Sorry - I think the point was missed...

[RyanD]

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.

I believe that there are three kinds of people who interact with D&D:

1) People who play it

2) People who DM it

3) People who design content for it

A key issue here is that #2 and #3 have become inextricably linked. A default assumption on the part of many people could be summarized as "the act of DMing requires substantial content design activity".

I think that this conjunction lies at the heart of much of the DM-side problems with fun factor in D&D (and many other RPGs).

Note how little comment we see from people who say "I sat down to run [Adventure Path Module X] and realized I had to invest several hours of prep time." I'd suggest that when such comments are made (and I'm certain that some people have already clicked "Reply to this Post" to make them) they invariably start with "in order to change the module to fit my needs, I ..." (or some similiar wording). [Note: Occasionally, people will have to invest time because the module itself is just broken or lacks fundamental information. In those cases, I A) apologize, and B) feverently hope the problem was engineered not to recur, at least at WotC.]

As long as DMs are also pressured to be content creators, the prep time for DMs will remain substantial. But things don't have to be that way.

I agree with previous posters that WotC could do a better job of supporting D&D with electronic tools. Its foray into that segment (ETools) was stupidly expensive, way over deadline, and satisified little of its target market. It seems easy on this side of the fence to advocate for additional electronic support, but I can tell you that until an entire strategy and effective team of people are recruited and trained by WotC, such a project is likely beyond their scope of ability. However, I think it is so important for the future that I have often suggested to friends at WotC that they get started on such an initiative.

Electronic tools could solve a lot of the problems of prep time, certainly as they related to stat blocks.

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.

I guess all this is a way of saying "much more work needs to be done".

 

[Henry]

A note to posters:

I've noticed some personal snips in this and the sister thread to it, as well as having my attention called to them, both towards Ryan and towards other fellow posters who are debating the points he raises. Let's please keep this civil, eliminate the insults, and focus on the arguments at hand.


I don't know Ryan personally, but I know him enough to know he's a good guy, and not one to be offended quickly. The mods are also watching the thread, and anything that crosses the line will be handled. So rather than bringing up a lot of harsh feelings, if you see someone being insulting, please report it instead of being insulting in return as per forum policy, and let us worry about evaluating it and handling the posters in question.

Thanks to all, and I hope this thread can stay civil, because it's some of the most lively gaming discussion I've read in a while.

 

[Bretbo]

I realize I know spit about game design, but I always thought that it should be fairly easy to design a plan that accomidates both the rules-lite and rules-heavy fans. First, design a rules-lite system that encompasses all the basic salient points of RPGing (combat, skills, non-combat encounters) at their most basic level, then design options (advanced combat manuevers, advanced skill usage, ect.) that could be added to the lite system as the GM and players like. I'm not suggesting that this would be easy to design or easy for GMs/players to agree on what options to include; but I think its important to have a system that could fit the needs of a particular group as needed.

 

[Turjan]

Well, I understand that you might feel slighted, however I have observed what Ryan says.

A lot of people who play these rules light systems give the same reasons to me over and over again why they do so. "At least I don't have THIS problem that I had with D&D." Most of the time, if I ask them how they deal with the problems *I* personally had with that particular system, they normally say "well, yes, that's a problem, but I don't care, it's better than D&D."

It seems to be more driven by hatred of D&D than it is liking the new system. The most stated reason I was given why people like Vampire is "It isn't full of powergaming, hack and slash D&D players". Which, of course, isn't true. But the people who play it see it that way.

Although there are people like that (just start a thread about D&D over at rpg.net ), this is an over-generalization. I like to play D&D. My players seem to like it, too. That's not the problem. We just have a hard time finding someone for the preparation work .

 

[Gentlegamer]

Yes, Shaw, let us all follow the holy path of socialism, especially in gaming! *roll eyes*

 

[Henry]

My thoughts follow a similar track to Bretbo (who I believe I've seen at Mutants and Masterminds, so he'll know what I'm getting at). I'd love to see D&D's rules follow more of a "Macro/Micro" philosophy, where the DM can use a cut-down rules-set that still interfaces legally with the fully statted out Player Characters, without a ton of prep time. In the old days (and still I do this) I often write down a stripped-down stat-block or I ad-hoc the stats for an NPC or monster, because to write down every critter the PC's would interact with would drive me to distraction; it also means I couldn't run an off-the-cuff D&D session if I had to. Just as in M&M someone's Defense or base attack bonus could be broken down into categories (attack could be broken into ranged, melee, and unarmed, defense could be broken into Natural/Armor and deflection/shield, etc.) the DM could pick a point-buy bonus that was still equivalent to what his PC's would be challenged with, but the players could customize the heck out of their characters and the DM's NPCs would still be legal and appropriate challenge to the PCs.

I'm not even sure if it's doable, but a suite of electronic tools will NOT make it easier to run at the table, and forcing the DM to have to use a laptop to run his game just because of stacks of prep-work needed is NOT the better RPG. The better RPG is the one that both fits the needs of the most number-oriented power gamer (in the Robin Laws sense) and the storyteller, and provide an interface that assists the meeting of the minds between the two.

 

[The Shaman]

I'm an Adam Smithian economic philosopher. I believe the invisible hand of the market addresses wrongs without the need for top-down solutions, provided the markets are reasonably free and unregulated.

This is an interesting comment on further reflection - it ties into something that came up in the other thread: would d20 be as successful if it didn't have the name "Dungeons and Dragons" affixed to it? How much of the success of this 'engineered' game system comes from branding?

Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that most companies in the niche gaming industry don't have the backing of a huge corporation.

Isn't this somehow akin to inheriting the family fortune and then patting one's self on the back for buying a hot retail property?

I don't think one can attribute the success of 3e/d20 as a game-system to the 'market' without considering these factors as well.

 

[The Shaman]

I'm not even sure if it's doable, but a suite of electronic tools will NOT make it easier to run at the table, and forcing the DM to have to use a laptop to run his game just because of stacks of prep-work needed is NOT the better RPG. The better RPG is the one that both fits the needs of the most number-oriented power gamer (in the Robin Laws sense) and the storyteller, and provide an interface that assists the meeting of the minds between the two.

Agreed on all counts.

 

[DaveMage]

I'm not even sure if it's doable, but a suite of electronic tools will NOT make it easier to run at the table, and forcing the DM to have to use a laptop to run his game just because of stacks of prep-work needed is NOT the better RPG. The better RPG is the one that both fits the needs of the most number-oriented power gamer (in the Robin Laws sense) and the storyteller, and provide an interface that assists the meeting of the minds between the two.

I want a program that allows me to instantly generate an advanced monster (or character), of any hit die/class combo, with appropriate equipment and/or treasure (which would then be used and added to the stats of the monster if usable by that monster). I don't want to have to "build" it myself. I don't want to sit there and assign skills. I don't want to sit there and assign feats.

I don't need this program to be usable at the gaming table; I just need it for prep. Ideally, it would encompass all of the D&D books, but at this point, I'd accept it with just the core rules.

 

[delericho]

Note how little comment we see from people who say "I sat down to run [Adventure Path Module X] and realized I had to invest several hours of prep time."

That's very true, from what I've seen. I did have to do quite a bit of prep work for the Shackled City, mostly in the later adventures, but it was of the form of working out how the enemies were going to interact with the PCs (their tactics, choice of spells, and so on), rather than in statting out those encounters. The use of a pregenerated campaign was a huge help in this regard.

I also did a fair amount of work in re-reading the adventures and preparing tokens for all the foes encountered (no substitutions for us ). However, none of that was required work.

I agree with previous posters that WotC could do a better job of supporting D&D with electronic tools. Its foray into that segment (ETools) was stupidly expensive, way over deadline, and satisified little of its target market. It seems easy on this side of the fence to advocate for additional electronic support, but I can tell you that until an entire strategy and effective team of people are recruited and trained by WotC, such a project is likely beyond their scope of ability. However, I think it is so important for the future that I have often suggested to friends at WotC that they get started on such an initiative.

I think Wizards of the Coast would be better to not do this work themselves. They're not software engineers. Far better to subcontract another company to do it for them. Additionally, it's probably too late to do anything with 3.x rules at this time - by the time a product could be rolled out, we're probably going to be less than a year from the launch of 4th edition.

When the development work for 4th edition kicks off, or very shortly thereafter, Wizards should start working with their team of choice to develop appropriate tools. And they should ditch all the big dreams that have killed of their products in the past - give us a good, expandable character generator, a good, expandable stat-block generator, and a few other things, rather than promising the world and delivering nothing.

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.

While that could certainly be useful, I don't know how realistic it is to do for intelligent high level monsters. One of the key attributes of, say, a beholder is that it is likely to do extensive research on its opponents, and act accordingly. But, how can any book provide any reasonable description of tactics to use against such a diverse group as high-level PCs?

To be honest, though, thinking up tactics for the high-CR monsters to use against my party was never a problem I faced while running the Shackled City - creating the stat blocks would have been. With that other task taken care of, the rest just followed.

Incidentally, I think it's worth stating my opinion that the single greatest weapon that D&D has over (almost) any other system is the wealth of pre-generated adventures out there. Between Dungeon, the third-party companies, and Wizards own (relatively sparce) offerings, it is more than possible to run this game for a decade without running out of material. As a very busy DM, I find that advantage impossible to ignore (and that despite my preference to write my own adventures).