Community

Apr 19, 2012 -- 6:58PM, Dilias wrote:

As I read through various threads here one thing that keeps popping up but never really gets defined is who should be in control of the game. The quick answer is the DM or the DM along with the players but one of the less articulated changes in the game is how the players have gained more control up to third edition at least. I am not that familiar with 4^th and the system is very different from the previous ones so I cannot accurately comment on it.

4th edition countinued the trend of 'empowering' (stupid word) players and making the DM's job easier.  In 4e, players can make/buy items more or less at whim and provide the DM with a wish list.  The DM didn't need to worry about what items they were getting much (beyond keeping current on errata), since items were no longer game-breaking (in Essentials that's slightly less the case, with uncommon and rare items returned to the DMs domain, and requiring some DM oversight lest they prove imbalancing).  In 4e, every aspect of your character - stats, class, race, skills, feats, spells/exploits/prayers/etc, background, description, even in-game rationales for how any of those 'work' - is under your control.  You play the character you want and describe it as you envision.  

With the players taking care of so much on their end, 4e is also the easiest game to DM.  DMing is still much more involved then playing, but it's great to see more people taking up that challenge now that it's a bit less daunting.  

And, with the 'plot power' of dailies in the hands of every player (Essentials: almost every player), that new power ('narrative control') to the players is also shared out among the players.  You don't see one player out of a group dominating play so often with 4e.   Even when you do, it's a matter of personality not usually backed up by mechanical dominance of the character the assertive player has chosen.

So my question is where should 5^th edition fall on this scale?

I'd like to see it stay over on the far end towards having the players share as much of the 'burden' (and fun) of exerting narrative control as possible.

I find it very interesting that far and away the largest response was people who wanted more control/knowledge on the player end (like the later editions). The character development piece is the most complex to me. I like all the options and the ability to create a character any way I wish. With all the variety, comes a lot of headaches for the DM and other players. Balance becomes an issue for some players and certain builds negate some challenges that a DM may want to use. Also once you have exposed the player base to this variety it is kind of hard to put the genie back in the bottle. I think it is this dynamic that seems to have the folks concerned with balance unhappy yet to forego dynamic character classes would leave a bunch of other folks unhappy. Also for all the concern I have seen about spell casters it seems that having the selection of spells controlled by the DM is not a path that people want to go.  With the players “empowered” this relives the DM of control and shifts it to the players who receive it from the system its self. This means that the primary limiting factor is what is published. So does that mean that people would prefer a huge number of available options, which would by its very nature create problems with balancing? Or would it be preferred that the number of options be reined in which would be less dynamic but more balanced?

Apr 20, 2012 -- 4:42PM, Dilias wrote:

This means that the primary limiting factor is what is published. So does that mean that people would prefer a huge number of available options, which would by its very nature create problems with balancing? Or would it be preferred that the number of options be reined in which would be less dynamic but more balanced?

Large numbers of options aren't innately imbalanced, it's just that each new option presents the designer with a challenge: make the option unique, make it desireble, and keep it - and each interaction it may have with any other option - balanced.  In order to make a new option unique and desireable, it's easy to just make it better.  At that point, adding the option reduces the number of real options, by crowding out existing ones.  

So the question is never 'more options' or 'more balance,' it's 'more balanced options,' or 'fewer meaningful options.'  There is never 'more options but less balance,' because lack of balance destroys options faster than it creates them.