Has the DMs job evolved in regard to "winging-it"?

[Haltherrion]

Has there been some editions that are better at allowing DMs to wing-it? What are the consequences? How does does this play out in the editions?

For me, winging it has more to do with my evolving ref style and the amount of time I played than the system.

In years gone by I used to run more of a sandbox type game which requires more ref-by-the-seat of your pants. And in those years gone by, I used to spend a lot more time playing D&D, which makes it a lot easier to ad lib when you know everything inside and out.

As my game time moved from many days per week in high school to weekly in college to biweekly and less post college, my mastery of all the rules, critters, etc has fallen off and I've come to compensate by preparing material ahead of time where I can prep the likely issues.

The rules can affect winging it as well but it feels like a lesser factor to me than the style of game I run and how much time a spend in the land o' D&D. It's really hard to say for sure- these rule systems span decades and a lot happens over that time period beyond simple changes in the rule set.

 

[Cyronax]

There's much greater complexity in the WotC rules sets, but here's a critical question:

Are you, the DM, going to use it all?

"Building" monsters and NPCs, "balancing" encounters on the head of a pin, and so on are possibilities the designers offer. They cannot -- and, as far as I have seen, they have not tried to -- require DMs to go through all that work in their home campaigns.

No that's a good point. In most groups that wouldn't be an issue. My longest running 3.X group (2003-2007) unfortunately was riddled with rules lawyers and/or rather anal retentive players who always questioned the DM (and metagamed). I remember towards the end a 12th level 3.5 session devolving into a heated argument about siege weapons --- specifically the flight trajectory of ballista bolts (actually arrows fired by frost giant archers). I -- as the DM -- was trying to keep the session moving and merely handwaved that the ballista bolts were specifically designed to arc over a curtain wall of a castle and thus didn't face cover penalties for target acquisition. Anyway it wasn't that big a deal, but one of the players whips out some appendix rule regarding siegecraft from the Complete Warrior (a book I hadn't read too thoroughly) three *long* rounds after the damage from the ballista had already had a number of repercussions.

Anyway, that might be a stupid example, but despite my best attempts at putting the thing to rest and telling them that I stand by my ruling and we can discuss it after the session it wouldn't die. I stopped playing with that group not long after.

My point is that situations like that cropped up much more frequently in 3.X than most other systems.

3.X seemed to be ready made for rules lawyers to brow beat the DM. I played in enough varied situations and with different players to prove that to myself. In these extreme situations I felt compelled to fully stat up the monsters and NPCs so that if some player starts complaining I could just say -- oh well your wrong X NPC can do X action because he has access to this power or spell thanks to X feat or prestige class. That was a sure fire way to WIN an argument -- because with extreme groups like that you couldn't just get by with 'that's the way the monster is or I'm the DM we can discuss this after the session is over'.

In less extreme groups however, the amount of rules definitely was manageable and I sometimes miss 3.X for its more simluationist qualities.

And yes 4e can be subject to all sorts of different problems (mainly involving fiddly bits) so no one accuse me of starting some edition war.

C.I.D.

 

[Glade Riven]

3.5 DMG, pg. 18: The DM can't cheat because he makes the rules; Pg. 8: The DM is in charge; pg 14: the DM can change the rules

Rule Zero in black and..um..beige

 

[Cyronax]

3.5 DMG, pg. 18: The DM can't cheat because he makes the rules; Pg. 8: The DM is in charge; pg 14: the DM can change the rules

Rule Zero in black and..um..beige

In most cases, but sometimes the makeup of a gaming group makes that essentially a 'nuclear option' that can cause as many problems as it would supposedly solve.

I thankfully no longer game with that sort of group, so its moot for my case.

C.I.D.

 

[Wombat]

I still remember with great fondness, as do my players, a 3.wombat game based entirely around one sentence of my adventure outline. Essentially the players veered amazingly off-course and I had to make up the rest of the adventure on the fly for the rest of the night, which was very, very cool.

Then again, I've always been fond of winging it -- if the rules are so restrictive that I cannot wing it, I am probably not going to play the game.

 

[Haltherrion]

3.5 DMG, pg. 18: The DM can't cheat because he makes the rules; Pg. 8: The DM is in charge; pg 14: the DM can change the rules

Rule Zero in black and..um..beige

As others have said- a last resort. I've found that two strategies work when it comes to preventing needless detours into rules arguments:

1. Try to be neutral to a little player-biased on rulings. This sets an overall tone that is collaborative rather than confrontational with the players.
2. Pick your battles. Sometimes an argument really just doesn't matter to the overall campaign. Players don't like the way you handled cover for siege weapons and curtain walls? If they have a plausible argument, let it go; will it really affect the campaign?

Sometimes you just have players who are sticklers for arguing everything they can and one needs to step back and determine if they are even worth having in the group. But with most players if you show a little flexibility and a willingness to rule in their favor at times, they will accept your own rulings as well, even the marginal ones.
To tie it more directly to the OP, the more complex rule sets can make ad libbing harder but if you retain some flexibility and avoid a ref-vs-player mind set, it shouldn't complicate things too much. As I said elsewhere, I think other factors matter more than the base rule set.

 

[GlassJaw]

There's much greater complexity in the WotC rules sets, but here's a critical question:

Are you, the DM, going to use it all?

Great post Ariosto - I couldn't agree more.

A lot of people complain about how cumbersome it is to customize and advance monsters in 3.5. But a large part of the DM's job is identifying what he is actually going to need.

If the orcs are just canon fodder, you don't need to know how many ranks in basketweaving they have.

The Trailblazer monster book (which I'm working on now) is going to have a TON of design notes on exactly this topic. In fact, I have a design note tentatively called "Create Only What You Need".

"Building" monsters and NPCs, "balancing" encounters on the head of a pin, and so on are possibilities the designers offer. They cannot -- and, as far as I have seen, they have not tried to -- require DMs to go through all that work in their home campaigns.

Once again, very true. Just because 3.5 offers a plethora of crunch, you don't need to use it if you don't need it.

A good example is the lycanthrope template. It's massive: 3 stat blocks for a single creature! But if you are throwing lycanthropes at your players, there's a good chance you only need their hybrid stats, at least for the minions.

The Trailblazer monster book will also have a lot of what I've been calling "Quick Templates". If you need to create something quickly, the Quick Templates are the essentials to create the feel of the monster you need. Will the players notice if the werewolf has a 20 or 22 Strength? Probably not. Will they notice if it has DR 10/silver, claw/claw/bite, and carries the curse of lycanthropy? Yup.

If I want sharks with freaking lasers on their heads, I can just make it so. Sure, it would be nice, if there are sample stats for sharks, to let that inform me -- but the old "MK I Eyeball" is good enough if I've got a basic grasp of the game..

"Make it so" is a good mantra. I also like "Just Do It".

 

[GlassJaw]

One of my groups is playing 3.5 and is very adamant that anything the DM uses is by the books, with little variation from the rules.

I grew tired of playing with people like this long ago. It's not fun. As long as the DM is creating appropriate challenges, who cares what the DM is doing?

DMs need to take the power back.

4ed seems to have done a good job of this, but to me, it's not a rules issue, it's a mindset. Because 3ed is very process-driven, players (and some DMs), treat it like an exact science, when it's obviously not.

One of Trailblazer's core philosophies is "Monsters don't have to follow the same rules as PCs".

As long as the DM knows how customizing and tweaking monsters affects their overall power (which Trailblazer will show you), then it's all good.

If you play in my campaign, you will see bugbears with sneak attack, trolls with favored enemy, and skeletons with fighter feats - all I]without [/I]class levels.

If a player doesn't agree with that, respond with one of the following phrases:

- Monsters don't have to follow the same rules as PCs.
- These ___ (insert monster name here) are special.
- You can do amazing things with [scary voice]eeeevil [/scary voice] magic.
- Too bad.

 

[Garmorn]

Do my DMing skills, I have a hard time preping. I am far better at 'Winging-it'.

The rules (I have played/GM every thing from Heroes to Fantasy Trip) don't get in the way of wing it but more complex the rules the more in depth you need to know them to run by the seat of your pants. The more complex ones like GURPS and Heroes will need templates but that is it.

The most important factors in determining how are winging-it are your own skills and talents. I knew 1 DM who could not wing any thing but in s few hours had enough different things preplanned to cover any likely path we would take and we would never know it.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

To me, "winging it" has more to do with having a story prepared than anything else. The rules system intrudes as you need to have prepared or mastered the mechanics of whatever you pull out of the evolving story that needs dice rolled to resolve which turn it takes.

So, which editions/game system/rules set is best suited for winging it? whichever you have a solid grasp on either preparing for or have mastered for true off-the-cuff work.

What do I mean by 'preparing for'? You identify 4 to 5 possible tangents and do the minimal work to prepare encounters based on those. Sometimes this means grabbing a Dungeon article or just scribbling some notes... do a shorthand of the monsters.

What do I mean by 'mastered'? You have an intuitive grasp on the required crunch and can run an encounter against a set of monster X based on what feels right.

For me, I have reached that point with a number of rule sets; 1e, 2e, 3.x, CP2020... and I am working on mastery of 4e. For now I have to be content with preparing a bit more.

And a side note: There is nothing wrong with stopping right at the call for initiative and saying "hey guys, I didn't prep this one.. take a break while I set this up"


Now, some rule sets have a wider swing to combat... meaning your encounter balance needs to have more care than others. IMHO, that is what made 2e much easier to 'wing' than 3x... it was easier to master encounter balance. I think 4e has lowered the difficulty level of mastering encounter balance and, with reskinning, made it alot easier to wing than 3x.

Final note:
Winging it also requires player buy-in. They have to be willing to trade the risks of an ill-prepared encounter for the freedom of manuever in the plot/world. I have had many players who wanted that freedom... but were vocal about some of the encounters that resulted when they went 'off-path'.
Flip side, I have had players with which it was a joy to toss the module off the table as the PC's chose a completely different path.