Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nnms" data-source="post: 5491937" data-attributes="member: 83293">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?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.   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.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.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.  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.,.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. This.  That's what I was talking about when I was saying to just let yourself be the skilled DM Heinsoo was talking about. 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:<a href="http://www.robertjschwalb.com/2010/09/reexamining-the-dungeon/" target="_blank">Reexamining the Dungeon</a>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.</blockquote>

Verification