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

[reanjr]

I thought you said you won?



Right. So IOW, when you said



You really meant you could go on for hours about the price of tea in China, or something.

My argument wasn't being made against the rules for attacks of opportunity or jumping or anything like that. My argument was against the mindset the presentation of the 3e PHB puts players in. I don't expect the rules to cover every situation or to fit every situation to the rules as written as you seem to. I just don't like the implication in the books that the rules are anything but insufficient to tell a good story.

 

[reanjr]

D00d, did I or did I not say that you could think you won if you liked?

In that case, I choose not to.

 

[hong]

My argument wasn't being made against the rules for attacks of opportunity or jumping or anything like that. My argument was against the mindset the presentation of the 3e PHB puts players in.

My mistake. Let me correct myself.

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

 

[hong]

In that case, I choose not to.

That's the shortest-lived declaration of victory I've ever seen.

 

[reanjr]

My mistake. Let me correct myself.

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

In all my experience with varied players, though, that theory just doesn't seem to play out. Would it be nice if my group enjoyed exactly the same type of game I did? Sure. But that's not a realistic desire. But I do strongly believe that if the 3e PHB was presented in a different manner, it could greatly influence players worldwide to enjoy games more like I do.

And on that note, I must now accept your offer to believe I've won, because my shift is almost over and I have work to do. Adieu.

Quick reversal of shortest lived victorious declaration abstainment.

 

[Testament]

In all my experience with varied players, though, that theory just doesn't seem to play out. Would it be nice if my group enjoyed exactly the same type of game I did? Sure. But that's not a realistic desire. But I do strongly believe that if the 3e PHB was presented in a different manner, it could greatly influence players worldwide to enjoy games more like I do. <emphasis added>

For yours is the only true way.

Grud, I hate this theory, that somehow 3.X is part of some conspiracy to corrupt players and destroy the game. I've seen the 2nd Ed PHB, I've seen the original UA, and I maintain that the 3.X PHB is the best form it's taken. No extraneous BS, just the rules, which is WHAT THE FRICKIN' CORE RULEBOOK SHOULD BE!

 

[DarrenGMiller]

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.

Being the GM in question, I must say that while I am sure that I am part of the problem, that the type of game that would be played was discussed and well communicated before the campaign and after the first of the three sessions that went this way. The players all agreed on the type of game they wanted, then proceeded not to play it.

DM

 

[jasper]

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.

Listen to an expert Hong is the expert on not thinking.

 

[jasper]

renair is a god. No one question his decisions.
In 1E I WAS A GOD! Until the mortals I dm for learn power wedige, we not picking you up for the game (sucks when a god needs a ride), head lock feat, Ear thump feat etc.

 

[Nisarg]

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. "

So what do you all think? I did not want to derail the 1e DMG thread further. My thoughts follow in the next post.

Um, well before we proceed there is the question of who the hell you're quoting?

Its clearly a quote, but the vital question here is whether its a real quote, whether its from someone in a position to actually tell it like it was as to 3e design philosophy, or if its just a random quote by some guy making what he thinks is a clever analysis of D20?

Nisarg