D&D 4E Ryan Dancey on 4E

[Skaven_13]

There seems to be some unstated assumption that a DM must have the right to change the rules or he is not really a DM. Why should that be the case?

Well, rule 0, but I think it goes beyond what is allowed to the DM in any of the books.

The reason is because, at the base of it all, the DM is telling a story that is his. If a rule doesn't fit within his idea of this story, or he thinks that it will add to the enjoyment of the game, it should be his right to change this rule. It's a player's right to be notified of this. If the palyers state that this is going to lessen the enjoyment of the game, then consider not making the change.

In the game I played before I started being the DM, I was one of the primary culprits in enabling the fighter/rogue to obliterate enemies with sneak attack damage, allowing her to dish out 10 dice (plus bonuses) every round at will. I considered her a tactical walking fireball. In my game, I wanted a sneak attack to be more of a focused effort, so I changed sneak attack to a standard action. To me, the sneak attack rules were abusive, and didn't fit with the style of the game I wanted to run. So far, in the year that we have been playing, the new rule has not taken away from the game or the enjoyment, and the new rogue works hard to use it as often as possible.

Skaven13

 

[helium3]

Could someone help me out and explain what this kind of D&D would look like? Wouldn't it just be a traditional wargame?

Methinks the game would either be explicitly PvP or there would be some method by which the group would randomly generate appropriate opponents that's melded to some sort of rule-set for running the opposition opponent.

 

[helium3]

Many thousands of people play it today, and many thousands of people enjoy it today--the people who WotC can count on to buy all the new minis and supplements. In other words, their most important customers.

Maybe I'm disconnected, but I don't know anyone that belongs to the RPGA, even amongst my friends that work at WOTC. Most people I know don't go to cons, either. Are you sure RPGA members are WOTC's most valuable customers?

 

[LostSoul]

The reason is because, at the base of it all, the DM is telling a story that is his. If a rule doesn't fit within his idea of this story, or he thinks that it will add to the enjoyment of the game, it should be his right to change this rule.

That can be a fun way to play, but some people don't like it. I'd rather not see that kind of thing supported in D&D. Ah well, to each his own.

 

[FireLance]

The reason is because, at the base of it all, the DM is telling a story that is his. If a rule doesn't fit within his idea of this story, or he thinks that it will add to the enjoyment of the game, it should be his right to change this rule.

Well, whether the story belongs to the DM or to the group as a whole, or whether the aim of RPGs should necessarily be to tell a story or just to have fun are separate discussions in themselves, so I won't go there.

I will simply wonder why some DMs are so fixated on telling their ONE story to the extent they won't consider any of the other stories that they don't need to change the rules to tell.

I suspect it is an attitude of convenience over creativity.

 

[Glyfair]

Why do I have an overwhelming urge to flip miniatures collectors off? I guess there is a part of me that is pure role-player, and not always an old-school wargamer. Then again, them new-school miniatures collectors got nothing on this old-school.

Why? The quote basically is saying that the design team doesn't want the rules of the miniatures game changed if a 4th edition comes out with new rules. Makes sense to me. If something is working, why change it?

This has no effect on 4E. It won't make it happen sooner, and might even make it happen later. If the RPG design team feels they want to change the combat system in a 4E drastically, it might be held back so there isn't a gulf between the miniatures game and the RPG.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

There seems to be some unstated assumption that a DM must have the right to change the rules or he is not really a DM. Why should that be the case?

Ever been in a gaming situation where you discover that the rules as they are stated in the rulebook simply make no sense? Where there simply was no proper rule for a certain situation? And where you either get an endless discussion between six people about how to rule it (because everybody of us is an expert on explosives/weird scientifc gadgets/magical weirdness, of course ), or you get one guy who calls himself DM making a ruling that will, hopefully, be better suited or make more sense. Is funny how games used to, and sometimes still do, depend on the common sense of one person to run a roleplaying game for a group of others.

 

[Hussar]

The reason is because, at the base of it all, the DM is telling a story that is his.

See, that right there is one of the biggest gulfs between gamers there is. I in no way consider my campaign to be telling any sort of story. The players are telling the story, I'm just filling in the setting and possibly nudging the plot. I know that other people differ greatly on this, so it's not a case of right or wrong, just different playstyles.

That being said, if the designers have to lean one way or the other, I would prefer them to lean towards the idea of the DM being an rules facist and applying the rules religiously rather than the idea that the DM is only going to tweak the rules anyway, so shove whatever looks halfway decent on paper out the door and let it roam the wilds.

Ever been in a gaming situation where you discover that the rules as they are stated in the rulebook simply make no sense? Where there simply was no proper rule for a certain situation? And where you either get an endless discussion between six people about how to rule it (because everybody of us is an expert on explosives/weird scientifc gadgets/magical weirdness, of course ), or you get one guy who calls himself DM making a ruling that will, hopefully, be better suited or make more sense. Is funny how games used to, and sometimes still do, depend on the common sense of one person to run a roleplaying game for a group of others.

But, how often does that happen? Every session? Every few months? Once in a blue moon? I'm hoping it's the once in a blue moon sort of thing or the game is either designed poorly (if its a situation that SHOULD be covered) or is a true corner case that only applies to your group anyway.

The point that Firelance makes though is why should rules tweaking be a sign of a good DM? Yes, we all know that a DM does have to make a ruling from time to time, but, why should the assumption be that if you play by the rules, you are a, what is the buzz phrase that got tossed in here? A MMORPG Server instead of a "real" DM.

Why is rules neutrality a bad thing in a DM?

 

[FireLance]

Ever been in a gaming situation where you discover that the rules as they are stated in the rulebook simply make no sense? Where there simply was no proper rule for a certain situation? And where you either get an endless discussion between six people about how to rule it (because everybody of us is an expert on explosives/weird scientifc gadgets/magical weirdness, of course ), or you get one guy who calls himself DM making a ruling that will, hopefully, be better suited or make more sense. Is funny how games used to, and sometimes still do, depend on the common sense of one person to run a roleplaying game for a group of others.

Sure, but that's not really the point. Where the rules are unclear or absent, it's the DM's job to make a consistent ruling.

But when the rules are clarified, simplified or changed to "remove the need for an impartial DM" or to "take the DM out of the equation", it is somehow seen as bad, as if interpreting and changing rules are the only thing a DM has to do, and if he no longer does these things, he might as well not be a DM. Since I believe that a DM's role is much broader than simply being an administrator of rules, I find that attitude to be quite puzzling.

 

[librarius_arcana]

Not impressed.

If, as speculation has it, the DM is to be reduced to the role of a "server", then by extension the players are reduced to "terminals", and other than the need for physical mini's the game might as well be played online. Pathetic!

Totally agree,

However, there could be a silver lining...people who come in new with 4e might start wanting to do more with their mini's after a while than combats on a battlemat, leading to a new RPG system being cobbled together by the players; it'll be called Mini's and Monsters (M+M, you heard it here first ) and in scope and complexity it'll look a lot like OD+D...

And so the wheel goes round.

Lane-"but all this speculation could still be wrong"-fan

Now wouldn't that be ironic?, :\