"I hate math"

[Silverleaf]

And the complaint is against D&D3 for actually having a codified mechanic already in place? Forcing/needing a DM to make something up off the top of his head is considered a *good* thing?

Well yeah. In 3e there are preset DCs for specific situations. If you deviate from those, or don't include the required modifiers (feats, skills, buff spells, your mother's maiden name, etc.) then the players may get pissy about you not following the rules. So you end up looking things up a lot, and making sure everything's kosher.

In contrast, in OD&D you just guestimate the probabilities and go with the flow. There's hardly any page-flipping during adventures, and the game moves hella fast. Combats in particular take probably 1/4 as long as 3e, and I'm being conservative here.

And it's not like coming up with a die roll is hard or time-consuming. You just think about two things:
1. what kind of action is this?
2. how hard is it?
Jumping is a measure of dexterity, so you just make a DEX check. A 10' pit is a piece of cake if you've got a running start, unless you're very encumbered. So you ask the player "What's your encumbrance?" and give a -1 penalty for every encrumbance category. No running start? Take an additional -2.
Not so difficult is it? It took me a lot longer to type this than it would to arbitrate it in-game. In practice the action is resolved in a matter of seconds, with very little math or accounting involved.

Perhaps the same kind of action won't get the same kind of die roll every time, especially if it doesn't come up that often (jumping is pretty standard, and most everyone uses a simple DEX check for that). But even so, that's okay. Not every 10' pit is identical anyway, so it's not like the resolution has to be exactly identical each time either. Every situation is potentially different. All that matters is that the DM try to remain fair and impartial. So long as he keeps that in mind, it all works out.

It seems that most of the complaints of complexity revolve around the levels over 10. And the "solution" is to play games that, essentially, don't go that high. I mean, the Basic D&D game keeps getting bandied around here, and by god, it only goes to level 3. Hello? So why not just stop your D&D games at level 10?

Basic D&D is somewhat of a misnomer. That refers to only the first boxed set, out of five:
Basic (1-3)
Expert (4-14)
Companion (15-25)
Master (26-36)
Immortals (everything beyond!)
You can see pretty pictures and more descriptions here:
http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/ddindex.htm
There is also a book called the D&D Rules Cyclopedia which combines all the rules from the first 4 boxed sets into one 300-page hardcover tome. It's the only edition of D&D ever published into one single volume, and it allows running epic-scale campaigns from level 1 all the way to 36! After that though you have to get the Wrath of the Immortals boxed set if you wish to venture into those eternal realms... But it's kind of strange compared to normal D&D, and few have ever made it that far anyway.
Nonetheless, the game mechanics remain much the same, whether you're playing at levels 1-3 or 26-36, so it doesn't suffer from the same playability problems as 3e. There is one optional rule called Weapon Mastery which can add some additional complexity, but it's entirely optional (many don't bother with it) and yet it's much less hassle than the 3e combat stuff.
The old D&D also has many less buff spells, and for that matter the spells themselves have much shorter descriptions and stats. Monsters also have many fewer stats. And most spells and magic item effects don't stack...
This probably sounds horrible to you, but it actually works out great and provides just enough information to the players and DM to move the game along without bogging down in details.

 

[Psion]

Well yeah. In 3e there are preset DCs for specific situations. If you deviate from those, or don't include the required modifiers (feats, skills, buff spells, your mother's maiden name, etc.) then the players may get pissy about you not following the rules.

If the players don't trust you to run the game when you have guideance, how are they supposed to trust you running by the seat of your pants?

The rules are there to help you. Use the rules; don't let the rules use you.

If your players are that rules-lawyery, and you have so many rules problems, enlist them! Or assert yourself! Or both!

 

[Silverleaf]

If the players don't trust you to run the game when you have guideance, how are they supposed to trust you running by the seat of your pants?

The rules are there to help you. Use the rules; don't let the rules use you.

If your players are that rules-lawyery, and you have so many rules problems, enlist them! Or assert yourself! Or both!

In practice it's not that simple. Someone still has to physically lookup the rules. Someone has to add all the bonuses (after figuring out which ones are relevant and which ones aren't). That still takes time. That can even be the source of dissent, and arguments take away even more precious time.
And of course there are cases when the DM doesn't want to spoil a surprise, so he can't just ask someone to lookup something for him. Nor can he ask players to keep track of hit points, buff effect and durations and such things for the monsters. Well he can, but there again it spoils some of the surprise.
As far are the rules-lawyereness of players goes, it tends to manifest less when playing with fewer rules. Kinda makes sense if you think about it...

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I mean, the Basic D&D game keeps getting bandied around here, and by god, it only goes to level 3.

Do you seriously think that the Basic boxed set are what people actually mean when they use the term "Basic D&D", do you? Because I've played D&D for years and have heard the term "Basic D&D" used to refer to the rules sytem that was composed of the Basic box, Expert box, Companion box, Master box, and Immortal box... and I knew precisely that people using that term didn't exclude every box that came after the Basic set.

Pretty much every single person who has ever played AD&D that I have met refered to the "other" D&D rules that TSR published side-by-side with "Advanced D&D" as "Basic D&D".

Or are you just being coy...

 

[mmadsen]

D&D does throw around a lot of numbers at high levels. Other systems that don't go into "high levels" don't throw around those bigger numbers, and so are quicker, easier to calculate, etc.

Except that a system like Mutants & Masterminds, which deals in superheroes, can handle very, very powerful characters without the minutia of high-level D&D.

 

[Psion]

In practice it's not that simple.

What do you think you are selling me? I play this game. It pretty much is that simple.

Your example, while it certainly sounds annoying, lacks generality and relies upon the GM and players not doinig some common sense preparations and not having a relationship of trust with the GM. I mean how often do you REALLY need to add different modifiers? IME, seldom. You add up your persistent modifiers before the game, and during the game, how much effort does it really take to add +2 from a bulls strength (for example)? Just note it on the character card or battlemat. Players forget? Make table rules that a forgotten modifier has no effect and move on; they'll remember in a hurry. How difficult is it to figure out which modifiers apply? With the name stacking convention, it's trivial.

Lay down some table rules and apply a little common sense, and given a reasonable set of players, IME the game flows just fine.

I appreciate that you may nore feel comfortable doing this, but it serves little purpose to come here proclaiming that it is a persistent headache week in week out when you are talking to players who seem to do just fine with it week in week out. If you are happy playing your game, have fun. But you are going to have a hell of a hard time convincing people that are having fun that they aren't really having fun. Simply accept that people have different tastes and capacities than you do and more on.

 

[Silverleaf]

What do you think you are selling me? I play this game. It pretty much is that simple.

I was hoping to generate enough interest in Basic D&D to make the Rules Cyclopedia books into a high demand item and thus sell my copies and retire to some island paradise. No, you don't think that's a good idea?

Your example, while it certainly sounds annoying, lacks generality and relies upon the GM and players not doinig some common sense preparations and not having a relationship of trust with the GM. I mean how often do you REALLY need to add different modifiers? IME, seldom. You add up your persistent modifiers before the game, and during the game, how much effort does it really take to add +2 from a bulls strength (for example)? Just note it on the character card or battlemat. Players forget? Make table rules that a forgotten modifier has no effect and move on; they'll remember in a hurry. How difficult is it to figure out which modifiers apply? With the name stacking convention, it's trivial.

Lay down some table rules and apply a little common sense, and given a reasonable set of players, IME the game flows just fine.

Buff spells, potion/scrolls and feat effects are quite prevalent in 3e. Heck even monsters have feats, and high-level PCs and enemy spellcasters are buffed like the Governator whenever given the chance... It all "adds up" after a while. (bad pun, bad pun )

It's certainly not unsurmountable, but for me at least it's annoying. And the idea of having to organize with flash cards and delegate various tasks to players kinda reminds me of the way Rolemaster fans like to point out that the game is perfectly playable so long as you're on the ball. I'd rather none of those issues even exist, hence my attraction to lighter rulesets.

I appreciate that you may nore feel comfortable doing this, but it serves little purpose to come here proclaiming that it is a persistent headache week in week out when you are talking to players who seem to do just fine with it week in week out. If you are happy playing your game, have fun. But you are going to have a hell of a hard time convincing people that are having fun that they aren't really having fun. Simply accept that people have different tastes and capacities than you do and more on.

Nah I'm not trying to convince them so much as point out why I enjoy Basic D&D in preference to 3e. The only right game to play is the one that you feel most comfortable with. Though like RFisher said (perhaps it was in a different thread though, can't remember): make sure you know if your players are enjoying the game to the same extent you are. Some of them simply don't care for all that extra detail, and some of them crave it.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I've seen what Silverleaf is talking about in actual play. I had at least one player who was really uncomfortable with any rules changes I made to D20 -- causing the group to get into a half hour debate about the ramifications of removing attacks of opportunity, for example. That, and most of the players were stopping to look at their listed maneuvers just about every turn during combat. We were playing it as a freewheeling investigation with a little combat, but not much rules contact at all, but they were in D20 mode.

Then after we'd switched to a different system (FATE in this case), the same player had absolutely no problem with me doing things like handling the opposition's stats in terms of something like "You could probably take these guys". He was narrating John Woo-level gunplay stunts (the setting was set up to allow this kind of thing from the start), without even knowing the probability of success. And he was having a blast. It was like, "Okay, I really like Chinese food, but this pizza you gave me is good!"

You'd be surprised. Even with people who have a strong preference for a certain kind of play, if you explain that you're using a particular ruleset to set a particular tone in the game, they'll try it -- and if they're having fun, they'll stick with it.

Heck, one of my players, the one who tries the most off the wall things in my game, DMs his own high-level D&D 3.5 game on weekends.

I decided early on that I could offer a pretty good session, with poor to mediocre rules handling in D20, or I could offer a damn good session, with solid handling of a rules-light system. ("Damn good", only because I spent less time on stat blocks and more on everything else.)

I decided that I'd fix the meal my way, using my tools, and see if they'd like it. They did, whether or not it was like their usual fare.

 

[glass]

You're right the arithmetic isn't a problem. It's getting it correct that's the problem.

But were I actually playing D&D, I'd have got it correct. The only reason I didn't was

1. I didn't read the scenario in your post properly. Obviously not an issue in real life.
2. I couldn't remember what a couple of the abilities mentioned did. I have been playing Shadowrun rather than D&D for the last few months, and I don't have my books with me. If this were my character, I would no what his abilities did, and would have precalculated his base ACs, so would have just had to apply the Dodge & Mobility bonuses where the applied.

glass.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Except that a system like Mutants & Masterminds, which deals in superheroes, can handle very, very powerful characters without the minutia of high-level D&D.

I'm not familiar with the system at all, so I can't really compare what's "powerful" in M&M to what's "powerful" in the D&D kind of baseline. I just know that when characters can pretty much alter the fabric of reality to suit their own needs on a daily basis (wish being the D&D holy grail of this), you're either going to need a lot of rules about what it can actually do (what 3e does), or just say "It's up to the DM to make sure the power isn't out of control" (the majority of other systems I've seen).

Personally, I'd rather have a baseline that I can deviate from than be told that I have to basically use my own capricious judgement to determine if something is going to make my game less fun. If I have a baseline, I can depart from it, and I can explain my departure. If it just says "Hey, DM! Make it up as you go along!" it's making me do it's job. The Rules are supposed to, you know, give me rules. It's my call on which ones I want to use and why I want to use them, but if they didn't give me the rules in the first place, why am I buying their books instead of playing glorified army men?

But that really gets into Abstract vs. Concrete gaming systems. 3e is NOT an abstract gaming system. It's got nuts, bolts, and gears. It isn't very fast and loose. It's not going to satisfy those needs. It doesn't have to. I don't want it to. The nuts, bolts, and gears make me feel like I have tools to engineer a game.

Role Playing is all painting on the same blank canvass. Abstract systems that leave it in the DM's hands are fingerpainting. But I like using a brush, because it helps the picture to look more like what is in my head than my fingers do.

I don't want interactive storytelling. A pox upon it. I want a game, and a game has rules. "Too Many" is *entirely* a matter of personal opinion. D&D, AFAIAC, has just about the right amount -- enough to tell me how the world works, not so many that I have to care about the inch-length of every elf's ear to tell me how good their hearing is. At higher levels, when a player can martial more forces, these get more numerous, but level off quickly enough for my milage, and can largely be solved with preparation, DM interaction with the rules (rather than trying to be liberated from the rules), and familiarity with the party and combat.

In a con setting, you don't get this, which is why high-level con adventures are almost always going ot be bogged down. In my groups, I've always had this, so it has been fairly seamless.

Show me a better way that doesn't result in DM Fiat, and maybe it'll make my game better and I'll adopt it. Otherwise, this is an agree-to-disagree situation between abstract play style and concrete playstyle, from what I see....