Shift in attitude a possible insurmountable rift?

I am not very active on the forums but I am sure this has been discussed. I have been playing D&D since the late 70's and every incarnation of the rules. In my experience there has been a major yet subtle shift in attitude toward the game as a whole. When I started there was very little printed material outside of the core books and modules. So when we played we all agreed on what we were going to use and what we were not going to use. The DM created the world and was the final judge on what was acceptable and what was not. However, as times have changed I have seen this attitude change, even among my old gaming friends. There is now a clear feeling by most players that if something is in a book he/she is “entitled” to have access to it.  

My concern for the future is simply that what I am seeing in D&D Next is hearkening back to the good old days for me, but I think this shift in the real world of D&D players (DMs included) could be an insurmountable rift. 


I would like to add that blaming the system or the company for this shift is not going to help us figure out a way to bridge this rift. The blame game is for children, let's be adults and try to come up with some solutions and recommendations for WotC.



First off I am not sure there is a way to resolve this. But I would like to suggest continued emphasize that the game belongs to the “erdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">group” not the DM or the PCs. One cannot exist without the other so as I see it the only solution is a game-table solution. When I put a group together, or join a group there are some ground rules that we set up as a group. If we all can agree on them then we go from there. But there is always someone that doesn't like something and yes it has been me before. When an individual feels strongly enough about something ad is at odds with the rest of the group the individual moves on, shall we say (and yes that individual has been me before as well as others).


What are your thoughts? 

Your take is probably the only sensible one. It's a problem to be solved socially more than anything.



My particular group only recently started including everything published ever and it was mostly out of boredom.. basically we exhausted a lot of the options and felt like dropping a bomb on the game.


The result was.. interestng. I'm not sure I'd repeat it, but for me part of the game is enabling everyone to play the stuff they want and explore the aspects they want to, so while the DM really should have the final say I don't see that creative people can't find a way to include stuff in a game world.


That sometimes pushes us places we don't wanna go.



That said, I think WOTC would be a lot better off if they deliver on their promise to officially support choices. And by that I mean empowering the players to say "no we won't play with that" and empowering the DM to help decisions stick. They don't have to shove it down our throats but just adding qualifying statements to options like "DM's discretion" helps define the attitude folks have toward published material. It makes it clear that not every game will include it.


That said, I think WOTC would be a lot better off if they deliver on their promise to officially support choices. And by that I mean empowering the players to say "no we won't play with that" and empowering the DM to help decisions stick. They don't have to shove it down our throats but just adding qualifying statements to options like "DM's discretion" helps define the attitude folks have toward published material. It makes it clear that not every game will include it.




This is well said. There needs to be a middle ground between the general statment at the opening of a book and filling it with "DM's discretion" disclaimers. 

 
My particular group only recently started including everything published ever and it was mostly out of boredom.. basically we exhausted a lot of the options and felt like dropping a bomb on the game.

The result was.. interestng. I'm not sure I'd repeat it





Yeah, I did that in my 3rd Ed Planescape campaign, when the party got to around 10th+ level, it started to get rough, DMIng.
A largely agree with everything that's been submitted here, however, Dungeons & Dragons will never have the capacity to assist in shaping the social contracts, sharing and trust in each other's fun that the game assumes its players to have.

Seemingly, the hobby is at a loss for savvy, grown-up communicators who understand cooperation, mutual respect, collaboration and positive support. 

Danny

A largely agree with everything that's been submitted here, however, Dungeons & Dragons will never have the capacity to assist in shaping the social contracts, sharing and trust in each other's fun that the game assumes its players to have.

Seemingly, the hobby is at a loss for savvy, grown-up communicators who understand cooperation, mutual respect, collaboration and positive support. 



At a loss? Not at my table ;)

I'm not really sure what the OP is asking for here, but I'll try to give my two cents.
I've found that including a lot of stuff from the other books has really made me not want to DM at all in 3.5e due to its vastly increased level of possibilities and growth. And while you can preface each one of the new books with 'DM's discretion' the players still feel jipped when they can't all be carrying "over-powered items A B and C" that they bought for only 3000 gp each. When I tell them, 'not in this world' they get the frownie faces and very obviously and directly have less fun. On the other hand, I don't play with this group any longer and perhaps this is a direct contributer.

My current group went with me when I started to just run my own homebrew game. Any small piece they wanted to bring in the world was verified and okay'd by me as the DM in a collaborative exploratory fashion that was fair to all. And this new group would never balk at me removing the over-powered items A, B and C. So maybe it is about who you're playing with. T

he newer editions took some of my players who were happy in my campaigns to 9th level with two magic items per character and made them unhappy in my campaigns to 20th level with 20 magic items per character, +30 stats, and items/powers from 30 books. What was the shift? The players changed as they felt the joy at having all these items.

So I found a group of rp'ers instead of a group of min/maxers and my gaming sessions have been joyous.
 
Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.
One thing I want to point out real quick, role-players and min/maxers are not mutually exclusive. I have three players at my table that are both and are well versed at putting together characters which are optimized within the concepts they come up with.  

As to the original post...well all I can say is that I have been with the same group for over 10 years now, rotating DMs whenever a campaign or story arc comes to a close, and we have never had any such problems at our table. We all have the understanding that if something is off limits then there is a reason, either mechanically, story-wise, or just because the DM isn't familiar with it yet. In other words we all assume 'DMs Discretion' on everything, even things out of the PHB (or other core book if we're playing a different RPG).

For example in the game I am running currently, I was not allowing Psionic classes of any sort, even though I have the PHB3 and Psionic Power on the shelf. I recently, due to story reasons, allowed one player to shift his character (after some trials he will have to complete) from a Swordmage to a Battlemind. 

I'm also not allowing Minotaurs, Gith, Wilden, Shardminds, Shifters, Devas, Drow, Tieflings, Revenants, Vryloka, Shades, and many of the other races from the recently released splatbooks (even though I do have them and have read up on everything), nor am I allowing Shadow classes, the Runepriest, or Dragon Sorcerers. I am also only allowing themes on a case by case basis right now. All for story reasons due to the way my homebrew setting is. My players know this, and are fine with it because they know that my reasons are grounded within the story of my setting. If I gave them my reasons it may ruin the story for them and that is the aspect they seem to enjoy the most. I will admit in some cases that it's actually because I have yet to figure out where and how these races and classes fit into my setting, but I would say that's only true for the Wilden, Shardminds, and Gith though.

As for magic items, well, my setting is low magic and again my players know this are are fine with it. I use inherent bonuses, and they know they can't just go to the corner market and buy a Longsword of Frost. Feats and Powers I'm pretty much hands off. I give certain feats for free so that the players have an easier time taking feats that match their concept. This happened after many complaints that they felt like they couldn't build towards concept because of feat taxes.

I am no different when one of the others at my table DMs/GMs/Storytells/etc. I always run everything I take for my character by the person running the game to ensure that it's okay. I hate having my game disrupted, so I do everything in my power to not disrupts other's games. I guess ultimately me and my group never feel 'entitled' to anything just because it's in a book. We are all in the mindset that you have to have approval to run something in someone's game and that everyone, even the DM (or whatever), is supposed to have fun. I was under the impression that most gaming groups were like this. Guess I was wrong.    
I've only been playing since the mid-80's but the players I know who were playing back in the 70's were the first ones to house rule in anything they or anybody else wanted. There was so little printed material for them they ended up accepting just about any proposal and simply running with it.

I do agree that the focus needs to be on the group as a whole, though. Nobody likes being anybody else's puppet on a string or cymbal banging monkey. The game needs to assume everybody has put their ego aside, for the good of the game.
I am not very active on the forums but I am sure this has been discussed. I have been playing D&D since the late 70's and every incarnation of the rules. In my experience there has been a major yet subtle shift in attitude toward the game as a whole. When I started there was very little printed material outside of the core books and modules.... The DM created the world and was the final judge on what was acceptable and what was not. However, as times have changed I have seen this attitude change, even among my old gaming friends. There is now a clear feeling by most players that if something is in a book he/she is “entitled” to have access to it.  What are your thoughts? 

I think there have been changes to the games, themselves, that have influenced this supposed sense of 'entitlement.'

I too remember when the DM's word was law, and the idea that you could expect a given race/class/spell/item/whatever to be available to your PC simply because it saw print somewhere was laughable.  But, games were very different back then.  They were, well, primitive.  The hobby was brand new and RPG design wasn't a science or an art, more just a shot in the dark.   The DM made the game, almost litterally, picking and choosing from among the stuff Gygax &Co threw at the wall, and deciding what would stick to his campaign world.  Great DMs made awesome games, and less-than-great DMs made awful ones (that were still fun in their sheer novelty). 


While a lot changed in the broader hobby as time marched on, not that much changed for D&D, until WotC, d20, and 3e.   3e may still be criticised for being poorly balanced and suffering from a lot of vague or abuseable rules and so foth, but, compared to classic D&D, it was more consistent and playable than ever.  A 3e DM following the CR guidelines might sometimes TPK with a 'filler' encounter or watch his players roll over a 'climactic' one, but at least he /had/ guidelines.  The rules were playable by "RAW," you didn't need the DM to go over them and 'fix' and mod them into something that could be played.  You still needed to be a pretty good DM to hold a campaign together for any length of time, but it was a much more accessible, much more playable-out-of-the-box game than it had been. 

Thus 3e DMs didn't keep such a tight rein on the rules or elements that were allowed into his games.  Players, OTOH, had a great many more customization options than before, and would be dissapointed if a 'build' was rendered impossible by a controlling DM banning a critical element of it.

Finally, 3e had built-in 'rewards for system mastery' - that is, it was "broken" or 'imbalanced,' but not by accident.  Part of it's appeal is that it was designed to allow players to make more powerful characters the better they got at the task of character-creation.  D&D had always tapped into a sort of 'reward' mechanism, with levels, treasure, and magic items rewarding you for continued successful play.  3e took it to another level by rewarding skillful chargen.  If any one thing drove the shift in attitude you're percieving, it was that. 


It seems at times as if 5e is trying to shift the attitude back to where it was.  And, yeah, that may not really be possible.  Making 5e like classic D&D - that is, making it primitive and unplayable without skillful DM intervention - doesn't seem like the greatest idea.  Making it DM-customizeable, which seems more likely, would certainly put some of the 'power' back in the DMs' hands.  It would also tend to dissapoint players who might feel the need to 'shop arround' for campaigns in which the characters they want to play 'work.' 

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

How about, at the start of the start of the rulebook in the "What is roleplaying?" section"

"The first decision your gaming group needs to make is, who is in charge of creating the world and setting the guidelines for the campaig. Is your group democratic, with all players and the DM having equal votes and the building of the world something everyone has to put some effort into? Is the DM the first among equals, basically the tiebreaker vote and the default world builder if no one else volunteers? Or is the DM the controller of the campaign world with the sole responsibility to create something that will surprise and delight the players?

All of these approaches can work, but it's best if the whole gaming group agrees on the choice."



If anyone doesn't think I made all three of the options sound equally good, feel free to rewrite so they are. That was my intent, that all three be presented as equally viable options.

That said, I think WOTC would be a lot better off if they deliver on their promise to officially support choices. And by that I mean empowering the players to say "no we won't play with that" and empowering the DM to help decisions stick. They don't have to shove it down our throats but just adding qualifying statements to options like "DM's discretion" helps define the attitude folks have toward published material. It makes it clear that not every game will include it.




This is well said. There needs to be a middle ground between the general statment at the opening of a book and filling it with "DM's discretion" disclaimers.  

I agree.  I think a clear cut "This is core" and "This is optional" helps.  Also, if you're going to include optional stuff maybe even stick the optional stuff elsewhere so that people know that it isn't part of the core rules.  I think 3e did it in the side panels of the book which was good because it was distinguishable from the core content.  

Also, I've found in the last couple of editions that the middle ground has become a landfill of additional books filled with crazy races that no one will play and classes that are either broken (both ends of the scale) or are just out of place in all but a very specific setting.  Just stop!  Don't add all this new crap to Core!  Don't give me 3 PHBs with all sorts of junk in them. If it's good enough to stand on its own, put it in the first Core PHB and make everything after that optional. 
A largely agree with everything that's been submitted here, however, Dungeons & Dragons will never have the capacity to assist in shaping the social contracts, sharing and trust in each other's fun that the game assumes its players to have.

Seemingly, the hobby is at a loss for savvy, grown-up communicators who understand cooperation, mutual respect, collaboration and positive support. 


I'm not sure an overarching "Edition to end all editions will be the key" due to cultural changes in D&D players (and I guess the development team) the last 30 or 40 years.  These days people are rewarded for very little effort so expect more when they when they exert themselves and the recent editions have pandered to that.  In short, people have become lazy and I don't believe D&D can neccessarily fix that.  Back when I first started playing D&D, it was fun because we made it fun.  It had nothing to do what edition we were playing.  

I guess my recommendations would be: 


  • Don't make this edition a rehash of the past because then you will repeat the same mistakes.  Make something that can stand on its own 2 feet.  I'm not sure if it has been asked but I think the starting point shouldn't focus on "what stuff in previous editions did you like" because it is starting to feel like I'm being given 75 pieces of 5 different jigsaw puzzles and being asked what the picture looks like.  

  • Make a core set and anything else that comes after that is purely optional.  

  • If you have a fragile system that relies on too many conditions to stop it from breaking, don't just place limitations around stuff because it screws everything.  You need to change the way you think and alter how the added rules (i.e. magic items) can operate to support the system and add flavor.  Otherwise you limit the possible stories that DMs can tell.   

  • Don't give us "DMs guidelines" on how to make things fun and then pack it with junk we won't use.  We know how to make things fun or we get voted off the island.

  • Give us a book with the rules that the players need to know to play (PHB) and the non-player rules in the DMG.  If the DM doesn't like them or doesn't want to play them then it is up to them.  The DM should be the game admin, not everyone at the table being an admin and the DM being relegated to "The Monster Player".




How about, at the start of the start of the rulebook in the "What is roleplaying?" section"

"The first decision your gaming group needs to make is, who is in charge of creating the world and setting the guidelines for the campaig. Is your group democratic, with all players and the DM having equal votes and the building of the world something everyone has to put some effort into? Is the DM the first among equals, basically the tiebreaker vote and the default world builder if no one else volunteers? Or is the DM the controller of the campaign world with the sole responsibility to create something that will surprise and delight the players?

All of these approaches can work, but it's best if the whole gaming group agrees on the choice."



If anyone doesn't think I made all three of the options sound equally good, feel free to rewrite so they are. That was my intent, that all three be presented as equally viable options.



I think this would be an awesome addition to any game book. Well said.  
How about, at the start of the start of the rulebook in the "What is roleplaying?" section"

"The first decision your gaming group needs to make is, who is in charge of creating the world and setting the guidelines for the campaig. Is your group democratic, with all players and the DM having equal votes and the building of the world something everyone has to put some effort into? Is the DM the first among equals, basically the tiebreaker vote and the default world builder if no one else volunteers? Or is the DM the controller of the campaign world with the sole responsibility to create something that will surprise and delight the players?

All of these approaches can work, but it's best if the whole gaming group agrees on the choice."



If anyone doesn't think I made all three of the options sound equally good, feel free to rewrite so they are. That was my intent, that all three be presented as equally viable options.



I think this would be an awesome addition to any game book. Well said.  

I second that.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

How about, at the start of the start of the rulebook in the "What is roleplaying?" section"

"The first decision your gaming group needs to make is, who is in charge of creating the world and setting the guidelines for the campaig. Is your group democratic, with all players and the DM having equal votes and the building of the world something everyone has to put some effort into? Is the DM the first among equals, basically the tiebreaker vote and the default world builder if no one else volunteers? Or is the DM the controller of the campaign world with the sole responsibility to create something that will surprise and delight the players?

All of these approaches can work, but it's best if the whole gaming group agrees on the choice."



If anyone doesn't think I made all three of the options sound equally good, feel free to rewrite so they are. That was my intent, that all three be presented as equally viable options.



I think this would be an awesome addition to any game book. Well said.  

I second that.


Thirded!

These days people are rewarded for very little effort so expect more when they when they exert themselves and the recent editions have pandered to that.  In short, people have become lazy and I don't believe D&D can neccessarily fix that.  Back when I first started...

Every generation has felt this way about those that followed them.    Heck, after they invented fire, the elder Homo Erectus probably sat around it, complaining how lazy and entitled it had made their kids...  ;)

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

These days people are rewarded for very little effort so expect more when they when they exert themselves and the recent editions have pandered to that.  In short, people have become lazy and I don't believe D&D can neccessarily fix that.  Back when I first started...

Every generation has felt this way about those that followed them.    Heck, after they invented fire, the elder Homo Erectus probably sat around it, complaining how lazy and entitled it had made their kids...  ;)



I seem to recall an Aristotle or was it a Plato Quote about ... music too loud and there dancing too wild and the whole schpiel and could have been a direct quote from a member of the 50s generation of kids's parents about when rock and roll was born it was hilarious.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Or is the DM the controller of the campaign world with the sole responsibility to create something that will surprise and delight the players?

This is how I've always played the game and how I wish to continue playing the game. I am first and foremost a storyteller and a world-builder. I invite my players to sit back and enjoy the ride. I expect the same when I join another DM's campaign.

I think of it more like going to watch a play; you don't get up in the middle and start telling the director how to run his play...that's rude.

Now, with all that said, I can totally see how some people think of it as just a game where everyone has equal say in the direction (like a collaboration). That's fine for them...I just don't enjoy that style of play — "Too many cooks..." as they say... 

D&D Next - Basic and Expert Editions

I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.

Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.


Here's a mockup of the Basic Set I created.



(CLICK HERE TO VIEW LARGER IMAGE)
  

Basic Set

This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).

The Basic boxed set contains:

Quick Start Rules
A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms.

Player's Handbook
(Softcover, 125 pages)
Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level.

Dungeon Master's Guide

(Softcover, 125 pages)
Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.

Monster Manual
(Softcover, 100 pages)
Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D. 

Introductory Adventure
(Keep on the Borderlands)
An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.

Also includes: 

Character Sheets
Reference Sheets
Set of Dice


Expert Set

A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:

Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.)
Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.)
Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)


Expansions

These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.) 

Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book)
Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book)
Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book)
The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)





A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage

A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points

In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...

What are hit points?
The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.

So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then?
It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.

But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target?
Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.

Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact?
Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.

If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent?
Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.

Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack?
It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.

What about poison and other types of non-combat damage?
Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.

If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages?
Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.

What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points?
If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.

Why are monsters killed immediately and not players?
Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.

What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage?
If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).

Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded?
See below.
 

Damage and Dying

Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.

  1. Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly. 
  2. Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
  3. If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
  4. Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.

Unharmed: 1 hp or more
Wounded: 0 hp or less
Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level)
Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)

Wounded
When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.

Incapacitated
Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).

If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.

If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.

Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.

Dead
Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.

My feelings on this issue match yours Bhaelfire, But the fanbase seems to be divided on the issue, and that divide seems to be on edition lines; so I think acknowledging there are different ways to approach it and that they are all equally valid as long as everyone knows what they are getting into is a good way of bridging that divide.
 
Now, with all that said, I can totally see how some people think of it as just a game where everyone has equal say in the direction (like a collaboration). That's fine for them...I just don't enjoy that style of play — "Too many cooks..." as they say... 



You  merged...a laissez faire "its just a game" with its an awesome work of collaboration where everyone is involved in creating a work of art - no... they arent the same.

And you made your ideal sound like the players are passive  ... who wants to be passive. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

"And you made your ideal sound like the players are passive  ... who wants to be passive. "

Depends on what you mean by "passive". Sometimes players just want to show up, pull out their character sheet, order a pizza, kick some Ogre butt, laugh at their friend who rolled a badly timed "1". cheer their friend who rolled a well timed "20",  write "500 gold" on their character sheet and then put it back in a folder and not think about it until next week.

And that's FUN for them. Don't dismiss it because your players have a different approach.
How about, at the start of the start of the rulebook in the "What is roleplaying?" section"

"The first decision your gaming group needs to make is, who is in charge of creating the world and setting the guidelines for the campaig. Is your group democratic, with all players and the DM having equal votes and the building of the world something everyone has to put some effort into? Is the DM the first among equals, basically the tiebreaker vote and the default world builder if no one else volunteers? Or is the DM the controller of the campaign world with the sole responsibility to create something that will surprise and delight the players?

All of these approaches can work, but it's best if the whole gaming group agrees on the choice."



If anyone doesn't think I made all three of the options sound equally good, feel free to rewrite so they are. That was my intent, that all three be presented as equally viable options.



I think this would be an awesome addition to any game book. Well said.  



This,

So VERY much THIS!

If only more people understood that these three styles don't actually need different RULES, just different social contracts around the gaming table, then I think the whole "DM vs Player empowerment" argument would evaporate like dewdrops in the sunshine.
     

How about, at the start of the start of the rulebook in the "What is roleplaying?" section"

"The first decision your gaming group needs to make is, who is in charge of creating the world and setting the guidelines for the campaig. Is your group democratic, with all players and the DM having equal votes and the building of the world something everyone has to put some effort into? Is the DM the first among equals, basically the tiebreaker vote and the default world builder if no one else volunteers? Or is the DM the controller of the campaign world with the sole responsibility to create something that will surprise and delight the players?

All of these approaches can work, but it's best if the whole gaming group agrees on the choice."



If anyone doesn't think I made all three of the options sound equally good, feel free to rewrite so they are. That was my intent, that all three be presented as equally viable options.



I think this would be an awesome addition to any game book. Well said.  



This,

So VERY much THIS!

If only more people understood that these three styles don't actually need different RULES, just different social contracts around the gaming table, then I think the whole "DM vs Player empowerment" argument would evaporate like dewdrops in the sunshine.
     




The main problem is the rules are set up to enable the "DM may I?" style of play. So it would literally be a house rule to allow the player some empowerment...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Players have the ultimate empowerment. They empower the DM.

Much like democratic politicians, DMs serve at the will of the people. That doesn't mean the people write the legislation; it means they reserve the right to choose or remove the legislator.

Same thing with DMs. I serve as the absolute authority of my D&D game because that's what my players want.

That is as valid an approach as any other, and that should be reflected in the available choices. As should yours. Equally.
 Don't dismiss it because your players have a different approach.



And "Its just a game" is a far better description of what you just elaborated.. how about that.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Its about not conflating things that arent the same.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I think the problem here is seeing players expecting to be able to use published options as spoiled babies, as opposed to player empowerment and DM-is-not-God as a valid preference with over a 10 year history in D&D.
...whatever
Help me out here Garthanos, what are we actually disagreeing about? I'm not getting it from the single line posts.
 I serve as the absolute authority of my D&D game because that's what my players want



Which is exactly why I have absolute control, because it's what my players expect and want. They like interacting with my stories, and thus want to keep things running as smoothly as possible when it comes to game mechanics. Easiest way for us to do that is to have one person (the DM) who says 'yes' or 'no' and the rest goes with the rules call that is made.

As for the players being passive in this sort of siuation, they aren't. They know that their characters have full effect on the world around them (they made me completely rethink two of my encounters once due to an idea their characters came up with). Also, the division is not along edition lines. We play 4th edition, yet as I stated before, the players are of the mindset that they have to get DM approval before playing/using anything, they don't feel entitled by any stretch. 

Help me out here Garthanos, what are we actually disagreeing about? I'm not getting it from the single line posts.



The poster conflated "its just a game" attitude with "collaborative storytelling", very different things.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

You  merged...a laissez faire "its just a game" with its an awesome work of collaboration where everyone is involved in creating a work of art - no... they arent the same.

By "just a game" I meant everyone collaborates like a board game. There's no impetus to create a "work of art" with a collaboration...it just means people get together to share ideas. If it turns out awesome, cool.

And you made your ideal sound like the players are passive  ... who wants to be passive. 

I made no such suggestion. I said I'm a storyteller and a world-builder; I like to build worlds, then invite my friends to come enjoy playing in them. They are actively exploring and interacting with the worlds and stories I create. There's nothing passive about it.
D&D Next - Basic and Expert Editions

I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.

Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.


Here's a mockup of the Basic Set I created.



(CLICK HERE TO VIEW LARGER IMAGE)
  

Basic Set

This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).

The Basic boxed set contains:

Quick Start Rules
A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms.

Player's Handbook
(Softcover, 125 pages)
Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level.

Dungeon Master's Guide

(Softcover, 125 pages)
Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.

Monster Manual
(Softcover, 100 pages)
Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D. 

Introductory Adventure
(Keep on the Borderlands)
An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.

Also includes: 

Character Sheets
Reference Sheets
Set of Dice


Expert Set

A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:

Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.)
Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.)
Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)


Expansions

These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.) 

Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book)
Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book)
Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book)
The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)





A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage

A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points

In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...

What are hit points?
The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.

So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then?
It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.

But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target?
Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.

Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact?
Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.

If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent?
Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.

Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack?
It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.

What about poison and other types of non-combat damage?
Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.

If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages?
Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.

What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points?
If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.

Why are monsters killed immediately and not players?
Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.

What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage?
If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).

Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded?
See below.
 

Damage and Dying

Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.

  1. Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly. 
  2. Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
  3. If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
  4. Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.

Unharmed: 1 hp or more
Wounded: 0 hp or less
Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level)
Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)

Wounded
When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.

Incapacitated
Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).

If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.

If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.

Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.

Dead
Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.

Ahh. Yes, I think I see where we read that differently. I have added punctuation to illustrate the differences

You read it as "I can totally see how some people think of it as just a game, where everyone has equal say in the direction (like a collaboration)."

ie, "just a game" and "like a collaboration" as two things being compared

I read it as "I can totally see how some people think of it as just "a game where everyone has equal say in the direction" (like a collaboration)."

ie, "just" meaning "simply" and "a game ... (like a collaboration)" as the object being described.

I can't say what the original poster intended to mean, but I can certainly see where our reading it diverged.

Tricksy language, English. Nasty punctuations, confuses us it does my preciousss...



here's no impetus to create a "work of art" with a collaboration.. 



Bull crapola...  Not at all like a board game... what does collaborating have to do with board games? You arent creating anything in a board game... 

Collaboration can be very much an attempt to create a work of  art and is always about achieving something as a group that cant be done singularly.

The DM as sole artist puts me in passive watch it mode.... boo...
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I disagree that we need mechanics to break down this social divide.

We DO need better clarity in the rules and systems to reduce pressure on the DM and remove the "DM may I" syndrome from the game, but that's not directly related to this point.

Everything from "DM as god" through to "full co-constructed world" is possible under the same rules system.   
I disagree that we need mechanics to break down this social divide.

We DO need better clarity in the rules and systems to reduce pressure on the DM and remove the "DM may I" syndrome from the game, but that's not directly related to this point.

Everything from "DM as god" through to "full co-constructed world" is possible under the same rules system.   



I agree, they just need to ditch all the references to ask the DM, or where it says things like 'the players describe what they do and you tell them what happens' or any other kind of weird DM is God stuff. Then just have a section in both the PHB and the DMG that explains the different types of games, and tells everyone to talk to their DM and players to find out what kind of style the game should be...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Ahh. Yes, I think I see where we read that differently. I have added punctuation to illustrate the differences

You read it as "I can totally see how some people think of it as just a game, where everyone has equal say in the direction (like a collaboration)."

ie, "just a game" and "like a collaboration" as two things being compared

I read it as "I can totally see how some people think of it as just "a game where everyone has equal say in the direction" (like a collaboration)."

ie, "just" meaning "simply" and "a game ... (like a collaboration)" as the object being described.

I can't say what the original poster intended to mean, but I can certainly see where our reading it diverged.

Tricksy language, English. Nasty punctuations, confuses us it does my preciousss...





Sure but lets look at his other post... where somehow a collaboration is a board game?   He is dissing others play styles.

To Collaborate
"to work with another or others on a joint project" 

What project do you think a collaborative roleplaying might be other than a "experience".
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Lots of boardgames are collaborative efforts. Interestingly, most of them are also Dungeon crawlers.

I'm fairly certain he wasn't intending to diss your playstyle any more than is required by expressing an opinion that a different one is preferable.
I think the problem here is seeing players expecting to be able to use published options as spoiled babies, as opposed to player empowerment and DM-is-not-God as a valid preference with over a 10 year history in D&D.




(citation needed)


I'm fairly certain you can't back that up, since in 3E, the DM was just as much omnipotent and in control as in 2E.


It has a very long history in tabletop RPGs, no question.  But in D&D, it's basically new in 4E.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
Lots of boradgames are collaborative efforts.  



In what fashion? I roll a die and move the monopoly piece around the board (the VAST MAJORIITY) is not somebody making a project.... its a bull poo comparison.

Again asserting one thing is something utterly different than it is.

The fact that there are a very few non-competitive board games... which is exactly what collaborative implies should be a sign.
 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I think the problem here is seeing players expecting to be able to use published options as spoiled babies, as opposed to player empowerment and DM-is-not-God as a valid preference with over a 10 year history in D&D.




(citation needed)


I'm fairly certain you can't back that up, since in 3E, the DM was just as much omnipotent and in control as in 2E.


It has a very long history in tabletop RPGs, no question.  But in D&D, it's basically new in 4E.


It was a cultural phenomenon in 3E. 3E players came to expect to be able to use whatever was in books, core or non-core. The books didn't enable or encourage it, but it still happened to a significant degree.
...whatever


I play 4E where the rules are so finely crafted and balanced that I as a DM don't have to worry about arbitration except in the rare case of something not being covered and then I just flip to page 42 in that case.

This allows me to free up brain power for story telling, play acting, NPC and monster optimization, plot arcing, and other things that are actually the DMs job.

In my view a carpenter that has to constantly forge their own tools is much worse off than one that buys their pre-made tools cheaply at a local store or online. Guess which carpenter gets more done?Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I think the problem here is seeing players expecting to be able to use published options as spoiled babies, as opposed to player empowerment and DM-is-not-God as a valid preference with over a 10 year history in D&D.




(citation needed)


I'm fairly certain you can't back that up, since in 3E, the DM was just as much omnipotent and in control as in 2E.


It has a very long history in tabletop RPGs, no question.  But in D&D, it's basically new in 4E.



Huh 4e hints at it a bit.. but the DM is pretty much still king hes just been taught to be more considerate.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."