Sorry, ignore this threadjack. I'm probably reading too much into a poor analogy made in haste. Return to the 4E SPOILER FEST. ;-)
Spoiler or spoiled?
Sorry, I couldn't resist :p
|
One thing I like is one only needs the necessary crunch for any aspect of the game rules. In other words, the rest of the game is left up to the imagination. If you want your BBEG to be able to scry on demand, you don't necessarily have to figure out all the crunch of doing so. You just create the power for him if it serves your story. You don't have to create a spell and then make sure the monster has all the necessary prerequisites to get the spell. You just give the monster the desired power. You don't have to make sure a vampire who excels in historical knowledge about Thassalion heritage has enough skill points in Knowledge (Thassalion), you just give it too him. That's the beauty of making monster stats different than PC stats.
In my mind, 4e inspires the imagination because crunch is easier to create and vary and doesn't hinder aspects of the flavor.
I rememebr Orcus getting very excited about 4th edition monster design over at ENWorld. I'm definitely going to pick up Tome of Horrors (GSL permitting) even if I never buy another 4th edition product.
Then I'm going to convert them back into 3rd edition, to see whether or not I'm right in thinking there's nothing in the 3rd edition rules to stop you doing cool monsters, only the "3rd edition mindset".
To use the example he gave of the boring old bonesnapper. The 4th edition one gets a free tail attack if its bite attack hits. There's no reason you can't do this in 3rd edition, and you even have the Rake mechanics as an example of how to approach it.
Actually, there is NO monster in 4E you can't create using 3.x (or for that matter, even 1E) rules.
What I think Orcus was referring to is the fact that the "guidelines" seem more open. Technically, there's nothing preventing you from simply giving a monster say a dragon Attack bonus, a humanoid's HD and the saves of a Fae in 3.x. It's just that many DMs wrongly feel that they are cheating if they do so in 3.x
I do not think that the problem was about cheating but mostly due to the realisation that after designing a monster it was difficult to assign the appropriate CR for it.
P.S. I have to say that I'm disappointed in Razz. He not only bought the game (money that went to WotC. Shudder...
Where'd you get the idea that he bought the books. He posted in the "4E has leaked" thread (which started off talking about illegal PDFs of the books being out there):
I have the 4E books (not saying how)...
Which means that I'm very disappointed in Razz. He's strongly hinted he has pirated copies of books which he knows he has no intention of buying for real. That's far more shameful than paying money for a product from a company you happen to be angry with.
|
To be a DM is rewarding because of can do things that players can't do: create your own world and story, control all sorts of creatures rather than a single character, and look at the reactions of your players when you put something funny or scary. It's not the authority who makes the DM task rewarding - although a 4E DM has much authority as the DM of any other edition.
No, sorry dude, I've read the 4E DMG, the authority of the DM has been completely and totally undermined.
The authority is what makes the task bearable. It's what allows you to have a meaningful campaign world -- when you can't say "No, that item doesn't exist in my world" or "No, that prestige clas isn't available." or "No, that race is different in my campaign." then you have no actual control over your world. 4E makes it explicit that players have some control over the game world and can add elements to it if they want.
Just watch, a year from now, there's going to be a major crises in 4E as it becomes obvious that being a tournament GM and having one's hands tied behind one's back is frustrating and unrewarding. Too much emphasis as been placed on player's fun, and people have forgotten that the Dm is supposed to have fun too.
I mean really, look at your own argument. Boil it down, and you've described a DM who is essentially a host, providing entertainment to the players in return for what? A sense of self-satisfaction? Sure, some people get a kick out of serving others and putting other people's fun ahead of their own, but I seriously doubt that there are enough people around like that to sustain D&D. Especially given how generally self-involved and selfish the average D&D player is.
4E is just going to encourage player entitlement, and make DMing an even more thankless job. And it's going to create a generation of gamers that have no respect at all for the position of DM.
At the end of the day, I'm afraid that the Forge's Tyranny of Fun has one the day at WOTC, and D&D has swallowed the kool-aid of Forge theory. The traditional DM is dead, and I don't think the new concept of DM as Free Provider of Quality Entertainment is going to have any real power to attract people to the role.
I certainly know the only way you get me to DM a system as rigid and inflexible as 4E is if you paid me.
|
It's easy to create encounters because they've removed pretty much all creativity from the process. And thanks to the much expanded entry size, it's actually going to be a real pain in the ass to write up custom created encounters -- WOTC is going to sell more pre-made adventures than ever.
I really don't see this. The 3e MM has stock stats for critters - the 4e has stock stats for critters. In 3e there are rules and guidelines to alter critters - in 4e there are rules and guidelines to alter critters.
So I can create custom encounters in both 3e and 4e.
The bigger issue for me is that the new books strip the DM of all his traditional authority. The DM is no longer the judge of the rules, the referee. Now the DM is expected to consult with and defer to players on rules issues. The magic items are now in the PHB, which essentially signals that the DM no longer has any authority over what items are available.
Again, I do not see this at all. The GM can still do everything in 4e that was done in 3e. As for magic items - just because they are in the PHB does not mean that the players have the right to buy what they want.
I think 4E has done an amazing job of making the DM's role much simpler and easier, but at the same time have made it far less rewarding. Now the DM is little more than a tournament score keeper who rolls for the monsters. It's a position with little or no reward, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to play using it. Wearing the Viking Hat used to be the DM's trade-off for always having to lose. Now the DM just gets to lose and listen to players piss and moan about how unfair and bad he is if he doesn't give them everything they want.
I really do not know where you are getting this from at all. There are no rules or mechanisms in 4e that actually change the role of the GM. The GM is still running the game and can set the limits and difficulty as he or she sees fit.
I kind of suspect that 4E may be the game that finally give sus pay-for-play DMs, as I don't think many old school DMs are going to switch over (none of the DMs I know have any interest in 4E), and many groups won't be able to find anyone who is willing to pass on playing for the opportunity to DM.
Again - I can not see why you would believe this. I am an old school GM and I can't wait to get a home brew cooking for 4e. There is nothing in 4e stopping me from running the game that I want to run.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I've read the 4E DMG, the authority of the DM has been completely and totally undermined.
When you can't say "No, that item doesn't exist in my world" or "No, that prestige clas isn't available." or "No, that race is different in my campaign." then you have no actual control over your world. 4E makes it explicit that players have some control over the game world and can add elements to it if they want.
Forgive my asking, because I haven't read any 4th Edition material yet, but: how does the DMG state this? For example, the Forgotten Realms has several different elf sub-races, each with its own attribute modifications. A DM running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms would *have* to be able to modify the 4th Edition elf to have wild elves and moon elves and such, yes?
|
|
It's what allows you to have a meaningful campaign world -- when you can't say "No, that item doesn't exist in my world" or "No, that prestige clas isn't available." or "No, that race is different in my campaign." then you have no actual control over your world.
Rule Zero - the GM IS the law! The players can ask but that does not mean I must give.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It's what allows you to have a meaningful campaign world -- when you can't say "No, that item doesn't exist in my world" or "No, that prestige clas isn't available." or "No, that race is different in my campaign." then you have no actual control over your world.Rule Zero - the GM IS the law! The players can ask but that does not mean I must give.
Dude, read the book carefully. There's a binding contract in the phb. Once you and your player's execute it, you must DM and play in the exact manner specified. Otherwise they send the ice weasels after you.
Besides, as Gailbraithe has so kindly pointed out, everyone knows theres only one true way to DM: authoritatively. I think we can all agree that's a proven and objective fact. All those DMs and players who run a more collaborative game are doing it wrong. Take a look at the Ars Magica riots of 97-99. That game actually suggests rotating the person who is the DM! Talk about losing control of the game. And to think, it was written by one of the same authors as 3e. Thank god he game to his senses when he included the "Being an Iron Fisted Tyrant" section in the 3.5 phb.
Want to have a fun drinking game? Do what I did to Razz's post and the other poorly reasoned one above - replace each instance of 4e with Pathfinder, repost it, and see if the offensive simple-minded assertions are just as acceptable when you change just those elements. It's a great time.
|
|
Forgive my asking, because I haven't read any 4th Edition material yet, but: how does the DMG state this? For example, the Forgotten Realms has several different elf sub-races, each with its own attribute modifications. A DM running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms would *have* to be able to modify the 4th Edition elf to have wild elves and moon elves and such, yes?
I think you've gotten my point backwards. A DM running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms isn't going to be able to say "No warforged." Or, more accurately, I think 4E is going to create players that will whine and call the DM unfair or a cheater if he says "There are no warforged in the Forgotten Realms."
Because in 4E, there are warforged everywhere. Players are entitled to play warforged if they want. The DM can say no, but the books don't back the DM up here. They leave him to hang.
My first gut reaction to 4E: I don't like it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think you've gotten my point backwards. A DM running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms isn't going to be able to say "No warforged." Or, more accurately, I think 4E is going to create players that will whine and call the DM unfair or a cheater if he says "There are no warforged in the Forgotten Realms."Because in 4E, there are warforged everywhere. Players are entitled to play warforged if they want. The DM can say no, but the books don't back the DM up here. They leave him to hang.
It's a shame your group is too immature to agree on the rules of the game without the books explicitly giving the DM authority to overrule anything and everything at his whim (not to mention their poor reading comprehension if they believe that they have some sort of absolute entitlement to play whatever they want). I'd say 4e isn't the right game for you given those facts. Good luck finding a simpler game that's more your speed.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
A DM running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms isn't going to be able to say "No warforged." Or, more accurately, I think 4E is going to create players that will whine and call the DM unfair or a cheater if he says "There are no warforged in the Forgotten Realms."
Because in 4E, there are warforged everywhere. Players are entitled to play warforged if they want. The DM can say no, but the books don't back the DM up here. They leave him to hang.
Forgive my asking, because I haven't read any 4th Edition material yet, but: how does the DMG state this?
|
|
It's what allows you to have a meaningful campaign world -- when you can't say "No, that item doesn't exist in my world" or "No, that prestige clas isn't available." or "No, that race is different in my campaign." then you have no actual control over your world.Rule Zero - the GM IS the law! The players can ask but that does not mean I must give.
My point is that 4E doesn't include Rule Zero, and includes a lot of material and advice that implies the exact opposite of rule zero.
The big issue here is player expectations. 4E is going to train players to to have the expectations about the game that are at odds with the game's own traditions.
I've already seen this with players who grew up on 3.5. We have one guy in my group who never played the earlier editions, and he and I have very different expectations about the game. A few weeks ago, I made a call and he started arguing it with me. I cited some real world reasoning that supported my call, and then moved on to the next player. But this guy wouldn't drop it. He thought I was being totally unfair by citing the real world as justification for denying him an AOO. So he starts arguing it with me, and I say "Hey, if you want we can discuss it after the game, but I've made my ruling." All of my other players, who grew up on Basic, 1E or 2E, nodded in understanding, but this guy seriously thought I was cheating. He was like "so? Your ruling is wrong, and blah blah blah." Luckily my other players set him straight very quickly, but he couldn't believe that I would throw out a rule based on a real world understanding of the situation. He's slowly learning our style of play, and recognizing the advantages of having a DM who wears the Viking Hat.
I think the philosophy underlying 4E is going to breed more of these sorts of players, who think the DM should act like a reliable computer, and that they should be able to take advantage of rules exploits that make no sense in the real world simply because that's how the rules are written.
(If you're curious, this was the situation: he was wielding a pole-arm and wearing spiked armor. He made a melee attack with the spiked armor, and then later in the same round attempted an AOO with his pole-arm. I said that because he used his spiked armor for a melee attack, his pole-arm wasn't readied and so he couldn't make the AOO.)
Also, I've now had a chance to read the 4E PHB, and I can say quite confidently that I HATE this game with a passion. This game has ditched all traces of verisimilitude. There is nothing vaguely realistic about it. The game no longer is capable of rewarding actual tactical play, having replaced it entirely with the sort of "tactical play" associated with abstract card games like Magic. Blech. Almost completely the opposite direction I wanted D&D to go.
|
|
It's a shame your group is too immature to agree on the rules of the game without the books explicitly giving the DM authority to overrule anything and everything at his whim (not to mention their poor reading comprehension if they believe that they have some sort of absolute entitlement to play whatever they want). I'd say 4e isn't the right game for you given those facts. Good luck finding a simpler game that's more your speed.
Wow dude, there was really no need to get snippy and make personal attacks like that. Your entire comment is rude, belittling, argumentative and insulting.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I know! Let's throw his argument into the inverse-inator!
My point is that 3E includes Rule Zero, and includes a lot of material and advice that implies the absolute nature of Rule Zero.
The big issue here is DM expectations. 3E is going to train DMs to to have the expectations about the game that are at odds with the game's own traditions.
I've already seen this with DMs who grew up on 3.5. We have one guy in my group who never DM'd the earlier editions, and he and I have very different expectations about the game. A few weeks ago, he made a call that was completely wrong under the rules. I disagreed with it, but he claimed that the "real world" simulation was more important. I didn't want to let it drop, but then the other players started ganging up on me too. I eventually let it go, but now I understand that I don't really want to play with someone who is willing to bend the rules in favor of their own individualized view of "reality" (whatever that means in an rpg) on a whim.
I think the philosophy underlying 3E is going to breed more of these sorts of DMs, who think the DM should act like a benevolent dictator and dicate the outcome of the game without reference to the actual rules, and that the players don't know what to do because the DM changes the rules on a whim to suit the needs of his story.
(If you're curious, this was the situation: I was wielding a pole-arm and wearing spiked armor. I made a melee attack with the spiked armor, and then later in the same round attempted an AOO with my pole-arm. The DM said that because I used my spiked armor for a melee attack, my pole-arm wasn't readied and so I couldn't make the AOO. If I had known that he was going to make the polearm a suboptimal choice with his ruling, I would've chosen the spiked chain instead or maybe not have used the spikes that way. It was really frustrating to build my character by the rules and then have the DM say the rules don't apply because he thinks it's unrealistic for them to work that way.)
Ah. So obviously, 3e is going to ruin the hobby because it will train a whole generation of DMs to be overbearing and willing to run roughshod over the rules whenever they want. Your DM doesn't sound too bad, but these future DMs, raised on Rule Zero, will eventually start demanding that everyone run goblin commoners in a Far Realm campaign. No one will want to play D&D with these overbearing a#**+!# DMs, the player base will be destroyed as a result, and the game will be ruined.
This is something that another poster on another thread quoted:
There is a section called Creating House Rules and I quote the 4e DMG - "The D&D rules cannot possibly account for the variety of campaigns and play styles of every group. If you disagree with how the rules handle something, changing them is within your right." Then it goes on to give some advise.
|
|
(If you're curious, this was the situation: I was wielding a pole-arm and wearing spiked armor. I made a melee attack with the spiked armor, and then later in the same round attempted an AOO with my pole-arm. The DM said that because I used my spiked armor for a melee attack, my pole-arm wasn't readied and so I couldn't make the AOO. If I had known that he was going to make the polearm a suboptimal choice with his ruling, I would've chosen the spiked chain instead or maybe not have used the spikes that way. It was really frustrating to build my character by the rules and then have the DM say the rules don't apply because he thinks it's unrealistic for them to...
Thank you! All I could think when he said that was, "Wow, what a crappy thing to spring on a player in the middle of the game."
No wonder he argued the point, the GM changed the rules on him in the middle of combat. Being a GM myself I expect my players to trust me. That kind of action does not engender trust.
|
|
This is something that another poster on another thread quoted:
There is a section called Creating House Rules and I quote the 4e DMG - "The D&D rules cannot possibly account for the variety of campaigns and play styles of every group. If you disagree with how the rules handle something, changing them is within your right." Then it goes on to give some advise.
And there it is - Rule Zero in all its glory.
As to player expectations - 3.5 has so many books and so many options so how is 4e to blame for books with stuff in them that players will want to use?
Rule Zero = no, you can't have that - even if its in a book.
|
|
My gut reactions?
Well, I only have KotS and what I have read in previews and leak threads to go on but I can say this:
I was wrong. Terribly wrong. Unlike some people I can admit that.
From the games we have played, this still feels like D&D.
3e really does have some big problems. I didn't realize how big until I ran a game of 4e.
4e will liberate me as a DM, not restrict me.
I can't imagine going back to 3e and its derivatives.
Want to have a fun drinking game? Do what I did to Razz's post and the other poorly reasoned one above - replace each instance of 4e with Pathfinder, repost it, and see if the offensive simple-minded assertions are just as acceptable when you change just those elements. It's a great time.
Wait...when do you take a drink?
I say this: anytime someone says, "Big boys," "MMMORG," "video game," "mature players," "WotC is a soulless, gutless monstrosity of a wannabe roleplaying organization," or "smurf," everyone takes a drink.
4e is zuh bethest gamest evah...*hiccup*
Edet: I luv uvrybedy! *hugs*
|
|
Thank you! All I could think when he said that was, "Wow, what a crappy thing to spring on a player in the middle of the game."
No wonder he argued the point, the GM changed the rules on him in the middle of combat. Being a GM myself I expect my players to trust me. That kind of action does not engender trust.
No, actually, I didn't change the rules at all. The rules are vague, and required a DM judgement call, but my interpretation of the rules is more in keeping with the rules as written. We discovered this
The RAW state that you may use armor spikes to make a melee attack, and when you do so they count as using a light weapon. You can't use a light weapon and a two-handed weapon at the same time. There is no way to have both readied. This player was ignoring that rule. He wanted to have a two-handed weapon and a light weapon readied at the same time.
Also: Sebastian, if you can't act civil, then don't bother talking to me. You're being a complete and utter ass, and I'm reporting your behavior in this thread. It's inexcusable.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hello, Sebastian.
You are sometimes a force for good.
But not here. In this thread, and in a few others over the past few days, you've been mean-spirited, attacking people rather than positions, and I think, demanding more rigor than a thread called "first gut reactions" merits.
In particular, the habit of implicitly "correcting" other people's quotes is insidious. Maybe you don't realize how hard it hits, to have a parody or straw-man version, or a complete inversion, of your words attributed to you. And, as we've seen, other people then quote your corrupted versions, perhaps believing that they're accurate.
--
The discussion of the relation between players and Game Master, "DM fiat," and "reality" versus Rules As Written is a complicated and probably fruitful topic for another thread.
In this particular, I take note of the facts that (a) the DM Was willing to discuss the matter after the combat, and (b) the other players agreed with the DM's ruling against their own interests.
--
Sebastian, I recall that you didn't think too highly of the plot or bakstory of the initial 4th Edition adventure, but you didn't say anything one way or the other about the rules. Seeing the rulebooks in a more complete form, what do you think of them now?
In particular, I keep trying to get someone to tell me what he or she thinks of the DMG.
Forgive my asking, because I haven't read any 4th Edition material yet, but: how does the DMG state this? For example, the Forgotten Realms has several different elf sub-races, each with its own attribute modifications. A DM running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms would *have* to be able to modify the 4th Edition elf to have wild elves and moon elves and such, yes?I think you've gotten my point backwards. A DM running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms isn't going to be able to say "No warforged." Or, more accurately, I think 4E is going to create players that will whine and call the DM unfair or a cheater if he says "There are no warforged in the Forgotten Realms."
Because in 4E, there are warforged everywhere. Players are entitled to play warforged if they want. The DM can say no, but the books don't back the DM up here. They leave him to hang.
Where is this land of 4E?
And where does it say that players can over rule the DM?
Players can whine and complain in a 3.5 games just as well as in a 4E game. There is nothing that could stop me from saying in my next game, "Ok, only humans and smurfs allowed for races and your limited to fighters and rogues for classes." Other than having players that want to play in your campaign.
|
|
Thank you! All I could think when he said that was, "Wow, what a crappy thing to spring on a player in the middle of the game."
No wonder he argued the point, the GM changed the rules on him in the middle of combat. Being a GM myself I expect my players to trust me. That kind of action does not engender trust.
No, actually, I didn't change the rules at all. The rules are vague, and required a DM judgement call, but my interpretation of the rules is more in keeping with the rules as written. We discovered this
The RAW state that you may use armor spikes to make a melee attack, and when you do so they count as using a light weapon. You can't use a light weapon and a two-handed weapon at the same time. There is no way to have both readied. This player was ignoring that rule. He wanted to have a two-handed weapon and a light weapon readied at the same time.
Okay... I will give you that point. I can see you ruling it that way. I wouldn't have but I can see it.
I just have to ask, do you really wear a Viking Hat during the game or is that just a turn of phrase?
In particular, I keep trying to get someone to tell me what he or she thinks of the DMG.
I really like the DMG. I haven't studied it as closely as the PHB, but from everything I've read, I truly like it.
I like the guidance given in the first few chapters on DMing. I've been playing (and often DMing) for 20 years and some of it I found helpful and some of it I was just glad to see explicitly expressed. For example, it expresses that a DM is less a referee and more a presenter. A DM can rely on his players to help him with game rules and rulings. I think this is where Gailbraithe is getting that the DM loses some authority. I disagree and feel that this statement merely states that a roleplaying game is cooperative, not a dictatorship.
The DMG is mostly about roleplaying, building adventures and campaigns, and how to run a session, with crunchy parts making up probably a third. As far as crunch, I like how traps are organized.
I would say the main philosophy of the DMG is: if the flavor doesn't need crunch to back it up, then don't worry about the crunch. That was the philosophy behind monster creation too I believe.
Since I've only given the DMG a little reading and mostly skimming, I can't give you a real deep review. But that's my initial reaction.
|
|
In particular, I keep trying to get someone to tell me what he or she thinks of the DMG.
I can sympathize with Sebastian's response. When an irrational and unfounded argument is made, clearly debunked, and yet it persists there is always a strong urge to show just how off it is.
At my FLGS we were fond of telling each other "you are so wrong you do not even know how wrong you are". That was code to clue someone in that they have left the path of objectivity and reason and they are now arguing just to argue.
On the net it is usually communicated in much stronger language.
I expect a whole lot of irrational attacks against 4e. Some people simply fear change and seem to feel the need to attack. Most folks that have looked at 4e and decided that it was not a game they wanted to play simply left the 4e forum and are having a grand old time on the Pathfinder board. They are secure in their choice and I wish them well.
The folks that stay here, with their closed minds, just to bust on 4e and the people that play it should expect reactions like Sebastian's. I agree that it should not happen and should never be personal. On the other hand when you spit fire you better be wearing a fire proof suit.
|
|
Oh...and despite my earlier protests, exception based design looks like it is going to simply rock.
I do hope that to be the case. I like what I see so far but the real test will be the splat book flood. If 4e is as extensible and modular as it seems to be then it will swim, if not it will sink under its own weight.
If the GSL allows for open extension of the core rules then I can see some really great things coming down the pike.
You can't use a light weapon and a two-handed weapon at the same time. There is no way to have both readied.
???
Personally, I'm wondering where it says this because I can't find it. Plus, it's clearly wrong in at least 1 case: monk using unarmed strikes and a quarterstaff.|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Hello, Sebastian.
You are sometimes a force for good.
But not here. In this thread, and in a few others over the past few days, you've been mean-spirited, attacking people rather than positions, and I think, demanding more rigor than a thread called "first gut reactions" merits.
In particular, the habit of implicitly "correcting" other people's quotes is insidious. Maybe you don't realize how hard it hits, to have a parody or straw-man version, or a complete inversion, of your words attributed to you. And, as we've seen, other people then quote your corrupted versions, perhaps believing that they're accurate.
I don't normally respond to things like this, but I'm going to make an exception. Click on my profile. That's how I feel. That's how I felt when PFRPG was launched. That was my olive branch. And for a while, things were good here.
But now, we're back to the same non-stop unreasoned 4e bashing and threadcrapping. It's f**&ing ridiculous and I'm no longer going to be friendly or nice about it. If you threadcrap, if you post some driveling idiotic argument completely mis-representing the 4e rules set, if you can't post without calling 4e a glorified minatures game or MMORPG, basically, if you can't show the same respect for 4e that you expect to receive for 3e or Pathfinder, I'm going to be right there in your face, pushing as hard as I can. You're right, I have been more of a bastard lately, and that's because this 4e hate has been blown right back up after a nice rest and I am pissed off. I am not going to be bullied out of these boards.
The discussion of the relation between players and Game Master, "DM fiat," and "reality" versus Rules As Written is a complicated and probably fruitful topic for another thread.In this particular, I take note of the facts that (a) the DM Was willing to discuss the matter after the combat, and (b) the other players agreed with the DM's ruling against their own interests.
Agreed, which is why the original posts about the topic were particularly poorly reasoned. They asserted a single play style as correct/desireable, asserted 4e did not support that style (despite a quote showing that it does), and then jumped to ridiculous conclusions. It's a weak, poorly thought out argument, just like the 3e Rule Zero version I presented above.
Sebastian, I recall that you didn't think too highly of the plot or bakstory of the initial 4th Edition adventure, but you didn't say anything one way or the other about the rules. Seeing the rulebooks in a more complete form, what do you think of them now?In particular, I keep trying to get someone to tell me what he or she thinks of the DMG.
Unfortuately, all I've managed to do is flip through the DMG. I'd be happy to discuss it at some point.
|
|
I just have to ask, do you really wear a Viking Hat during the game or is that just a turn of phrase?
Just a turn of phrase, and an old one at that. I'm not sure the exact origins, but it's been around forever. It basically refers to the DM's position of final arbitrator of the rules. You don't contradict the man in the viking hat.
When I DM, I wear my Cthulhu slippers. Because the world should know fear wherever I trod.
|
|
Personally, I'm wondering where it says this because I can't find it. Plus, it's clearly wrong in at least 1 case: monk using unarmed strikes and a quarterstaff.
Armor SpikesYou can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a -4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) (emphasis added)
Like I said, the rules are vague and you have to figure it out for yourself. But it didn't seem reasonable to me that the combination of a pole-arm and armor spikes would give you the benefit of wielding a spiked chain without the use of a feat, and it didn't seem reasonable to me that the character could throw a shoulder into a dog attacking him from one direction, and then in the same round chop someone closing in on him from the opposite direction with a pole arm.
Sebastian: Go f#%# youself, you self-important twat.
|
I disagree and feel that this statement merely states that a roleplaying game is cooperative, not a dictatorship.
I think the story is in many ways a cooperative effort but the game... the game should be a dictatorship. A benevolent dictatorship but the DM has to have the final say in everything that is to be allowed.
To borrow a phrase from baseball. There are those who think the DM should call it as he sees it. Others think he should call it like it is. But personally, I think a thing aint anything until the DM says it is.
The world in the game belongs to the DM. That is his reward for being a DM (that and the creation of a compelling set of memories for the players and himself). YMMV
|
|
And guys, when everyone starts calling names and flaming, those of us standing on the bylines have a hard time telling the trolls from the victims.
Just saying.
EDIT: And doctoring the quotes of another person and then posting it as a verbatim quote is one of the lowest forms of debate. It comes across as very childish.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
EDIT: And doctoring the quotes of another person (and noting the doctering by, in most cases, changing their name or mentioning that the quote is doctored to reverse the argument) and then posting them to show how absurd their argument is makes for an effective tactic. And, it's the height of comedy to twist their words to make them compliment you in a response. Very funny stuff. Calling someone childish, now that's a different kettle of fish.
Agreed.
|
|
But personally, I think a thing aint anything until the DM says it is.
The world in the game belongs to the DM. That is his reward for being a DM (that and the creation of a compelling set of memories for the players and himself). YMMV
I agree. Here's the thing - if the rules are clear then a GM should try to use them as is. The only time a GM should stray is if an interpretation is needed or if a house rule is needed. The GM and the players should agree on house rules because it will effect everyone at the table. Interpretations should be codified so when the situation comes up again the interpretation remains consistent.
I have seen far too many groups fall apart because the GM would not honor the social contract with the players and the game degenerated into player/GM conflict.
Derrrhhh...I is dumb
EDIT: But reworking a quote from the ground up with an alias just to show the absurdity of the house of mirrors style of manipulating what someone else said, that's just dumb.
Agreed.
I disagree and feel that this statement merely states that a roleplaying game is cooperative, not a dictatorship.I think the story is in many ways a cooperative effort but the game... the game should be a dictatorship. A benevolent dictatorship but the DM has to have the final say in everything that is to be allowed.
I don't necessarily disagree, but at the same time it is important for a DM to accomodate his/her players and validate their game rule opinions even if the DM disagrees. My DM style can be a bit dictorial and I can see how a statement like the one stated in the DMG may have gotten me out of more than one prolonged argument.
The DMG does consent that a DM many times acts as a referee, if necessary, but that is not the DM's sole role.
Another DMG quote: "Some DMs fear that asking their players' opinions will undermine their authority and give rise to claims they are being unfair. On the contrary, most players like it when the DM asks their opinions, and they're more likely to feel that the results are fair when they can give their opinions."
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The world in the game belongs to the DM. That is his reward for being a DM (that and the creation of a compelling set of memories for the players and himself). YMMV
I agree. Here's the thing - if the rules are clear then a GM should try to use them as is. The only time a GM should stray is if an interpretation is needed or if a house rule is needed....I have seen far too many groups fall apart because the GM would not honor the social contract with the players and the game degenerated into player/GM conflict.
I've created a thread for this discussion, because I don't think it's properly a 4th Edition issue.
I'm falling into a stance of "the amount of authority the players grant to the GM is one of the ingredients that make up the relationship at that gaming table. Telling someone that his game is too autocratic or too cooperative is like telling a group they're not have enough combats; it's an imposition of a personal preference disguised as a general rule.
In particular, CWM, I'm not sure I'd agree with there being a default "social contract". I've seen games where the players didn't even have access to the rules, and the GM was a great story-teller and referee, and everybody had a great time for years.
I've read through the PHB a bit (about half of it), and through most of the monsters in the MM.
I like the PHB, except for a few minor quibbles (like why fighters don't come with plate mail, or why rogues start out with such a limited weapon selection). The only real problems I have are with small characters not having their own size of weapons, where all creatures that aren't small do. Mechanically it kinda makes sense, but it really nags at me. I also don't really like the incredibly limited selection of base armors. But these are things that are pretty easily solvable.
My problem is with the MM. The monsters are boring as hell, there's almost no flavor text in the entire book, and there isn't even half a line of description for what their attacks do (to be fair, that bugs me about the newer style of 3.5 stat blocks, too). Most of the monsters don't even have a brief description, it's all just in pictures, and some don't even have that.
But the biggest problem is that once you've fought a monster you've pretty much found out all it's tricks. There's no spell list to shift around easily to make the Rakshasa easily different from the other one. Hell, they don't even have feats. Most monsters only get 3-4 lines of text for tactics. I find the MM guilty of being unimaginative, boring, and flavorless. At least in my opinion.
- Hammith