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

[LostSoul]

The underlined bit, to me, is negating the effect of a power. I do appreciate that the reduction in effectiveness against certain targets might be balanced by the possible increased frequency of use against other targets, though. Still, while it works for you and your group, it would not be my preferred approach.

Yeah, sometimes I tell the players that their PCs can't use specific powers. I guess that results in the same thing, in a way.

Given this set-up, I would simply avoid playing martial characters. If using magic will bypass all the considerations about being realistic, I'd rather just do that and make things simpler for everyone.

There's more to the game than that! In general, I've found Arcane and Divine characters to be less powerful in combat; I think it has something to do with how I apply modifiers to attack rolls. I still concern myself with the in-game effects of Spells and Prayers, but I didn't think I needed to change any rules to do so.

 

[Balesir]

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.

So, the point of the excercise is players having to come up with an explanation you like of why their character can do what the rules say they can? What's the point of that? Why not just start from the position that their character can do what the rules say they can, and, where you (as a whole group) feel the need to have an explanation of how this happens, work to produce a mutually satisfying explanation collaboratively? Why do you need the GM to be sole arbiter of what is "believable" and what isn't? How does that even make sense?

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.

Was Old Skool roleplaying designed the way it is partially to appease an old narcissistic 'Me' generation? The old generation that I keep reading about in articles (a whole book, actually) that supposedly had an inflated sense of self, lack of empathy, were vain and materialistic, with an overblown sense of entitlement? This might explain Old Skool's push for GM power, GM story, everyone feeling cowed all the time, and rules designed to be subject to interpretation in order to avoid player uppityness and easily hurt GM feelings?

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

Well, if we're getting into arbitrarily disallowing things we have problems fitting into our imaginations, I think I'll just say "no" to both of these rickety pachyderms...

 

[NoWayJose]

Was Old Skool roleplaying designed the way it is partially to appease an old narcissistic 'Me' generation? The old generation that I keep reading about in articles (a whole book, actually) that supposedly had an inflated sense of self, lack of empathy, were vain and materialistic, with an overblown sense of entitlement? This might explain Old Skool's push for GM power, GM story, everyone feeling cowed all the time, and rules designed to be subject to interpretation in order to avoid player uppityness and easily hurt GM feelings?

If so, Old School (What's Old Skool?) failed completely in their appeasement approach. What happens when an old narcisistic DM tries to cow old narcisistic players? Boom!!! Hurt feelings and nerdrage for everyone. Bruising and crushing of egos continued for 30 years, it was a human rights disaster.

 

[TheUltramark]

The problem Ultramark is that you are conflating the plain English definition of Prone (lying on the ground) with the game defined condition of being Prone. These are not the same thing.

If I move half my speed (in any edition) in a round, but a I narrate that I'm running, do I apply the Running condition? No, I don't. Because I can narrate that I'm running, skipping or doing the boogaloo for that distance and, because I have not exceeded my base movement, I do not apply the Run condition. In 1e and 2e, I may still make a melee attack, in 3e, I can make a single attack, and in 4e, I have just used my move action (probably). No conditions would be added despite the real English definition of my narration.

actually in the PHB (since the rules are the master of the game) on page 277 it states "You are lying on the ground" under if you are prone...now in some essential book, players handbook 16, or some random dragon magazine it might have changed, but I'm in the dark on that one.
the running example is fair, yet I wold add that if you run 15 feet toward an enemy, then attack it normally (1/2 e) single attack(3e) or even in 4e, I probably would consider that a charge, I don't mean to split hairs over this - you make a lot of valid points...thank you and have a nice day

 

[LostSoul]

Why do you need the GM to be sole arbiter of what is "believable" and what isn't? How does that even make sense?

From anyway.

Bobnar (tx Ben) is standing on a tree stump when the wood-trolls attack. Does this count as the high ground?

...

Another solution, equally good, equally not-always-suitable: give the moment of judgment to a player who's strongly invested in getting it right, not in one character or another coming out on top.

Player 1 wants the game to have a reliable-but-interesting internal consistency, but STRONGLY wants Bobnar to have the high-ground advantage.

Player 2 wants the game to have a reliable-but-interesting internal consistency, but STRONGLY wants Bobnar to NOT have the high-ground advantage.

Player 3 STRONGLY wants the game to have a reliable-but-interesting internal consistency, and doesn't care a bit whether Bobnar has the high-ground advantage.

Which player should get to judge Bobnar's position? (Hint: Player 3 should.)​

 

[TheUltramark]

look, I am going to pull the chord on this one, I can't win. If at your table you follow the powers rules no matter what, and think there can be no exceptions, then more power to ya. It's a matter of personal taste.
I just feel the rules are there to serve the game, not the other way around.

Another thing I thought of about the "hydra attack" scenario, I am pretty sure anyone at my table would ask before hand "am I even able to knock a hydra prone? because it sounds ridiculous" before using their power, and after I said no, would instead use some power that maybe stuns it, or immobilize it, or maybe confuses it....instead of being a dick and saying "oh no, it says on my sheet i can knock it prone and so if you say the giant snake can't be knocked prone then you're the worst DM ever"

 

[MrMyth]

It's about the fact that, no matter what, our fighter can blow Come and Get it, and dictate the movement of my monsters. It's about the fact that, in a big fight, my players can basically stun-lock my big bad monsters, and if I say "no, that doesn't happen" I am breaking the rules and depriving them of their core strengths. It's about the fact that, if I want to do something, my players feel they have the right to say "no, this doesn't happen."

Well, keep in mind that Come and Get It was always an outlier in working that way - and that is now no longer the case.

Still, the problem remains in the form of daily powers where stuff happens on a Miss or via an Effect.

The answer, in my opinion, is to absolutely say "that doesn't happen". Not on the spot, of course - but more monsters should feature immunities. I'm in a Paragon game where our rogue inflicts crippling penalties on enemies that make it almost impossible for them to hit - as long as they are vulnerable to fear. Yet we are fighting primarily undead. It feels strange that almost none of them are immune to fear.

Im not saying everything should be protected from the PCs strongest attacks. But important monsters should have defenses against stun - either immunity or by reducing the effect or otherwise. Appropriate monsters can't be dominated or forced moved or whatever.

In my epic game, I tended to give such benefits to important enemies - though usually with some downside. A raging elemental golem might not be able to be stunned - but would instead, for that duration, become vulnerable to damage. The PC sees a clear result from their power, without it ending the encounter outright.

I also tried to set a tone of "feel free to use whatever tricks you want... but expect to be met in kind." So if the PCs really trick out to stun-lock enemies, they can prepare to meet lots of enemies who do the same. No one really wanted that, so stuns were used relatively sparingly.

I think part of the problem is that some conditions are handed out more freely than they should be. And that some powers are written so that nothing the monster can do can prevent the outcome from happening. Which is a shame, because it does get back to the system mastery issue of third edition - instead of the DM needing to figure out how to protect the key monster from SoD, he needs to figure out how to protect them from being stunned, or from the sorcerer sticking them in a teleport loop for absurd amounts of damage.

In some ways, while the effects are weaker, that almost makes it more insulting - your epic monster is being rendered inept since he's cornered by a defender, and if he tries to move away, gets hit by an OA that knocks him down and trips him, and then he gets dazed by the rogue and can either spend the next round flailing on the ground, or waste his turn standing up... etc.

In the end, it mostly worked out - our Epic game remained enjoyable. PCs could dominate some encounters, but would run into occasional enemies that really shook them up. That felt appropriate epic, overall. But it does require some attention to what encounters you present, and how you present them, and I can see the frustrations that can come with dealing with that. (Especially if you try diving right into Epic level out of the blue.)

 

[Thasmodious]

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.

Completely, and poorly, imagined.

1. This generational identity crap is codswollop.
2. 4e is not played by a single generation. RPGs are played by all ages. 4e is played by plenty of players who've been playing since OD&D and OSR games are being played by 20 year old kids.

So, you managed to pass judgment on and insult an entire generation of people for no real contribution to the discussion at hand.

 

[chaochou]

I think arguments here about he legitimacy of GM fiat are a bit of a red herring.

I think that legitimacy (can a snake be knocked prone, or a hydra) is decided on a group by group basis. One group might be fine with a GM ruling, another might expect to have a discussion about the 'effects' of being prone and retcon the fiction to match those effects. Another might let the players decide what's most interesting.

But in 4e GM fiat in combat has to be transparent. If my power says 'this knocks the target prone' then the GM has to explicitly tell the table that effect hasn't happened. It isn't prone, or it isn't stunned, or it isn't dazed.

I can can understand that transparency not suiting every GM or every group. Some GMs and groups work well when the GM can fiat behind the scenes (completely plausibly) and keep the game moving and exciting. Some GMs do it expertly. If I read it correctly this is what the OP would like to do and is finding problematic.

So, as a theory, do the 4e rules put any sly deviation from the rules front and centre compared with before? I'd say moreso than 1e, but not having been a 3e player I can't make a comparison.

 

[NoWayJose]

1. This generational identity crap is codswollop.

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

2. 4e is not played by a single generation. RPGs are played by all ages. 4e is played by plenty of players who've been playing since OD&D and OSR games are being played by 20 year old kids.

1. 4E partially appeals to 'Me' generation
2. All 4E players are part of the 'Me' generation

I call out that logical fallacy to be "codswollop". At that no time did I state that emotional immaturity is exclusive to any one age group, and at no time did I say that people of any age and stripes cannot benefit from 4E's design.

So, you managed to pass judgment on and insult an entire generation of people for no real contribution to the discussion at hand.

You're absolutely right. This discussion should have ended with some excellent posts from weem, LostSoul, Celtavian, and TheUltraMark on page 10.