Is 3e a GM Nightmare? Rules and beyond!

[Belen]

Flexor,

You're correct. I have found that 3e combat takes longer as well. Most of it has a lot to do with greater combats options and players not being able to quickly make decisions as they try to rationalize the best course of action.

Combat has to be the most boring part of running a session and requires the majority of the prep work.

Not that I do enjoy a good fight, just saying that 3e seems to add to the length of time. We have not started 3.5 yet, so maybe this has been fixed.

Dave

 

[buzzard]

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

OK so someone soiled your cornflakes this morning. That is not my problem. I did not imply you were an idiot (though posts like this may give one such an idea), nor do I believe so. I simply don't understand how you can make two of your five arguments without a lack of rules understanding (either by you, your players, or both). I did not even attempt to explain the rules to you.

You have a big problem with heightened sensitivity and putting words in people's mouths.

Let me restate my proffered solution:
Pick the rules you like and the rules you don't like. Use only the ones you like. Inform your players of the changes.

If you find any allusions to idiocy in the preceding paragraph, see a psychologist.

buzzard

 

[jasper]

3 D&D started when table top and Avalon hill war gaming was the method so it took that as the baseline model. Today computer gaming is model so D&D uses that method as a model.
1 Rule debates are fewer because the rules don’t conflict as much. Look at surprise for rangers in first edition. Or check out the page in the DMG where Gary says the dm can make adjustments for saving throws versus poison if the critter is fat. Then check how scattered the paragraphs about death and SSS rolls are.

2. Socialized players depend on group. I would not play with the hormone arrogant whiny munchkins who disagree on comma splice I started with.

4. Monster could have levels back then for example see the original Ravenloft module. But I will agree with the statement about more work on character generation/tracking.

5. I still get lost with first edition illusions spells and Psionics. But you don’t one core book contradicting another. But with any edition if we didn’t know right off we just winged and fixed later.

I see no difference in roll play versus role play between editions. This depends on the gamers themselves. I have guys who rather talk with dragon while trying to steal that nasty hobbit’s ring. I have guys who just want to bash the nasty hobbit over the head and feed the poisoned body to dragon and collect the loot. Same players different editions same fun.

Also have you read the new books cover to cover like you did the other edition? I know I haven’t. In fact this week I just finish reading the new DMG almost cover to cover. I skipped over some of charts and magic item descriptions. I didn’t do this with first edition.

 

[BSF]

I don't think it is harder to DM 3E. I have played Basic/Expert D&D, I have played 1st Ed. I purchased the one of the first copies sold of 2nd in Albuquerque. (I was in the store when the shipment came in. I watched it come off the truck, I watched the box being opened, etc. ) I have 3.0 and 3.5.

I have been running games for 23 years. I have experienced burnout, I have made my share of bad guesses, I have even run a few good games.

With 3.0, I can allow my players to create unique characters with the modular rules without worrying too much that they will build a character that will completely overshadow other characters on the table. I have much fewer arguements on why an action can/cannot occur based on real world science/logic. The rules are clear enough that there is a strong framework for an agreed upon shared reality.

The framework is strong enough that I can make an arbitrary decision in the middle of a game to provide bonuses or penalties and my players agree (The +2/-2 rule is easy). I can decide that we don't want to look up a particular rule at the moment, assign an arbitrary modifier, tell my players that the rule will stand for the rest of the session and we can look it up before we game again. They don't seem to feel like they are being mistreated and the arguements don't happen very often anymore.

I do not think that 3E encourages combat over RP. In the game that I play in, we had a half dozen combats over the course of the first (RL) year we played. The rest was social situations, exploration and similar non-combat encounters. The group I run can have a half dozen combats in a single session. One group prefers RP, the other prefers combat. I would argue that this is a difference in personalities with some possible modifiers for age. In the group I play in, I am the youngest player (I am 33). In the group I run, I am the second oldest person there.

I have not encountered as much DM vs Players with 3E. Of course, part of that is probably changes that I have undergone through the years.

I would argue that DM burnout has always occurred. The increasing usage of online environments makes it easier for the gaming community to discuss these issues. So, it isn't that more DM burnout happens, it is just reported more often. And we seem to be having a cycle right now that refelcts the release date of 3E rules. Many people looked at the rules, were excited and felt their creative juices working their magic. So, many people started new campaigns around the same time.

 

[Belen]

<sigh> Okay people, this is a thread asking about whether 3e is hard on GMs, not EDITION WARS 2003. Please at least attempt to comment on whether 3e is hard on GMs rather than comparing and contrasting the editions.

 

[DaveMage]

Henry: I've seen you post your NPC guide before, but I have to say: Great Stuff!

 

[Belen]

Buzz,

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.

How is the above not to be taken as "you do not understand the rules?"

Not putting words in your mouth, dude, just distilling what you already wrote, or that another "logical fallacy."

I fail to see how arguing in this manner is constructive.

Dave

 

[ForceUser]

There are so many rules in 3.0/3.5 that, yes, it can get intimdating, especially if your players call you on it all the time. I like 99% of the rules, but the sheer volume can be a lot to keep track of. After three years of 3.0 I was just getting comfortable with not having to refer to the rulebook all the time, and then *WHAM* 3.5 arrives, and we're back in the books every session.

My belief is that DMs should try to use the rules as much as possible, and that they should adjudicate things fairly when they decide to ad hoc it. Players, on the other hand, need to give the DM some wiggle room without holding him accountable to the rulebook at every turn. When a DM says "I'm not doing it that way" they need to respect that and let it go until after the session.

DMing 3rd edition is a big challenge, and not every DM is up to the task. There's nothing wrong with that. That's what Fung Shui is for

 

[Henry]

NOTE

Let's not get into any insults or personal attacks here. BelenUmeria, I didn't see anyone name-call you, but I did see a number of questions concerning your personal opinion over the complexity of rules. If anyone DOES get into name-calling, then either this thread or their post doesn't belong here.

But it does look like the picture is clear - a lot of DM's here do not find 3E any harder on them than any other game. I certainly don't, but then, I don't think I've EVER played a game of D&D that didn't have at least one house rule.

However, I can say that 3E is the first game I've played with the LEAST house rules, and closest to what was actually in the book.

 

[buzzard]

Buzz,



How is the above not to be taken as "you do not understand the rules?"

Not putting words in your mouth, dude, just distilling what you already wrote, or that another "logical fallacy."

I asked a question. Why does a quantity of rules cause a problem, unless there is a lack of understanding of those rules? Of course I also made a case that there aren't that many rules at that, but that would be one of my many arguments which you ignored when you decided to become offended instead.

In any case, I have never denied that you may not understand the rules. However I have never implied a slur by such a thing. I don't understand organic chemistry. If someone dares to imply I don't understand the rules of that science, I don't take offense. If you think that "not understand rules=idiot" then that is a creation in your own head. I highly reccomend getting over it.

I fail to see how arguing in this manner is constructive.

Dave

Then stop arguing. You really have to adjust the settings on your touchy meter. It's pegging way too low.

buzzard