Dms, dont you wish

Galeros said:
Hmmm, maybe I should have more so said that like DragonLancer. I want Combat rules to be more lite. My players are obseesive about AOOs and when the mage wants to cast fireball it is all about counting squares which takes up time, or him taking forever to decide what to do. Not to say he has not made good use of some spells though. I am fine with all the skills checks and stuff. it is hard to explain but I just do not like the sheer amount of rules there is. I must some form of chaotic. :)


Now, the question "is a rules-light game a bad thing" has a different answer: Rules-light games are and can be a good thing. But for 3E I'm just personally enjoying what form it's taking nowadays. The trick is to not be railroaded by a pushy player into accepting EACH and EVERY rule for your games that you run. If they want to run ALL the rules BY the rules, then they should be DM'ing.

Otherwise, the DM sets both the tone and the game he or she wants to run by giving final word on what he's allowing or changing. I have no problem with a DM being dictator, as long as he's a benevolent dictator. Work with the players, try to give them what they want if it doesn't give you a headache, and don't be afraid to set the final word down on what's allowed and not allowed. The smoothness of play to me depends on SOMEBODY being the final authority, in the end.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Galeros said:
Hmmm, maybe I should have more so said that like DragonLancer. I want Combat rules to be more lite. My players are obseesive about AOOs and when the mage wants to cast fireball it is all about counting squares which takes up time, or him taking forever to decide what to do.

Thats my point. D&D3 has turned combat into a game of chess.
 

Galeros said:
Dont you wish(No funny remarks about a Wish spell are to be in this thread :p ) that there were not so much rules. And that more could just be left up to judgement calls, that your players did not argue about you with. I ahve never played any other edition but 3.0. But I wish there was a Rules-lite version of D&D. It is more like my players run the game than I do.

You have several alternatives. One way is to become much more stubborn as a DM. Don't get yourself overwhelmed by rules or how your players interpret them. It is hard to do, especially if they have been playing longer than you. DMing is not a democratic decision making process. You, as a Dungeon Master, are in control. After all, you are the one who will work the most on a campaign. You should, especially since you said you were a beginner, outright forbid anything outside the three core books. Hell, forbid consulting the manuals in game. Keep the game flowing and brush aside complaints: if the adventure is fun in the end, they will have no ground to stand on.

You could also look into ways to simplify game processes. Reduce multiclassing choices. Even: reduce class choices to four (Fighter, Wizards, Cleric, Rogue). No matter what others say, it is enough for years of adventuring. Don't use tactical combat. Simplify skills: if you restrict anyone to maxed out skills, there is no need to shuffle around points. And so on - I am sure you can find multiple by-ways.

As a final alternative, you could try a rules lite version of D&D. The time is just right, since there are no less than three choices to choose from - one published, two coming out soon.

OGL Fantasy Lite: Basic Player's Guide is available from RPGNow for $5. I do not possess it, but the description sounds about right:
Simplicity is back. While trying to introduce someone to a role-playing game can overwhelm them with options and rules, this work is designed to keep things simple and presentable. You can drop this work into the lap of an 8-10 year old who has never played RPGs before and get him an understanding of and an ability to contribute to a game, completely by the rules, in an hour or less. More experienced gamers will already be familiar with the material in this work, but may wish to use it to introduce their friends into gaming. Show them that gaming is fun!

The second choice is the upcoming D&D Basic set, published by Wizards of the Coast. Others will know more about it - I think it comes out this Fall and includes a rulebook, miniatures, dice and a sample adventure. Unfortunately, it will only cover lower levels (we don't know how high) and may lack character generation info. Still, it will be easy and official.

The third is Castles and Crusades from Troll Lord Games. Castles and Crusades is not 3e lite, but rather a simple game inspired by 1st edition AD&D, Basic D&D and (of course) 3e's mechanics. In a way, it may or may not be what you are looking for, since it represents a completely different take on D&D's themes - lower powers, less player choices, no skills (although there is another sort of mechanism I am not allowed to speak about that may be used in its place) and a very high level of DM power. It is also very easy to tinker with. You can sign up for playtesting and get a copy of the most recent playtest document (this also means you will need to sign a non-disclosure agreement for yourself and your group). The game is set for an early Fall release (with a possible Gen Con preview), but you can pretty much start with the current docs and extrapolate the rest. Tha main book will cost $20 and contain brief DMing instructions. Others can tell you more on the C&C boards.
Here is a part of C&C's proclamation:
Castles and Crusades™ takes the best elements of each of the prior editions of the beloved game and combines them into a package that is simple and modern, yet fresh while traditional. In Castles and Crusades™ , the game is stripped to its logical core, making it easy to grasp, even for the most curmudgeonly of gamers!
Castles and Crusades™ revolves around the six attributes, and they are the engine that drives characters through the story. Attributes aid the CK in resolving conflicts during the game, be they combat, saving throws, or character abilities dependant upon class and race. Attributes determine whether a character can swim a mighty river, dodge a dragon’s fiery breath, pick a locked treasure chest to recover lost gold, or slay an evil monster intent on ravaging civilization. Players define their characters by selecting “prime attributes,” and those the player chooses to emphasize influence a character’s ability to act within the game. No longer need the CK or players bog themselves down with backpacks full of rules books containing copious amounts of game terms, rules, varying mechanics, and rules explanations and complications. Instead, they can focus on the game at hand, playing Castles and Crusades™ out-of-the-box or molding it to fit their style of play. By placing emphasis on character attributes, Castles and Crusades™ presents a streamlined game of storytelling for past, present, and future generations of roleplayers!

Best of luck!
 

Both rules-light and rules-heavy games have their strengths and weaknesses.

As others have already noted, there is nothing preventing a GM from running D&D more by the seat of his or her pants than by the rules, except perhaps the players. If the players won't allow it, it is for two possible reasons:

1)The GM isn't very good at it.

2)They would prefer (for any of a long list of reasons - some solid, some weak) to keep the game running along known rules-lines.
 

Mouseferatu said:
Only if you have a DM who can't be trusted to be fair.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not putting down people who prefer a more complex rules set. I play 3E far more than any other game. But yes, there are times where I prefer games that leave a lot more in the DM's/ST's/Whatever's hands. And if I didn't trust the DM to be fair, to treat the PCs and NPCs equally, and to listen to reasonable discussion, I wouldn't play with him.

I agree. I'd also add, perhaps more than fair, a DM needs to be focusing on fun. Sometimes having fun means being a bit unfair to one person or another, but as long as you're fair in being unfair while increasing the fun, that's well... um.. more fun!

joe b.
 

I like the rules. I personally am not very good a making up systems to handle situation on the fly while running a game. So having rules that cover most situation is very helpful for me.

I do know the rules better than my players. I attribute my understanding of the rules to Enworld's Rule forum. There is nothing for solving rule questions quickly and efficiently in game like having previously debated or read a debate on those same questions in the forum. I often know what questions my player will ask, why they will ask them, and what the solution I want to use in my game before we start playing. This allows my to solve problems simply and with out getting into debates over whether or not my judgements calls are fair. I also think that my player or more willing to trust my house rules and alterations because I know what I am changing and because I do not do so on the fly.
 

Galeros said:
My players are obseesive about AOOs and when the mage wants to cast fireball it is all about counting squares which takes up time, or him taking forever to decide what to do.

Ah, that can be a problem. I took a cue from miniature games I've played (WH40K for example, we're not allowed to measure distances until we fire/move etc.) and don't allow square counting during the game. A wizard must eyeball the placement of a fireball just as the player will have to. Speeds things up and makes it a bit more realistic (if a tad more difficult) for casters and their area effects. If you thik about it, if a caster has an ally THAT close to their effect anyhow, would they really be casting it anyway? Probably not, unless the caster is a bit evil perhaps.
 
Last edited:

I have had players argue with me extensively. (A spellfire wielder who wants to absorb magic from a magic trap [the ruling is only for traps that use specific spells]). Now they have gotten to the point where not everything they can come up with will work. They test it to find out. I've had some players tell me that I penalize them for being creative. I explain to them that penalizing is something bad happening to them when they try it and something that doesn't work is not a penalization but something that doesn't work (which is obviously completely different).
 

I do wish there was a more rules lite version. If anything I wish I could make a rules calling without some player flipping through his PHB and poking his grubby little finger at some rule that disputes my claim. If I don't give in then I look like I am cheating but if I do cave in then I look like I have no backbone and I am letting the rules run my game. I hate having every little situation spelled out... give me a little freedom any day.
 

Calico_Jack73 said:
I do wish there was a more rules lite version. If anything I wish I could make a rules calling without some player flipping through his PHB and poking his grubby little finger at some rule that disputes my claim. If I don't give in then I look like I am cheating but if I do cave in then I look like I have no backbone and I am letting the rules run my game. I hate having every little situation spelled out... give me a little freedom any day.
As a player, I'd be the one cracking open the PH if the DM rules in a way I think to be contrary to the rules. If it turns out to be true, I point this out to the DM, who can either change the rule however he likes or use the rule as written. For me, it's all about consistency. Either the rule in the book, or the DM's custom rule, I like to know that it's going to be the same over the course of the game, and to personally know how it works.

That, really, is the problem I have with some DMs who want to DM without many rules. They'll rule one way in one game, then a completely different way in another, and it bothers me the same way I'd be bothered if the rules of gravity were different every time I jumped IRL.
 

Remove ads

Top