3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Elf Witch]

I don't DM but as a player I believe that there has to be a certain level of trust between DMs and players.

I do not like playing with a DM who says core only no exceptions or a DM who allows everything in without looking at it.

Dms need to have the power to say what fits into their world. I have no problem playing in a game where a DM says there are no wizards just sorcerers or there are no monks, elves, whatever.

I have been lucky with some of my DMs they are good at working with the players to make a character that fits. For example in a 3.0 game the DM allowed me to swap out the sorcerer skill list with the empath spell list it fit what my character was about much better.

I am not sure where this DM Vs Player mentality has come from. But it is bad and I think it kills creativity you don't have to use all the options to make the game fun. Nor do you need to not allow any to keep control.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Oh, please..... In my opinion, the CR was an afterthought, tacked on to the rules (it shows (to me, at least) because of how clunkily it works compared to the rest of the system) could be why it is not well understood.

Have I personally tried to understand it? Nope, not even once. I looked at it, and then promptly ignored it from then on.

Sorry.. I just could not pass this up without comment....

Rasyr, I am glad you have such insight in how badly the CR/EL system works as you have not even tried to understand it!

CR/EL is a decent benchmark to look at when creating an encounter. Its not perfect and there are many variable, but for the most part you can use a CR 5 monster against a group of 4 PCs of 5th level and expect them to expend 20% of thier resources on it. Do this 14 times and expect them to be able to level.
Is it spot on every time? Of course not. Fickle Fate and other problems can intervene. But it is a guide for GM's who may not have the time to estimate the power balance of ceatures with strange abilities. And that is all it is. A guide.

As to the OP.. player options are always a good thing. Having players learn the rules is always a good thing. How you approach new rules/PrCs/etc.. can ruin or increase the entertainment value of the game.
I know the rules better than anyone in my group, so when a player wants to design a character I have them approach me with the 'I want to do this..' pitch and help them find the rules that best fit thier concept. To the point of customized classes as need be. Having prebuilt options that are outside of the box are easier than customizing a class from whole cloth. However, the group knows that all rules are optional..even those in the PHB

Even with that, I tend to average 4 hours of prep time for a 6 hour session. This is mainly because I dont want to be looking up obscure rules in the middle of play and so that I can be ready for when the players throw a monkey wrench into the plot-line.
I would like to see more GM aide type things, like in the most excellent module 'Of Sound Mind' {thank you PirateCat!} there were cardboard cutouts of the NPCs. No searching around for the right mini, or using the banner carrying warrior as a goblin.
3e has done great things for the DM. Having modules address scaling for different levels is one. Yes, the default assumptions of magic = power and 'everyone speaks common' get annoying.. but I have yet to find an similarly wide spread RPG that does as well.

E-Tools has done wonders for the time spent verifying player sheets. I dont worry about their math or spend time recreating the characters that got forgotten at home.

I do have to echo a comment upthread. 3e crunch can be seperated from fluff relatively easily, with the exception of spells. This makes it easier than any previous edition ever ahd for using the rules to create alternate settings.

yipwyg, your comment "The only real thing that I have seen a problem with this system is, players seem to not have any fear at all when it comes to combat." is erroneous. Its not the system that engenders this.. its the DM. Drop by for a session sometime and I will gladly demonstrate
And I can do that with "EL Appropriate" encounters.. its all them years of CP2020 and Paranoia experience



Anyway...

 

[BryonD]

Yep. Our experience has been more options = mo better.

Mine as well.
I actually find myself at something of a loss to contribute to a thread like this.


I find that I have trouble with the same thing I always had trouble with: Keeping a compelling series of encounters and developments laid out in my mind.

But once I know the basic plot arc, the rest is cake. More options is more flavor I can use in my cake.

I sure as hell don't have any grand amount of free time. When I have my story I stat out stuff that most appeals to me and wing the rest.

I use one electronic aid. Its called Microsoft Excel. Two if you count note keeping in Word.


In specific regard to DM power, I haven't felt any real loss. The players have more ability to expect consistency than in the past. And I think have have better tools to reliably provide it, at least from a mechanical point of view. Sometimes my homebrew adventures are better than other times....

 

[Breakdaddy]

Kick some of these option-hungry power gamers you all are claiming are such a scourge my direction, wouldya?

Sure, Chief! But do me a favor, willya? When you are done with 'em plz kill them instead of sending them back. kkthx!

 

[BryonD]

You should not need a college degree to play D&D.

Isn't there a big difference between designer's (Mike's comment) and players?

 

[Akrasia]

There is one thing that Mike Mearls said that bothers me ... The problem with this model is that it's forgetting the one thing that separates D&D from traditional games: The DM. This model, taken to its extreme, destroys the position of Game Master. ...

Indeed. I agree with you 100 percent here, Henry.

The DM/GM is the creative input that makes a table-top game far more satisfying than Everquest or World of Warcraft.

'Limiting' his/her power seems counter-productive. If you want to 'limit' the GM, why not just use a bloody computer?
:\

 

[Akrasia]

Sure, Chief! But do me a favor, willya? When you are done with 'em plz kill them instead of sending them back. kkthx!

 

[DragonLancer]

I am not sure where this DM Vs Player mentality has come from. But it is bad and I think it kills creativity you don't have to use all the options to make the game fun. Nor do you need to not allow any to keep control.

In my experience it has come about because of the modular nature of D20, and the influx of new options either official WotC or through third party material. With so many options and additions to draw upon, I've found that in my experience players have had to take that mentality because they need to if they want their characters to survive past the first couple levels.

Obviously some gaming groups are different, but thats what I've found through my experience with a few differing groups or conversations with other DM's in my area.

 

[Sundragon2012]

Indeed. I agree with you 100 percent here, Henry.

The DM/GM is the creative input that makes a table-top game far more satisfying than Everquest or World of Warcraft.

'Limiting' his/her power seems counter-productive. If you want to 'limit' the GM, why not just use a bloody computer?
:\

I agree.

This empower players thing, it seems to be one thing to designers and another to players.

For designers it is making a tight rules set that gives players greater options and frees DMs from having to adjudicate on the fly. I'm all for the former but have some issue with the latter. The latter seems to be a controversial issue but that isn't the topic of this thread.

Some players seem to think that empowering the players means empowering them to overpower or demand something of the DM. Silly, silly players who think like this. Any DM who is cowed into this childish DM vs. Player mindset needs to have his DM priviledges revoked and taken to a re-education camp. I am just joking of course, but the only type of DM I see being railroaded by his players is a new DM. It can be hard to say no....but trust me it is an art form unto itself.

Unless you are new at DMing, it is your fault as DM if your players believe that can override your decisions with either their own opinions or the written words of the core, or any other, books.

I saw the comment that if the DM doesn't tow the line he can be replaced and though in my time I have seen one or two DMs who needed to stop DMing, I say "go for it!" If you really think that though you have never DMed before you can do a better job than me feel free to try.

When I was a teenager my brother was pissed off and bought the FR grey boxed set intending to DM....meaning intending to realize any fantasy that my annoying consistancy prevented. He ran 2 sessions then handed the reigns back over to me. I knew it wouldn't take long and my other players played along for laughs.


Chris

 

[scourger]

I'll chime in to agree with the basic tenor of the original post. I find the problem* with d20 D&D is its complexity. *I use the word "problem" to denote my difficulty with the system and that of my fellow gamers. The game just gets too complicated to run after a few levels. It's great at low levels. We think the sweet spot is about 1st through 5th level. By 10th, things are just out of hand. I think the game overall is an improvement over previous editions (which I have played since 1980) and many other game engines that I have played and/or run. The combat rules, in particular, are great. But, the rules quantify everything--and in a complicated way. Lately, I just don't have the inclination or the time to figure out all the complexities of a module's worth of foes to present a game to my friends even though I use preprinted adventures almost exclusively (thanks Dungeon!).

And this experience is just with core D&D & d20 games. I learned the lesson to keep the game to the core with the 2e brown (splat?) books. For D&D, I stick to the PHB, DMG & MM. I don't even use the prestige classes in the DMG. Ironically, I find a d20 derivative game like Omega World, Judge Dredd or Star Wars more appealing because the magic is emilinated. Check the PHB & DMG to see how much material is devoted to magic. It's a lot. Sure, you may have to worry about some psionics or Force powers, but they're nowhere nearly as complicated as spells and magic items. It's almost worth it to me to track all those bad guys' feats, gear & hit points in every combat in order to run Omega World or Judge Dredd just because the absence of magic makes it so much simpler.

The design of d20 seems to me to be that it is a table-top RPG emulating a computer/online RPG. My brain can compute all the variables at low levels, but I just don't want to work that hard at having fun right now to continue any of the D&D games I have "on hold". I have thought about reducing magic and eliminating hit points as ways to streamline the game, but I think it would lose too much in the process. I'm afraid it wouldn't be fun for the players. I even recently bought Unearthed Arcana to try to save the game for me. So far, no dice (pun intended).

By contrast, I find Savage Worlds very easy to run and seemingly enjoyable for the players. The design goals of that game are to make it easy on the GM as possible while keeping it fun for the players to start and keep playing. Even the publishing goal of producing one book per setting with an integral plot-point campaign exemplifies the design goals. PDFs are available for players & GMs who want more information, but the game can be run out of the core book with a great setting book added if desired. I think Shane Lacy Hensley has really hit upon the right design and marketing strategy with Savage Worlds. Although I'm not sure how it would work for swords & sorcery fantasy gaming, I'm anxious to try it. So far, it's really given the me ease to prepare it quickly and run it smoothly while allowing the players plenty of choices for cool abilities to make them unique and powerful.