Is 4E More “Fair”?

Recently there was some drama over on another blog, wherein the issue of fairness was a factor. One player felt the GM was not running a fair game and that the other players were suffering for it. Basically, one player was given perks, abilities and advanced gear over the other players. Reading all this, it got me to thinking…is it harder to be unfair with the 4E system?

4E has very rigid rules for character generation, treasure allocation and how powers are gained. Everything is balanced against a core baseline that causes everything to be balanced with each other (with maybe the odd minor bump here and there). The system even includes for a way to alter a player’s decisions about their character’s abilities (with the ability to swap out powers and feats when a character reaches a new level); essentially providing a means to “break” and modify the system. By having this system in place there is an unspoken restriction to arbitrary character changes; it comes across as “we the game designers and the rule set have provided you with a way to ignore and break the rules, stay within those boundaries and you’ll be fine, otherwise you are doing it wrong”.

In addition, the use of the Character Builder changes the playing field. While it is not required to play it is extremely helpful and useful when running a campaign. After awhile, it starts to act as a crutch, making things so easy that without it things become difficult. However, the Character Builder does not allow for custom additions. If a DM adds or allows for something outside the bounds of the Builder it either puts up a message stating the character is “not legal” or outright doesn’t allow for the addition. In this way, this is another method by which the game is kept “fair”.

The only way to have an “unfair” advantage is to go outside the bounds of the rules.

Earlier editions were a lot more open, or at least it seems that way to me. Treasure was random and a bunch of lucky die rolls could see a low level character running around with an artifact (when artifacts were these super-powerful things meant for high end games) far beyond their level. I remember that DMs tended to do as they wished when it came to giving out gear and abilities; it was easy and almost expected for a DM to go outside the bounds of the rules. Some would even say there were no real bounds to the rules.

In addition, as a game’s life cycle lengthened there would be more added to the system that caused balance issues. Races, classes and treasure would be added that were clearly unbalanced. I remember once being in a group where one was a vampire and the other a githyanki with all of that race’s abilities. Needless to say, my normal human druid, with horrible stat rolls, was clearly and constantly outmatched by them.

Is this perception of rigidity of the rules only a perception thing? Do we, for some unknown reason, simply expect people to adhere to the rule system of 4E? Is going outside the rules in earlier editions accepted and expected? Is 4E more of a “fair” game system by virtue of this perceived rigidity of the rules?

Or does “fairness” always fall back to the GM of the game? Does a GM’s ability to ignore rules and inject his own biases mean there is no system that can be “fair” all the time?

Quick Tip- Cheap Miniatures

Here's a way I've stretched my miniature dollars while still getting some cool looking figures. In most toy sections they have bags of critters. These tend to be rather cheap, even cheaper if you can find a good set in the Dollar Stores. They have a variety of different animal sets.
Here is a picture of one of the packages which cost me about $4. This one was of creepy crawlers and has 16 pieces. It has a wide assortment of critters in it, which could be used as large spiders, stirges, giant beetles, giant scorpions, ankhegs, giant centipedes, giant worms and other types of insects. For scale, I have included another picture on a D&D battlemap with a miniature of a minotaur for size comparison (you can click the picture for a bigger and better view).

Iconic Races

There are races that are closely defined with certain settings. When a person sees them on the cover of a RPG book they immediately think of the setting or system. This is a good thing for the publisher since it makes the potential consumer think of the setting and the memories inherent with them. There is a familiar comfortability with this. It can be a selling point all on its own.

There has been a lot of talk about integrating races into other settings. For all that, I still think certain races will forever remain tied to certain settings. For me the following races bring to mind a specific settings when I see them on a book…

Warforged- Eberron

Troll with cyberwear- Shadowrun

Drow- Forgotten Realms

Mul- Dark Sun

Vampire- Ravenloft

Are iconic races needed to help bolster a game setting? I don’t think a new race is needed to push a setting but I think it certainly helps. Would Birthright (a setting I absolutely love) or Al-Qadim have been bigger if they had their own iconic races? Will the Shadar-Kai become an iconic race (a race I believe deserves it)?

What races did I miss that immediately remind you of a setting or system?

Gamma World and the Serious

With all the talk lately about the new Gamma World rule set there was some discussion on the topic over at http://www.dragonavenue.com We were discussing the game in general and I had mentioned how my wife was running two campaigns recently in Gamma World (using the old 3^rd Edition rules-not d20). He then asked me “How did you run a serious game?  I am totally intrigued by post apocalyptic settings in novels and movies but this system just seems to cater to mutations and the “silly”. What was your wife’s campaign arc?”

Well, here it is. This is fairly long, but includes an overview of the campaign (which some people might like to steal some ideas from) and then a brief discussion on how and why it is possible to run a “serious” Gamma World game.

[More]

The Real-Time Campaign

Imagine, if you will, a RPG campaign world set in our time, in our world. The adventure tonight is one based off of something that happened within the past week, in fact, since the last time the group met to play…something that happened in the real world.

As an example, a few days ago (in the real-world) there was a massive and destructive explosion and fire in California that destroyed over 50 homes. Soon thereafter officials came out and explained how it was a gas main that caused the explosion. Other news reports picked it up and propagated the report while adding their own articles, such as how dangerous gas mains are around the country.

This real-life incident would make an excellent adventure background. Perhaps the explosion was not a gas main, but instead the result of a new type of explosive, one with incredible destructive force in the size of a pen. The device may have been set off prematurely or to cover-up the laboratory where it was designed. The players may have heard of the new explosive and have been assigned to investigate the explosion. They would need to find out who built the new explosive, secure a sample of it and then find out who is conducting the cover-up.

A campaign could be designed based off of this concept of utilizing real-world incidents and weaved into an ongoing set of adventures. Each week’s adventure would be based off of something that happened since the last game session. This would make for a dynamic and ever-changing campaign, with a feel of the “now”. There would be a unique sense of high energy. No longer would a player feel like they are in a mythical world (though in fact they still are), but rather interacting with the real world but in a fantastic milieu.

The players would need some sort of catalyst for having them investigate weekly incidents. Perhaps they work for a branch of the government, such as specialized branch of the FBI or some other secret organization. Perhaps there is a diabolical organization bent on taking over the world and most, but not all, such incidents are related to them and their plans. A GM could take it even further and rule that the incident was the work of Fey creatures who are secretly trying to disrupt our world so they can return to claim it as their own.

Adventures would have to be fairly short so they could be completed in one night of game-play. Carrying over a recent incident for several weeks will diminish the feeling of immediacy. Starting fresh would also allow for the “new” each session.

A couple of problems present themselves to me as I write this.

The first and foremost is prep. This style of new weekly adventures requires the GM to do a lot of prep work and do it frequently. Each week she would have to scour news articles and incidents to see how it can best fit into her campaign design. After that she would have to write the actual adventure. All this would require a fair amount of time, time with a definite deadline. I believe it would be more pressure filled than normal adventure prep.

Another issue is the overall concept of mixing real-world with a make-believe world. Is the integration of RPG fantasy and the real-world an uneven fit? Going back to my example about the explosion in California. At least 3 people died from the explosion. Is including their deaths trivializing their lives and deaths? Should real life tragedy and a game mix? Is it best to leave the real world out of our make-believe worlds?

If a GM and gaming group can get over these hurdles, such a campaign style would make for a dynamic and engaging game. You can’t get much more “real” than including stuff from the real world as its happening. Allowing the player characters to interact with the current news adds something extra to a game.