PDA

View Full Version : New System or new DM



Minwaabi
2013-11-22, 05:18 PM
I have only played D&D 3.5 a few times now, but it's generally been a frustrating experience. I'm not sure if it is just bad DMing* or a bad system*. (* for the type of game I'd like to play).

I've played once solo as a ranger. I had all these nagging questions about why things worked the way they did. Where does this town get its food from? Why are those snakes attacking me? I'm neither food nor a threat to them. How the heck does this ecosystem work? Where are the prey species? Lesson learned: don't play a character you could be in real life. Suspension of disbelief is just too hard.

My next time playing was a straight up dungeon crawl with an actual party - I think we had a rogue, a wizard (me), and a cleric. More annoying questions: Who built this dungeon, why, and HOW? And why were three bandits, a bunch of undead (who went *poof* with a turn undead check), and a giant monster of some sort all working together - or were they just near each other?

My last time playing, I tried DMing. No more annoying questions about odd animal behavior, construction practices, ecology, or economy. At least not right away. It was a solo sandbox adventure and the PC was a thief. After the first session, he made a fair amount of gp but virtually no XP because he didn't kill anything. The most XP he made was from killing a guard dog. In RL, I'd consider a thief having to kill anything an utter failure on his part. And that got me thinking. How does anything get done? How do you become a good thief, or doctor, or lawyer, or mathematician? Why, by killing a bunch of goblins of course! :smallconfused: Also, why does a high level fighter have more HP than a small dragon?

So, I guess I'm wondering if anyone has seen this DMed well or if maybe there are some variant rules or something. Or if I'm just expecting the wrong things from this system and I should try something else. If so, what?

some guy
2013-11-22, 05:30 PM
These are mostly issues with playing style. Switching systems won't help (unless those systems offer great guides and tools for creating ecologies and such, but then those tools would be useful for any system).
Also, in 3.5 and a lot of other versions of d&d xp is gained by overcoming challenges. Doesn't have to be combat challenges, and if it is for combat it doesn't have to be for killing.
High level fighters have more hp than small dragons, because small dragons are usually either wyrmlings or very young. High level fighters know more about combat than very young dragons. (Tangent; I never understood why anyone would want to fight juvenile or younger dragons? Where's the challenge?)

lunar2
2013-11-22, 05:43 PM
point 1. ecology: D&D focuses on the portion of the ecology that wants to kill you. some stats for other animals are there, but generally, if it's statted it's meant to be deadly. the rest of the ecology is simply assumed to be there. even hunting/gathering/trapping for food is reduced to a single skill check.

point 2. dungeons. this is bad dungeon design. sounds like the DM just threw some random encounters together in a dungeon, and dropped you into it. as for why the dungeon is there, it varies. some are natural cave formations, some are abandoned mines. some (usually the ones filled with undead) are ancient tombs. really, unless it's just a cave system, a dungeon wasn't always a dungeon, it used to have a purpose. not all dungeons even need to be underground. an old castle that's been taken over by bandits, for example.

point 3. advancement. overcoming any challenge is supposed to grant exp. kill the dog? exp. sneak past the dog? same exp. befriend the dog so it lets you past? same exp. although there's not any rules for it, supposedly the people gaining levels in npc classes do so by doing their jobs. the master blacksmith got that way by working at his trade for years.

point 4. hp. hp is an abstraction of physical health, luck, divine favor, and skill. it's all the things that keep you alive. a high level fighter is much more skilled at evading and blocking attacks than a young dragon, and that makes up for the fact that the dragon is physically tougher.

Honest Tiefling
2013-11-22, 05:51 PM
Tangent; I never understood why anyone would want to fight juvenile or younger dragons? Where's the challenge?

Sometimes, a battle is not about the challenge. It is about getting a set of matched luggage.

More on topic, I think this has less to do with the system, and more with expectations. DnD just was never designed with these ideas in mind. In fact, I don't know of any RPG that had these factors in mind. My question is, how do you feel about homebrewing a campaign or creating guidelines to use ecology and so forth in a game? You seem to imply that you have some interest in ecology, unless I am misreading something. Personally, I would think it would make for a really nifty Druid/Ranger/Wilderness character campaign.

(And now for a tangent of my own: Why would a thief care about not killing people? Is he going to desynchronize or fail the mission? Thievery is about stealing, not a body count or lack thereof)

lunar2
2013-11-22, 06:07 PM
Sometimes, a battle is not about the challenge. It is about getting a set of matched luggage.

More on topic, I think this has less to do with the system, and more with expectations. DnD just was never designed with these ideas in mind. In fact, I don't know of any RPG that had these factors in mind. My question is, how do you feel about homebrewing a campaign or creating guidelines to use ecology and so forth in a game? You seem to imply that you have some interest in ecology, unless I am misreading something. Personally, I would think it would make for a really nifty Druid/Ranger/Wilderness character campaign.

(And now for a tangent of my own: Why would a thief care about not killing people? Is he going to desynchronize or fail the mission? Thievery is about stealing, not a body count or lack thereof)

killing draws attention to yourself. professional thieves don't kill if they can help it because they are trying to keep a low profile.

Knaight
2013-11-22, 06:07 PM
D&D doesn't seem like your style, at all. The thief issue actually is a rules misread - sneaking past an opponent and taking their stuff should get your experience for them - but other than that it's pretty clear that you want a fairly grounded game. D&D is not that game.

If you like the amount of mechanics you're dealing with, try GURPS. It's very realism focused, though it can still handle fantasy without issue. It also doesn't do the whole 'combat experience is experience' thing at all, instead skills are learned through use or through putting experience into it that you get for a session as a whole.

If you would also like to trim the amount of mechanics in use and go for something rules light, there are a number of options. Fudge and Chronica Feudalis are the two I would first look towards, with Chronica Feudalis being more narratively focused and Fudge a very light simulationist* game.

*GNS has some issues, but it gets the point across.

Vamphyr
2013-11-22, 06:24 PM
D&D can be a bit of a restricting system to adjust to, but the best way to make it work the way you want is through DMing and creating your own world.

If ecology and a believable ecosystem are important to you and your players, build one! Only use creatures that are powerful predators to attack the PC's or have the PC's stumble across a young monster who's angry mother is right behind them.

Dungeon design is very important. You can explain a dungeon in a number of ways:
-Built by a wizard
-Abandoned fort/monastery
-The last remnants of an ancient civilization who's structures have all sunken below ground through the ages.

Once a solid background is set up, you want to figure out what inhabits the dungeon. It's okay to have undead, bandits, and a giant monster all in the same dungeon, you just want to space them out properly. Giant monsters frequently look for dark, quiet places to lair up where Adventurers won't try to murder it.

Maybe a necromancer tried to use the dungeon as a lair a few years ago. He spent all his time summoning numerous types of undead, preparing to venture forth to the surface and exact his revenge! That was until he stepped out of his part of the dungeon to take a leak and the Giant Monster devoured him. Now all those undead are still lurking down there, waiting for unsuspecting adventurers to devour.

People are always trying to raid dungeons, your players certainly are, it only makes sense that the Adventurers may encounter other... less savory characters. A group of bandits who weren't looking to split any treasure would be extremely hostile to another group, especially one much smaller than their own.

So the dungeon may go something like:
-Enter
-Encounter some traps, find some old lore about the group that originally built the dungeon.
-Venture deeper and encounter a few goblins or orcs who were trying to find shelter.
-Explore some more and run into the Bandit Clan and their Boss trying to open an old door with very a very elaborate lock and spell work.
-Defeat the Bandits and breach the door to the Necomancer's Chambers.
-Fight through undead, acquire gold and magic items
-Exit the Necromancer's Chambers to discover a series of larger tunnels that look like they were carved from the original hallways
-Fight the Giant Monster and claim all of its treasure as their own!

This is of course very bare bones and could be expanded upon as much as needed. I've always found the best question to ask when doing any campaign design is "Why?"

If you can come up with a suitable answer as to why the bandits are there, why the undead are in the lower tunnels, and why the monster is there, it makes everything feel more natural.

Just remember, the answer to "Why?" does not have to be complicated. Sometimes the simplest answers are the best.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-11-22, 06:26 PM
I think you just started running into limitations of 3.5 D&D (and later-edition D&D, really). There's a lot of other systems out there. GURPS will certainly cover a lot of your detail problems.

If you're still interested in "adventure fantasy", might want to give Dungeon World a try. Case in point, here's how you get XP at the end of the session...


...look at your alignment. If you fulfilled that alignment at least once this session, mark XP. Then answer these three questions as a group:
• Did we learn something new and important about the world?
• Did we overcome a notable monster or enemy?
• Did we loot a memorable treasure?

For each “yes” answer everyone marks XP.

(Your XP will never go out of the double digits, as a point of reference. I think it tops out at 17 XP to get to Level 10.)

So you advance your character by doing things like looting treasure, exploring the world, and playing to your alignment. The rest of the game is also pretty cool--it encourages you to figure out the details of the world, and focuses less on putting characters through setpiece challenges.

Oracle_Hunter
2013-11-22, 09:10 PM
I have only played D&D 3.5 a few times now, but it's generally been a frustrating experience. I'm not sure if it is just bad DMing* or a bad system*. (* for the type of game I'd like to play).
You need a new system.

Your concerns in the games you played were DMing issues, but not ones unusual to D&D (or RPGs in general). If world-consistency is very important to you as a Player, either pick a Real World Game (e.g. Bliss Stage (http://www.tao-games.com/bliss-stage)) where your RL experiences should map to the game, or a system where world-building is part of the game (e.g. Shock: Social Science Fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock:_Social_Science_Fiction))

Your concerns as a DM are entirely based on the D&D system. If you like Heroic Fantasy but would prefer advancement be more character-driven you should try Burning Wheel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Burning_Wheel) or it's more popular setting, Mouse Guard (http://www.mouseguard.net/books/role-playing-game/).

Good luck :smallsmile:

Remmirath
2013-11-22, 10:56 PM
I had all these nagging questions about why things worked the way they did. Where does this town get its food from? Why are those snakes attacking me? I'm neither food nor a threat to them. How the heck does this ecosystem work? Where are the prey species? Lesson learned: don't play a character you could be in real life. Suspension of disbelief is just too hard.

That is a DM issue, since one surely can play a game of D&D where all of those questions are answered reasonably and satisfactorily. Personally, if I knew I had a ranger in the game and that ranger was likely to be interested in that sort of thing, I'd be sure to have those questions answered. If it were sprung on me, I'd come up with answers.


My next time playing was a straight up dungeon crawl with an actual party - I think we had a rogue, a wizard (me), and a cleric. More annoying questions: Who built this dungeon, why, and HOW? And why were three bandits, a bunch of undead (who went *poof* with a turn undead check), and a giant monster of some sort all working together - or were they just near each other?

Sometimes a dungeon such as that can be fun, but I generally prefer my dungeons to have interesting explanations behind them. That's a play style thing, so again, a DM issue -- although I will say that this sort of dungeon is very common in D&D games.


My last time playing, I tried DMing. No more annoying questions about odd animal behavior, construction practices, ecology, or economy. At least not right away. It was a solo sandbox adventure and the PC was a thief. After the first session, he made a fair amount of gp but virtually no XP because he didn't kill anything. The most XP he made was from killing a guard dog. In RL, I'd consider a thief having to kill anything an utter failure on his part. And that got me thinking. How does anything get done? How do you become a good thief, or doctor, or lawyer, or mathematician? Why, by killing a bunch of goblins of course! :smallconfused: Also, why does a high level fighter have more HP than a small dragon?

My belief is that in any system, the GM is always free to award XP based on things that they believe deserve it. It may not be spelled out in every manual, but you should feel free to award XP for things such as disarming traps or sneaking or accomplishing goals, particularly if that's the aim of the adventure.

That isn't what D&D is designed for, however; I'm sure there are more stealth-based and skill-based systems out there. I am not particularly familiar with any of them.


So, I guess I'm wondering if anyone has seen this DMed well or if maybe there are some variant rules or something. Or if I'm just expecting the wrong things from this system and I should try something else. If so, what?

My general take on systems is that they are largely what the DM and the players make of them. They provide the backbone, and the base rules, and then the DM and the group take them and refine them. I choose systems based on what parts I like -- largely based on combat systems, with some emphasis on skills -- and then house rule what I don't like. That's not for everyone, of course, and I don't think it's how most people go about it.

D&D isn't built for non or low combat adventures. If that's what you prefer, it may be best to look elsewhere. It is also entirely possible to add house rules and award XP such that D&D will work with little to no combat, but if that's not what you like doing, one of the systems others have already suggested would likely be more to your taste.

I would say that a large part of your problems have been due to the DM's style not meshing with your own, however, and your DMing problems could be solved with house rules and a somewhat creative take on the system -- but they could also be solved by a different system.

Airk
2013-11-23, 12:30 AM
As most people have pointed out, it's both.

While stuff like towns with no food supply and dungeons filled with WTFEver monsters, all inexplicably cohabitating in the same apartment-complex-like underground space are definitely issues that can be fixed by the GM not doing those things, at the same time, D&D pretty much encourages this kind of dumb stuff - in part because of how the XP system works. Not, as you seem to have misconstrued (quite understandably, really) for killing things, but for 'overcoming challenges' and it doesn't really matter what those challenges are.

That said, I don't think any system is going to solve issues like villages with no food supplies. That's just not the sort of thing game systems DO. Even games or supplements that claim to detail campaign worlds don't usually get down to that kind of detail, so a system switch won't do you any favors there - I definitely DO NOT recommend GURPS unless what really interests you is fiddly little game details. (Not even world details.)

So in terms of a system, I think it's important to step back and first try to determine what your goals are for a game. Is it to stomp around being Big Damn Heroes and smiting whatever beasts get in your way without worrying too much about realistic detail? Well, then you can probably stick with D&D. On the other hand, if you are interested in trying to create a story, with characters that have character, and motivations beyond "get more XP and loot" you are well advised to look elsewhere. Similarly, if you are interested in 'realistic' combat where characters are fragile and die easily, and so forth. There are a LOT of different systems out there that have different goals, and the most important thing is to find a system that gives you the tools to run the game you want to run.

While I don't have a 'checklist' of stuff that you should think about, this link (http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/the-same-page-tool/) provides a starting point that should at least help you start thinking about the kinds of questions you should be asking. And once you have answers to a few, we can better make a recommendation for a system choice. :)

Rhynn
2013-11-23, 12:44 AM
Play Adventurer Conqueror King! Link in my sig. D&D style in a simple package, built over some serious number-crunching for economics, and "justified" dungeons (mages build them to lure in monsters and occasionally harvest body parts from them for use in magic research :smallcool: ). Also, you get more XP for treasure than combat because adventurers are trying to get treasure.


It was a solo sandbox adventure and the PC was a thief. After the first session, he made a fair amount of gp but virtually no XP because he didn't kill anything. The most XP he made was from killing a guard dog. In RL, I'd consider a thief having to kill anything an utter failure on his part.

This is because the designers of D&D 3E made the idiotic decision to drop the "XP for treasure" rules that were part of the game from the start, and were always the bigger source of XP (about 75%), and motivated players to play entirely differently (fighting monsters was frequently a bad idea).


How do you become a good [...] doctor, or lawyer, or mathematician?

Straight up this is not something that matters in most RPGs, so often there's no rules for it. (There are in ACKS! You get more proficiencies as you age, and invest them in your specialty.)

If you just want more realistic RPGs, try...

Artesia: Adventures in the Known World
RuneQuest
GURPS
HârnMaster
Rolemaster
The Riddle of Steel

Slipperychicken
2013-11-23, 02:20 AM
Honestly, it seems like you want a lot more simulationism than most D&D games give. Personally, I often play a less-serious game with verisimilitude sometimes giving way for humor, but I do understand your concerns. Thankfully, there are games (many of them already mentioned) which do what you seem to want.


If you want a system which is essentially an internally-consistent, rationalized version of D&D, you could try ACKS (Adventurer Conquerer King). The game-world makes infinitely more sense (including ecology, economics, and distributions of spellcasters. It's said that the creator uses 27 interlocking spreadsheets to balance everything out). There are a lot of good rationalizations for why things like dungeons and magical crossbreeds exist in the first place. Also, it goes by the old "1 XP per 1 GP" rule, which doesn't really encourage murder as much as 3.5 does (basically you get experience for surviving and making money. You can get a little from "overcoming"/"bypassing" monsters, which can be anything from murder, to bribing, to sneaking past it, to even making friends with it). One can literally go from peasant to king (hence the title) and use the same rules all the way through. Adventurers are encouraged to hire henchmen and mercenaries to help them out (and there's a whole set of rules about things like compensation and loyalty), which can be conducive to "solo" play, as that adventurer can basically lead his very own adventuring party.

Rhynn
2013-11-23, 02:51 AM
It's said that the creator uses 27 interlocking spreadsheets to balance everything out).

The truly amazing thing is that the end result is a game that's as easy and simple to play as Basic D&D, but just makes more sense if you start prodding at it.

Zrak
2013-11-23, 05:37 AM
You need a new system.
. . .
Your concerns as a DM are entirely based on the D&D system. If you like Heroic Fantasy but would prefer advancement be more character-driven you should try Burning Wheel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Burning_Wheel) or it's more popular setting, Mouse Guard (http://www.mouseguard.net/books/role-playing-game/).

Good luck :smallsmile:

I disagree; if the other aspects of D&D's mechanics suit you fine, then there's no reason to turn away from the system over something like experience allocation.

As the DM, it's up to you to decide what the challenge is, so long as you make it clear to the player; as long as the player knows it's important to get in and out without leaving a body, that's a fine victory condition. The thief might still get the exp for the fight, since he learned about using his skills in combat, but you could choose to reward him a fraction of the much larger sum he'd get for successfully completing the mission.

I also disagree with the claim that the skill system of 3.5 is inherently and irredeemably shallow; in skill challenges, just as in combat, dice should be rolled after important, tactical decisions are made. If all the rogue has to do is pick a lock, then, yeah, using skills is boring. If a DM designed a combat encounter with the same depth, though, it would be boring, too. The challenge should be getting to the door unseen, having a contingency if you can't get the lock picked before a guard returns, &c.

The random creatures arbitrarily attacking, in the wild or in a dungeon, is a DM issue that will be an issue in any system. As someone else said, aspects of the ecosystem that wouldn't likely to be a mechanical issue are there, they just aren't given stats. The economics are just plain and simply a mess any way you look at it, though.

All that said, if the fighter having more HP than a dragon is going to be a problem for you, that's going to be a little more of a deal-breaker, at least for the standard system. Someone suggested writing it off as luck and skill, which works in a fight, but fails to explain the fact that a twentieth level fighter can be submerged in lava for a while without dying. At high levels, the heroes reach or even exceed mythic proportions. This is pretty much built in to the default version of the system. However, some people who didn't like this, but liked a lot of the rest of the 3.5 rules, made a variant called "E6" which essentially lowers the level cap to six. I'd recommend looking into it if you'd like a slightly more down-to-earth version of 3.5's rules.

I'd also recommend checking out ACKS and a few other retroclones.

Burning wheel is also pretty cool, but it's quite different at a fundamental, mechanical level.

Anxe
2013-11-23, 11:40 AM
If someone was still asking these questions after playing with me for 3 sessions, I'd drop him. The DM does not have time to come up with all that stuff. It sounds to me like you can't suspend your disbelief as much as is required for roleplaying games.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-11-23, 12:37 PM
I disagree; if the other aspects of D&D's mechanics suit you fine, then there's no reason to turn away from the system over something like experience allocation.

Exploring new games is always worthwhile, though. :smallsmile: It gives you more perspectives on how to play and run games. It's not as though you can only dedicate yourself to a single RPG.

(I think more gamers could stand to play games other than the big ones, especially 3.5. I'm astonished by the number of gamers I've known who really didn't know anything about games outside later editions of D&D.)

Slipperychicken
2013-11-23, 02:00 PM
Exploring new games is always worthwhile, though. :smallsmile: It gives you more perspectives on how to play and run games. It's not as though you can only dedicate yourself to a single RPG.


I agree with this. It does a lot to broaden one's horizons.

Minwaabi
2013-11-23, 02:17 PM
First of all, I want to thank everyone for their generally helpful and encouraging feedback. There were some great DMing suggestions and quite a few suggestions for new systems to check out.

@ Airik: You suggested I say what I'm looking for an an RPG. Here goes.

Do you play to win?
Good play isn’t a win/lose kind of thing

Player characters are: expected to work together; major conflicts might erupt and never see reconciliation

The GM’s role is: to prep a game world including an overarching plot or 3, maps with important location, NPCs and/or monsters. The players have their characters travel anywhere they can reach on the map, according to their own goals. Details can be filled in as you go.

The players’ roles are…
…to set goals for their characters, and pursue them proactively

The GM’s role to the rules is…
…ignore them when they conflict with what “should” happen, based either on realism, the setting, or the genre - Something I'm learning by the way

Your job as a player is to have your character pursue her goal, having her act with integrity to her personality as it develops, and play to find out what happens to her.

A fistfight breaks out in a bar! The details of where everything is – tables, chairs, where everyone is standing is something that…
…is important and will be displayed on a map or grid, perhaps using miniature figures. (If you know much about combat, you know position is half the fight - well a significant part anyway)

Personal play style:
- I like the exploration of a game world probably more than anything else. I want it to have reasonable and interesting lore. And now that I think about it, this often includes the mechanics of the system itself, so CarpeGuitarrem's suggestion sounds good to me. By the way, magic and dragons can be reasonable- say in some alternate dimension or something, but non working economies and ecologies by definition don't work.
- Combat is terrifying. Naval combat is often described as 3 weeks of sheer boredom followed by 30 minutes of sheer terror. Now, its a game, so that should be balanced a bit more to be fun (nobody wants to be bored in a game). However, if combat isn't at least a bit scary, I'd say the combat system needs to be a bit more lethal (or you need to stop picking on the little guy).

Deaxsa
2013-11-23, 03:31 PM
If someone was still asking these questions after playing with me for 3 sessions, I'd drop him. The DM does not have time to come up with all that stuff. It sounds to me like you can't suspend your disbelief as much as is required for roleplaying games.

Is this supposed to be blue? :smallannoyed: It's your job as the DM to make an immersive and interesting world. If you haven't done that for your players... you've failed as a DM. Granted, some players are 'more challenging' (read: don't gloss over plot holes as easily), but verisimilitude is a *very* important part of immersion, and should be one of your top priorities.

@OP, i'm not saying you have a bad DM, or that he's unimaginative (for all i know the plot could be great), I'm just saying that he's probably someone for whom plot holes are not so important. so sure, they're rabid snakes. why wouldn't they attack? and the dungeon is just there: why question it? it just seems that you want things to make a degree of sense, and he does not feel the need to make quite the same amount of sense. maybe for him it's more like an action movie: it's just Dice Diablo to him, not a role-playing game.
/$0.02

Edit: In terms of changing systems, i think that there are definitely other systems out there that condone more of what you want, but i also think that what you have is not a System problem, but a contradiction of what direction each of you want the game to go in.

TheThan
2013-11-23, 04:25 PM
Yeah, sounds like it’s mostly a play style issue. For instance, I can guarantee you all dungeons you go into in my world have a reason for existing. The monsters there have a reason for being there. Defeating encounters does not necessarily mean “kill everything and loot the bodies”, although sometimes that’s the point.

Slipperychicken
2013-11-23, 04:26 PM
Is this supposed to be blue? :smallannoyed: It's your job as the DM to make an immersive and interesting world. If you haven't done that for your players... you've failed as a DM. Granted, some players are 'more challenging' (read: don't gloss over plot holes as easily), but verisimilitude is a *very* important part of immersion, and should be one of your top priorities.

This is a pretty subjective thing, which depends heavily on how seriously people take the game. Some people like to have their dungeon ecologies perfectly mapped out complete with food chain diagrams, some people jokingly put a McDonald's on the 4th level of the dungeon in response to someone asking "what do all these monsters eat?" (I read about this happening once in an article about early D&D games, which I do not have the energy to locate right now), and others fall in between.

People are going to have different standards for immersion, and different reasons for playing. As a result, I think that each table can deal with such questions themselves. Things like "To what extent do we care what the goblins ate for breakfast this morning?", and "How much effort should we expect our GM and players to put into making the world internally-consistent?" can only be answered on a case-by-case basis.


tl;dr: It's matter of taste, and is something for each group to figure out for themselves.

Rhynn
2013-11-23, 04:29 PM
If someone was still asking these questions after playing with me for 3 sessions, I'd drop him. The DM does not have time to come up with all that stuff. It sounds to me like you can't suspend your disbelief as much as is required for roleplaying games.

Are you kidding me? There are entire RPGs centered around the assumption that this stuff will make sense (e.g. HârnMaster), and I absolutely try to think about all of that stuff when I run games.


Is this supposed to be blue? :smallannoyed: It's your job as the DM to make an immersive and interesting world. If you haven't done that for your players... you've failed as a DM. Granted, some players are 'more challenging' (read: don't gloss over plot holes as easily), but verisimilitude is a *very* important part of immersion, and should be one of your top priorities.

Yes, this so much.

I want to engage my players, get them involved and invested in the world and its events, and let them make meaningful decisions. This means they have to be able to acquire information, and then use their own reason to interpret the information; this means that the world has to have verisimilitude and consistency, otherwise they have no way to make useful deductions about it.

Obviously, this isn't the case for all RPGs. If you're playing Toon...


Exploring new games is always worthwhile, though. :smallsmile: It gives you more perspectives on how to play and run games. It's not as though you can only dedicate yourself to a single RPG.

Heck yes. Everyone should try to play (for a short campaign, not just one session) 10+ different RPGs to get a feel for what's possible and to really know what they like. If you've only ever played D&D, you have no idea what you actually want from RPGs!

BWR
2013-11-23, 04:43 PM
Throwing my weight in on the 'new DM' side. It doesn't really matter what system you use. Some have more mechanics dedicated to various non-combat things than others, and I'll be the first to admit many of the classic dungeons have little in-universe reason for existing, much less for having a bunch of monsters just hang around in specific rooms all the time, but such things are easily handled with a DM who puts a little effort into the whys and wherefores.


As for fantasy ecologies, they are always messed up. Once you start introducing the various big monsters most of what we know about real world ecosystems goes out the window. The way D&D handles it is they just pretend it's all the same and the effect of fantasy monsters on the environment is only relevant when they appear in plots or random encounters.
Unless you want to do some very serious thinking and retooling of the environment, that's the easiest way to handle it.

The 3.5 DMG suggests combat as one way to hand out xp. The problem is, with the big CRxp/level table, it's the one that gets noticed first, and people will connect the CRs listed there with the CR ratings of monsters. Since there is generally a lot of combat in D&D, that works fine for many groups.
But traps have CR, and a properly handled fast-talking scene (that could devolve into combat) is also overcoming a challenge. Successfully circumventing a guard dog lets you overcome a challenge. Just read p.40 of the DMG.

You can have bad GMs in any system. It doesn't matter how well-thought out the setting is, how detailed the system for running it, a bad GM will find a way to make it bad.

Zrak
2013-11-23, 07:33 PM
Exploring new games is always worthwhile, though. :smallsmile: It gives you more perspectives on how to play and run games. It's not as though you can only dedicate yourself to a single RPG.

(I think more gamers could stand to play games other than the big ones, especially 3.5. I'm astonished by the number of gamers I've known who really didn't know anything about games outside later editions of D&D.)

Oh, sure, I agree with this; I was saying he shouldn't just drop D&D 3.5 as a system because he thinks experience allocation could be better handled. It's always good to at least try new things.



- I like the exploration of a game world probably more than anything else. I want it to have reasonable and interesting lore. And now that I think about it, this often includes the mechanics of the system itself, so CarpeGuitarrem's suggestion sounds good to me. By the way, magic and dragons can be reasonable- say in some alternate dimension or something, but non working economies and ecologies by definition don't work.

The one caveat I'd have with this is that I think the widespread existence of magic is going to cause a lot of havoc for any reasonable economy. Most of our ideas about economics are sort of grounded in a world where bearded dudes in pointy hats can't just rewrite the laws of reality when they feel like it, and a lot of our conceptions go out the window when they can.

Airk
2013-11-23, 09:35 PM
@ Airik: You suggested I say what I'm looking for an an RPG. Here goes.
<SNIP!>

Excellent! I don't have a personal system recommendation for your particular tastes, but it sounds like a few other people in this thread do. There have to be a few exploration-centric games out there.

Also, just to offer a counterpoint to a viewpoint, re: position being half the fight, sure, that's a very realistic way to deal with it. It's also very time consuming, and you end up with a lot of useless detail (whatever gets placed on the map that no one uses) and also missing a lot of things - because there's no way whoever initially drew the map thought of EVERYTHING that could/should be there. And lastly, sometimes it's more important for a bar fight to happen like the start of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom than it is for it to be resolved according to the specifics of tactical positioning and what the 'smartest' move is. That's just the counterpoint to the realism question, in case it didn't make sense to do it any other way. :)

I'll do a little research as well, and see if I bump into any systems that work with your ideas.

Oracle_Hunter
2013-11-24, 06:16 PM
@Miniwaabi

Do you play to win?
Good play isn’t a win/lose kind of thing

Player characters are: expected to work together; major conflicts might erupt and never see reconciliation

The GM’s role is: to prep a game world including an overarching plot or 3, maps with important location, NPCs and/or monsters. The players have their characters travel anywhere they can reach on the map, according to their own goals. Details can be filled in as you go.

The players’ roles are…
…to set goals for their characters, and pursue them proactively

The GM’s role to the rules is…
…ignore them when they conflict with what “should” happen, based either on realism, the setting, or the genre - Something I'm learning by the way

Your job as a player is to have your character pursue her goal, having her act with integrity to her personality as it develops, and play to find out what happens to her.

A fistfight breaks out in a bar! The details of where everything is – tables, chairs, where everyone is standing is something that…
…is important and will be displayed on a map or grid, perhaps using miniature figures. (If you know much about combat, you know position is half the fight - well a significant part anyway)

Personal play style:
- I like the exploration of a game world probably more than anything else. I want it to have reasonable and interesting lore. And now that I think about it, this often includes the mechanics of the system itself, so CarpeGuitarrem's suggestion sounds good to me. By the way, magic and dragons can be reasonable- say in some alternate dimension or something, but non working economies and ecologies by definition don't work.
- Combat is terrifying. Naval combat is often described as 3 weeks of sheer boredom followed by 30 minutes of sheer terror. Now, its a game, so that should be balanced a bit more to be fun (nobody wants to be bored in a game). However, if combat isn't at least a bit scary, I'd say the combat system needs to be a bit more lethal (or you need to stop picking on the little guy).
So, with the caveat that the Same Page Tool is not designed for selecting RPGs to play, but rather to make sure everyone at the table is on the same page regarding a given game, here's what I say:

There isn't a RPG out there which combines the Narrativist elements your "screw the rules" selection indicates and the "maps maps maps" element you are enthusiastic about. This means you, like pretty much every gamer out there, will need to find a DM who can bend a system to make the sort of game you want to play.

IMHO, this is a criminal state for the industry to be in nearly 40 years after its start but such is life :smallsigh:

Anyhoo, I repeat that Burning Wheel or Mouse Guard will be good choices for you. They are structured to give you play-feel as most of your response indicates you want -- which means even a novice DM should be able to give you a halfway decent game. Maps are basically the only thing you need to push the DM to have since positioning is abstracted (i.e. you don't need a grid for combat) but nonetheless satisfying.

You can have the sort of game you want with D&D but you need a veteran DM who is willing to ignore much (if not most) of the written rules to give you the sort of game you want. He will also need to be a talented storyteller who cares about and works around PC motivations without any mechanics to give him direction or assistance in the process. As other people in the thread have said, this can be done, but unless you happen to have such an individual on tap I'd say you'd be better off taking your current group and trying Mouse Guard.

Zrak
2013-11-24, 07:04 PM
I don't really see where you're getting the impression that he'd need to ignore most of the written rules to have the kind of game he wants in D&D. The bulk of the d20 ruleset is combat-focused, and it's actually closer to the type of combat he describes ("maps, maps, maps" as you put it) than Burning Wheel is. Adding a few pre-existing variant rules, like facing, could go a long way to making things even closer.

The only place the rules themselves really go up against his stated desires is in the economy. Again, this is an easy fix that by no means requires ignoring most of the written rules. Basically, the economy for non-magical goods may be a little wonky in a few places, but they're at least basically reasonable enough that one's mechanical interaction with them won't ruin the suspension of disbelief unless you really try to do so.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-11-24, 07:45 PM
Is this supposed to be blue? :smallannoyed: It's your job as the DM to make an immersive and interesting world. If you haven't done that for your players... you've failed as a DM. Granted, some players are 'more challenging' (read: don't gloss over plot holes as easily), but verisimilitude is a *very* important part of immersion, and should be one of your top priorities.
This is, as others have pointed out, a pretty subjective part of the game. GMs don't have infinite time to put into their game, and that shouldn't be expected. I'm not going to spend an hour or more figuring out the ecosystem of every forest and dungeon the party enters-- and frankly, I'd be a little alarmed if someone had.

For some groups, the most important thing is having a maximally immersive world, sure. For others, it's to have exciting set-pieces, or political intrigue, or tactically interesting combats, or an engaging plotline to follow.

Speaking personally? The dungeon full of random monsters would be puzzling, but sounds like a newbie DM thing to me. Asking why you're being attacked by snakes?... well, I'm a practiced enough bull****er to make something up on the fly, but I wouldn't hassle some guy if he didn't have a good answer ready. Constant badgering about how the ecosystem works, though? No. I'll give you an "I'm not sure, I'm not an ecologist." Maybe an "if you'll give me the time, I'll send you something later in the week," if I'm feeling generous, or a "sorry, this isn't an aspect of the game I'm interested in, can we get back to the action?" if I'm not. And then you'd better get the hint and stop picking holes in the world-- your immersion may have been broken, but no need to drag everyone else out of things.

@Minwaabi: It's a little of both, I think. Your DM seems to be a more casual worldbuilder than you'd like-- there's no solution to that one beyond "get a new DM." You also want a system with grit, which D&D does not do. And also, yes, you may have been a bit too pushy about things the DM was not prepared for.