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

[jbear]

Skipped pages 11 to 16 ... it looked like things were spiralling into an abyss and from the Moderator comment above my instinct seems to have served me well.

I also notice that Wik pulled back from the thread eventually and stopped commenting.

Two things called my attention about Wik's complaint.

The first was that he felt the system caused players to SAY what was happening (especially with interrupts and powers that influenced his monsters that couldn't be countered) as opposed to ASKING if what they wanted to achieve could be done.

Comment: My players are just about to hit level 9 so I'm far from Epic tier. So far that I don't really even know if this is a feature that becomes more pronounced as the game goes on. But surely if they are using Interrupts to attack your monsters they still have to hit on MOST occaisions. I'm trying to imagine what powers you are talking about ... do you mean like a Fighter's Mark Interrupt when the Mark is violated? I don't know, I'm kind of having a hard time understanding what the issue is exactly, whether it's a global feeling or more specific to certain things like Effects.

Secondly, the complaint seemed to be pretty final. There was no real desire expressed to find a solution. I think Wik hit his own nail on the head when he responded to Umbram agreeing that the problem was more a clash of desired play style than a flaw of the system. So ... really ... not much can be done. Suck it up mate, the end is nigh!

Some of the best points made:
The game is at its best when everyone contributes. Sometimes this means players accepting hardships because it makes the adventure better/more challenging. This requires the players to be able to trust the DM and for the players to not always play to "win" (make things less challenging)

DMs should be able to make rulings on the fly. They should not be arbitrary. The rules should however be consistent. Players invest character resources into making their characters effective, nerfing this because it ruffles your feathers is unfair. Again both sides need to contribute here. Players have to be able to trust the DMs impartiality. Players shouldn't just make characters that deliberately make things so unchallenging that the fun slowly dies.

When a situation stretches the DMs imagination to the point where they can't get their head around it, asking the player to describe what is happening seems like a good compromise. If the player comes up with something decent, run with it. If not ... not buying it this time Jack.

Anyway, I guess I'll learn more as the campaign progresses but for now I really enjoy player participation in the narrative. I have a lot of House Rule game elements going on that lets this happen a lot more than what the rules strictly dictate: Drama Points, Drama Cards, 'Do Something Cool' Encounter powers ...looking at introducing SabreCat's Purple Cards (similar to my own Drama Cards but with a twist), player created magic items tied into their backstory ... 4eis really just my springboard for the adventure I want to run. And as far as springboards go, its solid and springy

 

[Fifth Element]

Again, if someone else has posted something that is problematic for you, please quote them and discuss it. If I find it is something I wish to discuss with you, I will join in.

Seriously confused now. You were the one who posted something that was (possibly) problematic for me, so I quoted you. Unless you were not referring specifically to me, which is what I just asked and you didn't answer?

 

[pemerton]

you stating that "I agree with him rather than him", is akin to writing "QFT" or "This", that is, "Here I am, pemerton, casting my vote". Not a criticism per se, merely the observation I had when I wrote "flat disagreement with no further contribution".

What I was trying to do was to indicate (in part by synthesising some things that other posters had said) why (in my view) 4e naturally lends itself to a certain approach to play - namely, one in which their is a high degree of player control, and where preserving the continuity and coherence of the fiction in light of this control is a shared, group responsibility. The flip side of this is that (again, as I read the rules and guidelines of the game) the GM has no special privilege to veto choices or actions in the name of coherence - this is a group matter (though, in practice, in many groups the GM is likely to be the most influential voice). This, in turn, gives rise to the question that LostSoul (and others) posed, namely, What is a 4e GM for? And I tried to answer that also, in a way which shows how the GM makes a very important contribution to a 4e game without that contribution being one of constraining the application of the rules so as to preserve coherence.

In most traditional games e.g. Monopoly, Chess, etc., this is quite true.

But not D+D. And that's what makes it great.

Sure there's rules presented as guidelines (well, in earlier editions anyway) and for most of the time they get the job done just fine. But in a game where pretty much the only limits on what might come up are set by the collective imaginations of the players/DM/module writer/game designer there's going to be times when the rules just don't work

I think that what you say here is true for rules whose aim is to simulate ingame causal processes. When rules of that sort do a bad job of simulation - eg because of some corner-case consideration that wasn't taken into account when the rule was written - the best way to proceed might be to vary or suspend the rules.

But the more that the rules play a different fuction - something like allocating narrative privileges around the gaming table - then the idea that they can be suspended or varied becomes more problematic. This is especially so if the GM purports to suspend them, and thereby obtain a privilege of narration that s/he would not enjoy according to the rules, at the expense of a player who, as a result of the suspension, will lose a narrative privilege that s/he otherwise would have enjoyed according to the rules.

In my view the action resolution rules in 4e come closer to the second sort of function than in any other version of D&D, and probably are (in absolute terms) closer to the second sort of function than to the first sort of function. I think this is why the issue of "suspending the rules" creates a type of controversy in 4e play that it doesn't, at least to the same extent, in AD&D. It's not about "player entitlement problems" or narcissism. It's about the different way in which the rules work, and hence the different consequences and implications of the GM purporting to unilaterally suspend them.

Why do you want the DM to have investment in the outcome? Do you find that the DM has a conflict of interest, since he's the one building the encounters? I imagine not, but I'd like to hear your answer.

I'm not the one to whom you put the question, but it's an interesting one that I hope you don't mind me picking up on.

I think that in a game in which the GM is desiging encounter/situations so as to force the players to make meaningful choices in responding to them, and in which the vehicles whereby players express those choices are their PCs, then for the GM to unilaterally suspend or vary the action resolution rules so as to curb the PC's powers is to get in the way of what is meant to be going on. It's to invite the players to make a choice, using a certain vehicle, but then to deprive them of that very vehicle and hence to prevent them from making the choice that you, as GM, have invited them to make.

Now that's all stated at a pretty abstract level. In practice, one little verisimilitude-based veto in relation to knocking an ooze prone may not have very serious consequences. Still, my strong preference is to work within the parameters that the players have established (via the character build rules) and to (jointly) construct a coherent fiction that fits within the choices the players have made according to the rules (when page 42 is invoked of course I have more latitude - but I regard PC powers as the core of player resources, with page 42 being an indefinite penumbra on which they can draw to amplify their core).

I doubt that the slope of intervention is all that slippery, but perhaps out of an abundance of caution I prefer not to test it at all.

 

[pemerton]

again..."because it says so on my sheet" is not imaginative IMO

I agree with this. But I think the solution is not a GM veto but an effort by the group to work out what just happened in the fiction (perhaps led by the player who has used the power, but helped out by others, including the GM, if s/he is having a slow day).

That's exaclty MY point
improv and narrative are the keys at our table

To the extent that we have a difference of approach, then, it might be that I see the rules as providing the foundation for the improv and narrative, and the parameters within which it is done.

In a different sort of game from 4e, whose rules played a different function, I'd happily approach it differently (see my reply to Lanefan one post up), although I'd want to keep in mind what Thasmodious said about not nerfing player build choices too badly.

Even within the confines of 4e, I may also in part just be the lucky beneficiary of particular player build choices. The fighter in my game - who does a lot of forced movement (Footwork Lure, Come and Get It) and combat advantage/knocking prone (Deadly Draw, Polearm Momentum) is a halberd specialist. So it is always pretty easy to have a sense of what has happened in the fiction - he is besting his foes with his deft polearm work! A knife fighter using some of the same powers might make the fiction more challenging to conceive of.

 

[Hussar]

That's interesting. Why do you want the DM to have investment in the outcome? Do you find that the DM has a conflict of interest, since he's the one building the encounters? I imagine not, but I'd like to hear your answer.

Gonna tag on the next bit too:

I probably should have said "any specific outcome".

I don't think it's avoidable that the DM is going to have some degree of investment in a specific outcome to an encounter. If nothing else, most DM's design encounters with the idea that all the PC's are going to survive. Subsequent encounters (presuming you design adventures more than one encounter at a time) typically presume certain results from previous encounters.

Take the classic example of putting scrolls of Stone to Flesh in basilisk or medusa lairs. That's a pretty heavy handed example of the DM having a vested interest in, or at least fairly decent ability to judge, the results of an encounter.

Treasure placement often comes about from the DM having some pretty good ideas of what the PC's will need in the future.

Taken too far, obviously this is a bad thing and leads to lockstep railroading. But, it's unlikely that the DM will have no bias whatsoever in how a given encounter will flow. Earlier in this thread, someone talked about the BBEG being a knock down, drag out fight and adjusting the BBEG to ensure that happens.

Is it bad advice? I don't think so. It sucks to have a weak climactic encounter. So, as the DM, I'm certainly pre-disposed to ensuring that that given encounter will lead to a fairly specific (knock down, drag out fight) result.

 

[Wik]

And I think that's what happened with Wik assuming I'm reading the original post right; though it didn't take him long to realize something wasn't working the way he wanted, he still didn't have a good way of fixing it while maintaining the same campaign in the same system.

You got it exactly right. While we did add a few houserules at the 11th level point, they were mostly recommended by players to alleviate some problems I'd been having, and were really advantageous to the players (essentially, I let them pick their own magic items, saving me having to do the homework of treasure parcels - it's worked out pretty well, actually).

My main problem is that, the way the game is designed, it does not contribute to the type of game I want to play. I have a very hard time getting the game to fit my style of "wing it, see what happens, and roll with weird situations and have fun with the results". Because, while weird things can happen, the powers system is far too formulaic for the crazy random stuff to happen that I love to see in a game.

That's me. I'm fine with it not fitting everyone's experiences, but in my experience, I've found that the game basically allows the players to dictate to me what happens, without really giving me room to take those dictations and turn them into something interesting.

I should also mention that my players are much better at tactics than I am. Ha.

I also notice that Wik pulled back from the thread eventually and stopped commenting.

I've been following the thread. I just didn't really have anything to add. And it got a little aggressive for a while, and I really don't like threadwars. It also seemed to get a bit edition warry for a while, and those suck, too. Because while I can tell you I won't be playing 4e once this campaign ends, I do think it's a fine system, and I can get why a lot of people love it.

The first was that he felt the system caused players to SAY what was happening (especially with interrupts and powers that influenced his monsters that couldn't be countered) as opposed to ASKING if what they wanted to achieve could be done.

Comment: My players are just about to hit level 9 so I'm far from Epic tier. So far that I don't really even know if this is a feature that becomes more pronounced as the game goes on. But surely if they are using Interrupts to attack your monsters they still have to hit on MOST occaisions. I'm trying to imagine what powers you are talking about ... do you mean like a Fighter's Mark Interrupt when the Mark is violated? I don't know, I'm kind of having a hard time understanding what the issue is exactly, whether it's a global feeling or more specific to certain things like Effects.

Some of my players are hitting monsters of their level on a 4 or 5+, so they hit pretty often. And most dailies still have a rider effect on a miss... some of which are almost worse than the hit (for example, if it's SE on a hit and UEONT on a miss).

And I'm not really talking about fighter's mark. I'm talking about forced movement powers, or stunlock powers, or things of that effect. It's not one particular power.... it's the accumulated effect of five players all playing powers that force you to do things. When you play that sort of game, it often seems like the amount of choices you make as a GM are rather limited.

Or, as I mentioned it earlier, GMing 4e to me feels like a trade, whereas running the games I like to run, it feels more like an art. I've found that, when I'm firing on all cylinders in 4e, it's almost always because it's a non combat situation, and I'd be firing on all cylinders regardless of system in those cases. In fact, 4e might even be a deterrant in those situations, because I have personally found that PCs can (generally) do less outside of combat than their other edition (or other system) counterparts, as my "climb the wall" example hinted at.

I just don't have fun playing that type of game. It'd be fun as a board game, but as an RPG? Not my cup of tea.

Secondly, the complaint seemed to be pretty final. There was no real desire expressed to find a solution. I think Wik hit his own nail on the head when he responded to Umbram agreeing that the problem was more a clash of desired play style than a flaw of the system. So ... really ... not much can be done. Suck it up mate, the end is nigh!

Exactly. I'm not looking for solutions. There is no solution. It's not my game, and that's that. My players know it's not my game, and we're working on a house ruled version of E6 for our next campaign. I might also run Earthdawn some time in the future. Both of those games seem like a closer fit to what I want to run.

What does bug me are the accusations from some people that I'm trying to run a railroad, which is not how I run games at all. I do have a plot, but I love winging it when the players make crazy detours. That's my favourite part of the game, and it doesn't really seem to work so well with me in 4e. I don't know why, but there it is. And that, of course, is an entirely different thread topic!

And yeah, I don't find the system flawed at all. I just don't like what the system produces. To each their own, right?

 

[Balesir]

That's interesting. Why do you want the DM to have investment in the outcome? Do you find that the DM has a conflict of interest, since he's the one building the encounters? I imagine not, but I'd like to hear your answer.

Sure - it's because I and those I game with use D&D for 'challenge based' play, since I find it suits that manner of play well but not others (though pemerton has made a good case that 'bang-based' story/moral choice based play can work with it, too - haven't tried that, yet). For this type of play, the GM needs to be, at the moment of actual play resolution (i.e. not while building encounters or setting any houserules required, if any), focussed on beating the players, tactically. The encounter is set up to make this a generally losing proposition, of course - but making the best tactical fist of the situation is important, to give the players the best "challenge" to overcome.

With other play modes - explorative "setting simulationist", for example, this focus is not only not required, it is actively harmful. For that style of play, however, I won't be using D&D, as I find it a poor system for that type of play. Ususally we will be using HârnMaster, Traveller or maybe GURPS for that.

 

[jbear]

I can understand how those accusations would be annoying. I think you had words put into your mouth a few times too, if I recall rightly. Also annoying.

But the thread did touch on some quite interesting issues before it became the war of attrition to prove or disprove whether a snake can be knocked prone or a hydra can be tumbled.

Anyway, I hope the change brings the breath of fresh air that you need! Continuing playing in a way that you don't enjoy is madness. Do what you love. Life is way too short for anything else.

 

[pemerton]

I and those I game with use D&D for 'challenge based' play, since I find it suits that manner of play well but not others

<snip>

For this type of play, the GM needs to be, at the moment of actual play resolution (i.e. not while building encounters or setting any houserules required, if any), focussed on beating the players, tactically. The encounter is set up to make this a generally losing proposition, of course - but making the best tactical fist of the situation is important, to give the players the best "challenge" to overcome.

I can't give you XP at this time, so just wanted to say this made plenty of sense to me.

 

[NoWayJose]

The flip side of this is that (again, as I read the rules and guidelines of the game) the GM has no special privilege to veto choices or actions in the name of coherence - this is a group matter

I agree. I think what was happening before was a classic scenario of people seeming to take extreme positions to justify their view.

Person A: The DM has a say!
Person B: No, the player has a say!

In actuality, perhaps both people would be happy to consider a compromise position, but they wanted stake their claim as to why [DM or player] "deserves" influence in the process, which people may interpret unconsciously as being one-sided and invalidating.

I'm not sure I like the word "special privilege" or "rights" because this is just a game. The only objective and real rights in D&D are real-life human rights. If a DM perceives a "right" to manage the narrative, I see it as a subjective responsibility balanced with the players' happiness, and not intended in absolute terms. Of course, I should give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't intended in absolute terms either.

I think this is why the issue of "suspending the rules" creates a type of controversy in 4e play that it doesn't, at least to the same extent, in AD&D. It's not about "player entitlement problems" or narcissism. It's about the different way in which the rules work, and hence the different consequences and implications of the GM purporting to unilaterally suspend them.

I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify my positioning on feelings of entitlement and 4E rules. Disclaimer: This is all speculation on my part and is subject to interpretation. I hope to receive the benefit of the doubt.

Theoretical scenario: A human-sized zombie knocks a 10-ton hydra prone to the ground. Rules say it happens. DM and/or one or more player believes it shouldn't happen narratively, and nobody created a houserule in advance because nobody anticipated this.

In a real game, if you're fortunate, everyone's already on the same page (all "pro-rules", or all "pro-narrative" like TheUltraMark's game) OR, just as well, nobody really cares one way or another and a decision is made with minimal fuss. Otherwise, there are only 3 options:
a) the rule is used as is
b) the rule is negated
c) the DM and players reach some sort of compromise

This is basic conflict resolution, and it only goes completely smoothly if nobody takes it personally. However, if you have two or more people who are passionately at odds with each other, it's possible that at least one person will be unhappy with a contrary resolution. It takes emotional maturity to handle conflict resolution without making it personal.

For example, if you lose to somebody in checkers, you might be upset about losing, but there's nobody to blame and it's a bit weird to blame the checkers rules. However, if the game rules are open to interpretation and not ruled in your favor, you can react viscerally against the referee or the player you thought was cheating or the GM or whatever. I think many of us have been sore losers at least once in our gaming lives.

Intentionally or unintentionally, 4E is actually very clever in its design, because clear-cut rules not subject to interpretation help to reduce the risk of arguments and interpersonal conflict. That is, if everyone respects the rules exactly as is, without the messiness of human adjudication, then the rules say the zombie knocks the hydra prone, and there's nothing to argue about, it's a fact and it's nothing personal. Due to page 42 of the DMG and other elements, 4E rules will never be entirely non-discretionary, but arguably less so than in earlier editions.

It then follows that inviolate rules = less arguments = more fun.

If it's true that 4E rules = less arguments, it does NOT follow that "playing by the rules" is due to any one group being worried about arguments. Some people want to stay on the path:

In practice, one little verisimilitude-based veto in relation to knocking an ooze prone may not have very serious consequences. Still, my strong preference is to work within the parameters that the players have established (via the character build rules) and to (jointly) construct a coherent fiction that fits within the choices the players have made according to the rules

But staying on the path is not fun for everyone:

My main problem is that, the way the game is designed, it does not contribute to the type of game I want to play. I have a very hard time getting the game to fit my style of "wing it, see what happens, and roll with weird situations and have fun with the results". Because, while weird things can happen, the powers system is far too formulaic for the crazy random stuff to happen that I love to see in a game.

Some people (including myself) are simply not at their happiest when playing 100% by the rules when they're not perceived to be ideal rules for that moment in play. In a game where fun is the ultimate goal, the happiness of the group as a whole unquestionably supersedes any one rule (IF the two are incompatible).

Secondly, the complaint seemed to be pretty final. There was no real desire expressed to find a solution. I think Wik hit his own nail on the head when he responded to Umbram agreeing that the problem was more a clash of desired play style than a flaw of the system. So ... really ... not much can be done.

The bad news: Finding that optimal happiness for the group is an art, not a science.

The good news: This thread HAS been beneficial in teasing out some ideas. You summarized those highlights from 16 pages of sweat, blood and tears. This yields an optional playstyle for 4E, which may not have been entirely obvious before and which some people might choose to use.