Is 3e a GM Nightmare? Rules and beyond!

[Belen]

Henry,

Alas, I am marrying a Catholic, and I am forced to go to a marriage "class" before I can marry the lady. Therefore, I shall miss this game day.

Have I even mentioned the Catholic churches top five ways to avoid divorce?

1.) Be faithful to one another. (no brainer)
2.) Go to (Catholic) church together
3.) Pray (the catholic way) together
4.) Tithe (yes, to the Catholic church, ya moe-ron) to the church.
5.) Practice natural family planning (yeah we need to to raise worshipers. It's too hard to covert 'em these days!)

Dave

Ending his own hijack of the thread.

 

[Belen]

Buzz,

Just because I said I thought too many rules existed, does not mean that I do not understand the rules.

Did you refute the statement about personal attacks, just to make it easier to defeat the argument with a personal attack?

Dave

 

[Henry]

Dave, congratulations on your upcoming marriage, in any event!

Just in case anyone gets any use out of this, I'll repost it: My "Quick & Dirty" rules for NPC's.

Based on the attested problem of NPC's and monsters taking too long to stat, I've often told people that minimalist statting is how I keep sane, and it's how we used to do PC's back in AD&D, as well. In the interest of those who don't believe me, I've listed them here.

DISCLAIMER:

This method will not work well for Major NPC’s, and Major Villains. If you want to give certain villains their utmost prowess, you may need to stat them fully. However, this will work for 80% of the “shock troops”, shop keepers, bellhops, stable boys, scullery maids, and senators and mayors your PC’s will ever meet.

1. Start with Name, Alignment, Class, Level, and details. Write these down. That’s it. No need to be specific if this is an NPC they won’t be fighting.
2. If you need a specific skill (this is a skill that is actually coming into play; NPC is bargaining with PC’s, NPC is repairing armor, etc), then figure if the NPC is just decent, or GOOD at that skill. If decent, assign 1 skill rank per level. If GOOD, assign skill ranks = level +3.
3. Don’t worry about attributes unless needed. If needed, figure which one or two scores the NPC is GOOD at, and assign scores of 13 or 15 to those. Everything else, assume average.
4. Don’t worry about FEATS until needed. Feats hide a multitude of sins.
5. If combat is needed, hit points are slightly above average (Level multiplied by half of hit die number; round up a bit). BAB is = level, 3/4ths level, or ½ level, based on class. Armor class is = armor.
6. If NPC is a monster, and you EXPECT to get into combat with them, write down AC, touch AC, speed, Melee and Ranged attack, damage, and hit points. That’s it. Figure out feats and skills JUST like you do for other NPC’s.

You will wind up with characters that are only 80% accurate. Will this matter? NO. But you will wind up with generic monsters and NPC’s that took you all of 30 seconds to stat, that are playable, and for whom your players won’t be able to tell the difference.

 

[buzzard]

Buzz,

Just because I said I thought too many rules existed, does not mean that I do not understand the rules.

Your points 1&5 directly state problems exist due to understanding of the rules (owing to the quantity). If you understand the rules, why is there a problem? You simply apply them. If your players don't understand them, then you explain them, or have them learn them (or apply rule zero and tell them to suck it up). A post which consistenty complains about rule quantity, and mentions then rule arguments are a constant problem implies that there is a problem with rule understanding.

Did you refute the statement about personal attacks, just to make it easier to defeat the argument with a personal attack?

Dave

I refuted your logical fallacies. If you consider that a personal attack, well shucks, I guess I'm just a pest. You are complaining about the rules. I explained why the rules aren't the problem. If you take that as a personal attack, then I probably can't help you.

buzzard

 

[Kichwas]

Is 3e a nightmare for GMs?

Not for me.

...a GM must know them hands down or suffer truly dire consequences.

Just get players to quote them back when needed. "Hey you, what do we do when 3 Kobolds jump on a pig and run around the maypole drinking and playing ballads to Sahaugin women? -look that up while I deal with this guy."

1.) Such extensive rules give players a lot of ammo when arguing over a GM call.

I don't see it that way. Way I see it, they let the game be consistant. The player and DM know that enytime you go dancing with toads, the roll will be the same...

2.) Rules rather than roleplay: The social skills have really taken a beating in 3e.
...
die rolls are only harming the game!

On this I highly disagree. Having social skills codified gets people to use them. I find it increases roleplay and people see an avenue of empowerement through it. You roleplay and rollplay the scene together -combining into a fluid process. Anyone who's GMed any other RPG has been doing this for decades, it's not that hard.

3.) 3e- the PnP PC game: Anyone else notice how close 3e gets to a computer game? It encourages combat far too much at the expense of roleplaying.

Haven't seen this at all.

4.) GMs have a lot more to do and consider than in past games.
...
so much more work has to go into mechanics these days that you need to spend twice the time to have a good story and good encounters.

I run on the fly, with a lot of add libbing. A consistant ruleset that works the same way from most angles by which I approach it makes this much easier to do. Having all the detail in the rules means I need less in my preperation.

5.) There are so many rules that even players get lost. Unless a rule is used every session, then no one can keep track of them.

Since so many of them revolve around the same axioms, I find this a non issue. Compare to 1E where everything you did had a different chart with a different style of dice rolling and it's much easier to deal with now. It's not that there are more rules now, it's that the rules before were so inconsistant most people ignored the bulk of them.

Anyone else think that 3e may be a bit too rough on GMs?

I have the exact opposite viewpoint. I find it makes things a lot easier.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Combat is harder to keep track of than the way we used to play basic D&D, which is the same system we plopped down to use in A&D. Roll a D20+Strength and magic mods = beat a number on a chart. If you were attacking from the rear you would get a +4 to hit and the opponent didn't get his shield. That was pretty much it.

3e has tons of combat feats and skills. I find it a lot to keep track of, as use of these feats drasticaly change what a person can do and what tactics they will use, as will skills. It's great if you don't mind the added work and sucks if you hate the added work. I've found more rules-lawyering than before as well. Combat is more involved, some love it, some don't. I do feel it's more work on the GM.

 

[Psion]

Is 3e a nightmare for GMs?

Nightmares are extensions of fears.

Some fears are irrational.

Rules: 3e has more rules per pound than any other edition of DnD.

You said this isn't an edition war, yet your argument is based on a critical evaluation of 3e compared to other editions.

I remember 1e being riddled with rather anal rules. Further, those rules were inconsistently implemented and ad hoc in nature.

Contrast 3e. 3e is boiled down to a few fundamental mechanics as opposed to the dozens in prior editions. Much like prior editions, 3e has a lot of rules references in them. However, unlike the prior editions, they have this narrower base of rules as a consistent underpinning.

For example, most skill or ability related checks are handled the same way. Need a new skill DC? You can easily make it up by the surrounding structure.

Similarly, each spell or other effect draws from a consistent set of core mechanics. When a spell stuns someone, you don't have to rely on specific stun rules to guess how it works; all effects that stun pretty much works the same way. Once you know how one stun effects works, you have the others mastered.

This makes it far easier, IMO, to master (and better yet, to manipulate) 3e than prior editions.

In fact, the rules cover so much that a GM must know them hands down or suffer truly dire consequences. A GM who misses the beat even once can easily watch a game collapse.

This appears to me as so much histrionics.

A GM has to learn to deal with rules calls in a quick and efficient manner. There is nothing unfair or tragic about that.

1.) Such extensive rules give players a lot of ammo when arguing over a GM call.

Why does it need to be "ammo"? What is the problem with a consistent and robust rules set as an agreed upon medium to play the game. Dare I say, if you don't cleft to that approach, you are playing the wrong game?

D&D is not a narrative game like OTE. The function of the rules is to provide a sort of "rules of reality" for the game to occur in. Some participants appreciate that approach.

If the GM decides that a rule should be different, then that is within her authority. But the GM owes it to the palyers, AFAIAC, to keep players appraised of the most funamental rules of the shared reality they are playing.

If rules are reduced to being "ammo", then it seems to me as if the problems lie deeper than the rules. You have an adversarial relationship between you and your players. That needs to be mended before you can even think about evaluating the worth of the rules.

In fact, do any of you remember needing to consult the books so often in previous editions?

Yes. In fact, they were referred to much more, just because they were so much more convoluted and inconsistent.

My group goes through this all the time and it really causes problems during game play!

I recommend the 60 second rule. If you can't find the rule in 60 seconds, the DM makes a call and you live with it. Look up the rule after the game and learn it for next time.

2.) Rules rather than roleplay: The social skills have really taken a beating in 3e.

This has had entire threads devoted to it, so I won't dive into this wholesale again. To sum up my views:

1) Integrate the roleplaying as a DC to the task but don't bypass the roleplaying.
2) The social skills of the character should be at least as important in the game as those of the player, and silver tongues players should not be roleplaying their 5 charisma characters as silver tongued devils or they are not properly roleplaying their characters.

3.) 3e- the PnP PC game: Anyone else notice how close 3e gets to a computer game?

No. Quite the contrary. Now that social skills are a core part of the game (instead of a tack on proficiency in some add on book), players are much more eager to use those skills in play. See #2 for how to turn that to your advantage.

4.) GMs have a lot more to do and consider than in past games. Monsters can now have levels.

Dude, that is SO what sold me on 3e in the first place!

Are you sure that you are the one that is arguing on the side of roleplaying here? In my old games, I primarily ran PC races (or races that could have classes, like Drow) as opposition, because I could craft 3 dimentional, interesting characters out of them. Monsters, I left as nuissance encounters since they were so cookie cutter.

Now, I can craft any race into an interesting compelling villain or lackey! Bravo.

Of course, nothing is making you give monsters levels now if you don't see the advantage in it.

But AFAIAC, this is so much a "feature not bug." I honestly cannot at all sympathize with the view that more options is bad for their own sake.

5.) There are so many rules that even players get lost.

See above. The rules are so much more consistent now, I find the players don't get lost.

I used to have a player who got involved during the 2e era, when saves and attacks were d20 high, ability and proficiency checks d20 low, thief skills percentile low, initiative d10 high. It is SOOOOO much easier to get players up to speed on the system now that I can, again, hardly beleive your perception is at all accurate.

 

[Belen]

Buzz,

I consider statement such as "you're an idiot who does not understand the rules, so let me explain them in terms that your pea-sized brain can handle," to be personal attacks, no matter how much perfume you add to the language.

Understanding the rules and sifting through a large nmber of them while running through a fast paced encounter are two very different animals.

Nor am I complaining about the rules. I am only saying that there is a large quantity of said rules.

If you have constructive advice on helping GMs boil prep work down into less time consuming work, then fine. I would hardly classify, "you're an idiot who does not understand the rules. Of course you have trouble," as a constructive argument.

Personal attacks do not win an argument.

Next please.

Dave

 

[Umbran]

First, and foremost - being a nerd and being angsty have pretty much no connection. Angsty folks don't play D&D, they play WoD

Now, as to your comments, I find I have to disagree on most of your points:

1) Such extensive rules give players a lot of ammo when arguing over a GM call.

Whether they have ammunition is not particularly important. Rules don't cause rules arguments, players do. Players aren't supposed to argue rules points at the table, so the issue here are the players, or teh player/DM relationship, not the rules.

2.) Rules rather than roleplay: The social skills have really taken a beating in 3e.

Well, considering that they didn't exist in previous editions, it is hard to say that they've taken a beating relative to earlier times. When you claim that "half of D&D is learning so socialize" you confuse a possible use with the intent of the designers - in effect, you're complaining that the hammer you have isn't ideally designed to put screws in the wall. Yes, D&D can be a socialization aid for some gamers, but that is not what it was designed to do, and it's not reasonable to gripe about how the rules fail to serve a purpose for which they weren't designed. WotC is not the Children's Television Workshop. They published a game, not a course in social behavior.

3.) 3e- the PnP PC game: Anyone else notice how close 3e gets to a computer game?

Is it that 3e is close to a computer game, or that computer games are close to 3e? D&D, in general, has always been a game with a large focus on combat. Many (perhaps weven most) players like it that way. The game's social mechanics have improved over tiem so that now they are about as strong as anyone else's. It's about as reasonable ot play a social-focus D&D game as a social-focus campaign in any other game, so I don't see much reason to complain.

4.) GMs have a lot more to do and consider than in past games.

[sarcasm] Poor, poor, GMs. Actually have to think! How dare they make a game where the GM has to actually consider his options!?! Woe betide us, we've a game that encourages a DM to put careful and cunning craft into his adventures. The days of slapdashing together a scenario while paying rapt attention to reality TV shows are over! Unheard of! Foul, I say! [/sarcasm]

You say, "so much more work has to go into mechanics these days that you need to spend twice the time to have a good story and good encounters." I ask a simple question - twice the time as compared to what? Compared to earlier editions? As compared to other games?

The rules in 3e are an aid, rather than a hindrance, in producing encounters that do what the DM intends. In previous editions, and in nost other games, there are few to no guidelines whatsoever as to what will probably make a good challenege for a given group of PCs. 3e and 3.5e have such tools. They are imprefect, but work better than what you'll find elsewhere.

5.) There are so many rules that even players get lost.

If you don't use a rule often enough to remember it, then it is unlikely that it is coming up often enough to significantly impact your game through losing time in looking it up.

I like to play a variety of characters and I love to create stories. When my half my prep is learning arcane mechanics and my sessions are five hours of social and combat DIE rolls, then I am unfulfilled.

You don't need to refer to arcane mechanics to create interesting characters and stories. Personality is not dictated by the rules, and stories don't arise from mechanics. At worst, you only need to bury yourself in rules minutae when you wish to present an interesting tactical problem.

 

[Desdichado]

Is 3e a nightmare for GMs? I think it is a valid question and I will highlight the reasons that I think 3e is a bad version for GMs.

Nope.

First, let me say, that in five years of running constant 2e campaigns, I never faced burnout issues. In fact, I did not burn out for the first time until after my first year long 3e campaign. While I think that 3e is a superior system to 2e, I must wonder if it does not make a GMs life tougher.

And let me say I never was motivated to even play 2e because of my massive burnout of 1e! 3e is the only version of D&D that I consider competent as a game system.

Rules: 3e has more rules per pound than any other edition of DnD. In fact, the rules cover so much that a GM must know them hands down or suffer truly dire consequences. A GM who misses the beat even once can easily watch a game collapse.

I'd disagree that there are more rules than in the past, I'd also point out that the rules tend to all work the same way now, so learning them is also much easier than it used to be. I'd also very much disagree that the game can collapse because of a GM lapse on rules.

1.) Such extensive rules give players a lot of ammo when arguing over a GM call. In fact, do any of you remember needing to consult the books so often in previous editions? My group goes through this all the time and it really causes problems during game play!

I don't allow rules "debates" in game. If I get a question on a rule, I'll listen to their point of view, make a ruling, and it sticks. It's been that way for years and years.

2.) Rules rather than roleplay: The social skills have really taken a beating in 3e. Yes, I understand (and partially agree) with the argument that it gives socially inept players a chance to play social classes, but half of DnD is learning to socialize, so die rolls are only harming the game! High level social skills are also broken! The charts say that DC 40 is nigh impossible, but I have 17th levels PCs who can routinely hit a DC 40.

Feh! And you say you're familiar with older versions of the game? I think the new rules encourage roleplaying much more than any other version.

3.) 3e- the PnP PC game: Anyone else notice how close 3e gets to a computer game? It encourages combat far too much at the expense of roleplaying. Die rolls should never take the place of social aspects of the game, yet they seem to be gaining more popularity. 3.5 is worse in that they went so far as to codify names! Did Improved Invis really need to be Invis, Greater?

And this is different from D&D in the past... how exactly? If anything, I'd say the tools are in place to run much more varied games than before. Not that you couldn't do it in the past, but you had no support for doing so.

4.) GMs have a lot more to do and consider than in past games. Monsters can now have levels. PCs can be half anything, but are usually just half- @$$ed. Every level can be a debate with your players. Yes, the encounters can be wildly different, but so much more work has to go into mechanics these days that you need to spend twice the time to have a good story and good encounters.

Ehh, so don't use all the options. What's the harm in that? I'd rather have a bunch of options I'm not using than want a bunch of options that I don't have.

5.) There are so many rules that even players get lost. Unless a rule is used every session, then no one can keep track of them. This means that a GM, just to have a smooth game, had better constantly re-read the same material. Mastery, my tail end! The large number of rules makes Mastery almost impossible.

Never happened to me. As I said, at least the rules are all similar, so getting lost happens a lot less than it did in the past.

5.) 3e encourages player vs. GM play! nuff said.

I hate the phrase "nuff said." It makes it sound as if you've just decreed a hard rule of the natural world that is completely not open to debate. For one thing, I have no idea why you think 3e encourages this; it's certainly never happened at any table I've played at.

For me, DnD is not about die rolls. Yes, they are important, but I GM because I like to roleplay. I like to play a variety of characters and I love to create stories. When my half my prep is learning arcane mechanics and my sessions are five hours of social and combat DIE rolls, then I am unfulfilled.

Anyone else think that 3e may be a bit too rough on GMs?

It seems to me that for you, D&D isn't D&D. That's well and good, but not particularly useful. It also seems as if you have two paradoxical urges, and I can't understand why you'd feel the need to fulfill both of them; you want a rules light game that encourages you to not focus on mechanics. Yet, paradoxically, you want to concentrate on having all the mechanics perfectly right in play.

To me, 3e is the easiest system to "wing it" yet published under the name of D&D. The rules are intuitive and make sense, and therefore become transparent so that we don't focus on them, or even particularly notice them during play.