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

[Heathen72]

I didn't fully read the thread, but to address the OP's dislike of "player empowerment", I think that this has become a reality in RPG's designed in the past decade, maybe a bit longer, due to - to put it plainly - crappy GM's. The players are at this game trying to have fun, trying to do what they enjoy only for the GM to crap all over their ideas making whatever the player is attempting ridiculously difficult to do or just flat out saying no.

As a player, that f'n blows. You're at the whim of the DM, pure and simple. That was the first 20 years of gaming and it sucked.

Then the new wave of games kick in and take some of that power away from the GM, and it's a good thing. I'm sure there are times where all GM's have been guilty of abusing their power and trying to impose their view of fun, or their pre-scripted plot, but simply put, their are more players than GM's at the table, and their fun should outweigh yours - in numerical terms, but ideally, everyone should be having equal fun, ideally.

It all comes down to everyone being on the same page in the end, and if everyone were, there would never have been the "revolution" of player empowerment. If everyone would just sit down an talk for even just an hour about what type of game they want to play and be brutally honest about it, including their likes and dislikes of all the RPG variables, I think everyone would be happier. It would prevent things like one player wanting to play an ultra-powerful wizard in a high-fantasy setting and the GM instead designing a ultra-realistic, low-powered setting and then trying to shoehorn the players into doing what he wants to do.

Spend the time to get everyone on the same page, and the game is much more enjoyable, or at least I've always found it so. Just my 2 cents.

But it seems nowadays everyone wants to make a character that has no tie-ins to the other characters and in fact many of the PC's would kill each other if played appropriately, then everyone jumps to the table and starts gaming in 20 seconds or less. How the F can that be fun? No one has agreed to anything, it's just a bunch of random characters thrown into a random setting and random plot - I'd rather play something else at that point - maybe it's just me.

I haven't time to respond to this post in depth. On the other hand, I read the whole thread, so kudos to me. In short, I agree with the latter parts of your post, but I really disagree with the initial paragraphs. I think in many ways the game back then was better for the freedom that GM's were given to serve their players with the best possible game they could create, and the best rulings they could make. I acknowledge that there were also elements that potentially led to GM caprice being abused, but I don't think this has changed.

Sure ideologies have changed over the years, with the focus changing from dungeons, to simulationist, to story teller, to gamist and so on, and it's great that the hobby has evolved, but let's not assume that every aspect of each innovation is an improvement.

Frankly, I don't think the 'revolution of player empowerment', (a phrase that looks it should be on a placard at some protest rally) was due to crappy GM's or indeed driven by players. Certainly in terms of the ruleset, I think it was driven by the executives at game companies - perhaps to simplify and ease the GM's burden - but I can't say for sure, as I am not them.

Regardless or the ideology that drove it, I think that in many respects the 'revolution' has failed.

 

[ggroy]

If everyone would just sit down an talk for even just an hour about what type of game they want to play and be brutally honest about it, including their likes and dislikes of all the RPG variables, I think everyone would be happier.

...

Spend the time to get everyone on the same page, and the game is much more enjoyable, or at least I've always found it so. Just my 2 cents.

Back in the day, I was DMing a 1E AD&D game where the players wanted to level up really fast. After looking at their proposed houserules, I just came out and told them that it would be much easier to just start the game with all their characters at level 30. But I also told them that they may also become bored relatively quickly in such a high level game.

We agreed to start our game at level 30, with most of the player characters as magic users. So after playing for awhile at level 30+, the players indeed got bored of the game quite quickly, just as I predicted.

 

[LostSoul]

"GM as Opposition intended to lose"

I noticed this after a few sessions of 4E. I think that's by design. The PCs are supposed to win. I don't think it's the DM's responsibility to seriously challenge the PCs*. I'm not really sure what the DM's responsibility is. I think you're supposed to be a helping hand in their ascent to heroism; you create encounters that show how the world needs the PCs to save it ("The world needs heroes"), and add colour to their eventual victory.

* - One alternate way of doing this: the DM creates a challenging setting and then plays out the NPCs and setting with as much internal consistency as possible.

 

[the Jester]

I don't think it's the DM's responsibility to seriously challenge the PCs*.

Wow, serious playstyle difference. I totally disagree.

 

[pawsplay]

Wow, serious playstyle difference. I totally disagree.

Yeah, to me that would be like DOING THE METAPHOR with someone who was faking it. It's already enough that the odds are tipped in the PC's favor, by dint of the heroic scenario, there is no reason to actually make it easy.

 

[TheUltramark]

I watched the video, why would you veto this? It seems like a legit use of powers and some luck. Let the players be heroes when it happens. It is fun!

ok, I'd ask the player to explain how it happens, describe the action..."it's on my sheet" doesn't explain jack! Now if the player comes up with some creative narrative or even something funny that everyone busts a gut laughing about, then maybe it does happen.

I let my players get away with the impossible all the time, because they "sell me" on it. The guy that just sits there rolling his dice and reading off his sheet (and probably rules lawyering) is a drag - at our table at least.

Also, it isnt just me, I say "I do this" or "I do that", but we have 4 DM's out of our table of 7, and the other three guys will all say the same thing, "what I say goes".

Finally - It is clearly a matter of trust. If you join an on line game(or RL game too), with somedude you never played with before, it's a lot harder to trust him to keep the game fun if/when he starts overruling players

 

[Hautamaki]

Giving players more narrative control of battles is a new wrinkle to 4e, but to be fair high level players had a huge narrative control of out-of-battle stuff in 3e thanks to teleport and scrying spells. DMs really had to be creative to come up with ways to keep dungeons and adventures relevant when players are given the tools to completely bypass them. I suppose the same thing applies here in 4e. Players have the ability to completely take X numbers out of the fight Y times per day... so if you really really don't want that to happen to a given monster Z, you have to try to make sure the players have already used their Y number of powers taking out monsters X before they even get to Z.

The Jester already offered some great ideas, encouraging players to waste powers on mooks and minions, and using monsters that have abilities that can negate these kinds of narrative control powers.

Another possibility is to just keep throwing stuff at the players, even after they've decided to take their daily rest, to prevent them from recharging those powers until they are all gone, and then and only then is when BBEG Z makes his appearance.

A third possibility is to put a very strict time limit on the players to accomplish their quest. If they stop to rest after the 5th encounter and their dailies are gone, it will be too late! If your players are used to the 5 encounter work day so they have 1 daily per, it's time to introduce them to the joys of the 6 and 7 encounter days. They are big boys now that they are epic, they can learn to handle it =p

This means that not only are they still challenged, but they don't feel cheated out of their character's power. They NEED to abuse their characters' abusive powers just to survive the sheer amount of stuff you are throwing at them, and that's fine, that's fun for an epic level character. They know their powers give them X free passes per day, that's fine; just give them X+1 or X+2 or X+3 challenges so that they really have to go back to thinking carefully about resource management and whether they really want to use their daily on this monster, or whether another bigger meaner one is just around the corner... ready to go and ruin their day whether they think they can run away and take a rest or not.... mwahahahah!

 

[TheUltramark]

Giving players more narrative control of battles is a new wrinkle to 4e,

no it isn't, FAR from it, in fact, it is my belief that 4e give the characters WAY LESS license that every before

but to be fair high level players had a huge narrative control of out-of-battle stuff in 3e thanks to teleport and scrying spells. DMs really had to be creative to come up with ways to keep dungeons and adventures relevant when players are given the tools to completely bypass them.

I have never had that problem, usually at my table, the players never want to bypass anything, if the DM says, ok, blah blah blah this is the adventure, and the players say we teleport away, thats a whole night wasted...who wants that?

I suppose the same thing applies here in 4e. Players have the ability to completely take X numbers out of the fight Y times per day... so if you really really don't want that to happen to a given monster Z, you have to try to make sure the players have already used their Y number of powers taking out monsters X before they even get to Z.

=====

This means that not only are they still challenged, but they don't feel cheated out of their character's power. They NEED to abuse their characters' abusive powers just to survive the sheer amount of stuff you are throwing at them, and that's fine, that's fun for an epic level character. They know their powers give them X free passes per day, that's fine; just give them X+1 or X+2 or X+3 challenges so that they really have to go back to thinking carefully about resource management and whether they really want to use their daily on this monster, or whether another bigger meaner one is just around the corner... ready to go and ruin their day whether they think they can run away and take a rest or not.... mwahahahah!

I think it is kind of a shame that all your players want to do is be the uberest they can be, and I guess I am lucky that my table is full of players who like to role play.

 

[LostSoul]

Wow, serious playstyle difference. I totally disagree.

That's how I think 4E was designed, not how I see the DM's role in general.

 

[Herobizkit]

Just a quick observation.

The 'game' part of RPG is a tool set to move along the narrative by resolving conflicts, both in the literal and figurative sense.

The 4e tool set is designed to 'make combat come alive'. In previous incarnations of D&D, the term 'I swing' was used by myself and my gaming group the most. Why? Because swinging your weapon was usually the most effective way of dealing with opponents. Trying combat tricks and maneuvers often had a higher chance to fail than a basic attack (and even penalized you by giving the opponent a free swing at you for the effort), and thus, were seldom attempted.

4e tries to take that boring away with combat options that are generally more interesting than 'I swing'. Each power has a slightly different effect than the other, and the player actually gets to think about what power he's going to use.

Now, in Wik's case, if his players can't figure out that they can climb walls by the Epic tier, then I would posit that the game to that point has been weighted heavily towards combat... possibly TOO much.

And I do feel that 4e's fancy new combat system is the cause... because 80(?) percent of the PHB is stocked with "Things To Do in Combat". Granted, you don't NEED a complicated skill system to resolve non-combat encounters, but 4e tried to get that in there with their 'complex' skill challenges (the paper equivalent to Quick-Time Events).

I would suggest to Wik that, should he hate how combat works in 4e, start planning social/RP/story-based adventures around the player's Skills. You'd have to start slowly... count all the combats that are expected and replace every third one with a social/skill-based encounter. Or, start imposing social penalties for the murderous players who solve all their problems with weapons. Sure, they're heroes, but they're more feared than respected once they get to Epic level.

Or even better... retire the Epic heroes and get back to basics with a new 1st level campaign, but break out the Epics once in a while for a 'guest appearance'.