Take the GM out of the Equation- A 3e design philosophy

[nimisgod]

I like this move toward better mechanics. Less time wondering about how to adjudicate something means more time plotting and scheming as a GM.

For me, the greatest hurdle in planning for a session is thinking of the story itself. I usually go to a cafe or to my room and write in isolation. I usually only need the computer for typing up stats and accessing the SRD. Otherwise, I don't use it at all.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with using computer tools. Just sayin' that I'm not completely dependent on them.

And as a player, my GMs tend to ask me about rules if they're sure. But I usually don't offer the "correct" rule until after the session or even then not at all. If we're having fun, who really cares? Exceptions: if someone's getting screwed, my own character is or if we're resolving something too easily.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

A philosophy that "takes the GM out of the equation" is made for creating an argumentative atmosphere between GM and players. Having a rules for everything means that you have some players who will sit there and LOOK for a rule to either thwart the GM or have it their way. In 3e, rule 0 is a running joke.

Heck, I had never encountered a rules lawyer until 3e. 3e made some of my old players into lawyers. It even had them fighting over various interpretations of the rules.

In my experience (sometimes sad experience) 2nd ed. had the greatest tendency toward rules lawyers. Oh ye gods and little fishes, some of the rules in the various supplements outright contradicted each other!

The rules lawyers are still with us, but the answers are more consistent, making it harder for the R.L. to be able to haul out a book supporting the claim he is making right now even though he had a different interpretation (and supporting documentation) for the exact same question last week. (That's right D. I'm talking about you if you are reading this!) My solution then as now was to say 'these are the books we are using. Please leave the others at home.' If nothing else it makes the bookbag easier to lug around.

One 2nd ed. player in particular could not wrap his spongy little mind around that one simple ruling. D. at least would limit himself to the books at hand, and even understood why I had made the ruling. N. kept trying the 'it's official, you have to allow it!' approach, until I told him to either drop that line or leave the game. (Complete book of Elf Cheese was the breaking point, gods I hated that book.) He was also the worst 'first paragrapher' I have ever encountered. Not only a rules lawyer, but one who had failed to pass the bar...

The Auld Grump, folks like that are why I am a grump.

 

[S'mon]

In hindsight, there should have been a lot more discussion in the DMG, for example, aimed at more experienced DMs and explaining how they can manipulate the rules more to their liking, if they so desire (and the potential drawbacks of such).

Hi Monte - yes, that would have been nice. One problem I've found with 3e is when there's a player at the table who's also GM they tend to expect the GM to apply the RAW and get miffed if the GM does different. I've been the GM and the rules-lawyerly player in this situation. Eg: the interaction skills like Diplomacy & Intimidate have some very simple (simplistic?) guidelines for DCs and the effects of a successful check. If applied exactly as written they would often give ridiculous results, but a GM who applies common sense in their adjudication can be accused of not following the rules, of nerfing skill-based characters like Rogues, etc. To some extent this also applies to the combat rules - as player I can easily abuse the hell out of the mounted combat rules, to name one example. Ultimately only a GM's common sense can prevent abuse, not more rules.

 

[Belen]

Hi Monte - yes, that would have been nice. One problem I've found with 3e is when there's a player at the table who's also GM they tend to expect the GM to apply the RAW and get miffed if the GM does different. I've been the GM and the rules-lawyerly player in this situation. Eg: the interaction skills like Diplomacy & Intimidate have some very simple (simplistic?) guidelines for DCs and the effects of a successful check. If applied exactly as written they would often give ridiculous results, but a GM who applies common sense in their adjudication can be accused of not following the rules, of nerfing skill-based characters like Rogues, etc. To some extent this also applies to the combat rules - as player I can easily abuse the hell out of the mounted combat rules, to name one example. Ultimately only a GM's common sense can prevent abuse, not more rules.

I am still trying to figure out the point of the social skills. They look really good on paper, but they completely suck in play. In reality, they seem designed for RPGA convention players to keep them from attempting to roleplay and thus make the game fit within their 4 hour window.

Maybe I shpuld find the pet peeve thread and throw in the social skills!

 

[Belen]

In my experience (sometimes sad experience) 2nd ed. had the greatest tendency toward rules lawyers. Oh ye gods and little fishes, some of the rules in the various supplements outright contradicted each other!

Funny enough, I never encountered a rules lawyer until 3e. The wealth of rules seemed to empower those people who want the rules set in a certain way. Heck, I even had rules lawyers who refused to roleplay. They kept giving me this line about not being charismatic in real life, so they were just going to roll.

When they failed after rolling 20+, then they would whine and say they had to succeed even though they would barely tell me what they were trying to do.

For instance:

NPC: "What are you doing in the Queen's chamber?"
Rogue: I lie to him. (rolls)- I get a 27.
GM: What did you say to him?
Player: I don't know. You make it up.
GM: You fail.
Player: You cannot do that!
Group: Rules "discussion." Usually lasts 30 minutes.

It's not just that they removed the GM from the equation. The result is that the GM became secondary to the RAW and WOTC has done nothing to change in the image. In fact, they have done a pretty piece of marketing 3e to appear at the balanced non-fiat edition.

I find it funny, at best, when someone says that they were a God in 1/2e and that they had all the power. I never experienced that type of game and certainly never had players who would let me get away with something that pretentious.

It is more likely that people see all the options in 3e and think "I never did that in 2e! It was the darn GM. He screwed me because I couldn't do all the stuff before."

 

[diaglo]

I have to say no, it doesn't, but the inclination may be there, just based on the fact that there are more "letters of law" to interpret, compared to core 1e or OD&D.

i'd tend to agree with this.

but just b/c earlier editions didn't spell them out. doesn't mean we didn't have them.

which is what part of the addition of the Advanced game tried to address with OD&D. to codify it for play at conventions.

i think if anything the newest editions have the best codified rules.

however, i don't think they are the best rules by a very, very, very long shot.

 

[Rel]

NPC: "What are you doing in the Queen's chamber?"
Rogue: I lie to him. (rolls)- I get a 27.
GM: What did you say to him?
Player: I don't know. You make it up.
GM: You fail.
Player: You cannot do that!
Group: Rules "discussion." Usually lasts 30 minutes.

If accurate (and I'm guessing that this is a bit of an exaggeration) then I think this is poor playing and poor GMing. If the player won't give you at least some indication of the lie he's trying to tell then he is guilty of poor play. If you won't solicit an answer before you auto-fail him then I think you're not trying to help the player get better.

The approach that I take to social skills is one that I've seen many people espouse in 3E and that is to have them roll for the skill but allow bonuses or penalties to the roll based on what the character actually says. So my version of the above might look more like this:

NPC: "What are you doing in the Queen's chamber?"
Rogue: I lie to him. (rolls)- I get a 27.
GM: What did you say to him?
Player: I don't know. You make it up.
GM: It isn't my job to make it up, it's yours. I need at least some idea of what you're going to tell him.
Player: Um, I tell him that I'm a member of the guard.
GM: Okay, he's also wearing the uniform of the guard so he's not totally buying it. He says, "Why haven't I seen you around the barracks?"
Player: I tell him that I just got recruited yesterday.
GM: Okay, make another Bluff Check.
Player: (rolls)- I get a 25.
GM: He still seems a bit suspicious. He says, "I'm going to check this with the Watch Commander. I don't think that new recruits out of uniform should be in the Queen's chambers..."

What I'm saying is this: I don't feel that a player needs to be a good (or even remotely competant) liar, diplomat or orator in order to play a character with those skills. But if he isn't imaginative enough to even come up with what his character is trying to convey in the most general terms then I don't feel he should be playing RPG's. I don't think this is the fault of the system in any way, shape or form and, in my experience, I've never encountered such a person in any game I've ever played in any edition.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Rel is wise. Listen to the Rel.

 

[Belen]

What I'm saying is this: I don't feel that a player needs to be a good (or even remotely competant) liar, diplomat or orator in order to play a character with those skills. But if he isn't imaginative enough to even come up with what his character is trying to convey in the most general terms then I don't feel he should be playing RPG's. I don't think this is the fault of the system in any way, shape or form and, in my experience, I've never encountered such a person in any game I've ever played in any edition.

It's not lack of imagination. It is laziness. They'd rather make a roll than try. It's quicker and gets to the combat/ action faster.

The example was somewhat exaggerated, but it highlights the issue dramtically enough. My own philosophy is that they play it out, then roll and I assign modifiers according to what they said and how they said it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It's not lack of imagination. It is laziness. They'd rather make a roll than try. It's quicker and gets to the combat/ action faster.

EDIT - I've already have to call down other threads for personal sniping. Please don't do it here. - Henry

2. If, in fact, the player only really enjoys the combat aspect, and views the social skills as merely a way to set up a combat in such a way as to improve his or her chances of success, why the hell is that a bad thing?

3. I'm also very, very glad to see your example of how you took time out of your no-doubt busy D&D schedule to help teach a new player - who are the ones I've most often encountered making such "blunders" - the possible depth of a good roleplaying game. Yes, "You fail" goes such a long way towards getting people to play in a more descriptive style of game.

EDIT:

Quasqueton is extremely correct when he argues that these supposed "problems with the system" are in fact "problems with the players and the DMs."