Mouseferatu
Hero
Starman said:
And for what it's worth, WotC wouldn't even need deep pockets. I'd do this for dirt cheap, and call myself lucky.
Sorry - I think the point was missed...
- Thread starter RyanD
- Start date
And for what it's worth, WotC wouldn't even need deep pockets. I'd do this for dirt cheap, and call myself lucky.
The Shaman
First Post
Old news is no news
Dancey cites his 500+ page marketing research study that was used to engineer 3e D&D in describing gamer preferences - this study looked at 2e gamer prefs, however. The landscape has certainly changed since that time, and 1.5 D&D editions and a plethora of d20 games later I don't know how valid those conclusions are anymore. For example, some gamers have no experience except with 3e/d20: how does this influence their concept of complexity or rules lightness/bloat? Do the same 2e gamers believe that 3e/d20 makes their gaming better?
Applying conclusions based on old data gathered using an out-of-date product to the current crop of gamers is of questionable value, IMHO.
(And where can I get a look at that study, anyway?)
Player options, GM headaches
Dancey describes the emphasis on providing players with concrete options - "if I do this and this and this, I want to know exactly what the modifiers will be without depending on the GM." All well and good, as far as it goes. In theory it should make the GM's job easier - everything is spelled out. In practice however, that may not always be the case - the increase in complexity in front of the screen, for players who have to manage one character sheet, is compounded exponentially behind the screen for the poor GM. Some GMs make up their monster and NPC modifiers on the fly as a result, which to some degree negates any advantage that was gained by putting more control over modifiers in the players' hands in the first place - GM fiat is still alive and well, largely as a result of trying to give the players more control over the game. This is without recourse the usual, overt means of GMs hosing players - encounters that are too powerful, nerfing character abilities, and so on.
An inexperienced or overworked or 'power-mongering' GM has just as much ability to be a prick in the current iteration of the game as in the past - this is an illusory improvement.
S/he's called Game Master for a reason
Along similar lines, the idea that putting more control of the game in the players' hands indirectly suggests that some of the problems with 2e were related to poor, or at least inconsistent, GMing. Where was the help for GMs in this?
The very intelligent suggestion given already is that there needs to be a comparable, current, rigorous study of GMing and ways to make the GM's role easier and better.
Chicken or egg? Not in this case
Finally, to wrap-up the topic of making 3e/d20 player-centric, engineering a game that rewards players without a commensurate reward for the GM is a potential disincentive for gamers to step behind the screen, and for those that do to stick with it and develop better GMing skills. One might argue that this is a chicken-and-egg proposition: without a GM, the players cannot play, but without players, neither can the GM. However, many of the things that make GMing enjoyable have nothing to do with the players directly: designing new monsters, writing deep game-world backgrounds, creating interesting NPCs and so on are for many GMs a reward in itself. Ultimately GMs who cannot find players may still find game-related activities to be enjoyable - for players this is perhaps not as true. This would be another aspect of gamer behavior that needs structured study.
Proposed for analysis: The game does not exist without the work of the GM - a system that makes the GMs job easier rather than harder is more likely to result in happier GMs and more and happier players than one that doesn't.
Rewarding rules-mastery, or adventure-mastery?
One of the stated goals of 3e was to reward 'mastery' of the game system, like M:tG - according to Dancey, as this was one of the conclusions in the old study of gamer prefs. The questions I have are, (1) at what point do additions to the system become complexity of the sake of complexity?, and (2) at what point does the game cease to be about the adventure and become about the game itself?
My friends and I, way back in the day, used to play a lot of Squad Leader, and as new modules were released we gobbled them up the way fat kids eat Little Debbies Cream Cakes. Eventually we reached a point however where we spent more time figuring out what rules applied to a particular maneuver than we did maneuvering our troops and tanks over the hexagons. The game stopped being fun for us about the same time - we exceeded our collective threshold for exactitude. We didn't play SL to master the rules: we played to experience the vicarious thrill of the company commander on the field of battle.
'Complexity' in the game, and reward of rules-mastery, may have been a stated preference, but does 3e/d20 meet this preference, or exceed it? If the latter, at what point does this occur? What is the break-point where rules-mastery diminishes adventure-mastery?
Finally, I have to take exception to the RD apologists: the "desperation" comment was pejorative toward a lot of gamers that have well-reasoned motivations and practical experience for opting for rules-light games. Some of his comments in this thread have only served to reinforce this.
Dancey cites his 500+ page marketing research study that was used to engineer 3e D&D in describing gamer preferences - this study looked at 2e gamer prefs, however. The landscape has certainly changed since that time, and 1.5 D&D editions and a plethora of d20 games later I don't know how valid those conclusions are anymore. For example, some gamers have no experience except with 3e/d20: how does this influence their concept of complexity or rules lightness/bloat? Do the same 2e gamers believe that 3e/d20 makes their gaming better?
Applying conclusions based on old data gathered using an out-of-date product to the current crop of gamers is of questionable value, IMHO.
(And where can I get a look at that study, anyway?)
Player options, GM headaches
Dancey describes the emphasis on providing players with concrete options - "if I do this and this and this, I want to know exactly what the modifiers will be without depending on the GM." All well and good, as far as it goes. In theory it should make the GM's job easier - everything is spelled out. In practice however, that may not always be the case - the increase in complexity in front of the screen, for players who have to manage one character sheet, is compounded exponentially behind the screen for the poor GM. Some GMs make up their monster and NPC modifiers on the fly as a result, which to some degree negates any advantage that was gained by putting more control over modifiers in the players' hands in the first place - GM fiat is still alive and well, largely as a result of trying to give the players more control over the game. This is without recourse the usual, overt means of GMs hosing players - encounters that are too powerful, nerfing character abilities, and so on.
An inexperienced or overworked or 'power-mongering' GM has just as much ability to be a prick in the current iteration of the game as in the past - this is an illusory improvement.
S/he's called Game Master for a reason
Along similar lines, the idea that putting more control of the game in the players' hands indirectly suggests that some of the problems with 2e were related to poor, or at least inconsistent, GMing. Where was the help for GMs in this?
The very intelligent suggestion given already is that there needs to be a comparable, current, rigorous study of GMing and ways to make the GM's role easier and better.
Chicken or egg? Not in this case
Finally, to wrap-up the topic of making 3e/d20 player-centric, engineering a game that rewards players without a commensurate reward for the GM is a potential disincentive for gamers to step behind the screen, and for those that do to stick with it and develop better GMing skills. One might argue that this is a chicken-and-egg proposition: without a GM, the players cannot play, but without players, neither can the GM. However, many of the things that make GMing enjoyable have nothing to do with the players directly: designing new monsters, writing deep game-world backgrounds, creating interesting NPCs and so on are for many GMs a reward in itself. Ultimately GMs who cannot find players may still find game-related activities to be enjoyable - for players this is perhaps not as true. This would be another aspect of gamer behavior that needs structured study.
Proposed for analysis: The game does not exist without the work of the GM - a system that makes the GMs job easier rather than harder is more likely to result in happier GMs and more and happier players than one that doesn't.
Rewarding rules-mastery, or adventure-mastery?
One of the stated goals of 3e was to reward 'mastery' of the game system, like M:tG - according to Dancey, as this was one of the conclusions in the old study of gamer prefs. The questions I have are, (1) at what point do additions to the system become complexity of the sake of complexity?, and (2) at what point does the game cease to be about the adventure and become about the game itself?
My friends and I, way back in the day, used to play a lot of Squad Leader, and as new modules were released we gobbled them up the way fat kids eat Little Debbies Cream Cakes. Eventually we reached a point however where we spent more time figuring out what rules applied to a particular maneuver than we did maneuvering our troops and tanks over the hexagons. The game stopped being fun for us about the same time - we exceeded our collective threshold for exactitude. We didn't play SL to master the rules: we played to experience the vicarious thrill of the company commander on the field of battle.
'Complexity' in the game, and reward of rules-mastery, may have been a stated preference, but does 3e/d20 meet this preference, or exceed it? If the latter, at what point does this occur? What is the break-point where rules-mastery diminishes adventure-mastery?
Finally, I have to take exception to the RD apologists: the "desperation" comment was pejorative toward a lot of gamers that have well-reasoned motivations and practical experience for opting for rules-light games. Some of his comments in this thread have only served to reinforce this.
RyanD
Adventurer
The Shaman said:
My use of the term "desperately" was meant in this sense:
"D&D is not enough fun for the time I'm investing. An option pressed on me by the industry is rules lite games, which claim to be more fun because they are less complex. My need to be roleplaying gamer is being directly impacted by my dissatisfaction with D&D's play pattern. Thus, I am heavily vested in this other solution that has been offered."
This person desperately wants a rules lite system to fix the problem they are having with D&D.
Does that clarify, and render my comment non-pejorative for you?
Last edited:
The Shaman
First Post
"Pressed on me by the industry"? "Claim to be more fun"? "Heavily vested" in other systems out of desperation?RyanD said:
Again, I get the feeling that you can't discuss this topic without taking shots at other designers or companies, or the gamers that purchase their products.
I suppose I would be an outlier in your data array, so I imagine that my opinions carry little weight.
Back in the day I played as much The Fantasy Trip as I did D&D.
I'm moving on to C&C because I can't run the fantasy games I want to play using D&D anymore: it doesn't mesh well with my style, and I don't plan on changing my style to suit the rules system - that would be just plain backwards to me.
I want to spend time on characterization and adventure writing, not tinkering with stat blocks or reverse engineering the latest feat-and-spell combo. From an entirely practical standpoint, I'm not a twenty-nothing anymore - I have neither the time nor the desire to master the increasing complexity of the rules-sytem at the expense of time spent preparing interesting adventures and running them with my friends.
I want to spend my time at the table enjoying fast-moving action, not plodding along waiting for players to decide what to do from among their many "options."
Nothing is being pressed on me - my decision isn't predicated on a marketing ploy, but rather a system design choice that works well with my style of play. There is no desperation here: I'm 'vested' in my choice by knowing what I like and what I don't. D&D isn't it.
A final thought: some of those lonely data points out there on the edges of your array are the people who are designing and playing the next generation of RPGs specifically because they don't conform to the norm. Outliers are not made up exclusively of those who 'don't get it' - they also include the people who have a new vision and a new take on the hobby. Ignore them at your peril.
JRRNeiklot
First Post
"My opinion is that most people think "rules lite" games are simpler and better because they desperately want them to be, not because they are."
The problem with this statement is that a lot of people interpret the above (myself included) as Tom Sawyer's whitewashing the fence. Some idiot made a rules light game and deluded us into thinking we were having fun, but we really aren't.
The problem with this statement is that a lot of people interpret the above (myself included) as Tom Sawyer's whitewashing the fence. Some idiot made a rules light game and deluded us into thinking we were having fun, but we really aren't.
Joshua Randall
Legend
Ryan, count me as one of the people who find your input fascinating and hope that it will continue, despite the naysayers here who seem to be able to do nothing but spit vitriol.
And to all you naysayers -- go visit d20sucks.com or even RyanDsucks.com, where you can cheerfully bash the system and the person who helped design it.
Now back to the discussion, I would like to follow up on the earlier points that while D&D has certainly succeeded in making the rules more transparent to the players -- thereby increasing the players' ability to do cool, fun stuff (whether it's outrageous combat maneuvers or audacious skill checks) -- the game could do more to alleviate the rules burden on the DM. Note, I am not talking about prep time; I am talking about running the adventures.
What could the rules themselves do to make the DM's job easier? Or is this not something the rules can be bent to, but rather something dependent upon various DM aids such as pre-gen'd NPCs, complete tactics for monsters (as was attempted in the 3.5 version of the MM), or the use of a computer at the game table.
Personally, as a long-time D&D'er (since the Basic Set Red Box days -- [sarcasm] hopefully this adequately establishes my credentials in the eyes of the grognards here [/sarcasm]), I find the current edition of the rules makes the DM's job much, much easier. By having transparent rules, all based on the same core mechanic, the DM can intuitively sense how to resolve something even if he doesn't remember the exact rule. E.g., even if I don't remember exactly how the sunder rule works, I can be pretty sure it involves either an attack roll or an opposed check -- both of which, of course, are d20 + modifiers.
By a similar token, in the rare cases where the core rules do not cover something the players want to attempt, the DM can easily apply the core mechanic by setting a DC and calling for a d20 (+ modifiers) roll. This, to me, makes 3e worth its price all by itself.
And to all you naysayers -- go visit d20sucks.com or even RyanDsucks.com, where you can cheerfully bash the system and the person who helped design it.
Now back to the discussion, I would like to follow up on the earlier points that while D&D has certainly succeeded in making the rules more transparent to the players -- thereby increasing the players' ability to do cool, fun stuff (whether it's outrageous combat maneuvers or audacious skill checks) -- the game could do more to alleviate the rules burden on the DM. Note, I am not talking about prep time; I am talking about running the adventures.
What could the rules themselves do to make the DM's job easier? Or is this not something the rules can be bent to, but rather something dependent upon various DM aids such as pre-gen'd NPCs, complete tactics for monsters (as was attempted in the 3.5 version of the MM), or the use of a computer at the game table.
Personally, as a long-time D&D'er (since the Basic Set Red Box days -- [sarcasm] hopefully this adequately establishes my credentials in the eyes of the grognards here [/sarcasm]), I find the current edition of the rules makes the DM's job much, much easier. By having transparent rules, all based on the same core mechanic, the DM can intuitively sense how to resolve something even if he doesn't remember the exact rule. E.g., even if I don't remember exactly how the sunder rule works, I can be pretty sure it involves either an attack roll or an opposed check -- both of which, of course, are d20 + modifiers.
By a similar token, in the rare cases where the core rules do not cover something the players want to attempt, the DM can easily apply the core mechanic by setting a DC and calling for a d20 (+ modifiers) roll. This, to me, makes 3e worth its price all by itself.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
You miss the point, it isn't ABOUT trust. I trust all of my friends explicitly. They are my friends. However, I know that at least one of them doesn't know the first thing about sword fighting during the dark ages. I know he's never fought with a sword in real life, watched any documentaries on the "truth" behind warfare during that time period or anything of the like. So, in a way, I TRUST that if it ever falls to him to make a decision about something the rules don't cover regarding sword fighting, he'll make a bad one.Turjan said:
I TRUST one of my friends to try to destroy everything in sight. As a DM, he likes to have bad luck befall PCs and likes to have entire cities destroyed by a stray fireball or tripping and knocking over a candle. No matter how much it may not make any sense, I know we won't be able to put out those fires. No matter how unlikely it would be for a house to burn down in 6 seconds, he'll make it happen and claim its because he KNOWS that the wood that houses were made out of during that time period was EXTREMELY flammable.
So, you see, it isn't about trust. It is about competance. Not all DMs know about all subjects. I certainly don't. I don't trust my own rulings for a lot of things, because I hate ruining the immersion for the players by saying something that all the players think is really stupid. I, of course, have no idea that what I just said is really dumb. So the players spend the rest of the session doubting my decisions because I just made a bad one.
Essentially, all I see here is DMs who are so full of themselves that they believe they never make mistakes or that their players are too dumb to notice the mistakes. Or that they make mistakes, their players notice, but no one cares. I guess there may be a certain type of player out there who says "That villian just managed to break a solid steel block with a wooden club with no magic whatsoever, which makes no sense at all, but the DM said he could and there are no rules saying he can't, and I trust the DM wouldn't just make up something for no good reason."
I'm not one of them. I say "How did he do that? The wood would break before breaking the steel if it isn't magic. Not only that, but if he's just human, he can't possibly have that much strength." This sort of thing ruins entire sessions for me as I've said before.
Arashi Ravenblade
First Post
I agree with Joshua Randall, i think 3.5 makes the DMs job much easier, if its not covered in the games rules i can look at the president for similar actions and use that a a starting point, for example my called shot system, very simple yet works alot like the coup de grace.
Similar Threads
