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

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

1. Note what Henry said.

2. I jump into multiple disparate threads to post my opinions and thoughts on what they are discussing. I don't believe I need your permission to disagree with you - even multiple times and about many different things.

3. I do not specifically hunt you down to disagree with you. I disagree with a lot of people here on many topics, and post such when it is appropriate. I determine when such is appropriate.

4.

However, your obvious personal dislike of me may be putting ideas in your head.

I don't have a personal dislike for you. I don't know you from Adam, and I don't give a flying rat (Hi, Mouseferatu!) for your opinion of me. Don't assume that me disagreeing with you means anything more than me disagreeing with you.

Moving forward:

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.

Perhaps I read this wrong, but it seems that you are saying that those who rely on a "d20 + modifiers" solution to bluffing a guard do so out of laziness and no other reason.

Now, perhaps my post could have been worded more clearly, but when responding I specifically referenced new players because they are the ones whom I have encountered that rely most often on such a method:

who are the ones I've most often encountered making such "blunders"

In other words, making such a blanket statement - players who play by the d20 are lazy - is not only false, but also insulting.

There are two ways to handle this. You can try to "reform" the player, or you can accept that this is the way Player X plays.

If you want to "reform" the player, you can make a DM ruling that anyone who attempts such a horrible act automatically fails, or you can work with a player to get them more involved (and the easiest way, I think, is by assessing bonuses for good roleplaying!). In no case, I believe, should the player automatically fail just because the character is quicker on his intellectual feet than the player is - just like attack rolls should not automatically fail just because Ragnar is a better warrior than Joe Bagodonuts.

If you accept that this is the way Player X prefers to play, then either deal with it or direct the player to somewhere where he (and, likely, you) will have more fun. It looks like, in the above case, you chose this second option. That's fine. What I don't understand is the attitude of superiority that accompanies such a decision.

It's quicker and gets to the combat/ action faster.

If you only want combat, then there are a wealth of computer RPGs to play. You play D&D to socialize.

There is nothing wrong with playing D&D - in any edition - like a computer game.
There is nothing wrong with playing D&D - in any edition - like amateur theater.

There is no such thing as badwrongfun.

It's one thing to not be a "good talker," it's a whole different level to treat bluffing like a combat.

Why?

Because it's easier to represent the mechanics of the Bluff skill in "meatspace"?

Again, the whole point of a roleplaying game is to be something you are not.

Do you give bonuses to your players when they describe their combat rounds in "RP" detail? Do you give them penalties when they don't? Or when they just say, "I attack the wizard," do they automatically miss?

RPGs involve a rather rare mesh of Player skill vs. Character skill, and in many cases the latter can vastly outstrip the former. There should be an understanding on the part of the DM(s) and the Player(s) on how much each will impact the other. Assuming that character skill plays any real role at all, a DM should not be afraid to give the player hints and tips based on the statistics of the character - after all, you're all in this together, right?

In the initial bluff situation, were I to not proceed with the way Rel handled things, I might suggest a couple plausible bluffs to the player - after all, his character is quick witted and silver-tongued, even though the player wasn't (or, at least, wasn't at the time).

 

[Rel]

To slightly highjack, I read this and really liked it. I think it's a great example of play.

If I were totally pathetic and into the "Hero Worship" thing then I'd probably say something like, "Ha HA! Woot! You hear that everybody?! Monte read something of MINE and he LIKED it! Woo-hoo! I've got cred now baby!"

Instead I'll just stand here lookin' all





Though inside I giggle like a little girl!

 

[barsoomcore]

Rel: edit that bit of hero-worship so you don't sound so pathetic.

 

[Henry]

Hey, wait a second. I thought you didn't appear unless we said your name three times!

No, you're thinking of Bloody Monte. And you gotta spin around and look in a mirror.

 

[Rel]

Rel: edit that bit of hero-worship so you don't sound so pathetic.

Not yet! Not yet! Let me bask in it for like 15 more minutes.

 

[shilsen]

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.

Wow! You just hit my take on the subject perfectly. When it comes to taking the DM out of the equation where mechanics are concerned (which is what the design philosophy seems to be referring to), I am very happy to be taken out of the situation. There are more than enough places where the DM will be an inextricable part of the gaming situation and rightly so. If the rules can ensure that I have to spend less time coming up with rulings, it gives me more time to spend on coming up with rulings when necessary, and more importantly, to spend on NPCs, plot, story, pacing, campaign creation, etc.

 

[BryonD]

Yet they are not making it more elegant. The end result is that the rules are heavier. Elegant is having one or two mechanics that can support a variety of actions. Not using one mechanic, then modifying it every time you think of something else that can happen in a game.

The d20 mechanic is elegant. Stacking rules, AoOs, advanced combat etc are additions that take elegance into a dark alley with a crowbar and murderous intent.

I just don't find the rules all that hard to keep up with.

It is easy to sit down on a message board and invent complicated scenarios where the rules start interacting and bogging down. But in hundreds of hours of playing I find it just about never plays out that way. Roll D20 and keep trucking.

On the other hand, without all those rules, you get back to DM whim. And the first time through that may be quick and easy. But the second time through the players are going to expect you to rule the same way. But you are not going to see this situation as the same as the last.

Ultimately for all the things like stacking rules, AoOs, advanced combat, etc you have three options:

A) Written rules to deal with them consistently.
B) Unwritten rules of the DM's whim that are applied consistently
C) No rules, just DM's whim applied inconsistently

3.X is option A and is far more elegant than option C and is at least as elegant as Option B, while also being clear and accesible to the players, which Option B is not.

If you find 3X to not be elegant then we disagree and that is that. But I find it boggling that actual game play comes anywhere near as complicated as the contrived examples brought up here are. The only way you can get more elegant is to give away critical adaptability. 3.X is the most play friendly game I have played. I am a big fan of the game and the design philosophy.

 

[FireLance]

Not yet! Not yet! Let me bask in it for like 15 more minutes.

Rel, it's been up for three hours now. You going to be taking it down any time soon?

 

[wingsandsword]

It seemed pretty obvious to me that the reason for so many , the idea that it was a game that even a novice GM could run at least "okay" if he stuck to the rules exactly as written. For that reason, D&D is meant to be a game that just about anyone can pick up and play, at least with some reading and lead-in.

Now, most DM's I know start changing things, and they get protests from players. The strange thing is, that when we ran 2e, we ran it so heavily house-ruled that it was almost unrecognizable. Admittedly many of the house rules would show up in one form or another in 3e, and 3.x is well written enough that it doesn't need piles of house rules (they just help sometimes) but nobody seemed to have a problem with piles of house rules.

I've had players quit my game because they're used to 3.x under Rules-As-Written DM's, and took umbrage to me having house-rules, changing around classes from the PHB (like using the 3.0 Paladin's mount in a generally 3.5 game), bringing back some rules from 1e or 2e that I liked (like Fireballs setting things on fire, sorry, but if it's doing 30+ points of fire damage and will turn a low-level PC into a dead cinder even if they save, it's going to set that wagon on fire, this isn't a video game), and even house ruling possible variants (like changing Incantations from the Unearthed Arcana standard). I have all my variants written down, documented, and available for perusal by my players, but even then some players just get incensed at the idea of a game not being Exactly As Written. Another reason I really like my gaming group, we get along just fine on these matters.

Oh, and if Monte's still reading, I know of people that Arcana Unearthed was their first tabletop RPG. In our college gaming club, two GM's run AU, soon to be AE (one exclusively, one in addition to D&D) and they have recruited players who've never played a tabletop game before (they might have larped, or played online games, but never tabletop). Heck, today some people I know went over to our FLGS to pick up AE as it came out who don't even have a PHB. Not very common, but I've seen it happen.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

And it is lazy to roll a die and expect the GM to come up with the lie for you.

This part I agree with wholeheartedly, especially if theyre an experienced player.

If you only want combat, then there are a wealth of computer RPGs to play. You play D&D to socialize.

I could agree with this as well. YOU (specifically)might play to socialize. I dont know you so...
I (specifically) play for a bunch of other reasons that may or may not have anything to do with socializing. I mean when I want to socialize with my firends I usually just do that. I mean, I dont say: Hmmm, I want to socialize... LET'S BREAK OUT THE D&D!!!

Seriously though, telling people why they do something is bit much...