Is 3e a GM Nightmare? Rules and beyond!

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Yes it is! And I've been running D&D since 1983!

 

[Wombat]

I find D&D3e no better and no worse for rules compared to most other systems out there. Rules are open to interpretation, abuse, and determined confusion.

Personally I am a Story Over Rules GM. I tell that to my players right up front: "If the rules get in the way of the flow of the story as we have established it, I intend to jetison the rules."

The more rules there are and the more sub-rules to cover minor & specific instances, the more gaps are found. There is NO set of rules that can cover every single specific tiny instance, so it is best to get used to winging matters early on.

Breath deep, accept the game, go with it, and ignore the rules when they get in the way.

Makes for a smooth and happy game

 

[woodelf]

Oh and let me add....i wouldn't want to play with a GM who prefers to play with shoddy rules, just because that makes his fiat essential. That tells me that he does really want an interactive or gamist experience, but wants to dictate a story.

That's a false dichotomy that is at the root of the crunchiness of D&D: the lie is that the power in the game is split between GM and rules, and lessening the influence one has necessitates increasing the influence the other has. You're missing the rest of the group. The real balance of power is a 3-way balance between GM, players, and rules. You can lessen the power the rules have, without increasing GM power, and without lessening detail, by increasing player power.

Frex, as a GM, i want less crunch not so that i have more power, but so that the players have more power. The more control over the course of the game the players have, the better the game. But the sorts of crunch that D&D3E is built out of deny power to the players.

 

[cildarith]

Amen! Wombat!

Of course the fewer rules there are the easier they are to ignore, but I suppose that's a different topic.

 

[BSF]

No it isn't and I have been running games since 1980.

But seriously ...

Flexor, you are going through burnout right now. Do the rules have much to do with the burnout? In your thread, it sounds much more related to player apathy. But, do the rules also have some impact on this for you?

As I have posted above, I do not think the game is harder on DM's. I was one of the freaky guys that read all the 1st Ed books cover to cover. It is also not that unusual for me to use gaming books as before-bed reading. (And no, this isn't to put me to sleep with all the dry material. Sometimes it keeps me up later as ideas are generated. I just like reading DnD source material. I am a gaming geek.) However, I have not read any of the 3E books cover to cover. I hit sections that catch my eye. There are whole parts of the books that I haven't read. Yet, I have a pretty good grasp of the rules. (I am the rules guru in the group I play with. Though, I try not to be obnoxious about it.) To me, this seems to indicate that it is easier on the DM than previous editions.

 

[BSF]

Snip...
Frex, as a GM, i want less crunch not so that i have more power, but so that the players have more power. The more control over the course of the game the players have, the better the game. But the sorts of crunch that D&D3E is built out of deny power to the players.

Interesting! I haven't seen the same situation. Maybe it is more about my players. I sometimes wish they were a little more creative. I just figure that maybe I haven't been as good at communicating how open I am to their ideas.

Would you mind providing an example of how DnD3E crunch inhibits the players? I might disagree, but I am very curious to hear it!

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

No it isn't and I have been running games since 1980.

But seriously ...

Flexor, you are going through burnout right now. Do the rules have much to do with the burnout? In your thread, it sounds much more related to player apathy. But, do the rules also have some impact on this for you?

As I have posted above, I do not think the game is harder on DM's. I was one of the freaky guys that read all the 1st Ed books cover to cover. It is also not that unusual for me to use gaming books as before-bed reading. (And no, this isn't to put me to sleep with all the dry material. Sometimes it keeps me up later as ideas are generated. I just like reading DnD source material. I am a gaming geek.) However, I have not read any of the 3E books cover to cover. I hit sections that catch my eye. There are whole parts of the books that I haven't read. Yet, I have a pretty good grasp of the rules. (I am the rules guru in the group I play with. Though, I try not to be obnoxious about it.) To me, this seems to indicate that it is easier on the DM than previous editions.

Now I put a winky and a tongue smiley in there, I was just kidding.

I don't enjoy running 3e as much as I did 1e but it wasn't bad to run, just more time consuming IMO, and combat was more difficult to run. I had sessions where I had a blast running it. But consistantly I had more fun with 1e and I never burned out on it. Of course I was younger and all the other stuff so who can say?
My problems are mostly player right now.

 

[BSF]

Now I put a winky and a tongue smiley in there, I was just kidding.

My apologies, I didn't think anyone would take me seriously.
Of course you were kidding. I was trying to demonstrate one-upsmanship. Though, only in jest, I love seeing that other people have been playing for multiple decades!

 

[jasamcarl]

That's a false dichotomy that is at the root of the crunchiness of D&D: the lie is that the power in the game is split between GM and rules, and lessening the influence one has necessitates increasing the influence the other has. You're missing the rest of the group. The real balance of power is a 3-way balance between GM, players, and rules. You can lessen the power the rules have, without increasing GM power, and without lessening detail, by increasing player power.

Frex, as a GM, i want less crunch not so that i have more power, but so that the players have more power. The more control over the course of the game the players have, the better the game. But the sorts of crunch that D&D3E is built out of deny power to the players.

Uh, which might work for some groups, but who ultimatly arbitrates this? The DM? A fraction of players? Unless you are dealing with a very open and game-apathetic party, this is usually calling for trouble.

Let me also add that a lot of the suspense comes from the existence of rules. The 'anything goes' ethic ultimatly robs the game of drama because results tend to be arbitrary, i.e. require arbitration. True creativity and genious results from overcoming limitations and working within some rules, not some head in the sky b.s. that in the end is little more than cliche....but that is another argument altogether.

Anywho, you are misrepresenting my point. Definitive, comprehensive rules give players more power, because they know certain actions will have certain results and outcomes are the result of their choices. Thus more rules offers 1) More choice to players and 2) More dramatic and sensical outcomes, because they know what things might result from their actions, but not WHICH event will actually occur..

 

[woodelf]

NOTE: This is not en edition wars thread. This thread is to discuss whether 3e is harder on GMs than players.

Also, please do not think that I am discussing my personal problems with this topic. I'd rather people had a discussion rather than just say..."duh, it's the posters fault, not the edition. "

Lots of GMs seem to have these problems, so it is an obvious point of discussion. Too many people on these boards would rather land personal attacks than make a constructive argument. if you have something constructive to say, then please do. Advice is welcome.

Comments like find another system etc do not really fix anything.

Well, in fairness, your first post wasn't clear on what you wanted out of the discussion.

So, you want to still play D&D3E, more or less, but shift the balance of effort a bit from DM to players? Sounds reasonable--my last GM burned out precisely because of the workload of D&D3E.

First suggestion: stop rolling dice--that's the players' job. All NPCs Take 10 on all rolls, all the time. For most things, that's just fine--the players will still provide the random element (and, provided they don't know their opponents' capabilities, you've lost none of the suspense element). For combat, you need to make one simple change: PCs roll their defense. Instead of AC for a PC being 10 + [some stuff], it becomes d20 + [some stuff]. If their defense exceeds the opponent's attack (which is now 10 + [some stuff] instead of d20 + [some stuff]), they've successfully evaded the attack.

I'll let you decide on damage. For most things, i'd still leave it in the players' hands: you either tell them the first time they're hit by something ("ooo, that's gonna smart--it's bite does 4d6 damage"), or lay it out on the table to begin with (it seems reasonable to me that adventurers should have a rough feel for how dangerous an attack is). For common attacks, you can just tell them ("you don't quite dodge, so he hits you with his longsword") and rely on them to do the damage rolls.

Second, streamline NPCs. They all have 3+level ranks in a number of class skills equal to the skill points they get per level + Int mod. Which means you don't even have to write it down--just note the skills and the max ranks number. Go one better than the monster ability arrays: Abilities mods are all 0 unless the creature is described as particularly slow, fast, strong, small, smart, etc. When you need to use an ability, write it down so you can be consistent.

Hit points: not only are they average, but simplify damage. Say, round attacks against NPCs to the nearest 5pts of damage.

Drop AoOs. In fact, basically ignore the entire combat chapter: all you need is d20+mods vs. opponent's [now static] total; do something advantageous, get +2 or +4; do something stupid, get -2 or -4. No cover, no concealment, no AoOs, no fancy-schmancy grappling rules, no bull rush, no rigid movement rules. You can keep many of the feats that tie into these elements, if your players want them, because they work differently than the default anyway. The rest of the time, just remember the +/-2 rule. You can keep initiative, or drop it and use an opposed Ref save (remember, NPCs Take 10) only those times when it really matters who goes first.

Are you willing to also give more input to the players in your quest to lighten the GM's burden? If so, give them some sort of fiat points. They spend them to decide what happens--not just to succeed at a roll, but to succeed at an action/scene. So: "<tosses fiat chip on table> 'Luckily, the barkeep in this town is an old friend of my parents, so we should be able to get the help we need'" The more power you give the players over the direction of the game, the less effort you have to exert.

Oh, and along those lines, never create more than you have to. They're gonna be fighting an NPC wizard? Don't pick his spells, just figure out his personality and what he expects to happen that day (i.e., is he prepared for the PCs, or planning on going flower shopping in a safe part of town?), and the sorts of spells he would have prepared flow naturally from that. Just tick them off his spells/day list as he casts them. You don't even need to know the spells in the PH, so long as you have a general feel for power levels: just make spells up, assigning effects and levels as you go. Heck, you can even go it one further, for a one-shot: make the encounter exactly as difficult as needed, on the fly. Then, after the fact, if you need to know what level he is, total up the spells he cast, and make him the minimum level needed to cast that many spells at once.

What D&D3E really needs is mook rules. There needs to be some way to just mow through hordes of really weak badguys without playing it all out. Maybe like the 2e rule of as many attacks as your level against <1HD creatures. Say, extend it to: for creatures up to half your hit dice, you get as many hits per attack as your hit dice divided by their hit dice. Each hit eliminates an opponent. So, a 10th level fighter clobbering gnolls (2HD, right?) takes out (10/2=) 5 per successful attack, or potentially 10 per round with a full attack action.

Mind you, my real suggestion is to simply find another system. By the time you streamline D&D enough to make it fun for the GM again, it's not really D&D3E any more, IMHO. I'd try to find a copy of the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, if i were you, or pick up BESM and Uresia, or something along those lines.

Oh, one other thing for the GM: even if you use all the rules, don't add to them. Use the DMG, PH, and MM, and then nothing else--no splatbooks, no 3rd party supplements, no other monster books, etc. Or, better yet (IMHO), use Arcana Unearthed, and nothing else. ;-)