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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5502996" data-attributes="member: 957">First, even conceding your point, that just makes it capable.  "Far better" is a whole separate tier of debate.And obviously from my point of view we are just back around to "pop quiz" gaming in which the players are backing fitting their narrative to match the mechanics.Exactly, those mechanical "mandates" are such a great thing.....  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/worried.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":-S" title="Uhm    :-S" data-shortname=":-S" />Seriously, I don't need these mandates to achieve the result you laud, and having the mechanics "mandate" something is exactly what I seek to avoid.  Honestly, your question seems bizarre and even smacks a bit of the RPG version of "have you quit beating your wife?"The players are free to do pretty much whatever they want whenever they want.  I usually have a fairly rail-roady "script" ready to go and somewhere between 15 seconds and not at all along the way the players hop the rails.  And sometimes they stay on the rails but completely throw a given scenario into something I never imagined.  And I find the best sessions happen when I'm caught completely flat footed and start making things up to respond to the players unexpected plans.  I don't remotely claim it is an all parties are equal dynamic.  The DM can throw a dragon at the party when he wants to.  The DM puts the dragon where it "fits".  The players are not permitted to declare they are going to go around that hill, find a cave and go talk to the dragon living in it.  But they could certainly declare that they needed to consult a dragon and lay out a plan for getting there.  And I'd happily support that by sharing information their characters may know which would help them devise a plan.  Bottom line, in the strictest terms, your question really does not compute.  "Mandates" are not part of this and the idea of a conflict of control isn't a consideration.  Again, I really don't believe you are describing a successful model for making a game vast numbers of people will even want to play.  DM power is a fundamental part of a good system.  And a good DM using that good system will work with the players to make everyone have fun and that constitutes a good game session.  Your dynamic of us vs. them (or equal or controlled) is on the wrong track from the start, so it doesn't have a meaningful answer.As with so many other elements of 4E, it charges me a price (mandates) in exchange for giving me something I already had, and when it gives it to me it really isn't as high quality as what I had to begin with.  It comes to down to the very kind or presumptions about DMs you have offered.  I don't see 4E as presuming great DMs.  Again, I think WotC made that clear when they promoted easy to DM, great for people who have never DM'ed before, etc...  Instead of looking to what can be achieved and seeking to push that boundary, they assume problems and see to use mandates in the rules to mitigate the harm.I readily admit that 3E doesn't have a safety net.  It can be played badly in a heartbeat.  And if that is what you have experienced, and the starting premise of your position suggests maybe that is the case, then of course anything that mitigates the harm is going to be "far better".  But if you are getting along without a safety net then that is a whole different level.Improv happens all the time in my games.  It happens with no mandates and it is great.  Ultimately the DM has power, but everyone at the table feels empowered and enjoys being inside the story and feeling like they are making the story just happen with mechanics just there as support.</blockquote>

Verification