The End of Good ol' d+d

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Why should you -as the DM - tell your players what Attack Bonus the Guard has. Just tell what he rolled and don`t show your dice.

My DM career is not very long - only 3 to 4 D20 adventures, but if I compere my experiences as a GM for Shadowrun, I must say - D&D or D20 is MUCH easier to handle. You can easily assign if a combat will be tough for the player characters, how fast they will level up by using the encounters, and so you could plan a whole campaign in forward. (Well ,not really, at least if the player have some choices in what they do).

At least two of my players do know the rules very well, two other ones do have a good grasp. (All 4 do master D20/D&D based games). I never had any problem with them, even if most of my players like to powerplay a bit. D&D gives me all the options I need to still create challenges...

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Orcus]

>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

Dont put words in my mouth and then knock down the straw man you set up.

I think the happy medium is the best way to play. Outline plot points, create necessary NPCs and events and get them where you want them to go while at the same time feeling they are choosing to go there.

Frankly, I overprepare for game sessions. Always have. Regardless of the edition of the game. If 3E takes longer its becasue it is new, not because there is anything more difficult about it.

When I wing it, I usually do it from prepared stuff. I have a list of NPC names I keep handy so when they encounter an NPC I didnt create ahead of time, I have a name. I also have a list of single characteristics which I find lends instant personality--a favorite word, a chosen color, a piece of clothing, a facial feature.

But you have to be flexible. Some times you spend 10 hours preparing the caravan adventure but the PCs ignore the caravan master's hiring of guards (your adventure hook) and want to go to the brothel instead or they want to go track down some clue you forgot you gave them. Or perhaps a key player doesnt show up and your adventure for that session was going to be driven by that character. So all of a sudden you find yourself making a few rogues and inventing a reason they are after the PCs, break into their rooms, steal stuff, have a chase, go down to their lair through a illusory wall in an alley in the bad part of town, kill a few recover the item they stole, etc.

But all this leads back to a central point of roleplaying.

Play should dictate rules, rules shouldnt dictate play.

If you arent following that rule then go play a boardgame or a TCG.

This is a game of imagination. Essentially, an elaborate game of cops and robbers with rules for resolving the age old argument "I shot you" "No you didnt".

Rules exist to facilitate our story telling. 3E rules are no more or less hindering than earlier editions.

Min/maxers min/max in any system they play. Thats the gamer, not the game. Rules lawyers will be rules lawyers whether you are playing D&D, Risk, Monopoly, Traveller or whatever.

The problem with 3E is the mindset it creates: that there is only one "right" way to do things. Remember, this isnt chess where you move your knight 3 forward and the guy sitting across from you says "hey, thats against the rules." Those types of inflexible rules are necessary in a competive game where each side plays by the same rules to determine a winner and deviation from those rules becomes unfair.

Funny, the criticism raised here was the same criticism of AD&D when it came out. The same thing. Too many rules. Gygax was telling us "if you arent playing this way you arent playing D&D." Nobody bought it then, you dont have to buy it now.

Is 3E more cumbersome? Yes, but mostly because it is new.

Besides, and this is the good part, if you dont like it--change it!!!! Its your game. And it is your story.

Rules dont limit creativity if you look at rules the way I propose: they are guidelines. Change whatever you want to allow your creativity to control. Remember my mantra: play dictates rules, rules dont dictate play.

Now go get those stat blocks ready for the next session!!!

Clark

 

[the Jester]

To prep major npcs and things like that, I think it does take longer in 3e... especially if you're adding templates and class levels to a monster (it takes longer to stat out a 9th-level otyugh wizard with the half-slaad template than it does to stat out a 12th-level fighter, cuz you have to go back and add things on, flip back and forth through your books, etc.)

On the other hand I don't have a problem winging it, either... I actually got what I thought was a fantastic compliment a couple of weeks ago, I had gone to the Tuesday game I play in and the dm had forgotten the Dungeon magazine with the adventure we were going through in it. He told us this and asked whether we wanted to skip to a different adventure or what... we all just said, "Wing it, dude!" Anyway, after the game was over, one of the other players and I were talking and he said, "You know, if it had been you and you forgot your stuff you just would have done it on the fly and we'd never even have known the difference."

To respond to the original post, though, I think you'll always find things that are "broken" in every edition of the game. In 2e psionics are a good example; in 1e take a look at cavaliers. Blah! Who cares! Throw out what you don't like or else change it to make it more managable. And all those things that your players consider "must have" feats and stuff... consider making "trees" with better feats up them for some of the less attractive feats (like run, endurance, etc.) Diversify the choices.

 

[rounser]

But you have to be flexible. Some times you spend 10 hours preparing the caravan adventure but the PCs ignore the caravan master's hiring of guards (your adventure hook) and want to go to the brothel instead or they want to go track down some clue you forgot you gave them. Or perhaps a key player doesnt show up and your adventure for that session was going to be driven by that character. So all of a sudden you find yourself making a few rogues and inventing a reason they are after the PCs, break into their rooms, steal stuff, have a chase, go down to their lair through a illusory wall in an alley in the bad part of town, kill a few recover the item they stole, etc.

Yes, indeed. I agree.

But all this leads back to a central point of roleplaying.

Play should dictate rules, rules shouldnt dictate play.

I agree with the principle, yes, but with reservations. You're oversimplifying IMO, because to bring this to it's logical extreme we'd all be playing custom systems suited to our specific style of play. This isn't exactly true, so once again the truth is somewhere in the middle, IMO.

If you arent following that rule then go play a boardgame or a TCG.

I disagree a fair bit here, because I don't think that's always the case. I'm sure some people can play D&D legitimately as a wargame sticking to the letter of the rules, thus constricting play, and enjoy themselves regardless. Obviously, IMO you can't dictate terms on how people should play D&D if they want to play it in a given style. The openness of play style which you are revelling in in this post opens D&D up to them, too. Not that I play their way, but will play devil's advocate nonetheless...

This is a game of imagination. Essentially, an elaborate game of cops and robbers with rules for resolving the age old argument "I shot you" "No you didnt".

Yes, I agree that's usually the case.

Rules exist to facilitate our story telling. 3E rules are no more or less hindering than earlier editions.

I disagree somewhat, and think you're oversimplifying a bit. I think you're correct on the level that if you ignore any edition for your play purposes at any given stage, they're all equally facilitating, because they cease to exist or automagically change any time they get in the way - but I don't buy that as a way of comparing what the rules facilitate when they are in play in an unaltered way.

Min/maxers min/max in any system they play. Thats the gamer, not the game. Rules lawyers will be rules lawyers whether you are playing D&D, Risk, Monopoly, Traveller or whatever.

Yes, and some editions and games can give rules lawyers and min/maxers more "ammo", if you will. That's a difference that can matter when you're not temporarily altering or disappearing the rules for play purposes.

The problem with 3E is the mindset it creates: that there is only one "right" way to do things. Remember, this isnt chess where you move your knight 3 forward and the guy sitting across from you says "hey, thats against the rules." Those types of inflexible rules are necessary in a competive game where each side plays by the same rules to determine a winner and deviation from those rules becomes unfair.

Yes, I agree. One of the criticisms levelled at AD&D is that it - perhaps because of the way it was presented, perhaps because of it's rules density - encouraged a higher level of hand-holding than oD&D, and with 3E this perception seems to be more true than ever.

Is 3E more cumbersome? Yes, but mostly because it is new.

There are a lot more subtleties to the system than earlier editions, IMO - not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

Besides, and this is the good part, if you dont like it--change it!!!! Its your game. And it is your story.

Although this is true for the most part, in some ways 3E can be considered more difficult to customise because of rules interdependencies. For example, taking out feats can have repercussions throughout the system.

Rules dont limit creativity if you look at rules the way I propose: they are guidelines. Change whatever you want to allow your creativity to control. Remember my mantra: play dictates rules, rules dont dictate play.

Not everyone uses your model of play, though.

Now go get those stat blocks ready for the next session!!!

Er, no. I was suggesting a way he might get those stat blocks if he wanted them, and not spend hours statting every darn person in his entire game - create a few common "types" and re-use them for all occasions where they fit.

Note that that's a pro-3E suggestion to get around his complaint as well - it dismantles some of the original problem he suggested existed - just not in the way that you and hong intend to do so.

 

[rounser]

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.

Well, creating or borrowing a handful of stat blocks and re-using them to death to represent NPCs gets around his problem, and as such is something of a pro-3E stance unto itself. Just not the one that you're pointing out...so it's constructive on that level, right?

 

[hong]

Well, creating or borrowing a handful of stat blocks and re-using them to death to represent NPCs gets around his problem, and as such is something of a pro-3E stance unto itself.

Nothing wrong with that. Now if you'd said that right at the start, there would be no problem. Of course, some groups may find even that to be too much hassle to deal with.

And I couldn't give two hoots about pro- or anti-3E stances. Some people prefer OD&D/1E/2E, and they're perfectly entitled to that preference. Evangelising the benefits of the latest ruleset is _also_ soooo 1999.

 

[Kichwas]

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

So you develop a system for winging it or designing on the fly:

PC tries to bluff leathersmith as to the quality of the Gryphan skins he's brought in...

I decide the leathersmith is say... 34.
I give people a level based on their age. I'll assume adulthood starts at 16 for him. My baseline for most fantasy.

So I make him a level 5 commoner.
x=(age - adult) - level n. Repeat until x < n. At which point n= level.

At level 5 he has 8 ranks in his primary career skills. Half that in secondary skills, 1/4 in minor pursuits, and 0 elsewhere. Round down.

My NPCs have a 10 or 11 stat unless I'm making them distinctive in that area.

I'd give the NPC a craft or appraise check and if he passed it I'd make the bluff hard to believe.

, 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...

I've learned the hard way that you should always have a LONG list of premade names on hand and somewhere to write them down who Saterus Lesepar is once you've named him.

No matter what game you run.


Also good to have a chart on hand to generate random appearances.


If you have PCGen and a laptop I recommend keeping it open to the 'Description' screen of a blank character.

It has a random generator there that will give you instant people with names, personalities, and appearance.

(And I added a few hundred entries to this over the last day or so. By next version it will be much more complete than it is now).

Since I don't have a laptop I'm probably going to take the data files for that and turn them into numbered charts I can keep next to my DM screen. Naming NPCs on the fly is one of my big weaknesses as a DM. Like I said; I've learned this the hard way... I can do the rest on the fly and remember it. But I've always been bad with names.


As for handling a detailed system, if I can handle Champions on the fly I can do d20. I've been doing Champions since 85. It was my primary system of choice until I did a comination of find BESM and explore diceless games about a year or so before 3E.

It's really not hard to do. You can use the xonsistancy in game mechanics that comes with these games to help you out.

If you can remember that everything in d20 degenerates down to 'roll a d20 and add mods, high roll is best' then you've dealt with about 80% of the issues.

 

[Kichwas]

...we sometimes tend to descend into a kind of lacklustre clicheland when we lose the plot thread and my current DM wings it...

This is why when I world design I spend so much time on things like daily life, cultural mores, and so on. When I wing it I have in place a huge body of information on how the people in a region are supposed to think and act and I can use that to put together appropriate stereotypes that are consistant and feel like 'real' people with 'real' concerns. It's largely why I also like Kalamar. They've paid the same kinds of attention to all the 'background noise' that give DMs the tools to wing it with consistancy.

I don't try to memorize all this culture information. Rather I try to ;earn it until I have an emotive feel for the people in question, the region, or whatever the relevant subject matter is. Get myself not to where I can quote facts, but to where I can sense stereotypes.

 

[el-remmen]

Arcady suggested

So you develop a system for winging it or designing on the fly:

PC tries to bluff leathersmith as to the quality of the Gryphan skins he's brought in...

I decide the leathersmith is say... 34.
I give people a level based on their age. I'll assume adulthood starts at 16 for him. My baseline for most fantasy.

So I make him a level 5 commoner.
x=(age - adult) - level n. Repeat until x < n. At which point n= level.

At level 5 he has 8 ranks in his primary career skills. Half that in secondary skills, 1/4 in minor pursuits, and 0 elsewhere. Round down.

My NPCs have a 10 or 11 stat unless I'm making them distinctive in that area.

I'd give the NPC a craft or appraise check and if he passed it I'd make the bluff hard to believe.

Seems unduly complicated - I say, just make it up! Present the NPC as believable or unbelievable based on how well the PC in question can "Sense Motive" and forget about die rolling all together and let the player come to his own conclusion - that is how I handle such things - I only use the social skill checks when a players requests it or I am really stuck on what the results of a particular action would be - otherwise it just slows things down and takes the game out of the moment.

 

[Psion]

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.

I was trying to drink in the whole thread before responding, but this one just left me aghast, and I must reply:

Just how the hell do the players know that:
1) the guards are third level warriors?
2) their to-hit bonus is +6?
3) their strength is 12?

If you are telling them these things, you are SO "breaking the fourth wall" that it's not even funny.

Now I can see players saying things like "how are they hitting so much" if they have high ACs and are fighting low level guards. But really, as the GM the only proper answer would be to say "you don't know", or describe in in terms the PC would understand.

But as Clark said, it is REALLY easy to make quick NPCs on the fly. You don't have to pull NPCs out of your arse. You can use the stock NPCs in the DMG, or better yet use the simple thumb rules that best skill = level + 3 and figure the character's best stat is 14 (and bonus from it +2) unless you have a reason to think otherwise.

If YOU as the DM know that the warrior has 12 str and is 3rd level, it should be simple math for YOU to figure out the bonus is +4. You don't need to make up "+6" if you are also making up "third level warriors with 12 strength."