Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BSF" data-source="post: 1746044" data-attributes="member: 13098">I agree on some points, disagree on others.  First, where I agree.  For the rules-light players that just want to RP and are less concerned with how much damage they can deal, the game is a bit cumbersome.  Unfortunately, this is a group game and you need to have a group dynamic that agrees on the rules-light aspects.  For the group I play in, I have often thought that we might be using the wrong system entirely.  Some of them simply do not have the same interest in understanding mechancs as the others.  Oddly enough, the game still works with the dichotomy between rules savvy and rules apathetic players.  I think we could switch to a system that would be lighter on the rules and we might have more fun, but everyone still wants to keep playing D&D.  *shrug*Now where I disagree.  It is true that maintaining equitable spotlight on each player is a human problem.  However, the rules help encourage that level of equilibrium.  In previous editions, with a little more nebulous round, you might have an active player declare 3-4 actions.  They would be strung together to sound logical and it wasn't necessarily a matter of the player trying to cheat.  The player might be envisioning the sequence of events in a different timeframe than other players, or the DM.  "I'm going to charge across the balcony and knock the flower box onto the guards below.  As I reach the end of the balcony, I will leap out, swing on the flagpole, sommersault off and kick the captain of the guard onto the ground.  Landing above him, I will draw my rapier and hold it at his throat.  'One wrong move Captain Ortiz and I will silence you forever, now order your men to release those peasants.'"The more reserved player might follow up with "Um, I move to the rail.  Then if I can I will cover the guards below with my crossbow."Without a strong cohesion in the rules, the vocal player might consistently overshadow everyone else.  As a DM, you would look out for that sort of thing and try to keep it in check.  But let's be honest, a vocal player with cool cinematics is easy to give a little more rope.  3.x doesn't prevent this from happening.  Vocal players can still steal the spotlight if the DM allows.  But the mechanics create an environment where it is easier to identify and remember that a sequence of events might take a little more time and you should maybe let the first player run across the 30' balcony, knock the flower box off onto the guards below. *stop*  Let another player take a turn and continue the next round.  Now, as Mallus suggests, this can sterilize your games.  They key is to use the mechanics to improve the game.  If your group is into swashbuckling and derring do and _everyone_ is participating, give them more rope.  If you want to encourage that behavior, add a derring-do action to the standard action & move action sequence.  If you want momentary snatches of heroism, at fate points or swashbuckling cards.  Just be consistent and make sure each player is getting that spotlight.  "Balance" is both an external thing, in the baseline rules, and an internal thing, among your group.  I think the basic rules do a good job establishing a common baseline for each D&D player using the ruleset.  This is something that previous editions were less oriented toward.  But I think the goal of all that baselining was to make it easier for run a "basic, balanced game."  It reduced the rules arguements around some tables because a lot of things were better defined.  That is a good thing.  It is also a good starting point for individual groups to grow from.  There will always be people that will work within the rules better than others.  Good DMing is still required.  I think the current version of the rules provides a stronger framework for beginning DMs to work toward become good or even great DMs.</blockquote>

Verification