Is 3e a GM Nightmare? Rules and beyond!

[Mercule]

Heh. That's pretty much how i run *all* my games, regardless of system. Only for convention games do i do more prep (for those, there's no "next week" to recover, so it has to go right *today*).

Anybody who *hasn't* run a game that way, at least enough times to get reasonably comfortable with it, should, IMHO.

Agreed. I used to run all my games the same way. The main reason I'm not anymore is to expand my own ability. Funny as it sounds, I think there are some things a "winger" can learn from prepping.

Also, after 5-6 years of almost exclusive WoD, I realized that I wanted a bit less "interactive storytelling" and a bit more "game". I'm still story heavy, just not a purist.

 

[Rel]

Rounser, I actually agree with your first three points.

Same here. I don't see the added options of 3E as a bad thing. And I try to avail myself of the resources out there that can help to make my job as GM easier.

I'll be the first to admit that it can be a pain to make leveled NPC's or monsters for the players to face. I've got several of them in the game I'm running for the NC Game Day tomorrow. So what I did was log onto the Jamis Buck's Generators page and had it gin out 5 sets of stat blocks for each of the six NPC's that I needed to make. I picked the one that was closest to what I wanted, tweaked it by changing a feat or spell here and there and I was done. It literally took me 15 minutes.

As for the added rules making combat take longer, I don't see that as a problem. I'm a tactician at heart and I love it when my good tactics lead to more exciting combats where taking certain actions actually matters to the outcome and isn't merely "flavor text". But I'll freely admit that not everybody is of similar mind.

This brings me back to the main point that I wanted to address and that is that, to a very large degree, it IS about the people involved and not about the system. If you don't like the "rules heavy, combat oriented, mechanically handled social skills, etc." aspects of the game (or alternately if the players don't) then you need to change something. Heavy house rules or switching to a different system are good ideas under those circumstances.

As to the main question posed, I do think that 3E is tougher on GM's who don't like the same things that Belen Umeria doesn't like. As for me, I love that sort of stuff and I wouldn't go back to playing an earlier edition of D&D (which were too "rules light" for me) and I wouldn't go back to playing Rolemaster (which was a bit too "rules heavy" for me).

I embrace the system and many of its options. But I also use the resources that make embracing those options less time consuming and easier on me.

 

[Arnwyn]

I think that 3e is a nightmare for DMs - for *some* aspects.

Actually, I have found that DMing a 3e game is like a dream during gameplay. I haven't had a rules argument *yet* while playing a 3e game, and I haven't had to stop and ponder a situation for any length of time. Further, if I don't know what might happen in a particular situation off the top of my head, I know exactly where to find it - and that the players can expect consistency every time. Further, much of it is in the PHB - so when and if the players ask, I either ignore them or point to the PHB and ask them "can't you read, dumb***?" while going back to giving my attention to more competent players. Works every time.

Now, DM preparation is another matter entirely. I've found it to be a complete nightmare and pain-in-the-butt. NPCs are, of course, the major offender. I only stat NPCs when combat is expected, and even then it's an unpleasant experience. Add classes to monsters or prestige classes, and I'm ready to sit on my patio with a beer. (However, I've found that once I'm done, the NPCs fit my vision of them far better than any other fantasy game system.)

So, in some areas, 3e is quite DM-friendly. But IME, I've found it great during actual gameplay. It's a tradeoff I've accepted.

P.S.
Rounser - I absolutely agree with all points of your post. Great stuff. (We've even got people now who say "I refuse to upgrade until there's computer support!". Whoa.)

Edit: P.P.S. I think that this edition might seem more combat-oriented because it details combat quite well, and that overall it runs pretty well, too. This is compared to earlier editions that might have seemed more "roleplaying-heavy" because the combat system was much poorer... *shrug* Maybe...

 

[BSF]

*laugh*

Yes, it does seem combat oriented. But, not just because of the combat rules. Heck, take something as simple as the Craft skill. It details all the DC's for creating weapons and armor, and now alchemical agents that are used primarily for ... combat. But, does it give any guidelines for crafting a musical instrument? What about a nice looking holy symbol? How about excelletn clothing? It's not there.

Look at the equipment lists. Easy comparison. All musical instruments cost the same, but we have quite a selection of arms and armor.

Don't get me wrong, I am not _complaining_ about it. I wish they had put a little more emphasis into non-combat flavor, so I wouldn't have to work it all out myself. Combat is one area that has generated the most arguements and is most in need of standardization and baselining.

However, as woodelf has pointed out (I think) and I have agreed, this emphasis on the rules may actually hinder the creativity of the players. It won't hinder everyone! But, it creates implied boundaries that people may be afraid to break because "it isn't in the rules."

Anyway, I still like the combat rules. I also like a lot of the points brought up in this thread because it makes me *think* and try to find ways around the other limitations. I believe most of the problems really come down to the people playing the game. Many of those are solvable with communication, and sometimes with an agreement that the people involved want to play different styles and should part ways as far as gaming goes.