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

[Seeten]

Here is the quote I use at our table all the time(I am not the DM): "Everyone just shut up. DM, make a judgement call on how it works. Lawyers, do a write up between sessions on why your way is better than the judgement call was. Best submission wins."

I dont care who is right, or why, but I do care that the game moves forward, without the argument over whether drawing a scroll from a backpack is a mvoe equivalent or a full round action, if there is an interpretation of why, how much common sense it makes one way or the other, etc. Make a decision, make it now, move on. If the decision is different next time, who cares? The game moves forward.

 

[maddman75]

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..

I think that would be correct, and is why 3e has earned the title of 'The Game Everyone Wants To Play But No One Wants To Run.' I'll still play 3e if there's a good DM, but I can't deal with the overhead involved in running it anymore.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

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.

Only if you try to stat out every little thing.

 

[francisca]

Only if you try to stat out every little thing.

Been there, done that. I used to obsess about skill points, and it takes for ever.

Then I relaxed, and didn't sweat it. But you know what? It still takes longer than 1e. Much longer. And that isn't nostalgia, I quit running 3e in december, and have been running 1e since then. For me, even at lower levels, the difference in prep time between the two is easilly 75-80%.

Like Madman, I've sworn off of DMing 3.5. I'd probably run a one-shot with a prepared module now and again, but I'm not interested in running 3.5 in the long term ever again.

Here is the quote I use at our table all the time(I am not the DM): "Everyone just shut up. DM, make a judgement call on how it works. Lawyers, do a write up between sessions on why your way is better than the judgement call was. Best submission wins."

Hey man, I dig your style! (see my custom title.) This works well for my group, as well. After the game, we discuss any questionable rulings, and if we decide I botched it, we make sure it doesn't happen again. It's called being human, and gaming together to have fun, not proving your mastery of the rules is better than the next guy.

 

[Enkhidu]

Only if you try to stat out every little thing.

Yeah, but then you're back to DM's Fiat. It's a viscious cycle, really.

 

[FireLance]

BelenUmeria, I think it's safe to conclude that you've had some bad experiences with 3e and you don't like rules-heavy systems. However, I don't think it's fair to generalize.

For example, my experiences were almost the exact opposite. Frankly, as a DM, I found that making judgement calls was hard, especially in 1e and 2e, where there seemed to be no meta-structure or consistent design philosophy for the rules. On the other hand, looking up rules was easy, but that could just be because I have a knack for finding things. From the other perspective, as a player, I found it easier to accept decisions that were based on rules rather than personal judgements.

Frankly, I don't see how the presence or the absence of a rule is going to affect whether a player will accept a DM's decision. If the player will accept the DM's decision, then he's going to do so whatever the rules say. If the player is going to insist on having his way, the absence of a rule isn't going to stop him.

Unless the real reason why some DMs don't like rules-heavy systems is the same as why some autocratic regimes restrict their citizens' access to information about other countries: so that the players never find out that other DMs might run games in a way they might enjoy more.

 

[Belen]

I think that would be correct, and is why 3e has earned the title of 'The Game Everyone Wants To Play But No One Wants To Run.' I'll still play 3e if there's a good DM, but I can't deal with the overhead involved in running it anymore.

The only way I can still GM 3e (3.5) is to use a computer program to stat encounters. Otherwise, I would use the d20 modern rules. It is impossible to GM a 3e game without support these days.

 

[Rel]

I think I disagree with the premise that the players have to understand a whole lot of rules to play and enjoy 3E. There is a guy who we knew from years ago who just recently moved back into our area and we invited him to play with us. He never played RPG's much (he sat in for a session or two in our old Rolemaster games) and he had never touched 3E before three sessions ago. He's doing fine.

I think if a player comes in saying, "Well, I need to know every rule that could apply to any character I might ever want to play including all the feats and every possible Prestige Class that I might want to shoot for. Until then I can't make a character." then hell yeah they've got a lot of rules to swallow. But if they think of the character first and then somebody experienced helps them emulate that PC as best they can within the rules then they start the game with a limited set of rules they must understand.

Our newbie guy said, "I think I'd like to be a Human Barbarian. I want to hit stuff hard with my big weapon." No problem. He's had to learn the general movement and attack rules, how you make skill rolls, the rules for Rage and that's about it. The toughest concepts he's really had to master have been Charging, Flanking and AoO's. Honestly he seems to have grasped the why's and when's of AoO's better than some of my "veteran" players.

The important part is that I have a good grasp of the rules as the GM. I know how Grappling and Tripping and Attacking an Attended Object work so when a player says, "I want to knock down the Evil Wizard, jump on top of him, pull the wand out of his hand and punch him in the face!" then I can say, "Ok first you need to make a Trip attempt. Now he's unarmed so he doesn't threaten an area right now..."

With all of that said, I have no quarrel with folks who want a more "rules lite, adjudication heavy" system. I know that BU has read my Samantha the Red Story Hour. That's as "rules lite, adjudication heavy" as it is possible to get (I think). It is fine to want something closer to that end of the spectrum. But I don't know that having it be the default system supported as D&D is a great marketing idea.

I think that the more you move toward a "rules lite, adjudication heavy" system the more you require that a group has a great DM in order to have a great game. Not every group is so blessed and if the DM has to make 50 judgement calls a session instead of 5 then he's setting himself up for a lot more potential hurt feelings or the sense that the players are pushing him around.

The stance that I've adopted is that the rules are there as a guideline for me, but not a rigid one. Last session we had a situation where an enemy combatant had climbed atop a low hut and was being attacked by a PC with a spiked chain. Another player asked, "Do I take the -4 for Firing Into Melee even though she's 8 feet off the ground and ten feet from the Psi-Warrior who threatens her?" The rules say yes but those sound like reasonable grounds on which to bend them. I ruled, "I'll split the difference with you and make it a -2."

That's what I want from a rules system. Guidelines that I can look at and then bend or break as the circumstances dictate.

 

[EricNoah]

I can understand why they went that route. If the rules don't cover "nearly everything" *and* you don't have a skilled DM around, then that means D&D is not going to happen for you. But if you have rules that allow a newbie DM to run the game, then D&D is more likely to happen.

I also think this is why they keep moving toward the miniatures game -- it's like D&D without the DM.

 

[FireLance]

The stance that I've adopted is that the rules are there as a guideline for me, but not a rigid one. Last session we had a situation where an enemy combatant had climbed atop a low hut and was being attacked by a PC with a spiked chain. Another player asked, "Do I take the -4 for Firing Into Melee even though she's 8 feet off the ground and ten feet from the Psi-Warrior who threatens her?" The rules say yes but those sound like reasonable grounds on which to bend them. I ruled, "I'll split the difference with you and make it a -2."

Nitpick: You don't take the penalty for firing into melee if the target is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, as it is in this case. It probably wouldn't have made a difference to your game, but it's good to know.