Community

I appreciated the articles, but as Zappy said, didn't take all of it too seriously.

However, reflecting on the quote called out from the OP, I can see the perspective that 4e has given tons of player authority that can't be immediately contradicted by the DM. The powers now provide them with little rules chunks that force movement, inflict conditions, create zones, generate buffs and debuffs, and more.

As a DM, I get frustrated sometimes when a player chooses a power that hamstrings a monster or seriously alters an encounter. It happens in D&DE often enough that I forcibly shuffle players each season to make sure that I'm not always running the game for 'that guy' who fails to look at the encounter from a larger perspective of the story.

Also, these little rules chunks seem quite a bit like called shots. It isn't a called shot that cannot be easily accommodated such as, "I stab the monster directly through the eye and into the brain--killing it instantly!" That sort of narrative on the part of the player might garner the response, "Okay, and how much damage does your attack cause? Oh, not enough to kill this beastie." With the power, the player is given some empowerment to authoratatively declare their actions and have some backup in the mechanical impact of the power.

I never played earlier editions; I came into D&D with 4e. So, I don't feel at all that a DM is just the rules guy. I have been a world builder, a homebrew content builder, a house-rules tester, NPC generator, game instructor, tactics prompter, and probably other things that don't come to mind right away. Even so, I can respect the idea that 4e is all about provides a great deal of player authority that cannot be immediately contradicted by a DM. 

Are there others that would comment on that subject?

edit: 4e is not "all" about one thing; I tried to fix that oversimplification above. 

Dec 31, 2011 -- 2:37AM, Incenjucar wrote:

As for the article... I don't find it informative or useful. It's just more rumor-mongering that's going to continue to sour the community.

You could call it rumor-mongering. To me, its an excercise in taking quotes out of context to build a very questionably-based, biased, and hateful position that can only further the writer's own desires to produce material for an obsolete system.

In short, its propaganda.

Dec 31, 2011 -- 1:41AM, DanTracker wrote:

Are there others that would comment on that subject?

 


I generally enjoy it when a player can undercut an encounter in an unexpected way - I mean, sure, it's frustrating, but players choosing powers that give them an edge, synergize with their group, and trash the GM's plans is, to me, pretty much the point of character creation. If they beat me - and they almost always do - then I'll just try again next time. 

One reason it doesn't bother me is that while I may have an overall adventure outline in mind (as when I'm using a prewritten module), I don't expect them to consider the larger story; the story is what we write when the adventure is over and we look back at what happened. There's no real endpoint in sight until then, and things can and likely will deviate substantially from what's written, especially if they trounce an encounter that was supposed to be hard, or negotiate instead of fight, or whatever. 

So when a player has a power that could cripple a threat, I don't expect them to say, "Yeah, but if I use it, that might screw up the story." If they decide to hold off, that's cool, but if they don't, then the story will simply include that moment. 

Also, whatever makes for less work for me, as a GM, is fantastic. The fewer rulings I need to make, the fewer "mother may I?" questions I have to answer, and the fewer times I need to decide what happens in the absence of rules, the better.


As regards the article: nothing worth discussing there.