3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

4) Failure to translate the intellectucal capital of table top games to the computer medium. The decision to move from Black Isle Studios to Infogrames was a really bad one. Black Isle understood gaming and how to successfully design a roleplaying game for the computer. A lot of the stuff that Infogrames has been in charge of is really subpar.

Black Isle and Interplay are also very, very bankrupt - and were becoming so before D&D was handed over to Infogrames.

Your summary shows a surprising lack of knowledge about what happened in and around that time period.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Shaman is an OD&D and first edition veteran who skipped 2nd edition entirely, if I recall correctly. There were a LOT of former players coming back to D&D in 2000 in this same boat. (Me, I was a sucker for every edition since 1981, myself. )

Thanks for the clarification. I hear there are a lot of people like that, but the phenominon pretty much skipped everyone I knew, strangely enough. That puzzles me, though, since it was even more open ended back then. I started in 1st Edition, but man, I could make up rules on the fly with the best of 'em. It was required back then to be a good DM. Now, not so much. Which, I think is the biggest difference of all.

 

[Sholari]

Black Isle and Interplay are also very, very bankrupt - and were becoming so before D&D was handed over to Infogrames.

Your summary shows a surprising lack of knowledge about what happened in and around that time period.

I don't think I commented on their financial condition, just the products they put out. Some of the stuff that Bioware has been putting out is also good. However, that doesn't get away from the fact Infogrames puts out really poor quality D&D licensed products.

 

[Henry]

Thanks for the clarification. I hear there are a lot of people like that, but the phenominon pretty much skipped everyone I knew, strangely enough. That puzzles me, though, since it was even more open ended back then. I started in 1st Edition, but man, I could make up rules on the fly with the best of 'em. It was required back then to be a good DM. Now, not so much. Which, I think is the biggest difference of all.

I'll admit, a lot of 2E turned me off too (the ranger changes, the illusionist simplifications, the gutting of all subraces, the die caps on various spells) and by the same token, there was a lot I liked (the new wizard specialists, the cleric spheres, the oodles of goodies in Complete Fighter's handbook). I just solved it by using a hodgepodge of ALL the rules, 1st and 2nd.

One thing I love about 3E has been the simplification of mechanics and the fact that most mechanics do follow a pattern that is intuitively deriveable (the saving throws, the 3.5 jump DCs, relative volumes of creatures). However, when there ARE nonintuitive or confusing rules (the new cover rules, the new druid wildshape, etc.) it bugs me to have to haul a rulebook out to use 'em instead of being able to "recreate" them on the fly. (Don't ask me why I find one-quarter, one-half, three-quarters, and nine-tenths more intuitive than half and whole cover, I just do. )

 

[FireLance]

I am afraid that if D&D continues in this path, WotC will find that the answer to this problem is, "then get rid of the DM and the open-ended ruleset." It's the biggest hindrance left in making RPG's more universally appealing.

Actually, they already did that and called it D&D Miniatures . Seriously, though - take away the open-ended ruleset and what you have left is a wargame with orcs and wizards. And people who feel constrained by the restrictions of the wargame will add more options into it, and we'll have a roleplaying game again. Or maybe they'll just fall back onto the 3.5e rules in the SRD. They can't take that away from us.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Point the first, about there being a lot of rules to look up?

That's in the DM's hands. Obviously if you're using the core alone, there's no more rules than the core to look up. That's still a lot of rules, but you only really need to know the ones that the PC's and NPC's are likely to use. If you're using tentacle demons with improved grab, know grapple. If you're using NPC's, know gear-wealth amounts. And if you are allowing more (knowing that at least WotC has a pretty rigorous process for balance), yeah, it's your job to learn them as much as your players use them. If you don't want to use them, if it's not fun for you to grapple, ditch it. The rules are only there to help you have fun, and if they don't help you have fun, they ain't doin' their job.

Point the second, about the minutae in Jumping over that wall?

It comes down to how the character gets over the wall. In a game situation, there would be context. If he's hurdling it, Jump check. If he's standing next to it, crawling up it to the other side? Climb check. Any average person can climb over a four foot wall (it's only a DC of 10 -- out of the heat of battle, you can take 10. In the heat of battle, there's not time to, say, look for handholds, so the roll needs to be made.) Most people would have trouble hurdling it (it's a DC of 16, but this is a wall that goes up to you chest). If you're bigger than Medium, you can use the "hop up" DC 10 Jump check.

All that took about 1 minute looking it up in the PHB. And I addressed it exactly as I would have if one of my own players did it. There are rules for this situation, and I used them because when I'm trying to have fun, I don't want to bugger around thinking about what numbers I should assign, compared to what I have assigned, compared to the educational examples given in some manual of how to adjudicate justly.

I want the book to tell me what to do. It did. Assuming my players wanted to have fun and not debate rules with me (which really isn't much fun for most people in the middle of a combat), it makes sense and it acceptable.

If I care to refine it further than that, I have the option. Large-size hop-up? Tumble check? Sure. But I don't need to consider all the options spur of the moment. I just need one that works and makes sense - enough to maintain verisimilitude, not so much that I'm quoting rules and not playing. If it is important enough to know,

Are there lots o'rules and stuff? Sure. But they are there to serve the game. Creating rules on the fly isn't something that should have to happen very often. It'll happen inevitably, but the basic work should already be done for you, so when you do have to do it, there's hundreds of examples to work from already, to keep it standardized and to make sure that if two different module designers put in four foot walls that they use basically the same rules for it.

Looking up a similar rule is as easy as turning to the index and glancing at some italicized text. I shouldn't have to go through the effort of creating a rule on the spot. What am I paying the developers for, in that case? Creating a rule is more difficult, more time-consuming, and ultimately less satisfactory for me in the middle of play than using a rule.

Either way, simplicity is something that I do believe is under-vlaued in current D&D. But it is a trade off for realism.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, now that I have gotten through your negative history with some DMs, we can get to the core of your argument, which makes little sense. In one sentence, you let the players tell the story, while in another, you work on the setting and story behind the curtain. The statements seem to contradict one another.

Setting and story is the entire purpose for having the role of DM. There can be no game without those aspects. The DM provides the direction for the game. Even if you provide a bare minimum of direction, you are still creating NPCs and developing encounters. Even the bare esssentials makes a DM more than a referee.

Referee: n 1: (sports) the chief official (as in boxing or American football) who is expected to ensure fair play [syn: ref] 2: someone who reads manuscripts and judges their suitability for publication [syn: reviewer, reader] 3: an attorney appointed by a court to investigate and report on a case v 1: be a referee or umpire in a sports competition [syn: umpire] 2: evaluate professionally a colleague's work [syn: peer review]

Please explain how you are a referee?

You cannot separate the behind-the-scenes work with the in game combat. A referee would only manage combat. A DM directs the combat, places the monsters, provides a reason for the monsters to be there, acts as the barmaid in the tavern who needs help against a gang of local thugs etc.

The DM directs the cooperative story and provides every element of that story except the main cast. The players are characters in the environment that the DM creates and breathes life into. If players want a referee, then they should play Living Greyhawk and play random standardized adventures where the entire purpose of the DM is to read box text and run pre-statted and placed combats.

That works fine in an environment where you get to DM and play equally, but that has no bearing on how most D&D games are run.

I can explain how I am a referee easily. As the DM, I set the stage BEFORE gameplay starts. I have a pretty good idea of what's where and what the situation is before the players sit down. Once gameplay starts however, I do not feel I should change rules. Before and after the game is perfectly acceptable, but, once we've sat down to game, the rules that the players understand to be in effect at the beginning of the session STAY in effect until the end of the session. Now, if one of those 1% events comes up in my game, unlike a referee for soccer, I do have to make a ruling to keep the game moving. However, as a group, we've decided on a method for resolution. Event occurs, players make their arguements, I rule one way or the other, game moves on. After the session, we can discuss the ruling ad nauseum, but, in the game, getting things moving is more important. Now, my players trust me enough to know that I'm ONLY going to do this in the 1 in a 100 cases where it needs to be done.

For the other 99 cases, I follow the RAW or any house rules we've agreed to before the session begins. In that way, nearly all the time, I am purely a referee. As was mentioned earlier, I have no vested interest in the outcome of any particular action. Like many others here, I've run into one unbelievable DM's fiat ruling after another.

Just to recap

A DM directs the combat, places the monsters, provides a reason for the monsters to be there, acts as the barmaid in the tavern who needs help against a gang of local thugs etc.

The DM directs the cooperative story and provides every element of that story except the main cast

I agree with almost all of that. Except the part about DIRECTING a cooperative story. In my game, the players direct the story, not me. If I'm directing the story, that means that I no longer am disinterested in the outcome. If you direct something, you have to direct it TO somewhere. I couldn't care less how the story comes out. That's the player's job. And, if directing a story means that I have to create new rules on the fly, then perhaps my story isn't as good as I think it is.

Like the example of the undispellable trap. How dare the players use the abilities of their characters to get around my idea. Nope, by Gum, they are going to solve my riddle or rot. No shortcuts for you, peasant!

I refuse, absolutely refuse, to play in that style of game anymore. If the DM is incapable of challenging the players without cheating (ie rewriting the rules) then he or she shouldn't be DMing.

Do DM's have the right to say no? Absolutely. As I said, my role as campaign creator occurs between sessions. That's when you tell your players that they can't play this or that because it doesn't fit into your game. While running a Scarred Lands campaign, I had a player playing a Forsaken Elf barbarian (long story). He came to me sometime later and wanted to play a fairly unpronounceable PrC from the BOED, some sort of god touched elven barbarian. Got all sorts of divine style abilities. Only one problem though. The Elven god in SL is dead (sort of). In my game, he was all dead. The Elves were dying off because of it. Allowing this would require major rewriting of established campaign facts, something I wasn't willing to do. The fact that the elf god was dead was known by all, so, it couldn't be added.

Now, I have no problems with that and the player, after whining for a while, understood my point as well. However, what I didn't do was allow him to play the PrC and then turn around and change the rules of the PrC down the road without any input from him.

That's why I consider myself a referee (in the soccer sense). Watch a soccer game sometime. Soccer refs have a great deal of latitude regarding the rules. Is that a foul? A yellow card? A red card? Offside? The list goes on. The rules are there to be used, but, each ref interprets the rules slightly differently. The example of the jumping tumbler above illustrates that perfectly. At no point in that discussion was someone suggesting that a simple Dex check should replace skill checks. The exact interpretation of the rules was different, but, it was still the same rules being used.

 

[The Shaman]

I see the [Jump] skill is used for jumping on to things, over things and down from things. However, I see that it makes the 1st 10 feet of the jump nonlethal damage. If it's less than that, it doesn't do damage, no reason to roll.

Don't see any chance to fall over when jumping down from a table. You COULD go beyond the rules, but what does it prove?

[Jump] covers jumping from one place to another safely, and it carries consquences for failed checks and some successful ones like falling prone.

What's the DC to hop down from a table without falling? The nearest thing the rules have to say about this is the DC 15 check to jump down 10' or more. If it's less than 10', then there's no check required in the rules, because there's nothing that happens in the rules at less than 10'. At 10' or more, a failed check or a successful untrained check which doesn't beat DC 20 results in you landing prone.

Other than that, why add to the rules burden?

Why indeed?

Because IMX gaming complex tasks is more exciting and more interesting than simple ones.

The rules serve the game, and if I can make an encounter more gripping, if I can up the stakes by extending a rule to cover an action not explicitly addressed (or addressed in such a way that it takes away from the action), then that's an easy choice for me. I'm more interested in making action memorable than I am in strictly applying the rules as written where those rules make for a dull game.

In my Modern games, a discovering a booby trap may involve separate Search checks to locate the trip and the device and two or three Demolitions checks to disarm the device - a strict interpretation of the RAW would tend to make it one Search check and one Demolitions check. The DCs vary, the consequences for failure vary, and I tend to add circumstace bonuses and/or reduce DCs for players thinking through and describing exactly what their characters do in handling the device. IMX it takes what could be a routine roll of a die and makes it a significant happening for that player and character.

As I mentioned, the Jump check for hopping over the wall did appear in one of my games. The Tumble off the table scenario was just something I made up to encourage different reactions - I've never actually ajudicated that one in 3e/d20, and simply argued the point to play devil's advocate. I have ruled on it in 1e AD&D - it was a Dex check with a -3 modifier.

I haven't played 1e in something like sixteen years, but I still remember that because I used a consistent system of ability checks to cover things not specifically addressed in 1e rules. The idea that GMs make a different ruling each time is simply foreign to me - different GMs might vary from one another to some degree, but IMX a GM usually had a pretty consistent approach, such that if it varied it was usually for a good reason and set the new standard for future situations of the same kind. The idea that exhaustively detailed rules prevent inconsistency just doesn't jibe with my personal experience of playing pre-3e/d20 - I've never seen more vituperative arguments over rules interpretations as I have with the current game.

To me 3e attempts to solve a problem that I didn't have in the first place, as a player or a GM. I don't think rulebook after rulebook prevent bad GMing and that the idea of "player control" is illusory - from my own experience I don't believe that a dense rules system makes mediocre GMs better.

Repeat that with me: We're arguing about whether the Tumble DC is 15 or 17 (or 25 or 27, depending on the route chosen).

No, that's what you're arguing - at this point you're focused on the candlestick while I'm looking at the two faces in the picture, so there's really no point in dragging this out any further.

 

[S'mon]

On the other hand, I don't expect to fire a ranged weapon through 4 team mates at an enemy and be told that there is a 90% chance to hit my friends, because it is likely at least one of them will move into my shot. .

Wow.

I was nodding all the way through " I don't expect to fire a ranged weapon through 4 team mates at an enemy..."

Then I read the rest of the sentence.

FWIW I would give 90% cover (+10 AC*) to the target here, with misses being rerolled vs the friends. However I'd tell the player this before they made the shot. They could then roll it or try something else.

*One of the stupidest things about 3.5 was its elimination of variable cover bonuses.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This sentiment (and the similar ones about DM's putting so much time and effort into the game that they deserve a better say) is incorrect.

<snip>

Yes, DM's put more work into their campaigns than players.

My original statement was that the idea that players put equal time and effort into the game was ludicrous (or words to that effect). You claimed that it was incorrect. So, the idea that DMs put more time and work into the campaign is wrong. Yet, two paragraphs down, you contradict yourself.

I agree that DMing is not a carte blanche permission to "run roughshod over everyone else at the table on some sort of die-infused power trip" .... but if that is what the DM is doing, I would imagine that he is DMing to an empty house.

The DM does the bigger job because the want to. If you don't want to do it, don't. If you do want to do it, well, you aren't entitled to some sort of unlimited authority because of it. The game is not YOUR creation. You need players, too. The game is a group experience. Yes, the DM does more work. But that's because they want to -- and if they like that side of the game, why should it be considered "more work" for them?

Because something is enjoyable, and a hobby, does not mean that there is less work involved. The term "work" does not mean simply "unpleasant work".

And, yes, I am entitled to unlimited authority because I DM (within the context of the game). That is the condition of my DMing. Unless you are willing to grant that, you are not welcome at my table. If I abuse that authority (in your eyes), you are certainly welcome to leave my table. It really is that simple.

I need players to run a game, but that isn't really a problem. My first game was run the day after Christmas in 1979. My most recent game was run Tuesday last. In all that time, no player has ever chosen to leave the table due to abuse of authority. It has simply been a non-issue.

Right now, my gaming group has nine players. I was thinking about reducing the size, which has caused a lot of anxiety because no one seems to believe that I should not be entitled to run the game. I also have another group of six players (different from the nine) trying to convince me to start another side game. Again, needing players isn't really a problem.

I understand that you (and others) may have encountered DMs who abuse that authority. Maybe I shouldn't have to say this, but that authority doesn't have to be stated in the rulebooks. The rulebooks can even state that the DM doesn't have that authority. THat won't prevent the DM from saying "My way or the highway." If you find yourself faced with those types of DMs, simply don't play with them. I've had to walk away from the table as a player too.

BTW, the game is MY creation (in this case, really, because of extensive rules re-writes). Which brings us to:

That said, DM's have, AFAIK, all the power in the world should they exercise it. But players are being understandably more cautious now than they ever were in old editions. The simple reason is that the rules are *better* now than they were in older editions, and so they don't *need* as much tinkering and tweaking. Thus, tinkering and tweaking the rules is seen as a vanity, not a nessecity, and players may be reluctant to sign up for something that they may hate just because some guy really likes his own little ruleset.

The current edition has some built-in assumptions that some might find require more than a little tinkering and tweaking. The basic engine is a good one, but the specifics can cause some problems. Again, one just has to drop by the House Rules (or even General Rules) forums to see that there are all kinds of people out there whose cranks are not turned by the video-game style of 3.X.

And don't even get me started on the XP system.....


RC