Is 3e a GM Nightmare? Rules and beyond!

[Belen]

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.

Have fun and enjoy!

Dave

 

[Garmorn]

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!

Actuall I consult them about the same amount.

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.

17th levels characters often do the nigh impossible routinely. Over all this is a group related function, with some having that as a problem and other not.

It is also common to almost every RP game I have ever ran/played.

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?

Our group is just the opposite as far as combat goes. Personnaly I find this more related to the personality of the group then the game system.

As for as codify the names and other stuff. It has made it easier to learn, and find things in the books.

[QOUTE]

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.

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.

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

[/QUOTE]

I still do 90+% of my NPC's and monster straight from the books and have no problems. The new options does give me a lot more leeway and ability to suprise and facinate my players. I encourage my players to take the standard races by simply say that is what they get to choice from; no exceptions, in most campaigns.

I am not sure how it has turned your players against you but mine are even more willing to work with me to insure a balanced and enjoyable game.

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?

Dave

3e has moved my group from hack and slash to one that likes a good mix. The new flexibility has added to their enjoyment of the game and has given me more options to enhance the story lines.

 

[Nightfall]

So far I don't feel that way in any of my games. And I've been doing this for a while now. I might be tired of a few things...but I think it's more a case of me trying to be creative than anything else.

 

[Henry]

Is 3e a nightmare for GMs?

I should know better, but here's my dissection:

1.) Extensive rules giving players ammo to argue.

We didn't go to the books so much back then because it wasn't there. We still argued about rules in my group, it was just whether the DM gave a bad call or not. Rules lawyers will exist with or without rules, in my experience (I know, because I'm one of them. )

2.) The social skills have really taken a beating in 3e; 17th levels can hit a DC 40.

While learning to socialize is a good thing, playing D&D will still not make you a smooth orator, nor will it make you take to heart the ability to smooth-talk or persuade another. To me, roleplaying a good negotiator while your character's abilities are mediocre is CHEATING, pure and simple. Thus, a good combatant sacrifices social skills to be a good combatant, just as a good diplomat sacrifices combat skills.

3.) 3e gets close to a computer game; encourages combat at the expense of roleplaying.

My experience hasn't seen it; my groups have generally been more combative anyway, because we usually play it more socially than some groups, which could be why I've seen a change. If anything, we encourage more roleplay now than before, But I attribute that more to my and other DM's being influenced by the concert of fantastic roleplayers we interact with on ENWorld.

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.

Ah, the crux of the argument; One I agree AND disagree with. If you detail EVERY nuance of every monster and NPC every time, you'll go nuts, and burn out. I agree. But then, I don't do that much detail. I once posted "Quick-and-Dirty" NPC creation on these forums, and at Dragonsfoot; I live by those rules. If my players don't catch that my trolls are 1 or 2 points off on their attack bonuses, who's to care? They certainly don't, and I don't need to bog down story by knowing every skill that my NPC's have or don't have. The advantage to all that extra material is, I CAN KNOW these things, if I need to; otherwise, I carry on a piece of paper the same amount of stats I used to carry for monsters/NPC's for AD&D.

Too many rules; even players & GM's get lost.
True, but 90% of the rules are used EVERY session. The other 10% (from grappling to failed item saves) are par for the course of any RPG.

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

More needs to be said. I'm afraid I don't understand how you feel the dynamic has changed.

In all, I heavily agree there are more rules, but there's two differences:

1- Core universal mechanics;
2- Greater optional detail for the GM. Some Gm's treat it like it's not optional, but it is.

 

[Zogg]

It's hard to respond to your post, really. Sometimes I think long-time players (I'm quite new to the game) hate new versions because it questions the old dogmas they had established in previous versions.

My short response: For every problem, there is a solution. Focus on finding the solution.

 

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

I disagree.

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

This didn't happen in 1e and 2e because we were arguing over the arbitrary rather than the factual.

NOW: Hey! The orc moved within 5' of me! I get an attack of opportunity! What do you mean he tumbles out of my way? It's not fair!

THEN: You didn't say the orc was that close! It's not fair!

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

The reason they're taking a beating is because they're more in the forefront. An 8 CHA character can have 20 ranks in Diplomacy. In 1e there was no such skill and in 2e your skill was pretty much your CHA in most cases.

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

Yes. I love it. What's wrong with codifying the names? What's wrong with knowing that all elementals are immune to sleep rather than having to look it up in each individual monster description? I see this as a strength.

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

Actually, I spend less time planning encounters. Once you get the hang of the Encounter Level system, this stuff is a breeze. A 2e DM planned out an adventure for me about six months ago. He didn't look at the 3e rules much and encounters were either overwhelmingly powerful or boringly simple. With ELs I can just plop stuff in and have a pretty good idea of how tough a fight its going to be. If you're having a hard time, PCgen and other such programs will quickly pound out statblocks for you.

And planning the story should take no more time than it did before.

I LOVE how the players get to build their characters every level. Before it took a couple of minutes. Now they're really spending time on this stuff. Not the number crunching, but thinking about where there character is and where it is going. Big time conceptual stuff that I used to have to beg them to do.

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

So you mess up a rule from time to time. Big deal. No harm, no foul.

6.) 3e encourages player vs. GM play! nuff said.

I have had the exact opposite. Before everything was very abstract. I remember as a kid, wondering who knew how to swim and who didn't. The DM would decide it based on our backgrounds. So suddenly we all came from oceanside towns and were the sons of wealthy scholars, so we could swim and read and have access to more money. 3e puts the kibosh on all that.

Combats where foes teleport hundreds of feet are a thing of the past ("you said he was far away!" "Well, he's in melee now"). I'm not stuck with playing the same character I started with at 1st level. And, most woderous of all, the monsters have templates and classes so even the humble orc is a possible villian of high order.

God, I love 3e!

 

[Cybern]

Belem, I agree that 3E is harder to keep up with for a DM than 2e. I like 3e, far more than 2e, but there are things that can get me a headache that didn't in 2e, like, say, creating a Great Wyrm (completely). They get so many skill points that if you want it to look real you have to take much time distributing them.

2e wasn't easy to learn, as things didn't looked logical, while in 3e they do. I, for one, like the "reserved expressions" way of describing things, such as Dazed, Prone, etc, they mean the same thing to everyone.

Yet, 3e is a blast for character creation, and the skills and feats section is far more useful to create special characters.

I don't think that all of your problems are based on the edition, but that is another story.

 

[Urbannen]

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

Actually you originally wrote that you liked 2nd edition, but now you are having problems with 3rd edition. If 3rd edition is superior, as you say, then why are you having more problems? Why play a system that you don't like when there are other options, possibly even ones not involving the letters D and D? I would never play 2nd edition again, but I completely understand when people say it is more roleplaying oriented.

 

[Mercule]

Totally disagree.

1) Or the DM lots of ammo when dealing with nutball players. At least now the rules are fairly standardized so it's easier to make balanced ad hoc ruling.

2) The rules have been cleaned up to such an extent that they more easily fade into the background. This makes it easier to run social games.

It's a bit like a well-built car vs. one that isn't. The well built one allows you to simply drive it to where you want to go. The shoddy one requires you to stop every 100 miles to add oil, tighten a bolt, etc. Which one is easier to drive?

3) It neither encourages nor discourages combat. To use the computer analogy, it only provides a stable "engine" to play with. It just so happens that combat is the most mechanically complex part of the engine, thus has the largest "footprint". In fact, because the new rules are easier to use, it makes combat move more smoothly, freeing up my brain for better things.

4) Actually, no there isn't more to handle than it previous editions. It has just move from tomes of house rules to handle things not covered or broken to the ability to actually customize your characters/NPCs/critters. Most of these options already existed, but were only hinted at and handled ad hoc, usually poorly.

5) Our group has no problems with the rules (except grappling, but that's no different than 1E or 2E). My wife rarely cracks open the PH and I'm pretty sure she could teach someone to play. She has no problem understanding any of the tables on the DM screen or such things as DC, TWF, sneak attack, flanking, etc.

My sister-in-law just started playing last month. She had a one-session learning curve. She's already got most things figured out to where she needs no help. Standard action, move-equiv, full-round, partial, etc. are no problem. Sure, she doesn't always know what falls into what category, yet, but that's all on a chart for easy reference. If this stuff doesn't overwhelm a newbie, I think it'd be hard to convince me that it is too much for an experienced gamer.

6) Eh? I think you'd better say more. With a working engine that the DM doesn't constantly have to tweak, I find that 3E encourages neutrality on the party of the DM and decreases adversarialism.

Basically, I've never seen a system that was easier to GM than 3E is.

 

[Bastoche]

but half of DnD is learning to socialize, so die rolls are only harming the game!

Trapping oneself with other nerds and geeks in a basement away from natural light, playing imaginary character in an imaginary world is NOT my idea of "socializing"!