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

[reanjr]

You might have a point here, but it might not be the point you intended to make (confused yet? )

There are people who enjoy mastering rules, and pushing them to the limits. It is not really accurate to call them "rules lawyers" because their main objective is not the exploitation of poorly-worded rules by fast-talk and selective, out-of-context quoting. Rather, they seek to work within the framework of the rules as commonly understood and applied, and come up with the "best" character they can ("best" is of course, subject to personal taste - whether spellcasting, combat, socialization, all-around competence, etc). For the sake of argument, let's call such people "min-maxers".

That's why I refer to them as rule-mongers in my later post. People who care more about builds and effect than character (in the literary sense). But I do not find them all to be min-maxers. That's an entirely different phenomenon that can apply to rule-mongers and role-players alike. A role-playing min/maxer will try to control kingdoms and basically make every action count in context with the story, looking for the optimal, perfect outcome. A rules-monger min/maxer will instead try to make a perfect character build so that all their actions are most effective when they try to roll.

Min-maxers are the kind of people who try to put together "unbeatable" Magic decks, or the "ultimate" miniatures warband, or find the "perfect" strategy in chess.

The thing about min-maxers is, they need a solid, consistent framework of rules to work with. Their emotional kick does not come from winning an argument or getting away with things. They want to show off the superiority of their creations, but their creations have to be built according to the rules, or it feels like cheating.

Games with simple rules do not interest min-maxers because there is no challenge in mastering them. They dislike games with arbitrary or inconsistent rules, or where the rules keep changing, because they cannot be mastered. Some min-maxers may have avoided previous editions of D&D for these reasons.

I disagree here. Simple rules, complex rules. Don't matter. min/maxers enjoy pimping whatever system they are playing. I've seen a World of Darkness werewolf with a gatling gun that came out of his chest. And I can't really see how 2e was any simpler than 3e. 3e is the simple system, if you ask me. Maybe less consistent, though. I've never talked to anyone who played 2e who thinks 3e is an improvement in any way other than in remembering the rules and consistency. So, at least with the players I've played with, no one avoided 2e. Most of them enjoyed the pre-3e experience better, in fact. The only reason they play 3e is the simple rules system. And the 2e players are rarely a problem for me.

3e has presented min-maxers with a version of D&D that appeals to them, and for that reasons, more min-maxers are starting to play D&D. In addition, some existing players with closet min-maxing tendencies are starting to discover they enjoy that style of play. This may be the reason why they seem to be more common these days.

But like I say later, it's presentation, not rules. If I teach them the rules for 3e and let them play for a while before they get a book, this type of behavior doesn't crop up too much.

A min-maxer may seem like a rules lawyer, especially if you're a DM on the receiving end of a protest that you're not playing according to the rules. However, handling a min-maxer is much easier than dealing with a rules lawyer. Here are a few pointers:

1. Find a set of rules the two of you can agree on and apply them consistently. However, be warned that he expects you to abide by the rules you've agreed on.
2. Don't get upset when he points out you've made a rules mistake. He is not challenging your authority or trying to disrupt your game. He is just acting on his own sense of fairness.
3. Don't get upset when his character does something that makes your jaw drop. Don't call him a powergaming freak. Getting his character to do incredible things is what he enjoys from gaming. Act neutral if you can't bring yourself to compliment him on his achievement, and think of something else to challenge his character in future sessions.

I don't need pointers, I need players.

1. Easy enough. Rule 0.
2. Life isn't fair. As an extension, the lives of characters in stories are not fair. I don't play rescue the princess, save the day types of adventures. I play stories of people struggling against challenges in their world. Sometimes heroes fail. I remember reading about a letter to Tracy Hickman regarding the Dragonlance Chronicles trilogy. The fan fell in love with the story the first time an elf missed a bow shot.
3. That type of thing does not bother me in the least. What bothers me is the cowboys and indians sydrome. I shot you first, no I shot you first. That's why there's a DM. DM says indian shot cowboy first. No questions. No comments. No fact-checking. No surveys. No polls. No complaining. No whining. Done. Whether the intention is to disrupt the game or not, that is the ultimate result when the DM's word is not absolute law.

Every argument is just that. An argument. It resolves nothing. As DM, I always get my way anyway. Sometimes, if someone comes up with something out of game, I may make further rulings differently. But during game, common sense (and only mine as I am the one who is in charge of refereeing) prevails and rules citations only serve to disrupt any kind of fun experience that might be had. The players almost always ultimately agree with me, anyway when we have further discussion out of game. They just didn't see my view. Or didn't see the whole picture. They saw the rules. And how what was happening didn't jive with the rules. They weren't even paying attention to the story. The rules were getting in the way too much to bother with the story.

And I've never had a player leave my game because my rulings were bad. I know I am good at on the fly rulings in both fairness and common sense. That's my highest ranked skill as a DM . Unfortunately, the rules often get in the way of this. And 3e has certainly made it worse by coming across as a complete system when in fact it is not even close. They just try to give that impression and simplify everything down to the lowest common denominator. When the game is designed to be played with a poor DM (as the original quote implies), then good DMs suffer.

 

[weasel fierce]

why do I have the feeling I just missed something, and am now standing with my foot in the black pudding


Cheers!

 

[reanjr]

I never had anyone question my judgement in 2e.

...

Yes, I'm familiar with the rules, I'm just ignoring them because they're crap.

Or, possibly, because you're a crap DM.

I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning. I don't ignore the rules in general. Just in cases where the rules are not complete or are not designed to cover the situation at hand. Belief in the dogmatic purity of the rules seems more like crap DMing to me. I guess it depends on the group and style of play, though.

I could go on for literally hours.

Please do.

Well, by "I could", I meant that I have enough examples, but unfortunately I have neither the time nor mental fortitude to do so.

 

[hong]

I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning. I don't ignore the rules in general. Just in cases where the rules are not complete or are not designed to cover the situation at hand.

You are thinking too hard about fantasy, in an effort to rationalise why your off-the-cuff, inconsistent, unsupported decisions are out of whack with the general guidelines in the rules. This is why you are a crap DM. The solution is to stop thinking.

 

[S'mon]

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

Well, I tell my players:

"I run this game 1e style."

 

[hong]

I don't need pointers, I need players.

1. Easy enough. Rule 0.

I would say that I do not think this means what you think it means, but I've used that line already in the last 24 hours. So instead I'll just say that rule 0 does not mean you get free rein to indulge your powergaming fantasies.

2. Life isn't fair. As an extension, the lives of characters in stories are not fair. I don't play rescue the princess, save the day types of adventures. I play stories of people struggling against challenges in their world. Sometimes heroes fail.

The ability of people to confuse unfairness in the greater scheme of things with unfairness in fumbling a skill check to tie one's shoe laces never fails to amaze me.

I remember reading about a letter to Tracy Hickman regarding the Dragonlance Chronicles trilogy. The fan fell in love with the story the first time an elf missed a bow shot.

Are you DMing for that fan?

No? Then shut up.

3. That type of thing does not bother me in the least. What bothers me is the cowboys and indians sydrome. I shot you first, no I shot you first. That's why there's a DM. DM says indian shot cowboy first. No questions. No comments. No fact-checking. No surveys. No polls. No complaining. No whining. Done. Whether the intention is to disrupt the game or not, that is the ultimate result when the DM's word is not absolute law.

The King of Qin did this better than you.

 

[S'mon]

Belief in the dogmatic purity of the rules seems more like crap DMing to me.

That's my feeling also, but like you say different groups like different approaches. Hong's approach is anathema to me but presumably his players like it.

 

[reanjr]

You are thinking too hard about fantasy, in an effort to rationalise why your off-the-cuff, inconsistent, unsupported decisions are out of whack with the general guidelines in the rules. This is why you are a crap DM. The solution is to stop thinking.

I simply try to progress the story and create conflict for the characters. My off-the-cuff decisions are always going to make more sense in the context of the story than the rules could ever do. And this does not take thought. When someone asks me how much a dagger costs and I say it costs 3 gp, I have intuitively made that decision based on the current context of the story (cultural predispositions; honesty of the crafter; PCs disliked; wartime shortage of iron, whatever). I just intimately know the world and its people and pop out a response. Sure, when someone asks me about it, I have to go through and decide WHY I made that decision, but it's almost never unjustified. It just might take me a moment to think of why my intuition told me to make that decision.

Unsupported? And exactly what is it that supports taking the book's ruling over mine? One would think a DM knows more about a situatoin than the book. The rules in the book are pretty much arbitray in the first place. +10% here, -25% there. They don't have any kind of basis. Where do you get that notion from? Do you know of any kind of study to determine how accurate lockpicking rules or the free market economy apply in D&D? I don't.

I don't have to think to come up with this stuff, and I'm sorry if you do. It's good in those cases to have rules to help you out when you can't come to a decision on your own. When someone does something, I tell them what to roll and if it succeeds. I don't look it up. And if the wizard who has studied botony all his life rolls a natural 1 on a Knowledge (nature) check to determine what kind of herb he's looking at, but the rogue who traveled through the woods once rolled a 20 guess who knows what the herb is? The wizard. Any other decision is somewhat ludicrous and requires your so called rationalisation.

When a battle begins, I don't stat out the guard and determine his Dex, Str, and Con. I ask the player what he got to hit. He says 25. Definitely a hit. I don't need the guard's Dex and armor bonus to figure that out. Next guy gets a 4. Again, I don't need to figure that out, it's a miss. Next guy gets a 14. I think for a moment and determine that yes that hits (guard was described as wearing studded leather). I mark it down, AC 14, and continue. I go in reverse for attacks the guard makes. When the guard has taken 17 points of damage, I deem that to be enough, and he falls to the ground.

Rules are a crutch that everyone needs sometimes. But being beholden to the rules is to be a cripple.

 

[weasel fierce]

Any attempts to apply the term "fair" to an RPG is pretty much doomed to fail, by the very nature of the medium, particularly a fantasy game like D&D

 

[S'mon]

I simply try to progress the story and create conflict for the characters...

ENW Rule 1: It is not a good idea to engage Hong in debate.

ENW Rule 2: Yes, even a mass debate.