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

[Imaro]

I think another (possibly tangent) issue involved with this topic and concerning 4e is the fact that the players have so many powers and such varying effects that, IMO, it is alot harder and takes longer to construct encounters that challenge the PC's by taking their particular abilities into consideration. This is one of my hang ups with those who claim the DM doesn't need to know or understand all the players powers... yeah, he kinda does to create his encounters and to make rulings... I think it's the fact that designing your encounters like this has been made into such a hassle with 4e that many DM's just end up designing 4e encounters without custom tailoring them, and I think this in turn leads not only to irritating "gotcha" moments but also less satisfying and challenging games for many.

Another thing of note is that the nature of 4e also makes it so that a DM is constantly trying to adapt to different monsters with different powers, effects, etc. While the players get to continuously hone their abilities both individually and as a team... add to that the fact that 4e is skewed to favor the players anyway and it does seem a little lackluster in playing the game from the DM's side.... I find DM'ing 4e easier but also vastly less satisfying than previous editions.

 

[Thasmodious]

I feel like (and I could be wrong) you would be okay with a DM modifying a creature BEFORE the game, making it impossible to knock it prone (as in this case it would not be an arbitrary change) - after all, monster modding/reskinning is a big part of the DM's toolbox. However, a lot of DM's (myself included) do a lot on the fly and some decisions such as these come right to our mind in the midst of the game.

While I am not Dannager and not attempting to speak for him, me and him have been arguing somewhat on the same side, even if I disagree with some of his rigidity in regards to the rules in general.

The problem comes in on not when, but how. In the specific examples (the hydra, snake, etc), the DM is "modifying" a particular monster, during gameplay, after the player has chosen an action, just because he can't immediately picture a plausible scenario where the condition can be applied by a melee fighter. One of the posters arguing on that side already specifically stated he'd have no problem with spells or prayers, just melee powers. That is what is arbitrary about it. The player has already taken his action, an action that was well within the known rules, and then the DM trashes it on a whim. That creates just the kind of confrontational DM v. Player mentality we're trying to avoid.

Imagine this scenario, the DM throws his prized, beloved, snake creations at the PCs, not recalling that the parties Irish Priest has the St. Patty ability and can turn and rebuke snakes like they were undead. The player does so and succeeds well enough to one-shot the whole encounter only to hear:

"umm, no, these snakes are, um, immune to being controlled and such..."

If the DM is on-the-fly countering player's abilities and making them suddenly not work, it can't help but create a confrontational vibe. The above example is a lot different than the DM having planned for this and responding thusly:

grins evilly - "you do not seem to be able to exert your god-given influence over snakes against these creatures, you wonder what foul magic or dark purpose must be at hand..." (and, of course, the DM actually has one).

 

[Thasmodious]

Does "codswollop" mean IMO or does it mean "I am a God and there is a 100% probability I know the Truth"?

It means "isn't taken seriously by anyone with any authority on human behavior, and is just a tool of the corporate media culture to categorize and divide us along age gaps for marketing purposes"

And hey, you said you expected to take heat for your callow, negative judgment of an entire generation, so don't cry defensive foul when you get it.

 

[billd91]

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.

I wouldn't put much stock in any sort of "Me Generation" designation, particularly applying to young people today. The Me Generation was used to describe Baby Boomers back in the 1970s, in part, to describe their own sense of self-importance as individuals and as a generation itself. That the term has come around again is no surprise since Generation Y, presumably whom your Me Generation term is applied to, is largely the kids of that earlier boom.

That doesn't mean that I don't believe there is a player entitlement elephant in the room, from time time to time. I just don't think it has anything to do with a player's birth generation, per se.

 

[NoWayJose]

It means "isn't taken seriously by anyone with any authority on human behavior, and is just a tool of the corporate media culture to categorize and divide us along age gaps for marketing purposes"

Perhaps those 'marketing purposes' include designing games to meet the sensibilities of a certain market segment. When an authority on human behavior joins the forum, introduce me.

And hey, you said you expected to take heat for your callow, negative judgment of an entire generation, so don't cry defensive foul when you get it.

I can handle the heat. Petulance doesn't qualify as 'heat'.

I've had the pleasure of engaging in many rational, rewarding discussions with mature individuals regarding the application of verisimilitude to the D&D narrative.

This is NOT one of them.

 

[Thasmodious]

I've had the pleasure of engaging in many rational, rewarding discussions with mature individuals regarding the application of verisimilitude to the D&D narrative.

This is NOT one of them.

No, it certainly is not. Nothing about you passing negative judgment on an entire generation of people is rational, rewarding or mature. Nor does it have anything to do with verisimilitude in D&D. It is offensive, though.

 

[weem]

Hey [MENTION=63272]Thasmodious[/MENTION], thanks for the response!

Let me just pull two quick items here...

The player has already taken his action, an action that was well within the known rules, and then the DM trashes it on a whim. That creates just the kind of confrontational DM v. Player mentality we're trying to avoid.

Imagine this scenario, the DM throws his prized, beloved, snake creations at the PCs

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I apologize if this is not what you were intending... but, these two items seem (to me) to assume the following...

1) That every time a DM makes a change to a power, they are "trashing" it.
2) That ever DM has (at least some) prized monsters that they are willing to "trash" powers for in order to see them survive (longer).

Neither of those are the case for me, ever, and I think that if you are assuming this kind of "DM vs Player" mentality right off the bat, you are going to see that (whether it is there or not) all the time.

Speaking only for myself, I have no personal stake in anything I lay down on the table. If I put it down, I do so expecting it to die/be destroyed - because I don't put anything on the table with the idea of "this will certainly wipe the party" or, "there's no way I'm letting the players mess this thing up".

That's not to say there aren't DM's like that, and in fact you may only be speaking about those kinds of DM's - the thing is, they are (imo) very few and far between.

If the DM is on-the-fly countering player's abilities and making them suddenly not work, it can't help but create a confrontational vibe. The above example is a lot different than the DM having planned for this and responding thusly:

It can be confrontational, sure - but in most cases, I think it's only confrontational if you (anyone) want it to be. To me, it would simply be odd. I would ask the DM (politely, after the game) if there were special reasons why there were a number of changes to my powers made at the table (assuming this was a regular thing), because there might be a good reason.

Of course, if there were indicators that this was not the case (for example, the DM laughing maniacally, pointing his/her finger at you each time they "trashed" a power), then sure, it's pretty obvious it's confrontational. The problem is, when people (not necessarily you as I don't know your situation) assume that everything that doesn't go there way was done out of spite, or out of a "DM vs Player" mentality. It's not fair to make that leap every time things don't go your (anyone's) way.

Maybe I'm just the odd man out here, but I think we should give each other the benefit of the doubt first, politely ask about it later (no tantrums at the table please) and leave the game if you feel it is necessary.

Thanks again for the response Thasmodious, I appreciate it

 

[NoWayJose]

No, it certainly is not. Nothing about you passing negative judgment on an entire generation of people is rational, rewarding or mature. Nor does it have anything to do with verisimilitude in D&D. It is offensive, though.

I am sorry you took offense. My next task will be to review The Rules of EN World, and note how real-world political discussion isn't allowed.

Edit: Sorry, Umbran, I will rephrase.

I asked about a "new generation that I keep reading about in articles that supposedly" have narcissistic qualities. This is not me explicitly passing "negative judgement on an entire generation of people". Perhaps anger directed at me specifically should instead be directed to the journalists and authors who wrote those books and articles. Raising the issue in relation to the OP is no more offensive than the aforementioned articles being published in *major* mainstream newspapers, like the Wall Street Journal and several others. I'm still ambivalent whether they're true or not. I accept heat for raising a non-politically correct question, meaning that some people may take offense, and I'll accept criticism that the aforementioned articles are flawed from someone who is an "authority" on these matters (as I'm ambivalent in the 1st place), but I don't accept that I've been purposefully offensive, even if that's a grey line, and I'd accept the consequences of treading on grey lines.

 

[Umbran]

Now is the time that everybody here is probably going to want to take a breath and take the rhetoric down about 7 notches. There's an aggressive and personal tone here that's not appropriate for these boards, and continuing along the current lines is not likely to turn out well for anyone involved.

That may be the only warning the thread will get, so please consider yourself warned to be on your best behavior. Thanks.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The problem comes in on not when, but how. In the specific examples (the hydra, snake, etc), the DM is "modifying" a particular monster, during gameplay, after the player has chosen an action, just because he can't immediately picture a plausible scenario where the condition can be applied by a melee fighter.

Modifying the results in the narration after the player is already committed is against the spirit of 4E. There should not be "gotchas" based on mechanical rulings. (Situation gotchas are another matters. ) That is why, on those occasions where I didn't catch the issue before the dice were rolled, I'd allow the player to take back the action, if they wanted. They might still want to go ahead, which is fine too.

As far as I'm concerned, two of the many hats a DM wears are totally separate:

1. Impartial referee of the rules and/or leader of the group during rules discussion, especially for impromptu tweaks.

2. Using situation to push the characters to the limit, in the interest of challenge and drama.

Trust in the former is crucial to being able to fully do the latter.