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

[Saeviomagy]

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.

However you do need to know different conventions. Like you want to roll high for attacks, but low for stat checks. I think saves were low. And what save do you use for something? And how do I work out what I need to roll from my thaco? And how many extra 20s are on the end of the thaco table? And how far can I move? How far indoors? How far outdoors? Can I move and attack? How many attacks a round? How many arrows a round? How many darts? How much is my stat bonus (book please...)? How do I sneak? How do I sneak if I'm a thief? What do I roll a reaction check on?

etc etc.

AD&D does not have a core mechanic or any form of coherency. Players cannot therefore learn the core mechanic and be happy - pretty much everything they want to do will have a different rule to it.

 

[The_Universe]

This sums up my position.

Glad we agree.

I wish good gaming upon you for all eternity!

 

[DarrenGMiller]

That's another issue. I might be more willing to put the effort into the game if I had a group that took it more seriously. We have some beer & Pretzel gamers, and I end up getting pissed off if I put all the work involved into a long D&D campaign only to have it derailed by a bunch of stupid jokes. The other games I don't have to work so hard at, and so I don't get as ticked off when the joking and goofing start up.

This is why I disbanded my group. I would put in the work (even using published adventures, I was modiyfing them heavily) and the players would launch into an endless stream of juvenile humor ("Food's here, somebody get there door." Everyone in unison: "NOT IT!"), metagame references spoken in character (ie. asking NPC's their level, etc.), rules-lawyering ("That's not how you do that, check page 132.") and critique (like: "Hey, do you remember that combat with the orcs a few months ago, well you forgot to have one of them attack attack one round, but we didn't tell you."), oneupsmanship, etc. I just got sick of the juvenile behavior and stopped running the game. I want to start running the game again, but not that way.

DM

 

[DarrenGMiller]

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.

This is not always a poor GM problem and it is not about poor players. I agree that it is about lazy or apathetic players.

Before I stopped running my game, it got to this point:

NPC: "What are you doing in the Queen's chamber?"
Player: "Yo, NPC guy, What level are you?"
DM: "In character, please."
Player: "How many ranks do you have in sense motive?"
DM: "Are you going to actually make an attempt to role-play this, or should I just have him sound the alarm?"
Player: "I lie to him. (rolls)- I get a 27."
GM: "What did you say to him?"
Player: "I don't know. What would he believe?"
GM: It isn't my job to make it up, it's yours. I need to know what you are going to tell him."
Player: "NOT IT!!!"
All Players (in turn): "NOT IT!!!" (laughter)
GM: "Seriously, can we get back to the game?"
Player: (in "ghetto" voice) "Hey, this is how we roll."
GM: "Do you guys want to play or just joke around?"
Player: "Dude, making me actually tell you what I am saying is lame (player in question would actually say "retarded"). If I had to do that, then why would they even have the check. Look, on page xyz of the PHB, it says, 'Blah, blah, blah, etc.'"

This is a bit of a condensed version, but not far from how my last three sessions went. I am not the best DM in the world, but I have been doing it for a long time and the players in question are teens (I am 34), but they are experienced gamers (3-4 years) and know the rules thoroughly (some more than I do).

DM

 

[Rel]

This is not always a poor GM problem and it is not about poor players. I agree that it is about lazy or apathetic players.

I'd have quit running the game for those players too. I draw no distinction between players too unimaginative to do a bit of roleplaying, players too lazy to do a bit of roleplaying or players too apathetic to do a bit of roleplaying. All are poor players.

I still stand by my point that this is no fault of the PHB sitting there innocently on the table while they act this way.

Just for the heck of it, I flipped open my 3.0 PHB while writing this post and turned to the Bluff skill. Not one thing in the description leads me to believe that a resonable interpretation of this skill would be that the player just rolls the dice and the guard goes away. It specifically talks about the Sense Motive roll being modified by the nature of the lie being told. That would suggest to me that the player is responsible for conveying the nature of the lie being told. If the player doesn't understand this then I view it as the province of a good GM to explain it to them.

If the player still won't come up with any sort of explanation of the sort of lie that he's trying to tell then I'd simply respond, "I'll just assume that you proffer the lamest possible excuse for your being in the Queen's Chambers. The resulting +20 to his Sense Motive allows him to easily see through your utterly feeble attempts at prevarication. He draws his sword and yells for the other guards."

After the session was over then I'd explain, in short sentences, that if the player isn't even going to try then he should expect to fail. This isn't rocket science and I'm not asking for an academy award winning performance.

 

[reanjr]

Personally, I would say that designing the core rules with that premise is a crock.

I wouldn't say it is a crock. I think it is a noble, yet flawed goal.

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.

Same experience here. Rules lawyers are a primarily 3e phenomenon. They existed before, but not like they do now.

Now, I am not saying that older editions were better. I agree that a more codified system helped improve the game, but there is such a thing as going too far and I think a happy medium can be reached. 3e is still a good system and I enjoy playing it.

Yet it took forming a group of newbies to enjoy GMing it.

I have come to forbid my players from teaching the game to newbies. I take on that responsibility. I don't let newbies see the book, either. I go over the basic D20 mechanic with them and then ask them what they would like to play. The most recent player said she wanted to play an ash tree nymph (maenad, IIRC) from Greek myth because she had done a paper on them. I asked her to describe the creature, which sounded basically like a dryad. One of the other players immediately pipes up, saying "that's not a nymph, that's a dryad. You want to play a dryad." I basically told him to shut the hell up after he pressed the point a bit too much. I did a bit of research, altered the dryad a bit (took out tree dependence) and made her up a character. As she progresses, I will further explain the rules to her, and eventually suggest she browse through the PHB to see what other types of things are out there. But not until she learns how to role-play. It's easy to teach someone rules after they have learned how to role-play. It's nigh impossible to teach them to role-play once they have learned the rules of the game.

 

[fusangite]

This is a bit of a condensed version, but not far from how my last three sessions went. I am not the best DM in the world, but I have been doing it for a long time and the players in question are teens (I am 34), but they are experienced gamers (3-4 years) and know the rules thoroughly (some more than I do).

It sounds like these people didn't want to roleplay and needed just the slightest pretext not to. This doesn't strike me as a problem with the rules; it strikes me as a problem with the players.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Same experience here. Rules lawyers are a primarily 3e phenomenon. They existed before, but not like they do now.

:nonexistent rolleyes smiley:

In your humble experience, perhaps. I've encountered rules lawyers in every edition. The term itself is as old as RPGs (if not older) for a reason. They've never cause me any problems.

I have come to forbid my players from teaching the game to newbies. I take on that responsibility. I don't let newbies see the book, either. I go over the basic D20 mechanic with them and then ask them what they would like to play. The most recent player said she wanted to play an ash tree nymph (maenad, IIRC) from Greek myth because she had done a paper on them. I asked her to describe the creature, which sounded basically like a dryad. One of the other players immediately pipes up, saying "that's not a nymph, that's a dryad. You want to play a dryad." I basically told him to shut the hell up after he pressed the point a bit too much. I did a bit of research, altered the dryad a bit (took out tree dependence) and made her up a character.

I agree; don't limit possibilities for new players, and don't let other players do the teaching. Players usually don't know the rules unless they GM often - witness the Bluff and Climb misunderstandings - and they don't have the power to wield GM fiat.

Besides, I consider it part of the GM's job to teach new players.

As she progresses, I will further explain the rules to her, and eventually suggest she browse through the PHB to see what other types of things are out there. But not until she learns how to role-play. It's easy to teach someone rules after they have learned how to role-play. It's nigh impossible to teach them to role-play once they have learned the rules of the game.

:\

You have statistical evidence for this? Because I've learned the rules of every RPG I ever played before I rolled a die in it, and it never hurt my roleplaying. I haven't noticed it hurting other players, either.

My guess is that you have antecdotal evidence that you've misinterpreted. My guess is that it's a mix of two things. First, your players' methods of teching d20 are the cancer, not the rules or the learning thereof. Second, most of the new players in your experience have been young and male, and they want to hack and slash.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

It sounds like these people didn't want to roleplay and needed just the slightest pretext not to. This doesn't strike me as a problem with the rules; it strikes me as a problem with the players.

Actually, since it seems like all the players wanted the same kind of game (light, social, beer n' pretzels) and only the GM didn't, I'd say it's a problem with the GM.

 

[dead]

3e Designer Philosophy:

"I'll occasionally have to back up a bit and explain some things that we did with the core rules. One thing, for example, that we tried to do was to "take the DM out of the equation" as much as possible. Now this has caused its own share of problems, but the reason we did it was to make the game as easy as we could for new players. If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying. "

Now I know why in 3E my players knit-pick at my decisions and bully me into submission. They have the power!!!

It all makes sense.

I've been disempowered by 3E design logic.

The question, now, is: How does a DM reattain his power but still play 3E? Is it possible?

(Maybe I'm a weak spined DM; but I never had problems in previous editions. I don't want to return to previous editions, though, because 3E is a vast improvment (except for this bug in its design logic). I'm in a bit of a bind . . .)