I'm hearing rumblings...

[Droogie]

...from disgruntled players. My DM just burned out citing 3e rules exhaustion. Some of my fellow players have friends who want to start up a 1e game.

This is not a rant or a troll. So how about it guys? The d20 game mechanic is simple. So why is D&D 3e so complex? Do most of your sessions consist of rules lawyering, page flipping, and game speak? What can we do about it?

Are there to many feats? To many Prestige classes?

Are AoOs drivng anyone else crazy?

Do any of you feel obliged to follow every rule and apply every modifier out of fear of breaking something?


Should this be in the general forum?

edit: ok I guess it is a bit of a rant. And yes, its been covered. Still, I'm sure someone has a short answer to some of these questions.

 

[jollyninja]

well, is rules lawyering funner then actually accomplishing somehting in game?

no, so my advice is to do what i did and quit doing it, if i notice something that i don't think is being done by the book, i'll ask the dm after the session if he was aware of the rule. if he was not then i've enlightened him, if he was, then i'll file it in the unused rule section of my brain. your new DM should probably institute a rule that rules issues will be brought up after the game. once it's an official rule, the RL's will have to live by it.

of the thousand feats in existence, i still seem to stick mostly to the ones in the PH, it's just easyer that way. i look through my other books only after i have exausted my characters options in the PH. if i use one from another book, i'll make sure the dm knows exactly what it does so that there is no issue in the middle of the session, nobody knows exactly what every feat does.

if something gets broken (which alot of new rules start out as anyway) fix it, if you don't like a rule do not use it. if it turns out that the rule was kind of nessisary to keep balance, put it back in.

AoO's can be really problematic, if they are responsible for alot of grief (AKA slowdown) in your group, i might roll them back to only during movement, ranged attacks and spellcasting. it's quick and easy to judge.

groups composed entirely of rules lawyers kill a dm's passion to create anything in the way of story because the lawyers slow fights down to a crawl and can make the simplest encounter with an npc into a group of dice rolls. my main piece of advice is go with less ruling and more roleplaying.

 

[CRGreathouse]

So why is D&D 3e so complex? Do most of your sessions consist of rules lawyering, page flipping, and game speak? What can we do about it?

Are there to many feats? To many Prestige classes?

Are AoOs drivng anyone else crazy?

Do any of you feel obliged to follow every rule and apply every modifier out of fear of breaking something?


Should this be in the general forum?

I don't think it is, personally; no; I have no idea; no; no; yes, but not me; I follow the rules, but not for that reason; yes.

 

[coyote6]

Re: Re: I'm hearing rumblings...

I don't think it is, personally; no; I have no idea; no; no; yes, but not me; I follow the rules, but not for that reason; yes.

What he said.

 

[mirzabah]

... Still, I'm sure someone has a short answer to some of these questions.

Bin the supplements.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: I'm hearing rumblings...

What he said.

M3 too

 

[Li Shenron]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So why is D&D 3e so complex? Do most of your sessions consist of rules lawyering, page flipping, and game speak? What can we do about it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


When I started mastering, none of my players knew the 3rd edition, and two of them had never played a RPG at all. Being afraid they would have not come back the second evening, I started playing with only a subset of rules.
It's hardly believable how we could have played without many and many combat options (no charge, grapple, trip, disarm...), without delay/ready/refocus and without AoO, but it really helped the new players.
Having introduced the core rules gradually, we kept quite a small amount of debate/questioning per session, but we are still discussing usually, and we'll always be. Fortunately we see it as another fun of the game
You can try to delay discussion to the end of the session if it slows the game, and simply adopt (at least for the moment) a lighter approach to rules: for example, some of my players read rules by the single word as in a trial, but remember that D&D is meant to be played by normal people (and children), and sometimes things are simpler than they seem.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there to many feats? To many Prestige classes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion there are too many PrC, but not really Feats. In any case, it should not be a problem, since each player needs to know only his own ones (few). And if he DOES know them well, the DM doesn't even really need to know them also. Players should not pretend the DM to know their PCs better then themselves.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are AoOs drivng anyone else crazy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Few (questionable) advices:
- start applying AoO only to ranged attacks and spells
- when you introduce AoO for moving, have an off-campaign session (no PC death & XP) of AoO exercise only
- keep the PHB open at the list of miscellaneous actions that provoke AoO until you don't need it anymore (a must-have table on any DM screen)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do any of you feel obliged to follow every rule and apply every modifier out of fear of breaking something?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do follow every rule without variants for now, only because I believe they deserve a chance before questioning them. And after all, I have never questioned the Chess rules because Queen was unbalanced, or Knight movements too difficult to play.
If you feel overwhelmed by rules amount, it's no crime to introduce them gradually as we did. I had never read the Grapple rules until a PC asked if he could grapple an opponent! Of course, start with basic situations, don't go too quickly to underwater battles, mounted fights, heavy weathers... most of the rules are about situations that only DM decides when to happen.

 

[Henrix]

Yeah, I'll agree with the above, as well

But seriously, if you, or your DM, or anybody at all, thinks that they can't really get a grip on the rules, I suggest taking out everything except the core rules.

Try playing with just the PHB. Skip the rest. Most problems arise from all the extras.
And be careful to start at level one, and try to learn all rules slowly. Try to test a rule at a time.

The (core) rules are quite consistent, once you start to understand why the rules say as they do, it becomes easier to predict what the rules will (or would) say in other areas.

And remeber that the rules are an aid, not a constraint. If you can't find a rule, remember Rule 0 - The DM decides.
If you later find a rule that says something else, fine, say that that is how you'll do things the next time.

And talk this through with all the players, and make everyone understand that it is more important to keep the game flowing than to do it exactly by the rules.

Instead of spending precious game time trying to find, or arguing about, a rule, roll a die. Even - yes, odds - no. (Or if two players are arguing, highest on a d20. If a player argues with the DM, Rule 0.)

 

[SableWyvern]

I have the advantage as DM in my current campaign of being the only person with a reasonable understanding of the rules.

In previous campaigns, however, where I was using systems known well by all, I have rarely found rules-lawyering to be a problem. As DM, I consider it my responsibility to know the rules well.

If another player points out a possible mistake on my behalf, and they are correct, I will normally know right away that they are correct. If they are wrong, I will normally know that as well, and why I am right. So the issue is solved in a few seconds.

On the occasion where I am unsure, I am generally happy to quickly look up the rule and move on.

Currently, given we are all relatively new to 3e, it is generally me who will stop the session to check a rule, if that is required. As the campaign progresses, though this is becoming less and less frequent, as my rules-knowledge increases.

There are a few simple steps to ensuring a smooth-flowing game:

1. The DM has a responsibility to learn the rules. He doesn't have to know everything immediately, but should do his best to learn as quickly as possible.

2. The DM must be seen to be fair. IOW, he must gain the trust of the players.

3. When the result of an action is not of dramatic importance, the DM should be able to make an arbitrary ruling when he considers too much time has been taken up searching for the "correct" ruling.

4. When the DM makes such a ruling, it should be accepted and the game should move on. After the session, the DM should find the correct ruling, decide how to implement it in future, and explain to the group his decision before the next session.

The important issues are that the DM gains the trust of the players through fair and consistent behaviour, and that the players are more interested in having fun than "winning".

Probably the very first step is to point out how things are going to work, before the campaign begins. I always start my first session of a campaign making it clear to the players what is expected of them and myself - dice-rolling conventions, alternate rules in use, how grievances will be dealt with, how missing players will be dealt with etc...

 

[Ashtal]

So why is D&D 3e so complex? Do most of your sessions consist of rules lawyering, page flipping, and game speak? What can we do about it?

Are there to many feats? To many Prestige classes?

Are AoOs drivng anyone else crazy?

Do any of you feel obliged to follow every rule and apply every modifier out of fear of breaking something?

I think 3E is as complicated as you wish to make it. Our sessions are remarkably free of rules-lawyering, though there is page flipping when we're unsure.

And I think it's important to understand that you don't need to worry about everything at once. I mostly just skimmed the feats and spells, getting a handle for how it basically worked, and worried about them when I needed to worry about them. You aren't going to be using all the Feats at once, so you don't have to worry about memorizing them all at once, either.

We certainly don't worry about getting it 100% right all the time. We want it to work reasonably well and if we did it wrong, next time we'll try to do it right.

I also firmly believe that you learn by doing. AoO's were a slow-down factor when we first started playing, but now they come naturally. What I like about them is that they've offered a new realm of tactics to take into consideration on the playing surface, and eliminate mis-imaginings between players.

"I don't think I'm in the fireball radius."
"Yes you are."
"But I'm over here!"

"I want to attack that Goblin Priest in the back."
"But you'll have to move through a horde of Goblin Spearmen... they will get some shots at you first..."
"No way, I should be able to get past them without a hit! Can't I go around them?"

That I find can be problematic. When you've got it all in a map in front of you, there's less chance of mistakes - the kind I find game-busting, leading to arguments, interpretations and much rules lawyering.