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

[francisca]

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

See posts #9 and #76, Mr. "I didn't read the whole thread."

I may not be good at much, but my summon-fu is strong, and when you are already insane (or have a tactical nuke), you have no fear of what gates in.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

See posts #9 and #76, Mr. "I didn't read the whole thread."

I may not be good at much, but my summon-fu is strong, and when you are already insane (or have a tactical nuke), you have no fear of what gates in.

I've been reading the whole thread, Mr. You lose. So nyah!

Besides, you only summoned him ONCE! He appeared twice! That was my point. So I win, you lose. Ha-ha-ha-ha!

 

[weasel fierce]

To this day, I have not yet seen an RPG that was perfect, neither for me, nor the people I have gamed with.

Basic Roleplay comes close (Call of Cthulhu, Runequest, Draker och Demoner) but isnt there.
Classic D&D is close, AD&D is close.

None of them are there however.

As the guy running a game, I will and should make whatever changes, adjustments and judgement calls that are needed. Its the way the game works.
If someone states that they want to do something cool, in a fast paced battle, nothing is worse than flipping through the book to find it, then resuming when everyone else has gotten bored and are throwing popcorn at each other.


As for new DM's, more rules does not mean an easier game.
If the DM knows he is "allowed" to wing it, he'll do so. In the beginning he might make some mistakes but the game will move along, and you'll get to the point.

PLease explain how having countless charts of modifiers, DC's and exceptions to look up during an important scene, makes the game easier for a new guy ?


Having numerous rules gives people a false impression of actually having to USE those rules. Something that is rarely beneficial, especially when you are still new to the game, or even roleplaying as a whole.


Why did Wizards take this philosophy ? My main guess is because they did Magic the Gathering. I played it a long time ago, before my interests drifted away, and we had fun and solved rules issues on hte fly. But for tournaments, you needed very strict interpretations and solutions, with no room for questioning. When they developed D20, they applied the same philosophy, failing to, or perhaps just missing, that the roleplaying game is a completely different beast, and the same approaches will be doomed to fail, if applied.

Assisting new players is not done by complicating the game, its done by explaining more on how to play and run D&D.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

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.

This sums up my position.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

As for new DM's, more rules does not mean an easier game.
If the DM knows he is "allowed" to wing it, he'll do so. In the beginning he might make some mistakes but the game will move along, and you'll get to the point.

PLease explain how having countless charts of modifiers, DC's and exceptions to look up during an important scene, makes the game easier for a new guy ?

"Countless charts of modifiers, DCs and exceptions?"

Haven't seen those. In fact, 3e has almost no charts whatsoever. The DC system is incredibly simple, and the Player's Handbook offers example DCs for each task that all conform to the same standard of easy-moderate-difficult-etc. I don't know what D&D puts out, but my Mongoose Conan DM screen lists those sample DCs in one place that I don't have to even open a book to find.

It makes things a heck of a lot easier than any prior version of D&D. Easier for a newbie, who understands that if something's pretty tough, it's DC 15 or 20. Easier for an experienced GM, who can judge the rough difficulty of tasks in seconds and assign them a single number once and for all.

The modifiers don't come on charts, and a good GM, new or not, makes the players deal with them (for PCs, anyway). Most are pretty simple.

As for exceptions, there's never been a version of D&D with less, and this is the most important thing.

Still, SilCore > d20 > pre-d20 D&D.

Having numerous rules gives people a false impression of actually having to USE those rules. Something that is rarely beneficial, especially when you are still new to the game, or even roleplaying as a whole.

d20's rules are very simple. Its content is voluminous, but its rules could be condensed into 2-3 pages. Remove the lists of races, classes, skills, feats, equipment, advice and especially SPELLS from the Player's Handbook and you have a slim, concise volume of rules. Remove just the spells (and the race, classes, skills and feats that reference them) and you have a slim, concise volume, complete with content.

I'm not sure what rules you "have to actually use?" All 10 pages? Which are somewhat overwritten to make sure they're very specific? That's less than Warhammer and not much more than Risk!

Why did Wizards take this philosophy ? My main guess is because they did Magic the Gathering. I played it a long time ago, before my interests drifted away, and we had fun and solved rules issues on hte fly. But for tournaments, you needed very strict interpretations and solutions, with no room for questioning. When they developed D20, they applied the same philosophy, failing to, or perhaps just missing, that the roleplaying game is a completely different beast, and the same approaches will be doomed to fail, if applied.

Roleplaying games are not completely a different beast, and d20 has succeeded wildly by any measure other than pure personal preference.

Wizards' experience with Magic the Gathering presumably had next to nothing to do with the development of the d20 system, since, as far as I know, none of the D&D 3e design team had any connection to their Magic counterparts. However, if it had any effect, perhaps it led to d20 being not just a fun activity but also a consistent and somewhat elegant game - something AD&D never was, though Basic D&D was.

Assisting new players is not done by complicating the game, its done by explaining more on how to play and run D&D.

I agree that complicating the game does not assist new players. Since d20 simplified the game considerably, it did so.

Unfortunately, neither the core rules nor most GMs address the surplus of content by separating it from the rules.

 

[Rel]

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

Ok, I fixed it. Thanks for the reminder.

You too, barsoomcore.

 

[weasel fierce]

The basic D20 mechanic is very simple, but that only covers how to test things.

The classes, feats and skills are all part of D&D, and you have to know how they work too, easy at first, but it stacks up quickly.

Combat alone takes up some 30 pages in the rulebook. Why is 30 pages needed for something that is supposedly so simple and easy ?

if you havent seen the charts, you may wish to look over the Skills section again. A lot of skills have lists of DC's, modifiers, exceptions and similar. SOmething that the old proficiency system didnt have.


Of course, if we are condensing it, classic D&D wins out by being simplest. Virtually everything is based on rolling a D6, save for combat and saving throws. If its not on there, you do whatever makes sense (usually rolling a D6)
Cant beat that

I wholeheartedly agree that AD&D is by no means elegant, but I dont think they ever set out to do that. The idea was to cover most of the situations that crop up in common play, for tournament purposes. However, it was made modular,so you can mix and match.

D20 does not lend itself well to modularity. Dont want skills ? You'll have to reverse engineer the rogue. Dont want to play with feats ? Several classes rely on them.
Its a single entity, which makes it hard to tailor the game, without having to rewrite half of it.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

The basic D20 mechanic is very simple, but that only covers how to test things.

The basic d20 mechanic is one sentence. That's simpler than Uno! Of course there's more to the system.

The classes, feats and skills are all part of D&D, and you have to know how they work too, easy at first, but it stacks up quickly.

No, you don't.

If you are a player, you need to know how x classes work, where x is the number of classes your character has levels in. You need to know how y skills work, where y is the number of skills your character knows. And you need to know how z skills work, where z is the number of feats your character possesses.

For a beginner's typical 6th level character, that's probably:
x = 1
y = 5
z = 4

I'm sorry, knowing how one class, five skills and four feats work is not complex. That's all of ten concepts aside from the basic rules.

Unless you're playing a spellcaster, in which case, yes, you'll be bogged down by ridiculous complexity. But that would have been true in any version of D&D.

Combat alone takes up some 30 pages in the rulebook. Why is 30 pages needed for something that is supposedly so simple and easy?

30 pages aren't needed. The Combat chapter of the PHB is the worst in the book, poorly organized and redundant with other sections. It's also overwritten to clear up as many rules quibbles as possible. It also includes extensive diagrams and lists, which could basically describe gameplay without any text at all.

if you havent seen the charts, you may wish to look over the Skills section again. A lot of skills have lists of DC's, modifiers, exceptions and similar. SOmething that the old proficiency system didnt have.

Those are content charts, not rules charts. I misunderstood what you were getting at.

The skill system has these content charts so that a GM has at least some vague idea of how to set DCs - which is a pleasant change for D&D. Otherwise, this is an area where literally only experience can make for even a decent GM.

Of course, if we are condensing it, classic D&D wins out by being simplest. Virtually everything is based on rolling a D6, save for combat and saving throws. If its not on there, you do whatever makes sense (usually rolling a D6)
Cant beat that

"Save for combat and saving throws" is a pretty big exception. I'm a big fan of classic (or at least Basic) D&D, but it can easily be beaten. SilCore, for example, omits "save for combat and saving throws" from that paragraph. I believe Blue Rose omits "damage" from it and substitutes a d20 for the d6.

I wholeheartedly agree that AD&D is by no means elegant, but I dont think they ever set out to do that. The idea was to cover most of the situations that crop up in common play, for tournament purposes. However, it was made modular,so you can mix and match.

D20 does not lend itself well to modularity. Dont want skills ? You'll have to reverse engineer the rogue. Dont want to play with feats ? Several classes rely on them.
Its a single entity, which makes it hard to tailor the game, without having to rewrite half of it.

d20, a system that has been lightly modified to cover everything from sword and sorcery to eldritch horror to space opera to gritty modern action to cinematic fantasy to romantic fantasy to a simple fast wargame...

... is less modular than AD&D.

Whatever.

Skills and feats are much more the core of d20 than classes; even so, you can remove feats easily. Just dump the fighter and wizard classes and you're there, even for D&D. Other d20 systems make it easier or harder depending on how many bonus feats they grant.

 

[FireLance]

Skills and feats are much more the core of d20 than classes; even so, you can remove feats easily. Just dump the fighter and wizard classes and you're there, even for D&D. Other d20 systems make it easier or harder depending on how many bonus feats they grant.

You don't even need to dump the wizard and fighter. You can just pre-select the feats and turn them into class abilities. It will make every fighter almost exactly the same as the next, but that's no different than any other edition of D&D.

You can do the same for skills: pre-select them for every class, and make skill rank = class level +3.

 

[weasel fierce]

I'm sorry, knowing how one class, five skills and four feats work is not complex. That's all of ten concepts aside from the basic rules.

Thus, AD&D is easier and simpler to play. You need to know how one class, no skills and no feats work. Unless you use the optional proficiency rules, then add 4 proficiencies for most classes.

30 pages aren't needed. The Combat chapter of the PHB is the worst in the book, poorly organized and redundant with other sections. It's also overwritten to clear up as many rules quibbles as possible. It also includes extensive diagrams and lists, which could basically describe gameplay without any text at all.

Thats more a question of organization though, but adding more pages still makes it harder to find exactly what you need. All versions suffer from bloat in that respect though.

Those are content charts, not rules charts. I misunderstood what you were getting at.

The skill system has these content charts so that a GM has at least some vague idea of how to set DCs - which is a pleasant change for D&D. Otherwise, this is an area where literally only experience can make for even a decent GM.

My bad for not making it clearer. English is my second language, so sometimes I say things that is clear to me, but get confused looks, all around

"Save for combat and saving throws" is a pretty big exception. I'm a big fan of classic (or at least Basic) D&D, but it can easily be beaten. SilCore, for example, omits "save for combat and saving throws" from that paragraph. I believe Blue Rose omits "damage" from it and substitutes a d20 for the d6.

Combat adds complication in D20 as well, since it goes outside the scope of "one roll resoultion" that the rest of the system relies upon, as well as having more modifiers to keep track of. Hence its an exception in D20 as well.

d20, a system that has been lightly modified to cover everything from sword and sorcery to eldritch horror to space opera to gritty modern action to cinematic fantasy to romantic fantasy to a simple fast wargame...

... is less modular than AD&D.

Whatever.

If you refer to D20 as the basic idea of "roll 1D20 and add something, then equal or beat this number" then yeah, its pretty modular. As is "roll a D6, high is good".
If you refer to D20 as the D&D game as published, then no. None of the D20 adaptations I have seen yet hav managed to actually fullfill what they needed, without making a lot of changes. Compare to say, Basic roleplaying or GURPS and see the difference in a generic system, versus a specific system adapted to be generic.

AD&D was modular because it was written in parts. Very few elements were a must to play, and each portion functioned independently.

You mention ditching the fighter and wizard classes to solve the problem, if you dont want feats and skills. Thats a pretty drastic move for D&D, considering those are propably the two most defining classes (and 2 of the 3 original ones, to boot).

If I have to actually go in and change a whole host of other things, simply because I dont want to use a particular rule, I dont think it qualifies as being a modular system.


D20 is certainly /adaptable/ which is a completely different thing, and we may have had a miscommunication there. AD&D is suited to play AD&D with. The D20 mechanic can work for a bunch of stuff.


Cheers and thanks for keeping me entertained on an otherwise boring night