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

[reanjr]

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.

No, but it does give me free reign to create an enjoyable game.

Are you DMing for that fan?

No? Then shut up.

No, I'm DMing for my players. Most of them are fairly well-read and enjoy fiction. The general atmosphere of the group is one of cooperative storytelling. As the Dragonlance Chronicles were based on a D&D game, I thought it was an apt metaphor. I guess not.

The King of Qin did this better than you.

?

 

[hong]

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

Yes, that's what they all say.

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.

That tells you why you made that decision, yes. It doesn't transform a crap decision into a good 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.

And since you don't know why it's +10% here or -25% there in the first place, you similarly have no reason to start applying +25% here or -10% there. IOW, you are still a crap DM, you just do a good line in handwaving.

I don't have to think to come up with this stuff, and I'm sorry if you do.

IOW, not only do you make stuff up for its own sake, you don't have a particularly well-thought-out basis or reason for it.

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.

For some reason, the old saw about knowing the rules before you start changing them comes to mind.

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.

IOW, you're back to playing cowboys and indians, but you want the privilege of being the only guy who gets to say who shot whom.

Which, I guess, is as good a reason to DM as any.

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

Machiavelli did this better than you.

 

[hong]

No, but it does give me free reign to create an enjoyable game.

So why aren't people enjoying it?

No, I'm DMing for my players. Most of them are fairly well-read and enjoy fiction. The general atmosphere of the group is one of cooperative storytelling. As the Dragonlance Chronicles were based on a D&D game, I thought it was an apt metaphor. I guess not.

Ah, right. So the bits where you whinged about

Now, when someone jumps off a horse with sword drawn to attack the villain and I say it provokes, he points out that jumping is part of movement and therefore does not provoke.

If I grant an ad hoc bonus or penalty to a situation, oh man, I never hear the end of it. People start calculating it into their game plan expecting it to happen every single time in the exact same way.

were just a figment of a deranged imagination.

?

Read some more.

 

[reanjr]

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

ENW Rule 2: Yes, even a mass debate.

Oh, but the enjoyment is great.

 

[MerricB]

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

Absolutely.

However, and I can't stress this enough, it depends on what game you're playing.

People look at the rules of 3e (or any version of D&D) and assume: oh, that must be the game. But they aren't. They are the starting point for a multiplicity of games!

In my games, I never have problems with rules lawyers. Why not? Because the players aren't interested with the rules as much as I am. For some of them, the only thing that matters is how much damage they can do. (Seriously, I have one player who counts up the total damage he does each session and over the lifetime of his characters - brief though they may be). For others, it's all about achieving story goals, others are there to solve tactical puzzles, or just to have a good time...

I am also not particularly interested in forcing the actions of my players that much. More correctly, I set goals for them. (Clear out this temple. Defeat the god.) I might tend to railroad them into the situation in the first place, but after that, what is important is them actually solving the problem and achieving the goal.

The method they use to achieve it is up to them, and - hopefully - I don't put too many artificial constraints on it. If the players come up with something I didn't expect, I'm not going to just say "no". Hopefully. Instead, it's "Cool! Right, that works!"

Combining special abilities, spells and powers in unexpected ways is inventive and enjoyable.

However, this is an aspect of my own DMing style, influenced my love of the rules and games like Magic. I happily role-play, but I also like the interplay of the rules.

Where 3e fits very well into my DMing style is that it gives me a broad base of "common" rules that I don't have to worry about. I prefer to dedicate my DMing ingenuity to the special cases.

I came from many years of gaming to 3e, and it's always amazed me the objections to Attacks of Opportunity - I just don't find them difficult. However, my reaction to this is hardly universal.

I don't think 3e is perfect in its approach to presenting the rules. I also think that a universally acceptable version of D&D (or any game) is a futile exercise. What Wizards should investigate is whether the bar on the understanding of the 3e rules is set too high.

Information Overload is often what I think could be the biggest problem of the rules; the structure of the rules is excellent, but too many interactions and options are daunting.

Cheers!

 

[reanjr]

Yes, that's what they all say.



That tells you why you made that decision, yes. It doesn't transform a crap decision into a good decision.

It's a good thing I don't make crap decisions then.

And since you don't know why it's +10% here or -25% there in the first place, you similarly have no reason to start applying +25% here or -10% there. IOW, you are still a crap DM, you just do a good line in handwaving.

Yes, I do know why. There's many reasons that are too long and arduous to get into dealing with game balance, simplicity, rules elegance, marketing, etc. But they are arbitrary when applied to a realistic situation. So, I don't quite get why I should have qualms about adjudicating a situation that wasn't specifically spelled out in the system. Think of it like the ultimate supplement that covers every optional rule and situational modifier that could ever be conceived.

IOW, not only do you make stuff up for its own sake, you don't have a particularly well-thought-out basis or reason for it.

If you don't see it, then you don't see it. But just because you can't fathom how my game is run does not mean it is not well thought out.

For some reason, the old saw about knowing the rules before you start changing them comes to mind.

I know the rules very well, and that's why I am comfortable changing them on a whim. Especially when the rules get in the way (herb example) of a sensical story.

IOW, you're back to playing cowboys and indians, but you want the privilege of being the only guy who gets to say who shot whom.

Which, I guess, is as good a reason to DM as any.

I don't care WHO makes the call on whether the cowboy or the indian is dead. As long as there is a single arbiter. As the DM knows the situation better than anyone, it seems reasonable to let him be the arbiter.

And by the way, I hate DMing. I'd much rather play, but without my DMing, the group falls apart and quits playing.

Machiavelli did this better than you.

I'm not catching the reference. Did Machiavelli paraphrase me at some point? I've never read Machiavelli, so I'm unsure. I'm familiar with the general gist of The Prince, but I don't quite understand how that applies to what I said.

As for Qin, I'm not a big fan of Eastern history, so I don't know much about him, either. Maybe you should make a point instead of a vague reference.

 

[hong]

It's a good thing I don't make crap decisions then.

Yes, yes, whatever.

Yes, I do know why. There's many reasons that are too long and arduous to get into dealing with game balance, simplicity, rules elegance, marketing, etc. But they are arbitrary when applied to a realistic situation.

If you honestly think that skill DCs have no relationship to believability, skill difficulty or realism, INGSI.

So, I don't quite get why I should have qualms about adjudicating a situation that wasn't specifically spelled out in the system. Think of it like the ultimate supplement that covers every optional rule and situational modifier that could ever be conceived.

Ah, you mean like Skills & Powers.

That's not a compliment, BTW.

If you don't see it, then you don't see it. But just because you can't fathom how my game is run does not mean it is not well thought out.

George Hammond, is that you?

I know the rules very well,

George Hammond, is that you?

and that's why I am comfortable changing them on a whim. Especially when the rules get in the way (herb example) of a sensical story.

Your conceptualisation of "story" is inflexible and inappropriate for a shared authorship medium.

And by the way, I hate DMing. I'd much rather play, but without my DMing, the group falls apart and quits playing.

Ah, not just a crap DM, but a self-sacrificing one too. Truly, you are the salt of the earth.

 

[reanjr]

So why aren't people enjoying it?

They do. I'm not sure what gave you the impression that people didn't.

Ah, right. So the bits where you whinged about

...

were just a figment of a deranged imagination.

Get a sense of humor, man. Just because my players and I disagree from time to time and they try to use what I say against me does not mean we aren't having fun. My friends make it a point to prove me wrong as often as possible because it doesn't happen that often without a concerted effort. It's a running joke (most recently, I was incorrect in thinking that a piano was classified as a string instrument when in fact it is percussion).

Read some more.

I could read constantly for the rest of my life, but unless for some strange reason I decide to read the books you read (unlikely; there's a lot of books out there and I rarely read something just because it's well known or popular), I still won't know what you are talking about. Perhaps a topic, title, or author could grant a nice kick-start. Or maybe you're not up for individual thought and personal taste.

 

[reanjr]

People look at the rules of 3e (or any version of D&D) and assume: oh, that must be the game. But they aren't. They are the starting point for a multiplicity of games!

That's a very nice way of describing the game.

I am also not particularly interested in forcing the actions of my players that much. More correctly, I set goals for them. (Clear out this temple. Defeat the god.) I might tend to railroad them into the situation in the first place, but after that, what is important is them actually solving the problem and achieving the goal.

The method they use to achieve it is up to them, and - hopefully - I don't put too many artificial constraints on it. If the players come up with something I didn't expect, I'm not going to just say "no". Hopefully. Instead, it's "Cool! Right, that works!"

As a word of advice to the other poster, though, don't go to extremes. My players actually asked me to railroad them more and dictate what goes on with their characters more. I prefer letting them lead the story, but oh well.

 

[hong]

They do. I'm not sure what gave you the impression that people didn't.

My, that was a quick backdown.

Get a sense of humor, man.

Just because my players and I disagree from time to time and they try to use what I say against me does not mean we aren't having fun. My friends make it a point to prove me wrong as often as possible because it doesn't happen that often without a concerted effort. It's a running joke (most recently, I was incorrect in thinking that a piano was classified as a string instrument when in fact it is percussion).

IOW, you have an issue to take up with your group, which in the end is only peripherally to do with the 3E ruleset as such. Thank you.