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

[MoogleEmpMog]

My lack of knowing Arcana Unearthed!

Thanks for the update. To go on record my response to your post was a knee-jerk reaction in the form of "Gaaah...I can't run an encounter based on that stat block! What about all this other stuff?" Also, I like fully prepping my NPC's. I try to make them unique with different items and treasure and having their readied spells copied from the SRD into the block itself. Looking up everything helps keep the rules fresh for me. To me it's all part of the game and one of the reasons I enjoy DMing.

And I don't want to be "taken out of the equation"! Even if the rules authors were striving for this I don't think they succeeded much better than in previous editions. Many complex rules issues involving both DM and players attest to this as discussed in Sage Advice, the DnD Main Faq, and the rules clarifications posted on the WoTC web site.

Actually, MY lack of knowing Arcana Unearthed (and in a thread Monte himself is posting in - my shame shall be eternal ); I meant Oathbound, not Unfettered. Unfettered are swashbuckler types.

I actually do quite a bit of looking-up and copying and so forth, but that's just because I also enjoy doing it. I especially like ferreting out obscure PrC combos and unique special abilities to throw at the players. The final stat blocks end up looking like the one I gave, though, because I find them more convenient. Except without the class reference error.

I don't want to be taken out of the equation, either, and I much prefer GMing. On the other hand, I've never felt that the d20 rules held me back, and I have seen them restrain some inexperienced GMs. I think it's best to target the D&D core rules heavily to newer players - superior systems like Conan, AU and d20 Modern are there for the vets

 

[Victim]

In general, GMs are pulled from the player population. On the whole, GMs are essentially no more competent than anyone else in the group - it's not like there are no bad DM stories to go with the bad player stories. Limiting the amount of damage a bad DM can do doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.

 

[shilsen]

::Kaze (notes that if you're not cackling with glee during your prep time, you're doing something wrong. )

Listen to the smart man, people

 

[Ron]

I also realized quite early that removing power from the DM was one of the design goals of 3e. However, I thought that this was made to make easy to transport D&D to the computer environment, something that perhaps was Wizards objective before Hasbro sold the computer game division together with the rights for computer D&D games.

My personal experience is that is much easier to judge situations with little guidelines than to memorize the entirety of 3e rules (especially because they just replaced the myriad of AD&D rules with a myriad of rules exceptions, such as feats, that make 3e as difficult, if not more, than AD&D). As such, it is not surprising that I left 3e for good and I am happily running a campaign with the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. I know people that prefer to memorize rules, but I have better use to my memory.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If you have multiple encounters in a session, it takes longer than that just to copy the stats out of the MM!

You may use the MM and have no trouble. However, I find it to be a clunky resource with stat blocks that make some things hard to find and it just takes to long when the special abilities, qualities, DR, SR, special attacks etc are added into the mix.

Now try adjudicating an arm wrestle between a half-giant and a hill giant in 1st ed. Now try it in 2nd. Now try it in 3rd.

Really - D&D is no more difficult to wing it than any other system. If you're having problems just copying out relevant information, then your problem isn't 3e... It's a problem with your ability to filter information presented to you. Hitpoints, AC, saves, attacks, funky stuff. All done. Or maybe you're talking about high level PC class foes? No difference.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Maybe I just had a lot of bad experiences with inconsistent, flakey DMs, but I vastly prefer the 3E approach that takes the DM out of the equation. As a guy who travels a lot, I like to be able to go to a game and basically know what to expect about how rules will be enforced and mechanics handled. I've played in games where I had no idea how the game system was being run, where every event was ruled by DM fiat, and every situation was handled differently than every other situation. I didn't enjoy it.

Is 3E more prep work? Yes, if you take advantage of all the options. If you don't customize anything, you can run an entire campaign using just stat blocks from the MM. But there are enough good electronic tools (MS Word, E-tools, and Jamis Buck's NPC generators are my primary DM helpers) that you can lift the burden -- and it makes prep fun. If you don't enjoy the prep time, you probably don't enjoy DMing.

One of my pet peeves about 3E is that because it appears mroe complex, some people house rule things out of hand, without really learning how the system really works. The more I use it, the less tweaking I find the system needs -- provided you're willing to suspend a little disbelief and have setting expectations in line with core D&D ssumptions (which luckily I do).

And yes, I mostly DM. I'd love to play a bit more, bit if it's a choice between not playing 3E because no one else wants to run it, or DMing, I'll happily DM.

 

[smetzger]

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.

I believe that is correct.

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. "

I don't think this is the reason why. I think they tried to do this as much as possible so that WOTC could capitalize on the D&D brand name in the much more lucrative computer game market. I am sure they got an earful from the developers of the more popular 2e D&D programs about how diffuclt it was to program the 2e rules.

 

[FireLance]

In any event, excessive rules do not lead to a better game. For every judgement call I made in 2e, I have to make the same calls in 3e. The only difference is that I now have to interpret the rules that exist instead of saying yes or no. IME, rules arguments are common in 3e and only get worse as the players grow to master the rules.

Why? Because even a player who has mastered the rules cannot remember every rule. The memory is fallable, so you may remember the rule incorrectly. That seems to happen an excessive amount in game. Even when I had a true master of the rules in my game, he still made mistakes. They tended to be minor, but even a minor mistake in 3e can have a HUGE impact on the game.

I am all for having a good set of rules that includes some protections for the players, but attempting to intuit every little thing that may happen in a game is maddness. It defeats the purpose of even having a game based on imagination.

How many times have you looked at a rule that you had been using to find that you had been using it incorrectly? It has happened in my game more than a few times. And I'll bet that I am not alone.

What point is there in having a game that cannot be truly mastered?

Naturally, the more rules you have, the more chance that something is going to get forgotten. But what is the difference between not remembering a rule and having no rule, or the DM remembering the rule incorrectly and the DM making a poor decision? Very little, in my view.

Rules Lawyer!!!

"Rules guy", actually. I'm pretty good (though not perfect, admittedly) at remembering and checking up rules, and can usually settle rules questions without bogging down the game. So, when my group plays, and I'm not DMing, the DM taps on me as a resource. If he's not sure about a rule, he asks me, I check the books and tell him what the rules say, and he makes a decision. It all boils down to trust, I guess. The DM trusts me to give an unbiased interpretation of the rules, and I trust him to decide when to apply the rules and when not to, in the broader interests of the game.

 

[Psion]

I think that it is a judgement call to be made. There are some aspects of the game that can be "automated". But there are some in which the GMs judgement really cannot be spared.

The change in cover and concealment rules between 3.0 and 3.5 highlights this point to me. I consider 3.5 sloppy and not worth the minimal gain in GM overhead.

 

[fusangite]

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. "(emphasis mine)

Guys, "as much as possible" is, frankly, given the nature of the game, not all that much. I personally much prefer the current game balance because it means that D&D has something useful to offer: more of a chance for the players to actually change the outcome of certain key things and keep the DM on his toes. I think the fact that I have gone from being an absolute god to a limited god is actually pretty cool and I commend the designers on that front.