One of the more interesting things that has emerged, IMHO,
from the recent D&D-Next playtests are the opinions about DM power—that is,
the amount of “say” a DM has over the game and the players’ actions.
I’ve been playing D&D in one form or another for a long
time, since 1977 in fact, so it’d be foolish to think that my experience with
older editions hasn’t had an effect. It has. Some things in the recent
playtest, like getting back all hit
points after an overnight rest, seem ridiculous to me because I was “raised” on
a system in which you got back one
hit point per day (which now strikes me as equally ridiculous). But I digress.
(More comments about ‘Next to come soon, perhaps after the next playtest packet
later this summer.)
The complaints of a return to “Mother, may I?” are a
frequent one. The attitude seems to be: I don’t want much unknown. I want to know how fast I can run, how
far I can jump, whether I can leap from the balcony and grab that chandelier before I do it. I want to have a good
sense of the odds.
These folks also seem to be of the opinion that the DM is
there strictly as an atmosphere provider and bad-guy die roller, but little
else. The DM is not only neutral, but his job is to be the road the players
drag race on. Not much more.
I agree in spirit at least with the idea that a character
should have some idea of their own capabilities and the odds. In real life,
even if I’ve never jumped from the rooftop of one city building to another, Walking Dead style—and I certainly
haven’t—I could probably stand near the edge and have a decent sense of whether
attempting the jump was crazy or a decent risk. I know roughly how far I can
jump. In RPGs the referee is describing the scene, a scene the players can
rarely see first-hand unless illustrations are provided. And the players are
playing characters that are probably a departure from their real life form, and
guessing the ability of an imaginary person can be hard. This would seem to
make a good argument for a DM objectively calling the shots, yet shouldn’t
those players, if they are expected to play their characters well, know what
the characters themselves would know? The character would have a good sense of
their ability, just as I do standing near the edge of that rooftop, so a good
player should share in that character’s knowledge.
This is a solid argument. But like many points of view, I
fear it is often presented simply as a means to an end. If a DM is consistent
with their DC or skill-type rulings, assigning similar levels of success for
similar actions, the players swiftly learn the capabilities of their
characters. No, I fear many players are using this as a means to an end, the
end being overpowerful characters that fail at little.
I don’t blame newer players for this, because game editions have moved in this direction. Characters now have more hit points, they have more abilities (especially at-will type abilities), and they heal much faster than in earlier editions. In addition, dying is much harder. In 1e, a failed save versus poison meant you were dead, kaput, pushing up daisies. Whereas in 4e a PC with 50 hp might actually have to be reduced to negative 25 just to drop. The advent of monster CRs in 3e also led to more balanced encounters, and the idea of characters running from an encounter to save their hides is more a rarity these days. It’s a big difference from games of old, and it leads to a different player mindset.
I don’t want to wield the wide brush and say newer/younger
players are all videogame-influenced, but I think that is also a factor. A
proliferation of RPG-style and FPS videogames has led to many players being
used to a gaming experience that often involves running and shooting things
with impunity (at least until you discover online multiplayer for the first
time and are swiftly humbled) and quick resets when things go wrong. Many RPG
players are also videogamers, so it’s foolish to disregard the influence one
style of play might have over the other. This isn’t denigrating the player,
merely acknowledging the way they were “raised.” If you grow up in a 40-room
mansion, a Cape Cod style house will feel small, whereas if you’re raised in a
one-room shack the reverse will no doubt be felt.
For me, much of the fun and fantasy aspect comes from the unknown.
This can certainly be taken too far, as in DMs or games that throw a constant
stream of “weirdies” or needlessly modified monsters at the PCs for sake or
surprise alone, ruining any chance to establish a more natural, known setting.
But some unknown is absolutely needed. If the players can beat everything and
know everything, where is the challenge? Whether most players realize it or
not, the pleasure comes from those difficult challenges. It’s fun to mow down
lackeys with your +5 sword, but that gets old faster than you’d think. The
memorable encounters are when you take risks with your characters and manage to
beat difficult enemies by the narrowest of margins. Those are the times my
players remember years later, always.
