"I hate math"

[Psion]

Its not an issue of trust. its an issue of expectation.

if the rules we are playing by, as in the books i told them to use, define explicit numbers for this and that and the other, then the players will EXPECt that. They will if they have sense even plan on that.

My following those numbers is me keeping my promise to them. They expect me to keep my promise.

if, on the other hand, they rules i gave them are less specific, giving more general guidelines, then their expectations are not so precise. Smaller variances caused by seat-of-the-pants handling wont be a problem they percieve.

Okay, as I see it we are talking about two similar but conflated issues.

But as a thread over on the d20 other forum shows, switching rules does not automatically change the expectations of the players. Players who demand that every point in the book be accounted for will expect a degree of consistency. If you can't deliver that consistency with a set of written guidelines, then how are you going to deliver it with a looser set of guidelines?

Now if you and your players are all comfortable with less rigorous and consistent play, then great... a more loosely defined game may be just the ticket. But just changing rulesets is not necessarily going to change expectations. I think if your players are of the sort that would obsess over a point here and a point there in the first place, then formalizing the removal of power from their hands by shifting rules is not going to make them much happier than ignoring the rules.

 

[ashockney]

I've seen what Silverleaf is talking about in actual play.

I decided early on that I could offer a pretty good session, with poor to mediocre rules handling in D20, or I could offer a damn good session, with solid handling of a rules-light system. ("Damn good", only because I spent less time on stat blocks and more on everything else.)

Thank you SweeneyTodd. You've said it very eloquently here.

The point of my post (again, a quote from a player) is that the majority of gamers (which this board is most definitely not), will not and do not play above 12th level. With foresight, can we help to build a better infrastructure that allows for all the beautiful complexity and character optimization of 3ED&D, but is graspable by the majority of gamers, above 12th level. And even more importantly, can allow the majority of DM's the time they should invest in building GREAT adventures, not just mediocre ones.

 

[Quasqueton]

I'm sick of 3 hour D&D combats that cover 5 rounds.

Tighten up your play. I don't have this problem. Our combats take about 6 minutes per round -- 4 PCs, 1-2 NPC allies, 1-12 NPC enemies. And most of that time (probably 4 minutes) is taken by me, the DM, thinking and acting for the dozen NPCs.

Haven't seen a player take his character from 1 to 12 and still not know what his total bonus to hit in melee is? I have, regularly.

Problem Player. This is the kind of Player who asks, "The knight can move two forward and one to the side?" everytime you play chess. It's not a problem of the game of chess, and it's not a problem of the game of D&D.

Mostly, the past few D&D games have had stacks of books on the table, with people constantly flipping through them, trying to make sure they know what spell they're going to cast will do what, or looking up that last feat selection.

Any book beyond the Player's Handbook is your own choice and fault. You allow it, you can't complain.

It's a shame how some D&D games have to be protected from its players. Any book beyond the core -- PHB for Players, MM and DMG for DMs -- is optional and unnecessary. Anyone who can't remember a set number is a moron -- write the base attack bonus on your character sheet for god's sake!

Quasqueton

 

[amethal]

Anyone who can't remember a set number is a moron -- write the base attack bonus on your character sheet for god's sake!

I would if I knew how to calculate it. How does it work again?

 

[ashockney]

This is an absurd complaint. First off, why would you deviate from the preset DCs? If there are circumstances, give circumstances bonuses/penalties.

First off, Quas, have you ever played the game above 12th level? A DC25 (as you point out down below, as one of the highest in the game) is a joke for any PC of this level to make. The average bonuses range around 15 (base) + 3 - 6 for stat and if it's of any relevance there will almost certainly be a +5 to +15 from an item. I DM'd a game this weekend and a 14th level character had a +17 base hide, +4 from race, +10 from an item, +7 from stat, +2 from feat = that's a +40 to his hide check. This is an extreme case, but fairly representative of the challenge.

Second, you don't have to include feat/skill/buff modifiers in determining a DC.

I think my example above indicates the relevance of including all modifiers when determining ways to challenge a high level party.

Third, pissy Players are the problem, not the game.

Your tone with this comment is unprofessional, and uncalled for. My players (one group who has played together for over 20 years, and one group who ranges in age from teens to mid 30's, are most certainly not "pissy" players. I recognize that their opinions may diverge from yours, but please seek first to understand why their opinions differ, then to be understood. This can be done in a dialogue, while maintaining professional behavior.

Fourth, you don't need to look everything up. If you can't remember: DC 0 = very easy, 5 = easy, 10 = average, 15 = tough, 20 = challenging, 25 = formidable, then you shouldn't be DMing.

You guys are just complaining to hear yourself complain. As Psion said, you're talking to people who know better. It's like telling the regular patrons of a restaurant that the food prices here are too expensive. We're here, we're fine with it. We don't want to go back to the fast food joint down the street.

I'm done with reading this absurdity.

Quasqueton

Frankly, as I've said several times on this thread. I appreciate that opinion. If you'd like to start a different thread about WHY D&D shouldn't ever change, I would encourage you to do so. I started this thread with the intent of looking at the game, based on my and other's experiences, that there were some opportunities for improvment. I appreciate a good dialogue, challenging our ideas, and causing us to see things from a different perspective. If you don't feel like you're adding constructively to the discussion, please refrain.

 

[ashockney]

Whereas I find it quite insulting that:

1) people can't help but play armchair psychologist, and
2) the "OD&D Crowd" - here and elsewhere - seem to operate under the general assumption that, because I can calculate such things easily and even enjoy doing so, I'm some kind of munchkin powergamer with no particular imagination.

As in, because I've got a pretty good idea how far my PC can jump without trying pretty hard, that PC suddenly becomes nothing more than a statblock to me.

It's a ridiculous non sequitor, but it seems to be accepted wisdom among the stick-in-the-mud crowd.

In other words, I haven't called you "dumb" because you can't add or don't like adding these kinds of numbers, so don't call me names because I can and do.

Let's try our best to keep it civil here, please. These are close to attacking words.

I disagree with the assessment that you are perceived as a stat-blocking min/maxer (as that's what I am!), but rather, can't we be stat-blocking min/maxers without this much complexity, thereby opening up the possibility for NON-stat blocking min/maxers to play in the same game with us, and significantly freeing up the resources required to DM such a group?

 

[Quasqueton]

I would if I knew how to calculate it. How does it work again?

If you can't figure your base attack bonus (that thing listed in the column titled, "Base Attack Bonus"), well . . . .

"Third, pissy Players are the problem, not the game."

Your tone with this comment is unprofessional, and uncalled for. My players (one group who has played together for over 20 years, and one group who ranges in age from teens to mid 30's, are most certainly not "pissy" players. I recognize that their opinions may diverge from yours, but please seek first to understand why their opinions differ, then to be understood. This can be done in a dialogue, while maintaining professional behavior.

I was referring to this statement by Silverleaf, "...then the players may get pissy about you not following the rules." (I even quoted him in my post.) Take your complaint to him. Get off your high horse.

First off, Quas, have you ever played the game above 12th level? A DC25 (as you point out down below, as one of the highest in the game) is a joke for any PC of this level to make. The average bonuses range around 15 (base) + 3 - 6 for stat and if it's of any relevance there will almost certainly be a +5 to +15 from an item. I DM'd a game this weekend and a 14th level character had a +17 base hide, +4 from race, +10 from an item, +7 from stat, +2 from feat = that's a +40 to his hide check. This is an extreme case, but fairly representative of the challenge.

Yes, I have. And if you get overwhelmed and can't challenge characters above 12th level, maybe you should end your games at 12th. Nothing wrong with that.

*I* don't want to play over 20th level. But I don't moan and complain about it things getting too complicated at that level.

Quasqueton

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'd just like to remind everyone to keep cool and civil. Disagreeing is fine, reasoned discussion is fine too. Always interesting to see the interplay between different points of view.

However, in the last couple of pages quite a few people have veered towards being more aggressive and confrontational - not so nice at all.

So please continue to talk about what you like, but don't denigrate other styles which may differ from yours, and let any such posts prior to this one just be water under the bridge.

Cheers

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Something I think people are missing is that ashockney, the thread originator, is a fan of the game. He's trying to find a way to keep the crunch and tactical options around while making the game accessible to a broader audience. I can't see why that's worth attacking.

I know there's another group of people in the thread who are saying "I handle this by using a simpler system" (myself included), but it's not the only approach brought up here. ashockney's post on the previous page offered some concrete examples, and he's asking for more: anybody have more?

The one thing I don't think is very helpful is to say "Well, they should just deal with it." The original poster likes the game and wants to expand its audience; a dismissive reply doesn't help much with that. So Quasqueton, I think you've stated your opinion clearly: People who aren't comfortable with the complexity of D&D at a given level, shouldn't play it. I hope you won't take offense that the likely response will be to nod and move on, since it's a valid opinion but not one that offers insights on how to simplify the system.

 

[Ourph]

Haven't seen a player take his character from 1 to 12 and still not know what his total bonus to hit in melee is? I have, regularly.

Problem Player. This is the kind of Player who asks, "The knight can move two forward and one to the side?" everytime you play chess. It's not a problem of the game of chess, and it's not a problem of the game of D&D.

It's not as simple as that. The player has a problem with the complexity of D&D. If the "problem player" becomes a good player when playing with a less complex set of rules, then obviously the problem lies in the combination of that player and a specific game. If the player in question happens to be someone you enjoy gaming with, it's reasonable to switch games rather than writing someone off as hopeless because they can't or don't want to wrap their head around a fairly complex system.

D&D doesn't need to be fixed in order to compensate for such a player, but the opposite is true as well. The player isn't obligated to "fix" himself just to accomodate the complexity of the game. It's not like there's only one RPG extant and all players have to mold themselves to its strictures or get out of the hobby.