Pros and Cons of going mainstream

[pemerton]

from the Rules Compendium :
"(pp9) Referee:The Dm decides how to aplly the game rules and guides the story.
If the rules don't cover a situation, the DM determines what to do. At times the DM might alter or even ignore the result of a die roll if doing so benefits the story."

The bit about altering dice rolls was not in the 4e PHB. There is some discussion in the 4e DMG, but the RC goes further, as in the passage you quoted.

In my view this is a bad piece of GM advice which lingers on from AD&D and the 3E DMG. The 4e rules would be better - both better suited to the way the 4e mechanics play, and in my own view also better all things considered - if they did not contain that advice.

 

[S'mon]

Yeah, I kind of see it differently, here are just a few things in 4e I saw complaints about...

1. Wish lists of magic items...
2. A boatload of player powers with their own individual rules that most DM's couldn't memorize and thus must rely on the player's rules knowledge/integrity/etc. to understand and adjudicate correctly...
3. Players create their own quests and assign xp for them...
4. Expectations set of balanced (most often this meant winnable to players) encounters...
5. Expectation set that everything is core and not subject to DM or consensual approval...
6. Paragon paths and epic destinies were all allowed regardless if they fit or didn't in the campaign world...

I think there were plenty of complaints early in the lifespan of 4e from GM's who didn't enjoy or want the dis-empowering things in 4e... but like the problems they had with numerous other things they were told either the problem didn't really exist or to just change it...

Do you want to give my perspective on these? Re #6, I asked about EDs on rpgnet a couple days ago and several people there said things like "I would never disallow a player side mechanic!" and "They can choose what they want and reskin it however they want" - an attitude which I do dislike, since it's the 'fluff' I find interesting for thematic depth IMC. But none of my own players have said anything like that, they seem to accept that the GM can determine whether a PC can have a particular ED.

IME restrictions in 4e don't matter as much as option restrictions in 3e because in 4e there is much less variation in power level among Powers, Paragon Paths, EDs etc. Likewise my attempts to tinker with 3e like I did 1e were pretty disastrous, but 4e feels much more robust and accepting of changes. Again, I've seen a few people on rpgnet object to the idea of GMs not using encounter building or treasure tables, but it's never been a problem at my tables (eg I pretty well never build encounters to an XP budget, though I adjust monster level so it's within about 4 of the PCs by converting along the Solo/Elite/Standard/Minion scale while retaining XPV).

 

[S'mon]

To give an example from my own game: one of the players in my 4e game plays an invoker/wizard who has take the Expert Ritualist feat which gives a +2 bonus to skill checks involved in peforming rituals. Now, what counts as a ritual? My guess is that when that feat was authored, the writer had in mind only rituals as defined mechanically with the 4e PC build and action resolution system. However, my player interprets "ritual" to mean any deployment of his skills to generate a magical effect, such as closing a portal or sealing a breach. Given that the feat is hardly overpowered, and the player spending more time having his PC do that sort of thing seems to make for a fun game, I (as GM) haven't raised any queries about the player's interpretation of that feat.

Is this bad GMing? Or decadent RPGing?

It's fine GMing to allow it. But I'd be annoyed if a player just started adding +2 to his arcana checks without asking me first. This is the kind of house rule I implement all the time, but it's not the player's right to create house rules without consulting the GM.

 

[S'mon]

This is interesting. I don't have the play experience with 3E to make the comparison, but it doesn't entirely surprise me - as best I understand the system, 3E seems designed almost deliberately to create conficts of interest, or at least tension, at the table, because the GM is called upon both to push opposition against the PCs, and to make "rules as physics"-style calls that can easily end up hosing the players.

I think it's an important innovation in RPG design (which 4e didn't make, it copied from earlier models) to come up with "level appropriate" or "scaling" DCs (of which 4e's approach is just one version) that mean that the players can be confident that the GM's calls will contribute both to colour and to the details of resolution, but won't make the difference between easy and hosed. (An alternative to scaled DCs is a Burning Wheel style approach of "objective" DCs but liberal Fate Points in combination with "fail forward" which means that the players are happy to take risks and not always succeed.)

AD&D has many similar features to 3E in this respect, but (at least in its classic playstyle) maybe has enough gonzo on the player as well as the GM side (especially various spells and items) that the conflicts don't manifest quite as egregiously. I'd be interested in your (S'mon's) views on this given your recent GMing experience with AD&D.

AD&D - if I'm doing task resolution, typically it's using a system that does not scale by level and the chance of success can be inferred by the player from his PC's attributes - STR for feats of strength (open doors, bend bars), Charisma for interaction (loyalty %, reaction % modifier). I avoided using d20-roll-under attribute checks in my 2012 AD&D campaign because they're not in 1e and I wanted to stick as close to the RAW as possible, but again they give the player a good idea of success chance.

With 4e because both competency and task difficulty scale by default at the same rate, again a player can look at his sheet and have a good idea of where he can succeed. I've only seen problems where players don't look at their sheets and/or don't pay attention to the fiction, eg the 4e STR 10 PC who drowned trying to swim 3 miles down the (known to be) exceptionally deadly river, where a STR 20 PC would almost certainly have been ok, because that was a +5 difference to the swim checks. If he had even tried to swim ashore once he started getting into trouble he'd probably have been ok, though.

Basically, IME both pre-3e and 4e have decent task resolution systems that tend to give decent results, and this is probably linked to neither attempting anything like a world-sim. Both need judgement calls, eg 4e swimming rules don't say anything about weight carried, 1e has no swimming rules in the core. In practice it comes out the same. 3e has detailed rules which discourage GM judgement calls and can cause big problems where the rules are broken, eg Diplomacy as written. 4e has a few bad bits but it's written so much vaguer/woolier that they cause less problems. Also, in 3e you could be a skill monkey at the price of combat effectiveness. If you invest resources in being the skill monkey you reasonably expect the GM to not mess with the rules you depend on. 4e siloing eliminated that issue. Incidentally in my limited experience of Pathfinder I think its tweaks also did a lot to lessen the problems with 3e skills.

 

[pemerton]

Also, in 3e you could be a skill monkey at the price of combat effectiveness. If you invest resources in being the skill monkey you reasonably expect the GM to not mess with the rules you depend on. 4e siloing eliminated that issue. Incidentally in my limited experience of Pathfinder I think its tweaks also did a lot to lessen the problems with 3e skills.

Interesting observation!

 

[Imaro]

Hey, I'm not the one who called other peoples' playstyles "decadent" - that was Mearls. Nor am I the one who reposted and endorsed that - that was the OP.

Funny I'm not Mearls or the OP so what does it matter what they said if you are commenting on my post?

Judging from your list 1 to 6, you prefer a game in which:

Here's your/another mistake... go back and read my post again, these aren't "my preferences". They are examples I was giving S'mon about complaints I have seen towards DM dis-empowering features in 4e... Again my post wasn't about like/dislike, a particular play style or even my own preferences (though you seem intent on trying to force the discussion in that direction) it was about discussing features of 4e that are or could be dis-empowering to a 4e DM... and as seen in S'mon's reply he too has at least seen some of these things as well.

• There are no PC build elements (eg magic items, boons, etc) which are also non-PC generated story elements, because you prefer the introduction of non-PC generated story elements to be under the sole authority of the GM;
• There are no PC build element which have mechanics whose administration and oversight is under the primary jurisdiction of the player rather than the GM;
• Players do not have authority to establish story goals for their PCs that will generate metagame rewards (like XP, presumably also Fate Points, etc);
• Theree are not guidelines for assessing the mechanical relationship between challenge threat and player resources (or, if there are such guidelines, they are disregarde by the GM; you may also (it's not clear) prefer a game in which many challenges cannot be overcome by the PCs - presumably, then the PCs' survival of such encounters would depend upon something other than the players' capacity to deploy their mechanical and story resources;
• The GM has authority over whether or not new PC build elements can be included in the game, both from the mechanical point of view and the story point of view.

This list is silly because it's based on extremes as opposed to the excluded middle... well that and I never said this list was representative of a particular play style or my preferences...

I've got no objection to anyone playing that sort of game, although I don't think it's especially representative of the D&D tradition. I do object to departures from it being described as decadent.

Well the discussion isn't about what is or isn't the "D&D tradition". With the number of people who feel 4e is the furthest thing from the D&D tradition to be published so far... not sure what your purpose is in even trying to open the "It's not real D&D" can of worms... but I'm not interested in a round of that pointless discussion.

Where's the misinterpretation? In a game that fits the parameters I just outlined (which I am inferring from your list of things you don't like), what do players do besides make in-character calls in response to situations that the GM throws at them according to his/her conception of what the game is going to be about? The players don't introduce story elements themselves, for instance, unless they are PC-generated within the fiction. And the players don't get to establish goals that will generate metagame rewards, and which the GM is obliged to respect in encounter and scenario design.

The misinterpretation is in assuming that your parameters describe all or event he majority of ways in which a DM empowered game is played or run... especially when using a list of extremes that you "infered" from a post that wasn't talking about any particular play style. But hey, don't let that stop you, keep posting about this imaginary umbrella you've created in defining how Iand/or empowered DM's run games.

 

[Manbearcat]

Maybe it is authoritative commentary but you refuse to see it because it doesn't match your own confirmation bias? After all, you're certain that you and pemerton aren't exceptions, but you seem to be basing that on little data that isn't unbiased itself. Could it be that he's not ignorant or that he's not just doing some market-speak but that he has noticed a real trend based on the data he values or trusts? I think that's certainly a third option along with the "only two" you lay out.

If you're looking for a a completely disfunctional conversation where we impute each others cognitive sensibilities, self-awareness, and pretension to objectivity you can have it with someone else. You don't know me from Adam nor I you; not each other's moral bank accounts, not each other's intellectual quotient, nor each other's line or body of work. So that isn't going anywhere.

However, I do know each of those things about myself and I know that Mearls design thoughts (as a WotC rep) are public record so I can comment on those things and try to divine how we are where we are. I know that I have no conflict of interest; no dog in this fight. I'm not trying to sell a new product nor am I trying to groom an evolving resume as a platform from which I can use to sell new products. I have not had thoughts on RPGs that are all over the proverbial map just a few years apart. I've not been a part of a product line that endorsed scene-based play and used inflammatory rhetoric toward many classic approaches ("get to the fun" and "skip the guards") that produced wild backlash against the product from the word "go." I've not candidly endorsed the product and then written some solid, official articles on Skill Challenges that appear to reveal my understanding of the intent and means of proper actualizaton of the resolution mechanics. I've not then gone onto writing an adventure that is disfunctional with respect to leveraging the ruleset's strengths. I've not then hired a known indie savant to head up the penning of the DMG2 which unabashadly advocates for the narrative and metagame strengths of 4e. I've not then helped produce, and advocated for, a line of rewrites with softer edges with respect to those exact strengths (or something?) that attempts a gateway product for either entry level gamers or more metagame averse gamers (or something?...still don't know). I've not then been front and center lead on a new design iteration that overtly courts all of the gaming sensibilities that 4e's launch and mechanics were either unfriendly toward, ambivalent on, or indifferent to. I've not then spoke about courting everyone in a big tent approach while then (oddly) going the 4e launch route again and either accidentally or willfully invoking badwrongfun rhetoric that, if you're in the business, you know is inflammatory and would be out and out edition warring on this message board (and would fail to court the people you're alleging to want to court).

My line on 4th edition has been extremely consistent; it works amazingly well as a ruleset that produces a scene-based gamist/narrativist table experience with tools that can drift it toward light sim and serial, procedural play (if you wish...but you don't have to). I am not only not metagame adverse, I appreciate a robust metagame as it facilitates the play I'm looking for. 4e shines here. It facilitates this play masterfully; so coherently that it would be nigh impossible for it to be by accident. However, its ruleset components are compartmentalized enough that if you want to do nothing but a * closed series of Action Scenes as tactical combat encounters, you can do it. If you want to do nothing but a ** closed series of Action Scenes as narrative-driven, non-combat conflicts that you resolve via the resolution mechanics, you can do it. If you want to do nothing but *** Transition Scenes, you can do so with the recovery mechanics and the Ritual mechanics (that include crafting magic items as well as spending resources on Divinations, etc). If you want **** more overlap such that your game is more open/serial rather than strictly closed scene-based, you can certainly do so via aggressive leveraging of the objective task resolution system, the Ritual mechanics, and the Condition/Disease Track mechanics.

However, if you are rabidly metagame-averse want a totally metagame-neutral experience, then you are going to have trouble as the Encounter Power system and the Healing Surge system is baked into core. But, every single edition of D&D has had metagame mechanics baked into core os this is just a threshold issue. If you're of the opinion of OLD METAGAME MECHANICS GOOD/OK...new metagame mechanics...BAD...then 4e isn't going to scratch your itch...and will likely cause it to fester.

Besides all of this, I've watched 3 Encounters sessions at a local hobby shop just to collect a few data points. My limited exposure to these yielded datapoints of play experience that were exclusively pick-up games where approximately 9 - 16 year olds primarily play out * above (a series of tactical skirmishes) and try their hand a bit at ** (which I've seen produce some really good stuff a few times but most often either humorously bad or grossly robotic as they awkwardly claw their way through the scene). A very light evening of fun for groups of sugary soda-infused 5 - 7 boys (I didn't see a single girl) where they rode their bikes or walked after school or their parents dropped them off and picked them up a few hours later. I didn't see any of these player entitlement issues manifest there.

I didn't see any of this insidiuous protesting over DCs, encounter levels, or wealth by level. Again, these were sugar-infused, immature, adolescent boys...a veritable time-bomb of discord. I'm sure it happens, I just haven't seen it. Maybe those such scenarios comprise that mountain of formal data? I have no idea as I haven't vetted it. If it is the case though, that isn't particularly compelling as a line of evidence for something being internal locus control of or endemic to a ruleset. Because I have, however, seen plenty of protestations by my nephew and his friends while they play Minecraft or Stratego or Star Wars Monopoly or Nerf Gun Wars (who hit whom and all of that).

Personally in my home games (where I would hope there would be real, formal data), throughout the run of 3e and 4e (where apparently this "player entitlement" is so rampant), I have witnessed it 0 times in the almost 5 years of play of 4e and only twice in the 9 years of play of 3.x. My groups in 3.x were much large and more transient so there was a considerably larger cross-section of the gamer populace available for me to personally behold. One issue was a "my Wand of Polymorph eats up more of my wealth/level than his Wand of Cure Light Wounds but his is affects the game far more" while the second was just a "My Fighter sucks compared to his Generalist Wizard so I need a lot more treasure than the wealth/level warrants o make up the difference...gimme". In truth, both players were fundamentally correct in their reasoning, they handled it well outside of the game...we talked about it as a group and fixed the issues with unwieldy band-aids. Neither of which were in the same universe of insidious as LFQW or a cavalcade of strategic I win and fiat buttons cordoned into one spectrum of the Class populace and the subsequent racking of my brain to try to prepare content to challenge wildly dispirate power levels twixt my players (which was the source of most of my players' rancor).

 

[Luce]

To the extent that this is good advice, why does it not also apply to the players?

To give an example from my own game: one of the players in my 4e game plays an invoker/wizard who has take the Expert Ritualist feat which gives a +2 bonus to skill checks involved in peforming rituals. Now, what counts as a ritual? My guess is that when that feat was authored, the writer had in mind only rituals as defined mechanically with the 4e PC build and action resolution system. However, my player interprets "ritual" to mean any deployment of his skills to generate a magical effect, such as closing a portal or sealing a breach. Given that the feat is hardly overpowered, and the player spending more time having his PC do that sort of thing seems to make for a fun game, I (as GM) haven't raised any queries about the player's interpretation of that feat.

Is this bad GMing? Or decadent RPGing?

The whole idea that getting the players more involved in the game - in story, in mechanics - is a sign of degradation I find odd, myself. If someone can indicate a particular conflict of interest, that's another matter - but GM's can have conflicts of interest too, and how RPG rules balance such things is an interesting and tricky matter. There's certainly no general principle that all authority over story and resolution should be given to the GM.

I think the conflict of interest was assumed. The players were encouraged to get involved in the game, but not in defining the mechanics. Suggest, offer, plead their case- Yes. Tell the DM, this is the Rule -No. There was an example [in the DMG] of player wanting to be from noble background. Fine. Then the said player using that as justification to demand being in charge of the rest of the party and having vast amount (for a 1st leveler) of wealth. Not Fine.

In your example, you are effectively changing RAW You and your players are redefining what the keyword "Ritual" means in the game. Which is fine and as you said does not break your game- and more power to you. Your game has been house ruled.

One complain I have heard about 4e was that RAW denies player agency thus the game becoming "it isn't about where the players want to go, it's where the appropriate encounters are that dictate where they can go." (ref:http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-list-of-ways-youre-ruining-your-game.html)

I think while the D&D through the editions have preserved theme and mood, certain other base assumptions have changed. That difference in expectations may be one of the reasons we keep having editions wars.
For example, for me 2e is intended to give the feel of European myths (specifically Greek). The heroes may grow strong enough to even stand toe to toe to the the gods, but still have a fill of vulnerability- that is, a well placed blow can bring them down if they are not careful. I like to call this the oscillating challenge. To give and example, in Dungeon module ( from # 77) a party of 10 level characters have a final encounter with 25 level suel lich. While that is the most dangerous encounter, the party will also meet and be challenged by six gargoyles. Since older games often had 1) multiple encounters between chance to rest 2) More limited renewable resources (potions, wands, scrolls) 3) Lower HP for both PC and monsters - there was a different feel. Magic item creation was supposed to be (for this more powerful then potions and scrolls) an excuse for and adventure. Just having the money and spare was not enough, one had to go personally and collect the ingredients. Time consuming and sidequestty Yes, but at the same time I found it provided investment in game and sense of accomplishment to players. Not necessary everyone's preferred way of gaming, but it is one of the ways that works for me.

 

[D'karr]

One complain I have heard about 4e was that RAW denies player agency thus the game becoming "it isn't about where the players want to go, it's where the appropriate encounters are that dictate where they can go." (ref:http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-list-of-ways-youre-ruining-your-game.html)

After reading that I had a moment of facepalm. IMO that article is the biggest load of horse manure I have read in a very long time. Obviously I have a huge disagreement on how 4e would remove player agency. IMO 4e is one of the strongest editions in providing ways for players to exercise player agency. A DM can remove player agency, but they can do that easily with any edition.

 

[Imaro]

Do you want to give my perspective on these?

Sure, but I am more interested in whether you consider them to be or not to be dis-empowering for the DM. I can understand if you personally prefer them, or your table has no issues with them but that doesn't speak to wether they are or are not dis-empowering.

Re #6, I asked about EDs on rpgnet a couple days ago and several people there said things like "I would never disallow a player side mechanic!" and "They can choose what they want and reskin it however they want" - an attitude which I do dislike, since it's the 'fluff' I find interesting for thematic depth IMC. But none of my own players have said anything like that, they seem to accept that the GM can determine whether a PC can have a particular ED.

This is exactly the sort of things I've seen as well. But unlike you I've experienced, on other sites, it being alot more common and ingrained in the 4e community than you seem to think it is.

IME restrictions in 4e don't matter as much as option restrictions in 3e because in 4e there is much less variation in power level among Powers, Paragon Paths, EDs etc. Likewise my attempts to tinker with 3e like I did 1e were pretty disastrous, but 4e feels much more robust and accepting of changes. Again, I've seen a few people on rpgnet object to the idea of GMs not using encounter building or treasure tables, but it's never been a problem at my tables (eg I pretty well never build encounters to an XP budget, though I adjust monster level so it's within about 4 of the PCs by converting along the Solo/Elite/Standard/Minion scale while retaining XPV).

I'm not sure I agree with the premise here... I think the restrictions 4e has don't matter to a particular group of people who enjoy 4e (In the same way someone who has Pathfinder as their preferred game may find 4e's restrictions distatsteful but 3.x/PF's restrictions something they can enjoy or work with.). It's not just about power level (though 4e has issues in this area as well "wizard with an uber Arcana skill and certain cantrips I'm looking at you", there's also story elements (Say as a DM my campaign world doesn't have psionics... but in 4e a psionicist is core and allowable if the player wants to play one, so...) this is, IMO, DM dis-empowerment regardless of whether psionics is overpowered or not.

I've also seen players, when things turn against them, start to grumble and make snide remarks or question DM's about whether an encounter is "appropriate". In fact I will say I've seen this more often in 4e games than in 3.x games... of course I admit that's purely anecdotal evidence. A better question I think is why is this even coming up if a DM has the right to set the encounters at any level he wants?