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

[Mercule]

Where I'm finding the increased prep time is coming from is in trying to retool a whole bunch of pre-existing pre-existing concepts for my homebrew to work with 3E on a global scale.

I ran a "test game" of 3E set on Oerth, when the system first came out and it was pretty smooth and brain-dead. When I diverged and moved to my 20 year old homebrew, that's when things got bad. I'm now, for the first time ever, seriously interested in using a published setting for a "serious" D&D game.

On the other hand, I'm also keenly aware that last time I used my homebrew was a decade ago. I was in college. I was also a wife and three kids lighter. That may make as much difference as anything else.

 

[Henry]

I guess I'm one of the exceptions for "everybody likes to play it but no one likes to DM it." I'm playing now after running for six months straight, but if I had a good campaign idea right now, and wasn't hankering for being the "good guy" for a change, I'd be DM'ing 3.5 right now. Maybe it's because the rules all make sense to me, even every instance of op-attacks in combat to every penalty for firing into melee, I don't know; however, I've never found myself second-guessing the rules, nor looking up a dozen things at once, nor hemming and hawing in combat over how to run the bad guys. The most looking up I ever have to do is with spells, and then only the unfamiliar ones like waves of fatigue. I'll DM anytime, anywhere, and be totally unafraid to spot-adjudicate rules that I'm unfamiliar with, as long as I have a good plot in my head.

As for "taking the DM out of the equation" it's impossible, and not just for story, but for gaming. For one thing, human beings aren't computers, and can't rack up endless reams of stats in their head; even more to the point, some humans are better at it than others. For another problem, You can't yet get the endless adaptability a human is capable of for telling a story. You can SIMULATE it, but you can't actually GET it. So in-game, if the fight's going badly just due to poor luck, the DM can cut the PCs a break and give them a chance to re-set themselves and get back on their feet. Blind rules can't do that.

Also, you'll ALWAYS, no matter what game, no matter what system, have things that players attempt that there are no rules for. Quick, what are the circumstance bonuses for kit-bashing a crossbow out of a mound of junkpile parts that you are walking over and hiding in while you yell at your pursuers trying to use bluff to convince them that you're in a superior position? DM still has to come up with the circumstance modifiers for the Craft AND the Bluff, as well as the DC for the Craft (Weaponsmith) skill; the simple answer (as well as the cop-out) would be to say simply, "no."

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

I've found that many people who disagree with the way 3.X does something, generally don't understand how 3.X does something.

Case in point:

Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)
If your target (or the part of your target you’re aiming at, if it’s a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the –4 penalty, even if the creature you’re aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.
Precise Shot: If you have the Precise Shot feat you don’t take this penalty.

So, you're wrong, BU; FireLance is correct.

 

[Doctor Shaft]

I think the heavier rules of 3e and 3.5 give the most advantage to the players over the DM. It allows a layer to open his handbook and through the rules see where his character is going. He can almost detail out what his character, according to the rules, can do. With more rules you could possibly "forsee" more things for the character.

However, I think it's also the players' responsibility to only use the rules as a guideline, but otherwise just to play the game. I've had situations, not even playing 3e necessarily, where the DM was not completely aware of the rules. We as a group weren't entirely aware of them either. But we allowed the DM to decide what would happen... we played the game.

At one point, the DM made a decision that was not in my favor. According to the exact rules, I should have gotten more dodge points for my kung fu character, but he didn't know that. I wasn't too sure on it, but I didn't stop the game for twenty minutes to deliberate that point either. I could have paused everything, gone over to get the rules book, spent another 10 minutes browsing the text, then finding it, then telling him what the rules were, then let the DM go back and look at his rolls and calculations... blah blah blah.

To make a long story short, I didn't dodge the hits I needed to and my guy got beat up bad. The next day I informed him of this, politely, telling him what the exact rules were on it. The DM took note, and I told him, "But don't worry about it, I don't care." I knew the DM wasn't trying to ruin my fun experience by playing "Puppet Master" with my character, and I wasn't trying to control him with the rules. I merely told him what the exact rule was for future reference.

Rules-heavy has its disadvantages, but I think it creates a middle-ground for the players and DMs to communicate and justify actions. Players can point at the framework and say, "It should work this way, and I support this with the following rules." And the DM can say okay. Likewise, when a DM makes an arbitrary ruling, if the players object, he can meet them half way or something. But the players have to be willing to not become rules-lawyers or "Little DMs" in the process.

 

[Rel]

I'll DM anytime, anywhere, and be totally unafraid to spot-adjudicate rules that I'm unfamiliar with, as long as I have a good plot in my head.

Ditto.

As for prep time, there are two things that I keep in mind:

1) I make sure I have the stats that I'll likely use for the NPC in question. If it is some thug or generic monster then I just jot down the "combat stats" (AC, Attack Bonus, Saves, HP, any relevant Feats). If it is an NPC that they'll probably just talk to then I figure out things like Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, etc. This saves a lot of time. If the NPC is forced into a situation that I didn't account for due to unforeseen PC actions then I wing it.

2) I LIKE doing prep work for my games. I find that the mechanical aspect helps feed my imagination about how I will run the NPC's and how they fit into the plot. This may not be true for everybody but then again neither is anything else in this thread.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Yet they are not making it more elegant. The end result is that the rules are heavier. Elegant is having one or two mechanics that can support a variety of actions. Not using one mechanic, then modifying it every time you think of something else that can happen in a game.

The d20 mechanic is elegant. Stacking rules, AoOs, advanced combat etc are additions that take elegance into a dark alley with a crowbar and murderous intent.

I disagree. AoOs are an elegant way of mechnically solving the 'I whack the wizard before he casts' situations that are a frequent event in turn-based games. The stacking rules in 3.x (core, anyway), are excellent. The concept of named bonues not stacking is very well done, and it goes a long way to preventing some of the rules-lawyering, munchkining that is prevelant in a lot of other games. I'll grant that the execution has been less than optimal, as the number of different bonus types has proliferated, but the core concept is excellent.

Having one or two rules that have to apply to dozens of divergent situations, that require DM interpretation each time, and that are bound to cause player emnity due to capriciousness real or percived is most assuredly not elegant. It might be simpler, but that's it.

 

[Virel]

Defacto, I think 3e tried to minimize the DM role in game in favor the other players. The resulting stat process increases the DM's drudge work and reduces flexability. I think the real goal of 3e was to make sure there was a consistant set of rules for convention play and Living Greyhawk etc type of play. This cared over into "regular play".

3e is designed to run "ok" with DM's that in 1st ed would have been considered a "bad DM". 3e strives to "fix" control freak DM's with a set of rules the DM should follow as well. However, it also "fixes" many a good DM as well with 3e time intensive approach to creating an adventure. 3e being rule heavy encourages looking up stuff etc to "get it right by the book" this slows the game. The best games I've played or DM'd have always had a fast pace. When the flow of events is quick the game/campaign is more likely to take on it's "own" life. 3e makes this sort of thing much harder from what I've seen.

As for consistancy, that can come with experience. Taking notes and writing down those rulings on the fly can fix many an issue, in OAD&D or 3e. Good communication between the players and DM to resolve stuff not covered really helps. Having a co-DM truely helps keep the house rulings in balance. This can force the issue to be looked at from both sides. If I make a bad on the fly call, normally my co-DM will say something to help me reconsider before making the final decision. Players do this too on occassion but the co-DM that plays when you DM visa-versa really helps.

This weekend, I was explaining to one long time player in my 1st ed OAD&D Greyhawk, Celene campaign, that we might have gotten a detail on psionics wrong. In short we went by the book and a typo may caused a misunderstanding 25 years ago when we started playing OAD&D. His response pleasantly surprised me. "Well we might not have done everything exactly right since we taught ourselves how to play in 1980 but we have always been consistant with our version of the rules."

All it takes is a little effort to stay consistant on the DM's part, players wanting consistancy, & taking a few notes to write stuff so you can be on the same page. In 16+ years of gaming my house rules are less than two pages long and players say they know what to expect.

This was a very small sacrifice time wise compared to having to use 3e to get consistancy.

With that said, my current co-DM is sometimes annoyed when she DM's our 1st ed games that their isn't a rule for everything and worries too much about getting not getting in perfect by the book. Even good DM's like her struggle a little with the freedom a 1st ed DM has at first but once the rols is embraced the DM will be empowered facilitate the needs of the group without being hamstrung wasting time with tons of verbose but simplistic rules to consult.

 

[Evilhalfling]

My group had a huge disccussion of rules, and rules lawyering last session, two of us are are rules lawyers and we get into frequent arguments, when I was DM I used fiat to end a lot of the arguments, but while I played the arguments got worse, detracting from everyones fun. The other player was also more prone to giving specific advice on what other characters should be doing. He is usually the instigator, but I had my share of responsiblity. I always try to bite my tounge when another DM makes a differernt call than I would have, but with someone else starts it, I loose this restraint. *sigh*

Our conclusion was to let the DM, DM.
you can only invoke the rules (ie look up and argue over meaning) or contradict a DM ruling on behalf of yourself, not others, and only in the face of death. We agreeed that otherwise, the loss of fun outweighed the benifits for killing the monster a round earlier, or avoiding that last hit. Addtionally you only have 1 round to fix any mistakes made. (earlier rule) You can and should look up rules when it is not your turn, but not stop the action to do so.

Now if only the other player and I can get over our IC philisophical differances over the value of the group over the individual. Its hard to accept that you are one of the problem players.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

If you have multiple encounters in a session, it takes longer than that just to copy the stats out of the MM!

You may use the MM and have no trouble. However, I find it to be a clunky resource with stat blocks that make some things hard to find and it just takes to long when the special abilities, qualities, DR, SR, special attacks etc are added into the mix.

But that is not a fault of the game system. You're taking up your OWN extra time to do that. If I'm running encounters with monsters in them, there's no WAY I'm going to waste my time and recopy the stats. I'll take that time and stat up an NPC, which I'll admit, I do much faster(and still stick to the letter of the rules) than most do.

Honestly, I spend barely an hour on prep time for any of my games. Jumping in and just running with it is much more fun and just as easy with 3e as it is in ANY game.

 

[Belen]

Having one or two rules that have to apply to dozens of divergent situations, that require DM interpretation each time, and that are bound to cause player emnity due to capriciousness real or percived is most assuredly not elegant. It might be simpler, but that's it.

Where did I say that they required GM interpretation? It is possible to have fewer complex rules and still not need to depend on DM interpretation.