D&D 4E What Aspects of 4E Made It into 5E?

[pemerton]

Are you talking about things like "I, as DM, didn't think about or establish whether or not there's a chandelier in this room. Therefore, when the player asked if there was one to swing from, I decided there was because it was cooler"?

If so, I agree. If there's a detail I hadn't already specified--at least in my own head, if not out loud--and it makes even a bit of sense, I'll usually try to incorporate it if the players' actions warrant.

If that's not what you meant, could you clarify?

As a reply to [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], I was alluding to discussions in the current "worldbuilding" threads - which he had alluded to in the post that I replied to.

With less allusion and more literalness: the more precise/detailed the framing, then (everything else being equal) the less "creative"/"imaginative" the action declarations will be, and the more "tactical"/"wargaming". That's painting in very broad brushtrokes - but contrasts would be resolving a 4e skill challenge (which relies upon a capacity on the GM to narrate and re-frame in response to action declarations and resolutions, and thus upon a lack of detail in initial framing) vs playing through Tomb of Horrors.

Here's a passage from Paul Czege that expresses the same idea in a particular context (dealing with NPCs - I've boled the key sentence), and also suggests that it's not always about "saying 'yes'":

[W]hen I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. We've had a group character session, during which it was my job to find out what the player finds interesting about the character. And I know what I find interesting. I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​

 

[Arilyn]

Teaching DMs to lie to their players, or allowing it to happen without calling it out, is bad for the community. That's how you end up with paranoid players who can't trust their DMs, and then you can't play the game anymore because the entire game concept hinges on that trust.

Where are all these paranoid players? Where are these groups that are dissolving, because the GM made something up on the spot that made the players cool? I have seen no evidence of this. Has anyone?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The entire game is predicated on a group of people agreeing to lie to each other. When I say, "Vallard the Valiant stabs the goblin", not one word of that sentence is true.

If you're the DM, then what you say is true within the context of the game world.

The game world may be an imaginary place, but that doesn't make its reality any less objective. Either the Vallard stabbed the goblin, or did not. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Where are all these paranoid players? Where are these groups that are dissolving, because the GM made something up on the spot that made the players cool? I have seen no evidence of this. Has anyone?

They were substantially more common in the late eighties and early nineties. You can see evidence of it by examining games of the time, many of which had rules addressing the matter. By and large, the community has improved over time, as players have become more considerate and cheaters have been called out on their shenanigans.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

If you're the DM, then what you say is true within the context of the game world.

Corollary A: If what you say is true, then it is not a lie. Corollary B: A thing is neither true nor false until you say it is.

The game world may be an imaginary place, but that doesn't make its reality any less objective. Either the Vallard stabbed the goblin, or did not. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

I do not think "disingenuous" means what you think it means.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Corollary A: If what you say is true, then it is not a lie. Corollary B: Nothing is either true or false until you say it is.

Point A is true. Point B is false.

The reality of the game world exists even before the DM states it publicly. It must, or else the DM wouldn't know how to declare it. Whether that determination takes place immediately before the declaration (i.e. the DM hadn't thought about it, and needs to make a judgment call on the spot) or weeks/months/years before (when the DM is generating maps and notes for the future) is not terribly relevant. The only important aspect of that determination is that it is made honestly, based on the DMs understanding of the world and how it works; and that it doesn't depend on meta-game factors, such as what the player might think is a "cool" idea right now. Meta-gaming is cheating, and explicitly against the rules of the game.

I do not think "disingenuous" means what you think it means.

I think you are being disingenuous in that statement.

 

[Bradley Hindman]

Teaching DMs to lie to their players, or allowing it to happen without calling it out, is bad for the community. That's how you end up with paranoid players who can't trust their DMs, and then you can't play the game anymore because the entire game concept hinges on that trust.

I feel like I have wandered into a long running argument that I had no part in starting. Who said anything about lying? I was talking about ambiguity, specifically about objects in the environment whose location or existence had not yet been fixed in the narrative. Even in games that use gridded maps and miniatures, the location and existence of every object in a scene can't be described during an initial set up. Sure a table may be described as full of cutlery and plates of food, but the DM can't describe every fork and spoon. If the existence of a particular piece of crockery becomes important, the referee must make decisions on the spot. So, how is giving an answer that enables something interesting to happen a lie?

 

[Bradley Hindman]

Point A is true. Point B is false.

The reality of the game world exists even before the DM states it publicly. It must, or else the DM wouldn't know how to declare it. Whether that determination takes place immediately before the declaration (i.e. the DM hadn't thought about it, and needs to make a judgment call on the spot) or weeks/months/years before (when the DM is generating maps and notes for the future) is not terribly relevant. The only important aspect of that determination is that it is made honestly, based on the DMs understanding of the world and how it works; and that it doesn't depend on meta-game factors, such as what the player might think is a "cool" idea right now. Meta-gaming is cheating, and explicitly against the rules of the game.

You seem to assume that everyone runs a purely simulationist game. Our group doesn't. The emergent story is of far more interest to us. Besides, if as a DM I must choose between two equally likely possibilities, every time I will pick the one that leads to the more interesting result. In fact, I think its my job to do so. My goal as a DM is to maximize everyone's fun.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If the existence of a particular piece of crockery becomes important, the referee must make decisions on the spot. So, how is giving an answer that enables something interesting to happen a lie?

You need to ask yourself, as the DM, are you making the determination because that's your honest best understanding for what makes sense in the world? Or are you making that determination because it will enable something "interesting" to happen?

The role of the DM is to be honest. When you instead try to make something "interesting" happen by taking player ideas into account, that's meta-gaming, which is against the rules for a very good reason.

When you make determinations based on enabling (or disabling) player ideas, the players are forced to second-guess everything they say and do based on how it might affect the state of the world. It makes the game world less of an objective reality. The player is dragged out of the role of their character who exists in an objective world (where the layout of the room exists independently of your preferences and observations), and forced into the role of the player at the table (where you can inadvertently affect the layout of the room by the way in which you interact with the DM in the real world).

 

[Caliban]

The role of the DM is to be honest.

Wrong. That is only your opinion. Nothing more. The way you play isn't the only way.

When you instead try to make something "interesting" happen by taking player ideas into account, that's meta-gaming, which is against the rules for a very good reason.

Or it's being a good DM and trying to make sure everyone has an enjoyable time. A goal you may not share, but it is a valid playstyle and goal that a lot of people aspire too.

When you make determinations based on enabling (or disabling) player ideas, the players are forced to second-guess everything they say and do based on how it might affect the state of the world. It makes the game world less of an objective reality. The player is dragged out of the role of their character who exists in an objective world (where the layout of the room exists independently of your preferences and observations), and forced into the role of the player at the table (where you can inadvertently affect the layout of the room by the way in which you interact with the DM in the real world).

In your opinion. And your opinion is not objective reality. Or even true outside of your own subjective reality.

So why don't you stop trying to tell other people how to play their own private games?