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

[Belen]

I think that was the best thing they ever did. Having a consistant rules set with rules that address many things that were left up to GM fiat before was what has brought our group back to D&D and for the most part kept it there.

I think it's more of 'let's make sure the GM shouldn't have to come up with a house rule for this' philosophy. But if it knocks back some of the 'absolute power' the GM enjoyed in previous editions, that's good too. Some of the grandstanding silliness in Knights of the Dinner Table is not just fiction, y'know. Then again, our play style encourages that. We've always seen the GM as a kind of 'super player'. We all contribute to the game in a way, so we all have a say in how it's run.

3E for the most part got rid of rules lawyers in my experience, since most of the things they argued about were either (1) memory holdovers from previous editions or sometimes entirely different games (2) something that was never statted out to begin with.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

I GM'd older editions and never had absolute power. Contrary to popular opinion, the older games had rules. They may not have had as MANY rules, but there were rules that let you play the game in a concise and consistent manner. The only difference between then an now is that you have a ton of official house rules that codify play into one style.

Also, I have to seriously disagree with the idea that the GM is just a "superplayer." I have never once seen a player contribute to a game that shows anywhere near the level of work and time that a GM places into the game. If a GM creates and NPC, spell, location or effect that a player cannot reverse engineer using the RAW, then tough.

I do not GM to get a power trip. I GM to have fun and tell a story. The characters have their own personal story that should be fitted into the overall story as much as possible, but the player does not trump the GM. Period.

 

[RFisher]

Mmadsen mention of free Kriegspiel is apropos.

For me, the judge is what makes a role playing game. The judge is a living, creative rulebook. He can use intelligence & common sense to consider all factors to determine the chance of success. Lots of rules don't need to be memorized or referenced.

The judge may not be 100% foolproof & consistent, but it's good enough for a game. Plus, a good judge leverages the knowledge & creativity of the players to make better judgements than he could on his own.

The big difference between free Kriegspiel & roleplaying games is that free Kriegspiel might be used to train people to fight real wars, so the umpire had to be a military expert. Since roleplaying games are games, the judge doesn't need to be an expert.

(I might be persuaded that a game w/o a judge is a roleplaying game, but I would consider it an exception rather than a rule.)

Trying to make the rules comprehensive is, IMHO, not the way to make the game easier. Instead, you need to communicate that--unlike most games--the written rules are just a starting point. You need to communicate when rolling the dice is appropriate & when it is not.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

How does it attack? When I describe the action what does it do? What's an eblast? How does it work? I've never heard of that before. I have to look it up.

My PC's loot the corpse.

What armor does it have for an AC 29? Any shields for taking into account flat footedness? Any natural armor to take into account for a touch attack?

What weapons are being used? Are they magical or enchanted? How much are they worth if I sell them?

How much money does it have?

Any gems? How much are they worth and what kind are they?

Any magical items worth taking? How are they statted out? What schools of magic do they have if a PC casts detect magic?

This is why it takes me some time to prepare for an encounter.

In this case, all 29 AC is from being a gestalt unfettered (Arcana Unearthed monk)/warlock using class defence bonus, so his AC would be the same for touch as regular. His weapons fall under the same category - nonexistent. In an actual stat block that took five minutes rather than three, I'd have included his saves and flat-footed AC.

All the treasure would be in a treasure section, although this particular opponent has a nice looking cloak and nothing else.

I can see how prepping D&D, with its buckets o treasure and cumbersome magic system, might take a while. But it would have taken me a similar while in 2e, or, heck, probably even basic! Magic items, treasure, gp, gems... those ain't new, last I checked.

Prepping d20 with the worst D&Disms stripped from it goes quite fast.

 

[ThirdWizard]

None of my players are extremely familiar with the rules, or it's kind of random where they are familiar. The PCs found a magical item that converted damage to non-lethal damage on a ghoul yesterday and one of the players actually noted that the ghoul could use it without worry because they're immune to non-lethal damage. I was speechless! This guy doesn't even know how many magic missiles he gets or how much damage his scorching ray does, he has to look it up every time (and he's a 4th level sorcerer)!

So, definatley in my experience, players have no need to be intimately familiar with the rules to play. The DM just has to be more familiar with the rules than the Playres. If the players want, you can fiat just as much as you could in previous editions. Is this a bad thing? Well, it means your play style has to coincide with that of your players - moreso than earlier editions. You have to have similar play styles story-wise and adjudication-wise. Of course, the very existance of the rules means that most people are going to want to follow them; they paid for them after all. Personally, I like remembering and implementing rules. I was a 2nd edition rules-lawyer, though to my own detriment as much as my benefit.

As for prep-time... hmm... it varies so much that I can't say much about it. I uaually have more planned out than I need to have, further ahead than we actually play to, that is. They never finish where I expect. So, I always have extra laying around, then make too much for the next one. My players like shorter games than me, though. All in all, I don't notice more prep time than previous editions, but I like to improvise a lot with less "plot" and more "NPC motivation/interaction" leading the session along.

 

[jasper]

Imc does not matter the edition. One of my rules don't scream if I make a call which screws your PC if you didn't screw when I made a mistake which screwed the monster. Quickly followed up with what is good for the monster is good for the monster to do to you.
Unless I just playing with e tools most of my pcs are Cleric Ac bab weapon stats. I then pick and choose which spells they have as needed. If I doing monsters it is MM page x. hp x bab x if different from the book.

 

[Monte At Home]

Monte! Monte! Monte!

You rang?

I think the basic point here is the design challenge of something like the D&D core system, where you're trying to write something for the brand-new-to-the-game 12 year old player and the been-playing-since-before-electricity experienced player (like I'm sure most of ENWorld's readership is). If we erred, we probably erred on the side of the new guy, assuming that the experienced players will just strip out or overrule anything they don't like. The idea is that DMing is really hard at first--even just the concept of it--and the fewer judgement calls that new DM has to make the better, just to make his life easier. (And if you do really know and understand the rules, it does cut down drastically on the rules arguments and misunderstandings, no matter what your experience with the game.)

For me personally, I'm all about the DM and DM power. That's why it's very freeing for me to work on Malhavoc products now. At Malhavoc, we assume that we're writing for experienced players, particularly experienced DMs. People who are not only not afraid to make judgement calls but also have the experience to do it fairly and well. I think the number of people, for example, that will have Arcana Evolved as their first rpg is very, very small. That makes designing AE/AU must simpler than designing D&D. The audience (and the audience's needs) aren't so broad.

I honestly think it's something that WotC should be seriously thinking about as they move forward, to see if they can come up with a better solution than we did. In hindsight, there should have been a lot more discussion in the DMG, for example, aimed at more experienced DMs and explaining how they can manipulate the rules more to their liking, if they so desire (and the potential drawbacks of such).

 

[Mr. Lobo]

In this case, all 29 AC is from being a gestalt unfettered (Arcana Unearthed monk)/warlock using class defence bonus, so his AC would be the same for touch as regular. His weapons fall under the same category - nonexistent. In an actual stat block that took five minutes rather than three, I'd have included his saves and flat-footed AC.

All the treasure would be in a treasure section, although this particular opponent has a nice looking cloak and nothing else.

I can see how prepping D&D, with its buckets o treasure and cumbersome magic system, might take a while. But it would have taken me a similar while in 2e, or, heck, probably even basic! Magic items, treasure, gp, gems... those ain't new, last I checked.

Prepping d20 with the worst D&Disms stripped from it goes quite fast.

My lack of knowing Arcana Unearthed!

Thanks for the update. To go on record my response to your post was a knee-jerk reaction in the form of "Gaaah...I can't run an encounter based on that stat block! What about all this other stuff?" Also, I like fully prepping my NPC's. I try to make them unique with different items and treasure and having their readied spells copied from the SRD into the block itself. Looking up everything helps keep the rules fresh for me. To me it's all part of the game and one of the reasons I enjoy DMing.

And I don't want to be "taken out of the equation"! Even if the rules authors were striving for this I don't think they succeeded much better than in previous editions. Many complex rules issues involving both DM and players attest to this as discussed in Sage Advice, the DnD Main Faq, and the rules clarifications posted on the WoTC web site.

 

[Mr. Kaze]

Can you have a DM-less game? Sure, but it's going to be filled with a lot of arbitrariness, nonsensical treasure distributions and a marked increase in roll-playing. I occasionally play in such a game -- I call it World of Warcraft.

If that's the kind of game the players are looking for, then great, have at it. Personally, I find that if playing D&D is less engaging than playing oh say World of Warcraft, then the D&D group needs to be figuring out how to make the game more fun and engaging and consistently clever on a more personal basis. Maybe the DM needs to spend more prep time making the world a more cohesive and explorable whole for the group. Maybe the DM needs to apply fiat better to reward the players for ingenuity more often. Maybe the DM needs to be playing in the game as much as the players. And maybe having the DM actually playing in the game, above and beyond tossing out rulings on PCs using animated tower shields as surfboards from which to make jump checks as they attempt to leap to safety from off of a collapsing bridge (been there, done that -- right before the last natural 1 in a series of unfortunate rolls), is part of what they actually meant by having a DM-less game?

Cheers,
::Kaze (notes that if you're not cackling with glee during your prep time, you're doing something wrong. )

 

[Ace]

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.

Herr 75 you are quite correct in this assesment.

I am running 3.5 by the book (mostly) and am finding it has a tremendous prep overhead --

Actual play is OK since its all roll and add (minus the &***&* AOO's ) but getting an adventure together takes a couple of hours at least --
Its only that fast because I do a lot of SRD cut n paste --use And Everyone Else for NPC classes that might fight and know how to make instant NPC's.

Also important is not using Wizards much --since the PC Wizard will want to capture the spellbook this means I have to chart out all the spells not just the ones he will use

Magic items are a pain too. I have been fudging it for NPC's (who IMC are mostly about 3rdlevel) but calculating stuff for say a 7ht level character is time consuming

Now don'tget me wrong D&D 3x is a fun game --and most importantly one everyone will agree to play it but it is way too much work sometimes.

 

[barsoomcore]

I don't get the notion that getting huge value out of software assistance means the game is bad. I've got the software assistance (online SRD, stat block creation, note-taking, adventure checklists, file organization, image storage, map creation), so why should I bemoan the fact that the game is much easier to prep for/play with it?

Weird. I WISH other games had the kind of software support d20 has. Trying to run an Exalted game would be much less daunting a task if there were some online resources like the SRD and PCGen.