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

[Aaron L]

2.0: NEVER let a player see this book, or know the GM only rules. Perhaps kill a player's character if they look at the DMG without your permission (so they know how important this is). These rules are for the GM only, and only the GM can make a ruling in a game . . .

Rassilon.

Where the heck does it say that in the 2e DMG????!! Or is it a joke? Sometimes things just fly right by me.





I find it extremely amusing that people imply that a having comprehensive ruleset makes a game more time consuming than having a skimpier system where it can be necissary to create an entire rule on the spot, or just arbitrarily make up a result. Just makes me giggle.

 

[amethal]

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.

Its not like that with our group.

Most of the group don't know most of the rules, and the DM (me) doesn't know as many of the details as he should. We are not interested in looking up rules during the game, unless we know exactly where the particular rule is in the first place.

I give them my idea of how to arbitrate the situation, they agree that its reasonable (usually) and we move on from there.

If they are not happy with my ruling, someone suggests an alternative and then I pick either their option or mine. Then we get on with the game.

I fail to see how my 3 years experience of DM ing 3rd edition has somehow made me a worse DM than I was when I was DM ing 2nd edition. All 3rd edition has done is given me a more coherent rules system (making it much easier for me to adjudicate situations not covered by the rules) and a lot more rules - which I use when I can remember them, and wing it when I can't.

I've never played Castles and Crusades and I don't particularly want to. I like D&D, in all its editions.

 

[Rassilon]

Where the heck does it say that in the 2e DMG????!! Or is it a joke? Sometimes things just fly right by me.

The way I put it was certainly a joke, but the general feel of it was real.

I'll see if i can find the bit (or even the 2.0 DMG) in the next few days.


Rassilon.

 

[Beale Knight]

From a thread on RPGnet that kind of depressed me:

******
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.
******

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.

I'm with the rest of the folks here in saying it isn't the system. Here's my quick example.

In my group is a 14 year old newbie to RPGs. The group's attacked by a pair of otyughs. The experienced players have their characters attack in reasonably expected ways. On his turn the new guy tells me he wants to slice off one of the otyugh's tenticles. Gaming since '80 and never had that come up (one reason why I love having an absolute newbie in the group), but I spent about fifteen seconds thinking about how to handle that when I decided it sounded close enough to a sunder to use that formula. I didn't (and still don't) have the sunder formula memorized, but knew it was under special combat attacks. As I thumbed through the book I had the new guy go on and roll his attack (a low enough number would render the problem moot for at least another round). While he figured his attack total I scanned over the steps for a sunder, dropped one to account for the fact the fighter was trying to sunder a limb, not a held weapon/shield/wombat, and decided on a damage total that'd be required to sunder the tentacle. By then he'd gotten his attack total figured out and it was enough to hit. He rolled damage, got more than the number I'd just settled on twenty seconds earlier, and I announced the tentacle was severed and did a weird howling noise to emphasize how much the otyugh had been hurt.

All in all it this out of the ordinary attack took perhaps two minutes longer to resolve than the ranger that shot two arrows into the otyugh. I think I may have been slightly inaccurate in the steps, and certainly could have dickered for awhile over exactly how much damage should be required to sunder an otyugh tentacle, but the combat flowed well. That, to me, was the most important thing.

 

[delericho]

Where the heck does it say that in the 2e DMG????!! Or is it a joke? Sometimes things just fly right by me.

I'm reasonably sure it doesn't. I can't check any longer - I gave my DMG2.0 to my brother, and it's now hundreds of miles from me.

However, it does sound similar to something I did read. I think it was in the foreword to the 1e DMG.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Any DM that allows one rules niggle to swallow an hour of game time doesn't know the first thing about GM'ing *anything* let alone 3.x.

Exactly. It's an incompetent craftsman that blames his tools.

 

[delericho]

In my group is a 14 year old newbie to RPGs. The group's attacked by a pair of otyughs. The experienced players have their characters attack in reasonably expected ways. On his turn the new guy tells me he wants to slice off one of the otyugh's tenticles. Gaming since '80 and never had that come up (one reason why I love having an absolute newbie in the group), but I spent about fifteen seconds thinking about how to handle that when I decided it sounded close enough to a sunder to use that formula. I didn't (and still don't) have the sunder formula memorized, but knew it was under special combat attacks. As I thumbed through the book I had the new guy go on and roll his attack (a low enough number would render the problem moot for at least another round). While he figured his attack total I scanned over the steps for a sunder, dropped one to account for the fact the fighter was trying to sunder a limb, not a held weapon/shield/wombat, and decided on a damage total that'd be required to sunder the tentacle. By then he'd gotten his attack total figured out and it was enough to hit. He rolled damage, got more than the number I'd just settled on twenty seconds earlier, and I announced the tentacle was severed and did a weird howling noise to emphasize how much the otyugh had been hurt.

All in all it this out of the ordinary attack took perhaps two minutes longer to resolve than the ranger that shot two arrows into the otyugh. I think I may have been slightly inaccurate in the steps, and certainly could have dickered for awhile over exactly how much damage should be required to sunder an otyugh tentacle, but the combat flowed well. That, to me, was the most important thing.

Now, this is a particularly interesting example. Per the d20 rules as they stand, it is not possible to perform this action - there are no rules for the sort of injury described. There is even a good reason for this - pretty much any set of rules to allow this is going to result in lots of PCs who are missing limbs rather quickly, to the detriment of fun. (And, yes, that does mean that in d20 Star Wars it is impossible for Darth Vader to cut off Luke's hand.)

Now, what this means is that if a player wants to do as described, the DM either needs to forbid the action ("No, you can't even attempt to cut off the creature's tentacle"), or make some sort of a ruling. You can't look up an answer in the rules: it doesn't exist.

For what it's worth, I would have gone with almost exactly the ruling you made. However, this would only apply to throwaway creatures that aren't going to be met again - if the same were tried on my Black Knight of the campaign (or any PC), I would comment that the character is too skilled a warrior for this to happen (a cop-out, sure, but if you don't do this, the PCs are likely to start chopping the hands off every bad guy they encounter, thus quickly negating much of their challenge).

 

[Li Shenron]

I do have sometimes the feeling that the rulebooks + the FAQ + the sage advice + the web articles have a tendency of causing this... usually it's better to have something covered by the rules than not, the good thing being that the DM has a ready-made solution which takes away a problem for him/her. But at the same time it can go too far (personally, it goes to too far for me when trying to forecast strange uses of a spell, and attempts to forbid as many as possible). Once there are too many rules, it's possible that a DM is compelled by the players to use the official rule, and wastes precious time to look that up. Perhaps it's an inevitable involution of the game, as it is players after all who wants more situations covered.

 

[Henry]

...(And, yes, that does mean that in d20 Star Wars it is impossible for Darth Vader to cut off Luke's hand.)

Actually, in the Revised book I think it's handled under "reducing someone to zero wounds." (seriously!) They also covered it in a recent Star Wars Q&A column with Gary Sarli with the Obi-Wan and Anakin fight.

 

[The Cardinal]

yep, that's D&D 3.X - and that's one of the main reasons why I refuse to GM it...