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

[Mort]

4e has, for better or worse, given a lot more narrative control to each individual player, at least in the context of combat.

One method, which Wik seems to look on in disfavor, is to provide quite a few immediate interrupt/reaction powers - If x happens then my character can do y (and in the case of interrupts often actually negate x). This allows for players to play the "oh no you don't" card which is quite jarring for DMs that are not used to it (at least it was for me). I think this is essentially a personal taste thing, some DMs will adjust and like it, some will never like the large change in flow.

Another is to give players larger guns when they need them. The fighter need to do more damage? Blow an encounter. Even more damage? Use a daily. I personally have no problem with this mechanic as I see it as just another exercise of narrative control - a limited scope of the player to dictate how much damage his character is capable of doing (or to do an effect like knock prone near automatically as opposed to relying on p. 42 or DM fiat), just like fate chips etc. in other games (after all, most non-mage powers are just extensions of what the character can do anyway, like split the tree (juiced twin strike)). Again though, it's quite an adjustment, and not necessarily for everyone.

As for the stun, lockdown an encounter (particularly a solo) into near uselessness: that is a result of the designers not properly taking into account economy of actions in their early monster (particularly solo) design. The monster has massive hitpoints and a big attack? Means nothing if the swordmage marks him (to reduce damage significantly) and the strikers then flank him and beat into submission etc. Even excluding this, early solo monsters tend to be quite static and boring. Designers have recognized this in later monster design (as mentioned up thread), MM3 apparently has particularly good solo monster design.

All that said, it's never a bad idea to change things up and do a different game (or 2 or three) when the current one is getting stale - for whatever reason.

Too bad about moving to darksun without the 4e though, it's actually the best implementation of dark sun I've seen yet (certainly mechanically, and even good conceptually). Though, E6 also seems like the perfect system to capture the grittiness, yet heroic nature, of Dark Sun (hope you post how that goes; I'm quite curious).

 

[Diamond Cross]

So why should the players be able to dictate things to the DM?

That's too much like a player trying to dictate how the referee should rule in their favor.

And that's the reason why EGG wrote about the "Illusion of control".

The game should be collaborative, not combative. But neither should the DM have to give in to every single whim of the players either. The final decision should always go to the referee.

Some players simply want every single advantage they can get and will use every single dishonest means they have at their disposal to get it.

Good players use strategy to fight monsters, they don't bully the DM into submission.

 

[nedjer]

Basically my players fixed this for me. Along the lines of 'we know you can translate but don't bother. We're here for the improvisation, the action and the psychology. Not fresh grind and wtf? skill challenges'.

A short chat about the merits of Traveler and BECMI followed and they agreed on the system that's run ever since. I thank them every session by tormenting, teasing and, occasionally, maiming their PCs

I could do this with 4e, but, in D&D terms, it's a snap with BECMI.

 

[wingsandsword]

Wik, I'd XP you but it says I have to spread some around.

I don't like CrazyStupid MonsterNames, or many, many things about 4e, but I'll say that the powers that let players dictate to the DM what monsters do is way up there in terms of what sucks the fun out of running D&D.

 

[Croesus]

It's about the fact that my players now have the ability to say to me "No. I am doing this, and you have to adjust"...

Essentially, my problem is that I feel the DM has less power than he used to at the actual table, and it makes me feel like my role is somehow less important. DMing 4e is, in my experience, less fun than DMing in other games, because it feels like less of an art, and more like a trade. If that makes any sense at all.

Wik, your post reminded of something I haven't thought of in some time:

When I first began playing RPG's in the 70's, I remember thinking that the main difference between RPG's and boardgames was the (in)flexibility of the rules. If we were playing a boardgame, we all played by the same rules. We all knew (or should have known...) the rules. The only surprises were which strategies we would use and how the dice fell. We were all players, even if we had different roles, depending on the specific game.

RPG's, on the other hand, had rules, but they could be, and often were, overruled by the GM. If the GM wanted something to happen and not be dispelled by the characters, then the effect was simply immune to dispels. If he wanted a creature to be immune to certain attacks, it simply was. In the hands of good GM, this could improve the game. In the hands of a lousy GM...ouch. But fundamentally, the GM was not a player - he had a very different role, with a very different set of rules than everyone else.

This basic difference led to two very different experiences in playing the two. I enjoyed boardgames because I knew the rules and didn't have to deal with whether or not one player (aka, the GM) agreed that my action was legal. I could stop worrying about such things and just focus on strategies. Playing RPG's, on the other hand, could be frustrating, what with all the arguments about what we could or couldn't do, and the all too often arbitrary rulings of the GM, but also had great flexibility and frankly, was usually a heck of a lot of fun.

Both were enjoyable, but different. The post from the OP suggests that his game has reached the point that it's more of a boardgame than an old style RPG. That even the GM is essentially just another player, bound by the same rules as everyone else. That can have many advantages, but if it's not the style of game he wants to play, he may need to find a system that more easily supports what he wants.

And it's something I'll keep in mind before my group starts another campaign, to make sure we're playing the kind of game we want to play. Thanks for the post Wik.

 

[rkwoodard]

This reminds me of a post in a Crappy DM thread here a few years back. A player was complaining because the DM was just doing crazy things and shooting down the players. In particular, I remember said player complaining because his Wizard was levitate very high in the air but was being hit by wolves that were jumping 20-30 feet to bite him.

I am now leaning toward old school basic systems, and the players can trust me or not. I think I am at least average at DMing and pretty fair (or maybe a bit easy toward the players).

I have had your problem with both 3x and 4th. Mostly where I did not have all the powers/skills/feats of the players memorized.

I don't know the answer except that regardless of system, it comes down to the players and DM being on the same page.

Regards,

 

[Wik]

I'm going to respond to a few different points. I'd love to respond to all of them, but I just don't have the time!

I think you just need to adjust. That'll take time, probably a few sessions.

The XP budget is just a guideline, for starters. You don't need to tell your players what the budget is, what level monsters are, etc.

Well, I haven't used the XP budget in a long time. A good side of 4E is that I can kind of just wing encounters, and get away with it, and I've been able to do so since the PCs were around 5th level. I've thrown encounters that were over twice the budget at PCs, and they've survived (albeit barely). Epic hasn't changed that (though I have used the budget a few times lately).

My real beef has been going on for ten levels, and just got worse in Epic - that players can dictate the flow of the game to me, and I have no ability to change it except through breaking the rules.

I understand your points but I can't agree. IMO the worst thing of the old versions of D&D was this whole "The DM is God" nonsense, that the DM could dictate to the players anything he wanted, that the players had NO control over anything, often not even their own characters. That mentality fostered entire generations of, to be frank, asshat DMs that run "their" game with an iron fist, and we are only now trying to get away from that mentality with a joint game where both sides can do things, instead of one side having all the power and the other being thrown a bone to give the illusion of free will.

I can respect our differences, but allow to expand a bit, here.

I'm not looking for "The GM is god" bit. What I *DO* want is to have a role of "GM as Interpreter", as opposed to what I've got in 4E, which is "GM as Opposition intended to lose". There seems to be less and less room for me to flex my muscles, and when I DO flex my muscles, Players often have powers that let me say "no, you can't do that, get back in your cage".

And all of this only applies in combat. Once the fighting ends, I have no problem running 4e, although it is kind of annoying that it takes my epic-level players half an hour before they realize they can CLIMB A WALL.

What has become of Epic, these days, btw? "I can kill fifty dragons... but yeah, this door's really locked, you're gonna wanna call a locksmith or something".

Interesting. Maybe it's partially playstyle, but I usually love it when that happens. Outside of combat at least, I love it when a player takes control of the narrative and all I need to do is describe the painful fallout from their actions.

Actually, we're in agreement. I love players doing weird stuff, and changing my plans, outside of combat. And I love players changing my plans IN COMBAT, too, with clever ideas.

What I HATE is that the game has allowed the players to say "no, do this". They have dailies that let them shut down the combat entirely. And while they ARE just dailies, there are enough of them that they can do this three or four times. Meaning, for three or four hours out of every in-game "Day", I'm sitting around having the players dictate a large part of the combat to me.

All that said, it's never a bad idea to change things up and do a different game (or 2 or three) when the current one is getting stale - for whatever reason.

Too bad about moving to darksun without the 4e though, it's actually the best implementation of dark sun I've seen yet (certainly mechanically, and even good conceptually). Though, E6 also seems like the perfect system to capture the grittiness, yet heroic nature, of Dark Sun (hope you post how that goes; I'm quite curious).

Well, we just got off a one-month game hiatus where we played BECMI. I had a blast DMing it, and it made me sort of realize that a lot of my GM woes are not inherent, but are instead system-based. I think I'm running this campaign until the very end (because everyone wants to see it conclude, as opposed to just "fizzle away into nothingness).

I actually enjoy 4E dark sun's presentation (sans Eladrin and Feywild). However, I've come to the realization that 4e is not for me, and once this campaign is over, I won't be playing it again.

And yeah, once I start our e6 game, I'll definitely post updates. My players and I figured out enough tweaks that it should suit my playstyle (I'm a GM raised on the WEG d6 Star Wars rules, and that's where I'm happiest running), and I think it should be a lot of fun, hopefully without all of the crap in 3e I hated that caused me to initially love 4e.

So why should the players be able to dictate things to the DM?

That's too much like a player trying to dictate how the referee should rule in their favor.

And that's the reason why EGG wrote about the "Illusion of control".

The game should be collaborative, not combative. But neither should the DM have to give in to every single whim of the players either. The final decision should always go to the referee.

Some players simply want every single advantage they can get and will use every single dishonest means they have at their disposal to get it.

Good players use strategy to fight monsters, they don't bully the DM into submission.

I love this entire quote, more or less. The problem is, the rules let the players do all these things, and unless the GM wants to go against the rules (which could be reasonably argued to overrule player choice), he's stuck with the fact that his big bad end guy is going to be knocked prone every round because every PC has a power that will knock prone even on a miss.

It's getting to the point where, once I start getting stunlocked, I'm going to start doing the same thing to the players. We once had a "gentleman's agreement" about stun, but they're beginning to forget about it, so it might be time for me to brush it off and throwing stun monsters at them again.

For what it's worth, though, they don't bully me into submission. My players are great. The RULES, however, bully me into submission. And that's no fun.

I have had your problem with both 3x and 4th. Mostly where I did not have all the powers/skills/feats of the players memorized.

I haven't had this problem until 4e came along. I can't remember it ever happening in 3e. I'm not complaining about player success - hell, I LIKE Player Success - but instead complaining about the ability of players to, without the shadow of a doubt, tell me what happens.

I never had that in 3e, because there was a counter to every spell, more or less. I mean, they'd cast magic missile and knew they could reliably say "it takes 10 damage" or whatever, but if they cast a no-save spell with a nasty effect, there was still the chance I could say "oh, but X happens and it doesn't happen". 90% of the time, X didnt' happen. But if X happened, even if the players didn't know WHAT X was, they could accept it and carry on their game.

These days, if I say "no, that doesn't happen" they will frown and assume I'm breaking the rules. And usually, I am. Because there is no real way for Come and Get It to be countered. Or Tornado Strike. Or many of the stun-locking or dazing powers (unless the monster has a line in the stat block that prevents any of these specific powers from happening, which is few and far between).

 

[the Jester]

Hmmmm....

I sympathize with your position, although I do not share it.

Personally, I like it when the pcs counter me or use unexpected tactics.

Here are a few suggestions:

1. Don't be afraid to use a ton of minions that don't look like minions. Then, sometimes those cool counter abilities won't always get used against your buff guys. One thing that helps is if your minions don't all look the same. Also, fake-roll damage for them. The whole philosophy of "let the players know who the minions are" is, imho, fine as long as the minions are visibly different from the rest. However, in an encounter with (f'rex) vampire spawn minions and a collection of human mercenaries (wizards, soldiers, etc), why should the pcs be able to pick out the spawn? For instance, let's say your bad guys consist of:

5 vampire spawn minions [leveled up to lvl 8 minions]
Theo, lvl 8 soldier [flavored as a fighter]
Zartan, lvl 8 controller [flavored as a wizard]
Moammed, lvl 8 leader controller [flavored as a cleric]
Stryder, lvl 8 artillery [flavored as a ranger]

When the party meets them, describe Theo, Zartan, Moammed and Stryder individually. Then do the same thing for each minion: "This guy wears a red cloak and has a spear and bow. This one is woman in chain mail holding a black unholy symbol of Bleak. This one is unarmored and stands in some kind of unarmed fighting stance..."

2. Not often, but once in a while, give a monster an ability like this:

Oh No You Don't! * At Will 1/round
Trigger: An enemy uses an immediate action that either triggers or is triggered by this creature or an action of this creature.
Attack (Free Action Interrupt): Close burst 10 (triggering enemy): +x vs. Will.
Hit: The target cannot use an immediate action (save ends).

 

[Wik]

I sympathize with your position, although I do not share it.

Personally, I like it when the pcs counter me or use unexpected tactics.

Ha, that makes me sound like someone who doesn't like change. I actually ENJOY unexpected tactics.

However, a power that will auto succeed, even on a failure, is not an unexpected tactic. And having a player tell me "this happens" is not my idea of fun.

Because I have little ability to say "this happens" to them anymore. There are just too many counters.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Just what sort of crazy abilities do epic PCs have?