D&D 4E Ryan Dancey on 4E

[Mallus]

Unfortunately the DM is in a direct conflict of interest right now. He controls both the rules and the NPCs. Judge and prosecutor.

I don't see any conflict of interest. A DM controls both the rules and the NPC's (and beyond that every other facet of the campaign environment) with the understood goal of providing the players with an enjoyable gaming experiece. He's not playing against the other players.

Unless you define the DM/player relationship as strictly adversarial. Which never made any sense to me in the context of RPG's.

 

[Henry]

Unfortunately the DM is in a direct conflict of interest right now. He controls both the rules and the NPCs. Judge and prosecutor.

As long as he's not the jury, I couldn't care less. The players are the jury who decides if the DM is doing a good job, and if he is, then the power he wields is immaterial, because he's doing it well.

 

[CleverName]

Man, I am getting tired of all this chest-thumping and whining.

RANT FOLLOWS

I got to tell you I don't buy gaming products I don't want to buy. Neither should you. So all this carping about "greedy" game companies is just CRAP on soooo many levels. Don't like it? Don't buy it!

Game companies with bad business practices and/or bad products go out of business. Game companies with healthy business practices, a little luck, and good/fun games that people want to buy stay in business.

Pissing and moaning, and worse yet, MORALIZING about it is well, pathetic.

It's not like there's a frickin' cabal of evil genii in suits surrounded by bags of their ill-gotten gains at WotC's HQ or at WW or SJG. Sure they have business concerns; they have accountants. Sure, they make BAD, short-sighted decisions from time to time. Sure, just like us, there are some idiots and jerks there. But, it comes down to this: successful or not they are all trying $ell us $omething. Some are just better at it than others. Every once and a while someone strikes gold, like with Magic, etc. Good lord, we all know that does not happen very often. Why folks feel compelled to vomit on some GAMER'S success is beyond me.

Maybe all niche groups are like this. I don’t know. It still chaps my wide gamer bum that so many folks here equate companies trying to make games that sell with some kind of sin. I just met too many of them that go off on WotC as if they were the Microsoft of gaming – that;s like saying X is the Microsoft of Match stick collectibles – what a joke!
I’ve got to wonder at the gaming community we really want with folks foaming at the mouth about D&D 4e, of all things, and others driving their own FLGS out of business to save 15% on some gaming stuff by eBaying it.

I like music. I don't get on J-Lo's website to vent about her mediocre music...I just don’t buy it.

I'm not saying the almighty dollar is or should be the arbiter of gaming taste or artistry. But neither is it the mark of Satan. This "how dare they attempt a profit!" attitude is juvenile. Cuz' with a FEW exceptions -- that's all ANYONE in gaming is doing, making a (usually megre) living.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Evil genies! (OK, that's not what you meant, but it's a fun image for who's running the RP industry.)

 

[Abe.ebA]

With regard to the people talking about DM-free D&D...

I was going to post a long thing here about the Arkham Horror boardgame and how it's pretty much identical to what I think a DM-less D&D would become, but while writing it I thought of a much easier way to state my position:

D&D is a Role Playing Game. If everyone is a player playing the role of their character, who plays the role of the world around them? Monsters, NPCs, and even environments have roles and having them played is just as important as having the roles of the adventurers played. Without a DM to play these roles, everything becomes a list of scripted actions or, at best, a larger set of possible scripted actions from which one is selected randomly or based on circumstance. All of the flexibility goes away and the game ceases to be an RPG. The players can roleplay with one another but they're doing it in a vacuum because as soon as they attempt to interact with the rest of their world, it ceases to be a Role Playing game and becomes, in essence, a boardless boardgame.

Other games where this setup already exists: Arkham Horror, Zombies!!!, Munchkin, Mall of Horrors, Betrayal at the House on the Hill, Ninja Burger (the card game)... I think Descent and Dungeon Twister are D&D-theme-specific examples but I've not played either so I can't be certain. The Dungeoneer cardgame is also similar but players sort of act as DM for one-another.

These games are fun (well, maybe not Zombies!!!; that one's a bit mind-numbing by the RAW) but they are not RPGs.

 

[sullivan]

As long as he's not the jury, I couldn't care less. The players are the jury who decides if the DM is doing a good job, and if he is, then the power he wields is immaterial, because he's doing it well.

....which all too often then ends up in a pathological game of brinkmanship. "Ya, well I'm GAWD of the table, and say this." "Ya, well then I quit." With much fustration and unhappiness building up to get to that point.

P.S. The DM is actually running the jury too, and the courtroom, and the street outside, and ..... The non-NPC/monster environment.

 

[Ranger REG]

This is the point where I have to disagree with Delta: The spell changes might be significant as a body of work, but they don't amount to significant divergence in their rules. (there might be changes in damage dice, or in spell resistance, but from one to another at least there IS still spell resistance, or the same hit point ranges for targets. In the 2E to 3E change, both of these were different enough in methematics and target averages that it was a very different situation.)

To be brutally honest, the spell system needs to be reformed entirely.

WotC still stuck with the TSR's philosophy to make weaker spells at low-level and then compensate that by overpowering them at high-level. Not right when you basically put all of the classes under one XP table.

But would a minified D&D bring in droves of new potential roleplayers? I have to agree with Wulf Ratbane, it would. I have two players sitting at my table each weekend whose first tabletop experience was Magic the Gathering -- they played computer games before that time.

As an old-school wargamer who probably know the root of D&D, I have no problem with that. My concern is when they start putting rules in random packs or that I have to collect this book because the book that I have referred to it. The only thing a supplement should refer to is the core rulebooks and/or the core campaign setting book (if it carries the same label like Forgotten Realms).

Yes, I don't HAVE buy it, but it goes along with the psyche of collectible game model, get the item that will boost your game better.

Let's hope they don't make rare gamebooks, or start wrapping them so we don't know what we're getting.

 

[Umbran]

If everyone is a player playing the role of their character, who plays the role of the world around them?

Other players.

Traditional RPGs have a dichotomy - the DM plays the universe, and the players play one (or a small number) of personal characters. That's not the only possible organization.

You could reasonably easily distribute what we'd now call "NPC" roles to other players as well, so that they aren't scripted. This is often done in what is sometimes called playing "troupe-style". It requires a bit more trust among all concerned, and a lot of cooperation amongst players, and maybe developing skills and a sense of drama and story that many players don't currently have. It is different, but it can be done.

 

[Ranger REG]

As long as he's not the jury, I couldn't care less. The players are the jury who decides if the DM is doing a good job, and if he is, then the power he wields is immaterial, because he's doing it well.

So long the jury doesn't interfere with my ruling during the session.

Then again, I don't like having to continually ask after every session, "How did I do?"

 

[Mark CMG]

....which all too often then ends up in a pathological game of brinkmanship. "Ya, well I'm GAWD of the table, and say this." "Ya, well then I quit." With much fustration and unhappiness building up to get to that point.

P.S. The DM is actually running the jury too, and the courtroom, and the street outside, and ..... The non-NPC/monster environment.

Your experiences with particular DMs seem to be obstructing your objectivity. I understand where you are coming from but I don't think anything you do to a ruleset will remove that factor from any game.