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

[Rel]

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.

Really? Was this changed in 3.5 or have I always been doing it wrong (not that it comes up that often)?

 

[Belen]

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.

Except that autocratic regimes create strict rules for everything inside an outside the home.

I can safely say that I saw a complete change in player mentality when we switched from 2e to 3e and it got worse when 3.5 came out. Heck, I had to create a list of house rules that everyone would agree on just to play the game and that includes a lot of various "interpretations."

In any event, excessive rules do not lead to a better game. For every judgement call I made in 2e, I have to make the same calls in 3e. The only difference is that I now have to interpret the rules that exist instead of saying yes or no. IME, rules arguments are common in 3e and only get worse as the players grow to master the rules.

Why? Because even a player who has mastered the rules cannot remember every rule. The memory is fallable, so you may remember the rule incorrectly. That seems to happen an excessive amount in game. Even when I had a true master of the rules in my game, he still made mistakes. They tended to be minor, but even a minor mistake in 3e can have a HUGE impact on the game.

I am all for having a good set of rules that includes some protections for the players, but attempting to intuit every little thing that may happen in a game is maddness. It defeats the purpose of even having a game based on imagination.

How many times have you looked at a rule that you had been using to find that you had been using it incorrectly? It has happened in my game more than a few times. And I'll bet that I am not alone.

What point is there in having a game that cannot be truly mastered?

 

[Dr Simon]

I think that, in the interests of clarity, I ought to point out that the "more satisfying" method of play referred to by Monte Cook in that quote is the *lower* rules approach - he's discussing the differences in his Arcana Unearthed product compared to standard D&D, which he's pitching as "putting the DM back in the equation" (is he also saying "don't blame me, blame Skip Williams and Johnathon Tweet", I dunno )

(Specific to this quote is the example of a 5th level Champion of Freedom who gets a class ability called "Freedom's Strength" which gives him a +1 bonus to attack and damage when fighting to free captives or against an oppressor. There are guidelines as to when to use this but in D&D3 the rules would probably bring in an [opressor] descriptor to codify the concept).

 

[Belen]

Really? Was this changed in 3.5 or have I always been doing it wrong (not that it comes up that often)?

No, unless you have precise shot, then you always take a -4 when firing a ranged weapon into melee. Maybe he is thinking about the AoO of firing a ranged weapon when threatened.

 

[Belen]

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.

Ack, Mr. Noah, bite your tongue. I agree with you, but we should not jinx ourselves.

 

[francisca]

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.

Rules Lawyer!!!

 

[EricNoah]

Ack, Mr. Noah, bite your tongue. I agree with you, but we should not jinx ourselves.

Hey, not saying I like it! But the requirement to have a "controlling expert" participate, without whom the game cannot function, is a major hindrance to our hobby (even if it is the very thing that makes the experience unique and special and fun).

 

[Mr. Lobo]

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.

I've been mulling this over the past few weeks. I really do like the idea of the 3rd edition rules set but I am against the phiolosophy of "taking the DM out of the game" as mentioned in the quote above. I attribute that statement more to the idea that the rules set is supposed to have the bases pretty much covered as far as what characters can do with the amount of feats and skills introduced into this edition of the game. In other words given the rules the players should know what mechanic to use in a given situation and not have the DM make a spot ruling. Thus making it easier for the DM to run the game and keep the action moving. Of course not everything is covered and the problem to me is more of a question of DM and player rules balance.

In my experience, the addition of more rules leads to more rules interpretations. This is compounded by the number of players playing the game. As far as 3E not being all that complex I will say that the d20 mechanic is not complex but the rules built around the mechanic can be. Especially considering stacking bonuses and the like. Sure, you roll a d20 for resolution but determing the DC based on the given rules may not be all that easy.

Just witness Sage Advice and 30 pages of small font text in the D&D main faq. And this doesn't include the FAQs on the supplementary material.

In practice this means that for an introductory group I use the Moldvay rules set. Resolution is pretty much all based on ability rolls for skills and feats. Any bonuses or subtractions are given by me (the DM) at + or (-) 1 or two.

With that said, I still look forward to moving this group on to the 3E rules set after the current campaign is over.

 

[Dr Simon]

With all of that said, I have no quarrel with folks who want a more "rules lite, adjudication heavy" system.

I think you can certainly do that *very* easily with d20. If you want by-the-book D&D then no, there are a lot of official rulings on how to do the "jump on the wizard, grab his wand and punch his face".

However, d20 boils down to "roll d20, add modifiers, get higher than a DC to succeed" and your basic DCs are Dead Simple = 5, Average =10, Hard-but-doable= 15, Pretty Tough =20, Need-to-be a hero 25, Real Heroic 30+. Use the +/-2 for circumstances as required and as you feel. At the most minimal I would adjudicate the wizard-pounce as an opposed Dex check for character and wizard.

You could, really, run a game using not much more than that as a basis for the rules, but you'd better make sure that the player who owns all those splatbooks understands and accepts this point!

 

[maddman75]

Only if you try to stat out every little thing.

Incorrect, and irrelevent. It doesn't matter if I feel the need to stat out everything that the PCs might encounter, or only the most vital NPCs and enemies. If that rate of detail is the same, it takes me about 1/2 the prep time to run a Storyteller game or 1/3 for a Unisystem game. For a six hour game, its either going to be six hours prep for D&D, three hours prep for Exalted, or two hours for AFMBE.

And I'm inherantly lazy, so if the group wants to play D&D one of them can do the work to run it.