The End of Good ol' d+d

[rounser]

Oh Ghu, here we go again.

We do?

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.

DUH.

All I'm going to say is that, in your words, not everybody is particularly good at winging it very well, so a few stats, names and notes can make it easier. And I'll speak for myself when I say that I think we sometimes tend to descend into a kind of lacklustre clicheland when we lose the plot thread and my current DM wings it...I'm guilty of that too when DMing sometimes as well.

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).

Again, DUH.

The 6 sets of custom commoner stats to re-use that I suggested is "too much work" and "bogs down play", even when the DMG does it itself? You leap at shadows, I think, hong.

Orcus/Clark and yourself seem to be pushing the blanket suggestion that anyone who isn't doing it completely off-the-cuff is suggesting write-ups for everything, and therefore any preparation to help winging it is stupid and wrong. Like most blanket statements, I find a few faults with that line of thinking.

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

Ah, a pre-emptive strike.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Wow. I'm sorry to hear that it's such a burden, SF. maybe you can regain your energy, or develop a new approach, or--gain a new group to play with.

As for the folks that I play with--well, I'll admit that I am apparently in the distinct minority. Most of the folks I play with don't min/max, don't use terms "broken/shafted" or even care about combat balance from one class-type to another.

If one wants to play a Bard, they do so because they want to sing, do espionage/politics, and generally hang out and have a good time. It's a good "generalist" character for either someone who really likes being a Bard, or can't decide on a different class.

Other players have played the Ranger, and the problems with the Ranger that I have mentioned from here gets a "What? I don't see it. I like the Ranger. The Ranger is fine the way it is." The party is usually more concerned about their friends, survival, and mission accomplishment than magic items, or some huge grasp for power. Magic items are neat, but they certainly don't whine about them or bother me about it. They are excited when they get master work anything, or if I take the time to describe a really cool suit of Elven chainmail that is edged in mithril, and has shoulder-guards carved like lion-heads. That is enough for them. They get all excited about it. And it could be very magical, or maybe it's just a suit of master work armor.

With encounters, noone would ever question my use of characters. They don't even know what level the enemy characters are. They just assume they are gonna be badass, and they will probably lose fate points. Hopefully they will win, but even if they do, they know it will surely cost them. I can add or subtract whatever numbers I want, making stuff up on the fly if I haven't specifically prepared and detailed it. Who would gainsay me? If I think the captain of the guard has an AC of 28, then that's what he has. If he his the players based on some fly-by night BAB I've assigned him at the moment, then he does. If he doesn't cut the grade, and the players womp on him anyways, so be it. I have a good grasp of the rules and stats, and wing it to my heart's desire, and there aren't any problems. If there are some occasions where the enemy has gained some advantage due to an oversight on my part, it's no problem, because there's been times where the players will triumph on occasions where I *didn't* apply all of the enemy creature's benefits and powers. That's just chalked up simply to stronger, more elite opponents, or on the other hand, weaker, green opponents who underestimate the player characters, thus leading to a swifter, easier victory. In the end, everyone has fun.

Remember too, that many things that are huge problems and issues here may in fact be minor issues or even nonexistent to many people out there, who aren't here, I mean. In the end, it's a game to have fun with.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yeah. What SHARK said, but with extra sauce.

I make stuff up on the fly all the time. I don't worry about specific stats for nobody NPCs. I just go with what seems appropriate. Occasionally, I even--gasp! horrors!--roll the dice behind the screen just for show, but actually decide things based on what's most dramatic for the story.

And you know what? So long as I don't deliberately screw the players over, and don't deliberately make things too easy for them, nobody cares. They don't know most of the time when I'm just making stuff up, and they don't mind the few times they do know. They trust me to tell a good story, to let them play their characters, and to 100% fair and by the book when it truly matters. For good or for ill.

I can't think of any other way I'd rather game, as a DM or a player.

 

[rounser]

So long as I don't deliberately screw the players over, and don't deliberately make things too easy for them, nobody cares. They don't know most of the time when I'm just making stuff up, and they don't mind the few times they do know. They trust me to tell a good story, to let them play their characters, and to 100% fair and by the book when it truly matters. For good or for ill.

I can't think of any other way I'd rather game, as a DM or a player.

And a few names and personality traits prepared beforehand might even enhance this winging it, no? Might even improve your ability to fool the players into thinking you're not just making it up as you go along (whether they care or not). That's where I'm coming from - however you seem to be seeing this as somehow against the natural order of things, and so I'll bow out here.

 

[Mouseferatu]

And a few names and personality traits prepared beforehand might even enhance this winging it, no? Might even improve your ability to fool the players into thinking you're not just making it up as you go along (whether they care or not). That's where I'm coming from - however you seem to be seeing this as somehow against the natural order of things, and so I'll bow out here.

Wait a minute, now. I dunno if you're confusing my posts with someone else's, but I never said there was anything wrong with doing it any other way, or that it was against the natural order.

This is just the way I prefer doing it.

Never meant to argue otherwise. I was simply saying that people who say you can't wing 3E are, in my experience, wrong. Never said that people who choose not to are doing anything wrong.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Hey Rounser! It's good to see you friend!

I often write up a name, and maybe the color of their cloak or style of their hat, assign a class, and that's it. Sometimes I'll assign them a level, while at other times I'll wing the level even based on what I want the character to have a chance of doing. Sometimes I even do a whole character party like that, and the fights get wild! The players don't know the difference. It's great! Of course, having some notes scratched out can really help! I use them all the time, too! Why would you think anyone was against notes? Notes are not even the same as full, all drawn-out write ups, you know?

There are times when I figure an npc out in 30 seconds flat--time enough for the players to refill their soda cups! Then, it's time to lock and load baby!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Frostmarrow]

When it comes to winging it at the risk of players catching on:

You as the DM says the 3rd level warrior guards have a to hit bonus of +6. The players protest as they know the guards have a strength of 12 so there is no way for tem to have +6. That's when you pull out the DM's best friend. The +2 -- -2 circumstance modifier. You can name any circumstance in any circumstances to get a five step leeway.

 

[Black Omega]

Shark's method can be great, but you need a good feel for the system. In Hero System I could wing it no trouble, even for superpowered combat. In 3E I'm still reluctant to do that since I've not been GM'ing the system very long and it's much easier to kill PC's off in 3E. I'm running Rokugan, thus no Raise Dead, so that makes a bigger difference than if, say,I was running a Vlad Taltos campaign.

 

[hong]

We do?

Yes, we do. Or have you already forgotten that interminable thread on whether NPCs have to follow the rules?

All I'm going to say is that, in your words, not everybody is particularly good at winging it very well, so a few stats, names and notes can make it easier. And I'll speak for myself when I say that I think we sometimes tend to descend into a kind of lacklustre clicheland when we lose the plot thread and my current DM wings it...I'm guilty of that too when DMing sometimes as well.

Nobody ever said some preparation is bad. However, pointing out the virtues of doing your homework to someone who thinks that 3E requires too much homework is not particularly helpful.

 

[Weeble]

When it comes to winging it at the risk of players catching on:

You as the DM says the 3rd level warrior guards have a to hit bonus of +6. The players protest as they know the guards have a strength of 12 so there is no way for tem to have +6.

They would be metagaming if they did that... put the smack down.