Take the GM out of the Equation- A 3e design philosophy

Belen · Feb 28, 2005

3e Designer Philosophy:

"I'll occasionally have to back up a bit and explain some things that we did with the core rules. One thing, for example, that we tried to do was to "take the DM out of the equation" as much as possible. Now this has caused its own share of problems, but the reason we did it was to make the game as easy as we could for new players. If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying. "

So what do you all think? I did not want to derail the 1e DMG thread further. My thoughts follow in the next post.

Belen · Feb 28, 2005

Personally, I would say that designing the core rules with that premise is a crock.

IMO, learning the game is far, far easier when the player's are responsible for knowing a limited number of rules. As long as they can keep track of their character and associated abilities, then a player is golden. Heck, that is all a player needs to know! And it is much simpler to learn the game if only a small amount of knowledge is required.

The 3e philosophy creates and atmosphere where players are EXPECTED know far many more rules than in any previous edition. Not only do they have a huge range of options for their characters, but the combat rules are complicated as well. That does not even count the number of splat books that introduce addition rules for the players. Those rules sometimes even break the core rules!

The last thing I want in a game is to be in the middle of something and suddenly hear a player spout a rule or have to get into an rules argument.

A philosophy that "takes the GM out of the equation" is made for creating an argumentative atmosphere between GM and players. Having a rules for everything means that you have some players who will sit there and LOOK for a rule to either thwart the GM or have it their way. In 3e, rule 0 is a running joke.

Heck, I had never encountered a rules lawyer until 3e. 3e made some of my old players into lawyers. It even had them fighting over various interpretations of the rules.

Now, I am not saying that older editions were better. I agree that a more codified system helped improve the game, but there is such a thing as going too far and I think a happy medium can be reached. 3e is still a good system and I enjoy playing it.

Yet it took forming a group of newbies to enjoy GMing it.

Frostmarrow · Feb 28, 2005

I think that was a good design philosophy. Sure, sometimes I long for a less complex game but it had to be done. Now, we have a complete game system with which we can compare simpler or more agile systems in the same genre.

S'mon · Feb 28, 2005

I agree that it's easier for GMs to start GMing and players to start playing if neither has to know a lot of rules - this is the philosophy of Basic D&D, I'd say. Just enough complexity to be interesting, but still quick to learn.

I think _rules consistency_ is also useful, though in learning the mechanics - eg the "d20 system" is much more consistent than 1e was, in most cases this is a good thing. It creates a problem only when the overarching mechanic doesn't work well - eg d20+mod STR checks to open doors, or using Will saves to check NPC morale.

francisca · Feb 28, 2005

BelenUmeria said:
The last thing I want in a game is to be in the middle of something and suddenly hear a player spout a rule or have to get into an rules argument.

A philosophy that "takes the GM out of the equation" is made for creating an argumentative atmosphere between GM and players. Having a rules for everything means that you have some players who will sit there and LOOK for a rule to either thwart the GM or have it their way. In 3e, rule 0 is a running joke.

Heck, I had never encountered a rules lawyer until 3e. 3e made some of my old players into lawyers. It even had them fighting over various interpretations of the rules.

Then you are very fortunate indeed. They were there in 1e, to be sure, as I experienced them first hand.

I've maintained the notion that 3e is more enabling of ruleslawyering than core 1e. Now, to me the question is, does 3.x encourage ruleslawyering? I have to say no, it doesn't, but the inclination may be there, just based on the fact that there are more "letters of law" to interpret, compared to core 1e or OD&D.

As I never played 2E, I can't comment about it. Back in the 80's, we didn't have UA, so it wasn't an influence then. Today in my 1e games, I only use the spells, magic items, the extra arms, and the non-lethal combat system from UA, so it still doesn't contribute to ruleslawyering, as far as I can tell.

Now, as far as reducing the role of the GM, I don't like that idea one bit. The DM/player dynamic is one of the defining features -for good or bad- of D&D. Want to see D&D w/o the DM? Look at the D&D Miniatures game. It's a good fun game, but it's a D&D compatible miniatures skirmish game to me, not D&D. I feel this trend will continue into 4e, with the DM demoted to "custodian" or "trustee" status (with apologies to KODT), if not eliminated altogether. At that point, D&D will simply be a vehicle for selling collectible miniatures. I could be wrong, only time will tell.

Gomez · Feb 28, 2005

Personally, I like having a set of rules to fall back on and not have to constantly arbitrate some action that a player comes up with every time. That way I can concentrate on the game and not the making judgement calls all the time. And really 3e is not that complex.

tonym · Feb 28, 2005

I think the designers were trying to prevent the 'old' kind of arguments--the ones where the DM invents a rule on-the-spot and then one or more players complain that the rule is not realistic or fair or consistent with the 3 rules he invented last session, or whatever.

My 2 cp.

Tony M

maddman75 · Feb 28, 2005

If they wanted to reduce the role of the DM in 3e, why is it so much work to run a game? There are few games that require as much prep time as 3e D&D.

francisca · Feb 28, 2005

maddman75 said:
If they wanted to reduce the role of the DM in 3e, why is it so much work to run a game? There are few games that require as much prep time as 3e D&D.

I think they were trying to reduce the amount "DM Fiat". As a result, the DM has much more work to do to prepare: calculating skill points, remembering skill synergies, etc..

Maybe we could get the man himself to come enlighten us a little bit. Let's see if my "summon d20 author" special abilities are up to snuff:

Monte! Monte! Monte!