3e... good for players, more difficult for DMs

[Umbran]

Some of my own thoughts...

1) More rules to remember - If you start considering apocrypha - things like the survival guides and the like, I'm not sure that there are more rules now than there used to be. What rules there are are now far more consistant, as others have mentioned. And, as P-cat has mentioned, when all else fails, you can simply set a DC and go.

2) Being a bad guy more - I note that, if you're following the stated intent of prestige classes, going through them is in itself campaign development. Prestige classes are suppose dto be a "world building tool". If you aren't finding them to be such, perhaps you should rethink how you are using them.

3) Creating NPCs is an administrative burden - for one, it does not have to be. There's computer support to remove much of the the burden, and as others have mentioned, creating less-fully-fleshed NPCs is now easier, rather than more difficult. Also, while there may be more burden, there's also greater flexibility and opportunity. It takes longer, but your NPCs can now be more interesting.

5) Game worlds with less support - I note that comparing current official game world support with late-2e game world support isn't appropriate. Game worlds build up over time. 2e had a decade of world development, and 3e has had a couple of years.

6) Quality modules - I'd argue that actually there were relatively few "quality" modules in the first place. And as with game worlds, there's the time to consider.

7)Rapid advancement - rate of advencement is entirely in the DM's hands. The DMG does a good job of outlining how to control advancement speed. If you're group goes up in level too fast, give out fewer XP.

As for other points that have been raised - I personally find combats are faster in 3e than in 2e, and faster than combat in many other game systems.

As for levelling up being "a nightmare"... I'm sorry to say that I find that just a bit silly. It isn't like you get so many skill points that keeping track of them is difficult. I mean, a top end rogue gets... 12? Players find allocating a dozen lousy points to be "a nightmare"? I just don't grok that.

 

[Ace]

Hehe, I would like to throw in a big "Thank God for Jamis Buck's generators!" as well. I can toss out mad stat blocks for multiple PCs and print hardcopies for just about any situation the PCs might put themselves in

Actually just thank Jamis Buck

 

[Nightfall]

While I do lament that PS is still not being supported, I really have to say that you really do not know the state of the market. Ravenloft, Kalamar, the Scarred Lands, and Oathbound are just a few currently supported game worlds for 3e/d20.

On the contrary, there are several very good game worlds out there, with original themes, unlike any seen in TSR worlds, with support out the -- well, it's lots of support.

Check out the following:
--the Freeport setting at www.greenronin.com
--the Scarred Lands and Ravenloft settings at www.swordsorcery.com
--the Draognstar setting at www.fierydragon.com

There are many others, but these three have so much support that you can run full 20-level campaigns with little need for extra support.

Not to mention folks you have yours truly when it comes to the Scarred Lands AND the wonderful developers that are willing to listen to the consumers. Btw thanks to everyone that mentioned the Scarred Lands. Personally this is why I enjoy 3rd more than I did 2nd in many ways. I got CHOICES I like.

 

[barsoomcore]

- the combats simply take forever, and there's no way around this (believe me I've tried) other than avoiding combat.

I have to say I find combat speedy and exciting.

"He runs past you to grab the --"

"I make an attack of opportunity against him!"

"You haven't made one this round? No, I guess not. Okay, take a shot."

"I backhand him with my heavy mace! A 27! And a 15 damage! Woo! Right in the face!"

"Nice shot. He staggers, blood streaming from his forehead, but carries on..."

AoO's reward players for paying attention to what's happening. I don't point them out so only players who are involved ever get them. Now that the group realises they can get these attacks, it makes people pay attention all the way through the round.

Remember old D&D? "Wake me up when it's my turn..."

I'm not going to try and convince you about your other points since you seem to clearly have your mind made up, except to ask for a little more clarification on the skill points issue. Am I doing this wrong? It seems perfectly simple to me.

And to say that in any system, if I need an NPC's background, I'm definitely spending more than 5 minutes on them anyway.

And about bull rushes:

The rules for bull rush are insanely complicated for what it is... Why the needless complication ? In the end we just did opposite STR checks.

Well, that's pretty much exactly what a bull rush is. The rules have six paragraphs, which say:

1: One sentence explaining what sort of action a bull rush is.

2: Two sentences explaining what a bull rush is and what limitations there are on attempting one.

3: "First, the combatant moves into the defender's space." Then there's some hoohah about who gets AoO's -- common sense stuff.

4: "Second, the combatant and the defender make opposed Strength checks." Then there's a list of specific bonuses that might apply.

5: "Bull Rush results: if the combatant beat the defender, the combatant pushes the defender back five feet." Then there's some extra stuff if you want to keep on pushing.

6: Two sentences describing the result of a failure.

To my mind, you need all those rules. I find it hard to imagine these rules as "insanely complicated". I need to know what sort of action it is, I need to know what it is and who can attempt it, I need to know how to start one and what the ramifications are, I need to know how to resolve one, I need to know what happens if I succeed and I need to know what happens if I fail.

In any event, you did exactly what a bull rush is. You might have missed a "rules-approved" attack of opportunity, but since those should only be given to people who see them and ask for them, no big deal.

 

[Celebrim]

1) More rules to remember.

Err... did you play with any house rules in 1st edtion?

2) I have to be the bad guy more.

Clearly your first edition PC's did not have access to Dragon magazine.

3) Creating NPCs is more of an administrative burden.

It can be. It is nowhere near as difficult as it is in GURPS, and like GURPS you have to decide sometimes whether the NPC is important enough to deserve a full stat block or whether you can wing it with only a few notes on what is likely to come up.

4) Game worlds with less support.

Err.. no. Second Edition was all about the big support of the setting (Forgotten Realms mostly). No other game world has ever been so supported in publications, and unfortunately few have been so notably unclever. First edition support for game worlds was minimal. Third edition support for game worlds isn't quite the avalanche of published material (often of dubious quality) as for 2nd edtion game worlds, but it is significant and typically pretty good quality.

5) Preference fragmentation.

HA! Really, did you have _any_ house rules in 1st edition? Didn't you read Dragon magazine?

6) Less quality modules.

Agreed. We are in a module slump right now.

7) Rapid advancement.

Agreed, it can be a problem, but it can be fixed.

On your thesis: Well, as a guy who is writing PERL code right now, I can agree with you that more options is not always better, but YMMV.

 

[Sammael99]

Remember old D&D? "Wake me up when it's my turn..."

As I mentioned above, I'm not comparing 3E with previous editions. I have mentioned this in other threads before, but we play four hour sessions every other week. That's not a lot. A single combat usually takes half of that time. That's very little left for things like plot, interaction, etc.

I'm not going to try and convince you about your other points since you seem to clearly have your mind made up, except to ask for a little more clarification on the skill points issue. Am I doing this wrong? It seems perfectly simple to me.

It's not complicated so much as tedious...

And to say that in any system, if I need an NPC's background, I'm definitely spending more than 5 minutes on them anyway.

Agreed. 5 mn on the stats, 1/2 hour on the rest would be nice...

Well, that's pretty much exactly what a bull rush is. The rules have six paragraphs, which say:

There's a whole thing about 25% chances of attacks hitting the wrong people and whatever. If that's not needlessly confusing...

But again, I don't want to get into a whole debate about all this. Let's just say that having used the system for 2 1/2 years now, I'm seeing its limit (considering what I want a system to be)and don't look forward to using it again for another campaign...

 

[barsoomcore]

As I mentioned above, I'm not comparing 3E with previous editions.

You're right, you did say that. Forgive me.

Actually, my point wasn't so much a comparision between editions as an attempt to point out how much I like the AoO mechanic -- how it involves players at all points in the combat. It keeps things from feeling too turn-based.

I guess part of it (leaving "it" intentionally poorly defined) is what parts of the world you want modeled in your game system and what parts you don't. What bugs me about the Storyteller system is how it models a character's inner changes. I don't want that modelled because I want that played out "free-form". What I want rules for are character's interactions with the physical world around them, along with some "helper" rules for social interactions to assist players who maybe can't play the suave and debonair chap they want to play.

Some people don't want combat modeled in detail because they'd rather let their imaginations dictate the flow of events. Some people want clear modeling of internal states because they want to play out those states as they change, in response to rolls or rules. Some people want crafting and professional careers described in great detail because they need to know what their character can do on their "time off" or whatever.

3E fits very well with my strengths and weaknesses. I can be a very undisciplined DM and let players get away with too much, especially in combat -- so that the game ceases to have any tension. The tight mechanics of 3E combat really helps me to keep things balanced and exciting.

I'm really good at, however, creating NPCs with fully realised personalities, so I don't feel like I need any help with that. In fact, I kind of resent systems that tell me how my NPC is likely to behave. I tend to focus on "adventurey" stuff and am less interested in day-to-day details, so I don't need an expansive skill system or really detailed resolution mechanic.

You know what would be an interesting discussion? (Rather than these "3E Rocks!" "3E Sucks!" discussions) "How does 3E complement or inhibit your strengths?"

 

[Sholari]

It's great to see a lot of the constructive feedback offered by people here. I think there were indeed some good suggestions offered for how to deal with these annoyances. My own solution would be a game setting that would take care of a lot of these things... 1) places limits on some of the options, 2) slows advancement, 3) offers a world as detailed and well-though out as the Iron Kingdoms minus all the steampunk aspects, and 4) offers several integrated module series. Not to say there are some companies that haven't come close but I have yet to see something that I'm completely satisfied with. Yeah, I admit already... I'm probably a little picky.

 

[Sammael99]

Actually, my point wasn't so much a comparision between editions as an attempt to point out how much I like the AoO mechanic -- how it involves players at all points in the combat. It keeps things from feeling too turn-based.

I guess part of it (leaving "it" intentionally poorly defined) is what parts of the world you want modeled in your game system and what parts you don't. What bugs me about the Storyteller system is how it models a character's inner changes. I don't want that modelled because I want that played out "free-form". What I want rules for are character's interactions with the physical world around them, along with some "helper" rules for social interactions to assist players who maybe can't play the suave and debonair chap they want to play.

For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with AoOs. I find they are a fairly nifty mechanic, the only drawback being that they force you into tactical mode : you need a map and some tokens. It's not that bad, but not very freeform.

I think I understand what you're saying about Storyteller. There are many things I dislike with ST, roughly along the lines you suggest, but I find it easier to ignore them than to ignore the aspects of 3E combat that bog the game down (IMO). For example, I never used natures and demeanors, and in Exalted I'm not using virtues. As for the elements of social interaction, I rarely roll for those because luckily enough my players are more extrovert than introvert and therefore like to act them out. Sometimes a roll settles it when I'm undecided as to whether they were convincing enough.

 

[Synicism]

I can't think of a single way D&D 3rd is not an improvement over AD&D 2nd.

That being said, I find the premise of your post to be absolutely true when comparing D&D 3rd to other roleplaying games I have run.

I really have no problem with the way the game plays. I think combat rounds run pretty quick (I have played HERO system, so I know slow rounds), and I think the overall flow of the game is pretty decent. Most of the issues I have with GM-unfriendliness deals with logistics.

1. I stay in pretty good shape, but I still find that getting my stuff to games is quite a workout. In my Oathbound game I typically bring: PhB, DMG, MM, MM2, PsiHB, MotP, D&dG, BoVD, KoKPG, OA, FRCS, Magic of Faerun, all 5 Splatbooks, Masters of Arms, and the 4 FFG Path of... class books.

This is ridiculous. And the stack has been growing over time because I use something from each and every one of those books.

I have *never* had to lug around so many books for any RPG before, even AD&D 2nd. I use a wheeled suitcase, for crying out loud.

Part of the problem is that I supply most of the books used in the campaign, but another part of the problem is that I want my players to have access to the kinds of character flexibility that they might enjoy with another system, and that means BOOKS.

I have a fighter/barbarian/exotic weapon master (2 books), who is developing a fighting school (Path of the Sword) based around moves from Masters of Arms.

I have a Bladesinger, but I use the Basiran Dancer base class from the KoKPG instead of that broken Prestige Class from Sword & Fist (Song of Celerity my foot).

I have a Bard with the extended music options from Path of Magic.

Going to a game session should not require a trip to the chiropractor.

2. New Book Syndrome. As many books as I carry to games, there are always new ones. Occasionally, the players want to try something from a book I haven't seen before. I try to be fair and give it a look, but that just slows the game down. And if I go and buy a new book that gets added to the game (Savage Species, for example), my suitcase gets heavier.

3. "Now where did I put..." this one really pisses me off. A character has something that we pulled out of a book because it was neat and when it comes up, we need to dig it out again. God help me if I happened to not bring the book. This is really a problem with spells because there are so darn many of them, even though I use a fairly limited set of available spells.

4. Character advancement takes forever. In a game where I can award a certain number of points and let the characters spend them, this is a quick and fairly painless process. I ask certain questions: (1) do you want to spend any EXP this time? (2) what skills and abilities did you develop this session? And so on. Leveling up in D&D is such a pain. There is a lot of erasing and scribbling and counting of points and adjustment of modifiers due to new feats and whatever. It reminds me of Rifts. Change one thing and erase half your character sheet.

5. I've noticed that my players approach character generation in terms of "what cool powers my character has." The first question I always ask a player is "who is your character?" D&D 3rd lends itself to the following: "I'm a gold-elf wizard-loremaster who specializes in transmutation spells." Which is not an answer to my question. D&D is great for new players - it has lists upon lists of powers and progressions and frameworks and it takes all the thought out of it. I've also noticed that players tend to take a long view of character advancement. "Hmm, in six levels, I can qualify for Force Wielder. Cool, so I'll take this feat, and these skills..." Don't really like this either. It's great for setting a character's long-term goals, but I hate it when it dictates chocies that are completely at odds with the way things have progressed.
So yeah, I think 3rd is rather GM-unfriendly. Especially considering that I have run games under Shadowrun, GURPS, White Wolf, and any number of other systems with equal if not more options for my players and could fit everything into a small backpack.

What really bothers me is that I was able to construct faithful conversions of all my characters with two half-sized BESM 2nd ed. books.

That being said, I recognize that there are ways I could deal with the problem.

1. I could restrict the options. I don't like this. I like options. I've played too much GURPS not to have options.

2. I could say "no" a lot more. This winds up being one of the first problems mentioned.

3. I could spend hours with a photocopier and compile a big binder o' rules. Frankly, I don't have that many quarters.