What was so bad about DMing 3x?

[helium3]

There is no explicit guidance, no, and this is yet again a failing of presentation. But there is plenty of implicit guidance. Where monsters are concerned, there are 5 Monster Manuals (plus numerous other WotC and 3rd-party books) that give examples of what sort of stats a monster of a given CR could have. With these examples it is no big deal to eyeball your own.

It's unfortunate that the section on advancing monsters and giving them special abilities, and then estimating CR is tacked on in an appendix.

 

[Mark Hope]

It's unfortunate that the section on advancing monsters and giving them special abilities, and then estimating CR is tacked on in an appendix.

Agreed. I still find that a PITA to navigate to this day. It should almost have been its own chapter in the DMG.

 

[Dausuul]

Yeah. Cross-referencing is a royal PITA, but nothing is going to fix that except (a) a VASTLY pared down rule-set or some sort of computer program.

Or, the practice of not assigning a lot of spells and abilities to monsters that require cross-referencing.

 

[Set]

There are several factors:
1) Level. High level means more feats, magic items, classes/PrCs, skills and spells to choose in char gen. In combat there are more options, more attacks and way more buffs to keep track of. Dispel on a highly buffed char is particularly time consuming.

True. Our games rarely go beyond 8th, to a max of around 12th before we lose interest and play some superhero games or something. (We are not big with the attention span.)

When we do play higher level characters, we start out that way. 20th level, go nuts, and in that case character design all happens in one sitting, so it's pretty painless, as opposed to building it up level by level, which sounds mind-numbing.

I also avoid giving NPCs Prestige Classes. They were presented as something special, 'prestigious' even, and I'm not really sanguine on the idea of half of the NPCs in a city having a 'Prestige' Class. That's one of the things I converted changing over the various characters in the Freeport adventures. Warriors upgraded to Fighters (cause I'm also not a fan of NPC classes), but Assassins downgraded to Ftr / Rogues.

2) The number of splats you own. More choice = more time.

Got 'em all, but we tend to limit the ones in use. Our latest game is Core races, core classes + HoH, CArc, CW, CD and CAdv, because we weren't really up for Incarnum or anything.

3) Number of players.

I lucked out there.

4) Number of combatants.

Another place I luck out. The largest groups they've faced have been six and eight, and in the case of six, four where identical 'mooks' and in the case of eight, all of them were identical mooks, so I didn't have to think about them in combat, just make notes of which was number one and which was number two.

 

[helium3]

whoa whoa whoa....speak for yourself

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

Yeah, I thought that the fact that I was speaking for myself was implicit in the statement.

*shrug*

As for everyone else, sometimes its hard to miss something until it's gone. I think many folk are going to discover that they liked complexity a lot more than they realized.

 

[helium3]

Or, the practice of not assigning a lot of spells and abilities to monsters that require cross-referencing.

Well, sure that works too. Which is what they're doing in 4E.

But if you want to change things up?

You're back to cross-referencing.

 

[Remathilis]

My problem with 3.X is "the math". Here me out.

Take 1e/2e. Many of the things that defined class mechanics were, arbitrary, to say the least (Save vs. petrification?). 3e sough to fix some of them, mostly by codifying the rules. (All saves scale at one of two progressions, for example). However, I'm not entirely sure they forsaw all the problems with this codification: IE, things not scaling evenly enough to keep the numbers even.

This lead to the "sweet spot", 4-14. Levels 1-3, combat is swingy: one die roll can spell doom for the whole operation. Though there is less in the way of decisions to make (due to lack of options at that level) things move slowly due to lack of hp, ability to hit, spell resource, etc. The opposite problem at high level (too many decisions and resources) creates the EXACT SAME effect: combat becomes swingy based solely on full-attacks and save-or-dies targeting "weak" saves. It is in that sweet spot that the math "balances" and combats become even affairs that, while tides can turn, still feels like an even match and not like "initiative ftw or die".

Almost all other problems in 3.x come back to this idea of "the math." NPCs must be properly balanced against their PC foes or they are roasted. Magical items must be carefully monitored or else PCs become too powerful for their level. CRs assume a baseline few (if any) DMs can organically maintain. PCs must constantly search for "upgrades" to shore up weaknesses (hello rog20 with a +7 will save!) rather than gather unique magical items or cool boss new skills, feats or abilities.

Everything I've seen about 4e so far has told me that they are balancing "the math" rather than formalizing the math from older editions. Perhaps its because this is the first edition of D&D that the bab/ac and defenses/spell rolls all scale a the same level (baring a constant bonus from level and feats) and less reliance on "math-affecting" items like rings +2 or belts +4. If they can make that mathmatic sweet spot last, I'm statisfied.

 

[Dausuul]

Well, sure that works too. Which is what they're doing in 4E.

But if you want to change things up?

You're back to cross-referencing.

Well, of course if you intend to give a monster from the Monster Manual a special ability from the Player's Handbook, yeah, you'll have to cross-reference the PHB for that. That's kind of a given. But in 3.5E, you have to cross-reference stuff that's straight out of the book.

4E won't eliminate cross-referencing--nothing will--but it should drastically reduce the amount required.

As for everyone else, sometimes its hard to miss something until it's gone. I think many folk are going to discover that they liked complexity a lot more than they realized.

Speaking as someone who has played simpler systems than 3.5E... no. No, I'm really not.

 

[helium3]

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.)

This is a problem anytime you provide hard numbers for things. Some people see the numbers as a guideline and others as rock-solid limits.

So in a way, this is how 3E's codification of every little rule led to some of the problems people complain about now.

By implying there's some quasi-computational structure in the way the rules are presented, people rightly assume failure to strictly adhere to the structure results in immediate and catastrophic failure.

I'm not really sure how 4E will address the problem now that everyone's been trained to see the system this way.

 

[Ant]

What is so bad about DMing 3x?

Nothing but it is easy to make it hard for yourself.

... and do you enjoy DMing other systems but not that one?

I love DMing every game I DM, regardless of the system.

Help me out, because 4e to me is introducing a system I don't like to fix a "problem" I'd never heard of.

I hear ya there, Kahuna Burger. Although I've definitely heard people complain about the DM overload with 3.x. Again, it's all about choosing to make it hard or easy for yourself. Some DMs will choose 4th edition to (hopefully) make it easier for themselves. Nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, from what I've seen, the "complexity" has just been shuffled around a bit and hidden behind the sofa.