What was so bad about DMing 3x?

[Midknightsun]

It sounds like you have had some problem players. I guess that I have been lucky not to have such players. Actually, I had one such player while running another RPG and the other players kicked him out before I got the chance.
Anyway, I would suggest not playing with problem players. If you choose to do so, it is not the rules fault.

Actually, my point is that the rules, IME, encourage this behavior. And while I have had a few problem players, even my good ones lean in this direction. Disagree with me if you will, but don't infer that my opinion of the system is not valid one.

 

[Kraydak]

I'll give a real easy example of why DMing 3.5 is tough work:

Look at the 3.5 MM entry for the Derro. Unless you have a photographic memory, you must open a total of 3 books to understand and use this CR2 monster.

1. The MM itself
2. The PHB for the "Sound Burst" spell (which all Derro have)
3. The DMG for monstrous spider poison (that Derro use)

So just to see if I want to use this particular monster, I have to spread 3 hard back books open before me to gather all the info needed at once. Pain in the rear... especially for a CR 2 monster.

Interestingly, this is *not* a mechanics complaints, but rather a presentation complaint. It most certainly is valid, but is not an *edition* complaint exactly.

Now, the way that the CR system is designed, a single Derro is a good fight for a party of 4 2nd level characters. Yet, the Derro has like 11 hp? 14hp? Sure, IF the Derro is hidden, jumps out and does a BackStab (with poison), and then Sound Bursts the remaining party... I guess that would be a good fight. Once. And only if the Derro rolled good on everything, and even then he'd only last another round before it went down.

Again, it's a lot of work to look up and use a simple CR 2 monster who wont live 2 rounds on his own. Let's not even get into adding PC classes with level appropriate magic gear...

A CR=APL encounter is *designed* to be a cake-walk. The above is, in fact, a compliment to the system! The fact that 3e's CR system has been unfairly criticized for its entire existence is, again, a mark against 3e's presentation, not the mechanics themselves. The CR mechanics, when used correctly, are astoundingly good for the (near impossible) job of measuring threats given the huge innate and situational power fluctuations that exist in DnD.

 

[Mark Hope]

Exactly, make up what you need, when you need it. Welcome to 4E.

Or welcome to 3e. Or 2e. Or 1e. Or B/X/BECMI. Or any other rpg under the sun.

No game requires slavish adherence to the RAW. Sure, no game is without its flaws, but common sense should prevail.

 

[Greg K]

Exactly, make up what you need, when you need it. Welcome to 4E.

Unfortunately, as written, the 1/2 level bonus to skills (or whatever the bonus is going to be) gets in the way (yes, I can ignore it, but that does not change that it exists and, imo, sucks).

 

[JeffB]

we're sacrificing an integral part of what makes D&D fun (the complexity of the rule-set)

whoa whoa whoa....speak for yourself

The "fun" , as you put it, drove me away from playing the game.

 

[Mark Hope]

Interestingly, this is *not* a mechanics complaints, but rather a presentation complaint. It most certainly is valid, but is not an *edition* complaint exactly.

A CR=APL encounter is *designed* to be a cake-walk. The above is, in fact, a compliment to the system! The fact that 3e's CR system has been unfairly criticized for its entire existence is, again, a mark against 3e's presentation, not the mechanics themselves. The CR mechanics, when used correctly, are astoundingly good for the (near impossible) job of measuring threats given the huge innate and situational power fluctuations that exist in DnD.

This comment about presentation is highly relevant. As I mentioned in an earlier post, 3e has suffered from a lack of clear indication that the RAW are open to abuse and reinterpretation as the DM sees fit. Sure, there's Rule 0, but you need more than that. A lack of solid DMing advice until late in the edition's lifespan was a real problem, imho.

(And yeah, a CR=APL critter is expected to last about three rounds in a knockdown fight - an oft-overlooked fact.)

 

[HeinorNY]

Or welcome to 3e. Or 2e. Or 1e. Or B/X/BECMI. Or any other rpg under the sun.

No game requires slavish adherence to the RAW. Sure, no game is without its flaws, but common sense should prevail.

I know, but there is a BIG difference between:
-Adjusting the rules to suffice our DMing style, staying away from RAW when you don't need it;
-Having rules that fully support our DMing style, that give us even better tools.

I see no reason to be a rebel, I prefer the later

 

[kennew142]

For monsters this isn't much of an issue (except when a player plays a monster). Its more important for NPCs. There it simply hurts immersion when the NPC can do thinks that the PCs never could or the other way around.

And for every stat you leave out you restrict the options the player have. For example what happens if the PCs manage to lure an NPC into a pit trap? Now it would be good to know what climb skill this NPC has. Without the rules for it it simply becomes an arbitrary DM decision which will mostly based on what the plot needs and not on the real capabilities of the NPC. For me this is a lesser form of railroading.

The point is that they aren't necessarily to include in the stat block. If you want NPCs to be built the same way PCs are, you just have to use the default 1/2 level + stat mod (+5 if trained). I don't see why these types of skills have to be specified in the stat block in order to use them.

Of course, in 4e there is no rule preventing you from statting out every NPC as if they were a PC. We've been told by the designers that this is an option, and that it will be no harder than it was in 3e.

Mainly what we are talking about here is a difference in GMing styles. IMC (even in 4e), I will stat out all of the important/recurring characters. It is the mooks, henchmen and other folks who will get the abbreviated treatment. For me, the demands of the plot/story/fun are more important than what may or may not have been written down on a sheet of paper as I was preparing the scenario.

What follows is personal, but not intended to be insulting in any way.

The issue I, and several other, posters have is that sometimes your posts come across as too authoritative. On many occcasions you refer to things other GMs do differently from you as 'railroading' or 'playing hack & slash' or 'playing a video game on paper.' There is no one right way to run or play an rpg. Making statements that imply that everyone else's style is inferior, can provoke a reaction.

Since there is nothing stopping a GM from writing up extremely detailed character sheets for NPCs in 4e, the point seems to be that those who don't want to should be forced to do so, or they are just hacking and slashing at their keyboards.

No monster in 3e has ranks in every skill. If a situation came up, the GM would have to adjudicate it, or pull a default number out of the core mechanics of the system. 4e would seem to be no different in this regard.

 

[Mark Hope]

I know, but there is a BIG difference between:
-Adjusting the rules to suffice our DMing style, staying away from RAW when you don't need it;
-Having rules that fully support our DMing style, that give us even better tools.

There's a difference, but whether it's a big difference depends on your perspective. If you're a new GM then it makes a whole load of difference (and, as one of 4e's stated goals is to attract new players, then making the rules more accessible out of the gate is very important.) But if you're not new to D&D (or, specifially, 3e) and have followed the growth of the edition, then your learning curve may well have allowed you to absorb its development at a reasonable rate. Knowing which rules you want to keep for whatever game you are running is an easy decision to make. Sometime I scale the complexity up, sometimes down. So from my perspective, there is almost no difference at all between the two scenarios you mention.

It's entirely a matter of preference and taste, of course. I wouldn't dream of introducing a new player to late-edition 3e, with all its bells and whistles, hell no! But then, that's not a concern of mine. I'm very happy with the edition. Yes, it has incredible complexities, but they are easy to discard and the game does not suffer as a result, imho. For new gamers, 4e may well be a better choice. More power to them. I'm not a 4e hater at all, as you may be able to tell (and if not, I'm not writing as clearly as I should) - I'm just a gamer who has found a system flexible enough to suit his needs: 3.5 alive .

 

[kennew142]

Removed double post.