D&D 3E: the Death of Imagination?

[Saeviomagy]

Precisely how does 3rd ed D&D have more in-game bookkeeping (I'm ignoreing out-of game stuff, like encumbrance or shopping) than the other games referenced?

I'm GMing d20 (it's actually modern, but it's much like D&D, minus encumbrance, cash and a thorough knowledge of the rules by me).

It's not difficult. I read the rulebook through, and think I have the rules down pat. My players have a couple of copies of the SRD handy. If they state an action in-character, I recall the rule to the best of my ability, and we do it. If they have a dispute, then I move on, and they look up the rules. Typically they find the answer before the result matters (ie - someone else attacks the same creature, or the creature gets it's go). I bow to the rules as written.

I'm running 9 players, none of whom have played d20m before, all of whom have a copy of the rules at their disposal.

Combats go quickly. The existence of a 'battlemat' makes combat faster, not slower, because there are no longer any disputes about who can move where, or who can see who from where, or how a player thought his character was out of reach of a creature when I thought he was standing 5 feet away.

Non combats go quite well too. Players say "I go research such-and-such", and the rules let me assign a DC to the roll, and then tell them their character spends 3 hours looking for the answer. And then everyone else has 3 hours of the day to do their own thing. It paces the game nicely.

As to the rules stifling role-play? How's that work? Diplomacy changes how friendly the person you talk to is to you, not what they say. Bluff just makes them believe your story, it doesn't make them just give you the answers. Sense motive just tells you they're up to something, not what it is.

I've played a one-off starwars game. In it, the group got royally screwed. Why? Because in the middle of a conversation, he hesitated momentarily. That hesitation was supposed to be a clue that the NPC involved wasn't telling the whole truth. Our entire group (and every other group who played through the scenario) assumed that it was merely the DM forgetting his lines. In an effort to stay in character, noone followed up on it.

As another example, at least one DM I've played with had a problem with portraying characters who were concealing the truth. It was sufficiently bad that everyone knew when an NPC was lying, even the thick, unobservant half-orc.

That's why the rules for those actions are important. Noone, even (or especially?) those who pride themselves on their acting skills can pull it off perfectly.

 

[rounser]

Bookkeeping is not just how many numbers are written on the character sheet, but how much time & effort on the part of the player and GM to resolve a simple action.

To clarify on the meaning of "bookkeeping", I was talking about it in terms of adventure prep. E.g. statting NPCs...not looking up rules in-game (although that may affect playability as well). The kind of bookkeeping directly related to the amount of effort it takes to prepare an adventure.

It seems to me that character creation should have two sets of rules - a detailed one for PCs, and an abstract and abbreviated one for NPCs. What RPGs, if any, do this?

3E DMs usually handwave away the problem by ignoring skills, or some other workaround, but this makes 3E no better than the workarounds used to make 1E playable. If it's all only workable by ignoring the rules, then there's a problem with the rules.

3E nods in this direction with the pregenerated NPC tables, suggesting that yes, the authors felt that there was a tad too much bookkeeping in the game they created, otherwise these tables wouldn't exist!

 

[Henry]

3E DMs usually handwave away the problem by ignoring skills, or some other workaround, but this makes 3E no better than the workarounds used to make 1E playable. If it's all only workable by ignoring the rules, then there's a problem with the rules.

3E nods in this direction with the pregenerated NPC tables, suggesting that yes, the authors felt that there was a tad too much bookkeeping in the game they created, otherwise these tables wouldn't exist!

One person's "ignoring" is another person's "don't prepare more than you have to." Same rule I use with the exact totals of the Waterdeep City Watch, or the Gross National Product of Cormyr. Similarly, I don't need to know Mirt the moneylender's skill at knowledge (Orc Mating Rituals) until it is about to play a part in-game.

As to the NPC tables, yes, they are there because fully statted NPC's can be a pain, and for those DM's who require absolute completeness in every part of their games, (of which I am not), they are a boon. I also, however, believe that those tables were included because new gamers to 3E need a reference to each character class as to how a standard character would look at each level. They were in part meant to be a random NPC generator in a world where there WERE no standard NPC generators.

 

[Henry]

A special note to Hong:

Please refrain from poo-flinging, mud-flinging, dirt-flinging, and the arc-inflected propulsion of other stain-causing materials on the forums. Morrus makes the mods clean them up after-hours, and scrub-brushes can be very difficult to work into the corners between the buttons, as well as the edges of the scroll bars.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

Thank you.

 

[Saeviomagy]

rounser - are you saying that you fully stat-out EVERY skill on EVERY npc? No wonder you feel crushed by paperwork. If a skill is core to an NPC, then it's at full ranks. If it's something he should have, but it's not core, half ranks. If it's unimportant, he doesn't have it. Apply his stat modifiers and class/cross-class modifiers to those ranks as appropriate.

Interesting or important bad guys have some more time spent on them, and probably have correct feats and skill totals.

There aren't any rpgs that I know of that give npcs one creation method, and pc's another. I guess they all just assume that the GM is capable of taking shortcuts. I've had to do this with every game system I've used, only often there's not even the max ranks per level guideline to help.

 

[rounser]

No, I'm just suggesting that the rules support the way the game is played more than they do as it is. If you can do an 8th level fighter under oD&D rules in seconds, and it can take minutes under 3E, then obviously the amount of bookkeeping has increased.

Sheesh...suggest a potential improvement in the 3E system and you get rhetoric as to how it's perfect as it is...

 

[Henry]

If you can do an 8th level fighter under oD&D rules in seconds, and it can take minutes under 3E, then obviously the amount of bookkeeping has increased.

Sheesh...

I don't mean to make you feel double-teamed here, but with that being the case, you still fall back to the problem in earlier editions of as a DM having to house-rule, consistently, how capable the fighter is in non-combat situations, because the DM had not indication of same. Bluto sans Pite in White Plume Mountain is a formidable opponent, but who is to say how well he can swim, or parley, or heal his men? The answer as of 1984 was to go freeform, because there was no other alternative. The answer now is to once again go freeform, OR have consistent rules on how to handle skills for fighters.

In the longer term, there is more bookeeping; but in the immediate term, the bookeeping is pretty much the same as before, with the added value of being able to fully detail a character with a consistent system if the DM wants to.

 

[rounser]

Yes, but Henry, what about my idea of one set of rules for PCs, and another devoted to NPCs? A streamlined set of character creation rules that acknowledges that what is good design for maintaining player interest with bags of luvverly crunch is bad design for statting NPC mooks?

Double-, triple- teaming aside, you're all scampering off on tangents to protect and justify the precious status quo. Hello? Can I get some commentary instead of counterattack?

 

[Spatula]

Create PC - use normal method.
Create NPC - decide on class/race/level, copy stats out of proper NPC table in DMG.

Commentary: I'm not sure how you'd go about having different/simpler rules for creating NPCs in 3E (or any system) that doesn't rely almost exclusively on using pregen stats - which 3E already has in the DMG. Even 1E had this, in the original Rogue's Gallery supplement, which was mostly pages and pages of NPC stat charts by class.

 

[MerricB]

Yes, but Henry, what about my idea of one set of rules for PCs, and another devoted to NPCs? A streamlined set of character creation rules that acknowledges that what is good design for maintaining player interest with bags of luvverly crunch is bad design for statting NPC mooks?

I partially agree here; there is a certain level required for NPC generation that almost requires you to have e-tools, PCgen or another computer program of that sort!

I think you could avoid most of the NPC creation hassles by designing a set of 'simple' NPC classes, for example:

"Simple Warrior"
* The simple warrior has no feats.
* BAB +1 per level.
* Skills: Choose 2 skills, Level +3 bonus in each.
* Ability Scores: all 10.

Another time-saving procedure is to create a group of feat lists: choose one list based on the persona of the character.

However, the reason to create NPCs fully and accurately is this: so that the PCs have some idea as to what they're facing - that they aren't faced with a 'vorpal bunny', and thus make bad decisions based on what is actually inconsistent DMing.

Cheers!