Timewaster's Guide Archive
Games => Role-Playing Games => Topic started by: Mad Dr Jeffe on May 16, 2003, 09:19:08 AM
-
Lets say tomorrow someone handed you a golden ticket and sent you off the RPG factory filled to the brim with ompahloompahs and mad reclusive game designers and said
"Here you go my boy (or girl), WOTC's latest project D&D 3e. Its yours change it around how you want it."
What would you do?
-
I would make it vampire: the masquerade. ;D
-
I would steal an oompahloompah.
-
I'd want a goose that lays gold eggs for Easter.
-
Just a goose? I want a feast--I want a bean feast.
-
wow, this turned into a funnier thread than I wanted,
I expected people had some grievences against 3e.
Guess not
-
You made a Willy Wonka reference, what did you expect.
Really, it's D&D. You either like it or you don't. YOu don't turn it into a different game. The only thing that REALLY needs fixing is the rule on Attack of Opportunity. THere's a lot of phraseology and a few organizational things I'd change, but other than that...
-
You just listed a lot of stuff in a little bit of type.
What do you mean by a lot of phraseology and organization?
-
Actually, I listed 2, maybe three things. Depending on how you count.
The phraseology: the wording on AoO is abominable, and they make no effort to say it differently when they "clarify" it. Plus the rule's no good so it doesn't matter. Maybe I'd list out all the types of bonuses and how stacking works in one place too. But I think they were trying to make the "types" unrestrictive, so you could come up with new kinds. But you can still do that and include all the cannonical kinds in one place.
Organization: I'd put all the magic item tables next to each other instead of scattered, and I'd make the clerical domain reside in the Cleric description, where it's easy to find, or at least include an index listing for it.
That's it. None of that is major stuff. Nor is it a "lot" of stuff.
-
Why that's easy!
I'd just change it back to the rules of BECM D&D. Back when the game was fun to both play and run and not mired in and ungodly amount of unneeded rules. Back when the DM actually had to think and be creative instead of just a referee. Back when things were fun...
-
The simplicity of BECM D&D can never be understated. It also was so adapatable to house rules. That's the only thing that really bogs down 3e is its lack of unity with house rules.
Actual I think I would bring back some incarnation of spelljammer for 3e. Just ignoring a some of spelljammers annoying ideas.
-
Now, if you're going to have an opinion about a game we're just going to have to ask you to leave.
Oh... wait...
I think you over-rate BECM and under-rate the adapability of d20. I've done a lot of changes and not had balance problems. Perhaps it just takes a creative DM.... (not to throw that back at you).
-
It's difficult to be a creative DM with 3E, because the system shackles you. As I've mentioned before, it's difficult to adapt or change anything major because the system crumbles like a house of cards. Plus, virtually every rule imaginable is spelled out for you. I hate that. Some like it though.
Give me a loose, fast system any day. Something that feeds creativity instead of stifles it. I'd rather make up a situationally appropriate difficulty/test than have the game tell me its a static number every time. Stifling.
3E kills DM creativity. World and adventure building, not so much, as those are hard for a system to affect...but actually running the game. A computer program can easily DM a 3E module if its programmed in. Shackles, I say!
-
Give me a World of Darkness game anyday 8)
-
I feel really bad for whatever unfortunate experience you had with D&D3E, Mr. P. I *never* use a prepublished world or adventure, and I've never had a problem with the system crumbling. I ignore whatever rules I feel are inconvenient, and add others - including fundamental changes to the way magic works, certain combat changes, and the reward system. So I guess I just fail to see this system failure you describe.
-
I'd augment the feat system with an ad/disad system. Every game needs one of those, and when I can figure out how to do it in Palladium I'll do it and never look back.
-
Saint, you wouldn't know it from my posts, but I actually had a great deal of fun running 3E for the better part of 2 years. I'll never run it again though. Play it, yes, run it, no.
I'm not alone on the whole "crumbles when you fiddle with it" page. I know a lot of folks, mainly over the net, that feel the same way. A lot of supporters even feel the same way.
I should clarify what I mean by 'tinkering' by the way, because its probably a bit more extensive than you think. For example, say I don't like feats because it makes the game feel too 'video gamey' (to note: I don't feel this way completely, but I see the point of those who argue this). It's virtually impossible to take out the feats system or to heavily modify it without absolutely ruining the balance. Same with skills (which I don't like the system for, by the way) or AoO. They're too ingrained in the system. You have to understand that I'm coming from the old school D&D camp where you could rework the system as much as you liked because it wasn't balanced on the head of a pin.
I'm a tinkerer. I like to modify systems to something that works better for me. I could do this with old editions of D&D without a problem. I haven't been able to modify 3E the way I'd like to successfully yet. So I gave up because it just wasn't worth the effort. There are other systems that do what I want without much tinkering at all.
I don't fault anyone for liking 3E. Play what you enjoy. But its definitely not the system I choose to run games in anymore.
-
So you're saying that if you make fundamental changes to the core of the system without a well planned replacement, the system doesn't work?
-
Don't think I didn't try replacements. Certain bonuses ineherent in classes as levels advanced, a new skill system.
See, you laugh now, but you could do this stuff with old D&D. The skill system wasn't integrated into the classes and so you could modify, tweak, replace, or remove until your hearts content.
You've just admitted that this kind of thing can't be done with 3E.
There is great freedom in the non integration of the older editions. There are disadvantages too, but for me the advantages outweight the disadvantages.
-
I agree with Mr. P. I like 3e but in the current campaign I run there is so much tight-rope walking that I'm never sure when I've crossed the line. Fortunately, I have PCs that don't whine every time one person becomes weak or powerful in a particular situation.
I have to disagree with fell. I don't particularly like advatage/disadvantage siystems. I've seen to many players take all sorts of irrelevant disadvantages just so they can be uber-powerful where it counts. Even though I'm not a big stickler for realism, it destroy even my sense of believability.
-
I guess I like 3e because it HAS a skill system. And no, that proficiency smack that had no application whatsoever didn't count as a system. So because they've tried to make the system less combat (because that's really all it was before) they get hated. Hrm. That's weird to me. However, I think the classes now are much more modular. You can do much more customization as a player, which means you can as a GM making NPCs. I guess my thought is really that if there's something so essential to a system like skills that I don't like, then I don't want to change it, I want to play a different system. Sure I admit you can't change the skill system easily. Why would you want to? There are other systems closer to what you want that you don't have to alter as fundamentally as that.
*I* want to take it a step further though. Rather than go back to a confused system with even worse realism than 3E and problems I feel too numerous to list that was taking up too much memory space in my brain (that I now use for other things, like memories of cupcakes and writing runon sentences), I'd rather ditch classes and provide a bunch modular advancements that you choose from as you advance. I guess it's something much more like Decipher's, only using d20 instead of 2d6.
-
Oh, and I hope I'm not coming off as a zealot here. I just can't see what the problem is. Naturally, especially since we don't game together, we're all entitled to our disparate opinions. I just wanted to see what the problem is, and still kinda don't understand why that WAS a problem. That's all.
-
The old proficiency system is as much a true system as skills in 3E. It was simple and elegant. You rolled, subtracted your level in a skill (which maxed at 2 or 3 if I remember correctly), and compared it to your ability score. Nice. 3E skills start out fine, but by even level 10 the numbers you add to your roll just get ridiculous. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Speaking of classes, 3E blurred the lines with classes. It's far too easy to be really good at skills and abilities that used to be reserved for a single class. In OAD&D it was specifically designed for a party system. Every class had its strength and weaknesses and the other classes were the perfect complement to those. No, you couldn't make some characters (like Conan) well, but its just another one of those little D&D quirks. It's too easy to min/max and make yourself good at too many things. And don't get me started on prestige classes. Good concept, terrible execution.
It's easy to say, well, I don't allow that kind of power gaming in my game, but when designers are catering to that type of player it eventually becomes hard to ignore if you play with anything beyond the core books. The WOTC classbooks themselves are just dripping with cheese and stupid prestige classes.
So I don't like the constraints and presumptions of the class system, the skill system, or feats. It doesn't feel like old D&D, which is fine if you don't like old D&D, but I was hoping 3E would update and fine tune the system already in place, not be a wholly different game with some D&D concepts tacked on and a logo stuck up top.
-
Actually, I like how d20 blurs classes. It bothers me when I can't create a character who is just mediocre at something. I don't like being stuck to a class that requires me to be 100% fighter or 100% spellcaster. I don't even like the ones that require me to be 50/50. I want to design characters that perhaps only have a little bit of something. It's sort of like cooking: Take 1 cup fighter add 1 tbs wizard and 2 tbs rogue with just a dash of monk.
However, I am a little annoyed with prestige classes. I think they stifle the creativity of players. Prestige classes seem to dictate to too many players what their character should be like. I've seen some players try to deviate from this, but most players are too content with just fitting into the mold the prestige class provides.
-
Erg. You like the old proficiency system better than the d20 system. I don't think we can ever come to an agreement.
d20 hardly emphasizes power gaming more than 2e. If anything, it improves on it. proficiencies took up all of what, 5 pages? While I liked the individual weapon proficiency system better than the grouped feat approach, the really de-emphasized skills. If you can solve things much easier and faster by hitting it with a rock than using skill, they haven't provided enough support for non-combat skills, and nearly universally that was the case (which was ok when I was 15, but now that I'm not). I think that characters should have non-combat skills commensurate to their fighting skills, at least. And just like you make combat harder when the characters are tougher, you make skill checks harder. Tracking through a rushing river, sneaking past guard dogs with enhanced hearing and some motion sensors, etc.
Yeah, there's power creep in the supplements. Yeah, a lot of it. And yes, a lot of the prestige classes are sucky. But then, a lot of those prestige classes are heavily dependent on setting, so even if you allow most things they find in books, you'll find a lot of it doesn't fit in to what you've done, so you have a VERY easy way out of allowing those classes (as if you couldn't just say "no" anyway).
And I'll agree with 42, blurring the lines is good. Which is why I want to make advancement even more modular, so you can mix them up even better. New multi-classing is one of the first things that won me over (along with an actual pattern to the rules, instead of an arbitrary new idea for each new thing -- they all fit together now). And yes, the new handling of feats and skills sealed the pact.
-
I agree with SaintEhlers. I don't see what the problem is. I am an inexperienced DM and have only been playing for about 3 years, but I'm confident that with some effort and solid planning I could tweak anything about 3e to my liking. I find it very open ended; I feel that even though they've attempted to address virtually every possibility in the books, its modular enough to make changes on almost any scale.
Give me (or SaintEhlers, naturally) a scenario and I suspect I could come up with a set of adjustments to meet the criteria, without the system "crumbling" or becoming unbalanced. I'm not stating that as a challenge, only a point of view -- although I suppose it could be a challenge if you wanted to take it that way. ;)
*shrug*
-
Brian, are you Master Providian from AORP? If so, welcome--I'm Sir Carl the Magnificent Dragonslayer of Amazingness.
-
It makes sense that you, as an inexperienced DM, like 3E. Everything is laid out for you. Everything. But it puts far too much power in the hands of the players and makes the DM a referee. Run an older edition of the game an see how much easier it is. Monster stat blocks are comparitively small and balancing an adventure didn't take an ELC chart...just a good eye.
3E spells a lot of stuff out that DMs have been doing for years, which makes it easy for newcomers. Problem is, not everyone plays the way that the designers assumed (like me) and when people like me try to change things to something we like more, players get mad because its different than the way the rules are spelled out. No one respects Rule Zero anymore.
And I, just like anyone, can tweak this or that to make an adventure run more smoothly or give a character something a little out of the ordinary. That's not the kind of tinkering I'm talking about. I'm a friggin' game system mechanic baby! You give me a system I like to dive in, get my hands dirty, keep what I like and change or throw out the rest. D&D games have always supported this because they were completely internally inconsistent. Virtually no part of the game relied on any other part. As I said earlier, this had its advantages and disadavantages.
Say I don't like Feats. Or Skills. Say I want to make the game a little simpler just for the sake of running it faster by eliminating or streamlining these. In older editions that was easy to do. You can't do that in 3E without throwing off everything. Eliminate feats and you screw the fighters, change skills and you potentially screw the rogue.
I know how to change game systems, I've been doing it for a decade. I've found that the 3E, and the d20 system by association, is incapable of doing what I like to be done without completely overhauling everything, which I'm not willing to do. It's not worth the effort. There's better editions, and even better games, to be played.
There is no better version of D&D than the Rules Cyclopedia. It's simple, it's fun, and it's complete. It lets the DM have all the power and lets everyone enjoy the game. 3E can't even touch it.
-
Again, I agree with Mr. P. I don't like feeling that I'm just a computer for the PCs when I'm running a game. If fact, my opinion of PCs who expect the DM to do everything by the book, is that they are socially-maladjusted, insecure, whiny brats. That's a little harsh, but you get the idea.
I just want to have some freedom as the DM to participate with the players and not just be their babysitter to make sure they play nicely.
-
See, i perceive most of the problems of being a "referee" as being a player/dm relation problem. Either the players haven't been told to expect major tweaks or they're not mature enough to handle them. In the first place, they should have been told. In the second, maybe I'm snobbish, but I'd rather not play than play with people like that. Which is why it's so hard to get a game together out here. I know 5 or 6 people who I can play with, because they'll adapt to and make adaptations to a game and not worry so much about balance so long as everyone gets a chance to shine. That's what's ideal to me. However, these half dozen people have trouble coordinating schedules. Rather than just get a random group together from the WotC store, I don't play and continue to try and get a game together with people I know will play for fun instead of munchkin.
-
I've found the majority of 3E players to be the kind that you don't like, Saint. Fortunately, my players never really devolved into this, though they did challenge some calls sometimes.
But I have played and ran the other kind.
And there were no tweaks. I ran it straight vanilla core book 3E. I can't tell you how many times I'd rattle of an appropriate DC for a task only to be challenged by someone saying "actually, the DC is X because on page XY of the DMG." Of course I know that. It's my responsibility to know the rules as the DM. But the DC I picked was more appropriate for A, B, and C reasons. Players get all huffy.
No one respects Rule Zero in 3E. As a DM who likes things fast and loose that is willing to ignore rules for the sake of cinematics and the story, 3E sucks. It just brings this out in people. Some of the best gamers I've seen have turned into rules lawyers when playing 3E.
So if my job as a DM is suddenly confined to merely telling people what the book said to roll, what fun is that?
-
I'm going to agree with Mr P's last comment.
Take an example : flash floods.
If i, as a DM, enact a flash flood, it is for the story. I will decide, as the DM, what effect it has - i may decide that it will involve the loss of a PC. This will be part of the story. It should not be resolved with the use of random dice - that will not necessarily give the result that would be best for the story.
The ST systems all emphasis that, it is what the ST decides is what is important. If the ST decides that picking a lock suddenly requires difficulty 9, then that is what he has decided. It gives plenty of guidelines "difficult task = 7", as opposed to the 3E mode of "picking a lock = DC 15".
It leaves much more "wiggle room" for the sake of the story.
-
When I am DM'ing a game, my players all know that what I say goes. There is rarely any dispute, and if there is, a simple reminder does the trick. 3e does indeed lay everything out for you, but that doesn't mean I always stick to it.
I've DM'd only 3 campaigns so far, but I am not the kind of person that likes to do everything by the book. I enjoy making changes to suit a particular story or situation. So no, I don't think my enjoyment of 3e has much to do with my lack of experience as a DM.
I will say that I have never played 1st or 2nd edition, or any other system, let alone hosted a game -- so I won't say that another one isn't better. I will however stick to my belief that 3e is perfectly worthy as a RPG system and that it in no way hinders me from making changes to it to suit my needs or preferences.
I am considering running an entirely original d20 Modern game soon -- I've never picked up the d20 modern books and I don't intend to, I don't have the money and don't feel I really need them anyway. I am already adapting the standard d20 rules to fit my contemporary setting.
-
I'm going to agree with Mr P's last comment.
Take an example : flash floods.
If i, as a DM, enact a flash flood, it is for the story. I will decide, as the DM, what effect it has - i may decide that it will involve the loss of a PC. This will be part of the story. It should not be resolved with the use of random dice - that will not necessarily give the result that would be best for the story.
The ST systems all emphasis that, it is what the ST decides is what is important. If the ST decides that picking a lock suddenly requires difficulty 9, then that is what he has decided. It gives plenty of guidelines "difficult task = 7", as opposed to the 3E mode of "picking a lock = DC 15".
It leaves much more "wiggle room" for the sake of the story.
If I feel that a character must die or be swept away by a flash flood, then that's what happens. When I'm the DM, I am in control, and as I mentioned previously, my players know that.
And what is preventing me from deciding that a particular lock is more or less difficult to pick in 3e? As in all RPG systems the rules are intended to be physical guidelines. If I say a lock is more difficult to pick, then I have a good reason for it. I'm not going to say that a simple lock is DC 30 just because I feel like it, thats poor GM'ing in any system. There's got to be a logical reason behind it. But if that particular lock is especially weak or especially strong for some reason, then I'll modify the situation appropriately.
-
The problem is that the PHB states the rules for these things in a tone that makes it seem as though to deviate is unthinkable. The DM needs to actively ignore the entire tone of the book to change anything.
-
Actually that is very true. I've met a lot of players who ignore the parts in the book that say the the DM has the final say on all rulings and has the right to ignore any rule. Course, I've noticed I don't like to play with players who have read every d20 book published and every magazine and article published because they seem to take the role of back-seat DM. In fact, this has completely ruined Forgotten Realms for me.
My current campaign, I created my own rule book and presented it to the players, this stopped a lot of whining (except from one player who is no longer in the group). Course, after completing my rulebook I wondered if it would have almost been easier to create my own game system. Probably not, but it felt that way.
-
Again, I reiterate that this is a player problem.
Yes, maybe (read "probably") most players of 3e are like that. But I'll be polite and not specify the terribly frightening and mentally unhealthy tendencies the players of some other systems are known for. But I still don't play with those players.
Maybe you guys play with little kids, but I haven't had a problem enforcing rule 0 in ANY system since I was 15 and nearly punch out a friend over it. I don't play with him anymore, and I *always* outline the authority of the gm before playing. Ask Jeffe. When I introduced the campaign I explained I was going to be making a lot of changes.
Players have a right to know that the GM isn't just yanking their chain though. If they truly feel you might not know the rule, then they should bring it up, as long as they back off when you acknowledge it and stick with the new rule. Heck, I've even had players suggest how we could fix a potentially broken rule in the middle of a play session (of D&D 3E).
I really don't think it's a problem with the rule books. It's a problem with the players. Entropy's problem just illustrates how bound HE is by the books. As soon as you as the ref recognize that you aren't bound, then you'll be able to convince your players you aren't.
And incidentally, this is the sort of thing that really puts me on edge about Hackmaster, so I do know what you're talking about. Hackmaster SPECIFICALLY states that you can't change the rules. It all seems like a big joke, but they don't pull it off well. And... er... again, it's there in print that hte GM can't fudge any rolls.
-
So an additional rule, NO BACKSEAT DMing.
-
Lol...Saint, it's almost like you're gunning for me, man...knocking Hackmaster. The nerve...
I've been playing in a sanctioned bi-weekly Hackmaster campaign for the last six months and have been having an absolute blast, as many here know. But how can this be given my arguments about GM freedom above.
The difference is Hackmaster's attitude. It has carries on a soul and spirit that was present in other editions and not in 3E. And it makes no bones about how it should be played. You play by the rules or you're not playing Hackmaster. Period. None of the wishy-washy "I'm going to give the players lots and lots of options and power and let the GM limit them." Restrictions are in place. The GM is firmly in control. The player problem in 3E comes from the fact that lots of players don't heed the restrictions a DM will put on them or that the DM isn't experienced enough to know what to limit and is too entrenched to change things without upsetting the players.
No, Hackmaster is fun BECAUSE of the meta-game. The GM vs. the players mentality. Finding loopholes and advantages in a huge set of rules is part of the fun, but the player's only have the illusion of power. The GM is god. This is all beside the point though.
Saint, it sounds like you have some exceptional players and you should be happy you have them. While my usual group deserves that compliment also, I have found in running and playing demo games and one shots that 3E brings out the power gamer in people. And the system supports it. It's become worse than it was in the late 2E period where we had all the "Guide to..." books. Since the rules system is so easily abused and so difficult to modify the way I like, I choose to play another game.
I'm not saying 3E isn't a good game. It's just not the game for me anymore. It wouldn't be the top selling game since it was released if there wasn't something there that people liked. I gave it 2 years and 3 campaigns. It can ask little more for me.
@Brian: First, welcome to the forum!
Second, its pretty cool that you're running d20 modern without the books. You'll have to keep us up to date on how that turns out. Again though, this is not the kind of modification I'm talking about being unbalancing. Adding feats, skills, prestige classes, and new magic is what the system is built for. I'm talking about subtraction and replacement. Try removing feats. Or skills. The older game systems were extremely simple to heavily modify without the game balance crumbling. 3E isn't.
...And I sound like a broken record... :)
-
Actually saint, ive never GMed a game. I play very little as well. I am just interested in that aspect of it.
And i am merely saying what the books are like. The players will read the PHB. They will use it as their basis for the games. The PHB is not very supportive of the GM.
-
I'm glad that we can talk about systems without punch outs. it's funy that I'm so vociferous about defending 3E when I've already said that the next campaign I run will be CODA, and I'm itching to try a fantasy BESM.
Anyway, I'm *bothered* by the antagnoistic nature of Hackmaster. I *can't* play a game without changing rules (ask anyone who plays risk with me).I don't role play to beat someone. I role play to have a story told. If that doesn't happen or isn't the focus of the game, I get bored. I'd rather play a wargame if I'm gonna go up head to head.
-
I agree. The TWG is nice because we can talk about such things without it turning into a flame war. Everyone's opinions are well respected here, which is one reason I joined in the first place.
-
Fell, I've been thinking about your comments re: advan/disad system for Palladium. You might want to look at Hackmaster's char. gen. mechanics and see if you get any ideas. they've combined rolling and building in some clever ways. I don't think it'd be perfect for Palladium, but with some tinkering you might be able to adapt it fairly well.