|
One of the biggest reasons many folks enjoy Dungeons and Dragons over its older edition was being the DM. And I could understand that: building encounters under the old system was, to be kind, kludgy. D&D and Pathfinder make it a heck of a lot simpler using the XP system.
What other aspects of the old system made you dislike being a DM? And do you think WotC and Paizo "fixed" them with their new games?
Ummm... I never had any complaints about encounter design in 3.5, but I will say that it was a black art, and one where the results needed to be tailored to the nature of your table. An EL 10 encounter was not an EL 10 encounter for all configurations of PCs.
But then I'm an old hand at this thing. I cut my teeth on the Erol Otis redbook, so if I'm having a tough time with it now...
I will say that even in 4E (and I haven't had a chance to dig into the PRPG system yet, though the core book is staring at me from the pile next to the keyboard, daring me to brain someone with it) the XP system does not make all 10th level encounters equal. I'm sure my investigation of PRPG will reaffirm my suspicions...
Encounter design remains a black art.
-Ben.
I don't think building encounters was that bad in 3.5 unless you custom made every NPC. I would normally take the ones from the DMG or some NPC generator and work up or down from there. The bosses took a while for me to make, but the looks of frustration on my players faces, which led to relief when they finally finished him/her/it off was worth it.
The only thing I ever really have a problem with is making maps. I have never had a talent for it. I have recently ordered a map from Oone(spelling?). I am sure that saved me a lot of time.
I am also lucky enough that I have only had one issue with people trying to break the game so the unbalanced factor did not sour me to 3.5 like it has to others. Another complaint I found was that when one person DM's all the time it can get old.
|
I am also lucky enough that I have only had one issue with people trying to break the game so the unbalanced factor did not sour me to 3.5 like it has to others. Another complaint I found was that when one person DM's all the time it can get old.
I will echo that sentiment here : the only problems I had with 3.5 were players believing they could act in disruptive fashion, and waste the time of everybody else at the table because they had a RPGA card, and rules lawyers wanting to grind the game just because they wanted everybody to listen their rules lessons.
These people were often one and the same.
I think hate is a strong word. If I hated 3.5, then I would not have played it. Were there things that could have been improved? Certainly, yes. Have they been in the PFRPG? Yes and no.
Calculating XP for encounters is infinitely easier. Crafting rules are much less of a pain. The combat maneuver system is a vast improvement. The classes and their abilities have been overhauled in such a way that a party can do more in their adventuring day, which means the game has less interruption from resting; overall there's a better flow to the game. Darkness no longer lights up an area... Overall, there's a lot to like.
That said, there are still small things here and there that I don't like. For example, squeezing rules and weapon sizes. However, I already have house rules in place to make things work the way I want to in those areas. So suffice it to say that Pathfinder is a major improvement on a system I already enjoy.
I'm beginning to think Joela likes to have exaggerative titles, to make the thread stand out and attract more posters, kind of like in journalism, but that's just my guess.
I think this thread is going to go down hill like a bobsled, but I'll bite.
I disliked several things about DM'ing 3.5. Among the chief offenders:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* High level combat, especially with Dispel Magic flying around.
* Encounter preparation, especially generating NPCs or adding levels to monsters.
* The huge disparity in power level of the various classes (a.k.a. CoDZilla).
For the most part, these things were fixed (for me, at least) in 4E, but were not fixed in PFRPG. So I'm still stuck in limbo, with a system I like from a company I can't stand (and do NOT wish to support) on one side, and the setting and adventures I enjoy from a company I like, but written for a system I can no longer stand, on the other.
I'm seriously looking at Savage Worlds. :D
|
|
* High level combat, especially with Dispel Magic flying around.
* Encounter preparation, especially generating NPCs or adding levels to monsters.
* The huge disparity in power level of the various classes (a.k.a. CoDZilla).For the most part, these things were fixed (for me, at least) in 4E, but were not fixed in PFRPG.y I like, but written for a system I can no longer stand, on the other.
You weren't impressed how Pathfinder handled Dispel Magic? As for NPCs and levels to monsters, I haven't fully read through the Core book yet. Are they addressed in it? Or will it be in the Bestiary?
I'm seriously looking at Savage Worlds. :D
I currently play in a Ravaged Earth campaign which uses the SW ruleset. Recently we did a fantasy one-shot with the system. Fun, but definitely different.
You weren't impressed how Pathfinder handled Dispel Magic? As for NPCs and levels to monsters, I haven't fully read through the Core book yet. Are they addressed in it? Or will it be in the Bestiary?
I'm not sure the Dispel Magic change will really do much more than force folks to prep more copies of Dispel Magic. As for the NPC thing, they did introduce a simplified NPC generation system that, in fairness, did make things a bit less burdensome.
Ultimately, I'm not sure it would be possible to truly fix these things while retaining any sort of backward compatibility. WotC couldn't do it with 4E, either, and they seemed to throw a bunch of money at the problem.
It may also be that my tastes are just swinging in a different direction; there was a time when I wouldn't have given something like Savage Worlds a look. I may never do anything with it, but I at least see the draw now.
|
|
It may also be that my tastes are just swinging in a different direction; there was a time when I wouldn't have given something like Savage Worlds a look. I may never do anything with it, but I at least see the draw now.
Understood. Heck, look at me: 3.x, then 4th, then Pathfinder while playing/running SW. Running my first World of Darkness game today while eying even more systems. (When I mentioned interest in GMing Dark Heresy, I swear I know how cult leaders feel with the amount of interest that suddenly blossomed in the room.)
I must say i am somewhat confused hearing that some game masters would complain about the complexity of adventure writing or NPCs building.
That is the point of being a game master, isn't it ? Writing stories with interesting encounters for the players characters, along with keeping the setting alive and rich in details.
I don't see what the edition - or even the game system - has to do with it. I don't feel any difference in making up scenarii now with 3.5 compared to AD&D 1st edition.
Yes, it is serous work, it takes some large amount of time, but that's worth it if the GM loves what he's doing and his players, and get some recognition and respect from them in return.
|
For me, the "swallow whole" riff, and the "muscular action" closing of the wound. Anybody see the first Alien? I bet it hurts to have a dwarf knife his way out of your esophagus; I don't care how big you are.
That, and no mechanic for called shots.....I wanna shoot a vampire in the heart with an arrow dangit!!!
I don't know if it's been fixed; haven't read everything.
|
|
Didn't hate it.
I still look forward to playing some, as there are elements that aren't available in Pathfinder that I love to play with (Command Clerics using Rebuke to take control of Air, Earth, Fire, Water, Plant, Construct, Scalykind, Spiders, etc., for instance).
Most of the problematic spells have been fixed in 3.5. And, presumably, in 4E as well (by utterly getting rid of them).
Fighters, Barbarians and Paladins have many more options and are much more interesting (and, in the case of Fighters, effective) in Pathfinder. You can build a Paladin that *isn't* an UberCharger and still be a mean mamajama. Again, presumably, these issues are also dealt with in 4E (and, I'll assume that 4E has a Barbarian by now).
Various fiddly bits (taking that 1st level in Rogue for the 4x skill points), or the worthlessness of Toughness as a Feat, or the plethora of redundant skills (Listen & Spot, and yet no skill for a keen sense of smell, or taste, or touch?) all got dealt with in Pathfinder, and, again, 'dealt with' in 4E (again, by pretty much dropping them).
Each game found it's own way to deal with the various fiddly bits that sometimes threw 3rd edition a bit off. One of them managed to save the baby, while throwing out the bathwater.
And, despite playing and loving 3rd edition, I don't *hate* second edition either, and there's a ton of stuff from 2nd edition (the entire Al-Qadim setting, some particularly cool kits, such as the Totem-Sister, etc.) that I would have loved to see brought over.
Just because I move to something new today doesn't mean that I hate what was doing yesterday. Sometimes the memories even get fonder, as I get farther removed from the mechanical bits that bugged me at the time, and remember instead the fun times that were had.
Old doesn't mean bad, something that becomes a little more pointed of an observation when one is north of forty... :)
|
|
I must say i am somewhat confused hearing that some game masters would complain about the complexity of adventure writing or NPCs building.
Hearing people who *work at WotC* referring to designing NPCs as 'boring math' and 'taking several hours' was a real eye-opener. You think they'd hire people that 'get' their game and don't find things like math and reading hard or tedious.
I would regularly write up three encounters worth of people (including a pirate's ship full of classed characters, and a small mercenary band, in some cases) in 'several hours' when I was running the Freeport modules. If anything, I often overprepared in those hours, and ended up with more material than I needed for the day's game.
You get back what you put into it. If I wanted to, I could flip open the Monster Manual and just use beasties straight out of it, and it would take me as long as it took me to find the page and prop the book open. But I like to customize. That mercenary bounty hunter captain can't just be a Fighter, because I want him to be an Urban Ranger who dual wields throwing axes. His Sorcerer Lt. can't just be a vanilla Sorcerer, I have to write him up as a Battle Sorcerer, Warlock *and* Warmage, before deciding which one I want to use. That 'hanging judge' and city executioner didn't even need stats, but she's a tiny little Cloistered Cleric of Wee Jas who uses disguise to help conceal her age and maintain a child-like appearance, and he's an unspeaking Scarlet Brotherhood Monk who executes people with an unarmed coup de grace to the neck. I detailed the 'gavel' she used (skull with continual flame on it) and the banners on the wall behind her, because that's the sort of detail that brings a scene to life.
Someone else could use a muscular dude in a hood with an axe, and a grumpy man in a black robe with a wig. It's all good, so long as the players are having a blast.
Hearing people who *work at WotC* referring to designing NPCs as 'boring math' and 'taking several hours' was a real eye-opener. You think they'd hire people that 'get' their game and don't find things like math and reading hard or tedious.
It doesn't matter what they like. It matters what their customers like. I can understand your frustration that a majority of those customers don't find statting NPCs as stimulating as you do, but don't blame WotC for listening to their customers’ complaints.
I would regularly write up three encounters worth of people (including a pirate's ship full of classed characters, and a small mercenary band, in some cases) in 'several hours' when I was running the Freeport modules. If anything, I often overprepared in those hours, and ended up with more material than I needed for the day's game.
You get back what you put into it. If I wanted to, I could flip open the Monster Manual and just use beasties straight out of it, and it would take me as long as it took me to find the page and prop the book open. But I like to customize. That mercenary bounty hunter captain can't just be a Fighter, because I want him to be an Urban Ranger who dual wields throwing axes. His Sorcerer Lt. can't just be a vanilla Sorcerer, I have to write him up as a Battle Sorcerer, Warlock *and* Warmage, before deciding which one I want to use. That 'hanging judge' and city executioner didn't even need stats, but she's a tiny little Cloistered Cleric of Wee Jas who uses disguise to help conceal her age and maintain a child-like appearance, and he's an unspeaking Scarlet Brotherhood Monk who executes people with an unarmed coup de grace to the neck. I detailed the 'gavel' she used (skull with continual flame on it) and the banners on the wall behind her, because that's the sort of detail that brings a scene to life.
Someone else could use a muscular dude in a hood with an axe, and a grumpy man in a black robe with a wig. It's all good, so long as the players are having a blast.
Personally, I enjoyed statting NPCs. Unfortunately, I have a family and no longer have the luxury of several hours to spend on that particular aspect of DMing. I'd venture to guess that I'm one of the demographics that WotC was aiming for with 4E - that of the gamer who played in his/her younger days but now has a hard time finding more than a few hours during the week to play because real world responsibilities are monopolizing their free time.
As a final note, none of the characters you mentioned are specific to any system. It doesn’t matter what their stats on the page are, it’s how the DM plays them at the table that matters. They are a whole lot easier to build in 4E, though. The dual-wielding Urban Ranger in particular is a specific character one of my players and I want to build for our 4E game :)
|
|
I love dming 3 and 3.5 and still do. loved dming pathfinder beta and as will soon be converting over to PFRPG. Its never taken me "hours" to stat out npcs but to be honest I enjoy putting the time in to designing a session.
I ran a Vampire the Masquerade game for about 3 years and that took a hell of a lot more prep work but I find the more you put in in the more you get out.
Ive ran games with absolutely no planning before when we've turned up for a session and the dm has gone last minute sick and they have been fun as well.
Ive only played 4e a few times and im meh about it. ill play it if someone is running a game but I dont think I will ever dm it.
|
Prep time (contrary to Set) was always my bugbear with 3.5. Without having looked at the detail I find it hard to believe that PFRPG has changed that much. A great system, very flexible, but not always easy and demanding considerable attention to detail. 4e is much simpler to prepare for, particularly as they have different levels of the same beasties out of the book. But it is also a bit "shallower" - you tweak more than anyhing else, whereas in 3.5 you built or rebuilt from the ground up, which was maybe more satisfying. But with 4e, I get to speak to my wife at weekends as well as prep for the game on Sunday.
I'll be honest, I think alot of the problems regarding any game are grossly exagheratted. One of the first things I see whenever someone speaks about PF or 4th Edition is usally along the lines of "OMG they totally fixed XY and Z! Now the game is playable!" seeming to forget the simply fact that if they didn't like it, they wouldn't have stuck with the game..
To me, 3.5 has problems, but 4th Edition and PFRPG has problems as well, just different ones.
Hearing people who *work at WotC* referring to designing NPCs as 'boring math' and 'taking several hours' was a real eye-opener. You think they'd hire people that 'get' their game and don't find things like math and reading hard or tedious.It doesn't matter what they like. It matters what their customers like. I can understand your frustration that a majority of those customers don't find statting NPCs as stimulating as you do, but don't blame WotC for listening to their customers’ complaints.
Especially considering we heard much the same types of statements here when Alpha and Beta were discussed (skills anyone?).
|
|
I'll be honest, I think alot of the problems regarding any game are grossly exagheratted. One of the first things I see whenever someone speaks about PF or 4th Edition is usally along the lines of "OMG they totally fixed XY and Z! Now the game is playable!" seeming to forget the simply fact that if they didn't like it, they wouldn't have stuck with the game..
To me, 3.5 has problems, but 4th Edition and PFRPG has problems as well, just different ones.
Extremely well put, Nero24200.
(Any relation to New England Roleplaying Organization, btw?)I find that there are always some of each New Edition's Enthusiasts becomes an insensitive brow-beater of the "old guard" of the previous edition. Likewise, there are always some stodgy grognards (I have ironically enough become of both camps and my ears burn as I write this) to grouse and carp at the unfairness of the mandatory changes. Having watched this from all the way back in 1st Edition AD&D and having heard horror stories amongst my older contemporaries of how poorly the transition from D&D to AD&D was handled, I can relate to this strongly from both perspectives, but far more strongly the latter, over the last 3 edition rehashes of this.
As far as enthusiasm for the hobby is concerned I rejoice in seeing problems fixed. As a software designer, I can appreciate "updating bad code". However, as an IT professional, I can equally cringe at the use of terminology like the fated decimal point in "3.0" and "3.5" knowing that the ominous shadow of a new edition which requires new books be purchased, rampant retcon, repeated disrespect to canon and world-shaking events to justify cosmology changes looms in the horizon.
Now that being said, having experienced this three times with acute and outspoken umbrage at what I felt was subsequent and repeated butchery of my hobby, I have gone from being "the young kid" rookie to the Curmudgeonly grognard in labelling. As such having looked at 4th edition I and most of my friends can agree, while we Don't Like it and Won't Play It, we can see why it appeals to fans old and new, even if those reasons contradict our very reasons for playing.
To Whit, it's a great stepping stone to more complex rules systems or a revival for old 1st edition fans who loved the simplicity of it all.
Inevitably with Hasbro purchasing Wizards this all becomes very apparent for what it is:
A reason to publish more books and reign in the dominance of 3rd party publications over the growing market. What I see here is a disturbing trend of an exponentially shrinking time differential before "Everything Old is New Again" becomes license to revamp all things and publish a new line of books. The reasons are always the same, and don't get me wrong! 3rd edition/3.5 had OOodles of flaws, especially when juggling which sourcebooks "core" or otherwise one plays with.
That being said, the problem here is that everyone's tabletop runs differently and what is "fixed" for some or "emphasized", equates to broken or ridiculous for others.
Certain adages prove true every time:
1.) The Art gets consistently better. I used to Singlemindedly refer to this as "painting the wh$#re as peddling swill becomes easier in pretty packages". Instead now I will say it is marketting at its finest and it does its job well.
2.) The Mechanics will always be simpler.
The excuse for each revision is "overly complex rules and too many published supplements have made the game cumbersome". The problem is, and slowly people start to realize it, that this is built-in obsolescence, as five years from now, (or two, at the going rate of acceleration) there will STILL be a NEW number of "too many books published". Whether this appeals and you accept this or one feels cheated after spending ____, _____ or _______ amounts of money on said volumes of whatever edition, this is going to happen. One's mentality and how one alters one's habits as a consumer will determine how each should proceed.
3.) There will always be a flamewar on forums about this.
Be it at 'Cons or Online there will always be an old guard that dislikes the changes and a fresh batch that will be cheerleaders for it.
The question and issue here lies in how best each party can intellectually appreciate the position of the other viewpoint, and how much yields to meaningless and immature squabbling. Because inevitably there will ALWAYS be people who LIKED the way X, Y or Z mechanic worked and thus THAT is why that particular edition sold product and had games where we can all generate these wonderful differing opinions.
So as I said, excellent point Nero24200.
(Any relation to New England Roleplaying Organization, btw?)
Nope, not a part of any RP organization.
I find that there are always some of each New Edition's Enthusiasts becomes an insensitive brow-beater of the "old guard" of the previous edition.
This is somthing that can be seen quite easily too. I admit I was prety anti-4th Edition when it came out, but well, I soon realised that simply because a new game is out, theres nothing to stop me playing my own. I also saw a few things which made me just feel silly for getting so annoyed at it, like this.
There will always be a flamewar on forums about this.
Hopefully there will be others willing to take an approach I've seen some others take recenetly. When ever someone mentions 4th Edition vrs PF or 3.5, the response I'm hoping to see is.
"Well, I prefer the apples to the oranges".
I'll be honest, I think alot of the problems regarding any game are grossly exagheratted. One of the first things I see whenever someone speaks about PF or 4th Edition is usally along the lines of "OMG they totally fixed XY and Z! Now the game is playable!" seeming to forget the simply fact that if they didn't like it, they wouldn't have stuck with the game..
To me, 3.5 has problems, but 4th Edition and PFRPG has problems as well, just different ones.
Haha, this is so true. I just have different house rules now.
3.X was definitely playable and still is, however I like the different class options in PRPG. Several classes are much better and more interesting.
Now I won't be able to laugh as much at my buddy who likes to play barbarians... his day has come!
|
|
What other aspects of the old system made you dislike being a DM? And do you think WotC and Paizo "fixed" them with their new games?
Not anything really made me "dislike", let alone "hate", being a DM with 3.5.
I love being a DM.
I love 3.5.
I love DMing 3.5.
I do like some of Pathfinder's changes, and will adopt that system as the evolution of the 3.5 game we love at our game table.
One thing I would mention that was made easier with Pathfinder RPG is character creation: streamlining skills is one of the simplest, yet biggest changes making the whole thing easier to manage. Same thing about leveling up characters.
|
|
I liked DMing 3.5e but hated the "player combos of doom". pfRPG in my reading has minimisied some of what annoyed me while DMing, but not having given it a good go yet I'll have to keep my opinion vague.
I was never one for bothering with the "players" rules when making NPC's so my homebrew game prep time was low. NPC's did and had exactly what I wanted them to have, and I still think formula's for a balance encounter don't really work. They assume the players will do vanilla things and do a hit point vs hit point stand up fight. Roleplaying ain't that straight forward...
4e is one version of D&D that I really can't get into DMing, not because of the roleplaying parts but because of the mind-numbing array of conditions to be keep track of round to round during combat and the marriage of miniatures. Having said that, I play and like 4e as a player.
Savage Worlds - appeals to me and once our Savage Tide AP (using the new pfRPG) is over I'll start DMing another AP with SW I'm thinking (True20 also appeals).
S.
|
|
So I say that you can put in as much or as little detail into NPC creation as you like, since even the core books include a plethora of premade encounters, and end with 'It's all good, so long as the players are having a blast.'
And the response to that non-judgemental 'it's all good' comment?
Personally, I enjoyed statting NPCs. Unfortunately, I have a family
Charming. The implication that I *don't* have a family, or that I don't spend enough time with them, or that I should 'get a life,' in response to my saying that you can use as much or little detail as you like, depending on your circumstances, and aren't 'doing it wrong' so long as everyone is having fun, seems overly antagonistic, don't you think?
Yeesh. Throw out an olive branch, and someone picks it up and jabs you in the eye with it.
Charming. The implication that I *don't* have a family, or that I don't spend enough time with them, or that I should 'get a life,' in response to my saying that you can use as much or little detail as you like, depending on your circumstances, and aren't 'doing it wrong' so long as everyone is having fun, seems overly antagonistic, don't you think?
I don't imply anything, ever. I say exactly what I mean. See Aubrey's last post...
Certain adages prove true every time:
1.) The Art gets consistently better.
<opens can of worms>
IMO, that's debatable. Some of the '80s art (i.e., by Caldwell, Elmore, etc.) for BECMI D&D and 1st Ed AD&D is just as good as any art today. Then again, I prefer a more "naturalistic" feel than "stylized/anime-ish" artwork. YMMV.
I'd say that current publishing practices make the art more consistent in quality rather than "consistently better." Some of the art pieces in previous editions are absolutely gorgeous, but they may share a product with mediocre "clip art" stock drawings. Also, advances in printing technology/techniques have almost eliminated the "cover/interior art" dichotomy.
Charming. The implication that I *don't* have a family, or that I don't spend enough time with them, or that I should 'get a life,' in response to my saying that you can use as much or little detail as you like, depending on your circumstances, and aren't 'doing it wrong' so long as everyone is having fun, seems overly antagonistic, don't you think?
Yeesh. Throw out an olive branch, and someone picks it up and jabs you in the eye with it.
Where, exactly, does Sebastrd tell you to get a life or make all these other accusations? Seems it is disingenuous, at best, to put words like that into his mouth.
As to the original question about what I hated (and yes that is the correct word) about DMing 3E it fell squarely on two things - prep time and high level anything. Even at low levels prep time seemed way too long as I was regularly putting in an hour of prep per hour of play time. By the time the group hit 10th level it was double that. At 18th level it was about 2.5 hours per hour of pay time. Granted the one campaign was fairly combat centric but the other was about 50/50 and it still seemed to take forever to figure out skill points, feats, spells (oh god the spells by the end I would pick 4 spells and forget about the rest). High level (beyond 15th) was a complete nightmare for me as a DM. The combats were dull as dishwater (you're fighting Dragotha! 1.5 rounds later he's dead! Woo!) and any kind of 'skill challenge' was pointless with the PCs ability to boost/buff skill checks into the stratosphere. Oh and buffing - gah! God forbid anyone should cast Dispel Magic as that is the end of whatever you were doing as you re calculate every stinking bonus you have.
*whew* I didn't really want to go back to thinking about that time. If I ever run 3E again no one is passing 10th level.
As for if 4E fixed these problems I can only answer partially. Prep time is down to a low fraction of what it was. I recently spent 2 hours making up some encounters and the story to link them. i figured it would be good for a sessions worth. Turned out to be 2 5 hour sessions worth! And it wasn't because the combats ground on forever either - people were engaged and interested for the entire time in and out of combat. As for high level play - I simply don't know yet as my groups are only 6th and 7th level respectively. I hope it doesn't become the horror show 3E turned into for me but you never know. At least with the D&D Insider Compendium I can easily swipe level appropriate critters for the latest books and plop them into my campaign documents.
|
This is somthing that can be seen quite easily too. I admit I was prety anti-4th Edition when it came out, but well, I soon realised that simply because a new game is out, theres nothing to stop me playing my own. I also saw a few things which made me just feel silly for getting so annoyed at it, like this.
I hadn't seen this.
Positively hilarious.