Tell me that D&D 3.0/3.5 isn't really like this

[Vindicator]

From a thread on RPGnet that kind of depressed me:

******
Yep, that's a darn-near perfect example of why I hate D&D 3e and love C&C. I've seen stuff like that come up all the time in D&D 3e games. I can't stand it.

Personally, I think D&D 3e makes DMs less competant. Because the rules spell out so many specifics (but not all specifics), they end up too reliant on the rulebooks and unable to make decisions when needed. Here's been my experience with 3e:

1. A player wants to do something out of the ordinary. I groan because I know where this is heading.
2. The DM stops the game to a halt and spends 15 min or more looking up the appropriate rule. I start watching the clock.
3. Meanwhile, player's also start looking up the rule. It reminds me of a war game mentality.
4. No one can locate a rule that handles the exact situation. I think, "surely the DM will just come up with a quick ruling so we can return to playing" - but this optimism is sorely misplaced.
5. Because DM fiat in 3e is "forbidden", both sides attempt to argue which rule comes closest like some bastardized appeals court hearing. I amuse myself by pretending I'm watching Law & Order.
6. After an hour or more, there is still no consesus and I'm so bored I'd rather be at work.
7. Finally, the DM is forced to hand-wave the incident temporarily, but will spend the next week on message boards trying to get a more "official" ruling, which could retroactively affect reality. I start wondering why I still play this...
******

It's not really like that, is it? Because this guy's experience is the same as my own. I've only played 3.0/3.5 with one group of people these past few years, and honestly, that's what our sessions are like too. I think I need either a new group or a new game.

But the problem above is with the group, right? Not the system, right?

Sigh. I need a pep talk. Tell me something to cheer me up.

 

[Dog Moon]

Originally posted by Vindicator
But the problem above is with the group, right? Not the system, right?

Sigh. I need a pep talk. Tell me something to cheer me up.

Well, I hate to say it because it won't cheer you up any, but my group occasionally does that. It doesn't happen very often, but it does happen. When I'm DM, I try to put a stop to it quickly because I know it can get annoying if you're not involved in it, and can still get annoying even if you are. I think it all depends on how focused on the rules people are. Whereas I try to skip over it if possible, another person in my group takes as long as it takes to try to find out what rule is appropriate for the situation.

Although the system might lean in that direction, I think a big part of it lies in the players of the group. Because I have never played C&C, I cannot make any comparison between the two.

 

[Agback]

5. Because DM fiat in 3e is "forbidden"

Wierd. In my copy of 3.0, DM Fiat is the ultimate rule. It says so on p9 of the 3.0 DMG, under 'Adjudicating". Also on p11, under "Changing the Rules".

 

[Aus_Snow]

Eh, nevermind. What Agback said, basically.

I think the fault here lies with the DM. They should improve or be replaced.

 

[VirgilCaine]

If there's nothing in the books that remotely approximates the situation and no skill comes close to serving...stop playing stoned.

I mean really.
What was the situation?
What could possibly not be handled with a skill check, attribute check or a combination of an attribute check and a skill check or multiple checks of some kind?


But a lot of problems come from the DM or players, not the system.

 

[Pants]

But the problem above is with the group, right? Not the system, right?

It sounds like a combination of the group, the system, and clashing play-style preferences.

Does my group occasionally halt the game to look up a rule? Yes. Does it happen more than occasionally? Yes, sometimes. Is there no DM fiat? DM fiat still exists.

I can also honestly say that back in 2e, making up a rule on the spot halted the game far longer than looking up some rule does in 3.0. We'd haggle over whether the ruling 'made sense' or whether it was 'logical.' We'd then spend a few minutes figuring out how to adjudicate it properly. Yeah, that wasn't fun and I *hate* when I have to do it 3.0. It slows the game down too much and, frankly, I'm not very good at coming up with seat-of-the-pants rulings.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Every group's going to do that occasionally.

But as a DM, if we don't have the right rule in a matter of instants, I come up with something on the fly and we move on. If, later on, it turns out I was wrong, we'll do it right from then on, but otherwise, who cares?

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

You know, it took me a few sessions to master the rules basics. Beyond that, here's what I learned to do a long time ago to help myself and my campaign along: Ask players who like to use grappling, their jump skill, disarm checks, etc.. to learn the rules too, ahead of time.

That way the player is more likely to describe what they're trying to do from a game rules/descriptive way, and the DM can judge how likely this action will succeed (read: apply modifiers to the DC as appropriate), call for the check and then do his part to relate a colorful and descriptive (as is practical) description of the player's success or failure.

Yes the DM adjudicates and has final say, but that in no way keeps the group from knowing and working together to master the rules and keep play moving. The more players recite the rules and work together, the quicker everyone masters play (in my experience, at any rate).

This is an aspect of Third Edition that I don't think was present in earlier editions of the game, but I also don't think this takes away from the DM's authority either.

Be careful not to let the anticipation of more looking-up rules ruin your fun. It’s like learning to ride a bike; i.e. you don’t quit just because you might fall down.

Keep at it and you’ll get better. Play a little more and persevere through the slow moments during play (like my group did) and you’ll master the rules after a few more sessions. Shoot, you might end up with a long lasting group too.

J. Grenemyer

 

[wingsandsword]

******
Yep, that's a darn-near perfect example of why I hate D&D 3e and love C&C. I've seen stuff like that come up all the time in D&D 3e games. I can't stand it.

Personally, I think D&D 3e makes DMs less competant. Because the rules spell out so many specifics (but not all specifics), they end up too reliant on the rulebooks and unable to make decisions when needed. Here's been my experience with 3e:

1. A player wants to do something out of the ordinary. I groan because I know where this is heading.
2. The DM stops the game to a halt and spends 15 min or more looking up the appropriate rule. I start watching the clock.
3. Meanwhile, player's also start looking up the rule. It reminds me of a war game mentality.
4. No one can locate a rule that handles the exact situation. I think, "surely the DM will just come up with a quick ruling so we can return to playing" - but this optimism is sorely misplaced.
5. Because DM fiat in 3e is "forbidden", both sides attempt to argue which rule comes closest like some bastardized appeals court hearing. I amuse myself by pretending I'm watching Law & Order.
6. After an hour or more, there is still no consesus and I'm so bored I'd rather be at work.
7. Finally, the DM is forced to hand-wave the incident temporarily, but will spend the next week on message boards trying to get a more "official" ruling, which could retroactively affect reality. I start wondering why I still play this...
******

Say what?

"DM fiat in 3e is "forbidden"? Bull. Nonsense. DM Fiat is even an actual published rule in 3.0/3.5, called "Rule 0", which overrides all other rules.

What that is describing not problems with the system, it's problems with the DM (and maybe the palyers). With a reasonably skilled DM the game is not going to bog down into an hour long rules debate as things come to a crashing halt to look up an obscure rule. It certainly isn't if I"m running it. I'd be sorely tempted to call any DM who stopped his game for an hour-long rules debate a poor one unless they players actually like lengthy rules debates and the issue at hand was of critical importance to the game.

A basically skilled GM can run the game without having to turn to the rulebook every so often. Things like disarming, grappling and tripping IME require double checking things, but that's usually just a momentary glance to remind people how they work. What kind of weird things are players attempting that require such lengthy rules debates, presumably among players who actually know the rules in question?

 

[Henry]

It's not really like that, is it? Because this guy's experience is the same as my own. I've only played 3.0/3.5 with one group of people these past few years, and honestly, that's what our sessions are like too. I think I need either a new group or a new game.

Well, it's obviously like that for somebody, yourself included. My best advice is this:

--Talk to the group and try to come to a consensus that SOMETHING is hurting your group's play time, and it sounds a lot like all the rules lookup.
--Once that's done, the group needs to agree to a clear way to handle it. The DMG suggests that the DM is the one to decide final word, and that he should keep the game moving forward.
--One way is to institute a TIME LIMIT on actions, and on rules disputes. If someone has a rules dispute, allow X minutes (somewhere between 1 and 5 minutes, I go with about a 2 minute rule myself) to look up the rule, and if the rule can't be found in that time, then make something up that's consistent with the regular rules of the game (skill checks, saving throws, to hit rolls, etc.) Allow someone a 1 minute MAX to dispute it, and then the DM makes a final call. That cuts your 30 minutes of looking, down to at most 3 to 6 minutes.

The important thing in my opinion is that this game is not meant to be played perfectly; you're gonna have strange situations, odd rule calls, almost EVERY session, because players are like that. But the WORST, WORST, WORST, WORST thing that a group can do with any game being played is (1) not be familiar at all with the rules, and (2) bog the game down trying to learn rules in the middle of it, when that time is supposed to be for the fun. If it isn't perfect and by the book, no one will know nor care! The important thing is seeing that every one got what they came for (battle, gold, glory, character development, hanging out, what have you) out of the session.

CAVEAT: Some people enjoy looking up and wrangling rules in-game. I don't. If that's their thing, then great. I'm assuming it's not for you and yours.