What was so bad about DMing 3x?

[Wormwood]

I don't like how 3e codifies EVERYTHING, and the excruciating detail given to monsters and NPC's to make sure they follow all the same rules as the PC's is the icing on that particular cake for me.

100% agreement.

I just don't have the patience to deal with all of 3.5's rules and numbers any more. Too many other games out there that I find easier and more rewarding to run.

 

[Greg K]

Still, it took some time for it all to add up. We ended up switching to some other games, like d20 Modern

(and we started) one of our old Rolemaster campaigns up again rather than continue playing 3E..

It's funny thay you should mention d20Modern and Rolemaster. I love d20M and, the more I hear of 4e, the more I am thinking of going back to RM for my fantasy gaming- I like the basics of the d20 system and 4e is addressing many of the things I feel need to be changed to DND (e.g., classes as talent trees, the magic system, balancing spellcasters with non-spellcasters) . Howerver, the designers are not adressing the majority of changes in a manner I desire and are changing other things that I didn't feel need to be changed. So, it looks like I will be houseruling the same things that I did for Third Edition and then some.

 

[helium3]

Statblocks for monsters . . . lot's of good stuff . . .

I don't disagree with anything you posted. In fact, most of what you describe above as positive changes occurring in 4E are changes I myself am excited to see. It's not even that I'm really trying to argue that prepping for high level 3E games isn't a chore at times.

It's more that I worry that we're sacrificing an integral part of what makes D&D fun (the complexity of the rule-set) in order to chase after some shangri-la where high level play takes no more effort to learn, prep-for or run than low level play. I just don't see how that's possible. If high level play is no more complex than low-level play than it pretty much has to be "same powers as before, just more damage."

This is why I'm hunching (and you can put me on the record for this) that after about a year to a year and a half of play we're going to see an interesting development in the general community.

Gamers are actually going to start changing up the systems they use from time to time in order to get a fix of whatever game experience it is that they're craving at the moment.

Maybe they'll switch back to 3E for some good old resource-management based play or maybe they'll run over to a White Wolf game to get their "it's all about the story" experience.

And when they want to blast through levels 1-30 in a couple of months, killing scads of monsters and only stopping occasionally to gas up their per day powers, they'll play 4E. I don't see this is a bad thing.

I don't think this is such a bad thing, actually. Settlers of Catan has been my group's favorite board game for years now, but that doesn't mean that's the ONLY game we play. I don't see why it can't be the same way for RPG's.

And yes, I realize that you could do that now. For some reason though, it generally doesn't seem to. I think 4E is going to change all that.

 

[Greg K]

Except when you want to use the monster for something else than combat. Then those things are important. Or when the monster is supposed to be a combat encounter but the PCs don't fight but do something else (maybe implementing a complicated plan of how to defeat the monster without combat).

Sure, for the average "kick in the door hack & slay" group this won't happen often, but when the players want d&d to be something more than diablo on paper having the same rules for NPCs than for PCs is important.

I completely agree.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Okay, try this. Create an evil NPC party that can stand up to a Codzilla, Batman wizard, a poucing Barbarian, and <insert most broken skill monkey here>. Use at least one prestige per NPC and have at least one of them be a CR 3+ Monster with class levels. If possible, give one of them an animal companion to ride and use the combat riding feats. Have another one fly around a lot. Everyone is level 17th. Tell me how long you take to plan it all out.

So you dislike DMing 3x because random people on the internet give you NPC assignments with weird setups? I can see how that would be a problem.

 

[jaer]

Some of this has been said by others, so I won't go into detail. Just as background, I'm running 5 15-16 lvl PCs:

- CR is a joke for determining balance and challenge
- The minor, medium, major designation for the random treasure charts is a joke for balancing rewards, as is the monetary cost of gear
- Magic items on NPCs necessary, but don't want the PCs to get all that gear
- Gearing NPCs is crazy; I have a barbarian with a free head slot; I need to look through helms of, helmets of, head-bands of, circlets of, and then see if there is a Berserk's Helm or Bear Helm or some other name that isn't in order. List items by slot first, power level second, and alphabetically third if it's needed!
- Finding monsters to fit where I need them - some MM have a nice little chart in the beginning listing creatures by type, but didn't they stop that with MM3 or MM4?
- Modifying monsters to fit where I need them (including advancing or templating them, which even though I got good at doing quickly, it never works out quite right CR-wise anyway) and making sure all monsters and NPCs are "legal" builds
- Creating a dungeon that actually challenges the party without negating spells and abilities or having to pull a "because I am the DM" situation
- Keeping combat exciting. I tend to find the "I want to stand here and swing 4 times" mentality a complete and utter bore, but the players want to maximize damage, and at high levels, fighting huge and larger creatures, moving is often the last thing a PC wants to do. I want more movement in combat! More use of the environment. I want to be knocking over chairs, leaping onto tables, doing cool things like that, but often it never helps anyone to waste time doing so (other than flavor...but there have been times, oh yes there have!)
- One die roll can wipe-out the party or kill the BBEG and ruin months of build up. Whether this be one solid great-axe crit or a failed disintergrate save. Even one spell cam wipe a party: a really "good" prismatic spray that fries the wizard for 80 (dead), stones the rogue (stoned), burns the cleric for 40 (ouch) and poisons (1d10 con) him, and sends the fighter to another plane (bye-bye! Plane of Neg Energy? Oh too bad!).

And my all-time number 1 issue with DMing in 3e

Having to play even intelligent monsters like morons. There is no reason I can think of that a dragon would waste time with the metal-encased guy with the sword instead of throwing everything he has at the guy in robes. Or that an orc warlord wouldn't command every single archer and fighter to charge the caster, even if it meant taking a few AoO on the way.

And yet, having done the tactical thing a few times, I know how badly it can go for PCs if I play that way. They know to go for the enemy spell caster, but if I continue to use that tactic, not only does it get boring, but the caster thinks I, personally, am out to get him.

Having more balanced spell-casting as well as more tactical reasons to not attack the wizard (the defender is nearby defendering or the leader's party assistance abilities are more of a threat) should cut down on my feeling like I can't do certain creatures justice without hindering specific players.

 

[kennew142]

Except when you want to use the monster for something else than combat. Then those things are important. Or when the monster is supposed to be a combat encounter but the PCs don't fight but do something else (maybe implementing a complicated plan of how to defeat the monster without combat).

Exactly what stats do you need a monster to have in order to use it in a role-playing encounter? If you're talking about perception skills, they're still in the game. Stealth skills, still in the game. Why does a monster (or any NPC) have to have the same method of construction as a PC?

Sure, for the average "kick in the door hack & slay" group this won't happen often, but when the players want d&d to be something more than diablo on paper having the same rules for NPCs than for PCs is important.

Here's where we get the flame bait. GMs who do things differently from you are not just playing "diablo (sic) on paper". Nor are they just playing "kick in the door hack & slay (sic)."

No matter how many threads you post the same insults in, it doesn't make them true.

My own campaigns are mostly about role-playing. Nearly every encounter or situation can be resolved without resorting to violence. In no way does the fact that I no longer write up detailed character sheets for every monster impede role-playing.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Most of these responses are helpful. I think the disconnect I'm seeing is that I like building characters (it's safer to let me build npcs right and left than risk me playing and wanting to change characters everytime I get a new idea ) and I am fine with a philosophy of rules parity between PCs and npcs. I can see the complaint of high level breakdown, but I feel that way as a player too, so it didn't figure into my assessment of the "fun to play, sucks to DM" comments.

 

[helium3]

We have already been told that there will be more player handbooks and splats with 4e. Therefore, I don't see how 4e is going to change players, who feel entitled to using anything by WOTC. The best solution, imo, is not to game with such players if they are a problem.

It depends on what's in the Splat Books and how well they're play-tested. If, as I suspect, playing with just the core rules gets boring relatively quickly the Splat Books may sell pretty well. But, if those same Splat Books end up evoking thoughts of "oooh look, the Psion is the Wizard class with a pretty crystalline skin slapped over it" then they'll be kinda pointless. The Splat Books are really only a problem if they start adding back in all sorts of mechanics from 3E that made it so "problematic" in the first place. Simplicity cuts both ways. It's great when you need it and sucks when your forced to maintain it.

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.

You know, the more I think about this the more I'm convinced that the problem in these situations is not one of "problem players" but that D&D claims to be "Everything to Everyone." If D&D were more closely associated with a fairly specific style of gaming, and there were other more widely played games that were also closely associated with other styles it would probably be a lot easier for so called "problem-players" to find groups that are more into the sorts of things they are.

 

[Derren]

Exactly what stats do you need a monster to have in order to use it in a role-playing encounter? If you're talking about perception skills, they're still in the game. Stealth skills, still in the game. Why does a monster (or any NPC) have to have the same method of construction as a PC?

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.