Third Edition Culture- Is is sustainable?

[Rasyr]

Yet I still GM 3e. I just love DnD too much to quit, even if 3e is not really DnD. However, for the very first time, I am considering trying a new system. This will probably be Castles and Crusades for a more DnD-like game, while I will go with Blue Rose for the ladies.

While, I personally see nothing wrong with d20 as a whole, I do agree with you that there bits about it that I have a few pet peeves about (in fact, I think I will start another thread just to see who has what sort of pet peeves. ). No system is perfect for everybody.

You mention above that you are considering trying another system. I have another suggestion for you to possibly consider along with C&C and Blue Rose. Think about giving HARP a try. It isn't d20, however it is a percentile-based system, and works much in the same way (many of the concepts in HARP were drawn from Rolemaster, not from d20 - but both systems work in much the same manner).

On the HARP website -- http://www.harphq.com -- you will find a lot of downloads, including a character generation guide, the entirety of the combat chapter, the monster section, and even guidelines for playing HARP with just a d20 rather than percentile dice.

HARP even won a Silver Ennie this past year, and one of the judges (Teflon Billy, IIRC) has even said that HARP does D&D better than d20 does. (which I thought was cool!!) He even said that he is using HARP to run games for his 11 year old daughter and her friends. IIRC, he said this because he considered d20 a bit too complex for them.

Additionally, over on the ICE forums, there is a small group of HARP players who are working on creating conversion notes/rules/guidelines for using HARP in a Forgotten Realms campaign.

Guess I will stop the shameless plug now...

Seriously, if you are not having fun GMing, then you do need to figure out some way to restore the fun. Either by adjusting the rules to ones that you like better (a monumental task perhaps), or by finding another system (or variation of the d20 system) that you do enjoy.

 

[fredramsey]

Every hobby, passtime, and profession has "jargon". Go ask your painter friend what kind of canvas he's using, or explain why he likes the particular brand of oils that he bought last.

I always tell people that D&D takes "Hours to explain, 1/2 hour to learn by playing." And it's always worked out that way.

But my problem with a lot of posters on this thread is that they seem to want to see 3rd Edition taken off the shelves. That's where I draw the line. If you don't like 3rd Edition D&D, don't play it. But don't try to prevent me and others like me from playing it.

If you don't like what's on that radio station, turn the dial; that's what it is there for. Don't like a book? Don't read it.

The right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.

Most people just don't think in the detailed, analytic, gameist way 3E asks DMs and players to. Lots of existing roleplayers like rules. You show 1000 pages of rules to ordinary people, and they just blank out. It really takes a very specific mentality to fit into the D&D culture. That's fine for those who do think that way, but people who would greatly enjoy RPGs -- people who work in the arts and enjoy other fictional media -- are blocked out from the first by the alienness of the insular, jargon-ridden, d20-driven RPG culture.

Now, I'm aware of the risk of talking about 'most people'! But does anyone really disagree?

 

[Belen]

Most people just don't think in the detailed, analytic, gameist way 3E asks DMs and players to. Lots of existing roleplayers like rules. You show 1000 pages of rules to ordinary people, and they just blank out. It really takes a very specific mentality to fit into the D&D culture. That's fine for those who do think that way, but people who would greatly enjoy RPGs -- people who work in the arts and enjoy other fictional media -- are blocked out from the first by the alienness of the insular, jargon-ridden, d20-driven RPG culture.

Now, I'm aware of the risk of talking about 'most people'! But does anyone really disagree?

Very true statement. Gaming terrified my wife at first because of the complex rules and jargon. She never would have played, except that I was insistant, she liked the idea of role playing and story telling, and I took a lot more time explaining things to her than I would for someone else.

 

[Psion]

Most people just don't think in the detailed, analytic, gameist way 3E asks DMs and players to. Lots of existing roleplayers like rules. You show 1000 pages of rules to ordinary people, and they just blank out. It really takes a very specific mentality to fit into the D&D culture. That's fine for those who do think that way, but people who would greatly enjoy RPGs -- people who work in the arts and enjoy other fictional media -- are blocked out from the first by the alienness of the insular, jargon-ridden, d20-driven RPG culture.

Now, I'm aware of the risk of talking about 'most people'! But does anyone really disagree?

Disagree that most people don't think that way? If I had to hazard a guess, I would estimate that they don't. But then, I don't agree that mindset is needed. The sorts of people that post in the "character optimization" boards on the WotC site are in the minority. I don't have, and can't claim to have had in any of the campaigns that I have run, a player concerned about a "build" or putting together a "smackdown." Only one ever came close. I can claim to say, however, that most of my players seem to enjoy the game from week to week.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Some people want different things from their RPG's. Some look at D&D as a roleplaying game focusing on plot and character. Some look it as a wargame with concrete rules that they can exploit to make the most powerful character in the game. Some look at it as tactical war gaming. Most players probably incorporate all three elements to varying degrees.

Ultimately the game is only fun if the players and the DM are fairly agreeable as to how the game will be played. I don't have alot of the problems mentioned because my players and I agree that the game needs some changes to be fun for us. My players are usually open to at least trying House rules, which makes things easier for me. Luckily my players do like some semblance of verisimilitude so they work with me and I them to arbitrate in-game situations in a way that seems somewhat realistic, logical, and fair.

Most of the problems in D&D only exist when players and DMs don't agree. The game is fine. It is fairly balanced and contrary to what some believe, "The rules do serve the game" and not vice versa. Rule 0 is still the prime rule of the game. Any WotC designer will tell you that if asked. Every one of them probably has their own set of house rules.

 

[Belen]

Disagree that most people don't think that way? If I had to hazard a guess, I would estimate that they don't. But then, I don't agree that mindset is needed. The sorts of people that post in the "character optimization" boards on the WotC site are in the minority. I don't have, and can't claim to have had in any of the campaigns that I have run, a player concerned about a "build" or putting together a "smackdown." Only one ever came close. I can claim to say, however, that most of my players seem to enjoy the game from week to week.

My old group had three optimizers. They competed with each other. It was sad, and frightening for those of us who wanted to have a fun, simple game.

 

[D+1]

Like you Belenumeria, I am amazed at the gap between "theory" and "practice" in d20. When I first read through the 3E books 4 years ago, I thought the "unified mechanic" solved so many problems. Two campaigns (as DM) later, it has proven to be the slowest FRPG I have ever played -- and has certainly involved more rules consultation than any other. (That problem, of course, gradually diminished over time, although it has always been a bit of a race between greater familiarity with the rules, and greater options available to PCs and NPCs at higher levels).

IME the problem of slowness really isn't a system problem though - it's a player problem. Even if your players AREN'T slowpokes unable to decide upon actions quickly and enthusiastically 3E is simply not other editions and in some ways it cannot be compared to them because of it. Slowness of playing out combats is an example.

In the good(bad?) ol' days combat was fast, plentiful, and LIFELESS. It was, as one poster noted, largely a matter of two sides lining up and beating on each other thorugh a rapid series of die rolls. There were virtually NO tactical options built into the rules. That isn't to say they couldn't be handled, only that the rules themselves largely ignored tactics of any kind other than that prompted by the basic mathematics of dice results. Movement in previous editions was, "I run from A to B," and you either succeeded or the DM determined that you were prevented at some point. Movement now involves noting a more precise route to get from A to B and the DM determines what additional consequences (AoO) are involved rather than just yes/no it's allowed. Distances of movement are also a fraction of what they were before which in a meta-game sense physically forces more interaction on a tactical level.

Combat before was, "roll dice to hit, roll dice for damage, lather, rinse, repeat." Combat now involves a wide selection of feats and abilities that often apply at different times and in varying ways requiring tactical consideration of how to maximize the value of those abilities.

In short 3E combat is DIFFERENT than it used to be because the game has fundamentally restructured how it works.

But then the games pacing of multiple battles has also changed. Unlike earlier editions which were marked more by the sheer quantity of opponents and battles, 3E instead features fewer battles, with VASTLY greater consequences upon the advancement of characters, all against FAR fewer opponents, but with much more complex tactics and abilities of participants. Now whether you LIKE that, dislike it or downright HATE it, it is the 3E paradigm. Because that paradigm is so divergent from previous edtions you just can't compare pre- and post-3e and declare one to be manifestly superior in that aspect of the game - you can only express a preference.

3E D&D accomplished two things.
It gave the game: (1.) a more consistent rules system (the 'unified mechanic' of d20, etc.).
But, in order to play the game, it required: (2.) much more game data (just compare an average statblock for 3E with a statblock for any other edition of the game).

I applaud 3E for accomplishing (1.).
I loathe it for accomplishing (2.).

(1.) Encourages creativity and DM innovation.
(2.) Discourages creativity and DM innovation (as any change affects many other aspects of the game, and has all kinds of "unintended consequences"). And dealing with (2.) is a complete time suck. Maybe if I were still in high-school, or an undergraduate, (2.) would not be a problem. But it is for me now, in my 30s.

There are two primary means of reducing/eliminating (2).

The first is to SIMPLIFY the game that you're playing. If you run straight-up core-rules 3E, stop trying to add new options with every supplement that hits the shelves(and stop letting PLAYERS bring in new supplements every week as if they were video game powerups) I'd just about guarantee an easier to handle DM prep situation. The second is to avoid the higher levels of the game. You'll get no argument from me that levels in the teens and up are FAR more complex in 3E to prep and to PLAY. Characters and NPC's end up with SO many options they become overwhelming. But the trick is that nobody every said you HAD to go there. My current campaign features slower-than-normal advancement rates for PC's and has no anticipated NPC that will be much higher than 10th - and the 10th+ level types will effectively already be world-renowned. Once the PC's reach that level (if ever) I anticipate most of them moving from active adventuring. The campaign itself will not be designed to move much further for such PC's.

Given my limited time and natural inclinations, (2.) has proven to be a major pain. Others with far more free time than myself, and/or a more "gearheady mindset", obviously disagree.

Stop playing with gearheads then, or stop trying to accomodate them and kill the fun of the game for yourself. Just because the system CAN be a tweak-fest doesn't mean is has to be or even SHOULD be.

I still love D&D! Just I just need a more 'rules lite' version. (This is why I'm giving C&C a shot next time.)

One of the other things about 3E is that by having more rules integrated into its structure I've noticed so many gamers - most notably the old-timers - focusing on the rules and forgetting that it was their imaginations that used to fire their interest in the game itself. The requirement of previous versions to constantly invent new rules and try to fix the system as a whole, the need to simply envision or describe the tactical aspects of combat that are now built in, these things fostered creativity. Too many people now seem to mistakenly think that it's rulemongering that suffices for creativity, when the new rules were really intended to channel that creativity to ROLEplaying, not ROLLplaying

 

[Akrasia]

Just curious Akrasia - when you say "the slowest system you've encountered", do you refer specifically to combat, or to more than that?
...

Mainly the combat system (and I played MERP back in the day). Granted, this problem improves somewhat over time, as we all become more familiar with the rules. But these gains are unfortunately undermined by the additional options that higher-level PCs have (and their higher-level NPC opponents), which often take time to resolve, require rules consultation, etc. Also, many combats are impossible for us to resolve without battlemats and figures, and setting those up invariably suck up time.

More generally, keeping track of 5+ NPCs (with different class abilities, feats, spells, magic abilities) can be quite taxing for myself qua DM. Often the game slows down because I need to check something, determine the effects of different spells 'behind the screen' and so forth. (The same goes for some of the players, but they are generally much more familiar with their one PC than I am with the cast of many NPCs in any given adventure.)

That DM'ing 3.x D&D is time consuming in terms of preparation work goes without saying. And frankly, this really is my main irritation with 3.x D&D. I just hate most of the prep work I have to do for the game.

I would rather spend my DM 'prep time' designing new towns, interesting plots, distinctive NPCs (in terms of backstory and personality, not stats), new cults or guilds, and so forth. In contrast, generating NPCs and, to a lesser extent, monsters -- and then writing up their statblocks, etc. -- bores me to death. As does checking the rules in case I want to put the PCs in a very unusual situation in an adventure.

Other DMs enjoy this aspect of prepping for 3.x (including one in my group). I am happy to be a player in their campaigns -- especially if they can keep the game moving at a brisk pace.

But as a DM, prepping for 3.x D&D (and, to a lesser extent, running the sessions) just isn't as fun as it should be. I like my campaign, but I know that other systems play to my strengths as a GM far more than 3.x, and so that is where I am going.

Some of my players were upset when I announced that I just could not keep DM'ing 3.x D&D, as they are really enjoying our campaign. But I just can't keep doing it. If that makes me selfish, so be it.
:\

 

[Psion]

He even said that he is using HARP to run games for his 11 year old daughter and her friends. IIRC, he said this because he considered d20 a bit too complex for them.

My 8-yo (7 at the time) daughter wanted to play a game, so I ran one for her. I figured I would simplify things for her by simply letting her pick out the appropriate number of skills and then just max out those skills, instead of worrying about max ranks and distributing skill points and all that jazz.

That lasted one level. She immediately caught on to the way that things are supposed to be done and wanted to distribute her skills the way she wanted as of 2nd level.

Ever since then, I have taken protestations about the alleged complexity of 3e with a salt-lick's worth of salt.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

My solution would be a unified mechanic covering advanced combat. A single roll and opposed roll. You can even keep the AoO in there, but the AoO does not cause the action to fail. Then you eleminate the feats that break this rule such as Improved Grapple etc. This allows for option and simplicity. A bull rush is the same as a grapple is the same as an overrun is the same as action x. Every player and GM knows that simple mechanic.

A feat should be more like a modular class ability. It should always work, not just when a condition is right. For instance, point blank shot? Why not just have a feat that allows +1 to hit/damage with range weapons regardless of the 30 feet? One way, you count squares and need to remember a mod. The other way, you add it to your BaB regardless and it is always there.

I agree the rules regarding grappling are a little wonky. Fortunately, it doesn't come up much in my games.

I disagree a whole bunch with feats being reduced to modular class abilities. Situational variations are one of the things I love most about 3E.

The heart of an RPG (IMHO) is choices. Do I take this feat or that feat? Skill point here or there? Close to get the +1 to the bow attack, or stay further back to keep the orc from attacking me?