Third Edition Culture- Is is sustainable?

[Desdichado]

Uh, that's clearly after the Bull Rush attempt has been made, not in making the attempt itself. You do provoke an AoO in making the attempt unless you have the Improved Bull Rush Feat.

His, admittedly very succint, summary of the rules exactly matches the description on the SRD. I don't see how you're saying he got it wrong and is screwing over anyone who has IBR.

 

[eyebeams]

Uh, that's clearly after the Bull Rush attempt has been made, not in making the attempt itself. You do provoke an AoO in making the attempt unless you have the Improved Bull Rush Feat.

His, admittedly very succint, summary of the rules exactly matches the description on the SRD. I don't see how you're saying he got it wrong and is screwing over anyone who has IBR.

You can't see the difference between 1 accrued AoO attempt and up to 3 (2 for the attacker and 1 for the defender)? Er . . . OK. The difference between them is certainly apparent to players.

 

[Desdichado]

Sorry, but, as I said, barsoomcore's summary of the rule exactly matches the rule I pulled up and posted earlier. If you like, I can post the Improved Bull Rush feat as well. In fact, I think I will:

IMPROVED BULL RUSH [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack.
Benefit: When you perform a bull rush you do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender. You also gain a +4 bonus on the opposed Strength check you make to push back the defender.
Special: A fighter may select Improved Bull Rush as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Sorry, but that doesn't address AoOs for moving as a result of the Bull Rush, only for the AoO that you'd get from the defender.

 

[francisca]

For those of you DMing 3.X and finding frustrations, I feel your pain. Here are some bits of advice on certain topics:

On NPC creation and the amount of time it requires to "do it right by the book":
OK, decide right now: Do your players trust you or not? This is important. Do they trust you to provide them with a challenging adventure which is neither a cakewalk nor a meatgrinder? If they do, you are fine. Don't spend time detailing out the street urchin who cuts their purse. Decide what level you think the urchin should be, and max out sleight of hand skill. Guestimate HP and decide if he should have a Dex bonus. That's it. You are done. Don't sweat the rest of the skill points and feats. The point is to have the urchin pick the pocket and run, or to get caught and move the game along. If your players trust you, they won't ask for a skill point audit of the NPCs. If they do, they don't trust you, and you either need to win their trust or find a new group. If they don't trust you, you're not going to have much fun anyway. Having said that all of that, if you have a feature NPC, notably recurring villians, hell yes stat them out.

On the "simple mechanic, just roll and add mods" issue:
Yep. The devil is in the details. There are tons of mods, some which stack, some which don't, synergy bonuses, and circustantial bonuses. Some are hard to remember. Suck it up and get used to it, it's part of the game. However, having your players do some of the bookeeping can go a long way towards making the game run smoother. Have them put a die out which shows the number of rounds remaining on bless. Before you roll for initiative, remind everyone to decrement spell effect round counts. If you really are frustrated with this aspect of the game, maybe an earlier edition would be better suited to you. And don't take offense just because some joker on a message board waxes on about he'd never go back to an earlier version of the game. It's irrelevent to you and your group.

Combat taking forever:
Yes. It does. If you are having fun, it shouldn't seem like it, however. As someone playing 1E AD&D, DMing Basic/Expert and 3.5, I can tell you that they all take a while. The older editions take less time due to 3.X's "what the hell skill synergy applies here" stuff, but 3E combat does get faster with experience, just as it did with older editions.

At this point, I'm just going to point to my sig, and walk away.

 

[barsoomcore]

eyebeams, I'm sorry if I'm not being clear. I'm trying to put forward two basic positions:

1. A ruleset that is logically and consistently implemented tends to have rules that more often mirror DMs off-the-cuff rulings, which encourages DMs to continue making such rulings.

2. The practice of making off-the-cuff rulings tends to diminish the reward for knowing the rules, because even in the case where the ruling is SIMILAR, it will often not be EXACT, and so rules knowledge that only applies to the exact and not the similar is rendered worthless.

My point is that 3e, since it encourages off-the-cuff rulings by being more or less consistently and logically implemented, cannot be said to unproblematically reward rules knowledge.

I'm not saying it DOESN'T reward rules knowledge. I'm saying it both rewards rules knowledge (by having a large number of modifiers that can be applied to any given situation) and "anti-rewards" it (by encouraging DMs to make off-the-cuff rulings which will, as you point out, diminish the value of rules knowledge in some cases).

Does that make my position clearer? Does it make it clear that it was kind of my POINT that my off-the-cuff ruling, though similar, wasn't exact and would render useless certain rules knowledge? That was my point, I'm sorry it wasn't clear.

 

[Akrasia]

The issue here is that a more general system is less completely defined. ...
But the simple matter is that, the less completely you have defined what exactly each of your character's capabilities

For some reason, you seem to assume that "more general" means "less defined".

I assure you, this assumption is completely unwarranted.

Imagine a very simple legal system: any violent crime is punished with death; any property crime is punished with a prison term of 10 years.

This is a very "lite" legal system. It is very general. But it is not lacking in "definition"! The punishment is very clear for both classes of crimes.

It is only when you construct a more complex legal system, with many nuances and caveats, that greater room appears for inconsistencies, as well as a greater need for "judgement calls".

... the more situations will crop that will make you make a decision at the table. And the more such decisions you have to rely on that are not codified, the more likely you are to make different rulings from time to time. ...

But you see, it is possible for a rules-lite system to codify the ways in which different tasks and situations are resolved. They just provide more general mechanisms -- i.e. rules that cover a greater number of cases.

I direct you back to my earlier post, where I contrasted two different ways to resolve non-combat tasks (a 'rules lite' system, and a 'rules heavy-ish' system). Nothing you have said rebuts the force of that example. Or check out my even 'liter' system below.

That will result in less consistency unless you codify your decisions (which is de facto extending the rules) or you have a vice-like memory (which is also extending the rules, with the additional disadvantage that the players do not have accessed to the codified calls.) That's a fact.

Sorry, but is not a fact. Again, you can have a very parsimonious and consistent rules system.

E.g. Imagine a game in which all mental tasks are resolved by making a "mind" ability score roll, and all physical tasks are resolved by making a "body" ability score roll. Here we have a very simple system -- two ability scores, and two ways in which these scores are used to resolve different tasks.

I fail to see why such a system is any less "consistent" than 3E D&D. Sure, I suppose you have to make a "judgement call" as to whether breaking down a door is a "mental" or "physical" task -- but you also have to make these kinds of (usually obvious) judgement calls in 3E.

The other issue (and one I had with Dream Park as well, and this goes ten times for games like Over The Edge) is that the fewer widgets you have to define your character, the more "pixelated" the acting definition of the character is. When all wizards with a 15 intelligence have the exact same intelligence have the exact same chance to puzzle out a script, that is too hazily defined for my tastes.

Of course, this is a completely separate issue.

But sure, if you define you character primarily by stats, rules-lite games will not be your thing. Other players prefer to define their characters primarily by personalities, backgrounds, goals, and so forth. Those kinds of players are less bothered by the "fewer widgets". In fact, "fewer widgets" can sometimes promote improvisation and creativity.

 

[Turjan]

@Akrasia: I fully understand what you say, and that's completely right. Actually, I already got this the last time when you explained it .

Anyway, I think you and Psion have a problem regarding semantics. The term you were fighting about was "robustness". Unfortunately, this term is not so well defined, at least not in a unique way. You use "robust" in the sense of "simple, but defined". Simple systems don't tend to break, because there are not so many parts that can break. I suppose, Psion used the term "robust" in the way that the system is constructed in a way it can deal with many different situations without exceeding its limits. This time, "robust" means "complete enough to deal with all circumstances".

I suppose, you two are talking at cross-purposes .

 

[Ron]

Technically, I think that Akrasia is right, as robust, at least in statistics, means something that might work beyond its work specifications. When I say a method is robust, I say it can be used (with care) even if some of its assumptions are violated.

Back to D&D, I would rather play a simpler game than a complex one. I have no problem in creating new rules or assigning modifiers to any situation possible in no time. I have a huge problem memorizing rules to all possible situations. But that's me, it's obvious that a single system cannot be appropriated to all kind of players.

 

[Ron]

When I say "might work beyond its work specifications", I mean giving consistent results. Obviously, you can do something like this with a less robust technique, but the results will not be consistent.

 

[Belen]

My point is that 3e, since it encourages off-the-cuff rulings by being more or less consistently and logically implemented, cannot be said to unproblematically reward rules knowledge.

I seriously disagree here. 3e in no way encourages off the cuff rulings. This may the way you run the game, but I have yet to sit or run in any formal 3e game where strict following of the rules was not demanded.

3e encourages rules mastery. A player who has become savvy with the rules can be 100 times more effective in 3e. Obviously, this sells books because the players need to keep mastering the new rules and options that appear.

Rules mastery is the ultimate goal of 3e as designed/ implied by WOTC itself. This is what they want. Period. This is the culture that they breed. You just have to look at the RPGA to really see this. In fact, try taking the herald level DM test. That alone will make my point.

In a majority of the 3e games I have seen, those who have not mastered the rules are second class players. The game and the culture rewards people who master the rules and can be "effective" or "optimal."