The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa

[milotha]

The point, to me, is that it's just a waste of time to even get that far into the rules for most players. The DM needs to know the rules, and a good party should have at least one or two players who are savvy enough to keep the DM on his toes, but really, most players basically only need to know what their characters can and cannot do.

Think about it. Was D&D more or less fun when you first played and didn't know every damn rule?

The fact is, the D&D rules simply aren't that internally consistent or logical, so a lot of pepole feel like it is an unecessary chore to get some meticulously into them. Why can't a 5th level NPC fighter have some kind of bounty hunter background within the core rules that can give him 8 spot ? Why can't he have played hide and seek so much as a child that he heas it (within the core rules)? Because the rules aren't that flexible. Maybe one day they will be. In the meantime, let the DM make it up if it's going to further the plot (if the DM is trying to 'screw over' the players, why not just place dragons and demons in their path instead?)

Until then, lighten up for chrissakes. Use the rules when you need to, the rest of the time, make up your story, role play, adventure, have fun.

I really think this is a major issue of game expansion. A lot of the people I turn on to role playing games enjoy playing but really don't want to bother learning hundreds of pages of rules any more than they want to do other peoples taxes for free.

I remember I had this shocking experience one time when a guy I thought of as an intelligent and sensitive fellow, who happened to be an experienced gamer, started screaming and sneering and insulting my girlfriend and her friend because they didn't know the rules during their first ever time playing an RPG... it was postively freaky.

If you are that deeply into the rules, play some war game like advanced squad leader. Hell, even if I want complicated rules in a role playing game, I will play something like Riddle of Steel which at least has the payoff of combat being realistic to compensate for having to delve that deep into technicalities.

Another funny thing I've noticed, is that one of the reasons people used to play D&D instead of other games is that it was less complicated than the other more specialized games out there. Now it's very complicated, IMO, compared to games like say, Dying Earth RPG. I think this is more due to the culture of the players (I think very influened these days by CRPG's) than the core rules, but I also do think they should revisit the idea of have some kind of sliding scale of complexity, even though they weren't successful at implementing it before (from basic to advanced anyone?) I'd like to at least have a realistic option of letting fairly inexpereineced players roll characters without computer software again...

It's also interesting to consider the old players and the old game designers were more influenced by what you might call the original "core literature" (Tolkein, Vance, Leiber, Zealazny, Moorcock, Lovecraft, Howard) while today, I think Neverwinter Nights, Diablo, Everquest, Icewind Dale etc. are far more of an influence...

JR

I agree with you. I prefered the game when it was simpler.

I've always felt that more rules do not necessarily equate with more fun. I find that the more rules a system has, the more time we spend digging through the book in and out of game play to find rules. This isn't fun for anyone, as I'd prefer to be role playing, designing characters, adventures, and cool NPCs.

The problem with the current system is:

1) They attempted to integrate all the rules. If you don't like one rule, then changing it often results in a cascade of changes. (Ex:If you don't like the current item creation feats, but you feel you need to give something to the wizards to balance them out, now you've got a ton of work to rewrite them. )Then you have to spend time communicating these changes to the players. I know that showing up to a game and being handed another book of house rules can be frustrating.

2) Some of the rules don't seem to have been well play tested or balanced. They just seem to be page filler. Or worse yet, you feel that they way the game was balanced isn't the way that you like to play. I currently feel that the game is heavily balanced towards fighters and combat clerics right now, but most of my players prefer to play wizards, rogues, and noncombat clerics.

3) With every expansion, every new book, you have to keep up with the GM. I've played under several GMs that kept bringing in new material mid campaign. Suddenly, there are new feats and new skills demanded of the players. GM: Make a roll against new skill X to do Y in the campaign. Player: What's skill X? How can I spend ranks in something I didn't know existed a few minutes ago.

4) The addition of having rolls for everything the players do. First, they've added in too many skills with to few skill points and the DCs for the simpliest of actions are all set at 15 and up in most campaigns. Next, I find it incredibly frustrating that the social situations are more likely to be resolved by dice rolls than by role playing. It really makes it seem more wargamey than roleplayey.

 

[ForceUser]

I am a stickler for the rules.

I admit it. I am the definition of the guy you don't want in your group if you are inconsistent on a saving throw DC or an attack roll. Giving an NPC fighter spot and listen as class skills reeks of laziness. That's not meant to be an insult. I have DMed, and generally that kind of thing happens when I am not prepared.

"Fudging" things annoys me. (NPCs should cross-class just like the PCs.)

IMX, whenever a DM has given NPCs unattainable abilities...



...I get irritated.

In Star Wars, they give Luke Skywalker (and all of the Skywalkers) a special ability that lets them be better Jedi than everyone else. That makes me not want to play the game because my character isn't special.

As a player, I want my character to have that special ability, and I want 8 ranks in spot for a 5th level fighter. The game is not believable, fair, or consistent otherwise. All of which I consider important for me to have fun.



In short, I do not enjoy playing house. I prefer tag, which has definite rules.

I hear you. Still, as a DM I'm not averse to tweaking things a bit if I feel it's warranted. I don't do it out of the blue, however. I probably wouldn't give all fighters Spot as a class skill, for instance, but if I'm using the "sneaky fighter" variant from Unearthed Arcana for an NPC (this fighter variant trades away bonus feats and gains sneak attack instead) I might decide it's justified to give this character Spot as a class skill instead of Intimidate. But here's the rub: if a players later wants to play the sneaky fighter variant, I'd offer him Spot as a class skill too. I don't mind going against canon, but I am a strong believer in internal consistency within the framework of my campaign world.

 

[Quasqueton]

I just want to chime here to stand on Firelance's side of this concept.

Quasqueton

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

This isn't about fudging or breaking rules or even being vague with them; it is about houseruling/adding variant options to suit the game.

Then we are talking about two different things.

I have no problem with houserules and/or variant options. I don't mind if 5th level fighters can have spot as a class skill if they give up armor proficiencies as long as the PCs have the same option at the beginning of the campaign.

As long as DMs are being consistent with it. Giving an NPC character class a twinky power that is not available to the PCs bugs me because DMs are supposed to be referees.

But when a DM makes a 5th level NPC fighter with 8 ranks in spot midway through the game, and forcing the players to play the game by the book, it kinda irks me.

The players have to follow the class system (heck, my character should be good at spot, he's always on friggin guard duty), the DM should too.

(I think it's fine to eg give an NPC a +2 DC save bonus to their fire spells if they're a fire mage, balancing that w eg a feat slot & no access to cold spells, just like I think it's fine to make NPC Fighters w Spot as a class skill, balanced by loss of other powers)

I have no problem with this. As long as PCs can do the same thing.

But here's the rub: if a players later wants to play the sneaky fighter variant, I'd offer him Spot as a class skill too. I don't mind going against canon, but I am a strong believer in internal consistency within the framework of my campaign world.

This is an example of good DMing, IMHO.
.
.
.
.
I think one thing needs to be clear: I don't care what the rules are. I don't care who makes the rules. The rules don't have to be "official".

I want the rules to be consistent.

(Making a 2nd level improved sleep spell that only NPCs can learn is aggravating. Letting an NPC wizard have good fortitude saves because he is "tough" is aggravating. Letting every bad guy see you even though you are Night Caste with all of the Stealth charms in Exalted is SO aggravating.)


The Luke Skywalker example is the perfect example of this. The game designers gave him a feat to make him better than a normal character that you can't take unless you are a Skywalker.

Don't even get me started on..

Elminster. Bleh. Chosen of Mystra? Bleh.
.
.
.
Player: "Can I have Spellfire?"

DM: "No."

(First encounter. NPC orc shaman. With spellfire.) ARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!

 

[kamosa]

Then we are talking about two different things.

I have no problem with houserules and/or variant options. I don't mind if 5th level fighters can have spot as a class skill if they give up armor proficiencies as long as the PCs have the same option at the beginning of the campaign.

As long as DMs are being consistent with it. Giving an NPC character class a twinky power that is not available to the PCs bugs me because DMs are supposed to be referees.

But when a DM makes a 5th level NPC fighter with 8 ranks in spot midway through the game, and forcing the players to play the game by the book, it kinda irks me.

The players have to follow the class system (heck, my character should be good at spot, he's always on friggin guard duty), the DM should too.




I have no problem with this. As long as PCs can do the same thing.



This is an example of good DMing, IMHO.
.
.
.
.
I think one thing needs to be clear: I don't care what the rules are. I don't care who makes the rules. The rules don't have to be "official".

I want the rules to be consistent.

(Making a 2nd level improved sleep spell that only NPCs can learn is aggravating. Letting an NPC wizard have good fortitude saves because he is "tough" is aggravating. Letting every bad guy see you even though you are Night Caste with all of the Stealth charms in Exalted is SO aggravating.)


The Luke Skywalker example is the perfect example of this. The game designers gave him a feat to make him better than a normal character that you can't take unless you are a Skywalker.

Don't even get me started on..

Elminster. Bleh. Chosen of Mystra? Bleh.
.
.
.
Player: "Can I have Spellfire?"

DM: "No."

(First encounter. NPC orc shaman. With spellfire.) ARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!

I always feel that consistancy is the wrong standard to use as the balancing factor between the NPC's and PC's. Even if the GM is consistant, the NPC's have unlimited resources and don't have to roleplay the crappy levels of wierdly balanced prestige classes etc. Also, they can put together any combination of monster, levels, and feats and a complish through the rules almost anything that you could complain about not being available to the players.

The real issue isn't if things are equal between the players and NPC's, its whether there is a fair balance of power between the two. Take monster for example. They don't follow PC rules for creation at all. They have extra limbs, special attacks, breath weapons, etc that the players can never hope to have. At the same time, the average PC is much better equiped and comes with a wealth of options to tackle the monsters. So, there is little anger between the players and the GM over monsters.

Where you run into anger is when monsters that are too powerful are run against the players. The TPK and killer GM calls come out quick. "What were we supposed to do against that" replaces the usual, "good game" comments at the end of the session. Suddenly that attack the monster did isn't fun, it's unbalanced and unfair.

In short, if you have good GM-Player trust, it works, and if you don't it blows up.

I've seen the game that causes you to post like above, and I know what your driving at. I just don't know if "equal" is the cure all your hoping it would be.

 

[Snoweel]

I always feel that consistancy is the wrong standard to use as the balancing factor between the NPC's and PC's. Even if the GM is consistant, the NPC's have unlimited resources and don't have to roleplay the crappy levels of wierdly balanced prestige classes etc. Also, they can put together any combination of monster, levels, and feats and a complish through the rules almost anything that you could complain about not being available to the players.

Don't forget that NPCs are only taking part in the story for as long as the PCs are in contact with them.

The end result of this is that they don't have to conserve their resources the way PCs do and they don't have to survive through X number of encounters to gain a level - their power level (CR for NPCs as opposed to ECL for PCs) is completely arbitrary whereas the PCs gain one level at a time through adventure after adventure after adventure.

As long as DMs are being consistent with it. Giving an NPC character class a twinky power that is not available to the PCs bugs me because DMs are supposed to be referees.

But when a DM makes a 5th level NPC fighter with 8 ranks in spot midway through the game, and forcing the players to play the game by the book, it kinda irks me.

The crux of the argument is CR vs ECL. Have a look in the Monster Manual - CR and ECL are often different.

PCs are balanced against each other by ECL. That's what ECL is for.

NPCs on the other hand, aren't intended to be balanced against the PCs - they are intended to be balanced purely by the xp awarded from defeating them. This is called CR. Some NPCs are just plain much tougher than the PCs - they are VASTLY UNBALANCED. But should the PCs defeat them, they'll get a metric ****load of experience points. The CR system - intended to 'balance' NPCs. Not PCs.

The players have to follow the class system (heck, my character should be good at spot, he's always on friggin guard duty), the DM should too.

Dude, it's not a competition.

 

[Belen]

But when a DM makes a 5th level NPC fighter with 8 ranks in spot midway through the game, and forcing the players to play the game by the book, it kinda irks me.

This is just plain wrong. You justed asked the GM to stat out every NPC for an entire campaign before he begins the camapign, then show those NPCs etc to the players, so the players know what abilities they have, and thus, have the opportunity to take them.

The entire point of DnD combat is to challenge the PCs in new and interesting ways. The understood point of 3e is to be able to come up with non-standard enemies, so that a goblin is not a goblin is not a goblin.

NPCs are PC snack food anyway, so what does it matter is a fighter had the ability to spot you. In most cases, the PCs will never even know he had that ability!

It's all about trust. What you're saying is that you do not trust the GM to come up with a fun and interesting game without adherring to the rules.

In my experience, the type of players who have that attitude know the rules extremely well and know exactly how to use them to gather the most power, the best builds etc. They use the rules to "beat" the GM and if the GM deviates, then they cry foul because they did not have the opportunity to "build" their character to beat the GM in that instance.

Personally, I am not a rules lawyer. I can use all the standard rules, but I could not tell you how this ability enhances that ability in order to be super rogue etc. If I have a limited time during the week and I need to spend time on something other than mechanics, then I may make a quick and dirty NPC instead of spending hours lovingly crafting one mook that the PCs will kill in a few rounds.

 

[S'mon]

In my campaigns, the PCs are special because they're the stars of the show, not because they've been given better stats, better treasure, etc. than the NPCs.

You don't use the PC-wealth-by-level table? Do you use 25 point buy or 3/4d6? - Unless you use 3d6 assign in order they must still be better than the truly 'average' NPC, even if most of their opposition are Elite.

Sometimes IMC the PCs have less wealth than NPCS, they usually have better stats but some BBEGs may be better. They're always the stars, though.

 

[S'mon]

Well said BelenU, I agree w you completely. GMs are always having to bring in new stuff during a campaign, as it develops. I have evil NPC Necromancer Red Wizards IMC and the PCs don't know their powers - heck, *I* don't know all their powers since they're not fully converted from 1e/2e yet. I'll detail it when necessary in play. My intent though is that Red Wizards are and will remain NPCs, which means no PC will likely be able to gain their abilities. I don't let players play Death Slaads either.

It is indeed all about trust. If you don't trust the GM to GM I can't see why you'd want to play an RPG. As a skirmish wargame, D&D is pretty mediocre.

 

[tetsujin28]

To me, the situation is more that, to quote Ron Edwards, System does Matter. A lot of these kind of 'problems' come up not from a game itelf being 'wrong' or overly complex, but from people choosing the wrong system for the game they want to play.