sums it up perfectly. I have one question:

What if you could have a system that supported you rather than one you fight against until you're strong enough to beat it into submission?

Well, the fight example was yours (punch to the groin) I just expanded on it But to keep the analogy going, I'd end up a pretty poor fighter if I fought guys that pulled their punches constantly so they didn't hurt me.

My nephew played on a soccer team once where the whole league was about "winning". I don't mean the uber-competitive winning but the whole "everyone is a winner" concept. You got to run up to open goals and kick it in and it was all happiness and fluffy bunnies and whatever silly ultra-positive reinforcement you could stomach. Too bad IMO such an approach completely devalues the "winning attitude" it is trying to teach. Life is all about challenges and taking it by the horns is the best way to learn.

So, what would I do with a system that completely supported me, kept players from derailing things and offered less opportunity to them for out of the box, insanely open solutions? I'd probably run a dungeon crawl, but that's just me (Yes, I'm a smart a$$ - sorry I just couldn't resist. If you can't tell, I'm enjoying this debate so I hope no one is taking any of this personally or anything.)

 

[nnms]

Drastically? What, by adding Mind Blank to the mix if they need to protect a plot device from Discern Location? By actually using Misdirection on key NPCs/objects?

These are excellent examples. What it does is limit the DM to situations where the bag guys must have access to these resources and know that they need to be used in advance.

3.x has a lot of "automatic challenge bypass" type spells. When a player has access to these, it means a DM can only use a subset of possible situations and still provide a reasonable challenge to the players.

Heinsoo: One of the challenges for us with this edition is recognizing that the 3.5 sweet spot was real, it was this element where when the Game Master gets to the point around when their players are using 6th-level spells, all of the sudden the GM’s ability to really understand what’s going to happen in their game is a little bit gone. I’ve seen too many plans of GM’s lovingly figuring out what they want to do, and all of the sudden the PC’s say, “bop!”, and it’s like game over! The GM thinks, “I don’t know what to do.”​

Can you see now how what Heinsoo was talking about might not have had anything to do with scripting or railroading? But about how challenges can be utterly neutered and situations resolved by a single magic word uttered by a PC? And he goes on:

There are people who can handle it, I’m sure in our audience we have people who are intensely proud of being really good GM’s and can manage to handle it. But I, perhaps, am like the part of the audience who really didn’t want to have to learn 3.5 according to its rules.
​

He gets that sufficiently skilled DMs can compensate and handle the issue. But a large portion of DMs out there don't want a game like that. They don't want to have to adjust everything they do to compensate for players having an array of easy buttons that they can press to dismiss challenges, remove tension and resolve situations.

What we’re trying to do with 4th Edition is make a game where the Dungeon Master is given enough tools, and enough SIMPLE ways of making the game fun,​

Having simple ways of making the game fun does not limit DM skill. The fact that I can use a wider array of situations because the players do not have "challenge bypassers" doesn't have anything to do with me growing or not growing as a DM. It just means I have more tools. And I very rarely have to worry about my dramatic situation being gutted by a "bop" uttered by a player as they simply access a system resource to bypass a challenge rather than engage with it.

I think it's just different DMing skills that get built. Rather than building up my ability to anticipate and compensate for easy buttons, I instead build up my ability to use classic dramatic techniques, situation building, characterization, the addition of colour, and dealing with theme. I think those skills are far more fundamental than 3.x system mastery.

that the amount of time that 3.5 would force you to spend doing math is actually used by the GM on their story. Go ahead and finish figuring out your story and what seems cool to you, not just dealing with leveling up this monster or figuring out the math.
​

I don't know how you handle spells and spell like effects in your improvization heavy form of 3.x DMing. When the PCs encounter a creature or a bad guy with spells, whether you take the time to pick them and build the NPC out level by level. When the PCs cast UltraDivination, do you look at your notes and see what the villian is capable of, or do you just think "It's plausible the bad guy is a wizard and would probably use Mind Blank" and then tell the player they get nothing by pressing the easy button?

I'm still not following the drastic difficulty of reading the spells in the book, some of which outline ways to possibly foil them in their description. I don't see the difficulty. IMO, if you are DM that has yet to read the PHB cover to cover and at least retain a little bit of info, you might want to consider a different system.

Exactly the point. Some DMs don't want to have to be the best at system mastery at the table in order to provide a credible challenge to th players. Some want to concentrate on other priorities.

First - if you are a "new" DM and you decide to run an adventure for players with 5th level+ spells its going to be a trainwreck. I've seen it happen. You traditionally start at low level and following the normal XP progression, you will have quite a few sessions under your belt before PCs hit 10th level. If you still don't get how to craft an adevnture for PCs of that level, maybe DMing isn't your gig.

The hobby is starved for lack of DMs. If game system is such that only a small subset of those people are suitable for DMing, then that system is probably not the best for the growth of the hobby. I know locally, it's next to impossible to find DMs for 3.x or Pathfinder, but those wanting to play are numerous. The 4E players on the other hand, have no trouble finding a game. I don't know if it's like this in other places, but I do know that WotC recognized that DMs are the limiting factor of the growth of the hobby and designed a product to let them do their thing with far, far less headaches, prep time and necessary levels of system mastery.

And also even if the DM runs the group from level 1 and then starts hitting these "challenge-bypassers" later on, it doesn't mean that they'll even know they have to prepare for them and compensate. They shouldn't have to be caught in the groin in order to learn they need to do that low front block headbut combo in order to keep going.

Second - Look, in any game, sport, etc. there is a learning curve. If your players are "suffering" through your attempts at DMing presumably it is in a charitable sense. And if it never gets better, presumably they are good enough friends to step up and say "Hey, look, this just isn't working out. Why don't we let the player who is able to dismantle everything you throw at him in a standard action run the game for a bit?"

Because skill at system mastery doesn't necessarily nothing to do with running an enjoyable game? From running a system that requires it, you may have arrived at a conclusion that there's a 1:1 correlation there, but I assure you that is not the case.

If needing to be the best at the table at system mastery is what qualifies you to DM, then we're going to end up missing out on DMs who's expertise lies more in creative areas, like a sense of the dramatic, the ability to do characterization for multiple NPCs at once, an keen understanding of interpersonal conflict, tension, colour, mood, theme, etc.,.

I would *hate it* if those people are shuffled out of the DM's chair because someone else at the table can game the system better than they can and does so to deflate their dramatic situations again and again.

However, the bottom line is people learn from their mistakes, they learn to be good at something they are motivated to do. I'd rather cultivate Great DMs then rearrraneg a system to accomodate so-so DMs.

Except you're assuming so-so DMs = lack of system mastery. That if someone can't handle the hurdles of 3.x, that they must be limited as a DM. When the truth is that the system is likely getting in their way.

Ok, you have more experience with the 4e system, so I won't argue about how well it works for you or it doesn't. However, again, removing things just because they could be challenging to a DM seems a bit silly.

It's not just challenging the DM. It's changing the entire focus as to what skills are needed to DM. It's emphasizing system mastery over story, plot, theme, colour, motivation, characterization, etc.,.

Why? Because challenging me to think creatively and out of the box in response to interesting and possibly powerful spell effects is not tedium.

For you. For the vast majority of people out there, figuring out an awesome dramatic situation and having it utterly deflated again and again because you happen to have someone who's better at system mastery at the table is utterly tedious.

I will plainly submit that I am perhaps very much in the minority on this thinking.

This. That's what I was talking about when I was saying to just let yourself be the skilled DM Heinsoo was talking about.

See, again this is where I am obviously bewildered by 4e. I can very clearly see a way to modularly chain room after room and skill challenge after skill challenge to create a dungeon in 4e. Frame "Scenes" players can't leave, etc. which they can plow through with encounter powers, healing surges and second winds. Its darn near perfect for it in the really odd version of 4e I guess I have in my head.

Yes, it does work for this. I've done it a lot. But it doesn't work well for 2E and earlier style dungeon exploration. The issue is tactical encounters. This is getting off topic, so here's a post from Robert Schwalb's blog about it:
Reexamining the Dungeon

So, what would I do with a system that completely supported me, kept players from derailing things and offered less opportunity to them for out of the box, insanely open solutions? I'd probably run a dungeon crawl, but that's just me (Yes, I'm a smart a$$ - sorry I just couldn't resist. If you can't tell, I'm enjoying this debate so I hope no one is taking any of this personally or anything.)

Well, I chose to ran a game where the players are all nobles and am enjoying political intrigue, military campaigns, negotiations, murder mysteries, etc.,. And without having to worry about dramatic situations being deflated by the casting of a single spell. The character playing the wizard is still very, very creative with his rituals and has massively influenced the world as a result. What he can't do is cast "Solve Mystery" when a mystery comes up.