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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3794246" data-attributes="member: 4937">Since the original poster asked to explain how and why DM's feel they've lost power, and seems unsure whether they have, I was trying to explain that your explanation to the original posters question - however insightful - did not explain how this DM felt as if the balance of power had shifted.  This is a repeat of your argument from the earlier post, and I agree with it.  However, its not even the best example of how the skill system can interfere with a DM's design of an adventure, nor do I agree that the introduction of codified skill systems and uniform resolution rules (say for environmental effects or avoiding traps) are in any fashion the principle ways that a DM has lost power - much less that these are examples of the power shift between DM's and players.  If you think that you are, then I can see why you strongly disagree with the idea that the player has gained power.I think that bigger issues are the seemingly spanning nature of the rules set gives the illusion of covering all possible cases, so that the PC's have the expectation (usually satisfied) that everything can be resolved through a mechanic that they are familiar with.  So for example, holes in the rule set are harder to plug without an argument.  As an example, the 'spot/listen' rules are really only viable over a range of about 100'.  The sheer quality of the rules creates the expectation that the DM doesn't fudge them, which can result in an argument when the DM realizes that sniping at a range of 400'+ is going to be problimatic both as a PC means of evading challenges, or turned against them, as a tactic that they cannot under the RAW counter either.  Formerly, this argument would have been very unlikely.  The player wouldn't really have had the rules to throw back in the DM's face, because other than vague rules for thieves hiding in shadows, how anyone else hid was not really covered.Likewise, there are examples of designs that just don't work well under the new system.  For example, in the 3.5 translation of Tomb of Horrors, many encounters are totally changed.  For example, the false entrance trap in in 1st edition depended on _player decisiveness_, not _character decisiveness_ (ei a reflex save), which very much changes how the encounter plays.  It's difficult to build a problem like that when players have an expectation from the rules that play decisiveness is not expected.  An even better example from the same module is the secret doors puzzle, where the players must figure out how each secret door works.  Even the module text admits this sort of puzzle detail isn't accounted for in an abstract search system, and I expect that players reared on 3rd edition would have to be expressly told what was expected of them by the puzzle because they have an expectation from the rules that searching is abstracted.I've beat this example to death, but abstract searching in edge cases creates all sorts of headaches for the DM.  Suppose you search a section of wall.  The expectation of the player is that he doesn't have to tell the DM that he wants to look behind the painting, and he will feel cheated if he fails to find what is behind the painting because he didn't say 'I'm looking behind the painting'.  This is all well and good if the results of looking behind the painting is entirely positive (ei 'You find a niche filled with jewels').  But if the results of interacting with the painting are negative (ei 'You see a symbol of death'), then the player will naturally feel cheated if he is assumed to have looked behind the painting because he didn't explicitly say he did.  So, in an attempt to be fair, how you adjudicate this situation tells the player what is behind the painting, or else you simply don't hide things 'behind paintings'.  But the situation is actually worse than that.  Because, what if the player with no search ranks and an 8 INT says, "I look behind the painting."  Now suddenly the player with a large investment in search is cheated because the player with INT in a dump stat offered up a very fair proposition (you don't have to be smart to look behind the painting) which totally invalidated his skill.  Should I honor the fair proposition, or should I force the player to make a search check to see if his character actually looks behind the painting.  No matter how I rule, my ruling will be percieved as disempowering the player, and this creates resentment.  So again, the system strongly discourages the DM from designing things 'behind paintings', and this is a loss of DM freedom.Whether those sorts of problems are good design or not (and I don't concede they aren't), the point stands that the DM has lost freedom and the PC's have been empowered by virtue of shortcutting previously expected obstacles.  Effectively, the PC's can - using the rules - make demands on how a DM designs his game. But skill examples (and I could go on and on) aren't even the best examples of how the system limits DM freedom.  Far more limiting are problems like expected wealth levels, which determines not only how I can expect to design encounters, but entire campaigns.  A concept like expected wealth level creates the perception in the players that treasure is a form of dole, which is to be handed out at regular intervals in predictable amounts as the player's due.  Whether the rules actually say that or not, they create that perception and empowered feeling players are very likely to complain if they don't think that they are getting what they think the rules say (and what some here havel argued) they have coming to them.So, no, I don't think you get it at all.  I do think that the rules systems gives players the perception of authority, and with that perception of authority comes conflict which effectively limits DM's freedom to be creative.</blockquote>

Verification