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

[Kingreaper]

I still remember with great fondness, as do my players, a 3.wombat game based entirely around one sentence of my adventure outline.

This sounds like pretty much my experience with 3.5

I've never statted up an enemy fully. I've rarely even decided what enemies they're going to face ahead of time.


In my first ever session (I'd never even played 3.5 before, d20 modern, but not 3.5) they were meant to rescue a prostitute from a group of demon-worshipping were-rats. Instead, most of them ended up fighting an army of skeletons in a hospital, before finding out that the "prostitute" was actually a princess, and the local duke had been trying to kill her because she was married to a half-rat. And pregnant.*

*Her unborn baby is currently being transformed into the dead wife of an ex-PC necromancer.

I say most of them were fighting the skeletons, one of them was running around trying to find someone to sell a horse to.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I enjoyed my near-decade using 3.X, but it was the only edition of D&D that I've played that made winging it near impossible in many situations. It could only be done if you completely disregarded the intended guidelines, especially for monsters and classed NPCs. The big thing I remember that made winging it hard in 3.X was the inherent complexity of many monsters and NPCs -- feats and a slightly optimized spell selection.

2e (prior to Combat & Tactics and Spells & Magic) was the best AD&D edition to wing it with.

4e is good. I like its built in p. 42 style DC charts. I also really the simplified monster generation rules. Its complexity with fiddly bonuses and all the miniature-required features makes it harder to wing than all other editions aside from 3.X.

Interesting how perceptions differ.

I found 1e/2e hard to improvise in because of the complete lack of a unified system. Would one use some part of the combat mechanics, a different sub-system like saving throws or Turn Undead, or a basic stat check?

3e was easier to work with because of the basic formula: 1d20 + bonus has to reach a difficulty. It became somewhat more difficult during its life time because of the tons of rules covering so many aspects, and so many feats and items which might just cover a similar situation. Either you'd acknowledge that all your books are superfluous and improvise or go hunting for a fitting rule; the DM's breathing space for improvisation became less and less.

4e seems to move in yet another direction. Page 42 is a great tool, and if you need or want something specific, the Compendium and Monster Builder serves you well: thousands of "items" for you to grasp and use.

 

[Noumenon]

All the condition tracking, tiny bonuses, and detailed rules in 3.5 make it resemble a computer RPG in processing difficulty. Asking me to wing it in that system is like asking a computer programmer to "wing" a new Street Fighter opponent -- you can't just say "here's a dude," you have to figure out how his block animation interacts with juggle combos and what happens if both players hit Fierce at the same time and how a stretchy fist ranged attack will work different from a fireball one.

 

[Jhaelen]

Great post Ariosto - I couldn't agree more.

Terrible post, I couldn't agree less.

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.

What is left of 3e if you don't use the crunch? Not much. For most people (I know) playing 3e the _excellent_ crunch is the main reason they enjoy playing 3e in the first place. If you throw out 80% of the crunch you might as well a different edition.

Regarding the lycanthrope example: I've never bothered with anything but the hybrid stats for lycanthropes and creating one still takes ages (well, 1+ hours).

What I found incredibly funny after 4e came out was the all the folks coming out of the woodworks saying, how they've been doing things like that all the time anyway and there's nothing new or good about 4e, anyway (except the forementioned things, naturally).

In hindsight it's always easy to dismiss great ideas as being trivial. I can definitely say that my DMing style for 3e changed after I had read the 4e DMGs. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a terrible system to 'wing it'.

 

[GlassJaw]

Terrible post, I couldn't agree less.

Nowhere in Ariosto's post - or mine - do we say "don't use the crunch".

And how is "creating only what you need" terrible advice? As far as 3ed goes, that's some of the BEST advice I could give a DM.

You are right, the crunch is one of the strength's of the system, but it also can be incredibly cumbersome.

Knowing what you need and how to most efficiently use it is the key to making a DM's job that much easier.

 

[Ariosto]

I found 1e/2e hard to improvise in because of the complete lack of a unified system. Would one use some part of the combat mechanics, a different sub-system like saving throws or Turn Undead, or a basic stat check?

Cleric tries to turn Ghouls: roll d20 (see Matrix for Clerics Affecting Undead)
Ghoul tries to hit Cleric: roll d20 (see Attack Matrix for Monsters)
Ghoul hits Cleric, possible paralysis: roll d20 (see Saving Throw Matrix)

How is this any less a "unified system" than 3e or 4e?

3e:
Turning: roll d20 and add Charisma mod. (see Table 8-9, which calls for further arithmetic)
Attack: roll d20 and add mod. for particular attack type (vs. Cleric's AC)
Paralysis: roll d20 and add Fortitude mod. (see Ghoul description for DC)

Then of course there are the many "feats".

4e is similar to 3e, but with the addition of hundreds of "powers" that effectively make each attack a special case.

3e was easier to work with because of the basic formula: 1d20 + bonus has to reach a difficulty.

If you truly find it easier to do arithmetic with each roll, then you're probably not too "math challenged" to make it so. Others of us happen to find it easier to compare a dice-roll with an already known factor (one step less), and even to use the matrices directly (visually rather than abstractly oriented).

Page 42 is a great tool

for a very limited purpose, very specific to the 4e combat game.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Cleric tries to turn Ghouls: roll d20 (see Matrix for Clerics Affecting Undead)
Ghoul tries to hit Cleric: roll d20 (see Attack Matrix for Monsters)
Ghoul hits Cleric, possible paralysis: roll d20 (see Saving Throw Matrix)

That's exactly what I meant: while you roll a D20 in all three instances, the resolution of the roll is different in each case. Three different tables, all non-linear, and with different level scaling. And all this in but one round of combat.

If you truly find it easier to do arithmetic with each roll, then you're probably not too "math challenged" to make it so. Others of us happen to find it easier to compare a dice-roll with an already known factor (one step less), and even to use the matrices directly (visually rather than abstractly oriented).

Yep, different people, different tastes.

for a very limited purpose, very specific to the 4e combat game.

Well, combat is the aspect where I improvise the most, especially to let the players try cool things. The ranges for effects given on p. 42 serve as a simple yardstick. In most cases I just enjoy my player's description and grant them an effect from this table without having to worry about realism or try to model a real-life situation. For me, it is liberating.

But again, my experience with 4e doesn't suffice to pass judgement on its improvisability.

 

[Desdichado]

There was much more of an implication that you'd be winging it in 1e and the BD&D series, I think. There was really an implication you'd be winging it in OD&D.

For my money, 3.x was the easiest to wing it in, though. It had a more robust structure, which meant that if I were winging it, I'd have lots of tools instead of having to make something up on the spot and then remember to do something consistent next time a similar situation came up.

Winging it is my default style, and I run all my games with a great deal of winginess. I suspect that most of of the folks who think 3.x was difficult to wing don't play with the paradigm of "tools, not rules" and feel constrained to use all the elements of 3.x as written. That would, indeed, be difficult. Just like if I felt constrained to use every tool in my toolbox to change a sparkplug, or something.

I use the tool that's most relevant, or whatever comes to mind as most relevant first, and luckily, there's always something there in the toolbox that works well in that regard with 3.x. That wasn't always true for earlier editions of the game.

 

[Ariosto]

That's exactly what I meant: while you roll a D20 in all three instances, the resolution of the roll is different in each case. Three different tables, all non-linear, and with different level scaling. And all this in but one round of combat.

As opposed to what in 3e or 4e?

Well, I gave the short form for 3e above. Apart from repeating 20s in 1E (which keep things from becoming "unhittable" so quickly), the attack matrices are about as "linear" or algorithmic as the calculations in 3e and 4e. Of course, that really only matters if you prefer not to take advantage of the tables and instead to calculate from scratch again and again as in 3e and 4e.

If that rocks your boat:
new AC = 21-(old AC)
BAB = 11-(roll to hit AC 10)

example: old ghoul (AC 6, HD 2) becomes new ghoul (AC 15, BAB +5)

If looking somewhere else is more convenient than looking at one's DM screen, then one can always jot down the data wherever one pleases. For instance, if ghouls were fighting ghouls, then I would simply note just once that a hit is on a roll of 10+ -- and that is the same regardless of the system used!

Here's the 4e version:

Turning: Look up Channel Divinity: Turn Undead
Roll d20 and add Wisdom mod. + (1/2 level) (vs. target's Will defense)
specific damage factors and special effects , like a spell -- or like any martial power

Attack: Look up Claws or Ghoulish Bite
Roll d20 and add ... yadda yadda ...

Paralysis: You'll have that already as part of the applicable attack description. A "save" is basically just the same 55% chance for everyone and his dog now, and normally determines not whether an affliction occurs but rather how long it lasts.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

As opposed to what in 3e or 4e?

As opposed to the simple formula: 1d20 + level/stat-dependent bonus; high results are good.

Apart from repeating 20s in 1E (which keep things from becoming "unhittable" so quickly), the attack matrices are about as "linear" or algorithmic as the calculations in 3e and 4e.

Yes, apart from this exception. I prefer formulas without exceptions.

Of course, that really only matters if you prefer not to take advantage of the tables and instead to calculate from scratch again and again as in 3e and 4e.

Basic arithmetics works much faster for me than looking up tables. And, by the way, we were originally talking about improvisation, not about more or less convenient isolated rules.

For instance, if ghouls were fighting ghouls, then I would simply note just once that a hit is on a roll of 10+ -- and that is the same regardless of the system used!

So why would you not use this system for 4e?

Here's the 4e version:

Turning: Look up Channel Divinity: Turn Undead
Roll d20 and add Wisdom mod. + (1/2 level) (vs. target's Will defense)
specific damage factors and special effects , like a spell -- or like any martial power

Attack: Look up Claws or Ghoulish Bite
Roll d20 and add ... yadda yadda ...

Paralysis: You'll have that already as part of the applicable attack description. A "save" is basically just the same 55% chance for everyone and his dog now, and normally determines not whether an affliction occurs but rather how long it lasts.

This is the 4e version as written in the books, without any attempt at improvisation or shortcutting. The formulas for the bonus calculation are not needed when players and GM have prepared their stuff; they would have everything ready in a pre-calculated format.

Before we let this discussion degrade too much, let's get one thing clear:

I stand by my original assessment that improvisation in a unified rules system (3e) is much easier for me than doing so with a hodgepodge of different sub-systems (1e/2e).

I claim no authority at all to tell anyone that this assessment has to be valid for her, too. Use the system you feel most comfortable with, use shortcuts, rules changes, house rules and improvisational techniques to make your experience more enjoyable.

As long as you have fun running the show and your players participating, everything's okay with me.

But don't ask me to improvise in Hârnmaster.