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

[Rel]

Patryn, while I may disagree with BU about the nature of 3E and the environment that it fosters, I think your last post may be a bit over the top. I've both played with BU as my GM and been the GM when he was a player (albeit in one-shot games in both cases) and I think he's pretty good at both roles.

But I do agree with your underlying point that these are more accurately labeled "player problems" than "system problems". And I back that up by saying that I've talked with BU extensively about our GMing styles (and we have a date to discuss that subject some more in person late next week) and I don't think we're that far apart in philosophy. If that's true and he's having problems and I'm not then I think it points up a fundamental difference in the types of players we have at our tables.

 

[MaxKaladin]

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 think this is a key reason I dislike the "remove the GM" approach. Since 3e came out, a lot of players -- even those who used to play 2e/1e -- have gotten it in their head that the RAW is the supreme law of the game rather than the DM and a written rule should trump the DMs judgement. Some people think that's a good thing, but I don't. I'll address this a bit more at the bottom of this message.

I also find that the proliferation of rules greatly adds to the prep time. In my experience, many players are very good at making the most of their characters abilities. Unless I spend a lot of time making sure I know all the ins and outs of my NPCs/monsters and all the little rules that can benefit them somehow, they aren't going to match up to the PCs the way they ought to. That translates into more prep time for me. At low levels, it isn't very bad at all, but as the game progresses to the higher levels it gets far worse as the number of abilities and combinations thereof increases. Maybe it would be easier if my players weren't so smart, but they are so I have to spend a lot of time on prep to keep up with them.

I burned out on a long running campaign last year because I just got so sick of all the preparation I had to do -- the bad kind involving studying all sorts of rules, feats, spells and so forth and not the good kind of coming up with plots and stories. I need an electronic aid for the 'bad prep' but none exists that does what I want to do. I'd love something like the JB generator that would let me take the final output and modify some stuff before I printed it. That would save me a lot of time. Right now I either have to work from scratch or go through the generator output trying to work out how everything changes if I change this feat or add that magic item.

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

For me, that's a big part of the problem. In previous editions, there weren't so many options and the DM could add things to taste to get a fun game for everyone. Now that there are so many options the DM is more likely to be in the position of saying 'no' to things and coming across as the bad guy because of it. That always happened and the old 2e "Complete" books were a good example of it, but it seems especially bad now that we have the above mentioned attitude that the RAW should trump the DM.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Patryn, while I may disagree with BU about the nature of 3E and the environment that it fosters, I think your last post may be a bit over the top.

I, of course, disagree. I believe it was completely spot on, and I disagree with Henry's edit.

Be that as it may, "The players are lazy" or "It makes the players lazy" is a complaint I've heard far, far too many times from DMs who dislike the addition of social skills in their entirety, claiming instead that, "Such things used to be roleplayed, back when I was a lad, and we were better for it! These young whippersnappers don't know ... etc."

Yes, it's far, far better for vocal, outspoken, and persuasive characters to only be played by vocal, outspoken, and persuasive players. After all, that's why roleplaying games require that warriors only be played by those accomplished in hand-to-hand combat, right?

No, instead, the proper way to handle social skills is the way you mentioned it. A character with exceptional Charisma and Intelligence and high ranks in Bluff is an accomplished liar, regardless of whether or not the player could bluff his way out of a paper bag, just like a high BAB and Strength score mark powerful warrior, even when the character is being played by a 98-pound weakling.

If you really, really want your players to be more descriptive in their actions, train them to do so by properly applied bonuses and penalties - but keep in mind that not all players want to go that way or even are capable of going that way.

Blaming "lazy players" is cop out.

 

[diaglo]

Blaming "lazy players" is cop out.

and saying it is the DM's job is one too.


what should be done is to talk out of game about expectations. and then try to work those ideas/resolutions into the game.

 

[The_Universe]

I DM.

I want to guide the story, and decide what my NPCs are doing, etc.

What I don't want to do is have to figure out how far someone will drift in a river over the course of a round, or have to make up a rule for wrestling a sword out of an opponent's hand, or anything of the sort.

I want to "Master" a single game for the enjoyment of my players, not write a new one every session.

So, I'm ok with being taken out of the equation - I don't want to be in the equation. I want the PCs to worry about the equation, while I worry about the things that math has nothing to do with.

 

[Virel]

I can remember playing that way too (in a sort of free Kriegspiel style) on the bus while on a field trip or at recess with my friends. (This was in third and fourth grade.) Really, I'm not sure that all the rules add anything...if you trust your DM.

There is a far amount of the fast rules light version Kriegspiel alive and well in my 1st OAD&D campaign. Seems to me there is far more of that in OAD&D than in 3e. This is "best" part of OAD&D if you will. It's kind of like the Prussians started with 3e and moved over to OAD&D.

 

[Belen]

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.

Well, you know what they say about people who make assumptions.

The player in question was a member of my gaming group for 6 years. He was hardly a "new" player and he relied on the die rolls more and more as he become proficient with the 3e rules.

He is a good friend, but we do not game together any longer.

No idea where you got the idea that I referenced a new player. However, your obvious personal dislike of me may be putting ideas in your head.

Or am I wrong that you tend to jump in multiple disparite threads to flame me?

 

[Belen]

Patryn, while I may disagree with BU about the nature of 3E and the environment that it fosters, I think your last post may be a bit over the top. I've both played with BU as my GM and been the GM when he was a player (albeit in one-shot games in both cases) and I think he's pretty good at both roles.

But I do agree with your underlying point that these are more accurately labeled "player problems" than "system problems". And I back that up by saying that I've talked with BU extensively about our GMing styles (and we have a date to discuss that subject some more in person late next week) and I don't think we're that far apart in philosophy. If that's true and he's having problems and I'm not then I think it points up a fundamental difference in the types of players we have at our tables.

Thanks, Rel. And if he really wants to find out more about my GMing style he could always talk to JonPotter as he has been in my regular group since October. We probably do have somewhat different styles, but I'd say that you and I agree on the whole.

As for being "player" problems, then I agree. However, I think that the system and its rigid structure contribute to such problems while de-emphasizng the solution. 3e has largely been targeted and marketed to players at the expense of the GM and the result are spoiled players. Just as previous editions seemed to have led to some spoiled GMs.

 

[Henry]

Gentlemen, I asked to dispense with sniping at one another. There's a large difference between disagreeing with what someone wrote, and flaming them. If there's a poster that you can't agree with to the point of insults, it may be best to put one another on ignore lists.

 

[Belen]

I, of course, disagree. I believe it was completely spot on, and I disagree with Henry's edit.

Be that as it may, "The players are lazy" or "It makes the players lazy" is a complaint I've heard far, far too many times from DMs who dislike the addition of social skills in their entirety, claiming instead that, "Such things used to be roleplayed, back when I was a lad, and we were better for it! These young whippersnappers don't know ... etc."

Blaming "lazy players" is cop out.

I'm 28.

And it is lazy to roll a die and expect the GM to come up with the lie for you. If you only want combat, then there are a wealth of computer RPGs to play. You play D&D to socialize.

As a GM, I am not going to play the PCs in addition to the NPCs. Some people seem to think that would be "GM fiat." I would say "know your role."