Is 3e a GM Nightmare? Rules and beyond!

[woodelf]

Less work and, actually...less of a game..

Well, if you're drawing on the formal definition of "game" where there has to be competition and goal and rules, yes. Which is, IMHO, a good thing. The less like a game RPGs are, the better, IMHO. I detest competition, and thrive on collaboration. Not claiming that my way is better, or for everyone.

But if you're claiming that it's less enjoyable, or somehow less worthy, i'm gonna have to call you out. I'm thinking witty quips at 15 yards.

 

[BSF]

Only if you want to!

OK, I can see what you mean and I understand, I think.

Clearly you aren't going to argue that the DM is not free to work such things into individual games. I think you are pointing out the flaw that these restrictions place on mindsets.

By that, I mean that by setting up explicit rules to enable certain actions, you are implicitly denying other actions. In turn, this infects the mindset of players and DMs and inhibits the tendencay to run "outside of the box".

Using your immovable rod idea: Sure, Spring Attack makes some sense to do this type of thing. I might not run it that way, and you probably wouldn't either. But, we both seem to have a fair amount of RP experience outside of DnD3E. As such, we may be more comfortable running "outside the rules". We would probably come up with a variety of ways to adjudicate that particular situation. Many of them would _probably_ have a low threshold, but would retain a feeling of danger. In short, we would reward the interesting idea and the willingness to take the risk by allowing it to be suitably heroic.

However, there are probably a fair number of DMs out there that would simply say: "No, it isn't in the rules that you can do that."

There may be even more players that might not even consider such an action because it isn't "in the rules".

Am I understanding your concerns correctly?

If so, I concur. This is a problem that is inherent in rules-heavy systems. At the same time, the rules help establish a nice baseline for anyone, experienced or not, to work with. As I see it, the rules have been baselined by WotC. I don't necessairly agree with all of their decisions, but if I am looking for a new player, and they have been playing DnD3E, we both have a good idea of what to expect. With that strong baselining, there is a lot of common ground wherever you go. If you have the PHB, you can easily determine what is a house rule between different campaigns. This makes it a little easier for the hobby to spread, at least in theory.

However, you do bring up a good point! It is one that I will mull over in my head. Perhaps my player's aren't as creative because they think that they can't do it if iti isn't in the book. If so, I need to improve my DM skills and my communication skills!

 

[Olive]

My 2cp...

Is 3e a nightmare for GMs?

Nope.

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 think this is an exageration. I would phrase it that 3e has rules to cover more situations than other editions of DnD. This is a good thing, as it makes the system more flexible.

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!

This is an issue of players not accepting the DMs need to run the game. This is a player problem not a 3e problem.

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.

Use circumstance mods. If a player says that his PC is going to do something, then make them roleplay it, followed by a roll. if the roleplaying is crap, then penalise them accordingly. I also don't play DnD to learn how to socialise.

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?

Codification of names makes sense, and it's easier when looking things up. Good change, and nothing to dso with PC games. DnD has always encouraged combat, it's based on a war game! Don't like it, then don't provide situations that can be solved by combat to your players. The joy of 3e is that is contains rules to play these kind of games more than previous editions did.

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.

I simply don't agree. Don't like monsters with levels? don't use them! The core mechanic of 3e is so simple, i don't see how you can be having these issues more now than before.

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.

Again, the core mechanic is what you need to know. What rules are you thinking of specifically?

[/B][/QUOTE]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.[/B]
[/QUOTE]

I really think this comes down to the campaign you're running. Don't want combat with leveled up orcs in the mountains? then don't create that adventure. Create a political adventure where trying to fight will lead them to certain death. Have them play in anti-magic zones.

Above all, require your players to know the rules too, and to be trust worthy. If you can rely on them to tell you the mechanics of a spell (which is generally as complicated in 3e as in any other edition) then that works fine surely?

What I think I'd like to hear BelenUmeria is what rules you're having problems with? Which rules do you need to look up every time?

 

[rounser]

Belenumera, I think you're correct in spirit (although I disagree with the specific arguments you make), but you won't find much agreement on this board. As I see it, here's 3E's payoff in a nutshell:

1. People like the new rules because it gives more options, codification, and more opportunities for customisation. Without truly transcendental game design (4E?), more options and codification inevitably means more statting and rules chasing.

2. Most 3E DMs admit to regularly skipping largish chunks of the rules (usually stats, especially feats and skill points), suggesting that the system has too much overhead for the way the game is actually played.

3. Statting has become such a three-ring circus that it's come to involve computer programs, tables in the DMG and magazine articles and books dedicated to the stats of single baddies in order to circumvent this weakness in the system.

4. I doubt this state of affairs will be corrected with 4E, but rather I expect it will be extended further down the path of rules overhead bloat ("options, not restrictions"), so you may as well jump ship now.

 

[jasamcarl]

Well, if you're drawing on the formal definition of "game" where there has to be competition and goal and rules, yes. Which is, IMHO, a good thing. The less like a game RPGs are, the better, IMHO. I detest competition, and thrive on collaboration. Not claiming that my way is better, or for everyone.

But if you're claiming that it's less enjoyable, or somehow less worthy, i'm gonna have to call you out. I'm thinking witty quips at 15 yards.

I'm not saying it is inferior, though unless you are dealing with players with a very short attention span, alot of the dramatic effect that is implied by rp games can be lost.

But to suggest that the existence of such rules makes the system weak for your purposes is pretty irrational. You don't care about balance, so what problem do you have with excising a lot of the rules. You just have to make it clear to your players upfront.

And that, in the end, is why 3ed is so popular. Because it can handle the IMO, more popular gamist angle, and the rules-light/arbitrary stuff as well...I'm sorry if some are so anal they have to have that spelled out for them or have only the latter option presented...

 

[Henry]

Rounser, I actually agree with your first three points. What I don't agree with is:

4. I doubt this state of affairs will be corrected with 4E, but rather I expect it will be extended further down the path of rules overhead bloat ("options, not restrictions")...

From my standpoint, there's nothing to correct, since I like the "optional bloat." For me, it's not a bad thing.

 

[JeffB]

Hey all,

The troubles with 3e have slowly been dawning on me for the last few weeks, such as my post on the social skills, and an even earlier one about GM burnout. So I have to ask. Is 3e a nightmare for GMs? I think it is a valid question and I will highlight the reasons that I think 3e can be bad for GMs.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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

I didn't read any of the 85 replies yet, but all I can say is in my view you are absolutely correct. It's definitely the player's game, and tries very hard to constrain the DM into working w/ the official rules instead of being more creative. The all important "game balance" factor

Strip it down to the base mechanic and "wing" it and the game is a ton of fun. Have a bunch of rules jockey's in your game and it's no fun whatsoever. My first several sessions of 3E were a mess because I tried very hard to keep with the rules, and I ended up spending more time w/ my head in the DMG looking up a special condition or som other stupid thing than I did running a fun game.

A year and a quarter later after I had dropped 3E for simpler systems, I ran a "wing it game" using The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, and made decisions on the fly (like DC's and whatnot) and rulings based on common sense. I used the +2/-2 circumstance modifiers quite a bit, and we all had alot of fun with it. You have to have the right kind of players though. IME most D&D players (of all editions, and other game's fans as well) are rules over roleplaying first, and could care less about the unfolding story/plot as long as they hit that next level and get that new spell, item, or special ability. I grew up playing a totally different way...thank goodness, cause I just don't like the approach of most gamers I've played with. I get more excited not knowing what's behind that door, or trying to use my brain to figure out a trap instead of figuring out the best feat combinations that will get me to PRClass "X" :rollseyes:

All in the approach I suppose...

 

[Wombat]

If you are having rules burnout, try this simple exercise:

Blank Day

For one session, don't do any prep. None, zero, zip. Every time you should refer to an NPC or monster, just look at a blank notebook page. Copy onto the player map from your blank graph pad.

Wing it during combat. A roll is usually high enough or low enough to not look up anyway. Give the bad guy an AC based upon your feeling of how hard he is to hit, nothing else. If a roll for something is somewhere close to the success/failure line, flip through your empty notebook for a second and then just say success or failure depending on your whim.

Make a major effort to not look at the books, if at all possible.

When mapping things out, use extra description as a way of stalling to work it out in your head.

This will seriously get you back into running the game and not just judging the rules.

Good thoughts, 47. I've done this several times over the years and it has served me well.

From homebrew D&D to RQ Prax to Ars Magica to Castle Falkenstein and back to D&D, I have learned that the rules are more like guidelines

 

[hong]

Try Fantasy Hero for about three years, then come back to D&D ... I think you will find it quite simple to grasp and execute.

Indeed. For better or for worse, the creeping HEROization of D&D proceeds apace....

I wonder what it'll take to get Steve Long to work for WotC?

 

[The Blue Elf]

Here is some DM tips

1.Describe a Person, Place, or thing that is in the game when telling a story to players, so they can understand.

2. Anyone wish to add?