A Response: Why 4E Doesn’t Feel Like D&D
This post is a response to JD Wiker on Why 4E Doesn’t Feel Like D&D.
The first point is that trying to judge a half-seen preview as representative of the entire game is a potential problem. It’s entirely possible that the impression he’s gotten is based only on the limited information currently available, and with the release of the full rules (not due until early June) those impressions will prove to be unfounded.
Second point - decrying 4E for not explicitly supporting unusual actions, while giving a pass to earlier editions seems unfair. None of the earlier editions had explicit rules for throwing sand in an opponents face, or using a spear to pole-vault. Just because 4E doesn’t have them either doesn’t make it any more or less D&D than its predecessors.
I don’t believe either of these points forms the crux of Mr. Wiker’s opinion. Rather, his article seems to decry the trend that favors the rules over empowering the DM. While I’ll agree that the trend towards increasing the authority of the ruleset has definitely occured, I disagree that the purpose of it is to disenfranchise DMs. I further disagree with the conclusion that the purpose in increasing the authority of the rule system is meant to homogenize the play experience by making all DMs the same. I do agree that it’s highly unlikely that any two DMs will run a game exactly the same, and that attempting to achieve that goal across the entire breadth of the role-playing community is impossible.
The focus of increasing rules authority in 4th Edition is to reduce the reliance on the DM to adjudicate everything. More standard options means that most PCs are capable of staying “in bounds” while still having a variety of exciting choices. Players in 4E can still go “out of bounds” - but anything that isn’t explicitly covered in the rulebook still has to be handled by the DM. Minimizing DM adjudication does indeed reduce the minimum skillset necessary to become a DM. As a result, you will likely see more DMs who are uncomfortable adjudicating things that aren’t explicitly covered by the rules. However, you will also see more DMs. By lowering the barrier to entry for DMs, 4E will likely increase the abundance of DMs. They may not hold a candle to the old guard of 1E DMs who have run thousands of campaigns and can wing an entire campaign fueled only by caffeine and pizza - but they might eventually reach that level.
Simply put, DMing is hard. Some may have an inherent gift for it, but I’d wager that the vast majority of players consider it a much more daunting task than being a player. A proof, consider how many books, blogs, or other sources are focused on “being a better player” compared to the number on “being a better DM.” Increasing the authority of the rules can take the pressure off the DM. Less pressure to perform means more opportunity to pursue advancement (through reading the aforementioned material, or simply through more practice).
To use a restaurant parallel - older editions offered a menu with three courses: appetizer, main course, and dessert. 1E offered salad for the appetizer, steak for the main course, and cheesecake for dessert. If you wanted anything different, you could make a special request to the chef - who might have the skills and supplies to accede to your request… or he might not. 4E offers a list of a couple dozen appetizers, main course, and desserts, all ready-made from the factory, just heat and eat. You can mix and match off the menu as you see fit. If none of the menu options seems worthwhile, you can still ask the chef to prepare something special. Chefs in the 4E style may be less capable of special orders than the old 1E chefs, but there are likely to be a lot more of them.
D&D is the gateway drug of the RPG community. Most players start out playing D&D, and those who become most addicted to role-playing eventually try other systems. By lowering the barrier to entry for DMs and players alike by making the rules both simpler and more expressive, Wizards has the potential to expand the relatively niche RPG market. I’ll agree that the overall quality of DMs or players may decrease as a result - but an increased market means more money for RPG publishers, which in turn can lead to more quality RPG material, more freelancing opportunities, and a more compelling role-playing experience for all involved.
Empowering DMs is a good thing. I don’t believe for a second that 4E will encourage existing empowered DMs to suddenly stop running their games as they see fit. I might believe that we’ll see an influx of players who are less comfortable with DM empowerment - especially if those empowered DMs fudge the rules to the detriment of their characters. If the DM is fudging for the sake of a better experience - increasing the enjoyment of those at the table - I don’t believe that there is any problem. If, on the other hand, the DM is fudging for his own aggrandizement at the expense of the players - I feel that the slighted players are perfectly within their rights to complain.
Finally, there is also an argument to be made - by increasing the scope and authority of the rules, it makes it easier for DMs to grasp their own empowerment via imitation. As an example, based off of the material available to date, I could probably make a pretty interesting “sand to the face” power. An encounter power (once used in an encounter, enemies are unlikely to fall for it again) requiring a standard action and access to some sort of material (dust, sand, water) and a range of 1 square. Attack roll is Dex vs Reflex. A hit results in the target being blinded, save ends. I won’t say it only took me two seconds to come up with, but it certainly wasn’t long.