Third Edition Culture- Is is sustainable?

[Akrasia]

In the real world (or as mearls calls it, "meatspace"), IME all these arguments about complexity and things they moan about don't crop up. My group -- and I imagine, most groups -- are just a bunch of people with some character concepts who get together a few times a month to play a game. Most people don't have the time or energy to express the sort of disgruntlement you allude to, nor advocate the system.

I've encountered many DMs in meatspace who have expressed the same frustrations I have, and many players in meatspace who are frustrated by the slow pace of many 3.x games.

Of course most of these people are old quacks like myself. Complaining is natural for us.

 

[Belen]

In the real world (or as mearls calls it, "meatspace), IME all these arguments about complexity and things the moan about don't crop up. My group -- and I imagine, most groups -- are just a bunch of people with some character concepts who get together a few times a month to play a game. Most people don't have the time or energy to express the sort of disgruntlement you allude to, nor advocate the system.

Well, I agree in some sense here. Most gaming groups probably do not worry about a lot of these issues. The weekend warriors just show up to have fun. Although, yet, if asked, would they agree that a simpler game would be a boon? We just do not know.

When I talk to other GMs in my area though, a number have expressed issues with the complexity, at least on the GM-side of the screen, and I have seen a number of people drop out of the game due to lack of time for preparing games that otherwise would still be gaming.

Still others have begun switching to different systems, either older editions of DnD or less complex d20 systems.

It's enough that I noticed what seems like a trend, especially when viewing all the threads on ENWorld lately.

 

[Psion]

I'll also chime in that AFAIAC, 3.x is the best D&D ever. It's given me more tools and more support and a wealth of ideas to build from. I feel less confined, less daunting to do things I want to do. I am much more comfortable ad hoccing because the existing structure gives me a standard.

I attribute this as much to the OGL/d20 licences as I do the more open and flexible system of the game.

 

[fredramsey]

Not everyone views the additional "rules" (I assume most people complain about combat) as a hinderance. I've always found D&D combat prior to 3rd edition to be somewhat laughable in lack of tactics. Everyone stood in one place and wacked on each other until one side was dead.

Now with flanking, tumbling, attacks of opportunity, 5 foot steps, etc., there is so much more richness in tactics and cooperation. It was difficult at first, just as any new system is, but now our combats go very quickly. If someone wants to do something we haven't done before (say, overrun), we look it up quickly, do it, and eventually we have a new technique in our repertoire.

But mostly I would say the unified d20 mechanic has sped up our games tremendously. YMMV.

 

[Psion]

Although, yet, if asked, would they agree that a simpler game would be a boon?

/me flashes back to how cool I thought OTE was going to be back in the day, compared to how cool it really turned out to be.

Players vary, but lots of players like crunch.

When I talk to other GMs in my area though, a number have expressed issues with the complexity, at least on the GM-side of the screen,

I think that complexity on the GM side of the screen is an issue (as I expressed in another thread). It's less of an issue when you take a step back and consider the ratio of time you spend making things compared to time it actually gets used in the game. Then you begin to realize the benefits of "faking it."

This is why, among many other disgruntlements with 3.5, the fact that stock NPCs in the DMG are less "out of the book" friendly is one of the more commonly sited issues people have with the 3.5 DMG.

Savage Worlds, I think, had a noble goal: to have rich detail on the player's side, but have ease of use on the GM side. Alas, it fails. No system that sums up spellcasting capability with just die type is sufficient detail for the type of NPCs I like to create.

and I have seen a number of people drop out of the game due to lack of time for preparing games that otherwise would still be gaming.

Still others have begun switching to different systems, either older editions of DnD or less complex d20 systems.

It's enough that I noticed what seems like a trend, especially when viewing all the threads on ENWorld lately.

I don't think it's a "trend" when you consider the likely long term evolution. I think it's coming off a peak that is to be expected; I imagine we'll settle into an equilibrium. Some people had expectations that weren't met, and moved on.

ENWorld has its share of vocal detractors of the system who can't get over attributes of the system that other people seem to like. And in absence of getting their way, they feel the need to be disruptive to get their point across and "stick it to the man", and constantly (to use an RPGnet term) "threadcrap" and butt in otherwise productive threads to express their dismay at the system not suiting them. I think you estimate a few shrill voices to be rather more significant than they really are, because, well, they want so badly to feel like they are being heard.

 

[Akrasia]

... I feel less confined, less daunting to do things I want to do. I am much more comfortable ad hoccing because the existing structure gives me a standard. ...

While I agree that the coherence of 3E is a good thing -- and could encourage improvisation and creativity -- my own experience has been the complete opposite.

I have found that 3E just involves too many variables (feats, skills, special abilities, different circumstance modifiers, different kinds of ACs, various combat actions, etc.) for my tastes. Even after running one 3.0 campaign up to 7th level, and now a 3.5 campaign (currently at 5th level), I still have not fully 'mastered' all these variables to the point where I feel comfortable simply 'winging it' or coming up with radical rules variants. The fact that 3.x quantifies every aspect of the game makes it difficult to be innovative without generating all kinds of unforeseen consequences.

At this point, I realize that I just feel far more comfortable 'ad hoccing it' and being innovative with a coherent, consistent -- but 'rules lite' -- system. Prepping for 3.x just feels a bit too much like the mathematical logic course I took several years ago -- but without the course credit.

 

[diaglo]

Not everyone views the additional "rules" (I assume most people complain about combat) as a hinderance. I've always found D&D combat prior to 3rd edition to be somewhat laughable in lack of tactics. Everyone stood in one place and wacked on each other until one side was dead.

Now with flanking, tumbling, attacks of opportunity, 5 foot steps, etc., there is so much more richness in tactics and cooperation. It was difficult at first, just as any new system is, but now our combats go very quickly. If someone wants to do something we haven't done before (say, overrun), we look it up quickly, do it, and eventually we have a new technique in our repertoire.

But mostly I would say the unified d20 mechanic has sped up our games tremendously. YMMV.

older editions had flanking, tumbling, AoO, movement, etc...

 

[Berandor]

There are things I really like about D&D - the amount of material, the easy d20 mechanic, the versatility and options...
there are a lot of things I don't like, as well - a lot of these are minor, but I absolutely loath the time combat takes. Combat is just slow.

I'd switch to another system in a heartbeat, I must admit - if not for my group.They're great, and I'm having loads of fun with them. And if the group is right, who cares for the system anymore?

Not me.

 

[Piratecat]

Ditto on the brilliance of Grim Tales.

For me, the best part of 3e is the unified resolution mechanic. I don't give a damn how many rules the game has, because they're all handled in a consistent and intuitive way!* As a result, I seldom have to pick up a rule book while playing, and I love that.

- Piratecat

* Except for turning undead. Turning undead cheeses me off.

 

[Belen]

Not everyone views the additional "rules" (I assume most people complain about combat) as a hinderance. I've always found D&D combat prior to 3rd edition to be somewhat laughable in lack of tactics. Everyone stood in one place and wacked on each other until one side was dead.

Now with flanking, tumbling, attacks of opportunity, 5 foot steps, etc., there is so much more richness in tactics and cooperation. It was difficult at first, just as any new system is, but now our combats go very quickly. If someone wants to do something we haven't done before (say, overrun), we look it up quickly, do it, and eventually we have a new technique in our repertoire.

But mostly I would say the unified d20 mechanic has sped up our games tremendously. YMMV.

My experience has been the opposite. 3e combat has slowed down considerably as people spend more time planning the optimal tactical decisions, counting squares, placing there blast radius just so....

The you have the standard action, the move action, the free action, the swift, action, the immedicate action. This just drains time and it get progressively worse at the levels advance.

Yes, it allows for more tactical options, but makes the combat far more dry and abstract. It really cuts down on cinematic visuals. And it seriously increases metagaming.

Personally, I can go either way. But 2-3 combats literally take about 2-3 hours depending on the level of the party.