General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Like others have said, the communities built around 3e has had a huge impact on the ability of DM's to improve their game. There's just so much material out there all centered around 3e. That has certainly helped my game, and I doubt I'm alone in that.
One thing that I think that d20 did was hurt, at least for a while, other game development. There was a fairly lengthy period there, while the bubble lasted and perhaps a bit longer, where every game under the sun flocked to the d20 system, whether or not it really fit. In the last couple of years, the indie press games have really skyrocketed in both quantity and quality, and I think that has to do with a number of people trying d20 and then realizing that, while a fantastic rules set, is not the best for every game.
One other area that d20 really opened up is the 3rd party sources. I mean, if you want to use D&D, you can find support for your playstyle, no matter what. There is at the very least, one sourcebook or advice book that will suit your tastes.
One thing that I do think has come out of 3e is players take a much stronger look at mechanics now. Every mechanic has been hashed out, rehashed and folded, spindled and mauled repeatedly. The transparency of the rules has made evaluating mechanics a more methodical process.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Moral of the story: A blank canvas gives more creative freedom than a paint by numbers, but the quality of the art in the latter is more consistent; a blank canvas might yield an amateur Picasso or a group of stick figures and rude graffiti.
This experience is called learning. Learning by doing, making mistakes, and improving is a good way to develop skill. If a person keeps making the same bad calls over and over, then the process isn't working. Some people who DM cannot admit that they make mistakes and thus are unable to learn from them. If a paint by numbers set is required to keep the DM from being a dork then the game only has so much potential anyway.
Those are also great systems that also do the same job. How does that contradict me?
Mainly because I don't think D&D 3e offers DM's 'the tools to do, literally, anything they wanted'. It's nowhere near that flexible. Unlike more full-fledged toolkit systems like GURPS, Hero and even the d20-based M&M.
The mechanics of D&D 3e offer you the tools to do anything you want only if you want to do a fairly narrow range of things (well, 'narrows' a relative term... we always found it easy to wander places the mechanics didn't tread). Which isn't to say it's a bad game.
My group, with their love of... idiosyncratic character concepts, found it hard to match our concepts to the mechanics. In fact, we're currently converting our old 3e campaign to M&M/W&W, and it's a much better system for representing the PC's (even though they spent 13 levels as D&D 3.5e characters)
Quote:
You call "DM'ed 3e campaigns that ran successfully for years, which were turned into popular Story Hours here" evidence of it being "the wrong tool for the job""? boggle
I call it evidence of talented and experienced DM's deciding to move on from 3e because running 3e was becoming a hassle.
Quote:
Moving on after nearly a decade is completely different than finding the product inadequate.
Make no mistake, we found the product inadequate for high level play. More trouble than it was worth. Not an uncommon sentiment, from what I understand.
Quote:
I agree. Why are you bringing up such a dumb idea?
It sounded like you were implying that. My mistake.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Mainly because it increased the number of people playing the games again. There was a distinct reduction in D&D players in the dying days of 2e, and 3.x helped revitalize the market, bringing hundreds of new players in my immediate area, and who knows how many in the grand scheme of things.
More people playing = more experience in play.
More experience = better gamers.
I think it helped people become better D&D DMs. But each game is different so running a lot of 3e is not going to really make one better and running Burning Wheel or other games that are not much like D&D.
Dming is something best learned through experience. 3rd ed had more rules, yes, but those were guidelines that helped new DMs, allowing them to get their feet wet.
Also, the plethora of products served dms I played with as well as myself as sources of inspiration as much as "adventures out of the box".
Mainly because I don't think D&D 3e offers DM's 'the tools to do, literally, anything they wanted'. It's nowhere near that flexible. Unlike more full-fledged toolkit systems like GURPS, Hero and even the d20-based M&M.
You're absolutely right. I've recently started running M&M and have a lot of experience with the HERO System and they handle things very differently than 3e. 3e would never let you do anything you wanted with a character, even with a lot of supplements. How could a class and level based system? Those mechanics are by their nature limiting, that's their aim. And rightly so. Simplicity in communicating a PC's job and power level combined with simplicity of PC generation is a major selling point of D&D.
Owning more supplements, like Bo9S or the Completes or whatever would give you a lot more options but you were still much more limited than you are in M&M and HERO. It's a totally different approach.
Hong was, I think, wrong when he talked about the HEROisation of D&D.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
I think it helped people become better D&D DMs. But each game is different so running a lot of 3e is not going to really make one better and running Burning Wheel or other games that are not much like D&D.
I'm going to disagree here. I think that any GM experience will make you better at GMing in general - maybe not as much as it improves your D&D GMing skills, but it will help your overall GMing skills as you learn to deal with players, timing, role-playing, providing challenges and so on.
I'm going to disagree here. I think that any GM experience will make you better at GMing in general - maybe not as much as it improves your D&D GMing skills, but it will help your overall GMing skills as you learn to deal with players, timing, role-playing, providing challenges and so on.
There are some qualities that cross over to running any game, but each game also has qualities that could hinder one in running another game. For instance if you are used to finding challenges for D&D which really goes out of its way to help tell the DM with encounter balance. But then when that DM runs a game with out that it could be very difficult to know what encounter balance is needed.
I will just speak for myself; 3e definitely caused me to be a bad DM. I'll just list my points below:
1. 3e caused me to turn to crack. I bought the BoVD and read the chapter on drugs in the game, and that got me hooked. I spend most of my days roaming around outside mumbling things about Pazrael, Graz'zt, & Demogorgon.
2. I yell at my players a lot more. My players learned the rules much better than I did, and I'm supposed to be the DM. They didn't do this in 2e. I was able to make rules up as I went, but now when I make up rules, they correct me and expect me to look at it in the book. I'm here to kill their PCs, I don't have time to look at the rules.
3. I'm a much fatter DM now because of 3e. During 2e, I only had 1, maybe 2 players playing at a time. Now I have 8 players at my table and every one of them brings snacks. I can't stop eating. I was a pretty good looking DM in 2e, now I look like Fat Albert after he swallowed the Kool-Aid man.
4. I'm a pervert now. More chicks started playing after 3e was released. Half of my group is filled with them. I can't stop being inappropriate with my NPCs whenever they are roleplaying (even when they are playing Half-Orc PCs).
5. I constantly break the DMs code by telling 4e DMs that their edition sucks. I used to do that back in 2e, and I'd tell the 1e DMs their edition sucks. But 2e was the newer edition at the time, so it was accepted. But since I don't DM 4e, I'm called the bad guy for trashing the newer edition!
6. I used to roleplay a lot in 2e. It made it easy because TSR had all kinds of fluff in their books. But the only fluff in my 3e books is at the beginning where it lists who wrote the book & who did the illustrations. So I'm not sure how I'm supposed to roleplay 3e.
7. "Play-styles" "Shmay-styles"...back in 2e, there was only 1 play-style...it was called the "rip their heads off, take their stuff, brag about it in the tavern, then rip the tavern guys heads off & take their stuff cause they disrespected me when I was bullying them" play-style. Now I get new players quitting my games left & right because I have a different "play-style" than they do.
8. I was always a real jerk, even in 2e. A good DM needs to roleplay bad guys well, so I had to become a jerk so I'd be a better roleplayer. But 3e brought about all of these D&D forums where people do nothing but whine about stuff. This caused all of my players to have feelings & they got overly sensitive. So now if I roleplay my bad guys properly, all of my players start tearing up, hugging each other, and complain to me that I'm being mean. So now my bad NPCs are just Gargamel bad...not bad enough to scare my players, but just bad enough to scare a Smurf.
I'm sure there are more reasons why 3e made me a bad DM, but this is all I have for now.
Mainly because I don't think D&D 3e offers DM's 'the tools to do, literally, anything they wanted'. It's nowhere near that flexible. Unlike more full-fledged toolkit systems like GURPS, Hero and even the d20-based M&M.
D&D may not have... but D&D was always about being D&D, not about allowing things that weren't kosher for D&D. d20, on the other hand, I've found to be nearly infinitely modular, and I haven't yet found a concept, theme, tone, or game that I couldn't find rules to replicate to my satisfaction.
That said, I'm with you; just not for the same reason. I'm not really about the D&Disms anymore, but I just prefer to take a variant take on the mechanics. Rather than play D&D, I'll play Conan, or d20 Modern, Black Company or ... I dunno. Tons of choices there.
I'm not really down with the implication (I don't think you made it, but it was earlier in the thread) either that the fact that d20 material out there gave you options, GMs were worse because they didn't have to make them up anymore. How does forcing me to be a game designer make me a better GM? The two skillsets are, at best, only tangentially related.
How does forcing me to be a game designer make me a better GM? The two skillsets are, at best, only tangentially related.
I remember one of the WotC 4e designer/developers saying recently that good game designers tended not to be good GMs and, likewise, good GMs tended not to be good designers. I agree with you, it's a totally different skill set.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
Good reading and creative minds create good DMs, not systems.
__________________ Calvin: "I'm a simple man, Hobbes."
Hobbes: "You?? Yesterday you wanted a nuclear powered car that could turn into a jet with laser-guided heat-seeking missiles!"
Calvin: "I'm a simple man with complex tastes."
This experience is called learning. Learning by doing, making mistakes, and improving is a good way to develop skill. If a person keeps making the same bad calls over and over, then the process isn't working. Some people who DM cannot admit that they make mistakes and thus are unable to learn from them. If a paint by numbers set is required to keep the DM from being a dork then the game only has so much potential anyway.
I think you miss the point.
Anytime you feel you are capable of DMing better than the material provided by any book, you use your own consummate DM skills. But if you are a beginner who does not feel up to scratch, or maybe can't come up with enough prep material for whatever reason, you fall back on established dnd material, which is assured of at least that much quality.
You are still expected to learn and improve your own mastery of the game in the process. Established rules simply help to ensure that your enjoyment of the game should never dip below a certain threshold due to ineptness. We all have to start somewhere, and sometimes, we just can't spare the time to waste precious hours of gaming time while the DM tries to get his act together.
To use an analogy, if you used your own skills, your performance might be a straight line starting from point 0 at time=0, sloping upwards to point 100 at time=10 (say). But using dnd material, anything below a certain point (say 50), it would be a horizontal line instead (because ytou have the option of using dnd material if it proves superior to whatever you can come up with), then slanting upwards when your performance index would exceed 50.
There are some qualities that cross over to running any game, but each game also has qualities that could hinder one in running another game.
I don't agree on the hindering part, but either way, I feel that the transferable skills learned GMing ANY game far outweigh any skills that don't transfer between games.
I don't agree on the hindering part, but either way, I feel that the transferable skills learned GMing ANY game far outweigh any skills that don't transfer between games.
In addition, I think the benefits of expanded horizons about play paradigms, etc. greatly outweigh any incremental system mastery, or whatever other benefit you'd get from only ever running one game.
I think really good DMs we given the tools to do, literally, anything they wanted.
I think marginal or poor DMs were overwhelmed.
I think it was the opposite way round, 3e made the bad DMs better but the best DMs felt restricted.
With the much maligned wealth-by-level guidelines and CR system, 3e curbed the excesses of Monty Haul-ism and killer DMs. In the 70s people used to complain about those things a lot. The 1e DMG is full of warnings about the former (and a bit about the latter), indicating it was a major problem at the time. You just don't see either of those mistakes as much these days and I think it's partly down to 3e.
However the very best DMs chafe against these restrictions. The posters on ENWorld tend to be better than average DMs which is why we saw so much criticism of wealth-by-level in particular and complaints about players who had misinterpreted the CR system.
The perfect DM doesn't need rules, he makes the right calls unerringly. Of course the perfect DM doesn't exist, but it follows that a better DM requires fewer rules. He's more likely to make the right decision by instinct or experience. He can set aside the CR system, his own judgement will be better regarding what constitutes a challenging, exciting fight.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
I think it was the opposite way round, 3e made the bad DMs better but the best DMs felt restricted.
Well, if they were so good, they should have been able to ignore stuff that they didn't think was better than what they already had going.
I don't claim to be one of the best DMs, but I always looked at all the rules of the 3e era as a robust toolkit of stuff I could use... if I needed it. I never felt constrained to do everything exactly by the book just because it was printed there.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
