D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[EzekielRaiden]

So wait, just wait, just a second.

Are we genuinely going to claim now that 4e wasn't any different from any other edition in terms of its explicit and implicit permissiveness, such that there were literally no reasons for DMs to think their power was, in any way, being reduced, eroded, or altered?

Because you guys seem to be saying exactly that thing. The istory of the past fifteen years of gaming, including SEVERAL hundred-plus-page threads on this very forum in just the past year or so, would seem to explicitly prove you wrong. LOTS of people looked at 4e, even people who HATED it, and saw that it was explicitly and implicitly telling them that they were supposed to play along, supposed to be permissive and accommodating in a way no previous edition had been before. That's literally why people kept trumpeting the supposed "DM Empowerment!" of 5e--a phrase I am dead certain I have heard at least one of you use in the past.

If 5e was about re-empowering DMs....how can you possibly argue that 4e wasn't an edition where there was unusual deviation from the norm on the specific subject of what DMs were obliged to do?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, it’s not to your preference. But let’s do a little roleplaying and pretend it is. And let’s pretend you have to pick GMs or Players as the first step in your mission to do so (because I agree it should involve both).

I’d think that getting the person who traditionally has like 95% of the authority in a game on board with distributing that authority a bit would be the better choice.

If you have to pick one or the other in this increasingly hypothetical scenario, then yes, the GM is the one.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is where we run into over-selling this one line. It’s buried in the DMG. It is not in the PHB. It doesn’t give players license to do anything. It’s a recommendation to and for the DM. One that’s explicitly optional and that retains the DM’s final say in the matter…and again, it’s something most DMs were already doing for decades. The notion that this line tucked away in the DMG is some liberating lightning bolt aimed squarely at freeing players from DM tyranny is pure BS invented by people pushing their own agenda.

OK, lets look at it all again. First of all it isn't just 'buried in the DMG', quests are referenced in 2 places in the PHB1. On p172 the 'Destiny Quest' is defined, which is a specific mighty quest which a 30th level PC is intended to undertake, and which leads to their Apotheosis. Now, it doesn't say here that these must be, or even specifically are normally, player authored, but it is described in terms which indicate that players are entitled to input, and by selecting a particular ED they are inherently putting certain options on the table (Each ED has a section which describes possible character fates).

PHB1 p258 is a page long discussion of quests, and includes a paragraph explaining how they can be player-authored and how quests function within the story of a character. The other paragraphs are also written in terms of quests potentially arising from multiple sources, describing players "figuring out a quest" and other such language. Yes, there is a "with your GM's permission" statement in that paragraph, and again 4e is REPLETE with repetitions of 'say yes', so the GM has to directly defy the principles espoused by the game in order to NOT allow player quests. Frankly I think these sorts of statements were inserted at the insistence of product management to start with, probably due to a fear of the exact reaction they got in the end anyway.

Then we have the material in the DMG. The term 'quest' appears something like 50 times in the DMG in multiple places, including adventure design, story arc and campaign discussions, as well as in discussions of things like the climax of a campaign and Destiny Quests. These things are not described as minor optional components of play, and there are about 4 pages in the DMG devoted to various aspects of quests! Yes, the section "Player-Designed Quests" is a mere paragraph, but it is given a full subsection header and appears in the ToC and the index. The paragraph seems quite sufficient to provide whatever information is needed, mostly it just notes that this is a thing, it should be both allowed AND encouraged in play. Presumably player-designed quests are otherwise functionally identical to other quests and could be minor, major, destiny, etc. depending on the situation.

So, the quest mechanic itself has 2x more page space than the rules on improvised actions (which take up pages 42 and 43)! In fact it has as much space as the core advice on encounter design! Sure, you can elide a lot of things from a game, people ignored Skill Challenges too, but IMHO when you leave all this stuff out of play, you are REALLY NOT playing the game that was designed, you're playing something else. And sure enough, the people who elided all that stuff then went on and harshly criticized the game for lacking exactly the things they chose to leave out! Go figure...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So wait, just wait, just a second.

Are we genuinely going to claim now that 4e wasn't any different from any other edition in terms of its explicit and implicit permissiveness, such that there were literally no reasons for DMs to think their power was, in any way, being reduced, eroded, or altered?

Because you guys seem to be saying exactly that thing. The istory of the past fifteen years of gaming, including SEVERAL hundred-plus-page threads on this very forum in just the past year or so, would seem to explicitly prove you wrong. LOTS of people looked at 4e, even people who HATED it, and saw that it was explicitly and implicitly telling them that they were supposed to play along, supposed to be permissive and accommodating in a way no previous edition had been before. That's literally why people kept trumpeting the supposed "DM Empowerment!" of 5e--a phrase I am dead certain I have heard at least one of you use in the past.

If 5e was about re-empowering DMs....how can you possibly argue that 4e wasn't an edition where there was unusual deviation from the norm on the specific subject of what DMs were obliged to do?

I don't ever remember that being a big complaint regarding 4e. Though perhaps it was there among the other ones. But the main ones were definitely about gameyness.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't ever remember that being a big complaint regarding 4e. Though perhaps it was there among the other ones. But the main ones were definitely about gameyness.

Oh, I promise you, it absolutely, positively was. I've had people tell me how preposterous it is that in 4e, everything is core (even though it was), and if you never saw a single thread with people complaining about "Magic Item Mart" or, worse, "Christmas Trees," then frankly I am happy for you, because sweet wounded Jesus they were tedious as hell.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

OK, lets look at it all again. First of all it isn't just 'buried in the DMG', quests are referenced in 2 places in the PHB1. On p172 the 'Destiny Quest' is defined, which is a specific mighty quest which a 30th level PC is intended to undertake, and which leads to their Apotheosis. Now, it doesn't say here that these must be, or even specifically are normally, player authored, but it is described in terms which indicate that players are entitled to input, and by selecting a particular ED they are inherently putting certain options on the table (Each ED has a section which describes possible character fates).

PHB1 p258 is a page long discussion of quests, and includes a paragraph explaining how they can be player-authored and how quests function within the story of a character. The other paragraphs are also written in terms of quests potentially arising from multiple sources, describing players "figuring out a quest" and other such language. Yes, there is a "with your GM's permission" statement in that paragraph, and again 4e is REPLETE with repetitions of 'say yes', so the GM has to directly defy the principles espoused by the game in order to NOT allow player quests. Frankly I think these sorts of statements were inserted at the insistence of product management to start with, probably due to a fear of the exact reaction they got in the end anyway.

Then we have the material in the DMG. The term 'quest' appears something like 50 times in the DMG in multiple places, including adventure design, story arc and campaign discussions, as well as in discussions of things like the climax of a campaign and Destiny Quests. These things are not described as minor optional components of play, and there are about 4 pages in the DMG devoted to various aspects of quests! Yes, the section "Player-Designed Quests" is a mere paragraph, but it is given a full subsection header and appears in the ToC and the index. The paragraph seems quite sufficient to provide whatever information is needed, mostly it just notes that this is a thing, it should be both allowed AND encouraged in play. Presumably player-designed quests are otherwise functionally identical to other quests and could be minor, major, destiny, etc. depending on the situation.

So, the quest mechanic itself has 2x more page space than the rules on improvised actions (which take up pages 42 and 43)! In fact it has as much space as the core advice on encounter design! Sure, you can elide a lot of things from a game, people ignored Skill Challenges too, but IMHO when you leave all this stuff out of play, you are REALLY NOT playing the game that was designed, you're playing something else. And sure enough, the people who elided all that stuff then went on and harshly criticized the game for lacking exactly the things they chose to leave out! Go figure...

The player authored quests advice basically amounts to: "If PCs set a goal to themselves and accomplish it, give them XP." That's basically my reading of its intent. Is this revolutionary? Didn't people do this already? Assuming that they bother with XP in the first place of course.

Granted, Epic Destinies allow the player to sort of introduce things in the fiction, but isn't this true with prestige classes or subclasses too?

 

[overgeeked]

I don't ever remember that being a big complaint regarding 4e. Though perhaps it was there among the other ones. But the main ones were definitely about gameyness.

People that hate a thing will complain about it no matter what. People that love a thing will sing its praises no matter what. That's people.

The most common complaints I remember about 4E was how long combat took, how focused the game was on combat, and how samey PCs felt because of the AEDU power structure. As much as I absolutely love 4E, the first two at least have merit.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If you have to pick one or the other in this increasingly hypothetical scenario, then yes, the GM is the one.

Well, my hypothetical was in response to an actual example. The advice did appear in a book aimed at DMs; all I’m supposing is the reason for such placement, not that it actually happened.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So this is the wish list text I can find



I'm not seeing so much player authorship here. Not more than suggested in 3e DMG2 years earlier.

I agree, wish lists were merely a technique that was referenced in one sentence. Yet 4e-bashers flailed on that line of text to no end! If you were a player, and you read it and picked up on it, you COULD JUST ACT, the worst that could happen is the DM threw it in your face, right? I mean, realistically he might ignore it, more likely it will at least color his thinking, and OFTEN GMs said "thank goodness, I don't have to do this work!" In fact, most 4e GMs seem to have felt that way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, my hypothetical was in response to an actual example. The advice did appear in a book aimed at DMs; all I’m supposing is the reason for such placement, not that it actually happened.

I was referring to the following hypothetical situation we have created together, in which:

I am a game designer

I am designing a game utilizing Story Now techniques.

I am unable to appeal to both players and Game Masters in said game to promote Story Now, and am instead forced to choose one or the other to appeal to.

No worries. I just think it's funny.