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

[CuRoi]

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.

Actually saying this "limits the DM" is more than a bit silly.

There is no limitation. Hopefully the DM is actually not planning in a vacuum, they have an idea of pitting the PC against foes that can match the PCs power levels. (Though not always because sometimes its great fun to outclass the PCs and conversely great fun for the PCs to stomp people into dust.) Hopefully they have an idea of what their opponents might be capable of and what the players might do?

You do that in ANY system in ANY RPG, this has little to do with just 3e. I bet you do it with 4e too. If an ancient Red Dragon is still vulnerable to cold and intelligent, you think it might have acquired protection against cold in its centuries old existence? Is that "cheating" because the party mage likes to cast fire spells? Isn't it just common sense on the part of the Dragon?

Seriously, when have you ever played an RPG and not taken into consideration what the abilties and powers of any given PC and monster might be in order to build a challenging scenario? I'm completely baffled here.

Is your contention that 4e requires absolutely no system familiarity or mastery? Really? I'm, well, amazed by the claim.

Knowing to use spells like Misdirection and Mind Blank in advance should be prefunctory for soem adversaries in a highly magical world. When designing an old campaign, the final major plot twist involved the replacement of the High King with a modified Clone. I knew the PCs would most likely (though not necessarily) have powerful magic available when they got to this stage. The individuals that performed the kidnapping were also necessarily a very powerful group with highly accomplished magic users of their own. So with an advesary that had Spellcraft somewhere in the 30's, it should be child's play to recall that you need Mind Blank to thwart the type of diviniations which may be used to locate a missing King. A ring of Mind Blank was gifted to the High King through an inside job. The High King was then Imprisoned (among a laundry list of other security procedures.)

This is no different than planning some sort of Special Ops rendition in a modern RPG game. You don't leave a trail, you don't leave fingerprints, you don't use unencrypted communications, you delete the security camera data, etc. etc. Saying its a DM limitation because in a modern scenario, the players might someday get access to the security cameras and use their super-deluxe-undeleter which is listed right there in the rulebook is silly.

A DM whining that the players LATE game have the super-deluxe-undeleter, the Encryption descrambler, the prototype DNA sniffer that finds things as small as skin cells for evidence which can then be run through some sort of identification database so they solve the abduction in 5 minutes maybe should have read the book first...

If you are referring to a completely free form system where players make up their powers / inventory on the fly and the DM just says "nope, sorry you can't have that" to save their plans, well, ok I surrender to that point.

Can you see now how what Heinsoo was talking about might not have had anything to do with scripting or railroading?

We're both probably at an impass here, which is cool because we don't have to agree. Of course, I have yet to bring up railroading - that's your addition to the debate. People get touchy when you mention that. Scripting yes, I did mention - moving along in some sort of DM comfort bubble. Sure, I've been there, done that but it was like 20 years ago so the memory is a bit foggy I think 4e harkens back to those days and as always, I have to say so I don't offend people, I don't think its a bad thing altogether (especially with others carrying forth the 3e banner), its just not my cup of tea.

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.

There's nothing "easy" about any of it. If done right it is a constant back and forth and exchange between DM and player. I still have yet to see a concrete example of the standard action spell called "I win DnD" even though it seems to be the focus of this debate and how 4e is so much better for killing that idea.

Why does DMing have to be easy and playing has to be difficult? Marketing decision? Don't know.

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.

Acutally, it explicitly means your players have less tools so your job can be easier. You gain nothing in the equation except an absence of the tools your players once had. Actually, you lose those tools as well as a DM and many of them make awesome plot advancers / hooks, etc.

I don't know how you handle spells and spell like effects in your improvization heavy form of 3.x DMing.

For the most part, I already addressed this. If the players catch my NPCs with their pants down, well, huzzah! I don't curl up like Golum moaning about "my preciousss" I handle odd spells a) by the rules and b) by the story impact - not necessarily in that order. Whatever makes for the best story and the players enjoy most.

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.

It's been a bit since I looked at 4e but accounting for 50+ "powers" for each and every class that comes to the table seems like a fair amount of system mastery to handle to create credible challenges. But again, since I haven't played in a while, I can't really say. There may be a magic formula that tells a DM exactly what monsters to pit what combination of players against, I don't know. I'm guessing though to pull it off, the DM is generally the best storyteller and probably close to the best at "System Mastery" at the 4e table as well. I personally rank up there at our table but I do have my special "system mastery cronies" that remind when I've screwed up!

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 comletely agree here. The hobby has always needed more DMs and I can think of many things 4e could have done to draw those people out of the wood work. As mentioned I feel they did some of those things and then they dropped the ball on others IMO, IME, etc. etc. But look what youre saying - there are plenty of players for 3.x or Pathfinder. People still wanting to play 3e and Pathfinder after 4e was released how long ago?? Maybe, just maybe, players still prefer to have the level of decision making 3e gives. The game is a hollow shell without players.

So training people to DM those 3e games sounds like a better option than making an "easy ruleset" for the DM. Or is it best to squlech player options in order to bring forth the crop of DMs that felt alienated by 3e? I can't really answer that, but I'm sure we'd here quite a varied repsonse.

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.

Really? What nerf school of combat are we talking about here? A good groin kick teaches you lots of stuff, in a hurry... It's also h-i-larious at times.

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.,.

Ahhh yes, because drama truly does flow like a well-oiled skill challenge?

Youre right, it has nothing to do with System Mastery. It does have to do with knowing the rules of the game you have chosen to play. I'm guessing at any RPG table, the Game Master or DM will be somewhere near the top of the pecking order for system mastery. True, there is not necessrily a 1:1 relationship, but it helps to know what is going on when you are well, adjudicating rules and such.

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.

Hey, no fair, you and the Heinsoo guy said a sufficiently skilled DM = DM that can react to his players actions no matter how off the wall or challenging (I guess "easy button" is how you put it). I did leap to a conclusion there though that those who can't do that are just so-so. Maybe the really great DMs are those who can't react, I don't know.

Knowing how spells work, spells which your PC's can cast and have access to, has nothing to do with Power Gaming or Min-Maxing or "System Mastery". It has everything to do with knowing beans about the game you are running. Which is important I think. You don't have to be perfect at it, or the best one at the table, but if you have any aspiration of crafting a challenge of any kind in any system, you have to understand the rules. And I'm not even talking about anything outside the SRD (I limit non-SRD material to solve this problem, but these "Win DnD" spells you keep referring to, and their counters, are all in the SRD.)

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

Yea! An agreement I think?!?

"Solve Mystery" when a mystery comes up.

If I had time, I'd go back and count the made up "I win DnD" spells you have introduced without providing a single concrete example. I've got to get going though Be gone for a bit, so I won't have a follow up (I'm sure the readers, if there are any left, are cheering at that, heh).

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

Thing is, RPGs are not life. Many people play them to get away from real life. Like me, for instance. Having at least one game that supports that style of play is an awesome thing.

I am the type of DM who can react to what players do, or anticipate their possible actions, such that system-mastery systems present no problem for me. When I have the time and energy for them. In recent years, I just want to sit down and play the game and not have to worry about that stuff.

 

[nnms]

Actually saying this "limits the DM" is more than a bit silly.

There is no limitation.

If a DM can't use a variety of interesting situations because the players have access to "cancel situation" buttons for them, then yes, they are limited to a smaller subset of situations. I played a diviner from the moment 3.0 came out until he was quite high level. The DM quickly become limited in that any situation that could be resolved by knowing a pieces of information was going to be instantly resolved by one of my spells. The DM was forced to compensate by avoiding any situation where mystery was involved. My ability to just make a declarative statement about what spell I was casting and utterly deflate the challenge limited his options when it came to what situations he presented to the players.

In 4E, I actually don't have to know the capability and text of all the powers they might have. People could show up to a game with a character I've never seen before and the odds of them deflating any situation with the use of a spell is astronomically low. There are moments when a player will use something to meet a good portion of the challenge or give them a serious boost towards resolving a situation (and everyone cheers at the effective use of an ability) but never to the point that we repeatedly encountered in 3.x. And that's with the DM being ignorant of the specific powers chosen by the character. Imagine if the DM took a cursory glance at the character sheets before designing a situation.

Are you starting to get what Heinsoo was talking about yet? You tried to make it mean that 4E handles only a scripted approach and that Heinsoo believed improv DMing was bad. And then you tried to equate the players not having crazy session destroying abilities as limiting possible DM skill because they're not forced to compensate for spells and abilities that deflate a given challenge.

Not everyone is you. You responded to the Heinsoo quote by specifically saying that you were one of the exceptions he talked about. Given that, can't you see how there might be issues with running 3.x for a large number of DMs who are of lower skill level than you? While your response might be for them to get better and be more like you, that's hardly going to help them run a good game tomorrow night. A much better suggestion is to find a system that doesn't limit their choices in terms of challenging situations and require massive amounts of compensating for the player characters abilities.

Improv DMing is so much easier in 4E than 3.x. And can be accomplished by DMs of a range of skill levels when using that sytem. Your earlier assertion that it's for running scripted games where players can't have meaningful impact on the story is just plain wrong. It certainly works for those who want to use it that way, but that doesn't mean the conclusions you read into Heinsoo's words are at all accurate.

 

[BryonD]

I'll admit that I got really bored with the lack of on point response in this thread, so I have not been reading much of it since I dropped out. And I've just skimmed through the last bit here.

But it is funny to me that even with a small cast of mostly new people, and a complete derail to boot, the underlying point being made remains that all roads do not lead to Rome.

You are talking past each other because you have different experiences and are not accepting that your own experiences are not representative of the other person's.

Speaking as someone on the "not caring for 4E side", this particularly resonates for me when I read the 4E defenses. Not that I claim it isn't going both ways, just being clear that I am going to my view on it.

I find it downright humorous that the praise of 4E is being based on people pointing to problems they had with 3E and effectively demanding that their experience must be universal. But I read that you have a significant problem where I have no problem at all, and I wonder how in the world you expect to give me advice.

And yes, people are going to interpret Rob's comments differently because if the problem is not part of your context, then the meaning is different.

Yes, 4E changed things to make issues that were problems *to some people* stop being problem *to them*. As with all things in life, there are trade offs. I accept that solving those problems was a huge boon to you and therefore you love 4E.

But some 4E fans need to get their brain around the idea that for those of us not limited by the problems in the first place, the trade offs were a price paid for no value. And therefore we don't like 4E and our personal take away from the comments of Heinsoo, and Mearls when he says that 4E isn't for world builders, and Collins when he says that 4E class design is about "why is this game piece different than another game piece and why do I want to play it instead another game piece" as specifically opposed to "imagining what could exist in the D&D world, and now I assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic", is different than yours. Context is important.

 

[pemerton]

even with a small cast of mostly new people, and a complete derail to boot, the underlying point being made remains that all roads do not lead to Rome.

<snip>

Yes, 4E changed things to make issues that were problems *to some people* stop being problem *to them*. As with all things in life, there are trade offs. I accept that solving those problems was a huge boon to you and therefore you love 4E.

But some 4E fans need to get their brain around the idea that for those of us not limited by the problems in the first place, the trade offs were a price paid for no value.

Just for clarity, I have never asserted in this thread, or in any of its sibling threads, or indeed in any post since the announcement of 4e, that all roads lead to Rome.

Nor have I asserted anything about trade offs, or resolving problems in the play of 3E. As I mention nearly any time it comes up, I have only limited experience with 3E. I did suggest upthread that there is a degree of incoherence in the rules text for 3E - it simultaneously (i) assumes that the GM has principal authority over the framing of ingame situations (in its discussion of encounter design, adventure design etc) and (ii) gives mid-to-high level PCs abilities - like teleport, scrying, etc - that mean that the players of those PCs have principal authority over the framing of ingame situations. But I did not assert upthread, nor do I assert now, that this creats issues in play, because the incoherence is easily enough resolved by ignoring one or the other pieces of text. Those who run sandbox or world exploration games will tend to ignore (i). Those who run adventure-path type games, where there is an implicit understanding that the players won't stray too far from the pre-packaged adventure, will tone down (ii).

My main issue in this thread at this stage is what it always seems to be in these conversations, namely, responding to the claim that 4e is primarily, or in essence, or best suited for, a tactical skirmish game.

 

[Beginning of the End]

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.

It also means that many interesting situations that were previously unavailable are now viable for play.

This gets back to the core problem with the design of 4th Edition: It picked a very narrow and very specific "sweet spot" of play in terms of power level, types of activity, and class mechanics.

If that sweet spot was, in fact, your sweet spot then you're in luck! 4th Edition is completely awesome for you!

But if it wasn't your sweet spot, or if you enjoyed the broad range of play that 1974-2008 gameplay allowed for, then 4th Edition is badly, badly flawed.

Which, ultimately, brings us full circle back to the top of the thread: D&D used to be a big tent. Now it isn't. And that's a result of deliberate design choices made by the 4th Edition design team.

So when Mearls says "everybody should come back inside our tent!", my response is simple: You're going to have to make your tent bigger first.

 

[pemerton]

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.

We're on the same page here.

4E has pretty jarring shifts between different modes of play that make it less than ideal for exploration heavy dungeon campaigns.

I agree with this also.

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.

<snip>

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.

I'm hesitant to concede the notion of "good GM" in the way you do here.

Heinsoo has an interest - a commercial, public relations interest - in telling experienced 3E GMs that they are good GMs. I don't. There's certainly a skill in being able to keep an interesting campaign going despite the plethora of nuclear options that high level wizards have in games like 3E and Rolemaster, but I don't think that this skill is particularly definitive of being a good GM. It's certainly not much preparation for running a situation-driven game of the 4e sort, which is its own very different skill.

 

[pemerton]

It also means that many interesting situations that were previously unavailable are now viable for play.

<snip>

D&D used to be a big tent. Now it isn't.

I agree to an extent with the first quoted sentence - although my personal view is that the range of situations that 4e opens up is probably richer than the range of situations (such as scry-teleport-ambush) that it closes down.

I don't particularly agree with the second sentence, though. D&D was never all that big a tent. For example, in the past it had no way to do demigods without also doing scry-teleport-ambush. Now it does. (And that's just one example.)

 

[pemerton]

he indicates that having to DM versus "powerful spells" is just too complicated. I'm not arguing that it isn't complicated.

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!)

<snip>

Look, in any game, sport, etc. there is a learning curve.

<snip>

removing things just because they could be challenging to a DM seems a bit silly.

It's been a bit since I looked at 4e but accounting for 50+ "powers" for each and every class that comes to the table seems like a fair amount of system mastery to handle to create credible challenges.

I think these quotes suggest that I may have failed to properly communicate my point.

I can't speak for nmns, but I am not saying that "3E is hard, 4e is easy". I am saying that 4e - unlike 3E, and like HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, and similar indie RPGs - is designed to enable the GM to frame strong situations to engage the players.

This means that it does not give PCs abilities that consistently make the optimal path for the players to choose, when confronted with a situation that the GM has framed, the sidesteppping or defusing of that situation - thus, no rapid teleport, no powerful mind reading, no Find the Path or comparable divination, no rapidly-cast-and-long-lasting domination.

So in fact, in order to frame credible challenges, I don't need to know what powers my players have given to their PCs. All I really think about when designing challenges is what roles those PCs occupy in various respects - combat roles, trained skills, etc - and (more importantly) what the various interests of my players are in respect of the story of the campaign.

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.

<snip>

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.

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.

There is no limitation.

I also can run this sort of game. I have GMed high level D&D and high level Rolemaster. The point is that it is limiting. Once powerful divination is available, there are no mysteries. (Of course NPCs can respond with Mind Blank etc. But what does this add to the game, other than making GMing it more tedious? If I want my NPCs to be unscryable, I won't worry about Mind Blank - I'll defuse the underlying problem.) Once rapid (combat-speed) teleport is available, there are no challenges of distance or location. (Of course as a GM I can shut this down with D1-3 style "mysterious magnetic forces", but again I'd rather tackle it at the source.) Once rapid (combat speed) and long-lasting domination is available, there are no challenges of negotation.

A game with these spells present can still present other challenges. I have GMed sessions of Rolemaster where the bulk of the session has consisted in working out complex plans of long chains of spell casting in order for the PCs to succeed in a scry-teleport-ambush assault, or in a complex infiltration mission taking place under the cover of sequential time stop spells (the ultimate in stealthy espionage!).

But it is nice also to run a different sort of game.

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.

<snip>

I'm not working from a rigidly pre-defined scenario, ever.

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.

<snip>

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.

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.

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.

<snip>

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.

Hopefully the DM is actually not planning in a vacuum, they have an idea of pitting the PC against foes that can match the PCs power levels.

I find it interesting that you say that you don't have planned or scripted scenarios, and yet your "pit the PCs against foes". That, to me, suggests a degree of scripting - namely, the GM has scripted who shall be the PCs' foe.

I don't run scripted scenarios. And - contrary to what you suggest about 4e in what I've quote - 4e does not lend itself to scripted fight scenes. (I don't see why you would think that excluding teleport-ambushes means fights are pre-scripted. There are a lot of RPGs, including fantasy RPGs, where combat is an important part of the game and teleport-ambushes generally aren't feasible. Low-level D&D would be one obvious example of such a game.)

You seem to be running together what, upthread, I tried to distinguish, namely, situational authority and plot authority. As I said upthread, 4e is designed to confer strong situational authority upon the GM. That is, the GM is in charge of framing scenes. It is up to the players to resolve them, using their PCs as vehicles. And as the quote from Paul Czege indicated (although he was not talking about 4e) this does not involve scripting.

A concrete example from actual play in my game: having raided a hobgoblin fortress, and having fought their way in through multiple entraces and past a number of guards and a small beholder, the PCs have forced the hobgoblin archers to retreat to a room deeper in the fortress. The PCs themselves decide to stop to regroup and have a short rest. They retreat into a room and discover two duergar hunkering down in there.

That is the basic situation, as framed by me (the GM): two duergar hunkered down in a room in a hobgoblin fortress that the PCs are invading. What I also know, which the players at this point don't, is some more backstory: (i) the duergar are slavers, and are here in the fortress arranging payment for a group of slaves that the bulk of their group are already in the process of taking back to the duergar's underground hold; (ii) it is of little concern to the duergar whether or not the hobgoblin fortress is assaulted, provided that they don't get hurt and they don't lose their commercial investment in the slaves.

The players obviously had a range of options as to how they tackled this situation. They could have attacked the duergar straight away. They could have talked for a bit and then fought. Or they could have negotiated - which is what in fact happened. So the encounter ended up being resolved solely as a skill challenge, with the outcome - unexpected to both players and GM at the start of the situation - that the PCs contracted with the duergar to ransom the slaves for a downpayment of 100 gp on the spot and a further 300 gp to be paid over in a neutral city in a month's time.

This has nothing to do with scripting or "rigidly defined modules". But this sort of scenario can't unfold in a game in which the players have access to mind reading and domination. Or probably even teleport without error, for that matter, which would permit teleporting into the duergar hold and then teleporting out with the slaves.

So far from being a "rigidly defined module", this is a paradigm example of collaborative storytelling. And it also obilges me to, at some time in the future, frame at least a couple of new scenes - namely, the ones in which the PCs travel to that neutral city and arrange to pay the ransom.

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.

I've frequently posted that 4e is not particularly suited to "world exploration" play. It is better suited to situation-driven play, in the sort of way that I've been talking about in my past few posts.

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.

Interesting, because I can't see that clearly at all. The outcome of each combat and each skill challenge is likely to have a pretty signficant impact on what happens next, and the framing of any susbequent scene (in Paul Czege's terms, the point B of situation 1 is likely to have pretty big implications for the point A of situation 2). So working it out in advance, as anything other than a sketch of likely possibilities, is pretty hard. In the quote I cited upthread, Ron Edwards talks about using a relationship map to support on-the-fly scene framing. I personally use a mixture of backstory which includes not only relationships but gameworld history, plus some geographical maps, plus a reasonable degree of confidence that I know what my players like.

In your description of a 4e railroad, you again seem to be running together situation and plot authority. If I frame a situation, of course one option is for the players to walk away. Sometimes this is literal: for example, having seen the duergar in the room, the PCs could have shut the door. Sometimes it is figurative, or happens at the metagame level - the players could just say that a particular situation is boring and going nowhere and they want it over.

But the solution to this sort of problem isn't to give the PCs access to abilities like teleport and Find the Path. First, if this was the solution then it would follow that games which don't have such abilities - includingt low-level D&D - are flawed. Second, the solution - as Ron Edwards is quoted saying upthread - is to frame situations that are worth anyone's time. That is how I play my game - I frame situations that are worth my players time, and they play their PCs and resolve them. It has nothing to do with plowing through meaningless railroaded combats in the way you describe.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I don't particularly agree with the second sentence, though. D&D was never all that big a tent. For example, in the past it had no way to do demigods without also doing scry-teleport-ambush. Now it does. (And that's just one example.)

It should be noted that people inside the 4th Edition tent apparently perceive it to be much larger than it is. After all, it hits their sweet spot! It is made of awesome and all the stuff that no longer exists was minimal and unimportant!

The tent is smaller. Even if it seems roomier to you because of all the people that got kicked out.