Michael Phillipss last blog post..Totally OMG

Unless ‘fun’ for the DM is mercilessly slaying PCs…

Chatty said: That being said, I concede that our perception of the role of the DM may differ… But if you don’t think a DM’s job is to make the game fun for your group (fun being defined by common accord within each group, NOT by shining players’ ego to a buff without a hefty effort on thier part) then we sit in opposite sides of the DM slide.

Not at all. Of course it the DM’s job to run a game that he and his player’s enjoy. I just do not think it is the be all and end all that the game should sqaurely cater to whatever the player’s want, without fair consideration to the fellow who takes the time and effort to run a game so others have a good time. The “fun” should be reciprocal.

Having played Red Box, AD&D (extensively), 3e and read/tried 4e I stand by what I said based on my feelings of the time and what I see now.

I agree that they are vastly different beasts, albeit with common roots… While 4e has been touted as ‘old-school like’ by some (including me) I discover that they remain vastly differ about many things… Competence as granted by rules is one of them.

That being said, I concede that our perception of the role of the DM may differ… But if you don’t think a DM’s job is to make the game fun for your group (fun being defined by common accord within each group, NOT by shining players’ ego to a buff without a hefty effort on thier part) then we sit in opposite sides of the DM slide.

Then again, I seriously doubt we are that different, except in our personal definition of fun.

I’m cool with that and I’d love to read a contrarian view and compare notes.

You said: @John Drake: Would you care to expand a bit on this? Where and how do you disagree? This here site has been, up until your comment, built on respectful arguments and lively discussions.

OK, for one thing I was not being particularly negative, as you ended your blog with the question of whether or not the reader thought you were full of it or not. I thought the former. Sorry if it upset you or if you did not expect to receive a non supportive response. I admit it was brief and (upon reflection) terse, so I apologise. I then had to leave for work. C’est la vie.

So to expand: the spot light has always been on PC’s ever since OD&D. A new edition is not going to fix that or change it for that matter. The DM should not be relegated to being some crazy entertainer, just to buff the egos of players.

Comparing D&D 4e to AD&D … you said:->(Nowhere is it more evident than seeing 1st level 4e characters perform feats of stealth, athletics and acrobatics that would put an AD&D level 6 Thief-Acrobat to shame.)<–

IMHO, I think is ridiculous. Nothing against 4e ( as I do think it is a good game) but it is not the same style of game AD&D was. Nor is AD&D at all like 4e. It is like trying to compare the 2008 Red Wings players with the Canadiens of ‘54. A different style of game play in a different time.

So it was really your comparisons of two distinctly different era’s of game design and game play that bugged me.

…More beneficial, if the government’s goal is to keep the city as safe as possible. If the government’s run by a control freak who can’t stand independent operatives, he might not care about wiping out 2 or 3 towns while trying to break the heroes.

Concerning town guards being Lvl. 3: remember, it’s easy to increase a monster by up to 5 levels, so the elite troops could be Lvl. 8 guards, with a mage or cleric tossed in. That would be a challenge even for low-Paragon PCs if they attack en masse.

4E handwaves a lot of the rituals used to summon creatures, making it easy for GMs to have NPCs use them without players arguing details. Major cities could have ritual scrolls for summoning crack teams of eladrin. Or calling down angels. Or animating golems.

For major protection, take a tip from the MM and have a Godforged Colossus as the secret guardian of the city. Imagine the Statue of Liberty coming to life and smacking around hooligans.

The police don’t have the ability to take down Batman 1-on-1, but a gang of them could stand a shot. Even that couldn’t take down Superman.

But they don’t need to. Batman and Superman rarely need to be “taken down”. If something goes wrong, Batman talks to the mayor, says “Yeah, sorry about that. I should have used my Batarang.” and goes on his way.

Because it’s far more beneficial to the city to let Batman and Superman destroy some property occasionally than to spend the resources required to get them off the streets, and no longer fighting bad guys.

In a “Good” campaign I run, the PCs will be given a decent amount of freedom to screw up, since the general population couldn’t do what they do. If they start to actively terrorise the town, they will be dealt with. But if they merely cause the tavern to burn down while fighting off the armies of orcs, they still fought off the armies of orcs.

If they’re not a threat, then there’s no “big stick” you can bring down if the PCs decide to start breaking laws in town. On the other hand, is it really fun to have badass town guards everywhere that can shut the PCs down when they honestly slip up? Is there a disconnect between using badass guards in one scenario and mook guards in the other?

Hmmmm…

Dave T. Games last blog post..Inq. of the Week: Funny Gaming Quotes CONTEST