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

[Nightfall]

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.

Sokay to be picky. But doesn't hurt to just say "You know I'm the DM. If I like something I'll take it." And just alter that part.

 

[rounser]

The administrative burden complaint is being handwaved away by the old "the rules are usable if you ignore them" fallback, which you lot give 1E players flack for.

He wins that one, sorry guys.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I have no experience with AD&D or OD&D, but I both played and mastered Shadowrun, and now I master D&D 3.Edition.

D&D is much easier to DM.
In Shadowrun, there are holes in the rules big enough to let a Troll pass through ) ).

Creating NPC is extremely different, and you have near to no idea how dangerous they are towards the characters.
(Oh, and the PCs have a similar number of options like D&D PCs)

If you want to have a fight with more than 2 opponents against the characters, prepare for a headache and a long, boring time of figuring target numbers.

Many adventures for Shadowrun do make very stupid assumptions about the characters behaviour, and are missing important plot parts.

Comparing it with D&D, 3. Edition:
The rules may sometimes be not perfect, but most the time they are very good, easy to understand and easy to use. If you don`t know a rule, you don`t have to ditch through 6 books in hope of finding it. Usually, DMG or PHB are enough for this, and you often do know what chapter to look...

You can get "free" NPCs via the DMG or Monster Manual. You know how dangerous they are (CR / EL Rules). If you create NPCs of your own, you know the same. If you create new monsters, it is a bit more difficult, but there is at least a good framework.

If you plan a fight of 12 NPCs against 4 PCs, you will be able to handle this in a reasonable amount of time and you don`t get headaches...

If I plan a campaign, I could make every single adventure before the play ever begins, because I can figure out the XP the group gets and what level they will have when they play a certain adventure...

 

[Umbran]

The administrative burden complaint is being handwaved away by the old "the rules are usable if you ignore them" fallback, which you lot give 1E players flack for.

Watch it there, bub. We don't all give 1e players flack. Don't accuse all of us when it doesn't apply to all of us.

Yes, 3E does call for more administrative duty on fully fleshed NPCs. Well, more than core 2e. If you're adding in the various extra books with tehir rules and point-based systems, I don't think the complaint holds water anymore. But, it isn't really much more than other systems out there (WW Storyteller, has IME, a similar burden).

Plus, for whatever extra hassle you have to deal with, you get more than you used to. It takes a little more time, but your NPCs are more complete and interesting. That's not hand-waving. That's simply noting that all the options open that make PCs mroe interesting applies just as well to NPCs.

 

[rounser]

Watch it there, bub. We don't all give 1e players flack. Don't accuse all of us when it doesn't apply to all of us.

Look to the "help me get excited about 2E" thread to see how openminded to the virtues of earlier editions ENWorld denizens are. If 3E fans dish it out on the platform of "the rules work if you ignore them is no excuse", they should be prepared to receive it. No amount of "watch it there bub" will change that.

 

[Voneth]

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

IMO one of the biggest campaign decisions is how to handle "newly published material" and that is nowehere more evident than PRCs in the glut of PRC publishing in the last several years. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think this is something a lot of DnD only DMs are having problems with. Those who only played DnD during the years aren't used to having a lot new material come out at this rate (except for some stuff in the old Dragon magazines.) Once you bought a campaign world, you pretty much just kept buying "geographical" suppliments and that was it, there wasn't a new class or new spin on the magic system for months or years at a time for while.

And then some of the DMs have a "reality" problem in that they feel they have to explain where this new information suddenly came from.

For those of us who went to do other things, we are used to suddenly having not only new classes, but optional new races and social economic changes as other games companies hustled to keep your dollar from going back to TSR.

 

[Voneth]

The administrative burden complaint is being handwaved away by the old "the rules are usable if you ignore them" fallback, which you lot give 1E players flack for.

He wins that one, sorry guys.

I don't give 1E. flack for that concept, I just mention that if they applied that to 3e, then they would find that the latest edition is no worse or than 1e. But hey, it's only a game, play what you enjoy.

 

[Petrosian]

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

[/B][/QUOTE]

I think this is something a lot of DnD only DMs are having problems with. Those who only played DnD during the years aren't used to having a lot new material come out at this rate (except for some stuff in the old Dragon magazines.) Once you bought a campaign world, you pretty much just kept buying "geographical" suppliments and that was it, there wasn't a new class or new spin on the magic system for months or years at a time for while.

Hmmm... from my 1e days of DND there were supplements and such that added new classes and the like, though not with the rate of DND PRCs. The most common interjection was new spells which have an impact, albeit leser.

And then some of the DMs have a "reality" problem in that they feel they have to explain where this new information suddenly came from.

Actually i see it a little differnetly. CLASSES serve to me one major function... they tell the players how the world works in very fundamental ways. The sudden addition of new classes (not necessarily the rare or hidden sect types but the basic get things done type) starts impacting that understanding fairly strongly.

When i started my campaign, i looked at the schedule and realized the class-books were going to trickle out over more than a year. So up front i told my players NO PRCs and the class book stuff will be implemented after review only. Spells, feats, and skills will most likely go in fine and we can consider most of them to be "advanced" so that their integration into later levels is sensible.

This avoided significantly redefining my world and their understanding of it as things went along.

For those of us who went to do other things, we are used to suddenly having not only new classes, but optional new races and social economic changes as other games companies hustled to keep your dollar from going back to TSR.

I have seen the same thing happen in other system and it has the same basic problems there. In whatever system i ran, i have seen over and over that locking down a good number of "core" campaign world points at the beginning produced better results.

 

[Henry]

Look to the "help me get excited about 2E" thread to see how openminded to the virtues of earlier editions ENWorld denizens are. If 3E fans dish it out on the platform of "the rules work if you ignore them is no excuse", they should be prepared to receive it.

A closer look at that thread might reveal that there were SEVERAL helpful hints on that thread. Hopefully, Bagpuss got what he needed out of it, but let's be frank - it's kind of hard to get jazzed about a system if you personally find another game technically superior in every way - and the only problems to speak of in the new system are the same problems you had from the old system, which you simply carried over.

Let's face it - it's a pain to prepare fully for ANY RPG, especially for someone unfamiliar with it. Familiarity breeds proficiency.

My suggestions about NPC's are the way I handled NPCs even since the days of BASIC D&D. In 2E, for instance, all the stats I ever needed to know about my NPC's was their class, level, alignment, and anything truly outstanding about them. Anything else can be created on the fly. Having a bit of mystery to an NPC is part of the fun for the players.

 

[Voadam]

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.

Here are some suggestions.

Each player writes up the rules information needed for their character so it is all on one long electronic word document character sheet. This should include class abilities, feat descriptions, and spells (may be too much for divine casters). All the basics are in the srd so they can cut and paste that and even a new class like the basirian dancer one is not more than 2 pages worth of rules info to type up. Then you do not need to bring those splat books or the ones with class stuff, just the setting info and DM books like the monster book you want to use. You can have them send you a copy before the games so you can double check that they get it right.

If they are planning things out ahead of time, this means you don't need to bring every book with a feat, class, or spell in it when they level up.

Let them borrow books outside of the game to see the options. If they want to use a class or feat or what not, make them type it out so you don't need to lug the books or spend your time doing their character work for them. Just double check that they get it right.