What was so bad about DMing 3x?

[AZRogue]

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.

It's funny, but we really played the hell out of d20 Modern and Rolemaster. Rolemaster everyone would love until bad luck would wipe out most of the party (it happens ... a lot) or they all end up with only one arm or something and then it kind of gets shelved until they feel like rolling replacements ... and want to tackle the charts again. Usually after achieving some great goal and those that survived wanted to retire while they could still walk. I still love those critical hit tables, heh.


D20 Modern was just great. It was simple, the Talents were good, and it was fast. We made armor = damage reduction and just ran with it. Some of the most fun. Don't get me wrong, it had a lot of problems, but it moved quickly and it was a breeze to prepare for with the statblocks and stuff I could pull out at a moment's notice. It was pure X-Files meets Die Hard goodness. I had clues and red herrings planted in those games that didn't come to light for up to a year later, with all kinds of different agendas from the DOD, the UN, the State Department, and PETA. It used to be great when the players would figure out that the quickly scribbled note (partially burned) that they found on the body of a soldier killed by a new chemical weapon was linked to the files they uncovered months later in the secret bathroom filing cabinet of a Mafia money launderer who was into conspiracy theories.

Two great, but different, games.

 

[Ipissimus]

Hardest thing about DMing 3.x? Challenging competant players. This is where all my complaints about 3.x flow from.

I never really found 3.0 or 3.5 complex, more convoluted. Skills for example, are easy to assign. But then, to do it properly, you have to take into account synergies, magic, equipment, special class abilities, etc. Then you have to check whether they stack or not. Now, this is easy as pie if you're only doing it for one character as players do, but as a DM you've gotta worry about a cast of thousands.

Ok, so, you don't have to detail skills, really, unless it's for a recurring character the players will interact with for more than 3 rounds. How about AC, then? Dodge bonuses, equipment bonuses, magic bonuses, spells and how many rounds they last (particularly if they're from a magic item), and whether THEY stack, then you have to calculate flat-footed AC, touch AC and, if you're not sick of it already, touch AC while flat-footed.

Now, you might think you don't have to do all that. But if your party's compentant, it will come up. If the rogue, for example, isn't ignoring armour with a surprise sneak attack at high level then he's not really trying very hard.

So, you might start thinking, as I did, 'bugger this, i'll steal stat blocks from Dungeon with the appropriate CR'. Then you'll quickly find out that the CR system is horrible. Example, at 18th level, I ran my party through Bastion of Borken Souls. At a certain point, they meet an 18th level Half-Dragon Kobald Fighter (CR 20) with some friends. He becomes a grease-stain in 1 round. In the next room, they encounter a Half-Dragon Dire Bear that almost inflicts a TPK alone due mainly to it's massive hit point quota. And that's a CR 17 monster. Not only did the toughest and most memorable monster fight that session give them less Exp, they got more gear off the Kobald! Purely because, as someone alluded above, 486hp are better than 161.

Most of the time we've only had properly tense hard-fought battles with proper rewards for victory has been with villains I've created from scratch. And to do that I've had to do what the PCs do: build an effective character around a theme. Like the Gnoll Cleric lich who focussed on touch attack spells and paralyzation. Getting the monster to do that effectively takes alot of work picking feats, spells, making sure he has enough hit points to last the distance, etc.

Of course, there's no guarentee that 4E will be different, but I'm hopeful since they acknowledge the problem.

 

[Roman]

folks keep cheering the "npcs/monster and PC use different rules" philosophy on the basis that it's lack made 3x "fun to play but horrible to DM". I don't get it. I love to DM, and I am as happy to DM 3x as any other system. The only reasons I don't currently DM are practical. I would rather DM than play any day of the week. (in fact, I skip gamedays when there isn't a slot left for me to run a game in, because I've found that they aren't worth the travel effort if I "only" play.)

What is so bad about DMing 3x, and do you enjoy DMing other systems but not that one? Help me out, because 4e to me is introducing a system I don't like to fix a "problem" I'd never heard of.

DMing 3.X is great! I love DMing in 3.X edition and some of the reasons for that are precisely the comprehensiveness of the rules, the consistency of the rules (such as using same rules for monsters and PCs) and the simulationist aspects the rules entail (to a greater degree than other editions anyway).

I've never encountered many of the problems that most posters here cite. Like Cadfan suggests, if rules get in the way, I ignore them. As an experienced DM, I have a good feel for the system and am happy eyeballing an NPC's stats. Players that grumble about it are politely reminded that the rulebooks are not DMing the game - I am. This approach, imho, holds true for any edition of any game. Maybe it's because I started with Basic D&D back in the day, but I have always embraced the idea that the rules are there for when you need them, and nothing more.

I do like the fact that the d20/3e system can be scaled in complexity very easily. I run occasional games for my kids that are more or less like C&C (but using the 3e rules - no skills or feats or fiddly rules.) Works like a charm and the game doesn't fall apart for the lack of crunchiness. At the other end of the spectrum, I have a homebrew with houserules and 3rd-party supplements out the wazoo, which runs just as smoothly. This flexibility of complexity is 3e's biggest attraction to me: I can use the core system to make it pretty much whatever I like. Stuff that gets in the way gets junked. It might well be the case that 3e failed to make it sufficiently clear that this was a viable approach, which is why many folks get hung up on its complexity - I don't know. It never stopped me.

I concur. The rules are available when I need them, but can be ignored when I don't. It's a win-win situation for me.

I should note, however, that I am not a 4E naysayer and like a lot of things I am seeing, such as the unification of class levels and spell levels, the fact that characters will get interesting powers at every level, the availability of maneuvers for martial classes and so on. I do dislike the apparent removal of simulationism, but I will have to wait for still more information to see which effect is more important for me and to make a decision to either remain with 3.X and stop following 4E news or to switch to 4E. I will probably make my decision within a few days of D&D Experience, when I expect a wealth of info on the rules to arrive to the message boards.

 

[Creamsteak]

High level play, for me at least, is too large in scope in 3.x to reasonably build an adventure per week. At first level, I can get 10 hours of "game" out of 1 hour of prep. At 2nd, maybe 9. By 8th, it's getting close to 1/1 and from then on it gets worse for me. Obviously it doesn't "have" to be that way, but the game I want to run ends up being that way. By the time I'm running a 12th level game, I'm spending 2 hours preparing to run 1 hour of game. As much as I enjoy the game, that's not paying off.

4th edition could sell me, even if the game is weaker in some areas, simply by keeping things as clean at 1st level as they are up to 5th. I can deal with some complexity creeping. I really don't mind it if it gets up to the 1/1 range for me. That's about my limit though.

 

[Derren]

--This one bears repeating- the undermining/discouragement of DM creativity. Everything has a class, feat, skill, magic item, or combo that has to be taken in order for it to be done. So now to build the interesting NPC or monster you had in mind, you have to sift through stacks of rules minutiae looking for the right combo.

When you are really creative than you would have no problem with creating interesting plots without breaking the rules...

And enough people have reported here that when you know what you are doing combat and NPC creation doesn't have to take a long time. So it looks like teh DM and players are also responsible for this, not only the system...

 

[AZRogue]

When you are really creative than you would have no problem with creating interesting plots without breaking the rules...

And enough people have reported here that when you know what you are doing combat and NPC creation doesn't have to take a long time. So it looks like teh DM and players are also responsible for this, not only the system...

I can squeeze into my girlfriend's underwear, too, but I don't do it all the time. A little room to move and breath is often considered a good thing.

 

[fnwc]

I mean, does a brute of a certain level always do X damage and differences from monster to monster are merely "skins" placed onto the numbers? Or are there a couple of different types of Brutes that have distinct abilities.

I'm guessing from what I've read that most monsters will try and have some ability or set of abilities that sets them apart from other monsters. I'm sure that monsters will share abilities, but I'm guessing they're really trying to make a gnoll feel like a gnoll, and not just a CR 2 humanoid. Something like the flind, for example, has more flavor than the basic gnoll due to their unique weaponry and tactics.

 

[Steely Dan]

When you are really creative than you would have no problem with creating interesting plots without breaking the rules...

Now that is truly hysterical.



…Please, stop, you're killing me!

 

[mhensley]

I can squeeze into my girlfriend's underwear, too, but I don't do it all the time. A little room to move and breath is often considered a good thing.

way too much information....

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

When you are really creative than you would have no problem with creating interesting plots without breaking the rules...

And enough people have reported here that when you know what you are doing combat and NPC creation doesn't have to take a long time. So it looks like teh DM and players are also responsible for this, not only the system...

Why do different systems even exist? I know that I'm stumped.

I'm guessing that "enough people" have probably posted very similar statements on the messageboards for other games (that they prefer). What's good for Group A isn't always good for Group B, no matter how many people post to the contrary. Of course, maybe we're just not really creative...