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

[FireLance]

There are plenty of people who don't agree that it's a double standard. It's a different standard because there's a significant different factor - magical spells.

In other words, it's not a double standard because martial abilities are supposed to be inferior to subject to restrictions that do not apply to magical abilities in the first place?

 

[pemerton]

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.

I assume that the example campaign arcs sketched in The Plane Above, Underdark, etc give some idea of what the designers have in mind. It seems to me that the GM's role is something like you describe, but not merely to add colour. Rather, I would say that it is to add conflict to the PC's eventual victory - so while the victory may be (mechanically) mostly guaranteed, the thematic signficance of the victory, and of the choices made on the way there - and, hence, the exact sense in which "victory" is achieved - is up for grabs in play.

 

[Beginning of the End]

for the umpteenth time:
if your game adheres to the letter of the law when it comes to powers, and everyone at your table has fun doing it that way - then God bless ya man! I hope you keep having fun for the next 1000 years!
I assure you, at the game I play at, we take a more imaginative approach, meaning slithering beasts cannot be knocked prone, and things made of stone can't be petrified, and things without a sense of hearing can't be deafened, and it works for US, we have a great time.

I am sorry I tried to defend our game style, it won't happen again.

Are you capable of "defending" your game style without denigrating others?

Because right now you're doing a lousy job of it.

~ welcome to a threadban. As Umbran said upthread, no further warnings. That guy is attempting to be conciliatory time and time again and you pick on one element of wording and try to start a fight? Plane Sailing ~

 

[NoWayJose]

If you're not interested in having the players make important choices and contributions to the "story" of the game, then one is forced to wonder why you're playing an RPG at all. It would seem that writing some fiction would be a more effective way of meeting your interests.

I am interested in having the players make important choices and contributions to the "story" of the game. Perhaps you are wondering up the wrong tree.

 

[Dannager]

I assure you, at the game I play at, we take a more imaginative approach, meaning slithering beasts cannot be knocked prone, and things made of stone can't be petrified, and things without a sense of hearing can't be deafened

An approach which doesn't want to imagine how a slithering beast can be affected by the prone condition, doesn't want to imagine how a stone golem can be petrified, and doesn't want to imagine how bats can be blinded is more imaginative?

 

[Neonchameleon]

The nice thing about 3E was that you could create counters fairly easily. You may be able to do this in 4E, but I'm not sure how without making things up that aren't inherent in the game. Just as an earlier poster stated, you'll have to do ridiculous things like make up some attack the monster can sacrifice to break a daze or stun.

Or simply using the newer monsters as written. Such as the Monster Vault dragons - which firstly get a free Instinctive Action on Initiative +10 that's a bite, claw, or ending a stun/dominate, and secondly get a free ability to end effects on them at the end of their turn.

If the designers are doing things like the above, maybe you should make up abilities the monster has to deal with what the players are throwing at him. Make it immune to stun if that allows it to be more of a challenge.

Or better yet make it impeded by the stun but not entirely taken down.

Just outright immune.

And except in very rare cases that sucks.

Or give it some ability that allows it a saving throw against abilties that don't normally allow a save. With its +5 solo save, it should make it. Make it so that it can save immediately rather than on its turn.

A number of monsters have this. For instance the Ettins all get two sets of initiative counts (one for each head).

For example, if I calculate the party can output a 100 points of damage a round and I want a combat to last 6 or more rounds, I give the monster 600 or more hit points even if the rules only say 200. If someone casts a spell with a DC of 25, I want the monster to save the majority of the time I work its save up to +23.

When you talk about grinding through that I get very glad I play 4e where most of the maths is in the system.

If you want your players to be in a knock down, drag out fight where they feel their lives on the line if they don't win, then design a monster to make them feel this way. To hell with following the rules absolutely. You make the monster and get the feel you want.

I'm so glad I can just use monsters out of the book to do this in 4e. And it doesn't feel samey at all because there is enough already there that the encounters are varied.

I've never played 4e but I picked up the core books when they came out, and have given myself a working knowledge of the system (though without keeping up on all the errata etc.); and even on first reading this was something that kinda leaped out at me as well: if run as designed, where's the fear of death?

In the hands of the DM as in most RPGs. Although they did have to raise monster damage. It just isn't a lottery any more.

 

[pemerton]

I think the real problem is that you believe that the rules supersedes the DM's right to prioritize the narrative when it feels appropriate.

It's based on the "reasoning" that the DM doesn't like imagining a zombie knocking a hydra prone in his own head.

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?

On this point I tend to agree with Balesir and Dannager rather than NoWayJose - I don't see that the GM has any special entitlement to have his/her suspension of disbelief preserved.

I think that legitimacy (can a snake be knocked prone, or a hydra) is decided on a group by group basis.

<nip>

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.

This is a good post, and for me at least helps highlight why 4e lends itself better to a "group consensus" approach to verisimilitude rather than privileging the GM's view. Given that the game is committed to transparency, why not have everyone work together in the way that Balesir describes in the quote above.

The DM might want to say "no" for more reasons than "Because I say so!"

My hack tells the DM to say "no" when the action breaks the consistency of the game world. It's the DM's job to maintain that consistency, because he can - and must - make impartial decisions. Players can't make those decisions because they must advocate for their characters. The DM doesn't have a conflict of interest; the players do.

I'd probably not allow a zombie to knock over a hydra on Lost Soul's internal consistency grounds

<snip>

There is a huge difference between, "We will at all times play with my personal whim," versus, "We will at all times have some internal consistency."

The problem is, what happens when the player decides that an action is consistent but the DM doesn't? The DM over rules the player and the player is basically SOL. The idea that a player is automatically more biased because he's playing a character ignores the large amount of DM's out there for whom the setting is more important than the players. It is quite possible for a player to be just as impartial as the DM.

I think that LostSoul's idea of the GM as arbiter of internal consistency (developed, as I understand it, from some ideas posted by Vincent Baker) is interesting. It's true that, in a typical RPG, players are locked into an "advocacy" role that the GM need not be. But I think Hussar is equally right to note that, in practice, many GMs find themselves advocating also - for their story, for their setting, for their conception of fictional consistency.

This is why, and particularly for 4e, I think that group consensus makes for a natural solution that reduces the risk of arbitrary GMing, while still placing a check on player advocacy. In practice, for many if not most groups, it is likely that the GM will take the lead in establishing the group consensus (at least, that's so for my group - maybe I'm just projecting onto others in assuming that we're typical!), but there is (in my view) a lot of difference between GM as lead negotiator and GM as law.

There should not be "gotchas" based on mechanical rulings. (Situation gotchas are another matters. )

I think the parentheses in this post are a great summary of what the 4e GM is for (in my view, and as I said a few posts up): providing the conflict that shapes the character of the PCs' "victory". Running the encounters is also a big part of the GM's role, of course, but to some extent perhaps subordinate to designing them. (Of course, if you GM on the fly then designing encounters and running them become more integrated processes. I think skill challenges in 4e can work very well like this - combat encounters can be a bit trickier, depending on how much you as a GM depend upon prepared encounter maps, terrain etc.)

Players dictating the opponents actions in combats is mildly annoying to extremely aggrevating depending on the circumstance and never really felt appropriate even when I was the player and not the GM. It always felt like the combat became about status effects and not the story/narrative reason for the combat in the first place.

This is different than in prior versions of D&D as there was a saving throw for any sort of status effect (with the exeption of a couple overpowered spells) and they weren't available to everyone.

<snip>

Is the GMs role in a combat to interpret player actions and decide how the NPCs respond to the player actions; to challenge the players and provide excitement ? Or is it merely to roll dice for the meatbags until the inevitable conclusion?
If it's the latter than the GM isn't really required for the combat, might as well go read a book for an hour until it's over.

On the other hand, I think this really understates the role of the GM in 4e encounter resolution. Even if we put page 42 to one side - which is a big "if" - the GM has to do a lot more than "roll dice for the meatbags". Deciding what "the meatbags" do, and adjudicating the consequences of PC actions (especially important for skill checks, but often important for powers also), is part of the "story/narrative" and "deciding how the NPCs respond" to PC actions.

I feel is that 4e seems less difficult to run. There is less room, in my opinion, for individual DM talents to shine through. If five 4e GMs were run a module, it'd probably turn out roughly the same... if those five GMs ran another module for another system, I imagine there'd be a larger difference in the play experience.

Nice point - but unless he's running a published scenario with very boring monsters exactly as written, I don't see how that can be so - even in the combat encounters.

For the reasons just given, I tend to agree with Balesir, and think that Wik here understates the role of the 4e GM. But as I said, I think that 4e GMing is most importantly about scenario/situation design.

I've personally never run an adventure module "straight from the can", but would find this a particularly unsatisfying way to run 4e, I think, because it would tend to reduce the game to exploring someone else's story. And in a game in which PC victory is mechanically favoured in the way described above, there wouldn't even be the suspense of failure!

OK, this is NOT going to be politically correct, and I'm probably get a ton of heat over this, but I think it has be asked...

What's at the heart of the problem raised by the OP?

Was 4E designed the way it is partially to appease a new narcissistic 'Me' generation?

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

I'm with Thasmodious here - though I've been playing only since Moldvay Basic rather than OD&D.

I don't see why an approach to the game that favours consensus establishment of the fiction is narcissistic. To me it seems open, friendly and generous!

I just feel the rules are there to serve the game, not the other way around.

And personally I find this phrase slightly annoying. Yes, the rules are there to serve the game. But it doesn't follow from this that the rules are therefore to be ignored - because perhaps following the rules is part of the game! For me, to date at least, this has certainly been the case for 4e. Following the rules has produced an interesting and gripping game. And an important part of that has been applying the rules that provide for player-initiated and player-driven improvisation and narrative.

 

[NoWayJose]

On this point I tend to agree with Balesir and Dannager rather than NoWayJose - I don't see that the GM has any special entitlement to have his/her suspension of disbelief preserved.
<snip>
I think that LostSoul's idea of the GM as arbiter of internal consistency (developed, as I understand it, from some ideas posted by Vincent Baker) is interesting.

Ha ha, different tones in your reply to parallel (if not the same) questions of the DM's role in the story. In the former, flat disagreement with no further contribution. In the latter, a more diplomatic tone. But I won't bite except to make the mere observation.

I don't see why an approach to the game that favours consensus establishment of the fiction is narcissistic. To me it seems open, friendly and generous!

Another observation to note is the response to the referenced quote in which ALL 4E gamers of all stripes can and do enjoy the benefits of 4E's design, as well as the misnomer of referring to the approach itself as narccissistic (ie., games cannot be narccissistic).

 

[Fifth Element]

Yup. When someone ignores the qualifier billd91 had intentionally included, it creates an argument that is merely a trick of semantics. billd91 is absolutely correct that over-attachment to characters is problematic. CoC is a great game to help curb such tendancies, as is Paranoia and other games that emphasize other aspects of gameplay.

Come on. Similarly, when someone makes a comment that ignores the context of the post they're quoting, it leads to confusion. Umbran said that some people do have an attachment to their characters (which is a preference thing), and billd91 responds with CoC. He did qualify it, but did not make it clear that quoting Umbran did not mean he was referring to Umbran's hypothetical players. Thus the confusion.

 

[Balesir]

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.)​

Despite the fact that the question posed here is really one of rules interpretation rather than one of envisioning how the rules-as-written might be believable in the game world, I think this is spot on. For rules interpretation, a neutral arbiter is required - which is why, when we play D&D 4E, we want as few rules interpretations as possible (because we should all, in the "heat of battle", have investment in the outcome - that's where our fun is with 4E). With other games - Hârn, for example - we should usually be more focussed on setting and situation integrity. At least, most of those present should. Neither of these situations requires (or is even improved by) sole discretion resting with the GM.