Player Control, OR "How the game has changed over the years, and why I don't like it"

[Dannager]

when you say above post, do you mean mine, or the patryn of elvenshae

I meant yours. Thank you for expanding upon your point, though. It illustrated things much, much better.

 

[TheUltramark]

If you were trying to make your hypothetical player appear entitled, petulant, and prone to throwing tantrums when he doesn't get his way, that tactic maaaaaaaay have backfired on you, there.

In this scenario, you: ignored the game's rules, told the player no (outright), made up an arbitrary immunity for your monster to have that negated a clever player's tactic post hoc, threatened to make the player's damage zero when he challenged your made-up-on-the-spot-immunity, and then punished the entire group (again, totally arbitrarily) with a (once again, made-up-on-the-spot) rule that when big creatures fall prone (or maybe just hydras? Who knows? No one, because it's arbitrary!) they knock everyone around them prone unless they succeed on a truly ludicrous Athletics DC (that, by the way, makes far less sense than knocking a hydra prone in the first place) and then blamed your punishment of the group on the player.

This is the worst example of DMing I have ever witnessed.

first of all, nobody I've ever played with has ever attempted to knock a creature with about 10X the mass of their character prone with a punch.

second of all, I've never played with anyone who threw a tantrum over not getting their way, they may in fact argue their point and make valid points, and maybe even convince me that it can be done.

Third of all, adding to a monster is quite the norm, making a general rule is quite the norm, and punishing slow play is quite the norm, and have been at our table for 20 years, so it isnt exaclty like springing it on the players
however
this is an example of how to "win over the dm"

player : "I charge the Hydra, and with a leap, a smash my only weapon, my fist into the thing, hoping my power of "knocking down the thing 10X bigger than me" works.

dm: well, let's see how well you hit it.

adj roll : 25 (wows from all the table) and dmg 11 (max possible)

dm: well thats certainly a clubberin' you handed out, and you say your daily power knocks the target prone with no exceptions, no matter the size of the beast?

player: thats what it says...maybe I push the thing back, but its mass gets caught on some crack -or- wait, I know, one of the other heads is lunging at me at the same time, and as I hit the thing in the belly, the head goes under itself and its all discombobulated, and it doesn't fall prone in the truest sense, but is sort of twisted up

dm: still sounds janky - but what the hell - thats exactly what happens, the thing isnt prone, but you guys get the prone modifier until its turn.

 

[Dannager]

first of all, nobody I've ever played with has ever attempted to knock a creature with about 10X the mass of their character prone with a punch.

But if they did, we know how it would play out now?

second of all, I've never played with anyone who threw a tantrum over not getting their way, they may in fact argue their point and make valid points, and maybe even convince me that it can be done.

That's not how you presented it, though. You presented a stereotypically entitled player who throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. The snag, of course, is that in the act of punishing your player for daring to call you out on an arbitrary ruling that makes his character less effective than it ought to be, it's your hypothetical DM who comes across as controlling and entitled.

Third of all, adding to a monster is quite the norm,

Really? You regularly add immunities to monsters on the fly because your players made a smart decision?

making a general rule is quite the norm,

Making rulings is the norm. Making rulings that put your own desires above those of your players and contrary to the rules of the game? Not so much the norm (or, at least, I hope not).

and punishing slow play is quite the norm,

That wasn't punishing slow play. That was shutting down a valid disagreement that your player had with you. You didn't even bother to say something like "That's my ruling, we can discuss it after the game if you disagree."

Oh, and then you punished the whole group and blamed it on the player.

and have been at our table for 20 years, so it isnt exaclty like springing it on the players

Suddenly adding the (rather significant, given how many large and huge creatures are in the game, especially in paragon and above play) rule that large creatures can't be knocked prone qualifies as "springing it on the players" in my book.

however
this is an example of how to "win over the dm"

You shouldn't have to be "won over" any more than you should have to win over your players. Consider, for a moment, that there is no reason your players should be forced to explain themselves to you that could not just as easily be used to compel you to defend your reasoning to your players. Sitting in the DM chair does not give you anywhere near the complicit authority you seem to believe it does.

 

[Jeffrey]

IMO, we've been heading that way since they stuck the word "Advanced" before "D&D" on the box. This, despite what the authors have said in their introductions.

The "DM is GOD" fiat only fails when you have a bad DM. Bad DMs have always outnumbered the good ones, hence the efforts over the years to make a rule for any and everything. 3ed made the leap whole-heartedly into that water. 4ed is only the natural progression of this.

I know of a great DM who has introduced hundreds of people to the game who always started out this way: "Bring your imagination, a sheet of paper and a pencil. You don't need books. You don't need figures. You don't even need dice, you can borrow mine. Within fifteen minutes of sitting at the table you will be playing D&D."

Hmm. To be fair, the first two paragraphs above could be the result of me being a crotchety old geezer, hopelessly stuck in his ways.

And you damn kids get the hell off of my lawn!

 

[Thasmodious]

player: thats what it says...maybe I push the thing back, but its mass gets caught on some crack -or- wait, I know, one of the other heads is lunging at me at the same time, and as I hit the thing in the belly, the head goes under itself and its all discombobulated, and it doesn't fall prone in the truest sense, but is sort of twisted up

dm: still sounds janky - but what the hell - thats exactly what happens, the thing isnt prone, but you guys get the prone modifier until its turn.

And that right there is all that's needed to "justify" those few, isolated wonky conditions that come up once a year or so in 4e. It's hardly the monstrous case of total immersion breaking zaniness that it gets labeled all the time.

"How do you make an ooze prone?"
"Have you ever seen Terminator 2? Remember when Ahnold hit the T-1000 with the Thumper grenade? That's how."

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Any number of ways. But this isn't about trying to find the One True Way to play D&D. This is advice, and it's good advice: if you put your personal desires above those of your players even when they have the rules on their side - especially when it's over something as incredibly trivial as whether or not a zombie can knock a hydra prone! - you are sabotaging your own game.

I'd probably not allow a zombie to knock over a hydra on Lost Soul's internal consistency grounds--on steroids. Namely, the players at the table probably wouldn't like it if that happened. If they really pushed, I'd put it up for a vote. And then whatever we decided, I'd be consistent with it.

See, that's the problem with extremes of "Viking Hat DM" versus "Kumbaya DM"--most players actually want you somewhere in the middle. If they have problems with a DM's style, it probably is not that the DM is that extreme, but is somewhat more Viking or Kumbaya than they want.

There is a huge difference between, "We will at all times play with my personal whim," versus, "We will at all times have some internal consistency."

 

[Dannager]

I'd probably not allow a zombie to knock over a hydra on Lost Soul's internal consistency grounds--on steroids. Namely, the players at the table probably wouldn't like it if that happened. If they really pushed, I'd put it up for a vote. And then whatever we decided, I'd be consistent with it.

I've never met a group of players who would balk at the idea of one of them knocking a hydra prone if they had a power that said the target was knocked prone.

 

[Abraxas]

I've never met a group of players who would balk at the idea of one of them knocking a hydra prone if they had a power that said the target was knocked prone.

I have.

 

[TheUltramark]

my whole point is - and has been for that matter:
"it's on my sheet" is not an explanation of an action

also, every rule has exceptions!
can something without feet be tripped?
can something already laying on the ground be knocked prone?
can something that moves 2 already, be slowed?
can bats be blinded?
can a stone golem be petrified?

with a creative explanation, impossible is nothing..."it says so right here", however, is far from creative
Also, for the record, when I dm I encourage seemingly impossible actions...as long as the players are creative. In fact, the nuttier it sounds, the more likely I am to allow it.
The video that raised this mini-debate shows the player, just say, I attack, roll, hit, then say I do X damage, and OH! it says here it gets knocked prone...then he flips the hydra mini on its side...
I just do not feel that adds anything to the action, and luckily all the guys at my table agree.

 

[NoWayJose]

Many DMs sacrifice a lot of time and effort to run a campaign, and I think that generally speaking, they deserve and have every right to overrrule the rules, if they are well-intentioned.

I agree there are bad DMs and DMs that make mistakes sometimes, but is this really what the world has come down to, setting up safety railings and training wheels and danger signs, all for our own good, to coddle our soft vulnerable egos, to protect us from the risk of a bad DM? Soon, we'll all be bubble boys, protected from the evils of the world and all its possible abuses, all for the sake of fun. But how much fun can you really have in a bubble suit?

second of all, I've never played with anyone who threw a tantrum over not getting their way, they may in fact argue their point and make valid points, and maybe even convince me that it can be done.

OK, this is NOT going to be politically correct, and I'm probably get a ton of heat over this, but I think it has be asked...

What's at the heart of the problem raised by the OP?

Was 4E designed the way it is partially to appease a new narcissistic 'Me' generation? The new generation that I keep reading about in articles that supposedly have an inflated sense of self, lack of empathy, are vain and materialistic, with an overblown sense of entitlement. This might explain 4E's push for fairness, balance, everyone feeling useful all the time, and rules not designed to be subject to interpretation in order to avoid conflicts and easily hurt feetlings.

Just wondering if this is a real or imagined elephant in the room.