The End of Good ol' d+d

[Oracular Vision]

I would say I agree that it is more fun for players, but harder for DM's. The large number of vague areas is a problem, but the biggest problem is running the old town or city type adventure where the party can make choices. There are way too many things they might do to make it all up ahead of time. I think running PC's through canned adventures bought at the store is the best, dungeon crawls. Making a whole world or even a town is very hard (it's easy to wing it, but if characters are coming back, they will be looking for the characters from before, and you made them up, and they aren't written down anywhere.) It can be easy to do a superficial job, but its way too much work to make it all believeable, consistent, and deep. I could do that in 2nd edition because NPC's were simplier.

 

[Crothian]

I would say I agree that it is more fun for players, but harder for DM's. The large number of vague areas is a problem, but the biggest problem is running the old town or city type adventure where the party can make choices. There are way too many things they might do to make it all up ahead of time. I think running PC's through canned adventures bought at the store is the best, dungeon crawls. Making a whole world or even a town is very hard (it's easy to wing it, but if characters are coming back, they will be looking for the characters from before, and you made them up, and they aren't written down anywhere.) It can be easy to do a superficial job, but its way too much work to make it all believeable, consistent, and deep. I could do that in 2nd edition because NPC's were simplier.

Which is more important: the concept of the numbers? Most people the Pcs run into in a town don't need any stats. You just need to know how to role play the cobbler and trhe gaurdsmen. Sure, the characters might get into a scuffel here and there but they really aren't supposed to be fightinging the letherworker, are they?

So, take notes as you create things. If you think the PCs will come across Bob the gaurd again, write down the bonuses you give him. If he becomes a more important NPC that needs fleshed out do it then and base it off of your original numbers.

 

[rounser]

You just need to know how to role play the cobbler and trhe gaurdsmen. Sure, the characters might get into a scuffel here and there but they really aren't supposed to be fightinging the letherworker, are they?

Fighting's not all you may want stats for. Bluff, diplomacy, pickpocket etc.

Sure, you can fake it, but players often catch on to that, which can make the world feel less real - IMO, names are more important than stats as a bare minimum - few things about an NPC say "I'm not important!" more than not having a name...

Jamis Buck's NPC Generator combined with the pregens in the DMG mean that you need not do much of it by hand, though. On top of that, you can always make a handful of different stats to represent an archetype (say, 5 distinct and meaningfully different sets of commoner stats) and re-use them over and over to represent a city worth of commoners.

That said, doing a short Name / Appearance / Personality / Occupation / Likely Activity / Acquaintances one-liner for every commoner in the city is also likely to violate the First Rule of Dungeoncraft, so you could just prepare them for 20 commoners and have them slip into roles as you need them, just as their stats do, and perhaps generate more between sessions as you "use them up".

 

[sfgiants]

I know it is lame to be replying to your own post so soon, but some interesting points have been brought up. I think maybe that some are thinking I have problems with:

-level of detail
-amount of prep etc

This isn't really true. I find the level of detail is good, and easy to manage. The amount of prep IS more than 2e, but it is worth it. My main issues are the focus of the game. Balance becomes so pervasive that we constantly hear how a spell is "broken" or "unbalanced." Prior to 3e I never knew that the word "broken" can be applied to a game. In the last two years I have heard more about how "broken" the ranger is, and why anyone would play a bard... Maybe it is just the four groups I have played with, but for the most part players of 3e (especially new ones) seem to want to have their cake and eat it to. I mean they want all the classes to be balanced solely by combat/abilities (and if you look at the classes abilities 95% of them have combat applications...). If not, they aren't worth playing... Finally I have definately noticed that aspects of classes are even more entrenched now than they were before. Sure there are lots of options, but many of them aren't reall options at all. I point to such situations as the FRCS Spellcasting Prodigy feat. No spell caster ever goes with it anymore. How silly is that? I guess my main gripe is that when sitting down to a game and choosing a character, I bring up bard and get "why would anyone play that?" Maybe I just miss games where playing a bard wasn't a debate as to whether it is broken or two weak. But, I still love 3e, as a player. I don't have to settle silly disputes, I can start 'em.

 

[Orcus]

The real problem is too many Pokemon/Magic players playing D&D.

The words "broken" and "balance" are so MtG it is annoying.

3E is no harder to DM than 2E or 1E or OD&D, and I've played them all extensively. In fact, 3E has a standardized rule for just about every situation, which earlier editions didnt. So it is in fact easier on DMs.

Dont worry so much about stats. Just play.

On the fly any moron DM can say the guards are War2s with +2 attacks and longswords. Or thieves are Rog3s with max skills of +6 to +8. Just wing it. It isnt hard.

If you have players that say "hey, that guard should have +2 to attack not +3" you need to send that player home.

This thread sounds more like DM inexperience than an actual comparison of editions.

Clark

 

[rounser]

Just wing it. It isnt hard.

As most players know, it isn't that hard to tell when the DM's winging it, either. A goodly amount of winging is inevitable, but deriding the possibility of lessening that amount (or the possibility of preparing some resources to help with it) seems kind of wack to me.

This thread sounds more like DM inexperience than an actual comparison of editions.

I don't really think that's fair to the originator, especially after he specifically dragged the thread back to his rules related concerns rather than the "detail" discussion it got derailed to - and the rules are, obviously, edition related.

 

[Black Omega]

I'd say Hero system is easier to GM than 3E,but that's just me. 3E is not too tough either once you get the hang of it. Some of the things you mentione I could hardly blame on 3E. A group hasseling a player because he's not taking the feats they want him to? That's just wrong.

 

[Mouseferatu]

My main issues are the focus of the game. Balance becomes so pervasive that we constantly hear how a spell is "broken" or "unbalanced." Prior to 3e I never knew that the word "broken" can be applied to a game. In the last two years I have heard more about how "broken" the ranger is, and why anyone would play a bard... Maybe it is just the four groups I have played with, but for the most part players of 3e (especially new ones) seem to want to have their cake and eat it to. I mean they want all the classes to be balanced solely by combat/abilities (and if you look at the classes abilities 95% of them have combat applications...). If not, they aren't worth playing... Finally I have definately noticed that aspects of classes are even more entrenched now than they were before. Sure there are lots of options, but many of them aren't reall options at all. I point to such situations as the FRCS Spellcasting Prodigy feat. No spell caster ever goes with it anymore. How silly is that? I guess my main gripe is that when sitting down to a game and choosing a character, I bring up bard and get "why would anyone play that?" Maybe I just miss games where playing a bard wasn't a debate as to whether it is broken or two weak. But, I still love 3e, as a player. I don't have to settle silly disputes, I can start 'em.

I put it you, good sir, that you've got it backwards.

It's true that I hadn't heard the term "broken" much before 3rd edition. But that's because the vocabulary is relatively recent.

Let's look at it this way:

If your groups are anything like mine--or like every other one I've heard of--you had pages and pages of house rules for 2nd edition. If you didn't, you're in the minority, at least in my experience.


Now how many page sof house rules do you have for 3rd?

Some people have a lot, true, but most of those are flavor issues. "I want a lower magic game," that sort of thing.

I'd suggest to you that 3rd edition has fewer elements that are "broken," which is why you see the same issues come up over and over again. 2nd edition actually had a lot more things wrong with it.

(Just for starters, the demi-human level limits. Bleagh!)

The game is not "focused on balance." It simply happens to be balanced (or at least more so). Thus, those few things that are out of balance attract more attention, despite their relative scarcity.

And frankly, I've seen just as many bards in 3rd edition as I did in 2nd--which is to say, not many. I didn't find them all that interesting in 2nd, either. But most people I know who won't play bards won't play them because they're uninteresting, not because they're weak.

 

[mmadsen]

It seems like we're going over many of the same issues hashed over in Who still plays Basic D&D? and Do NPCs have to follow the rules?. Third Edition can overwhelm players and DMs with options.

Fortunately, you can ignore most options. After all, do you really need to allocate skill points point by point? Of course not! If the character gets N skill points per level, pick out N skills and max 'em out! Then pick Skill Focus for a couple of 'em, and you've got your Feats picked out too.

NPCs can have all 10s for Abilities. If you're feeling ambitious, throw in some 11s too; they have no effect.

 

[hong]

As most players know, it isn't that hard to tell when the DM's winging it, either.

Oh Ghu, here we go again.

And many players don't particularly care. Not everybody places the same stock in going by the book as you do. Even those with a good understanding of the rules may be willing to cut a DM some slack, if he/she has good storytelling skills, good timing, a sense of drama, and is generally fair to everybody. Being faithful to the rules is just one ingredient of what makes a good campaign, and the best mix of ingredients will depend on who's playing.

A goodly amount of winging is inevitable, but deriding the possibility of lessening that amount (or the possibility of preparing some resources to help with it) seems kind of wack to me.

1) Going by the book is good if it leads to more consistency.

2) Going by the book is bad if it requires more work than the DM is willing or able to put in, if it bogs down play, or if nobody would care anyway (eg if it's a group of OD&D/1E/2E diehards, as seems to be the case for the original poster).

Followups along the lines of "this means the DM is lazy and/or incompetent" will be treated with all the respect they deserve.