D&D 3e mark II WWYD

[Mr_Pleasington]

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?  

[Entsuropi]

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.

[Brian]

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.

[Brian]

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.

[Entsuropi]

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.

[42]

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.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[42]

So an additional rule, NO BACKSEAT DMing.

[Mr_Pleasington]

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...  

[Entsuropi]

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.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[Mr_Pleasington]

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.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.