Sorry - I think the point was missed...

[Psion]

No I didn't forget (despite my efforts ). I acknowledged this in my reply to Campbell above.

Oh I caught that. I was just sort of saying that Campbell isn;t the first time this has been pointed out.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I wouldn't get too worked up about what Majoru's saying there, fred. He's explained in this thread that to him DMing is solely about being a fair arbiter and presenter of prepackaged modules. Coming from that perspective, I can see why specific rules for all occasions would be needed. It'd be like trying to play Monopoly if the banker could decide what rules to apply or ignore.

And I think maybe some of the misunderstanding comes from those different position. I can't think of more than five minutes in the last six months of GMing that I've felt like I had a referee hat on.

 

[Morrus]

Another area that I think the game could stand improvement is in scripted combat. One big issue is that players already know most of the ins and outs of their PCs, but most DMs are playing most higher level monsters for the first time. That puts the players in an information advantage. "Scripted" combat actions for monsters that fully exploit their powers to maximum effect would relieve some of this burden. I think there's even room for "Core Book V: Fighting the Monsters" a DM's guide to monstrous tactical combat.

Yep. I've been saying that for ages. It's one of my biggest problems - players need to know one character and have a year or two to tweak it, figure out the smallest details, work out the most advantageous combinations, etc. I, as the DM, usually have to do the same with 3-4 monsters or NPCs each week.

I usually find myself compensating for my "information disadvantage" numerically. I'll add to HPs, attack bonuses, saves, etc. fairly arbitrarily in an effort to make the encounter challenging. It's not an ideal solution, but it's a quick fix which works for me.

The thing is, I'm not complaining about the detail. The details and options are what enables me to make encounters new and interesting. Even after two years, players are facing abilities that they've not come across before; I wouldn't want D&D made simpler. I just want it to be easier!

 

[fredramsey]

My only problem was the choice of rather combative words:

"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."

While some have been miffed by my responses, really I have only gotten upset with people who use terms like that above and words like desperately...

If you express yourself in that manner, the people who feel like you may be talking about them are going to get upset. There are many different ways to express the underlying meaning there without getting insulting. It sounds too much like the usual, "I'm right, and if you don't agree with me, you're dumb or the enemy," kind of thing that unfortunately dominates certain segments of the media.

I wouldn't get too worked up about what Majoru's saying there, fred. He's explained in this thread that to him DMing is solely about being a fair arbiter and presenter of prepackaged modules. Coming from that perspective, I can see why specific rules for all occasions would be needed. It'd be like trying to play Monopoly if the banker could decide what rules to apply or ignore.

And I think maybe some of the misunderstanding comes from those different position. I can't think of more than five minutes in the last six months of GMing that I've felt like I had a referee hat on.

 

[Joshua Randall]

To follow up on Morrus's post (and to try to drag this thread back on topic and away from the pissing contest it has become between certain people) -- anyway -- to follow up on Morrus's post about combats being difficult for DMs, I think the baby steps taken in the Monster Manual 3.5 toward creature tactics were a great idea. Pity they didn't go farther.

Of course, monster tactics have to adapt to fit the situation (assuming the monster is intelligent enough to adapt), but general advice is always useful. Upon looking at a complex monster, sometimes it's hard to decide whether it should stand off and use ranged attacks, wade into melee, hit and run, or some combination. Of course, some monsters seem to have no coherent design philsophy, which raises the question -- do monsters need to be designed from the ground up with combat in mind, or can a monster simply be a cool creature for the PCs to interact with?

 

[SWBaxter]

I don't think I stated this as clearly as I liked in my previous posting, but this is what I was getting at. A system where both players and DMs can build characters with as much or as little customization as they like. A complete point buy system for DM's and the hard core min/maxers to use but structured templates for the quick play types who don't want to account for every last point.

Think about the brilliance of this. You have a point buy system, perhaps similar to M&M. Every attack bonus, saving throw, skill rank, feat, hit point, etc. can be purchased with character points, probably with some sort of cap based on character/power level. This allows people to make exactly the character they envision. It also allows DMs to create NPC or monster stats on the fly without worrying about whether their builds are a legal combination of classes or feats.

This game actually already exists - it's called the Hero System (Fifth Edition, Revised, also known as FREd). Fully point based, it's possible to stat out everything in the world within the system if you want, and various supplements provide templates and other shortcuts for players (and GMs) who don't want to work from first principles. It's really an incredibly elegant system, probably the best designed rules-heavy system I know of (with all due respect to the 3E D&D design team - I know the sacred cows from earlier editions aren't their fault, but it still drags down on 3E's design elegance). But it's most certainly not for everyone.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

That's a really good question, Joshua. I think part of the problem is that when somebody asks "Is D&D about tactical challenge, or exploration?" the answer is "Both". Different people (designers, GMs, players) have different priorities. There's monsters designed to present specific challenges, and those designed to fit into a certain ecology, and although the two have different designed purposes, they can end up in the same dungeon.

CR helps this to some extent, but it doesn't deal with issues like: Creature A have 4 special abilities, all of which are very effective towards making it more challenging. Creature B has 4 special abilities also, but only one is particularly useful in combat.

Some people will pelt me with rotten fruit, but sometimes I think "creature as challenge" and "creature as thing you interact with" should be separated. On some level, that's already true of humanoids, since you can set up an orc raiding party as ten orcs, or ten Orc/Bbn5, or whatever. You might even run them with similar tactics.

Neverwinter Nights does this (and hoo boy, did I find the fact that the computer handles tactics useful when I GMed it). You can design a variety of interesting looking creatures with special abilities, and independently assign them certain AI scripts. So animals would act one way, humanoids another, aberrations another, etc. We see published adventures with "buff scripts" for major spellcasting NPCs; maybe that could be expanded to "general tactics" scripts.

 

[fredramsey]

...maybe that could be expanded to "general tactics" scripts.

If memory serves, Necromancer Games modules, at least Rappan Athuk, has this. Each encounter has a Tactics entry. Very cool.

 

[Dragonblade]

This game actually already exists - it's called the Hero System (Fifth Edition, Revised, also known as FREd). Fully point based, it's possible to stat out everything in the world within the system if you want, and various supplements provide templates and other shortcuts for players (and GMs) who don't want to work from first principles. It's really an incredibly elegant system, probably the best designed rules-heavy system I know of (with all due respect to the 3E D&D design team - I know the sacred cows from earlier editions aren't their fault, but it still drags down on 3E's design elegance). But it's most certainly not for everyone.

Standing behind me is an RPG bookshelf that not only contains virtually every 3e book WotC has released, but also every HERO 5th book released to date as well. I agree, that the system is quite elegant. But its also overly complex and plays as slow as molasses unless you are intimately familiar with the rules. And although, I'm fairly experienced with it, none of my players are. It also suffers from needless complications such as having to count a damage roll twice for both STUN and BODY, and so on. One of the reasons I increasingly favor M&M is because it is basically d20 HERO and greatly streamlined as well.

Ideally, I'd like to see a product that essentially covers converting core 3.5 into an M&Meqsue point buy system while allowing the DM the ability to run existing D&D statted creatures with little to no conversion (.i.e keeping HP instead of Damage Save).

The current incarnation of M&M is a little too different from core D&D to be of use without some conversion effort, however, M&M 2e and the optional hit point system that I assume will be in the M&M 2e Masterminds Manual, may be exactly what I'm looking for.

 

[mythusmage]

Mr. Dancey, thanks for the fascinating thread! Its always great to have the inside perspective, and I apreciate your willingness to discuss at such length.



But, we are not supposed to talk about politics or religion on the boards

We can talk about sports and children.