4e: Heavy-handed DMing

[graymachine]

We got an early release of the core books for D&D 4e in the house and I've been thumbing through it. Up until now I've been avoiding the 4e threads as I wanted to get a direct impression of the game.

Setting aside the fact that it feels much like a MMORPG and that it seems to want to take a swing to war gaming (ala D&D Minis), the significant issue I'm having with it is that it sets rules, then adds sidenotes about how the DM can step in and change it as they see fit. For example, there are 3 methods of generating stats. The first is to take a set of averages and the second is a weakened version of the 3.5 point buy, which comes with a handy chart of common spreads. The last option is rolling the good old 4d6. It states, though, that the DM can step in if he/she feels as though your scores are to low or to high for the game. There are other examples of DM manipulation in the character building process.

The thing that bugs me about this is that, at least for me, the character building process in D&D has always been almost completely the player's control; the DM only sets some general parameters based on the campaign world. It seems as though 4e is wanting to both be a storytelling game (ala WoD) and a war game (ala WH40k) at the same time. While I like both, I play those games if that's what I want. I assume that people have been reading the various 4e stuff, so does anyone else think that 4e is going to be too much in the DMs control, making the player feel that they really aren't contributing anything other than to play out some plastic mold they've been put in? Or am I just being a crotchety old gamer?

[UserClone]

I don't know - why don't you lend me your copy of the 4E DMG and I'll let you know after I've read it?

[Matthew]

Nah, the DM has always had the authority to alter stats, it sounds as though they are just being more explicit about it. In practice, a DM rarely will interfere, which occasionally leads to so called 'unplayable' characters. Personally, I have no problem with this being emphasised.

[Tengu]

"The DM should interfere sometimes to make the game more enjoyable" is not a new rule. Heck, 90% of non-DND games have it written, and most non-traditional (traditional used in the worst way possible here) DND groups use it too.

[graymachine]

FIWiPig: Haha. The DMG is actually, mostly, just a DMing-for-dummies book. Even the magic items are actually in the PHB now.

Matthew: Yeah, I agree with you, but it gives me pause that they would put it explicitly in the rules now.

[graymachine]

"The DM should interfere sometimes to make the game more enjoyable" is not a new rule. Heck, 90% of non-DND games have it written, and most non-traditional (traditional used in the worst way possible here) DND groups use it too.

Yeah, but, as above, it gives me pause. I'll have to re-think how I approach D&D, since it's always seems seperate to me from the storytelling games.

[Kizara]

Personally I'm considerably more concerned about other aspects of the game design, very much including some you have mentioned in your OP.

Namely: "Setting aside the fact that it feels much like a MMORPG and that it seems to want to take a swing to war gaming (ala D&D Minis)".

I don't really need a book to tell me I have authority as a DM, or that I can change things if I want; nor do I terribly care if it takes pains to do so. I am very much aware of this and do so often.

[Tengu]

Yeah, but, as above, it gives me pause. I'll have to re-think how I approach D&D, since it's always seems seperate to me from the storytelling games.

Why's that? You can have a game of DND focused on plot where you won't touch the dice a single time during the session, and you can have a game of Vampire consisting entirely of swinging katanas, shooting rocket launchers and players making OOC jokes about Monty Python. Some games handle some things better or worse than the others, but in the end, you can at least try to do any kind of session no matter what system are you using.

[graymachine]

Personally I'm considerably more concerned about other aspects of the game design, very much including some you have mentioned in your OP.

Namely: "Setting aside the fact that it feels much like a MMORPG and that it seems to want to take a swing to war gaming (ala D&D Minis)".

I don't really need a book to tell me I have authority as a DM, or that I can change things if I want; nor do I terribly care if it takes pains to do so. I am very much aware of this and do so often.

Which is the proper attitude in my mind. The MMORPG aspect bother me a good deal as well, but that's not the issue I'm having at the moment. I dislike the simultaneous downgrading and unscaling of magic. All classes, and a number of races, get Powers (spread out over At Will, Per Encounter, and Daily uses) so everyone has magicks now. Magic items on the other hand, powerfully weakened. It seems like the goal is to make everything uniform and uninteresting.

[Starsinger]

It states, though, that the DM can step in if he/she feels as though your scores are to low or to high for the game. There are other examples of DM manipulation in the character building process.

The thing that bugs me about this is that, at least for me, the character building process in D&D has always been almost completely the player's control;

Well crap.. turns out I've been doing it wrong again. I'm always very involved with character creation when I DM.

[Tsotha-lanti]

I don't understand why a RPG rulebook would ever even need to point out that the GM can change anything. It's so obvious.

If we're playing RuneQuest, I tell the players how they generate their stats, what limitations there are on their characters ("You're all uninitiated teens from the X clan of the Y tribe" or "You're all Imperial hoplites of the X Phalanx").

If we're playing... any other RPG, ever, it's the same thing. Including D&D, any edition. "Roll 4d6, drop the lowest. Elite array. 32-point buy."

This isn't heavy-handed - this is called being the Ref and setting the stage for the sort of campaign you're running. (And if your players don't like the sort of campaign you're running, you suck as a Ref and need to do a better job of creating campaigns or fostering trust in your players.)

That "Rule 0" meme is idiotic precisely because of this: I can't actually think of very many games at all that need to point out that yes, the Ref decides how things work out.

Nothing has changed, functionally.

[graymachine]

Well crap.. turns out I've been doing it wrong again. I'm always very involved with character creation when I DM.

No, I understand what you mean. My issue with this in particular is that I don't like the apparent need for explicit rules on this.

[Starsinger]

No, I understand what you mean. My issue with this in particular is that I don't like the apparent need for explicit rules on this.

I prefer explicit rules saying that a DM can, than to have it thinly alluded to. If the rule says the DM can do it, and the DM doesn't noone bats an eyelash. If the rules don't say so, and the DM does it, people can be very upset. It's easier to ignore a rule, if you ask me.

[Kizara]

Which is the proper attitude in my mind. The MMORPG aspect bother me a good deal as well, but that's not the issue I'm having at the moment. I dislike the simultaneous downgrading and unscaling of magic. All classes, and a number of races, get Powers (spread out over At Will, Per Encounter, and Daily uses) so everyone has magicks now. Magic items on the other hand, powerfully weakened. It seems like the goal is to make everything uniform and uninteresting.

Yes, those would be a good part of the rest of the things I have a problem with.

Feel free to post a broader review of the 4e PHB when you've had some time to review it, I would very much appreciate your opinion/take on it.

[graymachine]

Let me clarify myself here, since I seem to be giving the wrong impression. I don't dislike the DM stepping in and working with the players to make a better game. What I'm trying to say is that the (apparent) need for these rules, along with the other aspects in the rules, make it seem that WotC wants to make the game uniform and bland across the board. Part of the thing I like about D&D, 3.5 and before, is that there is a flexibility to it that can crop up in interesting ways.

[Kizara]

I prefer explicit rules saying that a DM can, than to have it thinly alluded to. If the rule says the DM can do it, and the DM doesn't noone bats an eyelash. If the rules don't say so, and the DM does it, people can be very upset. It's easier to ignore a rule, if you ask me.

While I stand by my earlier post on the matter, I will add that I appreciate when the books caution you on something or state something as a variant or as questionable.

There's a difference between "this is meant as the default/core material" and "this is something you could do/change if you wanted to change your gameplay". I find having that difference being clearly made to be quite useful.

[Noir-Neko]

"If done right, they will hardly be able to tell you did anything at all." I'm fimlyar with GM/DM Brute Force, sometimes it's necessary to keep a game from spiraling out of control, but IMO, a requirement of a GM is swift thinking and a level of mental agility to adapt and adjust to the actions of the players without having to resort to "Stonewalling" the players. "A Game Master's plan should always be subject to the will of the Game itself."

[Reel On, Love]

Oh, c'mon, guys, not the "IT'S BECOMING A MOREPIG!" thing again.

Hasn't that been debunked enough?

OMG, 3.5 has CRs, and you can use Sense Motive to get a sense of how strong or weak an enemy is! 3.5 IS WOW

[graymachine]

Yes, those would be a good part of the rest of the things I have a problem with.

Feel free to post a broader review of the 4e PHB when you've had some time to review it, I would very much appreciate your opinion/take on it.

I'll probably make a new post on that when I've had the chance; right now 3 nerds (including myself) are vying to read the books and all are prone to violence.

[graymachine]

Oh, c'mon, guys, not the "IT'S BECOMING A MOREPIG!" thing again.

Hasn't that been debunked enough?

OMG, 3.5 has CRs, and you can use Sense Motive to get a sense of how strong or weak an enemy is! 3.5 IS WOW

I understand the frustration, but the evidence from reading it seems overwhelming. The game has timed powers for all classes and categories for the classes, such as Defender classes and damaging classes, like DPS classes in MMORPGs. I grant that MMORPGs have had more money to though at research, so maybe they are on to something. My problem with this particular issue is that if this is the way of things, why don't I just play on a computer?

[Kizara]

Let me clarify myself here, since I seem to be giving the wrong impression. I don't dislike the DM stepping in and working with the players to make a better game. What I'm trying to say is that the (apparent) need for these rules, along with the other aspects in the rules, make it seem that WotC wants to make the game uniform and bland across the board. Part of the thing I like about D&D, 3.5 and before, is that there is a flexibility to it that can crop up in interesting ways.

While I agree with you conceptually, I do see how this statement of DM power (unneeded as it may be) establishes this.

Saying the DM should have an active role in a game doesn't relate to it being dumbed down/made more bland/uniform in my opinion. I'd like you to share how you arrived at that conclusion, and explain your logic and reasoning.

[graymachine]

While I agree with you conceptually, I do see how this statement of DM power (unneeded as it may be) establishes this.

Saying the DM should have an active role in a game doesn't relate to it being dumbed down/made more bland/uniform in my opinion. I'd like you to share how you arrived at that conclusion, and explain your logic and reasoning.

Sorry, I got sidetracked on tangent. That conclusion isn't really about the DM issue I was discuss; more of a gestalt of the various problems I'm finding. However, this could be needless worry; with through reading my worries could meld away. I suppose my problems simply come from knowing what D&D use to be like and what it is in this edition. I suspect that if this game was packaged under some other name than D&D I wouldn't have a problem with it; I would simply categorize it within the groups I have in my head for various games, based on what I like and am in the mood to play. I suppose I'm just being stubborn.

[Douglas]

I understand the frustration, but the evidence from reading it seems overwhelming. The game has timed powers for all classes and categories for the classes, such as Defender classes and damaging classes, like DPS classes in MMORPGs. I grant that MMORPGs have had more money to though at research, so maybe they are on to something. My problem with this particular issue is that if this is the way of things, why don't I just play on a computer?

Because there are rather crucial differences that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the rules mechanics?

The important difference between WoW and D&D is not who can do what in combat. Nitty gritty details of rules mechanics do not make a genre. The important differences are in game setting, plot structure, game environment, etc. An MMORPG like WoW is played on a computer, almost completely automated, with set quests, whenever you feel like it, with no role-playing required and no ability to do things the game designers did not explicitly anticipate. A tabletop RPG like D&D is played face to face, in a group, with whatever degree of automation you like (usually real dice), at prearranged times, in a world designed and controlled by a human who can react and adjust without limit on the fly and usually requires you to act in game as if it were all real. Until and unless these differences start disappearing, the "D&D = WoW" argument is pure foolishness in my opinion.

[Citizen Joe]

RE: DM modifying characters...
In pretty much every DND game I've seen you have to submit your characters for DM approval. The implication is that the DM can change stuff if he doesn't like it. Most of the time he just pulls out the VETO stamp so he doesn't have to put any effort into it. So, he's always had the right to change characters, 4th Ed. just spells that out.

RE: 4th as MMORPG...
I don't have either but I've read about both. From what I've heard 4th is focusing even more on "kill it and take its stuff" than ever before. There is a reason why that is the primary quest in MMORPGs, it doesn't take too much programming. Going outside the box to solve problems requires actual thought and judgment. Until I hear something about rewarding characters for irregular solutions coming out of WotC, I'm going to have to side with the more MMORPG group.

[Kurald Galain]

Oh, c'mon, guys, not the "IT'S BECOMING A MOREPIG!" thing again.

Yeah, that's stupid. Everybody knows D&D is becoming a collectible card game, instead. <---- The preceding sentence was sarcastic and should not have been read by anyone with an IQ below room temperature.

Aside from that, I'm not bothered by any book explicitly stating "the DM can change things if he wants to!!!!", even if it states them half a dozen times. My experience with forums like this indicates that some DMs and players really really need to get that message. And the others will just ignore it and skip to the fireball descriptions.

[Reel On, Love]

I understand the frustration, but the evidence from reading it seems overwhelming. The game has timed powers for all classes and categories for the classes, such as Defender classes and damaging classes, like DPS classes in MMORPGs.

"Timed powers"? Per Encounter, Per Day, and At Will? That's different from cooldown. And you do realize that 3.5 had those already? What do you think a barbarian's rage is if not a per-day power? Power Attack, Improved Trip, those are basically at-will powers. Later, per-encounter stuff got brought in, too.

The game has roles. Those roles already existed. In fact, MMORPGs got their roles from D&D. How is "the DPS" fundamentally different from "the blaster"? Are you suggesting 3.X didn't have "tanks"?

D&D isn't an MMO, and doesn't play like one. Come 4E, it still won't be an MMO, and it still won't play like one.

3.5 already has all of the "gasp-it's-an-MMO" stuff. It has more of it, including actual aggro mechanisms (from the Knight, to the Goad feat, to spells like Mindless Rage). And yet, somehow, playing D&D is nothing like playing WoW.

"zomg morepig" is a ridiculous argument. It ignores absolutely everything important, and focuses on superficial similarities that exist because MMOs evolved from D&D. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of people pretending it's worthwhile, or anything but an attempt at justifying what is in most cases an irrational dislike.

ETA:

RE: 4th as MMORPG...
I don't have either but I've read about both. From what I've heard 4th is focusing even more on "kill it and take its stuff" than ever before. There is a reason why that is the primary quest in MMORPGs, it doesn't take too much programming. Going outside the box to solve problems requires actual thought and judgment. Until I hear something about rewarding characters for irregular solutions coming out of WotC, I'm going to have to side with the more MMORPG group.

You've GOT to be kidding me.
Has D&D ever been ABOUT anything other than killing things and taking their stuff? Does 3.5 support roleplaying somehow? 3.5 gives you Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. Yeah, that real developed social mechanics, there! "I make a skill check and you are Friendly, my arch-enemy!" "Curses! I mean, drat my luck, good buddy."

On the other hand, 4E is introducing skill challenges. D&D is finally getting a conflict-resolution mechanism, something other games have been doing for years or even decades, instead of a task-resolution mechanism. These add to player control and allow for more solutions. If you need to sneak out of the city, one player could be making an Easy Hide check to get lost in the crowd, then a Moderate Streetwise check to find back alleys that take him to an unguarded section of the wall, then a Hard Athletics check to get over, and so on. Meanwhile, someone else could be using Persuasion, Insight, and so on.

4E is better at non-hack-and-slash, not worse... which isn't hard, because 3E barely supports it at all.

[Citizen Joe]

Like I said, the quests are 'MorePig'. I don't know about the mechanics so much.

[Reel On, Love]

Like I said, the quests are 'MorePig'. I don't know about the mechanics so much.

...what? Players have whatever quests and adventures the DM gives them. How is 4E more suited to "kill it!" quests than 3E (whose published adventures, I'd point out, consisted largely of kill it and take its stuff)?

[Azerian Kelimon]

Yeah, 4e just makes the killing easier to craft for a DM. Boohoo. How bad. And they give us a way to use skills without Eigen plots, stupidity, combat, or massive homebrewing! *Bob Dole voice* This'll bring the apocalypse, I tell ya.

[Noir-Neko]

This'll bring the apocalypse, I tell ya.

Oh I do hope so