I felt like answering this question (at least the why I “DM” aspect) after listening to the 4 Geeks 4e podcast, episode title “Why We Play 4e D&D”.
Before I begin, let me first say that I am a D&D fan in general. If it says D&D on it, I like it, I am a fan – though for different reasons based on the edition. If you want to run a game for me, you could name an edition and I am ready to go – played them all, like them all – know what I mean?
Also, DM-ing is what I do. I do get to play, but I DM much much more than I play.
Why I picked Up 4e
When I first heard about 4th Edition (before release), I immediately knew I was going to be running games using it. I didn’t know how the new rules would work, but it was D&D – that’s all it needed to be. I was going to be an early adopter – and along these lines, I will tell you now – if 5th Edition was announced today, I would tell you I will be buying those first books at release.
Why I Continue to “DM” 4e
1. Makes My DM-ing Life Easy – This edition is so ridiculously easy to prepare for. What this let’s me do is focus more time on the story, my NPC details and more. In addition, these days I do not have the time to prepare for games that I used to, so it helps me make it happen.
2. Custom And Balanced Monsters – The Monster Builder let’s me make my own Monsters while simultaneously assuring that they will be balanced for my players. I am not a math/numbers/mechanics guy, so this is really huge for me.
3. Balance In General – I love the balance of the game from a DM’s standpoint. I don’t care about balance from a players point of view – I have as much fun playing the weakest character in the group as I do playing the strongest, but it’s important to me as a DM because I don’t want situations where one or more players are feeling overshadowed by another. The way Roles work in this game helps with that, and everyone gets to contribute in ways that the others can’t – everyone gets just the right amount of spotlight.
What About “Playing” 4e?
I have played a lot of 4e. With that said, I am discovering that I do not enjoy 4th Edition as a player as much as I enjoy other editions. I think I would enjoy it more with the right DM. I recently backed out of a 4e campaign that I had played 17 games in – not that the DM was doing anything wrong, or that the edition has a problem – but the campaign style focused a lot on combat encounters, and not enough time on characters – our stories, backgrounds, personalities, etc.
I think 4e encourages a type of game style (combat/tactics focused) that I do not generally enjoy – it’s just a personal preferences. I don’t blame 4e for that. I run my games with a much stronger lean towards the importance of story and much less of a focus on combat – sometimes multiple sessions go by without combat in fact. So as I said, I think I would have much more fun with the right kind of game style employed.
That’s about it – I am a fan of 4e for sure. Despite the fact that I have not enjoyed playing it as much as DM’ing it, my greatest love is DM-ing and for that 4e works very very well for me 😉
I agree – it seems that 4e can push combat focused games on people, but ultimately it IS the DM’s choice how to run the game. I try to run story driven games. Many people say that and we may mean different things, so I will tell you what I mean:
1) The first session is almost always a party building session. I don’t mean making PCs, that gets done beforehand… what I mean is that we spend 2 or 3 hours cooperatively building the histories of the PCs (and sometimes the world). Cooperatively means that everyone gets to have a say and everyone agrees to the final “product.”
2) I try to run a game with many choices. The party gets to decide what we do next and in what direction they take the story. That means lots of prep for me, because I have to be able to have something ready based on what they choose. I usually have 3-4 encounters set up in different directions so that I can accommodate their choices. We don’t run 3-4 encounters in a session, I just have them ready “just in case.” Typically I will run 1 (or maybe 2) combat encounters in a single 4 hour session. Most of the time is spent role-playing.
3) I let the backgrounds of the PCs heavily influence what happens in the world. I try to offer ample options for each PC to be able to explore some unfinished business in their past, whether it is earning redemption, getting revenge, winning back the respect of their tribe, finding a long lost family member, or whatever else may be applicable to the PC. These things often drive the story – after all, the story is ABOUT the PCs, not the other way around.
4) The world goes on existing when the PCs aren’t there. What I mean is, if the party visits a town in one session, they might meet a bunch of people or do a quest for someone, or piss off someone, or get in trouble with the law (or whatever else they may do). When they go back into that area (be it weeks, months, or years later in game time) there are consequences for their actions. They will see a place that is different from what they experienced the first time. This makes the world around them dynamic and exciting. The reactions to the players being in the area again will be varied and the PCs will get to react to the reactions and once again change the game. The direction taken is based on what the PCs want to do at that time.
5) Each combat that I run has to meet some criteria: a) it must be necessary in terms of the story, b) it must be obviously meaningful to the players (though this may be revealed later), and c) if it can be avoided, there must be that option available, and if it can’t be avoided there better be a very good reason why.
These 5 things make for a very story driven game. Now I may have to go write a post on my blog to talk about this in more detail. Cheers!
I happen to really enjoy combat, but when I run games, I leave the ratio of combat to role playing up to the players. My players often role play their way out of a combat encounter but at times they just want to beat up some bad guys.
Sometimes I wonder if the reason why the rules are so combat heavy is that combat is the area where most groups are going to have a disagreement. I just remember playing “war” as a kid and the part we fought about the most and would often end the game was whether or not someone got “hit.”
The other problem I find as I read and learn about role playing is that defining good role playing is really hard. It comes down to what you and your group like and enjoy, and that varies widely from table to table.
@DMSamuel: Great post, as well as your follow up on your site ( http://www.rpgmusings.com/2010/07/running-a-story-driven-game/ )
@Sarah Darkmagic: I enjoy combat as well, but I enjoy it when it fits with the story and has a purpose. What I don’t like is when a GM feels like each game session requires there to be 2-3 combat encounters and there is essentially no way around them – when they effectively account for 90% of a game session, every session.
Great discussion. I really enjoyed the podcast that started it all. I’m a 50/50 guy. I like combat, but I like RP too. If my characters can RP their way around combat, more power to them! It’s excited when my PCs go “off script”. It challenges me as a DM and things always get more interesting that simply following what I designed or purchased as written.
I definitely agree that 4E rules tend to focus around combat, and personally, that’s fine with me as long as everyone at the table understand that there is more to the game than that.
One of the groups I recently played with (with a beginner DM) was pretty much all combat. It wasn’t necessarily intentional, it’s just that the new DM was only versed on combat encounters (and the occasional skill challenge). I would say that combat can help a lazy DM as 4E makes combat encounters so easy to improv that some DMs may be too ready to jump into the “comfort” of combat while avoiding the inherent difficulty of RP encounters.
I simply don’t care about trying to fit combats in the the game so the players can level every so often – I level them regardless of the number of combats, only when appropriate.