# "I hate math"



## ashockney (Jul 5, 2004)

High level Dungeons and Dragons involves a ton of math.  

It is enormous fun having "stats" and "ratios" that reach the ceiling (and beyond), three, four or five actions for every one, and more options than you can possibly keep track of...

...or is it?

I had the pleasure of running an open gaming 14th level game at Origins, and I was genuinely surprised by the response.  

"I hate math."  

Multiple times.  The rules seems to become overly cumbersome, and really bog down the game. 

So, from the perspective of thinking ahead to 4th edition, what would you do to help improve the "high level" game? 

Have you played a campaign above 12th level?  If so, how many, and how high did you go?  What seemed to be the pitfalls.  What would be ways that these could be avoided from a game design perspective.  

Has anyone out there in d20 land taken up this challenge yet?


----------



## Deimodius (Jul 5, 2004)

Well, can you be more specific about the math to which you refer?

I am currently playing an 18th level Cleric. In order to speed things up, I have pre-calculated the affect of all buff spells (and in their various stackig combinations) on his stats, so that whne the time comes, I don't have to sit there and figure out To Hit, Damage, AC and Ability bonuses, etc.

As a DM, I have my lap top with me, and I use various Excel generators, as well as having the calculator program open.

Remember, though, as DM it is really up to you. If the rules bog down the story, screw the rules. They are meant to be a _guideline_. Do what's best for the story and the enjoyment of the gamers. The only time this might be a problem is with a min/maxer, munchkin, or rules lawyer. In the case of dealing with one of them, let them know that if they want to, they can figure out the math for you to help speed up the game while you take care of more important stuff. It shouldn't be up to the DM to track all the modifiers of the PCs. If they can't be bothered with the "math", tell them to accept the way you're going to do it (to make it faster) or do it themselves.

Of course, I'm fortunate enough to have two engineers at my table. ;-)


----------



## Numion (Jul 5, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> Have you played a campaign above 12th level?  If so, how many, and how high did you go?  What seemed to be the pitfalls.




I've DMed one campaign to 16th level, one to 23rd and the latest is going 13th currently. I've not had much problems with the math. It's true the game gets more complicated as levels increase, but most of the math is done _before_ the actual gaming, and written on the character sheets. So actual play has always been pretty fast.

Now designing adventures can be very strenuous in this department, but nothing too much (I should probably mention that I'm soon to be MSc in applied math). To counter that I used a lot of pre-made adventures, or standard monsters from the book. Those solutions become increasingly harder at higher levels. When I had to do stats I played quite loose with the skill points for example. No point in making correct calculations, just choose a number of skills that are maxed out. 



> What would be ways that these could be avoided from a game design perspective.
> 
> Has anyone out there in d20 land taken up this challenge yet?




As my experiences aren't too bad I've not made any big 'corrections'. If it works ..


----------



## Ourph (Jul 5, 2004)

Deimodius said:
			
		

> As a DM, I have my lap top with me, and I use various Excel generators, as well as having the calculator program open.




This is why I refuse to DM 3.x any longer.  If I have to use a spreadsheet to keep track of stuff while running, that sort of turns what should be "fun" into "work" AFAIC.

When running Warhammer or Basic D&D I need 1 rulebook, my DM's screen, some dice, a pencil and either a published adventure or a few pages of hand-written notes.  That's it.

So yeah, put me in the "I hate math (while gaming)" camp.


----------



## Numion (Jul 5, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> When running Warhammer or Basic D&D I need 1 rulebook, my DM's screen, some dice, a pencil and either a published adventure or a few pages of hand-written notes.  That's it.




In this regard Warhammer is a non-solution. The system just breaks at high power levels, it doesn't make it easier. Just as well you could play 3E below, say, level 10.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 5, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> High level Dungeons and Dragons involves a ton of math.



I've played spell-casters up to 12th level, one semi-spellcaster to 18th. Of course, I've GMed creatures of higher levels than those. I don't find there is any real math involved in D&D, period, and I despised math in high school. Of course, I've played Champions, Rolemaster and Classic Traveller; what little bit of math is in D&D might as well not exist. 

There is no problem unless the players and the GM are not organized. It's really not so hard to write down all the normal plusses to hit and damage you have in that Weapon box on the character sheet, add that to a d20 roll and give the number. If you're adding and re-adding all that stuff each time you hit, you're doing something wrong.

Damage adds from music, spells and what-not; that's the domain of the spell-casting player. If they can't say 'I've cast Spell X; everyone adds +11 to damage', then they should be playing another class. If the GM can't keep track of those things, find another GM who knows how to write a half-page of notes and organize his NPC's.

If you have to have calculators and spreadsheets around to do anything but add up treasure and XP, then you need to sit down and do all that weapon calculation beforehand, or write some brief notes on the few spells that actually require you to keep track of numbers.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 5, 2004)

Deimodius said:
			
		

> Well, can you be more specific about the math to which you refer?




More options, more actions, more dice, more modifiers...

Here's a great example from Origins: A fighter/rogue with Expert Tactician, 4d6 sneak attack, a holy weapon, and Greater Invisibility, (Mass) Haste, and had drunk a potion of Bull's Strength.  Wielding a keen falchion with improved crit.  Now, her bonuses to hit were pre-calc'd with bull's str, but not the +1 from haste (from party), or the +2 from fighting invis, or the +2 if she could get flanking.  The attack routine could be anywhere from one - four depending upon movement, haste, and expert tactician.  If she hit, she has a 45% chance of threatening.  For each hit, she deals 2d4+8 damage per swing +4d6 sneak +2d6 holy (what multiplies)?  At the end of this little routine, the cleric reminded them that they just cast prayer for another +1 to hit and damage to each roll. (Rolling to hit required up to 8 rolls with up to six modifiers, and damage required rolling and adding up 8 dice per attack times 4 attacks + with up to seven modifiers per attack).  



			
				Deimodius said:
			
		

> I am currently playing an 18th level Cleric. In order to speed things up, I have pre-calculated the affect of all buff spells (and in their various stackig combinations) on his stats, so that whne the time comes, I don't have to sit there and figure out To Hit, Damage, AC and Ability bonuses, etc.
> 
> As a DM, I have my lap top with me, and I use various Excel generators, as well as having the calculator program open.




As do I.  I had every statistic for every villian in the module in a six tab spreadsheet.  I was able track and sort initiatives, and roll all "to hit" and damages for each attack routine with one click.  It still took over an hour to run one encounter with six players and 9 villians.  Should it be this hard?



			
				Deimodius said:
			
		

> Remember, though, as DM it is really up to you. If the rules bog down the story, screw the rules. They are meant to be a _guideline_. Do what's best for the story and the enjoyment of the gamers. The only time this might be a problem is with a min/maxer, munchkin, or rules lawyer. In the case of dealing with one of them, let them know that if they want to, they can figure out the math for you to help speed up the game while you take care of more important stuff. It shouldn't be up to the DM to track all the modifiers of the PCs. If they can't be bothered with the "math", tell them to accept the way you're going to do it (to make it faster) or do it themselves.
> 
> Of course, I'm fortunate enough to have two engineers at my table. ;-)




Amen.  But are there any other solutions out there. 

I will look for some commonalities in the thread.  So far, it's engineering/math/adult and heavy use of Excel.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 5, 2004)

Numion said:
			
		

> I've DMed one campaign to 16th level, one to 23rd and the latest is going 13th currently. I've not had much problems with the math. It's true the game gets more complicated as levels increase, but most of the math is done _before_ the actual gaming, and written on the character sheets.




Should you HAVE to count on the players to spend from one to four hours pre-calc'ing all these modifiers?  Can you really account for every modifier quickly and easily without some kind of computer help?





			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Now designing adventures can be very strenuous in this department, but nothing too much (I should probably mention that I'm soon to be MSc in applied math). To counter that I used a lot of pre-made adventures, or standard monsters from the book. Those solutions become increasingly harder at higher levels. When I had to do stats I played quite loose with the skill points for example. No point in making correct calculations, just choose a number of skills that are maxed out.




Wow!  What great points.  Instead of spending time doing more complex character development, playtesting an adventure, or writing additional background for the campaign or characters, the high level DM is forced to "build the adventure".  By "buidling" they must stat out on an extensive spreadsheet, each encounter so that it is ready at game time.  A noticable absence from most high level modules (12th level plus) the aforementioned "stat blocks" with different levels of buffs. I think Monte's been pretty good about including such things in his adventures.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 5, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I don't find there is any real math involved in D&D, period, and I despised math in high school.




Interesting viewpoint.  See my earlier response to Deimodus for an example of the math that can be involved.  Would someone who's really good at math like to take a crack at that fighter/rogue's calculus-filled probability to hit and damage a creature each round? Makes playtesting fun, doesn't it?



			
				WayneLigon said:
			
		

> There is no problem unless the players and the GM are not organized. It's really not so hard to write down all the normal plusses to hit and damage you have in that Weapon box on the character sheet, add that to a d20 roll and give the number. If you're adding and re-adding all that stuff each time you hit, you're doing something wrong.
> 
> Damage adds from music, spells and what-not; that's the domain of the spell-casting player. If they can't say 'I've cast Spell X; everyone adds +11 to damage', then they should be playing another class. .




I perceive a very important conclusion from the above.  If you're going to add a modifier, it needs to stick.  Period.  Stacking, while it works on paper to help place necessary ceilings to the high level game, perhaps causes too much confusion.  Tactically, the way the game is designed, it may become overly cumbersome at higher levels to make distinctions between when certain modifiers should and shouldn't apply throughout an action.  



			
				WayneLigon said:
			
		

> If the GM can't keep track of those things, find another GM who knows how to write a half-page of notes and organize his NPC's.
> 
> If you have to have calculators and spreadsheets around to do anything but add up treasure and XP, then you need to sit down and do all that weapon calculation beforehand, or write some brief notes on the few spells that actually require you to keep track of numbers.




My experience has been very different.  My Excel spreadsheet for this adventure had over 369 lines of statistics and modifiers to keep track of for four encounters.


----------



## Corinth (Jul 5, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> Should you HAVE to count on the players to spend from one to four hours pre-calc'ing all these modifiers?  Can you really account for every modifier quickly and easily without some kind of computer help?



Yes, you should count on the players to do that because it's their responsibility to do so.  I can account for all modifiers without the aid of a computer; I'm expected to do so, so I developed that capability and employ it.


> Wow!  What great points.  Instead of spending time doing more complex character development, playtesting an adventure, or writing additional background for the campaign or characters, the high level DM is forced to "build the adventure".  By "buidling" they must stat out on an extensive spreadsheet, each encounter so that it is ready at game time.  A noticable absence from most high level modules (12th level plus) the aforementioned "stat blocks" with different levels of buffs. I think Monte's been pretty good about including such things in his adventures.



RPGs are not a storytelling medium.  They're about mission-oriented dynamic problem-solving scenarios.  It shouldn't be a surprise that a competant GM is one that focuses more about constructing the scenario than anything else.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 5, 2004)

Numion said:
			
		

> In this regard Warhammer is a non-solution. The system just breaks at high power levels, it doesn't make it easier. Just as well you could play 3E below, say, level 10.




I'm not sure what you mean by "breaks".  We're talking about a system requiring lots of mathematical contortions during play.  If that's what you mean by "breaks" then all I can say is that my experience seems to differ from yours.  I've never had a problem with extensive math in Warhammer, and I've run numerous campaigns where the characters have gone through 12 or more careers (the highest "level" character I ever ran for was a Lv4 Wizard/Lv4 Elementalist/Lv2 Illusionist + 2-3 other basic careers).

This situation from a 3e game I ran comes to mind in terms of the complexity that made me eschew DMing the game.

A Rogue with bracers of armor +3, Dex 18, ring of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +2, the Dodge and Mobility feats and fighting defensively.  The Rogue moves through the threatened squares of a wraith and an invisible fighter wielding a longsword; ends his movement next to a Cleric holding an inflict light wounds spell in his hand and tries to initiate a grapple.  The rogue has declared his Dodge vs. the Cleric.

What is his AC vs. each opponent for the AoOs he provokes?

Figuring this sort of thing out on the fly turns the game from "fun" into "work" for me.  YMMV.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 5, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> More options, more actions, more dice, more modifiers...
> 
> Here's a great example from Origins: A fighter/rogue with Expert Tactician, 4d6 sneak attack, a holy weapon, and Greater Invisibility, (Mass) Haste, and had drunk a potion of Bull's Strength.  Wielding a keen falchion with improved crit.  Now, her bonuses to hit were pre-calc'd with bull's str, but not the +1 from haste (from party), or the +2 from fighting invis, or the +2 if she could get flanking.  The attack routine could be anywhere from one - four depending upon movement, haste, and expert tactician.  If she hit, she has a 45% chance of threatening.  For each hit, she deals 2d4+8 damage per swing +4d6 sneak +2d6 holy (what multiplies)?  At the end of this little routine, the cleric reminded them that they just cast prayer for another +1 to hit and damage to each roll. (Rolling to hit required up to 8 rolls with up to six modifiers, and damage required rolling and adding up 8 dice per attack times 4 attacks + with up to seven modifiers per attack).



How is that complex? With haste in effect you add one to to hit, with invis you add another +2. If you call adding 1 or 2 to something complex, I have to assume you aren't up to 1st grade level mathematics.  I find that hard to believe.


> As do I.  I had every statistic for every villian in the module in a six tab spreadsheet.  I was able track and sort initiatives, and roll all "to hit" and damages for each attack routine with one click.  It still took over an hour to run one encounter with six players and 9 villians.  Should it be this hard?



You ran a combat with 15 combatants in an hour? Blessed be. Good for you. In HERO, that same combat would have taken 5 hours. In GURPS, perhaps 3 hours. In out large gaming group a 15 person combat could take the whole 4 hour session. What are you complaining about?


> Should you HAVE to count on the players to spend from one to four hours pre-calc'ing all these modifiers? Can you really account for every modifier quickly and easily without some kind of computer help?



Absolutely. Every player in my game has a character sheet with everything pre-calced including standard spells normally cast on them. Two of them have a full separate sheet for haste. When the sorcerer hastes the party (3.5e), they both flip over their sheet to use the hasted version. Even the power attackers have a few standard PA levels written on the sheet for ease of reference. If the DM has to spend time statting out encounters, the least the players can do is be ready for common occurances in play.


> I perceive a very important conclusion from the above. If you're going to add a modifier, it needs to stick. Period. Stacking, while it works on paper to help place necessary ceilings to the high level game, perhaps causes too much confusion. Tactically, the way the game is designed, it may become overly cumbersome at higher levels to make distinctions between when certain modifiers should and shouldn't apply throughout an action.



No, it just requires a character sheet with all the types of modifiers listed. The problem comes in when you have some wacky third party thing that adds a new modifier type. The game would be simpler if there were only so many modifiers. Each of them would get a space on the character sheet. The short description of spells would always include the modifer type for ease of reference.


> My experience has been very different. My Excel spreadsheet for this adventure had over 369 lines of statistics and modifiers to keep track of for four encounters.



I've never needed a spreadsheet to track a combat. But I'll admit, I have a "head for math" so I'm not the perfect counterexample. All I'm saying is your perceived problem is not universal.

OTOH, maybe you shouldn't play high level D&D if it gives you such a problem. You will find that in most systems as the players get tougher, the game becomes more complex. Maybe you need a world with no probability enhancers. Eliminate all spells that grant bonuses to anything. Spells do damage, transform, create illusions, bend will, or summon stuff and that's it. No abjurations unless they are absolute. No sacred bonus to attack bonus. Just fireballs, charms, images, polymorphs (baleful only), etc. Since there's not bull's strength, there's not belt of giant strength. No cloaks of protection, no bracers of armor, none of that stuff. Could make for an interesting world feel. It's not D&D. But it could be interesting. I may try it myself.....


----------



## ashockney (Jul 5, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I've run numerous campaigns where the characters have gone through 12 or more careers (the highest "level" character I ever ran for was a Lv4 Wizard/Lv4 Elementalist/Lv2 Illusionist + 2-3 other basic careers).




This is another topic worth looking at.  Although there are some class combinations that work at higher levels of D&D, not all classes are built equally.  It is very difficult to keep pace with a 16th level cleric, with any other class combination of three or more careers.  It would be cool to be able to play a Rgr/Clr/Wiz and not feel inadequate.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 5, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> This is another topic worth looking at.  Although there are some class combinations that work at higher levels of D&D, not all classes are built equally.  It is very difficult to keep pace with a 16th level cleric, with any other class combination of three or more careers.  It would be cool to be able to play a Rgr/Clr/Wiz and not feel inadequate.




Just to be clear, I was speaking about a Warhammer character in my post, not a D&D character.  The "Lv4 Wizard/Lv4 Elementalist/Lv2 Illusionist + 2-3 other basic careers" is not in any way equivalent to a multiclass character in 3e D&D.  4th level is the highest level you can reach as a spellcaster in Warhammer, and ONLY spellcasting careers even have levels, everybody else just moves on to a new career once they complete their previous one in order to advance.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 5, 2004)

One of the nice things about 3rd Edition (and 3.5e, mostly), is that you can pre-calculate stuff, and it mostly doesn't vary with critter type. (There are exceptions, of course.) Bonuses have finite types, so you could _in theory_ make a character sheet that allows you to do easy bonus accounting.

An annoying trend I've noticed is the creation of feats which grant special bonuses in special situations, and the creation of new bonus types ("sacred" vs. "divine" vs. "profane" vs. blah blah). IMHO, these are both bad trends, because they add _complication_ without adding _complexity_. ("Complication" is answered with rote memorization, while "complexity" requires thought -- there are often multiple only partially satisfactory solutions to a complex problem, while a complicated problem has a single, albeit obfuscated, solution.)

The answer here IMHO is to:
1) Limit the number of bonus types to a fixed list.
2) Make nice character sheets that actually have a place for everything (and labels!), and room to the side for temporary bonuses. Automated computer sheets might help here, but a well-designed paper sheet would be wonderful.

As a DM, I pre-calculate what effects I expect to place on certain critters, and keep separate listings for their AC, Saves & Attacks under different conditions. Players should be able to do the same thing, especially since they can co-operatively plan their spells & strategy.

 -- N


----------



## ashockney (Jul 5, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> How is that complex? With haste in effect you add one to to hit, with invis you add another +2. If you call adding 1 or 2 to something complex, I have to assume you aren't up to 1st grade level mathematics.  I find that hard to believe.




I think it's more to the point of how many "possible" variables there are out there at high level.  I agree, adding one or two isn't complex.  Keeping track of the tens, hundreds of modifiers that "may" apply is another subject.  I think it would be up to at least 3rd or 4th grade!  



			
				jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Absolutely. Every player in my game has a character sheet with everything pre-calced including standard spells normally cast on them. Two of them have a full separate sheet for haste. When the sorcerer hastes the party (3.5e), they both flip over their sheet to use the hasted version. Even the power attackers have a few standard PA levels written on the sheet for ease of reference. If the DM has to spend time statting out encounters, the least the players can do is be ready for common occurances in play.




A big committment to ask of players.  But too big?  Perhaps not.  I'd definitely like to hear from others on the subject.  By the time you're 12th level plus, you should have more than a year invested in the character, so it may seem more worthwhile to spend time building out your character.  Your point about your player's sheets presents an interesting "opportunity" for an aspiring d20 publisher.  "High level character sheet" organizers (maybe even filling in a spreadsheet, that prints each "buff" version for you...



			
				jmucchiello said:
			
		

> No, it just requires a character sheet with all the types of modifiers listed. The problem comes in when you have some wacky third party thing that adds a new modifier type. The game would be simpler if there were only so many modifiers. Each of them would get a space on the character sheet. The short description of spells would always include the modifer type for ease of reference.
> I've never needed a spreadsheet to track a combat. But I'll admit, I have a "head for math" so I'm not the perfect counterexample. All I'm saying is your perceived problem is not universal......




Point taken on being good at math.  One of the reasons I'd like to hear from others.  Again, for anyone aspiring to build the "ULTIMATE" high level character sheet, how many bonuses are there?

To Hit/Damage: BAB, Competence, Ability, Ability Enhancement, Ability Inherent, Feat (competence), Weapon Enhancement, Luck, Size, Morale, Haste, Sacred, Tactical, (possible secondary Ability, Ability Enhancement, and Ability Inherent for prestige classes), Insight, and Epic

For armor class: Class, Ability, Ability Enhancement, Ability Inherent, Feat (competence), Natural, Natural Enhancement, Armor, Armor Enhancement, Deflection, Shield, Shield Enhancement, Luck, Size, Morale, Haste, Sacred, Tactical, (possible secondary Ability, Ability Enhancement, and Ability Inherent for monk/prestige classes), Insight, and Epic

For saving throws: Base Saving Throw Bonus, Resistance, Ability, Ability Enhancement, Ability Inherent, Feat (competence), Luck, Size, Morale, Haste, Sacred, Tactical, (possible secondary Ability, Ability Enhancement, and Ability Inherent for paladin/prestige classes), Insight, and Epic

In this, I'm referring to Tactical as anything from the PH "Combat" rules such as flanking, concealment, stunning, etc.



			
				jmucchiello said:
			
		

> OTOH, maybe you shouldn't play high level D&D if it gives you such a problem. You will find that in most systems as the players get tougher, the game becomes more complex.




On the contrary, I thoroughly enjoy high level Dungeons and Dragons, and only hope to make it even better!  I have run two 3rd Edition campaigns to 20th level, and one to 32nd!  Our current campaign is on hiatus at around 12th level.


----------



## Storminator (Jul 5, 2004)

The problem comes from doing a 14th level one shot adventure with (more or less) random people. 

 In a campaign, players grow into their PCs, and know them pretty well by 14th level. And the DM knows those PCs pretty well too. Everyone has fairly regular combos they put together, and the bugs get worked out.

 In a one shot, no one knows their own PC, let alone what everyone else has, and every attack is foriegn territory. The DM doesn't get his usual player support, and everything becomes difficult to track. Just when you get the hang of things, the session is over. 

 PS


----------



## ashockney (Jul 5, 2004)

Storminator said:
			
		

> The problem comes from doing a 14th level one shot adventure with (more or less) random people.
> 
> In a campaign, players grow into their PCs, and know them pretty well by 14th level. And the DM knows those PCs pretty well too. Everyone has fairly regular combos they put together, and the bugs get worked out.
> 
> ...




Storminator, excellent points.   I agree with you completely, and these were clearly a part of the challenge.  

I'll repeat my earlier question, however, and ask does a great rpg HAVE to be so complex at high level?  Or, is it possible to make it a GREAT rpg, and still be simple enough to grasp quickly at higher levels.  Think out of the box on this one...

How high, how often have you gone?  Have you run into any pitfalls?


----------



## Aaron L (Jul 5, 2004)

As a person who is horrible with math and has attention deficit disorder besides, I have no problems adding groups of single digit numbers on the fly.
I have played characters up to 24th level (my ranger 18/barbarian 1/border guard 5) with no problems and no lessing of my enjoyment.  My 18th level bladesinger (fighter 4/wizard 2/bladesinger 10/eldritch knight 2) has an armor class that can vary by up to 10 points from round to round as I wish, and it doesn't slow me down taking a number from armor class and adding it to hit instead.  

If I have common situational modifiers (smite, rage, etc.) I precalculate them and have them on my sheet.   And all the bonus types?  here's a bit of advice: Ignore the word and add the number.  I mean, look to make sure you aren't adding the same types of bonuses, but other than that just forget the word is there and add the +5 to the +1 to the +3.  

Seriously, spreadsheets?  C'mon, that's a joke, right?


----------



## Chaldfont (Jul 5, 2004)

One of the problems might be that it was a con game. I've run a few games with pre-generated high-level PCs and seen this each time. Both the players and the DM aren't used to the details of the characters. If you have been playing or DMing a PC from 1st level up through 12th, you know all of that PCs capabilities. You probably have extensive notes about his favorite tactics and therefore all his bonuses. If you a playing a 12th level character just handed to you, it's quite a bit harder. You need to become familiar with that character's abilities--especially if whoever created the character built in a lot of complicated feat/skill/item combinations.

A good example of this is a PC in my weekly game. He's an 11th level ranger. He is frequently the subject of bull's strength, barkskin, and enlarge person. We have his attack bonuses and damages written on index cards for each of the permutations of the above effects. That way he can just switch to the card.

D20 is definitely more work than previous D&D incarnations, but you are rewarded with so many more options. Give me feats, easy multiclassing, and the current combat rules any day.


----------



## pogre (Jul 5, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Just to be clear, I was speaking about a Warhammer character in my post, not a D&D character.  The "Lv4 Wizard/Lv4 Elementalist/Lv2 Illusionist + 2-3 other basic careers" is not in any way equivalent to a multiclass character in 3e D&D.  4th level is the highest level you can reach as a spellcaster in Warhammer, and ONLY spellcasting careers even have levels, everybody else just moves on to a new career once they complete their previous one in order to advance.




Ourph - that's an unbelievably high experience character in WFRP! What did everybody else spend their experience on?

IMO WFRP absolutely has a ceiling for most adventure groups where the fighter types simply cannot spend anymore experience and the magic users are just getting warmed up.

On the other hand, I agree there is far too much math in higher level D&D. It just requires a lot more advanced prep as suggested by other posters. A lot of my friends, including some well known game designers, refuse to run the game above 12th level for this and many other reasons. I grit my teeth and suffer through the math to play the higher levels, because I like the way the game changes on other levels.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jul 5, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> This is why I refuse to DM 3.x any longer. If I have to use a spreadsheet to keep track of stuff while running, that sort of turns what should be "fun" into "work" AFAIC.
> 
> When running Warhammer or Basic D&D I need 1 rulebook, my DM's screen, some dice, a pencil and either a published adventure or a few pages of hand-written notes. That's it.
> 
> So yeah, put me in the "I hate math (while gaming)" camp.



 That's nothing man.  2 friends of mine made a spreadsheet for character CREATION for Rolemaster.  Took it from a 4 hour process (w/all the classes and such to look thru as well as Talent Law, gods forbid ya make a mage) to an hour and a half one.  Course the printed character sheet was anywhere from 17 to 60 pages long or so once you had your weapon and spell charts.  

 The generators he's mentioning most likely just reduce the pregame work needed to him hitting a few buttons during the game.  BAM!  Instant statistics he doesn't have to roll up himself.

 Hagen


----------



## Acid_crash (Jul 5, 2004)

Numion said:
			
		

> It's true the game gets more complicated as levels increase, but most of the math is done _before_ the actual gaming, and written on the character sheets. So actual play has always been pretty fast.
> ..




I often hear complaints about math being a problem in games, but not for d20.  More times than not, it's a complaints against the HERO system, not D&D.  I just think it's funny that someone is complaining about the math in D&D.

And it's true that in the majority of rpg's, the math problem is usually before the game actually gets played, so if math becomes a problem during the game, then plan ahead and get the math figured before it begins.


----------



## Acid_crash (Jul 5, 2004)

Chaldfont said:
			
		

> One of the problems might be that it was a con game. I've run a few games with pre-generated high-level PCs and seen this each time. Both the players and the DM aren't used to the details of the characters. If you have been playing or DMing a PC from 1st level up through 12th, you know all of that PCs capabilities. You probably have extensive notes about his favorite tactics and therefore all his bonuses. If you a playing a 12th level character just handed to you, it's quite a bit harder. You need to become familiar with that character's abilities--especially if whoever created the character built in a lot of complicated feat/skill/item combinations.




You would be surprised how many players still don't know what their character can do after playing it for so long a time.  There are players who just don't pay attention, who don't care, and who don't try to understand what all their characters can do.

We've been playing from 2nd level to almost 5th now...we have 7 people, 4 of which still don't know how to add their dexterity/strength modifier to their bab without looking each and every single time they roll for combat, and half the time they still have to ask what to roll when the GM asks for a skill check or a attack roll.  

Some players are just lazy, and despite the ease in which these situations could be helped, some just don't care.


----------



## Someone (Jul 5, 2004)

My campaing reached level 12, and I agree the game becomes more complex, simply because the number of feats, magic items, spell, etc available increase. Still, I don´t have problems with math, even when my players don´t have the books and don´t know the rules very well.

What I found difficult to handle is to remember and use all the monsters options, abilities, spell-like abilities... I asked for advice in this forum and had several very useful.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 5, 2004)

pogre said:
			
		

> Ourph - that's an unbelievably high experience character in WFRP! What did everybody else spend their experience on?
> 
> IMO WFRP absolutely has a ceiling for most adventure groups where the fighter types simply cannot spend anymore experience and the magic users are just getting warmed up.




You're right.  At some point in a WFRP game, anyone who's not a spellcaster gets to a point where they can't really advance anymore while the casters are still getting better (at least in terms of spell selection, after you max out magic points in one casting class, you can't gain anymore).

I've tried playing where the non-caster types just stagnate and it's not too bad.  Really the casters aren't getting that much better, and the fact that the characters keep gaining more magic items and more treasure offsets the lack of progress in terms of character improvement.

However, I have also played with houserules that allow characters who have completed a certain number of careers to simply buy advances in attributes one point at a time (100XP each for base 100 attributes and 1000XP each for base 10 attributes).  So, for example, a Warrior with a Weapon Skill of 64 could spend 300XP and bump that WS up to 67.  I usually put a cap of 80-85 on attributes though.  This is similar to high level characters in AD&D gaining only single HP after a certain level.

Playing that way, the campaign can basically run forever without anyone maxing everything out.  It gives the casters time to really shine while everybody else gets to keep seeing improvements with their characters.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 6, 2004)

I love math, personally.

I love high level D&D.  I love how the game plays, and the challenge/options become far more complex.  

I'm disappointed by the fact that multiple players would be frustrated and turned off by the mathmatical complexity of this great game.

Does anyone have any ideas to share (or that they've tried) to improve the ease and use of high level game play, without adding to the complexity?

What other pitfalls have you run into?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 6, 2004)

When they players began to have "hot sheets" of four or five pages and I felt more like a stat counter than a DM we quit 3e. I'm interested in seeing what C&C is doing with d20 to make it a simpler game to play, and hopefully DM. 

Added: Our game got up to 12-13th level characters and it was obvious the problems we had were just going to increase as the levels got higher.


----------



## Silver Moon (Jul 6, 2004)

_"Math is hard, let's go shopping!" _ - Barbie* 






*When Mattel released a talking Barbie who offered that bit of teenage wisdom, public reaction was so furious they pulled her off the shelves.  Mattel is still trying to recover from the PR disaster.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 6, 2004)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> _"Math is hard, let's go shopping!" _ - Barbie*




... or my players when they finally get back to town.   

 -- N


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 6, 2004)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> You would be surprised how many players still don't know what their character can do after playing it for so long a time.  There are players who just don't pay attention, who don't care, and who don't try to understand what all their characters can do.
> 
> We've been playing from 2nd level to almost 5th now...we have 7 people, 4 of which still don't know how to add their dexterity/strength modifier to their bab without looking each and every single time they roll for combat, and half the time they still have to ask what to roll when the GM asks for a skill check or a attack roll.
> 
> Some players are just lazy, and despite the ease in which these situations could be helped, some just don't care.




That's understandable when starting out, or when you're playing something you've never played before.  But...dang it, it doesn't take *that* much effort to write everything down!

The most prep work I wind up doing is making an item card to keep my magic items written out, inventoried, and keep pertinent data...like, what my attack bonus is with this weapon, how much damage it does, etc.  Granted, I have to update that when I level, but that's easily enough accomplished, and it doesn't take much longer than it does for people who don't have their character advancement already plotted out.

Another little trick I have is using dice as counters, to graphically depict how much I'm putting into Power Attack and Combat Expertise...to both demonstrate to observers that I'm not cheating, and also to remind myself in case I forget.

Then again, I also used to, when playing M:tG, use d6s for base-6 numbers to represent my life total.  :-D

Brad


----------



## Umbra (Jul 6, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> "I hate math."




Actually, the problem isn't the math (which is simple addition and subtraction), it's the rule complexity and knowing what applies to each character or NPC when and in what situation.  I agree that keeping track of it can bog the game right down when compared to earlier versions of DnD.  Add in feats and spells from non-core book sources = boggled brain.

While running a game with 15th to 18th level PC's (first time we have reached so high) where the players all do their homework there is invariably some modifier we miss or miss apply during combat.

[half tongue in cheek] Of course non-ENWorlders    (= less committed / less knowledgable/ less   ) newbies, casual gamers and the like have little hope in keeping up.

My partner is about to join a 5th level game I play in for his first RPG experience.  He doesn't read much, won't spend hours pouring over the books tweaking his character and hasn't been playing for 20 years like some of the other gamers.  I suspect it will be a while before he gets the basics down, let alone some of the complexities, and I will probably be spending alot of my time going over his character sheet with him.

Which brings us back to a rules lite game for newbies which may be solution for those who hate 3.x complexity...a whole 'nuther topic.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 6, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> When they players began to have "hot sheets" of four or five pages and I felt more like a stat counter than a DM we quit 3e. I'm interested in seeing what C&C is doing with d20 to make it a simpler game to play, and hopefully DM.




What were they putting on these hot sheets?  I can't think of anything that goes over the two pages of the standard character sheet, aside from spells, and heck, if I really wanted, I could fit everything I needed for a fighter or rogue on one page.

Even spells only take up a page, and while I think it's pretty easy to remember spells you use all the time, it's also not hard to look them up when you need them.

Brad


----------



## Ourph (Jul 6, 2004)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> What were they putting on these hot sheets?  I can't think of anything that goes over the two pages of the standard character sheet, aside from spells, and heck, if I really wanted, I could fit everything I needed for a fighter or rogue on one page.




I once sat down and started writing out all the different AC permutations for my 3.5 11th level Wizard so that I could just look at them rather than calculate them during the game.

After the 28th combination I stopped because I could tell looking at all the different permutations was going to be just as inconvenient as doing the math at the table.

At this point, I purposely restrict the defensive spells I cast during combat to a few effective but more convenient ones because I don't want to have to deal with all the hassle.  I'm not quite as safe as I would be otherwise, but I sure as heck enjoy myself a lot more.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 6, 2004)

Umbra said:
			
		

> Actually, the problem isn't the math (which is simple addition and subtraction), it's the rule complexity and knowing what applies to each character or NPC when and in what situation.  I agree that keeping track of it can bog the game right down when compared to earlier versions of DnD.  Add in feats and spells from non-core book sources = boggled brain.
> 
> While running a game with 15th to 18th level PC's (first time we have reached so high) where the players all do their homework there is invariably some modifier we miss or miss apply during combat.
> 
> ...




Do we have to give up the beauty of all that makes D&D great just to not have "mind boggling" complexity?  Is there a way to get MORE of what we love, while simplifying the GAME?

We've heard two clear suggestions:
More prep work in advance (write them down)
Simplify the character sheets/DM Prep to include the key variables.


----------



## jeffh (Jul 6, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I once sat down and started writing out all the different AC permutations for my 3.5 11th level Wizard so that I could just look at them rather than calculate them during the game.
> 
> After the 28th combination I stopped because I could tell looking at all the different permutations was going to be just as inconvenient as doing the math at the table.




As far as I can tell, you shouldn't need more than four; normal, flat-footed, touch, both.  Or are you talking about adding spells to the picture?  If so that seems like just making work for yourself; precalculate one or two really common ones, sure, but surely you can add a one-digit number to your AC on the fly when you cast a defensive spell?  Use sticky notes or something if memory is the problem.


----------



## Umbra (Jul 6, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> Do we have to give up the beauty of all that makes D&D great just to not have "mind boggling" complexity?  Is there a way to get MORE of what we love, while simplifying the GAME?




Ah!  Now we are getting to the real question.  What is it that you love and want more of?  Then we can decide which aspects we can simplify without ruining the game.


----------



## jeffh (Jul 6, 2004)

Some of my players have trouble with remebering all the modifiers and the like, even though they do a reasonable job of having the important ones precalculated and on their character sheet.  One prefers high-level play but has complaints about the level treadmill; all of them get confused about bonus types  and tend to err on the conservative side when it comes to what gets multiplied on a critical hit (even though I've explained the rule many times - numerical additions do, extra dice don't).  A few occasionally confuse themselves about iterative attacks, an important issue at high levels.

I'm looking for ways to cut down on this at high levels.  One thing I'll definitely want to implement is a major change to multiple attacks.  Instead of getting extra attacks at lower and lower hit probabilities as you level, all characters at all levels will have options similar to the Monk's Flurry of Blows, only these will start out more heavily penalized.  Feats will let you reduce the penalties for particular weapons (characters will overall have more Feats too, so this won't add undue strain; I definitely think characters get too few Feats now).


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 6, 2004)

jeffh said:
			
		

> all of them get confused about bonus types  and tend to err on the conservative side when it comes to what gets multiplied on a critical hit (even though I've explained the rule many times - numerical additions do, extra dice don't).  A few occasionally confuse themselves about iterative attacks, an important issue at high levels.




If I have a potentially confusing crit situation, I write out, in advance, what the crit damage is.  Though part of that is I like seeing big numbers on my character sheet, as I can do the multiplication in my head the vast majority of the time.  

Brad


----------



## ashockney (Jul 6, 2004)

jeffh said:
			
		

> Some of my players have trouble with remebering all the modifiers and the like, even though they do a reasonable job of having the important ones precalculated and on their character sheet.  One prefers high-level play but has complaints about the level treadmill; all of them get confused about bonus types  and tend to err on the conservative side when it comes to what gets multiplied on a critical hit (even though I've explained the rule many times - numerical additions do, extra dice don't).  A few occasionally confuse themselves about iterative attacks, an important issue at high levels.
> 
> I'm looking for ways to cut down on this at high levels.  One thing I'll definitely want to implement is a major change to multiple attacks.  Instead of getting extra attacks at lower and lower hit probabilities as you level, all characters at all levels will have options similar to the Monk's Flurry of Blows, only these will start out more heavily penalized.  Feats will let you reduce the penalties for particular weapons (characters will overall have more Feats too, so this won't add undue strain; I definitely think characters get too few Feats now).




Let them have feats.  Even more options.  I like it!  

Another good idea on itterative attack routines.  Why not multiple attacks (penalized) as a TACTICAL OPTION but with larger penalties.  Thus, combat decisions would be more about a combination of smaller attacks (against weak AC opponents) or one big daddy thwack (ie, Power Attacking) against the tougher AC opponent.  Also a good option.  

Others?


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Jul 6, 2004)

Personally I like options (why when I get the chance to play I generally play either fighters or spellcasters) and I can do complex addition, subtraction and some multiplication (usually only about 3 digits) and division in my head so I don't have much trouble with math.

Unfortunatley most of my players aren't too good at math but they don't have much of a problem with d&d at high levels (paticuarly since I bought a cheap caculator for the group   )
As for spells just have a PHB handy for each caster and spells aren't difficult to reference.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 6, 2004)

jeffh said:
			
		

> As far as I can tell, you shouldn't need more than four; normal, flat-footed, touch, both.  Or are you talking about adding spells to the picture?  If so that seems like just making work for yourself; precalculate one or two really common ones, sure, but surely you can add a one-digit number to your AC on the fly when you cast a defensive spell?  Use sticky notes or something if memory is the problem.




Right, normal, flat-footed, touch, both, incorporeal touch are the main 5.
So I have 5 for no spells.
5 for Mage Armor (only).
5 for Shield (only).
5 for Cat's Grace (only).
5 for Protection from Evil (only).
5 for Improved Invisibility (only).
Then we go into the permutations for multiple spells.
Mage Armor + Shield
Mage Armor + Cat's Grace
Mage Armor + Protection from Evil
etc. etc.

So even after eliminating the duplicates (for example, Shield only requires normal and flat-footed since it applies vs. touch attacks and incorporeal touch attacks) you're still left with a LOT of permutations.

So yeah, I was making a lot of work for myself (which I quickly realized).  I now do something along the lines of what you suggested.  I keep a small notepad with me at the table and write down all the defensive/buff spells I cast, my modified stats and the duration.  It's still a heck of a lot of work compared to playing, for example, Warhammer (which IMO is just as good in the "options" department).

I can understand how a lot of people wouldn't mind or would even like that level of detail and complexity.  Just saying that I tend to share the original poster's POV that there's a lot of math in 3e play and that for me it sometimes gets in the way of just relaxing and having fun with the game.


----------



## Zappo (Jul 6, 2004)

I've found that high-level games are slower because of the wider range of options available to the players, not because of the math. What should I cast this round? What special attack should I use? The math is just adding one and two; the time it takes is irrelevant. Personally, I hardly call it math.

 The real time is spent in making choices. Some people would point to other systems, such as OD&D, and say that they work faster. I answer: duh, of course. If a fighter can only whack, whack and whack again, it's fairly obvious that the game is faster. The players simply don't have to think. If that's desirable for you, good. Me, I think that a few extra seconds are a fair price for the beautiful complexity of 3E combat.


----------



## poilbrun (Jul 6, 2004)

On http://www.d20srd.org , I found a Character Status Log pdf. In it are the various modifier that can be applied to various stats. I printed it and fill it by hand, but if you're using a computer, it is not very complicated to create a similar-looking spreadsheet, and put a SUM in the total column. Every time a modifier needs to be applied, just enter it in the right column, and get the total. It also helps for stacking rules, since you know you cannot have two numbers in the same column.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 6, 2004)

I find it humorous that a lot of folks don't blink at 3es convoluted math, but bitch about Thac0 being too hard to figure.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 6, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> When they players began to have "hot sheets" of four or five pages and I felt more like a stat counter than a DM we quit 3e. I'm interested in seeing what C&C is doing with d20 to make it a simpler game to play, and hopefully DM.



Um, let's see. Um, nope. Can't tell you. NDA. Sorry. But there is something in C&C which should simplify some of this. (Or at least it has the potential to I haven't had a chance to try it yet.)


> Our game got up to 12-13th level characters and it was obvious the problems we had were just going to increase as the levels got higher.



Well, I suppose I can say that you probably won't have such high level characters in C&C. But I can't really say why. But I'm thinking you can guess why....


----------



## moticon (Jul 6, 2004)

Poilbrun - Thanks for the pointer on the status sheet!

That sheet will help my new players out quite a bit. Having a quick sheet to mark seperate bonuses will speed things up, and prevent stacking.

Nice pointer!

Moticon


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jul 6, 2004)

Attached is a spreadsheet I use as a player. It's a bit more complex than it should be, but basically, I put an X in the yellow column for each effect or spell that applies, and it spits out the AC, attack, and damage in the blue boxes. (Normally I hide the columns that do the actual calculating, which makes the sheet much cleaner.)

I whipped this up in about an hour using my rudimentary knowledge of Excel. It saves me a lot of time during the game, especially when my PCs have several buff spells going.


----------



## Driddle (Jul 6, 2004)

Actually, this probably falls into two or more separate, albeit related issues: "I hate math," and, "I hate keeping track of numbers." (And maybe, "I hate lots of piddly little sequences of adding and subtracting single-point modifiers.")

I suggest this because I actually enjoy manipulating numbers and playing with math. Maybe not calculus-level stuff anymore, but yeah, I'm on good speaking terms with equations. ... But I truly abhor listening to litanies before and after dice rolls, _"I rolled X, plus This for This Modifier, plus That for That Modifier, but he's got coverage, so minus one point here and one point there, and minus X percent because I'm a geek, but I get a bonus because I recited all this crap out loud..."_ Hate it hate it hate it!


----------



## Endur (Jul 6, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> "I hate math."



Some possible fixes.
1) Stay in single digit levels(preferably levels 1 -5 to avoid multiple attacks per round).
2) Change the rules.  Possible changes include:  
a) Don't give any buff spells to PC spellcasters; there is nothing in the rules that says the GM has to make all spells in the PHB available to PC spellcasters.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 6, 2004)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> _"Math is hard, let's go shopping!" _ - Barbie*
> 
> *When Mattel released a talking Barbie who offered that bit of teenage wisdom, public reaction was so furious they pulled her off the shelves. Mattel is still trying to recover from the PR disaster.



 Clarification: She said "Math is hard!" as one of her phrases.  She didn't combine it with anything else.  Some of the other phrases, of course included "Let's go shopping!" and "Let's go the Mall!".

 As for Mattel and Barbie, with 3.6+ billion dollars worth of sales of assorted Barbie merchandise and properties, and the company turning over 4.9 Billion in profits last year, I don't think they're trying to recover, at all.  If not for the 'Bratz' franchise, they'd have little to no competition at all.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 6, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> The math is just adding one and two; the time it takes is irrelevant. Personally, I hardly call it math.




Yeah, the math is easy.  The hard part if figuring out what to add/subtract and doing it every round or so based on what spells/abilities/feats your foe has and what spells/abilities/feats you are employing.

As for your comments about less complicated systems being faster because there are fewer choices to make, all I can say is that my experience diverges from yours in that department.  IMO a game can be "simple" without being "simplistic".  It's not necessary to have a different numerical modifier detailed in the rules for every choice or combination of choices in order to reward making creative and thoughtful decisions in combat (or anywhere else in the game for that matter).


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 6, 2004)

Now then, on to the issue of "I hate math."

 1) Concerning Thac0: it's counter-intuitive.  I didn't bother with 2e, so I can't comment beyond that as to it's faults/merits.

 2) At high levels, every additional character has the potential to increase the complexity of an individual, and spellcasters do so exponentially.  I run an Epic level game with a druid, archmage and cleric.  Spell power is considerable, and it's interaction can be intimidating.  Add in the various abilities and magic items a group may have, and you've got a lot of numbers.

 3) Playing with a group at a con is very different from an experienced group, as has been mentioned.  Uncertain social interactions further muddy the waters.

 4) Players should be expected to be responsible for helping with the math, and being responsible for their own calculations.  Don't choose to play a super-archer unless you know how range increments work, the effects of firing into melee, and so on.  Don't be a spellcaster and not know what your touch BAB is, or what the DCs of your spells are.  Don't wait for your turn to decide your action.  Read the spell description before your turn.  Figure out your AC, and how any of your readied spells might modify them.  And so on, and so on.

 5) I use DM Genie to track various effects in combat, and love it.  You can just as easily create 3x5' cards (which we also do) for each spell in play.  When you cast it, put it on the table for the other PCs to see, so they can refer to the cards on the table, and do quick tabulation on the fly, as needed.

 6) Figure out what your totally debuffed AC is.  Calculate all your bonuses, and be prepared for when you are flatfooted, or denied your dex bonus, and so on.  If it's not a con, and you can't trust your players to help with the math, there may be other problems.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 6, 2004)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Attached is a spreadsheet I use as a player. It's a bit more complex than it should be, but basically, I put an X in the yellow column for each effect or spell that applies, and it spits out the AC, attack, and damage in the blue boxes. (Normally I hide the columns that do the actual calculating, which makes the sheet much cleaner.)
> 
> I whipped this up in about an hour using my rudimentary knowledge of Excel. It saves me a lot of time during the game, especially when my PCs have several buff spells going.




Very nice! 

Thank you for sharing this tool.  I think it would help things (particularly for those players who will refuse to do the "pre-work" ahead of time).  I would be curious to see how long your list of "buff" variables down the right side will get when you get to 14th - 16th level, including all the different spell permutations and magic items that could be added in.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 6, 2004)

Driddle said:
			
		

> . ... But I truly abhor listening to litanies before and after dice rolls, _"I rolled X, plus This for This Modifier, plus That for That Modifier, but he's got coverage, so minus one point here and one point there, and minus X percent because I'm a geek, but I get a bonus because I recited all this crap out loud..."_ Hate it hate it hate it!




 

This made me laugh out loud.  Very well put.  

My players at Origins simply said "I hate math" but I like the way you put it, maybe even better.


----------



## D+1 (Jul 6, 2004)

Deimodius said:
			
		

> Well, can you be more specific about the math to which you refer?
> 
> I am currently playing an 18th level Cleric. In order to speed things up, I have pre-calculated the affect of all buff spells (and in their various stackig combinations) on his stats, so that whne the time comes, I don't have to sit there and figure out To Hit, Damage, AC and Ability bonuses, etc.
> 
> ...



The irony in this reply is lethal.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 6, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Now then, on to the issue of "I hate math."
> 
> 5) I use DM Genie to track various effects in combat, and love it.  You can just as easily create 3x5' cards (which we also do) for each spell in play.  When you cast it, put it on the table for the other PCs to see, so they can refer to the cards on the table, and do quick tabulation on the fly, as needed.




These are both very helpful recommendations.  Thank you for sharing your insights.  I also really like the idea of spell cards.  What if it were something that could be handed out to players when they receive a certain benefit...color coded (to deal with stacking/non-stacking).  

I do want to restate my purpose...challenge one of the best group of gaming minds on the planet to come up with a few ideas on how to make the GAME better.  

The game IS played at cons.  The game IS played at FLGS's.  The game IS played by players who will not all want to participate 110% of their time to "building" a character.  The game IS played by people who might be challenged by the CALCULUS level math that high level becomes, with all of it's variables.  If you make the above assumptions, I'll ask you...

What can we do to make the game PLAY better?  
How do we make it EASIER, without losing complexity or challenge?


----------



## Ourph (Jul 6, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> What can we do to make the game PLAY better?
> How do we make it EASIER, without losing complexity or challenge?




1.  As someone already suggested, limit bonus types to a small number.  Spell them out clearly and make a single consistent rule about what stacks and what doesn't.  Require all official supplementary material to follow those guidelines.

2.  Eliminate or heavily restrict dependent bonuses/penalties.  Bonuses/penalties shouldn't change during a normal game session very often and shouldn't be dependent upon your foes abilities/spells/feats except in very limited ways.  Example: Eliminate the differences between "touch" and "incorporeal touch".  There's no reason to differentiate between the two.  Mage armor should either count against both or count against neither.

3.  Eliminate buff spells that do nothing more than change a number on your character sheet and make magic into something "fantastic" again.  IMO, any remaining buff spells should be "personal" range only.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 6, 2004)

I love math, but...

In the 1990s, my group played GURPS, then Rolemaster, then Hârnmaster, then Fantasy Hero. I enjoyed those games a lot, but I noticed how some of the players felt a bit left out while the few of us with a strong grasp of the rules would be resolving things.

They weren't complaining, but I didn't like that those players weren't as engaged as the rest of it. It didn't seem to be because they wouldn't like to be. They just weren't intested in mastering a complex set of rules.

Then I played a side AD&D campaign. It made me believe that a roleplaying game could be both fun & simple enough for everyone at the table to grasp the rules without a huge investment of time & energy.

So, I stopped GMing those systems.

I didn't notice at first, but the same thing happened with D&D3e. So, I've decided (for that & other reasons) I don't want to DM 3e anymore.


----------



## woodelf (Jul 6, 2004)

Corinth said:
			
		

> RPGs are not a storytelling medium.  They're about mission-oriented dynamic problem-solving scenarios.  It shouldn't be a surprise that a competant GM is one that focuses more about constructing the scenario than anything else.




You missed the "for me"s in there.   Some of us want dynamic challenge-confronting storytelling out of our RPGs. And others want still other things. Even "fun" is not the least common denominator of why people play RPGs, so you certainly can't make a blanket statement that RPGs are not for "storytelling".


----------



## woodelf (Jul 6, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> You ran a combat with 15 combatants in an hour? Blessed be. Good for you. In HERO, that same combat would have taken 5 hours. In GURPS, perhaps 3 hours. In out large gaming group a 15 person combat could take the whole 4 hour session. What are you complaining about?




I just ran a playtest of a scenario for GenCon last week. The final confrontation turned out to be a battle between 6 PCs on one side, and the Big Bad, his 13 acolytes, his lieutenant, and a literal graveyard-full of zombies  on the other. Oh, and for part of it, the PCs were in 3 different locations. I think it took a bit over 30min. Or about the same amount of time it took them to locate the sinking ship, assess the situation, rescue everyone, and discover why the ship had sunk. And the PCs and the "named" NPCs were all fairly powerful supers (thus significant power and much versatility), and in a system that provides more flexibility than D&D3[.5]E can even dream about--the players can literally invent character capabilities on the fly, as well as re-write the setting and plot within limited parameters.

My point? It's all a matter of perspective and priorities. Sure, there're RPGs that tend to take longer in combat than D&D3E does (though i wouldn't've said GURPS was one of them--but that's neither here nor there). But if an hour is "too long" for your combat, then it's too long, regardless of whether that is shorter or longer than any other system, or the median for all RPGs, or whatever. If someone complains that their 1-hr combat was too long, pointing out that it was shorter than some other systems, or even that it was amazingly quick for a combat in the system they're using, doesn't really help. It's very much of the "'it hurts when i do this' 'don't do that'" school of solution, and therefore doesn't actually solve the problem.

As for the priorities part: what is important to you in in RPG? If you want complexity and mechanical detail and rules-based balance and highly-competent characters, i don't think there's much you can do to improve over the likes of HERO System, D20 System, DC Heroes, Rolemaster, et.al. But if one or more of those isn't important to you, then a solution might be available. Frex, balance doesnt' have to be based in the rules, and isn't even inherently necessary to RPGs. Or, you can have flexible, complex characters without having mechanically-detailed rules. You can, as others have suggested, stick to low-powered characters. 

As an example, i'll plug the game i described above: *Four Colors al Fresco*. It's narrative, rather than gamist or simulationist, so it simply doesn't mechanically deal with the sorts of issues that are bugging some about high-level D&D3E play. Green Lantern would be no more complex, mechanically, than The Thing--all the complexity comes in at the level of the players and the world, rather than the rules. So it's no more of a headache to adjudicate than is a comic book. We get all the flexibility of character conception and character action, and then some, but without all the mechanical complexity. Now, obviously, some people aren't gonna find this satisfactory--which gets back to the "what do you want" bit. If you want/need the rules to actively describe all the fiddly details, or you need them to provide some sort of check-n-balance system so that all the players feel everyone is "playing fair", you're not gonna like a narrative system. <plug type=shameless>On the other hand, if you haven't actually _tried_ another route towards satisfying gameplay, don't dismiss it out of hand. Give something like *Four Colors al Fresco*, *Sorcerer*, *Dust Devils*, or *Donjon* a try. You may discover that it's worth giving up all the numbers in order to get the gameplay you want.</plug>



> You will find that in most systems as the players get tougher, the game becomes more complex.




Yeah, another symptom of the "all RPGs are basically the same, mechanically" syndrome--we need more variety in the core elements of RPGs, so that fewer of these truisms hold.


----------



## woodelf (Jul 6, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> I'll repeat my earlier question, however, and ask does a great rpg HAVE to be so complex at high level?  Or, is it possible to make it a GREAT rpg, and still be simple enough to grasp quickly at higher levels.  Think out of the box on this one...
> 
> How high, how often have you gone?  Have you run into any pitfalls?




One of our creations, *Four Colors al Fresco*, could run a game with Green Lantern, the Silver Surfer, Superman, and Galactus, and it wouldn't run any less quickly than one featuring The Shadow, Doc Savage, The Phantom, and the original Batman. The powerful characters also wouldn't have significantly more complex-looking character sheets. With a detail-oriented gamist model, yes, an RPG must get more complex with greater power/flexibility in the players' hands. With a detail-oriented simulationist model, an RPG will usually get more complex as the characters get more powerful/capable. With a narrativist model, or a non-detail-oriented gamist or simulationist model, there is no necessary correlation between complexity and power level.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 6, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> The game IS played at cons. The game IS played at FLGS's. The game IS played by players who will not all want to participate 110% of their time to "building" a character. The game IS played by people who might be challenged by the CALCULUS level math that high level becomes, with all of it's variables. If you make the above assumptions, I'll ask you...
> 
> What can we do to make the game PLAY better?
> How do we make it EASIER, without losing complexity or challenge?



 1.  At Cons, RPGA games should expect player dedication.  Throw-down 'fun' games should play fast and loose with the rules.  Don't sweat the details.

 2. Cull down the materials you use.  You can do volumes with just the core, and you really don't need all of those extra supplements.  Keep it Simple.

 3.  Keep your group size manageable.  Four players is the percieved norm.  Six players is reaching far.  More than that, and you're going to be not only ignoring/boring some players most of the time, but you'll be introducing a huge amount of complexity.  It's far easier to follow the mechanics if you don't have to master all of them at once.

 4.  Use the 'Five or it's live' rule.  If a rules question comes up, give a player a couple of minutes to find an answer.  If you can't find one quickly, make a ruling a move on.  Never go past five minutes over a rules topic.  You can always change your mind or correct for error later.  Do NOT get bogged down in rules debates.

 5. I'll restress the 'effects' cards.  Got a 'rage' effect?  Write it down on a card, and put it on the table to be seen when you're raging.  Have a bard song running?  PUt the effects on the card, and put it on the table.  Train players to check the 'in play' effects area, and give them a pad and pencil to do the math while they're waiting for their turn.  If a magic circle is running, expect the players to know if the effect is going or not.


----------



## argo (Jul 6, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> challenged by the CALCULUS level math that high level becomes




I can only assume that you've never actually taken calculus   

Still, different strokes for different folks.  If you really feel that the ammount of math in high level play is bringing your group down then probably the easiest solution, easier than trying to invent house rules to _simplify_ the game, is to limit yourself to low level play.  You can get a lot of gaming in under level 8, then retire the characters and start a new campagin.  Any other solution will probably add at least as much complexity as it takes away, you just won't see it for a while.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jul 6, 2004)

*Calculus, eh?*



> The game IS played by people who might be challenged by the CALCULUS level math that high level becomes, with all of it's variables.




You've said this a couple of times.  Where is this math that you speak of?  So far as I have seen, there was a deliberate effort by the designers of D20 to remove all math except simple addition and subtraction.  All modifiers, bonuses, and penalties boil down to simple addition and subtraction.  If you add a miss chance (which is either 20% or 50%) you may have to add a second operation when making an attack (one die roll), but that's as complex as it gets.  The allusions to higher math I keep seeing in this thread seem to be based on fiction.  

I really don't get where all this complexity is supposed to be coming from.  If you spend five minutes before you play a new character to add up the bonuses and maybe put a little chart on the back of the sheet saying which items/spells/effects give which bonuses (and what type they are), there's not much to complicate things.  If a new bonus or penalty appears (because of a spell or whatever), check to see if a bonus of that type is already applied, and if it isn't, add a new box to your little chart.  Penalties are easy, since they just stack no matter what.

Doing this at level 5 is not much different than doing it at level 10, 15, or 20.  It's not like every round you have to add up all your bonuses again, because they mostly stay the same from round to round.  Perhaps if your cleric casts five different buff spells before the combat, you might need to take 30 seconds or so to figure out how they change your numbers, but otherwise it's pretty damn simple to add up.  Then you just roll the D20, and add your modifiers, and compare to the target number.  The only complicating factor is determining whether you add a bonus or not due to the bonus type.  And that's stupidly easy to keep track of.  It just requires some minor organization of the character sheet.  If you're adding all your modifiers each round, along with the "I get +X from spell A, +Y from spell B, etc." litany, you're doing something wrong.

With iterative attacks, things get slightly more complex.  But not really.  You just need to know two things:
1. I have X attacks each round on a full-round action
2. I subtract 5 from each subsequent attack until I hit X attacks.
That's it.  It doesn't get much simpler than that.

If you aren't willing to keep track of multiple bonus types and the Mensa-level challenge of iterative attacks makes your head swim, just house rule that there are only unnamed bonuses, and that you may have no more than three on you at once.  Then, eliminate iterative attacks and two-weapon fighting.  There you go.  One attack each round, no more than four numbers (including BAB) to keep track of.  If a new bonus appears, check to see if it's bigger than an existing bonus.  If it is, drop your lowest existing bonus and keep the new one.  You should be able to do that math on your fingers.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 6, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Yeah, another symptom of the "all RPGs are basically the same, mechanically" syndrome--we need more variety in the core elements of RPGs, so that fewer of these truisms hold.



The only RPG I know that doesn't get more complex as the players gain in power (in games where character CAN appreciably gain in power) is RISUS. RISUS is a narrative game. All conflict is resolved the same way, be it swordplay or speed basket weaving. The winner of the conflict determines the outcome of the conflict. The losing swordsman cries in shame. The losing basket weaver impales himself fatally on a piece of wicker. Not every group is capable of that level of narrative play though.

POINT2: The title to this thread is wrong. The math is not complex in high level play. The interaction of choices is complex. You have to know that some +2 bonus to your AC is a deflection bonus, not a dodge bonus even though they are similar in effect. Some find this too complex to deal with. I wish the title of the thread were changed to "too many bonus categories".


----------



## Nifft (Jul 6, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> I wish the title of the thread were changed to "too many bonus categories".




"and too many special situational modifiers."

 -- N


----------



## ashockney (Jul 7, 2004)

argo said:
			
		

> I can only assume that you've never actually taken calculus
> 
> Still, different strokes for different folks.  If you really feel that the ammount of math in high level play is bringing your group down then probably the easiest solution, easier than trying to invent house rules to _simplify_ the game, is to limit yourself to low level play.  You can get a lot of gaming in under level 8, then retire the characters and start a new campagin.  Any other solution will probably add at least as much complexity as it takes away, you just won't see it for a while.




You're right, no calculus for me.  Bleh!  In college, that is, because I tested out in high school.  I'd had enough of that crap!

Please show me a formula that calculates the probability of doing 140 hit points of damage a round to a Fire Giant with a 21 AC, when you're playing the following character:



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Here's a great example from Origins: A fighter/rogue with Expert Tactician, 4d6 sneak attack, a holy weapon, and Greater Invisibility, (Mass) Haste, and had drunk a potion of Bull's Strength. Wielding a keen falchion with improved crit. Now, her bonuses to hit were pre-calc'd with bull's str, but not the +1 from haste (from party), or the +2 from fighting invis, or the +2 if she could get flanking. The attack routine could be anywhere from one - four depending upon movement, haste, and expert tactician. If she hit, she has a 45% chance of threatening. For each hit, she deals 2d4+8 damage per swing +4d6 sneak +2d6 holy (what multiplies)? At the end of this little routine, the cleric reminded them that they just cast prayer for another +1 to hit and damage to each roll. (Rolling to hit required up to 8 rolls with up to six modifiers, and damage required rolling and adding up 8 dice per attack times 4 attacks + with up to seven modifiers per attack).




You're absolutely correct, the number of variables, and the number of modifiers, and the types of modifiers also play HEAVILY into the complexity.

THANK YOU to everyone who's given me advice on how to improve my home campaign.  My home campaign is fine, however, and I've run two campaigns to 20th, and another to 32nd.  Not the issue. The amount of time and complexity to do that IS the issue.  I'm challenging you to get out of the box and THINK!  Can't we have as good a game, without it being too complex?

The title of the thread is a direct quote from two different people at my table at Origins, that's why I chose it as the title, instead of something like "simplifying high level DnD to improve 4th Edition" as the title.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 7, 2004)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> ...just house rule that there are only unnamed bonuses, and that you may have no more than three on you at once.  Then, eliminate iterative attacks and two-weapon fighting.  There you go.  One attack each round, no more than four numbers (including BAB) to keep track of.  If a new bonus appears, check to see if it's bigger than an existing bonus.  If it is, drop your lowest existing bonus and keep the new one.  You should be able to do that math on your fingers.




Now we're getting somewhere.  Interesting concept.  Do you have to have over a dozen different types of bonuses?  Could there be some fluidity to the type and number of bonuses that stack?  What if there were fewer types of bonuses, but they grew much higher at higher levels?

For example, instead of having luck (up to +5), morale (up to +5), and sacred up to +5) (divine) bonuses for cleric/divine abilities and effects, what if there were only DIVINE bonuses, that would grant up to +15 to an ability.  So, at lower levels, you could have only a +1 - +3, at mid levels you could get a +3 - +5, from 12th - 16th you might see a +5 - +10, and from 16th - epic you may be able to achieve up to a +15 with the highest level spells.  

Interesting concept.  Why not?  Far less "variables" to track.  Simpler, yet not relinquishing the tactical effectiveness and challenge.


----------



## Corinth (Jul 7, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> You missed the "for me"s in there.   Some of us want dynamic challenge-confronting storytelling out of our RPGs. And others want still other things. Even "fun" is not the least common denominator of why people play RPGs, so you certainly can't make a blanket statement that RPGs are not for "storytelling".



Yes, I can.  A story, as a work of the humanities, exists to transmit an original discovery of natural law from the teller to the recipient in a manner consistent with the manner by which that discovery originally occured.  There is no such process extant in tabletop RPGs, ergo it is not a storytelling medium.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 7, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> The amount of time and complexity to do that IS the issue. I'm challenging you to get out of the box and THINK! Can't we have as good a game, without it being too complex?
> 
> The title of the thread is a direct quote from two different people at my table at Origins, that's why I chose it as the title, instead of something like "simplifying high level DnD to improve 4th Edition" as the title.



 Well, I guess, for me, the issue is that I don't see it as a problem.  Even at 23rd level, it isn't that complex for me.  Creating monsters?  Yeah, I wish that could be a little simpler....but the system itself?  I don't really see it as a problem indemic to the system, but to individual tastes and groups.

 Clearly, some players/DMs will ahve more problems with the system than others....but truthfully, the math can be as strong or weak as you desire it to be.  The goals of a convention group are different than that of my weekly game, for example, and my group's style is radically different than, say, (contact)'s group.  The character you listed _can_ be broken down mathematically to a degree of certainty (one quick browse at some of the rules threads will show that).  Of all of those bonuses, I don't really see anything more than some addition and some d20 rolls.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 7, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> A Rogue with bracers of armor +3, Dex 18, ring of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +2, the Dodge and Mobility feats and fighting defensively.  The Rogue moves through the threatened squares of a wraith and an invisible fighter wielding a longsword; ends his movement next to a Cleric holding an inflict light wounds spell in his hand and tries to initiate a grapple.  The rogue has declared his Dodge vs. the Cleric.
> 
> What is his AC vs. each opponent for the AoOs he provokes?



You're just trying to be obtuse. Touch and flat-footed ac should be added up ahead of time (ie - you start with a base ac of 20, a touch ac of 15 and a flat-footed ac of 16 in your example).

Running past the wraith, his ac goes up by 4, to 24. Running past the fighter, he uses his flat-footed ac (unless he's got uncanny dodge) and doesn't get dodge bonuses, so his ac is his flat-footed ac (16). Finally, against the cleric, he uses his touch ac, plus his dodge bonus, for a 17.

I worked all that out, and the only thing I had to check was whether the rogue had uncanny dodge.

The only summing I'd have had to do as DM would be to add +2 to the fighter's attack bonus. All the rest of it is done by the player.

I honestly don't see what the problem is.


----------



## woodelf (Jul 7, 2004)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> You would be surprised how many players still don't know what their character can do after playing it for so long a time.  There are players who just don't pay attention, who don't care, and who don't try to understand what all their characters can do.
> 
> Some players are just lazy, and despite the ease in which these situations could be helped, some just don't care.




or their brains just don't work in a way in which keeping the rules of D&D straight is easy for them.  Or they play RPGs to have fun, and keeping track of lots of little details isn't fun and doing homework between sessions isn't fun. There're plenty of reasons for someone to not do well with D&D3E and yet not be a "bad player"--some of the best RPers i've ever played with were also some of the worst people to play D&D3E (or any other complex system) with. The fault is not with the player, but the system--or, perhaps, just an incompatibility between player and system. Give these same players a system that is simpler (Big Eyes, Small Mouth), or complex in a different way (Four Colors al Fresco), and they thrive and are a joy to play with.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 7, 2004)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> You would be surprised how many players still don't know what their character can do after playing it for so long a time.  There are players who just don't pay attention, who don't care, and who don't try to understand what all their characters can do.
> 
> Some players are just lazy, and despite the ease in which these situations could be helped, some just don't care.



Then penalise them for it. Institute a no-takebacks rule, and then ask them for their attack roll. Tell them the penalties that apply and let them do the bonuses. If they seem to be too high, ask what bonus they added. If they do it consistently just to make you work out what their bonus is, start declaring misses. If they miss bonuses, they missed bonuses.

Chances are that at least one of the players will know what's going on and will help them.

I mean really - for something as simple as adding up your melee and ranged bonuses, if the player can't be bothered, then his characters can feel free to repeatedly die until he gets sick of the game and goes away.

If a player can't be bothered to know his own character, why should I be bothered to give him an enjoyable game?



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> 1.  As someone already suggested, limit bonus types to a small number.  Spell them out clearly and make a single consistent rule about what stacks and what doesn't.  Require all official supplementary material to follow those guidelines.



Good idea. Particularly, I'd like to see luck, morale and sacred combined.


> 2.  Eliminate or heavily restrict dependent bonuses/penalties.  Bonuses/penalties shouldn't change during a normal game session very often and shouldn't be dependent upon your foes abilities/spells/feats except in very limited ways.  Example: Eliminate the differences between "touch" and "incorporeal touch".  There's no reason to differentiate between the two.  Mage armor should either count against both or count against neither.



This is a really great one - eliminate exceptions. Mage armour is just like armour EXCEPT... The shield spell is just like a shield EXCEPT...


> 3.  Eliminate buff spells that do nothing more than change a number on your character sheet and make magic into something "fantastic" again.  IMO, any remaining buff spells should be "personal" range only.



Bad,bad idea. Suddenly the wizard and cleric are no longer party players, and/or buff spells just go out the window.

Or do you mean spells which boost statistics? I could certainly see eliminating bulls strength and that suite of spells, simply because noone uses them any more, but also because they're a pain.


----------



## woodelf (Jul 7, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> A Rogue with bracers of armor +3, Dex 18, ring of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +2, the Dodge and Mobility feats and fighting defensively.  The Rogue moves through the threatened squares of a wraith and an invisible fighter wielding a longsword; ends his movement next to a Cleric holding an inflict light wounds spell in his hand and tries to initiate a grapple.  The rogue has declared his Dodge vs. the Cleric.
> 
> What is his AC vs. each opponent for the AoOs he provokes?
> 
> Figuring this sort of thing out on the fly turns the game from "fun" into "work" for me.  YMMV.




Well, if i were running things?

10
bracers of armor +3: +3
Dex 18: +4
ring of protection +1: +1
amulet of natural armor +2: +2
and fighting defensively: +2
=22, if i remembered all the values right (i haven't played D&D3E in over a year now, and don't have any books handy to double-check things like the fighting defensively bonus).

So far, so good. Now, let's see:

wraith: ignore armor for touch, which is five points, so 17 looks good to me
invisible: ignore dex, which is 4 points, so 18
cleric: more touch attack, but he's dodging the cleric, so 19

And that took me a lot longer to type up than to figure out. Now, i may have misremembered exactly which things count against incorporeal attacks, or invisible attackers, or whatever.  So what? So long as i'm consistent, playing in good faith, and attempting to make some sense, who cares? What i just came up with is close enough, if not spot-on. The problem is in equal measure the complexity of the rules, and slavish adherence to them. 

Now, in the interest of full disclosure: i played a D&D3E game for 2.5yrs, and it would take being paid to get me to run it, and it would take extraordinary circumstances to get me to even play it again. And i was only playing a monk with no buffing items.  So i'm with you in the "this just isn't fun" camp. I just wanted to point out that some of this one brings upon oneself through playstyle--you can cut down on the mental gymnastics significantly by just playing fast-n-loose, without the need to switch to a completely different system. Of course, on the gripping hand, if you're not gonna use anywhere near all the detail, you may as well switch. And you'll probably be happier then, too. But if for some reason you're stuck with D&D3E, and you don't enjoy all the crunchiness, you _can_ tone it down.


----------



## woodelf (Jul 7, 2004)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You've said this a couple of times.  Where is this math that you speak of?  So far as I have seen, there was a deliberate effort by the designers of D20 to remove all math except simple addition and subtraction.  All modifiers, bonuses, and penalties boil down to simple addition and subtraction.  If you add a miss chance (which is either 20% or 50%) you may have to add a second operation when making an attack (one die roll), but that's as complex as it gets.  The allusions to higher math I keep seeing in this thread seem to be based on fiction.




And multiplying by .5 and 1.5. Not that either of those is a particularly burdensome bit of math, but i do wish they'd been eliminated, 'cause they're sorta annoying to do on the fly.


----------



## woodelf (Jul 7, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> The only RPG I know that doesn't get more complex as the players gain in power (in games where character CAN appreciably gain in power) is RISUS. RISUS is a narrative game. All conflict is resolved the same way, be it swordplay or speed basket weaving. The winner of the conflict determines the outcome of the conflict. The losing swordsman cries in shame. The losing basket weaver impales himself fatally on a piece of wicker. Not every group is capable of that level of narrative play though.




Actually, there're lots of narrative RPGs that don't get more complex with increasing power: RISUS, Over the Edge, Dust Devils, Four Colors al Fresco, probably others. And i'd say that Everway, while a mix of narrative, simulationist, and even a touch of gamist, likewise doesn't complexify with increased "level". But, yeah, your basic point, and mine, stands: a gamist/simulationist RPG is pretty much gonna have to get more complex with increasing character capability.



> POINT2: The title to this thread is wrong. The math is not complex in high level play. The interaction of choices is complex. You have to know that some +2 bonus to your AC is a deflection bonus, not a dodge bonus even though they are similar in effect. Some find this too complex to deal with. I wish the title of the thread were changed to "too many bonus categories".




Exactly: the actual math is somewhere between trivial and easy. But figuring out what math to do can be a headache.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 7, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Well, if i were running things?
> 
> 10
> bracers of armor +3: +3
> ...




Not quite.  This depends on the rogue's level, and whether or not he's tumbling to eliminate attacks of opportunity by movement (probably not).

Wraith:  20, as the Bracers of Armor +3 are effective against incorporeal touch.
Invisible:  22, assuming the PC has four levels of rogue, since he has Uncanny Dodge and doesn't lose his Dex bonus due to invisible opponents.
Cleric:  18...22-3 (Armor) - 2 (Natural Armor) +1 (Dodge).

I'm also unsure if he would be fighting defensively vs. the wraith and invisible fighter, since he's just moving when he triggers AoOs.

Brad


----------



## woodelf (Jul 7, 2004)

Corinth said:
			
		

> Yes, I can.  A story, as a work of the humanities, exists to transmit an original discovery of natural law from the teller to the recipient in a manner consistent with the manner by which that discovery originally occured.  There is no such process extant in tabletop RPGs, ergo it is not a storytelling medium.




That's a pretty narrow definition of "story", and would eliminate not only a lot of things that are colloquially referred to as stories (anything that is entertaining but pointless), but almost the entire body of what is formally referred to as story in the study of folklore, since (1) folktales often transmit no discoveries of natural law, original or otherwise, and (2) the teller is generally not the originator of the story. 

Your definition may be accurate as used in the study of literature, but i contest it if you're gonna claim it applies to "the humanities". And, furthermore, i'm not sure that a definition that far at odds with colloquial usage is useful outside of its originating discipline. Sure, RPGs differ in significant ways from most sorts of storytelling, but i think that, at least for some, they share enough crucial elements to be appropriately classified as "storytelling"--whether or not the product of an RPG session qualifies as "a story". If your goal is to create an interesting narrative, then why does it matter whether rules are involved or not, whether the story is spontaneous or retransmitted, whether there is one teller or many, or whether or not there is an audience? You are still storytelling. Now, if you play for other goals, and never retell the experience, i can certainly see the argument that you are not storytelling--but that's not the same as saying that no one playing an RPG is storytelling.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 7, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Actually, there're lots of narrative RPGs that don't get more complex with increasing power: RISUS, Over the Edge, Dust Devils, Four Colors al Fresco, probably others. And i'd say that Everway, while a mix of narrative, simulationist, and even a touch of gamist, likewise doesn't complexify with increased "level".



 But does anyone actually play those games? 

 Seriously, do you have a link for RISUS?  I've never heard of it, before.


----------



## woodelf (Jul 7, 2004)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Not quite.  This depends on the rogue's level, and whether or not he's tumbling to eliminate attacks of opportunity by movement (probably not).
> 
> Wraith:  20, as the Bracers of Armor +3 are effective against incorporeal touch.
> Invisible:  22, assuming the PC has four levels of rogue, since he has Uncanny Dodge and doesn't lose his Dex bonus due to invisible opponents.
> ...




That's sort of my point: eh, who cares? So my rulings were  all wrong except for the cleric. So what? If the player brought it up, i'd go with the actual rule. If i were the player, and misremembered the rules, and no one else corrected me, so what? The spirit of things (pardon the pun) was preserved: i don't get armor vs. incorporeal or touch attacks, i don't get to dodge someone i can't see (unless i've got the feat/class ability that says otherwise). Yes, there's a correct ruling. And, yes, i was wrong (as i sorta suspected i might be). My point is that it doesn't matter--the game doesn't break if you screw up the rules, even if you screw them up on a regular basis. Oh, and my ruling on fighting defensively, based on my hazy recollection of the rules, is that it applies for the entire round, 'cause the penalty applies to any AoOs you make, so the bonus should apply to your AC the whole time, too. Which, again, might not match what the book says, but so what? So long as the players know how we're running things, and it's consistent, and they know beforehand how things are going (i.e., they know that the fighting defensively modifiers either apply to their attack sequence only, or the whole round, and can thus plan accordingly), who cares whether it matches the books?


----------



## Ourph (Jul 7, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> You're just trying to be obtuse.




For those not keeping score:

Saeviomagy says: Wraith 24, Fighter 16(20 w/uncanny dodge), Cleric 17
Woodelf says: Wraith 17, Fighter 18, Cleric 19
cignus says: Wraith 20, Fighter 18(22 w/uncanny dodge), Cleric 18

Considering the fact that three people answered my example and each gave different answers for each situation, I rest my case.   

BTW the real answer to: 


			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> A Rogue with bracers of armor +3, Dex 18, ring of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +2, the Dodge and Mobility feats and fighting defensively. The Rogue moves through the threatened squares of a wraith and an invisible fighter wielding a longsword; ends his movement next to a Cleric holding an inflict light wounds spell in his hand and tries to initiate a grapple. The rogue has declared his Dodge vs. the Cleric.
> 
> What is his AC vs. each opponent for the AoOs he provokes?




is....

Wraith 26 [10+3(bracers)+4(dex)+1(ring)+4(mobility)+2(fighting defensively)=26]
The Wraith ignores natural armor, but nothing else (force armor counts).

Fighter 16 (20 w/uncanny dodge) [10+3(bracers)+1(ring)+2(amulet)=16] +4(dex) w/uncanny dodge = 20
The Fighter ignores all dodge bonuses, but uncanny dodge gives the rogue his Dex bonus if he has the ability.

Cleric 18 [10+4(dex)+1(ring)+2(fighting defensively)+1(dodge)=18]
The Cleric ignores armor bonuses and natural armor bonuses, plus the rogue doesn't get his mobility AC bonus because he's provoking for grappling, not for moving.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 7, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> For those not keeping score:
> 
> Saeviomagy says: Wraith 24, Fighter 16(20 w/uncanny dodge), Cleric 17
> Woodelf says: Wraith 17, Fighter 18, Cleric 19
> ...




Oops, forgot Mobility, so that'd be Wraith: 24 and Fighter: 18 (26 w/uncanny dodge).

Also, note that Woodelf used Fighting Defensively (and provided a reasonable explanation thereof, too!), which raises the AC by 2 in general.  However, that's not mentioned in the example, but it's reasonable to assume a rogue would do such.

Of course, *my* rogue always Tumbled, and 10-foot-adjusted when he got enough Tumble, so I can count the number of AoOs he suffered during a three-year campaign on two hands and have fingers remaining.  

Brad


----------



## Ourph (Jul 7, 2004)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Oops, forgot Mobility, so that'd be Wraith: 24 and Fighter: 18 (26 w/uncanny dodge).
> 
> Also, note that Woodelf used Fighting Defensively (and provided a reasonable explanation thereof, too!), which raises the AC by 2 in general.  However, that's not mentioned in the example, but it's reasonable to assume a rogue would do such.




1st - Wrong again (see my edit above).

2nd - The example does explicitly include fighting defensively.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 7, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Fighter 16 (20 w/uncanny dodge) [10+3(bracers)+1(ring)+2(amulet)=16] +4(dex) w/uncanny dodge = 20




Remember, if he has uncanny dodge, he doesn't lose the +4 Dodge bonus from Mobility, since he still has his Dex bonus.  And, I believe fighting defensively would still apply, as well.

Brad


----------



## Ourph (Jul 7, 2004)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Remember, if he has uncanny dodge, he doesn't lose the +4 Dodge bonus from Mobility, since he still has his Dex bonus.  And, I believe fighting defensively would still apply, as well.
> 
> Brad




Uncanny dodge only returns your Dex bonus to you, it does not allow you to keep all of your dodge bonuses.  The condition that made you lose your dodge bonuses still exists, Uncanny Dodge just allows you to avoid losing ONE of those bonuses.

BTW - The fact that we're debating this, TOTALLY proves my point.


----------



## Doctor Bomb (Jul 7, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> That's nothing man.  2 friends of mine made a spreadsheet for character CREATION for Rolemaster.  Took it from a 4 hour process (w/all the classes and such to look thru as well as Talent Law, gods forbid ya make a mage) to an hour and a half one.




Secret Squirrel, 
On a totally unrelated note, WHERE CAN I GET THAT SPREADSHEET!!
 

H/Orc Monk (old skool RM) - Deaf as a post, but strong as a troll!


----------



## Ace (Jul 7, 2004)

Corinth said:
			
		

> RPGs are not a storytelling medium.  They're about mission-oriented dynamic problem-solving scenarios.  It shouldn't be a surprise that a competant GM is one that focuses more about constructing the scenario than anything else.




Uh No. 

D&D 3x as written is as you put it "mission-oriented dynamic problem-solving scenarios"  but it isn't always played that way 

other RPG's are about different things -- FREX Sorcerer is about "how far would you go to get what you want played in a narrative enviroment" -- Malestrom (by the late lamented Huburis games) is about telling stories in a universe of wonder -- Universalis is a game about creating stories --- and there are others that are harder for me to describe like Trollbabe, Donjon and Rune 

Buffy interestingly is a "mission-oriented dynamic problem-solving scenarios" type of game but it uses 1d10 -- and the GM never need roll anything during a typical game -- ever

The math in Buffy is limited to a simple chart --- Ok 2 charts with maybe ten entries. I once ran a climactic battle scene with 10 vampires and  a machine gun nest against 4 high powered PCs -- the battle took about 10 minutes real time and was quite satisfactory 

prep time for me is about ten to twenty minutes for an evening of Buffy or Angel -- all I need to pencil and paper (and sometimes cut and paste for a stat block) 

3x OTOH is a lot more complex-- preping the game in accordance with the rules takes at least an hour  and requires at least half that to set up tactical choice charts and so on. Actually playing a combat especially at high levels quite often takes several hours 


The number of options is staggering and maintaining challenge and balance is difficult 

I am of the dislikes math cowd to-- don't get me wrong I can use it -- heck I can use GURPS Vehicles without a spreadsheet    but thats not why I am there --


----------



## Enkhidu (Jul 7, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Uncanny dodge only returns your Dex bonus to you, it does not allow you to keep all of your dodge bonuses.  The condition that made you lose your dodge bonuses still exists, Uncanny Dodge just allows you to avoid losing ONE of those bonuses.




Allright, this confused the heck out of me. But rather than hijack the thread I started one over in the rules forum: here.


----------



## argo (Jul 7, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> You're right, no calculus for me.  Bleh!  In college, that is, because I tested out in high school.  I'd had enough of that crap!
> 
> Please show me a formula that calculates the probability of doing 140 hit points of damage a round to a Fire Giant with a 21 AC, when you're playing the following character:



It's done all the time, just hang out on the rules forum or dig up an old smackdown thread.  But the *point* is that you don't *need* any of that nonsense to actually play the character.  Just add and subtract and keep a running total of two or three numbers in your head.  Most of the work can be done ahead of time (as levels go up certain magic becomes an expected part of a battleplan and should be pre-calculated as well).




> THANK YOU to everyone who's given me advice on how to improve my home campaign. My home campaign is fine, however, and I've run two campaigns to 20th, and another to 32nd. Not the issue. The amount of time and complexity to do that IS the issue.  I'm challenging you to get out of the box and THINK!  Can't we have as good a game, without it being too complex?



Don't want to, no need to.  Once again, my advice to you is the same I give to people who complain about dnd being too "high magic".  Play low levels.  Seriously, low level dnd is about as simple a game as you can get without switching to a narriative system.  (which is a fine choice too, if thats what works for you). 

But (if I am understanding you corectly) you say you aren't looking for house rules.  You think that this is a flaw in the system that prevents some people from having fun and should be adressed with a system change.  In that case I my answer is an even stonger no!  The game is designed to ramp up in dificulty, to challenge the players as well as their characters, as you hit higher and higher levels.  That was an intentional decision so new players could be introduced to the game but experienced players could still be entertained without leaving the system for something more complex.  Wanting to change the fundamental framework of the system is as much a disservice to those players as asking a newbie to play at 35th level.  People should play the game to have fun, that means playing at a level, and with a style, that suits you.

This is NOT a systemic problem.


----------



## jeffh (Jul 7, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Wraith 26 [10+3(bracers)+4(dex)+1(ring)+4(mobility)+2(fighting defensively)=26]
> The Wraith ignores natural armor, but nothing else (force armor counts).




That adds up to 24, not 26.


----------



## Zappo (Jul 7, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I find it humorous that a lot of folks don't blink at 3es convoluted math, but bitch about Thac0 being too hard to figure.



It's not a matter of math complexity; I have already argued that old D&D editions are less complex than 3E. The problem is that 3E's math results in a richer game, while THAC0 and similar contraptions are just a waste of time.







			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> As for your comments about less complicated systems being faster because there are fewer choices to make, all I can say is that my experience diverges from yours in that department. IMO a game can be "simple" without being "simplistic". It's not necessary to have a different numerical modifier detailed in the rules for every choice or combination of choices in order to reward making creative and thoughtful decisions in combat (or anywhere else in the game for that matter).



Yes, I wasn't making a blanket statement. Some systems are simple and allow for good variety of actions. They typically have other issues, though. This isn't a fault of the game or of the designers: simply, there are _trade-offs_ when creating a game and everyone makes his choices. Noone makes miracles.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 7, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Um, let's see. Um, nope. Can't tell you. NDA. Sorry. But there is something in C&C which should simplify some of this. (Or at least it has the potential to I haven't had a chance to try it yet.)
> Well, I suppose I can say that you probably won't have such high level characters in C&C. But I can't really say why. But I'm thinking you can guess why....



I'm hoping it has gotten rid of Feats and the variable modifiers that change round by round in combat and give me a headache as a DM.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jul 7, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> Very nice! Thank you for sharing this tool. I think it would help things (particularly for those players who will refuse to do the "pre-work" ahead of time).



You're welcome. I made it because *I* am a lazy player who hates doing the pre-work. Now I just have to make X's in various spots. 



> I would be curious to see how long your list of "buff" variables down the right side will get when you get to 14th - 16th level, including all the different spell permutations and magic items that could be added in.



Really freakin' long, would be my guess. But the beauty of it is that Excel doesn't care how many variables there are - it will happily crunch thousands of numbers in a minimal amount of time.

I could make the sheet cleaner by using checkboxes or drop-down lists to select which spells are in effect... hmm. As things stand -- even with just the clumsy X's -- it's already a huge time-saver.

Another gaming tool I use are these condition modifier tokens (attached). I stole them from some defunct d20 site and cleaned them up a bit for the 3.5 revision. Make a bunch of copies, cut them out, and keep them in a big stack near the battle mat. Then, whenever a PC or monster is affected by certain condition(s), put the appropriate token(s) near the PC's/monster's mini.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 7, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I'm hoping it has gotten rid of Feats and the variable modifiers that change round by round in combat and give me a headache as a DM.



I'm still unaware of these "variable modifiers that change round by round". It sounds like you are saying someone gets a +/-1d4 chaotic bonus/penalty to AC each round. (Hey, that sounds cool.... I'm planning on sending the party to Limbo soon....)

[Looks around at enraged "math" haters and ducks.... +4 cover bonus]


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 7, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> I'm still unaware of these "variable modifiers that change round by round". It sounds like you are saying someone gets a +/-1d4 chaotic bonus/penalty to AC each round. (Hey, that sounds cool.... I'm planning on sending the party to Limbo soon....)
> 
> [Looks around at enraged "math" haters and ducks.... +4 cover bonus]



 I think Flexor was referring to things like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and so forth, where the value can and does change per round, at the player's/DM's desire for the PC/NPC.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 7, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> But does anyone actually play those games?
> 
> Seriously, do you have a link for RISUS?  I've never heard of it, before.



Well, there's always google.  RISUS: The Anything RPG is a narrative RPG. Characters are made by assigning 10 dice among a number of cliches (normally 3 or 4). The cliches are anything you want them to be with the idea being everyone will understand what said cliche is capable of. The game is so simple, it fits on 6 nicely-layed out, letter-size pages. S. John also sells a 64 page companion product because some people have a hard time Grokking the game.

Go download the PDF and be amazed at how simple RPGs can be and still be full-bodied enough to work with any genre. Also go look at the links page to see how many people have (over)expanded RISUS to suit their needs. Just look at how many languages it's been translated into!

As those on the mailing list will tell: There is no wrong way to play RISUS. Oh, and the mailing list will also tell you that yes, people do play RISUS games regularly.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 7, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I think Flexor was referring to things like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and so forth, where the value can and does change per round, at the player's/DM's desire for the PC/NPC.



But how is that a headache for the DM? It's the player's headache I would think. Whenever I create a NPC with PA, I always include a few lines in the stat block (and I don't mean the normal one) that shows that PAing for 3 and 6 and any other number I expect they might try so I don't have to remember whether or not he's wielding a two-handed weapon, etc. (I should admit I've never used CE. It does affect attack bonus and AC. But then I don't think I've fought defensively either.)

I'm thinking a lot of these problems could be solved with post-it notes. Could those who complain about the problem try using post-its to write down situational modifier and see if it helps with the complexity problem?


----------



## Ourph (Jul 7, 2004)

jeffh said:
			
		

> That adds up to 24, not 26.




You're right, forgot to subtract Nat. Armor from the total.  So Saeviomagy got that one right.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 7, 2004)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Another gaming tool I use are these condition modifier tokens (attached). I stole them from some defunct d20 site and cleaned them up a bit for the 3.5 revision. Make a bunch of copies, cut them out, and keep them in a big stack near the battle mat. Then, whenever a PC or monster is affected by certain condition(s), put the appropriate token(s) near the PC's/monster's mini.




Again Joshua, kudos!  You've COMPLETELY got the spirit!  I would love to hear from others on their pitfalls of complexity/math in high level D&D, and love to hear more great creative solutions like this one.

I have downloaded this, and will DEFINITELY be using them along with my players.  Terrific stuff.

Might I also suggest some additional tactical considerations?  Flying, Levitating, Spider Climbing, Mounted, Climbing, Crawling, Squeezing through Space, Blinking, Cover, Concealment, Prone, Flanking, Charging, Hiding (Stealthing), Moving Silently

Anyone care to take a crack at those?

Note:  45 unique "tactical" considerations to sort out in any combat (low or high level) for each combatant.  Each with their own modifiers to the combat.  At higher levels, you are far MORE likely to encounter entire strings of these states on a variety of combatants throughout any combat.

Do there need to be this many unique considerations?  Do the stat/effects have to vary drastically for each?  I think there is SOME coordination of these effects already (ie, cover, concealment, higher ground, grappled/entangled).  

Could something similiar be done for feats and class abilities to register when they are "in effect" and "not in effect" more easily?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 7, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> I'm still unaware of these "variable modifiers that change round by round". It sounds like you are saying someone gets a +/-1d4 chaotic bonus/penalty to AC each round. (Hey, that sounds cool.... I'm planning on sending the party to Limbo soon....)
> 
> [Looks around at enraged "math" haters and ducks.... +4 cover bonus]



I'll give you one example...Combat Expertise.


----------



## redhawk (Jul 7, 2004)

*Calculus? I doubt it.*



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> The game IS played at cons.  The game IS played at FLGS's.  The game IS played by players who will not all want to participate 110% of their time to "building" a character.  The game IS played by people who might be challenged by the CALCULUS level math that high level becomes, with all of it's variables.  If you make the above assumptions, I'll ask you...
> 
> What can we do to make the game PLAY better?
> How do we make it EASIER, without losing complexity or challenge?




Unless you're taking derivatives or sqaure roots or any of that stuff, D&D math isn't calculus.

Algebra, and elementary algebra at that. Addition and subtraction, multiplication and division. And those last two are fairly rare.

It's not brain surgery. Bonuses overlapping as opposed to stacking makes things _easy_. 

Redhawk


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 7, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> But how is that a headache for the DM? It's the player's headache I would think.



 [Shrug] I dunno.  Ask Flexor, not me.


----------



## woodelf (Jul 7, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> But does anyone actually play those games?
> 
> Seriously, do you have a link for RISUS?  I've never heard of it, before.




Oh, sure, ask about S. John Ross's game, but not about mine.   

(kidding, of course--especially since i know the link is in my .sig and doesn't need to be asked about   )


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 7, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I'll give you one example...Combat Expertise.



Again, I've never been bugged by this nor someone fighting defensively. How does this bug you? Is it because you have to ask the player his AC every round? I'm not seeing the headache part of it.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 7, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Oh, sure, ask about S. John Ross's game, but not about mine.
> 
> (kidding, of course--especially since i know the link is in my .sig and doesn't need to be asked about   )



 Well heck, I've _met_ S. John.


----------



## Coredump (Jul 7, 2004)

There is no complicated math involved in 3.X

It is 90% addition and subtraction, with a tiny bit of mulitply and divide tossed in. "Calculus level" is not even on the horizon.

What seems to be the overwhelming 'complaint' is that there are too many options; and that some of these options only apply at certain times. Thus the math isn't hard, but knowing when to add and when not to add can be confusing.

It is a basic decision... do you want more flexibility? Or do you want more simplicity?


----------



## Ourph (Jul 7, 2004)

Coredump said:
			
		

> It is a basic decision... do you want more flexibility? Or do you want more simplicity?




The two are not mutually exclusive, and can even be synnergistic if you approach game design with the goal of keeping options simple.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 7, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> The two are not mutually exclusive, and can even be synnergistic if you approach game design with the goal of keeping options simple.




Amen!

Say it again!

Others thoughts?  Pitfalls from high level D&D?  Recommendations to simplify?

What about this for a pitfall...

What do you fight above 12th level that doesn't have AT LEAST a 10' reach?  Wizards, clerics....and that's about it.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 7, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> What do you fight above 12th level that doesn't have AT LEAST a 10' reach?  Wizards, clerics....and that's about it.



Other 12th level fighters and barbarians and rangers and rogues? Besides, who cares if monsters have reach? Doesn't that make them more challenging?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 7, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Again, I've never been bugged by this nor someone fighting defensively. How does this bug you? Is it because you have to ask the player his AC every round? I'm not seeing the headache part of it.



It becomes a problem when the party of six 11th level characters is battling the evil band they have been chasing which is made of of PC classed villians, all 7 or 8 of them.  Every round I'm figuring AC and BAB over as active feats are changing round by round, with mods switching values to adjust for the changing combat situation.  It's not hard math, whomever said this was like Calculus has never seen a Calc textbook, it's just a lot to keep track of.  It's more than "I" like to keep track of.  I could just say screw it and ignore the vast options at the disposal of the villians but that bothers me.  Maybe if I had some of those nice spreadsheets that some people have I would have felt like I was gaming and not working another shift.  But I feel that if I need a laptop full of electronic aids to run a pencil & paper tabletop game effectively I am running the wrong game.  That is one reason I dropped 3.xe, there are a couple others that I'm sure I've voiced on this forum in the past.  YMMV of course.  

Like I said before, hopefully C&C simplifies stuff to a nice degree, I like the base d20 mechanics.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 7, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> What do you fight above 12th level that doesn't have AT LEAST a 10' reach?  Wizards, clerics....and that's about it.




Vampires, Werewolves, Death Knights, A horde of Bugbears.


----------



## Ozmar (Jul 7, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> A Rogue with bracers of armor +3, Dex 18, ring of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +2, the Dodge and Mobility feats and fighting defensively.  The Rogue moves through the threatened squares of a wraith and an invisible fighter wielding a longsword; ends his movement next to a Cleric holding an inflict light wounds spell in his hand and tries to initiate a grapple.  The rogue has declared his Dodge vs. the Cleric.
> 
> What is his AC vs. each opponent for the AoOs he provokes?
> 
> Figuring this sort of thing out on the fly turns the game from "fun" into "work" for me.  YMMV.




Hmmm... Rogue's AC is:
10 + 3 (armor) + 4 (Dex) + 1 (deflection) + 2 (natural armor) = 20

AC vs. Wraith: 22 (loses natural armor vs. incorp touch attack, but gains +4 dodge bonus due to Mobility) (keeps armor from bracers since its a force effect)
AC vs. Fighter: 16 (and the fighter gains +2 on his attack: loses Dex and dodge bonuses vs. invisible opponent)
AC vs. Cleric: 16 (loses natural armor and armor vs. touch attack, adds bonus from dodge feat, mobility doesn't apply since the AoO is provoked by a grapple)

Note: I ignored the fighting defensively b/c I can't recall the exact rule for that off hand, and would need to look it up. If it works like I think it does, then it adds a dodge bonus (+2?) to AC, and would thus apply to the Wraith and Cleric, but not the Fighter.

Note: If the rogue is smart, he'll tumble and avoid the first two AoOs. I don't know off hand if he can successfully tumble past an unseen opponent, though, and I'd have to look that up or make a judgement call.

The above's just off the top of my head. What do I win? 

Ozmar the Unconcerned with Trivial D&D Math

(Of course, as a math grad student, fun=work=math, so I'm an admitted geek on this stuff.)


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Jul 8, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I use DM Genie to track various effects in combat, and love it.



Oh, WOW. W-O-W!!! This program is AWESOME! Thanks for the link...


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 8, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Uncanny dodge only returns your Dex bonus to you, it does not allow you to keep all of your dodge bonuses.  The condition that made you lose your dodge bonuses still exists, Uncanny Dodge just allows you to avoid losing ONE of those bonuses.




Hrm.  That's not what the Dodge bonus text states, and I quote from my PHB:



			
				PHB 3.5 said:
			
		

> Dodge Bonus:  A bonus to Armor Class (and sometimes Reflex Saves) resulting from physical skill at avoiding blows and other ill effects.  Dodge bonuses are never granted by spells or magic items.  _Any situation or effect (except wearing armor) that negates a character's Dexterity bonus also negates any Dodge bonuses the character may have (for instance, you lose any dodge bonuses to AC when you're flat-footed)_.  Dodge bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC, even other dodge bonuses.  Dodge bonuses apply to all touch attacks.




By my reading of that, that means that, in this situation, if the rogue has sufficient levels to have regular Uncanny Dodge, the Dodge bonus to AC is not lost; after all, his Dex bonus isn't negated by the invisibility, so the dodge bonuses will still count.  Were the wraith and fighter flanking, then yes, he would be denied his Dex bonus (assuming he didn't have Improved Uncanny Dodge), but that wasn't specified.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> BTW - The fact that we're debating this, TOTALLY proves my point.




That trying to use rules you're not familiar with will lead to errors?   I certainly think so; like I mentioned earlier, I've used Mobility very few times.  As I think back, my DM and I totally misapplied it when I did use it.  (But, I don't think my character died as a result, and, if it did, well, that's what the Raise Deads and True Reses were for!)

I believe that at least some, if not most of the AC issues people have, especially spellcasters, is that the user isn't quite as familiar with the ability/feat/spell/item in question as they could be.  I'll admit that my knowledge of D&D magic is mostly limited to buffing, booming, and band-aids, and I don't have the inclination or temperment to play a wizard to figure out all the other neat things you could do.

Brad


----------



## Coredump (Jul 8, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> The two (flexibility and simplicity) are not mutually exclusive, and can even be synnergistic if you approach game design with the goal of keeping options simple.




I disagree. They *have* to be mutually exclusive to an extant.

Look at the example of Combat Expertise from above.
Right now it is very flexible. Every round you can choose to use it, or not. And every round, you can change whether to use +/-1,2,3,4, or 5. It can lead to a lot of calculating. But it is very flexible.

We can simplify it. And say it can be used or not, but is always a +/-3. There, we have added simplicity, taken away a lot of addition, and at the same time removed some of the flexibility.

Now, if you can provide an example for me of keeping the flexibility of having/using Combat Expertise, yet simplifying it.... then I am all ears.

.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 8, 2004)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Hrm.  That's not what the Dodge bonus text states, and I quote from my PHB:




I disagree, but debating it here would hijack the thread.  Enkhidu was kind enough to start another thread on this subject on the Rules forum here where I explain my interpretation of that particular issue.

Whether or not my interpretation of the Dodge bonus rules is correct or not (and BTW it doesn't have anything to do with being unfamiliar with the rules, it's just my particular take based on running the game in the way that makes the most sense to me) the fact remains that 3 people gave me 3 completely different answers to my question, and all of you had time to think about it while you were typing at the computer.  So I think my point that the system can fairly easily become so complex that the numerous conditional modifiers and situational exceptions to standard rules start to interfere with the flow of the game has been proven quite nicely.

At least to my satisfaction.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 8, 2004)

Coredump said:
			
		

> I disagree. They *have* to be mutually exclusive to an extant.
> 
> Look at the example of Combat Expertise from above.




I'm sorry, I can't help you there, because I find the mechanic for Combat Expertise to be simple.  It's a straight one for one trade-off between to-hit and AC.

It's when you start adding in a bunch of other conditional modifiers or exceptions to a general rule that things get complicated.  For example, I think the mechanics for Combat Expertise and Power Attack are great.  One represents you being "extra defensive" and one represents you being "extra offensive".  But when you have a system that accomodates Combat Expertise, Dodge, Fighting Defensively, Full Defensive, Off-hand Parry, etc. you go from elegantly simple options to unnecessarily complex and confusing options.  All of those abilities represent ONE THING (giving up attack advantage for defense advantage).  There's no need to have 10 "options" for doing the same thing.

Another example is the VAST number of AC bonus types and their various situational exceptions.

-Armor bonuses don't count against incorporeal attacks or touch attacks, except that force armor counts against incorporeal touch attacks, but it still doesn't count against _regular_ touch attacks.   
-Dodge bonuses count against all attacks, except you lose them under certain conditions, except you can keep them if you have certain abilities.    
-Natural armor bonuses don't stack, except that if you have "natural" natural armor and an item or spell that grants natural armor, those stack.  

Or how about the way armor affects your Dex modifier.
-Certain armors decrease the amount of your Dex modifier you can apply to your AC.
-The same armors impose a penalty to certain Dex-based skills, but the armor check penalty number isn't related to the maximum Dex bonus number in any way and you get to apply your FULL Dex bonus to skills even though it's limited in terms of what you apply to AC.
-The same armor that decreases the Dex bonus you can apply to your AC and messes up some of your Dex based skills doesn't impose any penalty on your Dex bonus to Reflex saves.

 

All of the stuff I mention above could easily be coalesced under a single unified mechanic that does all of the same stuff and offers just as many options, but in a very consistent way that's applicable across the board and simple to both understand and implement during the game.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 8, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> So I think my point that the system can fairly easily become so complex that the numerous conditional modifiers and situational exceptions to standard rules start to interfere with the flow of the game has been proven quite nicely.





I very much agree.  So how do we make it simpler and yet still tactically challenging and engaging?


----------



## ashockney (Jul 8, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> For example, I think the mechanics for Combat Expertise and Power Attack are great.  One represents you being "extra defensive" and one represents you being "extra offensive".  But when you have a system that accomodates Combat Expertise, Dodge, Fighting Defensively, Full Defensive, Off-hand Parry, etc. you go from elegantly simple options to unnecessarily complex and confusing options.  All of those abilities represent ONE THING (giving up attack advantage for defense advantage).  There's no need to have 10 "options" for doing the same thing..




Yes, yes, yes!  This is outstanding!  Exactly the kind of ideas I'm looking for.  How many ways can you sacrifice "attack" to add to "defense"?  How many ways can you sacrifice "defense" to add to "damage"?  Let's simplify it!  First, by narrowing down the "tactical/feat/class ability options" and second, by using the great "miniatures marker" trick.  So, what if there were three levels of "defense for attack" and "defense for damage" and "attack for defense" and "attack for damage" and "damage for attack" and "damage for defense".  Low, Medium, High for each.  Come up with a name for each "tactic".  The bonus exchanges would be set (ie, -3 to hit, +3 to damage for Power Attack; +6 to hit, +6 to damage for Greater Power Attack).  Then you could use a standard set of "miniature markers" to identify when these abilities were activated.  I believe you could plug this into who would be eligible to "access" all these tactical abilities (ie, the high end sac attack for defense may only be available to higher level monk characters - the equivalent of fighting defensively with 12+ ranks in tumble and combat expertise). 

This is a great example! 



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Another example is the VAST number of AC bonus types and their various situational exceptions.
> 
> -Armor bonuses don't count against incorporeal attacks or touch attacks, except that force armor counts against incorporeal touch attacks, but it still doesn't count against _regular_ touch attacks.
> -Dodge bonuses count against all attacks, except you lose them under certain conditions, except you can keep them if you have certain abilities.
> ...




Another great example.  How would you fix it?




			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Or how about the way armor affects your Dex modifier.
> -Certain armors decrease the amount of your Dex modifier you can apply to your AC.
> -The same armors impose a penalty to certain Dex-based skills, but the armor check penalty number isn't related to the maximum Dex bonus number in any way and you get to apply your FULL Dex bonus to skills even though it's limited in terms of what you apply to AC.
> -The same armor that decreases the Dex bonus you can apply to your AC and messes up some of your Dex based skills doesn't impose any penalty on your Dex bonus to Reflex saves.




Another great one!  Your recommended fix?  (And I want to spend less time on the fixes, and more time on identifying the pitfalls...)

Any other pitfalls that you've noticed?  What grows "too complex" or "mathmatically cumbersome" by the time you reach high levels, that seems to work fine up until about 10th - 12th level?


----------



## DragonLancer (Jul 8, 2004)

If theres one thing I can say about this, its that in my years playing RPG's they have helped improve my maths. Quick adding up of numbers, percentages and with the D20 system being as mathematical as it is, I see that as a good thing.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 8, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> Any other pitfalls that you've noticed? What grows "too complex" or "mathmatically cumbersome" by the time you reach high levels, that seems to work fine up until about 10th - 12th level?



 I really don't see anything that's mathematically cumbersome into Epic Levels...the issue is one of keeping track of all the various options, choices and changing factors.  And I don't see that as a system fault, but a logical consequence of being superhumanly powerful beings of legend.

 Case in point: with the right combination of spells, a high-level character can have Spell Resistance conferred by an ally, a 50% miss chance from an item, fortification on his armor for defense, several buff spells, a magic circle and protection from evil running, a bard song in effect, a prayer in effect, protection from spells active for several spells, death warded, polymorphed and has a spell absorption ability from an item.

 That's a lot to manage...but it's part and parcel of the standard game, where management of resources becomes a serious requirement for survival.  High-level combat becomes something of a chess battle, with both sides trying to find the rips in their opponents defenses.  The math is quite easy...but remembering all of the effects that interact can be problematic, which is why I recommended the effects cards, earlier.



			
				Doc_klueless said:
			
		

> Oh, WOW. W-O-W!!! This program is AWESOME! Thanks for the link...



 DMGenie is awesome.  The ability to get the srd entries for monsters and spells in seconds is worth the price alone.  But being able to track effects and create monsters much, MUCH faster makes it invaluable to me.  Creating high-level creatures by the books is a lot of work, but with DM Genie, the work of an hour becomes the work of a minute.  And he updates frequently, such as the addition a few days ago of the XPH content, or the release before that, where templates were added.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 8, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I really don't see anything that's mathematically cumbersome into Epic Levels...the issue is one of keeping track of all the various options, choices and changing factors.  And I don't see that as a system fault, but a logical consequence of being superhumanly powerful beings of legend.



Except that you can manage a "superhumanly powerful" superhero in Mutants & Masterminds with a lot less bookkeeping.  It isn't the power _level_ so much as it's the vast number of disparate little powers you need to track that slows things down.


			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> Creating high-level creatures by the books is a lot of work...



Indeed.  It's a lot of little interdependent yet inconsistent calculations and decisions: one feat, plus one more feat per three levels, plus one bonus feat at first Fighter level, plus one more feat per two Fighter levels, plus one feat for being human; level-plus-three skill ranks in most skills, level-times-something plus two for good saves; etc.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 8, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Case in point: with the right combination of spells, a high-level character can have Spell Resistance conferred by an ally, a 50% miss chance from an item, fortification on his armor for defense, several buff spells, a magic circle and protection from evil running, a bard song in effect, a prayer in effect, protection from spells active for several spells, death warded, polymorphed and has a spell absorption ability from an item.




Wizardru, thank you for staying current with the topic, and keeping the thread going.  I really appreciate it.  I think in the long run, these discussion can really open the eyes, ears, and doors to some of the best changes we'll see implemented in the next evolution of our game.

Your above example is a PERFECT scenario description that I was trying to highlight, about complexity and mathmatical hurdles.  It looks at the other side of the equation, and adds even MORE issues to address.  See my earlier reference of the 14th level fighter/rogue, and all the rolls she had to make each round to determine hits/damage.  The number of combinations and modifiers are very, very high.  Now, let's throw "defense" into the mix as well.  They were fighting mostly giants, so there wasn't much of the above, but the closer you get to 20th (and into Epic) the more EVERY villian in EVERY encounter has to look like the above defensive array.  And as a DM, you have to track it ALL.  As a player, you've now EXPONENTIALLY increased the already CUMBERSOME number of roles I must make to determine hits and damage.

MATH SCHOLARS, WHERE ARE YOU?  

I would like someone to build this formula, and look for ways to simplify it!  Which variables aren't adding much to the equation?



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> That's a lot to manage...but it's part and parcel of the standard game, where management of resources becomes a serious requirement for survival.  High-level combat becomes something of a chess battle, with both sides trying to find the rips in their opponents defenses.  The math is quite easy...but remembering all of the effects that interact can be problematic, which is why I recommended the effects cards, earlier.




I totally agree.  And did your players find this fun?  Mine got some disgruntled (above 30th level) with everyone being immune to EVERYTHING and the battle becoming a way to peel the onion on EVERY villian, and once you broke through a defense, ripping it to shreds.  They felt like their powers weren't effective most of the time.  Frutstrating.  

Your thoughts/experiences?


----------



## PeterMikelsons (Jul 8, 2004)

redhawk said:
			
		

> Unless you're taking derivatives or sqaure roots or any of that stuff, D&D math isn't calculus.




True, but in my last group, several players (independently) took derivatives while computing the optimal power attack bonus for any given attack bonus, AC, and average base damage.   

It seems to me like many posters think level 12+ D&D "math" is easy and fun; I'm happy for them. That doesn't change the fact that for other players, some with too much education in math fields, it is not. I'm curious if there are ways to make it easy and fun, without switching to another game (Fudge works great at high levels, IMHO) or spending time learning skills for what is, after all, just a game.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 8, 2004)

redhawk said:
			
		

> Unless you're taking derivatives or sqaure roots or any of that stuff, D&D math isn't calculus.  Algebra, and elementary algebra at that. Addition and subtraction, multiplication and division. And those last two are fairly rare.  It's not brain surgery.



It's not brain surgery.  It's not rocket science.  But it is a pretty good approximation of tax accounting.


----------



## woodelf (Jul 8, 2004)

Coredump said:
			
		

> I disagree. They *have* to be mutually exclusive to an extant.
> 
> Look at the example of Combat Expertise from above.
> Right now it is very flexible. Every round you can choose to use it, or not. And every round, you can change whether to use +/-1,2,3,4, or 5. It can lead to a lot of calculating. But it is very flexible.
> ...




The difficulty isn't having flexibility and simplicity, it's having flexibility, simplicity, and crunchiness.

Take this paraphrase of a rule from Over the Edge: if you do something that gives you a tactical advantage, you get one or more bonus dice. There: all the flexibility of D&d3E, and then some--anything you do has a meaningful mechanical result, the results are differentiated in magnitude, and i've just obviated the need for 25pp of rules.

Or, in our own Four Colors al Fresco, benefit and hindrance dice come in any size from d3 to d50, giving you at least 11 steps in each direction, and there's no reason you couldn't assign multiple of each type. 

Or, for that matter, read a superhero comic. The characters have not only infinite options, but infinite shades of degree, and with "mechanics" no more complex than "what makes sense, and what are the consequences?" I'm not bringing that up to be flippant--there _are_ RPGs that basically play like that, relying on the players rather than tons of rules.

Now, trying to go for that sort of simplicity-and-flexibility under a numbers-heavy paradigm like D20 System--that's a real problem. It will require significant rewrites from the ground up to really pull it off, not just some tricks and techniques with the existing system. The suggestion to ditch bonus types and just allow all of them, or a certain number of them is a great example of this: it does simplify things, but requires a significant change in how things work.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 8, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> Then you could use a standard set of "miniature markers" to identify when these abilities were activated.



I find "miniature markers" to be hard to work with yet can power attack with the best of them. Please keep your markers to yourself and out of my SRD, thank you. I have a character sheet. I can put marks on them and then erase them. Works great for all of this. When I DM I make little mini-sheets for all the important monsters/NPCs. Unimportant ones tend to have Alertness instead of Power Attack.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 8, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Except that you can manage a "superhumanly powerful" superhero in Mutants & Masterminds with a lot less bookkeeping.  It isn't the power _level_ so much as it's the vast number of disparate little powers you need to track that slows things down.
> 
> Indeed.  It's a lot of little interdependent yet inconsistent calculations and decisions: one feat, plus one more feat per three levels, plus one bonus feat at first Fighter level, plus one more feat per two Fighter levels, plus one feat for being human; level-plus-three skill ranks in most skills, level-times-something plus two for good saves; etc.



 Exactly.  There are so many options that do the same basic thing but all are implimented in different ways.  

If d20 were so much better than any other system I would be willing to put the effort into DM'ing it.  As it is it's not even close to worth it so I don't.  Obviously some of you find it to be easy and fun, enjoy.


----------



## Drakonus (Jul 8, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> These are both very helpful recommendations.  Thank you for sharing your insights.  I also really like the idea of spell cards.  What if it were something that could be handed out to players when they receive a certain benefit...color coded (to deal with stacking/non-stacking).




I apologize if this has been mentioned before, but I haven't read the whole thread yet.  

Have you checked out the product from The Other Game Company?  They actually have pre-printed spell cards for all the SRD spells, separated by class.  It costs like $6 on RPGNow.  I printed them on different colored cardstock to represent divine/arcane/bard/druid/etc.

Also, their Monster Cards are a tremendous time saver.

BTW, this is my first post.  Long-time lurker


----------



## MerakSpielman (Jul 8, 2004)

D&D is a great tool for teaching and improving math skills. 

We had an instance once where the rogue scouted ahead (through rough terrain, hiding, moving silently) for one hour. Then the rest of the party followed on a wagon, on the road.

How much time passes after the rogue leaves before the wagon catches up to him? (assuming the rogue's normal movement rate is 30', and the wagon's movement rate is 20')

Fun stuff.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 8, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Except that you can manage a "superhumanly powerful" superhero in Mutants & Masterminds with a lot less bookkeeping. It isn't the power _level_ so much as it's the vast number of disparate little powers you need to track that slows things down.



 Well, yes and no.  While the power levels are generally high, the range of a M&M characters actual powers are much less diverse.  Few characters except a Sorcery character have a large amount of abilities.  Consider the range of power and options available to a 15th level wizard or cleric with normal wealth levels, as compared to a PL15 M&M character.  M&M is a fantastic system, but it has a very tight focus.



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Wizardru, thank you for staying current with the topic, and keeping the thread going. I really appreciate it. I think in the long run, these discussion can really open the eyes, ears, and doors to some of the best changes we'll see implemented in the next evolution of our game.



 I agree.  I'm certainly not going to tell you that high-level play doesn't have it's pitfalls...it does.  And I'm always willing to entertain options and ideas.  That's one reason I love 3e/3.5e so much...it embraces change much more readily, IMHO.



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> They were fighting mostly giants, so there wasn't much of the above, but the closer you get to 20th (and into Epic) the more EVERY villian in EVERY encounter has to look like the above defensive array. And as a DM, you have to track it ALL. As a player, you've now EXPONENTIALLY increased the already CUMBERSOME number of roles I must make to determine hits and damage.



 Well, it truly varies.  One thing to factor in is that a single Greater Dispel can completely drop the defenses of many opponents, so an overly confident reliance on purely magical defenses can be just as lethal as not having them.  Many of the special abilities may or may not having bearing from combat to combat, and thus their influence varies dramatically.  Most of the high-level creatures my group has encountered do not have more than one or two of these kinds of abilities...but they have others or ways to outlast such talents.  High-level characters are tricked out, but only because the threats they face are often so huge as to be mind-boggling.



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> I totally agree. And did your players find this fun? Mine got some disgruntled (above 30th level) with everyone being immune to EVERYTHING and the battle becoming a way to peel the onion on EVERY villian, and once you broke through a defense, ripping it to shreds. They felt like their powers weren't effective most of the time. Frutstrating.
> 
> Your thoughts/experiences?



 Well, as I say, most of my players encounters have been with things that DON'T have all of those abilities.  For example, when fighting the half-elemental advanced Behirs, they were mostly reliant on their huge hitpoints, which scared the hell out of the party.  When you drop 300 points of damage on a freigh-train and it keeps coming, you get nervous.   The Baklash Dreadnought from "Lich Queen's Beloved" had his anti-magic ray, and so on.  Players adapt to the situation....in the case of the Lich Queen herself, I never foresaw the party cleric throwing an anti-magic field on himself and then grappling the Lich Queen.  It was _brilliant._

 What I don't like is trying to remember all of the information, not the math.  Keeping track of things like SR or DR for each creature, for example.  Knowing if someone is proected frm evil, and making sure summoned evil creatures don't violate that rules surrounding him, for example.

 I'm not sure I see a way, other than getting very abstract, of removing those options and keeping the same design goals.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 8, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> Yes, yes, yes!  This is outstanding!  Exactly the kind of ideas I'm looking for.  How many ways can you sacrifice "attack" to add to "defense"?  How many ways can you sacrifice "defense" to add to "damage"?  Let's simplify it!  First, by narrowing down the "tactical/feat/class ability options" and second, by using the great "miniatures marker" trick.  So, what if there were three levels of "defense for attack" and "defense for damage" and "attack for defense" and "attack for damage" and "damage for attack" and "damage for defense".  Low, Medium, High for each.  Come up with a name for each "tactic".  The bonus exchanges would be set (ie, -3 to hit, +3 to damage for Power Attack; +6 to hit, +6 to damage for Greater Power Attack).  Then you could use a standard set of "miniature markers" to identify when these abilities were activated.  I believe you could plug this into who would be eligible to "access" all these tactical abilities (ie, the high end sac attack for defense may only be available to higher level monk characters - the equivalent of fighting defensively with 12+ ranks in tumble and combat expertise).




Actually, I think I would take exactly the opposite approach.  Instead of breaking down the "defensive focus" and "offensive focus" options into multiple granular abilities of fixed +/-, I would just allow all characters the ability to choose where to distribute their BAB.  I would eliminate the +5 to AC cap that Combat Expertise uses and simply say, you can distribute your BAB in 3 ways:  1) You can apply it to attack rolls as usual.  2) You can apply it to AC (as per combat expertise) or 3) You can apply it to damage (as per Power Attack).  Each round you can choose how much of your BAB goes into each option (a fluid scale, rather than a granular scale).  You could easily keep track of this with the marker system you describe by using a different colored die for each area (yellow for attack, blue for defense, red for damage - each die should have a # designated as 0).  Each round you simply flip the die for the right color to match the amount of BAB you're distributing into that area.  It's a completely flexible and customizable system that works on a single mechanic with one simple rule.



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Quote:
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by Ourph
> ...




For fixing AC bonus types and when/how they apply, my simple fix would be to divide armor bonuses into two types "avoidance" and "resistance".  Examples of resistance would be armor bonuses and natural armor bonuses.  Examples of avoidance would be cover bonuses, dodge bonuses, luck bonuses, deflection bonuses etc.  In general, everything would stack, but the DM obviously has the power to disallow stacking in certain cases if he feels it's appropriate (for example, a DM SHOULD disallow avoidance bonuses from wearing two rings of protection at the same time from stacking).

You should only ever have to note down 3 types of AC on your character sheet.  Resistance AC, Avoidance AC and Total AC.  In general you would use your total AC.  If you're caught flat-footed or are fighting an invisible opponent, you use only your resistance AC, if you're the subject of a touch attack, you use only your avoidance AC.



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Quote:
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by Ourph
> ...




I would get rid of the max Dex bonus to AC based on armor.  That particular rule isn't necessary.  The armor bonus should already factor in how much it restricts your movement.  I would simply have an armor check penalty that applies to skills and leave it at that.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 9, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> Except that you can manage a "superhumanly powerful" superhero in Mutants & Masterminds with a lot less bookkeeping.  It isn't the power _level_ so much as it's the vast number of disparate little powers you need to track that slows things down.




Mmadsen!  Great to hear from you.  Thanks for chiming in!

I completely agree.  This is a really good example, perhaps taken to the extreme.  M&M, using the d20 basics (OGL) is played ENTIRELY at high levels (from 10th - 20th) and it plays VERY easily.  Maybe even too easy.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 9, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Take this paraphrase of a rule from Over the Edge: if you do something that gives you a tactical advantage, you get one or more bonus dice. There: all the flexibility of D&d3E, and then some--anything you do has a meaningful mechanical result, the results are differentiated in magnitude, and i've just obviated the need for 25pp of rules.
> 
> Or, in our own Four Colors al Fresco, benefit and hindrance dice come in any size from d3 to d50, giving you at least 11 steps in each direction, and there's no reason you couldn't assign multiple of each type.
> 
> Now, trying to go for that sort of simplicity-and-flexibility under a numbers-heavy paradigm like D20 System--that's a real problem. It will require significant rewrites from the ground up to really pull it off, not just some tricks and techniques with the existing system. The suggestion to ditch bonus types and just allow all of them, or a certain number of them is a great example of this: it does simplify things, but requires a significant change in how things work.




Woodelf, thanks for keeping it rolling.  I like your point.  It made me think for of a combat tactics skill.  You could access a variety of relevant combat tactics with varying degress of difficulty with a successful skill roll.  The combat tactics could be naturally enhanced through the use of combat feats.  IE, Use Cover - DC10 for 1/4 cover, with a feat "Close Quarters Combat" - Anytime you are granted cover with a successful combat tactic skill roll, you may increase the covever provided by one rank.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 9, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Actually, I think I would take exactly the opposite approach.  Instead of breaking down the "defensive focus" and "offensive focus" options into multiple granular abilities of fixed +/-, I would just allow all characters the ability to choose where to distribute their BAB.  I would eliminate the +5 to AC cap that Combat Expertise uses and simply say, you can distribute your BAB in 3 ways:  1) You can apply it to attack rolls as usual.  2) You can apply it to AC (as per combat expertise) or 3) You can apply it to damage (as per Power Attack).  Each round you can choose how much of your BAB goes into each option (a fluid scale, rather than a granular scale).  You could easily keep track of this with the marker system you describe by using a different colored die for each area (yellow for attack, blue for defense, red for damage - each die should have a # designated as 0).  Each round you simply flip the die for the right color to match the amount of BAB you're distributing into that area.  It's a completely flexible and customizable system that works on a single mechanic with one simple rule.




Ourph, I really like this, and now you're getting the hang of this.  I think there's some massaging around how you make this "BAB" available to be moved around, but I think you're definitely onto something here.  I think your color coding and colored die is a great, great idea.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> For fixing AC bonus types and when/how they apply, my simple fix would be to divide armor bonuses into two types "avoidance" and "resistance".  Examples of resistance would be armor bonuses and natural armor bonuses.  Examples of avoidance would be cover bonuses, dodge bonuses, luck bonuses, deflection bonuses etc.  In general, everything would stack, but the DM obviously has the power to disallow stacking in certain cases if he feels it's appropriate (for example, a DM SHOULD disallow avoidance bonuses from wearing two rings of protection at the same time from stacking).
> 
> You should only ever have to note down 3 types of AC on your character sheet.  Resistance AC, Avoidance AC and Total AC.  In general you would use your total AC.  If you're caught flat-footed or are fighting an invisible opponent, you use only your resistance AC, if you're the subject of a touch attack, you use only your avoidance AC.




This is beautiful.  You are on it, and I agree completely.  Even further, take all the the defenses, spells, buffs, tactics, and throw them into these classifications.  I love this.  I think it's my favorite idea I've seen so far.

One minor recommendation, add one more classifaction: reduction (which will actually subtract from any damage dealt instead of avoid or resist through AC.

Hell ya!



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> I would get rid of the max Dex bonus to AC based on armor.  That particular rule isn't necessary.  The armor bonus should already factor in how much it restricts your movement.  I would simply have an armor check penalty that applies to skills and leave it at that.




I think you're on the right track with this one.  Somehow, particularly at lower levels, this is still a very helpful mechanic (esp vs. min/maxers).  Not sure how to keep that in somehow.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 9, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> I think you're on the right track with this one.  Somehow, particularly at lower levels, this is still a very helpful mechanic (esp vs. min/maxers).  Not sure how to keep that in somehow.




You might want to drop all armor bonuses by one when eliminating the max Dex cap.  Basically, just drop padded armor (has anyone ever seen a PC wearing padded armor?) and lower everything else by one.  Heavy armors are still going to screw up your movement and some of your skills - so there are still penalties for wearing them.  However, we might actually see some Fighters and Clerics wearing heavy armor again (something I miss from older editions).


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jul 9, 2004)

I really hate to rain on the parade...but bear with me, because I'm not trying to be snide. How exactly is rolling power attack and expertise into one mechanic making it easier? It's still the same mechanic. Using the color-coded dice can be done with PA and CE as they stand. What changed to make it so much better?

Then the AC thing...there's already only 3 types of AC that work exactly how this "new" system would work; AC, Touch, and Flat-footed. I am not seeing the simplification at all, except changing some names and the classifying of the bonuses into only 2 types...and you'd still have to remember to add everything up...I am totally missing the boat on this one, I guess.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 9, 2004)

Old Gumphrey, MerakSpielman, Drakonus, Flexor the Mighty!, thank you all for chiming in to the thread. 

How high have you gone in your campaigns?
What pitfalls (particularly mathmatical/complexity) have you encountered?
What would you suggest to simplify?


----------



## Drakonus (Jul 9, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> Old Gumphrey, MerakSpielman, Drakonus, Flexor the Mighty!, thank you all for chiming in to the thread.
> 
> How high have you gone in your campaigns?
> What pitfalls (particularly mathmatical/complexity) have you encountered?
> What would you suggest to simplify?




My highest level campaign was playing a heavily modified Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.  The PCs on average were about 17th level by the end, with the highest being 20th and the lowest being about 13th.  

Unfortunately, we are a fairly new group, having started with 3e in 2000, so our experience is still limited.  My PCs have not quite grasped a lot of the tactical benefits available in the new system and thus still favor a "break down the door and charge" style of play.  They are still not very good at stringing feats/abilities together to their maximum benefit.  At the higher levels, it was frustrating because even though they had characters with great potential they failed to utilize them appropriately and on many occasions made combats much more difficult than they could/should have been.  

That said though, two of the PCs were very good about utilizing their characters.  The 20th level PC was a Rogue/Sorcerer/Arcane Trickster and tended to consistently have Fly/Greater Invisibility activated.  He was a sneak attack and spell machine.  But he was also very good about keeping separate stats available when he had all of his spells activated, so the character ran very smoothly without alot of rules consultation.

On a side note, the party actually preferred the Rogue to be invisible, because his visible form was naked, literally.  He had a boom/bust run-in with the Deck of Many Things in that module and had the balls to pick 5 cards from the deck.  He got the 50,000 XP bonus (hence his 20th level), the keep, a couple other minor ones, and finally the last card he drew was the pauper, so everything he had (including clothes) just vanished instantly.  It was quite funny and provided some good humor to the campaign.

The other character was a fighting machine.  This PC was a Ftr 1/Cleric 16 and had taken Exotic Weapon Proficiency with the Mercurial Greatsword at Level 1.  Once the character had access to the Cleric buffs (Divine Favor, Righteous Might, Assassins Senses (from Relics & Rituals), etc.) and a keen version of his weapon, he was truly a sight to behold in combat.  Fortunately again, this player kept a separate index card(s) with all of these stat enhancers listed so that he would know immediately what his BAB and damage bonuses would be.  The end battle with the Prince of Elemental Evil was actually very anticlimactic because this character ended up doling out a couple of hundred points of damage in the matter of 2-3 rounds.  I should have anticpated this and beefed up Imix to compensate.

The bottom line was that the more skilled players, much like many of the previous posters, kept additional stat cards as references.

Other things that I have done to simplify the game:

1) No more mapping.  My PCs were horrible at keeping maps, so we went with drawn battle maps and have recently begun using the Adventure Tiles from Skeleton Key Games, which they really enjoy.  I've also supplemented this with some of the 3d paper models from WorldWorks games, especially the props, which add a layer of depth to the 2d map and also provide a little bit of tactical flavor to encounters.  

2) I've given each of the spellcasters in the group a color-coded set of the spell cards from The Other Game Company.  The cards contain the complete SRD text so it eliminates having to consult the PH.  This way, they can just pull out the cards they have memorized and have them right there.  I also use their Monster Cards as a DM.

3) For our flying rogue, we've found that the Chessex Dice tube is very handy for representing flying critters and use that frequently.

4) I got each player an extra set of dice as a gift to encourage them to roll all of their attack/damage dice simultaneously.  Their benefit to doing this is that they can reroll one of their "Santa Dice" as we call them once per evening, but have to keep the reroll.

I know these ideas don't directly address the complexity issues, but they are timesavers, which allows more time then to really deal with the harder stuff.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 9, 2004)

Drakonus said:
			
		

> They are still not very good at stringing feats/abilities together to their maximum benefit. At the higher levels, it was frustrating because even though they had characters with great potential they failed to utilize them appropriately and on many occasions made combats much more difficult than they could/should have been.



This was a problem with my group as well.  Only one of the players put a lot of non-game time into his character.  As a result a lot of the combats were more trouble becuase the other players weren't too keen on how to maximize and use all thier feats and all the game options together.  And I feel something is wrong when I'm telling players they aren't playing thier PC's right when they have created characters with interesting personalities and backgrounds that are beign roleplayed well, but they aren't that good at working the nuiances of the d20 system.


----------



## Coredump (Jul 9, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Actually, I think I would take exactly the opposite approach.  Instead of breaking down the "defensive focus" and "offensive focus" options into multiple granular abilities of fixed +/-, I would just allow all characters the ability to choose where to distribute their BAB.  I would eliminate the +5 to AC cap that Combat Expertise uses and simply say, you can distribute your BAB in 3 ways:  1) You can apply it to attack rolls as usual.  2) You can apply it to AC (as per combat expertise) or 3) You can apply it to damage (as per Power Attack).  Each round you can choose how much of your BAB goes into each option (a fluid scale, rather than a granular scale).  You could easily keep track of this with the marker system you describe by using a different colored die for each area (yellow for attack, blue for defense, red for damage - each die should have a # designated as 0).  Each round you simply flip the die for the right color to match the amount of BAB you're distributing into that area.  It's a completely flexible and customizable system that works on a single mechanic with one simple rule.



Okay, so you want to give every character Improved Combat Expertise and Power Attack for free, at first level. The complaint was that they had to keep adding differet amounts each round.... how does this change anything?
Once he gets a Cat's Grace and or Bull's Strength, he has to start adding and readding, plus he will likely change the dice around to compensate... and then the spells wear off. Or get dispelled, or the bard starts singing, or he decides to fight defensively, or etc etc etc.  The problem is with having so many options. 
We can easily simplify this, you describe everything you want to do, and the DM just makes up an appropriate DC. Viola, simplicity.




> For fixing AC bonus types and when/how they apply, my simple fix would be to divide armor bonuses into two types "avoidance" and "resistance".  Examples of resistance would be armor bonuses and natural armor bonuses.  Examples of avoidance would be cover bonuses, dodge bonuses, luck bonuses, deflection bonuses etc.  In general, everything would stack, but the DM obviously has the power to disallow stacking in certain cases if he feels it's appropriate (for example, a DM SHOULD disallow avoidance bonuses from wearing two rings of protection at the same time from stacking).



So, now everything is a dodge bonus. Get caught flat footed, and your ring prot no longer helps, neither does your luckstone. Sure, but then why have different types of bonuses? Just make everything a dodge bonus. Much simpler. And they all get treated the same. And I can finally use a cloak of protection and ring of protection, mage armor, and magical armour together. Unless, of course, the DM creates a rule otherwise. The simpler things become, the more the DM has to make decisions. (which is not necessarily a bad thing)



> You should only ever have to note down 3 types of AC on your character sheet.  Resistance AC, Avoidance AC and Total AC.  In general you would use your total AC.  If you're caught flat-footed or are fighting an invisible opponent, you use only your resistance AC, if you're the subject of a touch attack, you use only your avoidance AC.



How many types of AC are written down now? I only have those three now, am I missing something? 
And your solution does nothing for spells being cast, or feats being used. Except that now everything stacks unless the DM intervenes. Take any of the above examples, of the rogue tumbing, etc. and this doesn't really simplify much.



> I would get rid of the max Dex bonus to AC based on armor.  That particular rule isn't necessary.  The armor bonus should already factor in how much it restricts your movement.  I would simply have an armor check penalty that applies to skills and leave it at that.



 Is the max Dex provision a pain to anyone? It is only calculated once, until you change your armor. If you can't add/subtract a single digit a couple of times a year... there may be other problems.
But hey, at least you will help folks get much higher AC's than they used to have. Doesn't really solve he math problem, but surely makes for more powerful fighters etc.

There is no difficult math here. The problem comes from all the different possibilities. The only way to simplify the situation is to limit the possibilites, or leave it to the DM to make a determination. And there will still be tons of adding, since people will keep utilizing different options.

.


----------



## Coredump (Jul 9, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Take this paraphrase of a rule from Over the Edge: if you do something that gives you a tactical advantage, you get one or more bonus dice. There: all the flexibility of D&d3E, and then some--anything you do has a meaningful mechanical result, the results are differentiated in magnitude, and i've just obviated the need for 25pp of rules.
> 
> Or, in our own Four Colors al Fresco, benefit and hindrance dice come in any size from d3 to d50, giving you at least 11 steps in each direction, and there's no reason you couldn't assign multiple of each type.



Fewer words, sure. But does it make the game, and the 'math' any simpler?

First, are you going to eliminate the feats?
PlayerA: I want to swing harder to do more damage
DM: Okay, roll your d20 to hit, but subtract a d6. Then when you roll your d12 for damage, add a d4. (Is this allowed, or would you need a feat for this?
PlayerA: What if I use both hands?
DM: okay, then you can add a D6 to damage.
PlayerB: Hey, don't forget that I am singing to help out.
DM: Okay, then also add a d4 to your to hit
PlayerA: Can I do this and still make it harder for him to hit me? I am really low on hit points.
DM: Okay, so subtract another d4 from your to hit....better yet, just subtract a  d10 total, but don't forget to add the d4 from the singing. And Iwill subtract a die from the bad guys attack.
PlayerA: never mind, I don't think I can hit with that big of a subtraction. I will go back to just the -d6 +d4. Is the Bull's Strength still working?
DM: Oh yeah, add a D4 to your attack, and a nother D4 to your damage
PlayerA: Hey last time you gave PlayerC a D12 on his damage, I only get a d6?
DM: Because he said he was going all out, and you didn't. Plus, he was using a great axe. I decided it would benefit from this technique more.
PlayerA: Okay, well I want to go all out.
DM: Okay, subtract a d8 from attack, and add a D8 to damage.
PlayerA: c'mon...
DM: Fine, add a D10 to damage. But if you want a D12 you need a great weapon.
PlayerD: I had a great weapon last week, and you didn't give me a D12...
DM: Right, because the monsters you were fighting had thicker skin. So I decided that it wouldn't work as well on them.

This is definitely more flexible.... but simpler??? Not too sure about that.
And I only touched on Combat Expertise, one spell, and Power Attack. I didn't even try and get an advantage because of lighting, or position, or weapon speed, or experience, or any other 'subjective' area.

.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 9, 2004)

Old Gumphrey, Coredump you guys are jumping into the middle of a conversation and only addressing the last things said.  My comments were responses to questions ashockney was asking about how I would solve problems I'd pointed out in the game.  If you'll go back and read my original comments I think you'll get a good idea of why I think those particular areas are problems and why my "fixes" address them.  If you disagree that those areas of the rules present problems, good for you, but I'm not going to waste time or derail the thread arguing about that, because we're all entitled to our opinions and points of view and I never said "these are universal problems that everyone must recognize".  I said "these are areas that I have problems with.  This is what I would change to fix things to my liking".


----------



## Coredump (Jul 9, 2004)

Actually, I have read all 7 pages of this thread.

You have stated that it can be simplified. I said it cannot be simplified without giving up options and flexibility.

You gave three examples of how you could simplify the rules, and not remove flexibility. I pointed out that your changes (in order)
A. changed nothing
B. changed lots, but simplified nothing while allowing for much higher AC via stacking
C. removed no math, yet again raised the power level by making it much easier to get higher AC

So the question remains. How do your suggestions simplify anything? Does it make the game easier if *everyone* gets improved CE and PA?
Yes, removing bonus types would make things simpler, and much higher powered. But most of the problems mentioned have come from the many sources of change, not the types.
And I see no math that is simplified by allowing dex for all armor.

.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 9, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> This was a problem with my group as well.  Only one of the players put a lot of non-game time into his character.  As a result a lot of the combats were more trouble becuase the other players weren't too keen on how to maximize and use all thier feats and all the game options together.  And I feel something is wrong when I'm telling players they aren't playing thier PC's right when they have created characters with interesting personalities and backgrounds that are beign roleplayed well, but they aren't that good at working the nuiances of the d20 system.



Maybe this is a problem with you. You want the characters to make the most out of the system but the players don't want to invest as much as you want in the system. If the players cannot take the 10 minutes it takes to discover that you should take Cleave after Power Attack, and this bothers you, maybe you all should be playing something else. Or maybe you should be playing with other players. Or maybe you should steer the encounters toward the feats they actually take and not the ones you think they should take.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 9, 2004)

Coredump said:
			
		

> Actually, I have read all 7 pages of this thread.
> 
> You have stated that it can be simplified. I said it cannot be simplified without giving up options and flexibility.
> 
> ...




Right now the rules (let's say Core + official splatbooks) give you at least 10 ways to trade attack for AC.  They also give you a few ways to trade attack accuracy for damage.  I would simplify that by consolidating all of those options into 1 rule (you can distribute BAB toward hitting someone, defending yourself or hitting harder) and allow EVERYONE to access that option.  That's MORE flexible than the current system and it's simpler.  You don't have 15 or more feats or combat options all doing basically the same thing and all with their own particular rules quirks, but you still get the flexibility of being able to choose defense over attack or power over accuracy.



> B. changed lots, but simplified nothing while allowing for much higher AC via stacking




I've simplified a lot.  You no longer have to track individual AC bonus types that apply or don't apply in specific situations.  In general, all bonuses of a particular type (and there are only two types) either apply or don't apply.  If you look at my previous posts, there are a few good examples of situations where specific situational rules lead to some pretty complex AC adjustments.  You still have all the options you previously had for improving your AC but the situational modifiers are much simplified and tracking what your AC is against a specific attack requires remembering or looking up MUCH fewer rules.



> C. removed no math, yet again raised the power level by making it much easier to get higher AC




You're right, I've removed no math during the combat round, as Dex caps due to armor generally don't change.  This was simply an example of a rule I feel is an unnecessary complication that could be removed without removing any options or flexibility.  Which is what you and I were discussing originally, right?  

You're also right that most of these rules changes would require compensations in other areas.  The fact is, I don't like the way the designers of 3rd ed went about incorporating options and flexibility into the system.  I think they sacrificed simplicity unnecessarily.  I WOULD rebuild the game from the ground up if I were trying to "fix" it to my liking.  I'm not trying to lay out actual options for people to use as house rules, I'm answering ashockney's questions about how I think the game can retain flexibility while improving simplicity.  I thought that would have been pretty clear to anyone reading our conversation in this thread.  I didn't think it was necessary to put up a disclaimer saying *WARNING: Using any one of these suggestions in isolation is going to screw up your game.*


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 9, 2004)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Maybe this is a problem with you. You want the characters to make the most out of the system but the players don't want to invest as much as you want in the system. If the players cannot take the 10 minutes it takes to discover that you should take Cleave after Power Attack, and this bothers you, maybe you all should be playing something else. Or maybe you should be playing with other players. Or maybe you should steer the encounters toward the feats they actually take and not the ones you think they should take.



 We did switch games and are having a lot of fun.


----------



## Laslo Tremaine (Jul 9, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> We did switch games and are having a lot of fun.




What did you switch to, may I ask?


----------



## ashockney (Jul 9, 2004)

Drakonus said:
			
		

> My highest level campaign was playing a heavily modified Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.  The PCs on average were about 17th level by the end, with the highest being 20th and the lowest being about 13th.
> 
> The other character was a fighting machine.  This PC was a Ftr 1/Cleric 16 and had taken Exotic Weapon Proficiency with the Mercurial Greatsword at Level 1.  Once the character had access to the Cleric buffs (Divine Favor, Righteous Might, Assassins Senses (from Relics & Rituals), etc.) and a keen version of his weapon, he was truly a sight to behold in combat.  Fortunately again, this player kept a separate index card(s) with all of these stat enhancers listed so that he would know immediately what his BAB and damage bonuses would be.  The end battle with the Prince of Elemental Evil was actually very anticlimactic because this character ended up doling out a couple of hundred points of damage in the matter of 2-3 rounds.  I should have anticpated this and beefed up Imix to compensate.




That combat combination is completely sick.  What a melee machine.  One good dispel completely demolishes him!  This brings up an interesting point/pitfall for high level D&D...should the characters/combats be SO reliant on buffs?  I think it would be much cooler to transfer some of this to "tactics" and some to "class abilities" or "feats" for the fighters.  Let the buffs be very, very quick "one shot" stuff that won't be missed if it's not there, but could be the difference in the combat if it's up (like prayer).




			
				Drakonus said:
			
		

> The bottom line was that the more skilled players, much like many of the previous posters, kept additional stat cards as references.
> 
> Other things that I have done to simplify the game:
> 
> ...




These are excellent points Drakonus!  I love them!  I absolutely love them all!

An interesting point about high level pitfalls...what good are the maps above 12th or 16th level?  What a waste of potentially enormous time and resources!  Anyone else know what I'm talking about here?


----------



## ashockney (Jul 10, 2004)

Coredump said:
			
		

> Actually, I have read all 7 pages of this thread.
> 
> You have stated that it can be simplified. I said it cannot be simplified without giving up options and flexibility.
> 
> ...




Coredump, thank you for contributing to this thread.  I'm glad you took the time to read through it and join us in this dialogue.  You've also framed your arguments very well, to illustrate your points.  So, I'm curious, if I may ask: 

How high have you gamed?  How many times?
What pitfalls, if any, did you encounter?
What would YOU prefer to handle/avoid those pitfalls?

One recommendation, if I may.  My point of opening this thread in general discussion (and not house rules) is to explore and capture some of the complexities of high level Dungeons and Dragons, and brainstorm some ideas about the future of the game, with the hopes it may someday capture the imagination of the designers that might be bold enough to improve the game "from the ground up" and include high level gaming as something that would be "within reach" of the common gamer.  

As such, with a focus towards brainstorming, I'll share the following "recommendation": there's no bad ideas.  If you'd like, I'd welcome for you, or others to offshoot from this thread to D&D Rules or House Rules to elaborate on any of the ideas mentioned here.  As a matter of fact, I believe that's already been done at least once. 

In the meantime, I'd love to hear about your game, and your recommendations!


----------



## Droogie (Jul 10, 2004)

Erg....I've been reading this thread with earnest and I'm also curious how folks can streamline the game without losing the flexibility.

I hate to admit this to myself, but I think there is such a thing as too many options. Is it possible that some feats can be consolidated? Why must we have Dodge and Mobility? Do we have to nickel-and-dime the players to death? Maybe you could roll those feats into the Acrobatic feat and just give the character a straight +2 to AC. Of course, there are ramifications to that (ohhh everyone will want that feat now!) but could'nt we just put more stringent prereqs on some feats? 

What frusturates me about the game is that they took some truly brilliant game mechanics (skill rolls vs. a DC, three saving throws instead of 6, blah blah) and somehow wound up with a game that is more complicated to play than previous additions. 

Remember when we only had one AC? How did we wind up with three? 

I'm not sure feats were such a good idea. As previously mentioned, its not the math that's the problem-  everyone can do simple arithmetic, for crissakes - its the overwhelming options and situational modifiers that bring the game to a screeching halt.  Piles of feats kinda makes life difficult. No wonder the game rule FAQ is so huge. Skip Williams must be popping lots of tylenol these days.

Since I'm ranting, I might as well mention that the rules aren't just a constant battle between simplicity and realism. Don't forget the third axis: balance. Balance is the reason why wizards need to roll percentile dice to cast a spell in armor. Sure it works, but do we really think a few layers of leather or a guantlet hinders our ability to cast an arcane spell, where the same is not true of divine spells? I guess divine casters don't wiggle their fingers the same way. Its balanced I suppose, but I don't find it terribly realistic and there must be a way to simplify it even further.
Balance is the reason why we have AoOs. Is there some way we can eliminate them? Is there a more elegant way we can limit mobility during combat without getting confused about initiative order or trying to keep track of who had their AoO this round and who hasn't? 

The refinement of the game will continue.  I used to dread the possibilty of a 4th edition someday, but now I think I'm beginning to look forward to it. Sure, most of my books will become obsolete, but I don't use most of them anyway. 

I have no point. Don't care. Just needed to yap.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 10, 2004)

Laslo Tremaine said:
			
		

> What did you switch to, may I ask?



1e AD&D. We just converted the characters back to 1e and picked up the game. We were all familiar with it and enjoyed playing it. 

I'm eagerly awaiting C&C to see if it may get me DM'ing a D20/OGL game again.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 10, 2004)

Droogie said:
			
		

> Erg....I've been reading this thread with earnest and I'm also curious how folks can streamline the game without losing the flexibility.
> 
> I hate to admit this to myself, but I think there is such a thing as too many options. Is it possible that some feats can be consolidated? Why must we have Dodge and Mobility? Do we have to nickel-and-dime the players to death? Maybe you could roll those feats into the Acrobatic feat and just give the character a straight +2 to AC. Of course, there are ramifications to that (ohhh everyone will want that feat now!) but could'nt we just put more stringent prereqs on some feats?
> 
> ...




Wow, Droogie!  Welcome aboard.  You've jumped right in, and gotten some great ones on the radar. 

Clearly another vote for simplifying and consolidating the "class feature and feats", particularly when you throw in the fact that many have variable modifiers!

Admitted that for tacking on some complexity, I LOVE what they've done to the game to make it play SO MUCH smoother and balanced from 1st to 10th level than previous editions.

Tylenol for all DM's!  Skip must take the "good stuff".

Wow!  Your last paragraph is full of whoppers!  Let me see if I've captured these correctly...

Pitfall: AOO's.  The whole system, especially at high level. 5D movement (3D+invisible+ethereal), most creatures have reach 10' or 15' plus, and keeping track of multiple AOO's.

Pitfall: Wizards in armor.  Another mechanic.  Another roll, more complexity.

You make an excellent point about balance as well.  That's a tough one, and something I leave to the brilliant minds of the game designers of the world.  I just want to hopefully create a "framwork" for discussion.

So, Droogie.  How would you recommend to address these pitfalls?

Others?


----------



## ashockney (Jul 10, 2004)

*Recap*

Here's a quick recap of the pitfalls identified thus far in the thread...

Pitfall: The number of attacks rolled at higher level becomes difficult to manage (with multiple heroes and villains).

Pitfall: Instead of spending time doing more complex character development, playtesting an adventure, or writing additional background for the campaign or characters, the high level DM is forced to "build the adventure".

Pitfall: A noticable absence from most high level modules (12th level plus) the aforementioned "stat blocks" with different levels of buffs.  By "building" they must stat out on an extensive spreadsheet, each encounter so that it is ready at game time. 

Pitfall: There are too many types of modifiers, with differing degrees available for different modifiers, which becomes very difficult to track.  Stacking/Non-Stacking works to place necessary ceilings, but may cause more confusion than it’s worth.  (It may also grant too many bonuses at lower levels.)  

Pitfall: Although there are some class combinations that work at higher levels of D&D, not all classes are built equally.  

Pitfall: Not all prestige classes build effectively (caster level is king).

Pitfall:  There are too many enhancements, and stacking becomes overly cumbersome:  17 enhancements to BAB, 23 enhancements to armor class, 16 enhancements to Base Saving Throws.  

Pitfall:  There are 45 unique "tactical" conditions, each with unique modifiers to combat.  At higher levels, you are exponentially more likely to require multiple tactical conditions, affecting a variety of the players and villains during a combat.  

Pitfall: There are a variety of feat and class abilities that can affect combat, each with unique modifiers (or variable modifiers) to combat.   At higher levels, you are exponentially more likely to encounter multiple feat/class modifiers, affecting a variety of the players and villains during a combat.

Pitfall: What do you fight above 12th level that doesn't have AT LEAST a 10' reach? 

Pitfall: The combinations of types of defense and modifiers to defense are challenging to track, and become exponentially more difficult as you go up in levels. (Examples: AC, Touch, Incorporeal Touch, Concealment, etc.)  

Pitfall: Remembering and adjudicating the ways different defenses interact.

Pitfall:  Combat at higher levels becomes about identifying and exploiting your opponents weakness, and not about exercising your character’s abilities.  By epic, defenses become so strong, it is very difficult to affect opponents.  

Pitfall: Armor’s Dex Bonus Maximum isn’t necessary.

Pitfall: The dramatic increase in effectiveness that the right enhancement combinations can have on high level characters can be overwhelming to manage as a DM, and anti-climactic in game play for the characters (Divine Favor, Righteous Might, Assassins Senses, Keen Weapon…).  Further, characters become overly dependent upon their enhancements, and one effective dispelling of enhancements can be overwhelming to the players.  

Pitfall: The average player is horrible at keeping maps.  

Pitfall: As players are granted access to extremely powerful movement spells, items, and abilities, mapping becomes an enormous waste of time/resources.  Dungeons/Encounters above 12th level need to each present considerable magical AND natural obstacles in order to not provide a well-played group with a significant tactical advantage.

Pitfall: AOO's. The whole system, especially at high level. 5D movement (3D+invisible+ethereal), most creatures have reach 10' or 15' plus, and keeping track of multiple AOO's.

Pitfall: Wizards in armor. Another mechanic. Another roll, more complexity.

What other pitfalls have you encountered?


----------



## Westgate Polks (Jul 10, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> High level Dungeons and Dragons involves a ton of math...
> 
> Multiple times.  The rules seems to become overly cumbersome, and really bog down the game.
> 
> So, from the perspective of thinking ahead to 4th edition, what would you do to help improve the "high level" game?




A different way to phrase this question might be:  How can the D&D game be modified so that high-level characters still have a wide variety of customization available to them and be significantly more powerful than lower-level characters without having 8-12 modifiers to each dice roll?

I don't believe that anyone really feels the math is too hard, but that keeping track of all the modifiers is a pain.  Here is the first example:



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> A fighter/rogue with Expert Tactician, 4d6 sneak attack, a holy weapon, and Greater Invisibility, (Mass) Haste, and had drunk a potion of Bull's Strength. Wielding a keen falchion with improved crit.




The above example shows how many different types of modifies there are:  race, class, skills, feats, items, magic items, spells, and circumstance.  For a given combat roll, there could be 1 race, 1 or 2 class, 1 skill, 1-3 feat, 1 item, 1-2 magic items, 1-6 (or more) spells, and 1-2 circumstance modifiers:  yes, that could be as many as *18* modifiers!

There are 2 complementary ways to make this situation more managable:  

1) have the players be responsible for as much of the modifier management as possible.  I know this has been brought up in several posts in this thread, but I can't stress this enough.  The players know their race, class, skill, feat, item, magic item (most of the time), and spell modifiers.  It should be their responsibility to have these items accounted for when they roll.  This leave the DM "free" to worry about circumstance modifiers and anything applicable to the NPCs or monsters in question.

2)   Find ways to reduce the number of modifiers that are applicable.  I am not a big fan of this technique, as it seems to lead to a reduction in the variety or capabiliy of the PCs.  If you prohibit feats, or declare that only 1 feat can apply to a given dice roll, or any such thing then you simplify the math by reducing the number of modifiers OR the number of variables, but you also limit the choices for the PCs.

I won't say the game is perfect, but looking at the source of all the various modifiers, I can't see a why to allow the plethora of options to PCs and NPCs and the significant increase in power from low-level to high-level without resigning yourself to having to account for a large number of modifiers.


----------



## Afrodyte (Jul 10, 2004)

As I was reading this thread, one idea that came to me was to have more class abilities and feats overlap instead of stack or go in different directions.  Cases in point: Weapon Specialization feat and Sneak Attack class ability.  Of course, the overlap should be worth the feats and levels put into it (unlike, say, Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization).  As a tangent to that, what fewer and more distinguished feats and class abilities that scale with level (especially for fighters)?


----------



## Silveras (Jul 12, 2004)

*Devil's Advocate time*



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Here's a quick recap of the pitfalls identified thus far in the thread...
> 
> Pitfall: The number of attacks rolled at higher level becomes difficult to manage (with multiple heroes and villains).




For PCs, this is usually a Player's decision between "Do I move and only get 1 attack, or do I stay still and get X ?" The Player is the one who should know how many attacks his/her character can get, and is the one who makes the call. 

For enemies, the DM has the same choice: Move and get 1, or stay and get a Full Attack ? Since all attacks are rolled at the same time, this is not that hard to keep track of. 

In both cases, managing the base numbers and patterns is not that hard. The information should be on the sheet. That's a matter of organization ... having the information you need when and where you can find it. 

AoOs take place outside the usual order of events, and use your "current" full BAB ("current" meaning adjusted for any voluntary modifiers you took) -- that is, again, up to the Player to know for PCs and up to the DM for foes, and is a matter of organization. 

Even at lower levels, remembering to adjust for PA or CE can be a "problem"; it has nothing to do with high-level gaming, specifically. 

Only the ability to make multiple AoOs in a round adds any real complexity to this issue. 

I use an initiative log sheet, and record what each combatant does each round. It makes writing up a session summary easier later. This is as helpful at lower levels as it is at high. 



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Pitfall: Instead of spending time doing more complex character development, playtesting an adventure, or writing additional background for the campaign or characters, the high level DM is forced to "build the adventure".




This is a style issue more than a flaw in the rules above 10th level. 

Building custom enemies with character levels and templates always takes time proportionate to the overall power level. That is why many campaigns save such for the "key" encounters, and use standard monsters/NPCs for most minor encounters. 

Much of the time spent in creating such opponents, though, goes into selecting the Templates, Classes, Prestige Classes, and/or Gear they have. The proliferation of these choices is squarely under the DM's control. Anything, from the Core books to various 3rd party supplements, is within the DM's purview to disallow. Failing to do so wisely is a larger contributor to these problems than anything else. 

I have a database with "stock opponents" (typically the monster straight out of the SRD, or a basic level X classed creature) that I use as the seed to populate my encounters. It also has a list of the allowed Feats, PrCs, Spells, etc. 



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Pitfall: A noticable absence from most high level modules (12th level plus) the aforementioned "stat blocks" with different levels of buffs.  By "building" they must stat out on an extensive spreadsheet, each encounter so that it is ready at game time.




When you say modules, do you mean published modules ? I think most people would see the long stat blocks as a detriment - they would be viewed as taking up too much space. The DM should not be running an adventure where s/he does not understand the villains' abilities well enough to work out alternate stat blocks on his/her own. 

This is less a flaw than a marketing decision, a recognition that some people would feel ripped off by a module that was "all stat blocks". 



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Pitfall: There are too many types of modifiers, with differing degrees available for different modifiers, which becomes very difficult to track.  Stacking/Non-Stacking works to place necessary ceilings, but may cause more confusion than it’s worth.  (It may also grant too many bonuses at lower levels.)




As stated before, the presence of "too many types of modifiers" is largely the responsibility of the DM. The DM can disallow things (feat combinations, etc.) that prove overwhelming in the campaign s/he wishes to run. 

The theoretical difficulty in tracking these many modifiers is subjective. Any party that uses charges from magic items and many spells in order to maximize their effects in a single combat is making a style choice. Intelligent opponents will note this, and exploit it as a weakness. 

The DM who faces PCs with "too many bonuses at lower levels" is a DM giving out too much magic, or too many different magic items. Not every potion in a hoard of 12 needs to be differnet. It would make sense to find multiples of the same type together... perhaps 6 of the 12 are healing. 

On the other hand, DMs who face PCs who find ways to use even the most innocuous treasure for a combat advantage are not looking at a rules problem as much as they seeing very clever players at work. 

To provide a consistent feel for my homebrew world, I *never* roll up treasures. I select every magic item placed in a treasure pile, and I usually "save" the good stuff for later. My low-level PCs all run across the same type of items when facing the same types of foes, for some reason. 



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Pitfall: Although there are some class combinations that work at higher levels of D&D, not all classes are built equally.




This is true. It is another reason why the DM needs to exercise judicious use of the phrase "No, that's not an option in this campaign." It has much less to do with high-level gaming than it does with the campaign the DM wants to run. 



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Pitfall: Not all prestige classes build effectively (caster level is king).




This is also true. The problem with caster level is a "known issue" that the designers acknowledged in the Q&A thread before the release of 3.5 Ed. Of course, it becomes a more pronounced problem as you reach higher levels, less because it is a specifically high-level problem than because a higher number of levels makes the differences more obvious. It can still be a problem for an 8th level character with 4 levels of each of 2 PC classes. 

Again, judicious use of "No" and "Yes" can help. Unearthed Arcana presents one variant that allows a Magic Effect Rating to stack from class to class for purposes of the Effects of spells (but not access to higher level spells). Complete Divine presents a feat that helps compensate for "gaps" in the effective caster level for the same purposes. 



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Pitfall:  There are too many enhancements, and stacking becomes overly cumbersome:  17 enhancements to BAB, 23 enhancements to armor class, 16 enhancements to Base Saving Throws.




I don't think it is fair to indict the system twice using a different phrasing. "Too many modifier types" was already covered, and a lot of this overlaps with that. 



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Pitfall:  There are 45 unique "tactical" conditions, each with unique modifiers to combat.  At higher levels, you are exponentially more likely to require multiple tactical conditions, affecting a variety of the players and villains during a combat.




In a turn-based combat system, you only work on one situation at a time, and you can take as long as you need. As much as it may dismay a DM that there are so many options, there are just as many players, if not more, who *live* for exactly that kind of flexibility. 

Much of this can also be handled by judgment calls. A confident DM who knows the basics of the rules (when to give a bonus) should be able to ballpark the correct modifier (hint: the modifiers are usually in increments of 2, so the overall modifieris likely to be 2x the number of conditions that apply). 

Keeping track of this is what the inside of the DM's screen is for. If you find the commercial ones do not have the references you need, you can make custom reference sheets and clip them to the inside of the screen. 



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Pitfall: There are a variety of feat and class abilities that can affect combat, each with unique modifiers (or variable modifiers) to combat.   At higher levels, you are exponentially more likely to encounter multiple feat/class modifiers, affecting a variety of the players and villains during a combat.




Yup. And, for many, this is a Good Thing. Good players keep accurate note of what is going on, and can help the DM adjudicate these situations. 

Again, though, this comes back to being a third repeat of the "there are too many different modifier types" and "there are too many enhancements" complaints. Listing the same complaint 3 times does not make it into 3 different issues. 



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Pitfall: What do you fight above 12th level that doesn't have AT LEAST a 10' reach?




Classed goblins, classed orcs, classed elves, classed .... 
Illithids
Rakshasa
Lich, Wraith, Mummy, etc. undead


In my campaigns, most of the really dangerous things are the same size as the party, and don't usually have reach. 



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Pitfall: The combinations of types of defense and modifiers to defense are challenging to track, and become exponentially more difficult as you go up in levels. (Examples: AC, Touch, Incorporeal Touch, Concealment, etc.)




4th go round for "too many modifier types". 

Concealment gives a "miss chance", not an addition to the AC of the target. Separating the AC into "normal" vs "touch" vs "flat-footed" was actually done to simplify things. You write down the ones that apply to 90% of the encounters you face. The rest, you modify from those as you need to. Again, organization on the part of the players and DM helps streamline this. 



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Pitfall: Remembering and adjudicating the ways different defenses interact.




Hmm. 5th go-round for "too many modifier types". 



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Pitfall:  Combat at higher levels becomes about identifying and exploiting your opponents weakness, and not about exercising your character’s abilities.  By epic, defenses become so strong, it is very difficult to affect opponents.




Uhm, perhaps for some. My players typically rely on found magic items, so I have good control over what is available to them. My villains are often in the same boat (ie., they have the same sorts of equipment). Again, judicious use of "not in this campaign" helps to make this less of a problem. 

Disclaimer: My players often suffer a TPK around 8th-9th level because they do NOT adjust to the changing abilities of their opponents. 



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Pitfall: Armor’s Dex Bonus Maximum isn’t necessary.




Necessary ? No. Desirable ? Yes. It helps keep some balance in the game, so that more dextrous characters can wear lighter armor and still remain nearly as well-protected as their more heavily-armored colleagues. The many, many requests for a system to allow a light- or no- armored swashbuckler- type character point to a desire to maintain this flavor difference. 

This one is so easy to keep track of that including it in a list of complaints about the complexity of high- level combat is like complaining that you have to remember that most modifiers are +/-2. 



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Pitfall: The dramatic increase in effectiveness that the right enhancement combinations can have on high level characters can be overwhelming to manage as a DM, and anti-climactic in game play for the characters (Divine Favor, Righteous Might, Assassins Senses, Keen Weapon…).  Further, characters become overly dependent upon their enhancements, and one effective dispelling of enhancements can be overwhelming to the players.




This is true at low-levels, too. Again, judicious use of the phrase "not allowed" takes care of most of this. 

Hmmm... and is that the 6th go-round for "too many modifier types" ?



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Pitfall: The average player is horrible at keeping maps.




That is an over-generalization based on the anecdotal comments of 1 or 2 people. It is hardly a universal experience. As it stands, the average player in my experience is quite good at mapping. 



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Pitfall: As players are granted access to extremely powerful movement spells, items, and abilities, mapping becomes an enormous waste of time/resources.  Dungeons/Encounters above 12th level need to each present considerable magical AND natural obstacles in order to not provide a well-played group with a significant tactical advantage.




Note that this begins with "As players are granted access to...". 

A plethora of choices also includes the choice NOT to use them. The DM is free to run a campaign that either does not include such magics, or one that never reaches such levels. How well this will go over with the players is, of course, dependent upon their preferences. For some, the *point* of the game is to be able to do this stuff. 



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Pitfall: AOO's. The whole system, especially at high level. 5D movement (3D+invisible+ethereal), most creatures have reach 10' or 15' plus, and keeping track of multiple AOO's.




Heh. invisible is not another dimension. Ethereal may be, but it does not add another dimension of movement -- ethereal creatures still move in the same set of 3D co-ordinates as everyone else. 

That being said, AoOs are (usually) risks characters choose to accept in order to take actions in a tactically-advantaged position. Generally, a creature gets 1 or its Dex bonus in a round. 

For keeping track, I use my initiative roster and make a tick mark in the box for that round when a creature has used its AoO(s). 



			
				ashockney said:
			
		

> Pitfall: Wizards in armor. Another mechanic. Another roll, more complexity.




Oh, yes, that states the case well. 

This is a balanc-vs-realism issue, and has little or nothing to do with high-level gaming specifically. Previously, wizards were just not allowed to wear armor at all. This offended the 'realism' sense of many, so this mechanic was introduced to keep it balanced.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 12, 2004)

Silveras, thank you for sharing your opinion on the whole recap.  I really appreciate it.

How high have you played/DM'd?  How often?
Did you/your party run into any pitfalls?

Would you have any other creative recommendations to these pitfalls (or the ones listed above)?


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 12, 2004)

Here is a quick bandaid fix:

1) Make all modifiers overlap not stack.  Make all modifiers equal to 2.  Extra modifiers can be used as "Back-up" (You caught me flat-footed?  Good thing I have my stone of luck to maintain exactly the same AC!)

2) Make all monsters (except perhaps the BBEG) take toughness for all feats they have available (except perhaps pre-calculated feats in MM).  This feat can be taken multiple times.

3) Eliminate Aoo's.


----------



## woodelf (Jul 14, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Take this paraphrase of a rule from Over the Edge: if you do something that gives you a tactical advantage, you get one or more bonus dice. There: all the flexibility of D&d3E, and then some--anything you do has a meaningful mechanical result, the results are differentiated in magnitude, and i've just obviated the need for 25pp of rules.
> 
> Or, in our own Four Colors al Fresco, benefit and hindrance dice come in any size from d3 to d50, giving you at least 11 steps in each direction, and there's no reason you couldn't assign multiple of each type.





			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> Fewer words, sure. But does it make the game, and the 'math' any simpler?
> 
> First, are you going to eliminate the feats?
> PlayerA: I want to swing harder to do more damage
> ...



OK, two things to clarify my point. First, i was not so much suggesting how to "fix" D&D3E as pointing out that you do not inherently have to link complexity and flexibility. In fact, i may not have said it outright, but i'd actually say that that is one of the fundamental flaws of crunchy gamist games, like every instantiation of D20 System i've seen (save one of my own, which is still little better than a thought experiment): they hard-code that trade off. So i wasn't, by any stretch suggesting a fix for the problem _within the context of playing D&D3E_, but rather pointing out that if you want both simplicity and flexibility you may have to think way outside the box--in this case, switch systems. Or tear D&D3E down to it's very foundations and rebuild it from the ground up into something completely different. I think the elements that put simplicity and flexibility at odds in D&D3E are too fundamental to be easily fixed. But i wanted to make sure those who're looking to "fix" this particular problem realised that it's not inherent to RPGs, even if it is inherent to D20 System. I'm not saying that the particular solution i've proposed would work as a way to change D&D3E combat, but rather that trying to stick close to existing D&D3E combat is the problem, for those who want both flexibility and simplicity.

Second thing, i was very simplistic when describing Over the Edge and Four Colors al Fresco. In OtE, you have 3 traits [and a flaw, not germaine to this particular discussion]. Either a trait applies, or it doesn't. Each trait is rated from 1 to 6 dice (normally 2-4, however). All dice are d6s. You roll your dice, add them up, and that's your result. A bonus die means you roll an extra die, and discard the lowest. A penalty die means you roll an extra die, and discard the highest. Bonus and penalty dice cancel out. So, if one wanted to get close to the exchange you describe in an OtE game, it would go something like this:

PlayerA: I want to swing harder to do more damage
DM: Okay, that's worth a bonus die.
PlayerA: What if I use both hands?
DM: You'll have to, to get the harder swing.
PlayerB: Hey, don't forget that I am singing to help out.
DM: Right, PlayerA, you get an extra bonus die because of that.
PlayerA: Can I do this and still make it harder for him to hit me? I am really low on hit points.
DM: Sure. That'll be a penalty die. But the bad guy will have a penalty die, too.
PlayerA: Never mind, I don't think I can hit with that penalty die. I will go back to just the two bonus dice. Is the Bull's Strength still working?
DM: Oh yeah, that'll be worth a bonus on the damage if you hit.
...
And, right about here, i can't continue the example, because OtE is just too different, mechanically. Frex, one of the standard combat rules is that you take a penalty when you're repetetive, so no one would point out how they were doing the same thing as before, because that'd be worth a penalty if the GM agreed that it was "the same". Damage stems directly from attack success, so lowering your attack roll to raise your damage roll doesn't really make sense. It doesn't have the mechanical specificity to have specific attributes, much less to assign a particular one to attack or damage--frex, in combat, you get to use whatever trait is relevant, which might not even be a trait you'd normally consider physical, much less combat-related. Finally, since it only has one size of die, and a given advantage/hindrance is only worth one die (though you can certainly stack advantages to get multiple bonus dice), unless it's deemed too insignificant to be worth a mechanical bonus, arguing over magnitude of advantage is much less of an issue, and it's much easier for the GM to keep things straight and be consistent. Plus, the game _assumes_ things _won't_ be consistent--the setting is intended to be variable to the point of surreal, so if the GM is inconsistent from one encounter to the next, the players should assume that's really how it goes, and there's a reason they're just not privy to yet.

Now, let's talk about Four Colors al Fresco, which is much crunchier than OtE (which is sort of like saying that "yoghurt is much more solid than milk"--it may be true, but it doesn't say much, and they're both pretty much still liquids). In al Fresco, you normally don't roll the dice. The idea is to only use the dice as a last resort, when you can't figure out what happens based on the characters traits. Usually, you look at the character's traits and they spell out quite clearly that the character either succeeds or fails at an action. Dice only come into play when trying to do something that the character's traits would make "a maybe". So, if you want to bash down a normal door, you succeed, but it takes a while and you have a sore shoulder (i accidentally bashed in the back door to our house when i was only around 10 or 12). If your character has a flaw like "fragile build", you'll fail to bash down the door, and probably hurt yourself if you try anyway. But, back to our non-fragile character: if she needs to get the door down in a hurry, it's no longer clear either that she'll succeed or that she'll fail. She might get it open with the first blow, or it might hold up for a few. Generally, these ambiguous cases stem directly from unknown elements of the surroundings--unlike the D20 System paradigm, it's not a door with a fixed DC to open, and the character's abilities/luck fluctuate due to a die roll, but the character's abilities are roughly constant and we don't know until we roll the dice how tough that particular door is. [Yes, in this particular example, it's six-of-one, half-dozen-of-the-other. But the paradigm shift does show up significantly in other cases.] The other significant case that calls for die rolls is when two supers go against each other, both playing to their strengths. Sometimes, it's clear-cut: if Golem and Captain Italia arm-wrestle, Golem's _Fists of Fury: Unstoppable in hand-to-hand combat_ and _Hulking Brute: As strong as a small crowd, and nearly as large_ clearly trump Italia's _Physique of Three Men: Retains the strength and endurance of his three component members_. But, if Golem and The Cardinal were to wrestle, it's not nearly so clear--now he's going up against the Cardinal's Power; _Strength of God: When wearing a cross, he is incredibly strong_. Well, how strong is "incredibly strong"? We don't know, precisely--that's the whole point. But given that it's called "The Strength of God", it's probably pretty strong. So the SG might rule that he's stronger. But, in this particular case, she'd more likely rule that it was unclear, and time to roll the dice. I've digressed quite a bit, but for a purpose: i'm trying to, in capsule form, point up that the mechanical paradigm is so different from D&D3E that directly porting mechanical tricks isn't likely to work.

Anyway, in this game, hindrance and bonus dice, just like the character's dice, range from d3 to d50 (though, normally, d4 to d20). However, you only have one of each, maximum, at any time (well, with some exceptions, but they're not relevant here). So if you're already suffering a penalty die for being severely wounded, and the regiment of guards you're about to fight is worth another penalty die, you "add" them (it's not really addition, due to how the dice work), resulting in just one penalty die to keep track of. And the whole think works in terms of relative scale, not absolute scale, so comparing the size of the die from one character to the next, or one situation to the next, is kinda pointless. If the Cardinal needed to roll to attack (not likely, 'cause he's pretty good at combat, but for sake of argument), and wanted to do so with greater power, it'd either merit a bonus, or, at worst, a small penalty. But if Renaissance Man, who's a fencer and so on, not a brute, was actually rolling to attack (even more unlikely, but we'll go with it for now), he'd probably take a pretty significant penalty for trying to bring particular force to bear. Of course, as the game is actually played, it's unlikely anyone who's any good at combat would ever roll during combat, anyway, unless they were facing another super who was roughly equally as good. More often, players play to their character's strengths, and in this system, you don't roll when you're playing to your strengths--you succeed. It's also one of those systems where you get a bonus for trying a flashy stunt attack, not a penalty.

So, getting all the way back to your "sure, it's more flexible, but is it simpler?" question: yes--once you see the whole system, not just my initial excerpt. But it's not a viable solution to graft onto existing D&D3E combat, without a _lot_ of work, IMHO, as your hypothetical example points out. You have to switch mechanical paradigm, not just change how some bonuses work, to make this sort of thing work. Let's see...

You know what? that's gonna wait for a separate post. It's bedtime now, and i'm not immediately thinking of anything, anyway.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 14, 2004)

So what you're saying is:

Neither system is remotely gamist. Both are primarily narrativist.

Is that it?

Because it sounds like that's your point. Neither of the systems you describe have the remotest essence of tactical play, which is more-or-less the primary focus of D&D's conflict system.

I don't think a paradigm shift will do much except wholly alter the experience of playing D&D. If you think that's a good thing, great.

Otherwise stick to eliminating exceptions from the game.

Frex: all bonuses which go away when you are surprised are now applied to touch AC. All bonuses which stick around are applied to flat footed AC. All bonuses without the same name are stacked for normal AC. No remembering force effects. No remembering deflection or whatever. It's either touch AC or it's not. It's either flatfooted ac or it's not.

Power attack does not apply for actions outside your round. Now you don't need to remember it for AoOs.

Expertise is put into action on the first attack against you in a round, and lasts until the end of your turn. Now you don't need to remember whether you attacked recently, and how much you expertised for unless you use it to avoid a hit.

Dodge is a flat +1 dodge bonus to AC. Now it can be recorded on your sheet ahead of combat.

The timing on all spells is now the following
times of 1rd/level last for 1 combat, or one action.
times of 1min/level (or thereabouts) last for 1 'scene'. ie - they basically last until theres a break in the action (anyone takes 20, anyone has a bit of a rest, anyone declares a bunch of actions all at once).
Times of 1hr/level last for a session or a day, whichever is less.

Times beyond that just don't matter

Use UA's damage save mechanic for the monsters so you never need to keep track of hitpoints.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 14, 2004)

Is this thread actually: "Armour Class gets hard to calculate at higher levels"?

Cheers!


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 14, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Is this thread actually: "Armour Class gets hard to calculate at higher levels"?
> 
> Cheers!



 No, I think it would better described as "figuring out the attack bonus, actual AC and environmental factors is too much work."  I don't agree, but that appears to be the general idea.

 In general, I find that at high-levels and low, once you've used a mechanic a couple of times, the group gets used to it and remembers it.  The first time you use Expertise or Power Attack, there's some effort to identifying how it works.  Five levels later, you've got it down, I think.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 14, 2004)

*Kriegspiel*



			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is:
> 
> Neither system is remotely gamist. Both are primarily narrativist.



I don't _think_ that's his point (although it may be true).

At any rate, you can have a simple, flexible system that's not-at-all narrativist.  The kriegspiel (wargame) of the Prussian military fits that description perfectly -- at least once they moved away from rules and towards expert judgments: 







> The nineteenth-century Prussian game started life with a rigid structure and copious formal rules. The two sides were each placed in a separate room with a model of the terrain or a map. The umpires moved from one room to another collecting orders from the players, and then retired to a third room to consult the rules and find the results of combat. A great deal of their time was consumed in leafing through voluminous sets of rules, consulting tables and giving rulings on fine legal points. By about 1870, however, this rigid system was starting to be thought rather clumsy and time-consuming. Quite apart from the many defects and loopholes in the rules themselves, it reduced the umpires, who were often very senior officers, to the role of mere clerks and office boys. clearly, such a state of affairs was intolerable.
> 
> It was General von verdy du Vernois who finally broke with this system, and abolished the rule book altogether. His approach to the wargame was the free kriegspiel, in which the umpire had a totally free hand to decide the result of moves and combats. He did not do this according to any set of written rules, but just on his own military knowledge and experience. He would collect the players' moves in exactly the same way as before; but he would then simply give a considered professional opinion on the outcome. This speeded up the game a very great deal, and ensured that there was always a well thought-out reason for everything that happened. This was a great help in the debrief after the game, and it allowed players to learn by their mistakes very quickly.
> 
> The free kriegspiel using maps can offer many advantages for modern wargamers provided that the umpire has a reasonable background in wargaming, and a bit of common sense. If this condition is met, the game immediately becomes faster and less pedantic than if it had been tied down to a set of rules. The umpire can always think of more factors to incorporate in his decisions than could ever be true in a formal or rigid game. He can therefore spread a greater atmosphere of realism about the game.


----------



## Yair (Jul 14, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I don't _think_ that's his point (although it may be true).
> 
> At any rate, you can have a simple, flexible system that's not-at-all narrativist.  The kriegspiel (wargame) of the Prussian military fits that description perfectly -- at least once they moved away from rules and towards expert judgments:




Wonderful. Simply wonderful.


----------



## woodelf (Jul 14, 2004)

Silveras said:
			
		

> When you say modules, do you mean published modules ? I think most people would see the long stat blocks as a detriment - they would be viewed as taking up too much space. The DM should not be running an adventure where s/he does not understand the villains' abilities well enough to work out alternate stat blocks on his/her own.
> 
> This is less a flaw than a marketing decision, a recognition that some people would feel ripped off by a module that was "all stat blocks".




But would they be playing D&D3E? Seriously: if someone would feel ripped off by a module with tons of crunch, wouldn't they be playing a simpler game than D&D3E in the first place? I mean, i know it's precisely the fact that most D20 System stuff (supplements, adventures--you name it) feels like it's "all crunch"--yes, i'm aware that's hyperbole--that is a large part of why i don't buy D&D3E, or most D20 System stuff. From everything i've heard around here, and looking at which D20 System stuff seems to be the most popular, i don't think there's any basis to the claim that complex, multi-buffed alternate stat blocks are omitted because the D20-System-buying public doesn't want them. Rather, i suspect it's either because the authors don't want to take the time to figure them out, or because it didn't occur to them that people would want them. Or because the _authors_ don't want to take up all that space with stat blocks and want to squeeze more other stuff into the scenario.


----------



## woodelf (Jul 14, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is:
> 
> Neither system is remotely gamist. Both are primarily narrativist.
> 
> ...




OtE doesn't, by design, really reflect tactical play in the usual sense. It's more about strategic play.

I think my real point, in the context of this thread, is that if you are working with a heavily gamist system, and want great flexibility, you'll need great complexity. But let me borrow a bit from the description of Kriegspiels:



> The free kriegspiel using maps can offer many advantages for modern wargamers provided that the umpire has a reasonable background in wargaming, and a bit of common sense. If this condition is met, the game immediately becomes faster and less pedantic than if it had been tied down to a set of rules. The umpire can always think of more factors to incorporate in his decisions than could ever be true in a formal or rigid game. He can therefore spread a greater atmosphere of realism about the game.




IOW, you don't need a heavily gamist system to support tactical play. After all, my roommate engages in some seriously-tactical exercises without any "rules" whatsoever as part of her military training.  All you need to do is adopt a simulationist model, and you no longer need all those rules. [n.b.: i'm not saying that simulationism is superior to gamism, or that simulationist games never have complex rules--just that flexibility-without-complexity for tactical situations is easily achieved with a simulationist paradigm, while a gamist paradigm, IMHO, necessitates a link between flexibility and complexity (and a narrativist paradigm doesn't really support tactical situations).]

Which, btw, gets me back to Four Colors al Fresco. I've actually been wrestling lately with the question of whether it's really a simulationist or narrativist model. I used to call it "pure" narrativism. But now i'm thinking it's more accurately described as either a hybrid, or even more on the simulationist side. One piece of evidence: it most definitely *does* support tactical play, and quite well--certainly as well as my experiences with D&D3E. It just does it in a completely different manner, mechanically.



> I don't think a paradigm shift will do much except wholly alter the experience of playing D&D. If you think that's a good thing, great.




Agreed: it wouldn't be the same game anymore. Which was part of my point: i think that asking for "D&D3E, with all the flexibility and tactical options, but less complexity" is a lot like asking for "a ham sandwich, except without the bread, and hummus instead of ham". But i'm not convinced it wouldn't be "D&D" any more. After all, those who wanted detailed tactical play were managing it with OD&D, just by adding the detail in through simulationist, rather than gamist, mechanisms. Or, put another way, if that's what you want, it'd be a _lot_ less effort to switch game systems than to 'fix' D&D3E to do it.



> Otherwise stick to eliminating exceptions from the game.
> 
> [snip a bunch of really great suggestions]
> 
> Use UA's damage save mechanic for the monsters so you never need to keep track of hitpoints.




Those are all pretty good, and i think go a long way towards simplifying the game. But haven't you eliminated options with every one of them? How are those eliminating complexity without eliminating flexibility? 

I only kept the last one because i have specific comments: i really like it in some ways, and hate it in others. I've been wrestling with a way to have D20 System cleanly scale with power level, so that anybody sufficiently less powerful than the PC just becomes a mook (i.e., one-shot kill), without having to designate them specifically ahead of time, and without ditching hitpoints. I've so far resisted using the damage save, but it accomplishes pretty much the same thing--i just think that hitpoints are integral to the feel of "D&D", so i want to retain them. I think it represents exactly the sort of "paradigm shift" in the mechanics that i was saying would be necessary to really make a difference in complexity without killing flexibility, unlike the rest of your suggestions, which are definitely just "cleaning up" the existing mechanics. It's also the one of your suggestions that i think would have the biggest positive impact (at the "cost" of a fundamental shift in how the game plays).


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 14, 2004)

I'm afraid I probably can't add much constructively to the conversation at this point, but I'd like to say - 

Yes, I find that 3e has too much in-game maths for my liking. The maths isn't complicated, but there is such a lot of it, especially at high level (and typically I find that when a dispel/greater dispel is cast it knocks down some but not all of the defences, complicating the resulting AC and other bonus effects further).

Another issue which may or may not have been covered is that the reliance on derived values also tends to slow things down - when buffs/spells/poisons change the value of a stat and suddenly a dozen other derived/related values (attack/AC/hp/skills) change.

I always liked RuneQuest (2nd ed) which was certainly not narrativist but the simple mechanics played well for powerful as well as neophyte characters. Combat took longer than 1e, but nowhere near as long as 3e. As a matter of fact I'm considering doing a RQ conversion for the Eberron setting to see what it might look like 

Back to the main point though - I can't think how to effectively simplify 3e as it stands, because the "issue" is built into the fundamental mechanics of the system. Perhaps moving to an entirely simpler combat system like SNAP d20 would do it, but there we have the issue once more... a fundamental change to the way that combat works (which is pretty much central to most games of D&D I imagine!).

One option I toyed with, but not very seriously, is to eliminate bonus stacking issues but setting an arbitrary cap. For one setting you could say "all bonuses stack, but to a maximum of +5", for another setting you could say "all bonuses stack but to a maximum of +(character level)/2". Eliminate bonus types all together. Would it work? I don't know.

BTW nice to read a ten-page thread where everyone has remained civil!

Cheers


----------



## Silveras (Jul 14, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> But would they be playing D&D3E? Seriously: if someone would feel ripped off by a module with tons of crunch, wouldn't they be playing a simpler game than D&D3E in the first place? I mean, i know it's precisely the fact that most D20 System stuff (supplements, adventures--you name it) feels like it's "all crunch"--yes, i'm aware that's hyperbole--that is a large part of why i don't buy D&D3E, or most D20 System stuff. From everything i've heard around here, and looking at which D20 System stuff seems to be the most popular, i don't think there's any basis to the claim that complex, multi-buffed alternate stat blocks are omitted because the D20-System-buying public doesn't want them. Rather, i suspect it's either because the authors don't want to take the time to figure them out, or because it didn't occur to them that people would want them. Or because the _authors_ don't want to take up all that space with stat blocks and want to squeeze more other stuff into the scenario.




Perhaps I was not clear about the context. I was referring to the notion of the stat block containing multiple sections for the possible combinations of conditions and spells in operation. I was also referring to this in a published adventure module. 

My comment has nothing to do with rules supplements, or the fluff/crunch ratio therein. 

A published adventure has a limited amount of space. The more space used to show different versions of the same creature means less space available to present encounters or plot in the adventure. *That* is why I am saying that stat-blocks in modules (adventures) probably deliberately do not include multiple variations of the villain. That is the DM's job, really; to adjudicate them. 

Additionally, the original comment was about how the stat blocks in high-level modules stopped listing variations. I think this is also, in part, because lower-level modules are geared (somewhat) toward new DMs who need more hand-holding while getting used to the system. At higher levels, this would be less necessary.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 14, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> At any rate, you can have a simple, flexible system that's not-at-all narrativist.  The kriegspiel (wargame) of the Prussian military fits that description perfectly -- at least once they moved away from rules and towards expert judgments:




Heh. That's a lot like the draft of a minimalist RPG I have, which I called IVDICIA (judgements). It's basically: The judge determines the percentage change of success based on the character stats, the situation, common sense, & his best judgement. Then the player rolls d%.

I wrote it when I realized that OAD&D had an unwritten metarule: Figure out the odds & then pick an equivalent die roll. (Notice how Gygax's writing often focuses more on the odds than the die roll. He writes "1 in 6" rather than "1 or 1d6".) Everything in the book is just an example of implementing that metarule.

About the same time I noticed that classic _Traveller_ had had a metarule. We extracted it from the rules as something like: Roll 2d6+skill level; referee determines outcome based on the total. Looking back at the LBBs, I suspect Miller always used a rule closer to T4's: Figure out the probability. Choose a number of d6 to roll consistent with that probability. Roll that many d6+skill level. Referee determines the outcome based on the total.

As I recall, the _kriegspiel_ was an influence on the _braunstiens_ which influenced _blackmoor_ & thus, D&D.


----------



## woodelf (Jul 14, 2004)

Silveras said:
			
		

> Perhaps I was not clear about the context. I was referring to the notion of the stat block containing multiple sections for the possible combinations of conditions and spells in operation. I was also referring to this in a published adventure module.
> 
> My comment has nothing to do with rules supplements, or the fluff/crunch ratio therein.
> 
> ...




No, i understood the context you're addressing. I'm not convinced that adventures are any different than any other kind of supplement, in these areas: all supplements have a page-count limit, but it's not an absolute one--you can always up the pagecount and charge more. I just see adventures as a subset of RPG products in general, and expect them to be treated roughly the same way by consumers. That is, i'd be surprised to see the consumers of a specific game line prefer all-crunch supplements, and then want narrative [writing style, not Narrative game style] adventures with minimal crunch attached. Thus, in broad strokes, i'd expect that those playing D&D3E, a relatively crunchy system, are probably very much interested in things like alternate statblocks for buffed NPCs, probably even to the point of sacrificing flavor text if the pagecount can't go up.

As for the correlation to level of adventure: i haven't bought any, so i can't comment--is there one? Or is it rather a correlation to publisher, with the only publishers who've included those sorts of multiple statblocks having published only, or primarily, lower-level scenarios?


----------



## redhawk (Jul 15, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> It's not brain surgery.  It's not rocket science.  But it is a pretty good approximation of tax accounting.




I've done that too (bachelor's degree in Management). Lots of rules, but the math itself is bog-simple.

Much like D&D, come to think of it. Hrm - WOTC = FASB? Naaaaah, I doubt it.

But the stacking rules make things a lot easier, and if you treat things like triggers (I minored in IS.  it resolves things like the rogue example quite nicely.

Redhawk


----------



## woodelf (Jul 15, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Back to the main point though - I can't think how to effectively simplify 3e as it stands, because the "issue" is built into the fundamental mechanics of the system. Perhaps moving to an entirely simpler combat system like SNAP d20 would do it, but there we have the issue once more... a fundamental change to the way that combat works (which is pretty much central to most games of D&D I imagine!).




What is this SNAP D20 of which you speak? A quick Google doesn't turn up anything related to RPGs.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 15, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> OtE doesn't, by design, really reflect tactical play in the usual sense. It's more about strategic play.
> 
> I think my real point, in the context of this thread, is that if you are working with a heavily gamist system, and want great flexibility, you'll need great complexity. But let me borrow a bit from the description of Kriegspiels:
> 
> ...



Unfortunately, you're trying to run a game which can basically be attempting to simulate ANYTHING. Anything at all. Which means that the GM (who, in the game of kriegspiel must be a totally unbiased expert in military tactics whos judgement is totally accepted by all the players) needs to be a respected expert in EVERYTHING. Otherwise the game breaks down into arguements about... everything he's not an expert in. Beyond that, few GM's are capable of that sort of totally unbiased judgement, especially in the face of an argumentative player. The D&D game system is an attempt to set out rules which, while not accurately simulating everything, do provide a common ground to work with. Throwing them out in favour of a wholly judgement-based system is, IMHO a bad idea.

Furthermore, any game which is wholly relying on the whims of the GM (which, lets face it, this model is) is not a simulationist's game. It's a narrative game. It may be a really realistic story, but it's still a story before a game or a simulation.


> Which, btw, gets me back to Four Colors al Fresco. I've actually been wrestling lately with the question of whether it's really a simulationist or narrativist model. I used to call it "pure" narrativism. But now i'm thinking it's more accurately described as either a hybrid, or even more on the simulationist side. One piece of evidence: it most definitely *does* support tactical play, and quite well--certainly as well as my experiences with D&D3E. It just does it in a completely different manner, mechanically.



How does it support tactical play? Tactics tend to be based on a firm understanding of the situation, which is why they're totally ruined by bad intelligence.

If that bad intelligence is part of the game (ie - your character doesn't understand fact X), that's fine - it's still tactical play.

If the bad intelligence is rooted in the system (ie - noone knows what the rules actually are, or the rules change often), then tactical play becomes impossible.


> Or, put another way, if that's what you want, it'd be a _lot_ less effort to switch game systems than to 'fix' D&D3E to do it.



Yeah, but I don't think any of the systems you've brought up would have the 'feel' of D&D in the slightest.


> Those are all pretty good, and i think go a long way towards simplifying the game. But haven't you eliminated options with every one of them? How are those eliminating complexity without eliminating flexibility?



The power attack one just eliminates the bonuses for power attack on AoO's. You could also allow power attack on an attack by attack basis, so you NEVER need to remember the power attack number. That increases options and reduces complexity in the same way.

The expertise one doesn't remove any options.

The dodge bonus one doesn't remove any options - it just makes the dodge feat more powerful.

Modifications to AC simply mean that incorporeal touch-attacking creatures are the same as any other touch-attacking creature. Which doesn't really limit options. If you want defense against them, you can get it. The only difference is that it's an active defense, not a passive one.

Time alterations on spells don't actually make a difference. In practise, 1 rd/level spells last for a single combat, and expire if there's a break. 1 minute/level spells last until there's a pause in the action, like taking 20, or resting. 1 hour/level spells last all day. This is because, in practise, the DM governs how much time things take. If you step through an entire adventure in 6-second increments, you'll usually find that the whole thing gets done in almost no time at all. Typically a DM will declare, as fiat that a particular spell, or group of spells has expired as characters fart about. It makes no real difference to how the game goes, unless you're in a habit of playing high-level characters who routinely break of combat and return to it because they know their spells will last.


> I only kept the last one because i have specific comments: i really like it in some ways, and hate it in others. I've been wrestling with a way to have D20 System cleanly scale with power level, so that anybody sufficiently less powerful than the PC just becomes a mook (i.e., one-shot kill), without having to designate them specifically ahead of time, and without ditching hitpoints. I've so far resisted using the damage save, but it accomplishes pretty much the same thing--i just think that hitpoints are integral to the feel of "D&D", so i want to retain them. I think it represents exactly the sort of "paradigm shift" in the mechanics that i was saying would be necessary to really make a difference in complexity without killing flexibility, unlike the rest of your suggestions, which are definitely just "cleaning up" the existing mechanics. It's also the one of your suggestions that i think would have the biggest positive impact (at the "cost" of a fundamental shift in how the game plays).



Actually - I don't think it does. Typically the players NEVER get told how many hitpoints a monster has. Typically the DM doesn't get much of an emotional attachement to an individual monster. Hence swapping out hps for a damage save IN THE CASE OF LOW IMPACT MONSTERS will have no effect on flavour at all, but will have an immense impact in terms of speeding up gameplay.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jul 15, 2004)

This damage save sounds like a really nice idea for great big groups of mooks. How does it work?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 15, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> What is this SNAP D20 of which you speak? A quick Google doesn't turn up anything related to RPGs.




Simple Narrative Action Plug-in for d20 combat, 4 page rules by Reimer Behrends. I uploaded a copy in this thread here

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=89243 (post number 10)

Cheers


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 15, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, you're trying to run a game which can basically be attempting to simulate ANYTHING. Anything at all. Which means that the GM (who, in the game of kriegspiel must be a totally unbiased expert in military tactics whos judgement is totally accepted by all the players) needs to be a respected expert in EVERYTHING. Otherwise the game breaks down into arguements about... everything he's not an expert in.



How is that different from D&D?  D&D presents fairly clear-cut rules for combat and magic.  For just about anything else, the DM sets a Difficulty Class and asks you to roll.

In a _kriegspiel_, there are fairly clear-cut rules (or guidelines) for easily quantified elements of war, e.g., how far troops can march in a day.  For anything else, the umpire (DM) makes a decision on the outcome or sets the odds and rolls a die.


			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Furthermore, any game which is wholly relying on the whims of the GM (which, lets face it, this model is) is not a simulationist's game. It's a narrative game. It may be a really realistic story, but it's still a story before a game or a simulation.



If the DM's goal is to accurately assess what would happen, it's a simulation -- maybe a flawed simulation, but a simulation.  If the DM's goal is come up with something entertaining, with reversals, clever plot twists, etc., then it's a narrative game -- maybe realistic, maybe not.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 15, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> The power attack one just eliminates the bonuses for power attack on AoO's. You could also allow power attack on an attack by attack basis, so you NEVER need to remember the power attack number. That increases options and reduces complexity in the same way.



Agreed.  Anytime you have one less thing to track, you've streamlined the game a bit.


			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> The dodge bonus one [transforming dodge into +1 AC] doesn't remove any options - it just makes the dodge feat more powerful.



Again, one less thing to track -- and, really, is it worth tracking a +1 bonus anyway?  (We all feel compelled to track it, but is it worth it?)


----------



## RFisher (Jul 15, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> If the DM's goal is to accurately assess what would happen, it's a simulation -- maybe a flawed simulation, but a simulation.



And, arguably, no more flawed that a heavily simplified numerical simulation that's playable enough to be included in a pen-&-paper RGP.


			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Which means that the GM [...] needs to be a respected expert in EVERYTHING. Otherwise the game breaks down into arguements about... everything he's not an expert in.



No. The players just have to cut him some slack. Besides, the GM can always leverage the knowledge of his players in making decisions.

Come to think of it, even back in my worst rules lawyery, argumentative youth, when we played a free form game I uncharacteristically _didn't_ argue with the GM.


			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Beyond that, few GM's are capable of that sort of totally unbiased judgement, especially in the face of an argumentative player.



Well, that's not been my experience. Every GM I've played with has been unbiased enough. Heck, argumentative players can see bias even where there isn't any.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 15, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Another issue which may or may not have been covered is that the reliance on derived values also tends to slow things down - when buffs/spells/poisons change the value of a stat and suddenly a dozen other derived/related values (attack/AC/hp/skills) change.
> 
> One option I toyed with, but not very seriously, is to eliminate bonus stacking issues but setting an arbitrary cap. For one setting you could say "all bonuses stack, but to a maximum of +5", for another setting you could say "all bonuses stack but to a maximum of +(character level)/2". Eliminate bonus types all together. Would it work? I don't know.
> 
> ...




Plane Sailing!  It's great to hear from you.  Please elaborate on your "high level" gaming experiences for us.  

I think you've identified a very critical addition to the pitfall list.  The ease with which the "hours" of pre-work that players put into their higher level characters...which are subject to change!  

Dispels, curses, poisons, negative levels, ability drains, all have a difficult and frustrating effect on these challenges.

I like the simplicity of your recommendation, too.  In 2nd Ed, I recall there was a point where we implemented an "ego rule" (I believe from a Dragon Mag article) that worked well to help manage the "high level" magic item train.

I also want to share my complements to everyone who's particpated in this rather lengthy thread.  Thank you for keeping it civil, and I hope interesting, for everyone involved.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 15, 2004)

Silveras said:
			
		

> A published adventure has a limited amount of space.
> 
> Additionally, the original comment was about how the stat blocks in high-level modules stopped listing variations. I think this is also, in part, because lower-level modules are geared (somewhat) toward new DMs who need more hand-holding while getting used to the system. At higher levels, this would be less necessary.




I would pay MORE to have a better module that was easier for me to run.  Less conversion = less time spent on my part "re-writing" the adventure.  Low or high level.  Just my 2 cents.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 15, 2004)

redhawk said:
			
		

> Much like D&D, come to think of it. Hrm - WOTC = FASB? Naaaaah, I doubt it.
> 
> But the stacking rules make things a lot easier, and if you treat things like triggers (I minored in IS.  it resolves things like the rogue example quite nicely.
> 
> Redhawk




ROTFLMYO...It's a conspiracy!

Triggers?  Please elaborate.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 16, 2004)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Heh. That's a lot like the draft of a minimalist RPG I have, which I called IVDICIA (judgements). It's basically: The judge determines the percentage change of success based on the character stats, the situation, common sense, & his best judgement. Then the player rolls d%.



From the aforementioned kriegspiel article:


> The system for finding the results of combat in a free kriegspiel is classically simple. First of all the umpire looks at the position of each side: how many and what type of troops are involved; how their morale is bearing up; and what orders they have been given. He next considers the ground on which the action will be fought, and any special tactical problems which either side might encounter; whether there are any obstacles in the way of an attacker; whether a flank attack might be possible, and so on.
> 
> When the umpire has all relevant information at his disposal, he ought to be able to give an informed opinion on the probabilities of the result. He will not simply say something like 'The French infantry hassuccessfully stormed the hill', but will quote possibilities, such as: 'The French have a 50% chance of storming the hill successfully; a 30% chance of capturing half of it, while disputing the rest; and a 20% chance of being totally repulsed. High scores favour the French'. It is important that the umpire is as specific as possible with these figures, as this forces him to consider all the factors involved in the combat and to think through the full implications of his decision. He must also be clear whether a high dice roll will be good or bad for the attacker, i.e., whether the top 50% (a die roll of 5-9) or the bottom 50% (a roll of 0-4) will mean the hill has been carried. In this case he has stated that the high score will be good for the attacker.



This isn't too different from old-school D&D -- or 3.5E, once you move away from combat and have to rely on an arbitrary DM-set DC: 


			
				RFisher said:
			
		

> I wrote it when I realized that OAD&D had an unwritten metarule: Figure out the odds & then pick an equivalent die roll. (Notice how Gygax's writing often focuses more on the odds than the die roll. He writes "1 in 6" rather than "1 or 1d6".) Everything in the book is just an example of implementing that metarule.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 16, 2004)

RFisher said:
			
		

> And, arguably, no more flawed that a heavily simplified numerical simulation that's playable enough to be included in a pen-&-paper RGP.
> 
> No. The players just have to cut him some slack. Besides, the GM can always leverage the knowledge of his players in making decisions.



Well, the problem here is that you're starting to contend with differences in imagination, especially in a game where large portions are not rooted in the real world at all. Even those parts that ARE rooted in the real world within D&D are the realm of relatively thin-on-the ground hobbyists.

If noone in the group is an expert in horseriding, who's to say what can or cannot be done? If noone in the group is an expert in archery? In caving?

Far better IMHO that someone who spends the time to investigate this stuff makes those calls.


> Come to think of it, even back in my worst rules lawyery, argumentative youth, when we played a free form game I uncharacteristically _didn't_ argue with the GM.



Was it a campaign or a one shot? Was it a dungeon crawl?


> Well, that's not been my experience. Every GM I've played with has been unbiased enough. Heck, argumentative players can see bias even where there isn't any.



There is a thread on this board that includes stories where the GM flat-out broke the rules in order to kill off characters (or at least certain aspects of characters). There are others where players have problems because the GM keeps changing the rules under their feet. And these exist when there IS a more-or-less stable ruleset.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 16, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Well, the problem here is that you're starting to contend with differences in imagination, especially in a game where large portions are not rooted in the real world at all. Even those parts that ARE rooted in the real world within D&D are the realm of relatively thin-on-the ground hobbyists.



As an aside, that's one argument for a lower- (or rarer-) magic game -- it's better grounded in reality.


			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> If noone in the group is an expert in horseriding, who's to say what can or cannot be done? If noone in the group is an expert in archery? In caving?



And who's to question that non-expert judgment?


			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Far better IMHO that someone who spends the time to investigate this stuff makes those calls.



While I've been playing a bit of a devil's advocate, I do agree that a handbook full of rules and guidelines from the experts makes perfect sense.  The problem is that the mathematical models the "experts" come up with are often quite complex without actually yielding realistic results.  (You can put "realistic" in quotes, if "realistic" fantasy bothers you.)

Do the rules, as written, actually provide a better simulation than simple guidelines plus DM fiat?  We certainly rely on the latter for most decisions, after all.

Naturally, the less you trust your DM, the more you want spelled out in the rules.  The more you trust your DM, the more you can rely on his judgment, and the less you have to consult the rules and add up modifiers.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 16, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> If noone in the group is an expert in horseriding, who's to say what can or cannot be done?



Well, the rulings don't have to stand up to scrutiny by anyone outside the group, so they don't need to be any more expert than the knowledge available in the group. Less so since the players should be willing to compromise their own perceptions a bit. It's the referees world, so it operates by his fundementals laws. Though referees should likewise give due consideration to player...questioning of those laws.

I guess one big difference in my play style from my younger, more argumentative days, is that I don't assume my understanding of how the world works matches the DM's. I tend to ask the DM questions to understand how things work in his world _before_ trying things. "Do I think I'd be able to...?"


			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Was it a campaign or a one shot? Was it a dungeon crawl?



We played free form campaigns. Some of them had plenty of dungeon crawling.


			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> There is a thread on this board that includes stories where the GM flat-out broke the rules in order to kill off characters (or at least certain aspects of characters). There are others where players have problems because the GM keeps changing the rules under their feet. And these exist when there IS a more-or-less stable ruleset.



Yep. Those problems occur no matter how heavy your ruleset is. So, a heavy ruleset appears to not be a solution to those problems. 

I've certainly shared such concerns about free form style, even (or maybe especially) using just a free form magic system in an otherwise more structured system. In practice, however, I've found free form games or elements to not be significantly more subject to such problems.

I'm not saying free form is the one true way. Heck, the majority of the games I've played have _not_ been heavily free form, and I don't expect that to change. Although, these days the way I run any system leans a bit more towards a free form style.

Free form may not work for everyone or for every group, but I think there are a lot of groups that it _would_ work for if they'd give it a try.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 17, 2004)

Here's another pitfall.  The variety of choices at higher level.  Does it need to be so unnecessarily complex?

For example, a 5th level wizard vs. a 20th level wizard.  10 spells vs. 50 spells to choose from.  This isn't factoring the exponential effect of magic items (staves, wands, scrolls, and miscellaneous magic).


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 18, 2004)

ashockney said:
			
		

> Here's another pitfall.  The variety of choices at higher level.  Does it need to be so unnecessarily complex?



Certainly it doesn't have to be so complex; as I mentioned before, you can play a superhero game, like Mutants & Masterminds -- where everyone is quite powerful -- without the minutia of high-level D&D.

In many ways, D&D expects players to wield lots of weak magic.  Magic item costs aren't linear, but exponential, making multiple weak items less expensive than one powerful item.  Spellcasters increase the number of spells they can cast per day, not just the power of the spells they can and do cast.  And so on.

In contrast, a typical superhero only has a handful of tricks, often just variations on a single theme (fire, ice, whatever), but he's powerful nonetheless.  (On the other hand, some heroes, of course, have a utility belt full of tricks...)


----------



## ashockney (Jul 21, 2004)

So, I've finished a little project that this thread got me started on. 

I went to the SRD.

I mapped out every combat action, racial modifier, class modifier, feat modifier, spell modifier, and magic item modifier.

916 for those keeping score at home.  I've not double checked it (or tryed to combine modifiers for simplicity).  That's still to come.

From this, I believe I'll be able to build the Dungeons and Dragons SRD combat formula, with the appropriate number of options under each variable. 

Yep, I know I'm a nerd.  Like you're not.  

From this, the formula can hopefully be simplified.

Any thoughts?  Any interest?


----------



## ashockney (Jul 21, 2004)

Well, here's a quick rundown:

18 steps to combat in Dungeons and Dragons.

4 initial steps (determined once at the beginning of combat).

Each combatant must take up to 14 steps to resolve their turn.  

Each of the 14 combat steps has up to 7 sources for modifiers.

Each source may have multiple "types" of modifiers, which may or may not apply, depending upon the "stacking" rules for types of modifiers.

Each source has a modifier "range" from -9 to +25.

Just add them all up, multiply when necessary, and conduct probability rolls to determine the outcome of each of the 14 steps, for each combatant, until the combat is resolved.

Simple.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jul 21, 2004)

What is it that you intend to do with these numbers?


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 21, 2004)

The problem I see with a 'grand unification' formula is that it actually _*adds*_ complexity.

 Yes, all those options exist...but it is rare for a greater majority of them to be in actual use or even available.  Only the archers care about the archery modifiers, for example, so now you're doing checks for modifiers that don't apply for all non-archers.  Reverse that for Power Attack.  Some are precomputed, like Improved Initiative.  Some are only used in limited situaitons, such as cleaving.

 You'd need a giant causality tree, I think.  And then you're getting closer and closer to Rolemaster territory.


----------



## Elric (Jul 21, 2004)

High level D&D is a grueling, grueling game.  Let me just give an example from a recent adventure:

The party (only 3 of us, plus the Paladin’s horse) is fighting a group of Rakhasha fighters and a Rakhasha mage.  We are 16th level.  With haste, the fighter types have 5-6 (my monk) attacks/round.  Even worse, my monk has a ton of martial arts feats (Hold the Line, Defensive Throw, Great Throw and more) that result in even more attack and opposed rolls.  The Rakhashas have DR 15/good and piercing.  Most of our weapons are not good and piercing.  When the Paladin hits with his holy evil-outsider bane sword, he has to roll the actual sword damage separately to see if it exceeds 15, then subtract DR and roll the 4d6’s of extra damage.  Then the horse has its attacks which have Poison and more Holy Damage to make things even longer.  Factoring the DR into damage was a huge pain and made the fight much longer in real-time.  When each round takes so much time, enemies who have DR to keep them alive are just exhausting.

My character is typed and has all of his bonuses to everything listed- this helps keep bonus types in check (did I include high ground in my attack bonus?  What’s my plus on trip attempts etc.).  I have stopped rolling damage for my monk because  2d8 + 2d6 holy gets to be far too much rolling and adding for the benefit (since I only crit on a 20, almost all of my attacks do similar amounts of damage).  I understand that things like Sneak Attack and Holy Swords aren’t doubled on crits, but life would be a lot easier if these bonuses were just numbers and less dice were rolled per attack (increasing the number of dice decreases the chance to deviate from the mean anyway).

Choices are overrated.  Consider the book of exalted deeds.  Spellcasters who can spontaneously cast sanctified spells take forever to play in combat because you can always look up spells until you find an exceedingly powerful spell that is good under the circumstances.  After you do this for a while it gets quicker because you kind of know which spell to use, but you have so many choices that you still have to look things up.  Keeping track of spells cast, choosing spells, and buying magic items is not a quick process.  Finding the lowest marginal cost route for your magic items, for example, requires you to do a calculation for the relative effectiveness of your magic items that provide similar benefits and to search out all of the different bonuses that you can find.

Let me make it clear that I don’t find any of this to be incredibly difficult.  I am good at math so adding up separate bonuses, summing damage, and calculating price:benefit on magic items is not hard.  At the moment, I don’t enjoy it all that much and want more of a beer and pretzels kind of game.  Concerns for balance and having an effective character necessitate a lot of this, but I find that D&D has become too much of an arms race where the real loser is brevity.  I want fights to be quick in real time.  In D&D, the vast majority of fights are relatively major and important because the game would bog down too much if you had a fight for an hour against mooks who can’t really threaten you at all.  The fights, by sheer real-time duration, overshadow the rest of the game.  When your main purpose for gaming is to have a good time with friends, this much wargaming becomes disruptive.  

My solution is Mutants and Masterminds.  One of the other players introduced the rest of the group to it and I really love its simplicity, ease of play and general awesomeness.  It doesn’t pretend that its system can be completely balanced but is well balanced for a pure point based system.  Combat under the standard rules is very non-lethal, so the fights are at low stakes.  The game (at least in my group) lends itself to light comedy and no one takes it too seriously (there’s little incentive to build the uber-PC).  In M&M weapons are all the same- you can customize them from there.  You are free of the Greatsword, Unarmed, or ‘weapon you have a prestige class for’ set of options.  Pick a weapon, add its powers, describe it however you want.  Hero points in M&M lends itself to a lot of creativity.  You’re a superhero- you have a few set powers and can try a lot more on rare occasions.  Combat is quick, has high variance (that can be controlled using hero/villain points for big fights), and you only get 1 attack a round.  I’d highly recommend it and I don’t read comics/watch Justice League or anything.  To back up mmadsen, Mutants and Masterminds is a great way to do epic play.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 22, 2004)

Elric said:
			
		

> I’d highly recommend it and I don’t read comics/watch Justice League or anything. To back up mmadsen, Mutants and Masterminds is a great way to do epic play.



 That's OK, I'd take your recommendation, even with that handicap. 

 Mutants & Masterminds is an excellent system, one of the best put to paper, in my opinion.  But I don't see it as a good substitute for high-level play in D&D.  M&M sacrifices some things for speed and ease of playability, which is one of it's strengths....but those sacrifices also remove cetain options from play.  My players like M&M a lot, but they're not likely to give up the characters they built from 1st to 23rd level just for that purpose.  Having to factor a few bonuses just isn't that much work, for us.

 High-level play doesn't have to be grueling.  If you'd like some suggestions on how to make it easier and speed it up, I can direct you to several threads where I and several others offer some pointers.  My most recent combat, with 6 23rd level characters taking on two CR 25 creatures, didn't take that long.  Heck, I had a combat with 250 githyanki warriors, 25 duthka-gith (half-red dragon gith), 4 blackguard gith knights with red dragon steeds, two half-red dragon astral dreadnaughts, four CR 20 gith ghost warriors, four mid-level gith spellcasters and two high-level gith lich spellcasters against those same PCs, a few levels ago....and that combat didn't take that long, either.  It can be done.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 22, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I had a combat with 250 githyanki warriors, 25 duthka-gith (half-red dragon gith), 4 blackguard gith knights with red dragon steeds, two half-red dragon astral dreadnaughts, four CR 20 gith ghost warriors, four mid-level gith spellcasters and two high-level gith lich spellcasters against those same PCs, a few levels ago....and that combat didn't take that long, either.  It can be done.




Was an epic level spell cast in round 1 that blew them all away? 

How long did it take you, and how did you speed things up while doing justice to the range of options each of the enemies had?  The last big fight we ran (party of 6, average 10th level, vs equivalent level druid, barbarian, dire bear and 8 large spiders took 2 hours on its own.


----------



## Funksaw (Jul 22, 2004)

For the life of me, I have no idea why Dungeons and Dragons wasn't developed with the ease of use and character creation as, say, the similarly class based Feng Shui. 

Damn.  Now I have to write up a conversion.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 22, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Was an epic level spell cast in round 1 that blew them all away?
> 
> How long did it take you, and how did you speed things up while doing justice to the range of options each of the enemies had? The last big fight we ran (party of 6, average 10th level, vs equivalent level druid, barbarian, dire bear and 8 large spiders took 2 hours on its own.



 Nope. No epic level spells came into play....the party was 18th through 20th level.  But shapeable fire storms do terrible amounts of damage, for a start.  Summoned Elder elementals and elemental swarms certainly don't hurt, nor do appreciable application of Maze spells.  You'd be amazed how fast a high-level party can clear the field.  Super powerful turns (of which the cleric has 16 greater, 15 lesser) help deal with undead AND outsiders, super capable archers can drop tons of lesser troops with lightning precision.  High-powered rogues can gut an entire crew of an astral flier so quickly and stealthily that four opponents haven't even hit the floor before the sole remaining crewman, the captain, has a chance to notice.

 There are lots of things we do to speed up combat, many of which I'm sure you've heard of doing in other threads.  Pre-rolling, rolling damage at the same time, keeping players aprised that their turn is coming up and making sure they know their action and relevant information....and we don't even 'pay the pig'. 

 The two biggest necessities?  Trust your players and let it go.  That assumes, of course, that your players rock.  Mine do.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 22, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Nope. No epic level spells came into play....the party was 18th through 20th level.  But shapeable fire storms do terrible amounts of damage, for a start.  Summoned Elder elementals and elemental swarms certainly don't hurt, nor do appreciable application of Maze spells.  You'd be amazed how fast a high-level party can clear the field.  Super powerful turns (of which the cleric has 16 greater, 15 lesser) help deal with undead AND outsiders, super capable archers can drop tons of lesser troops with lightning precision.  High-powered rogues can gut an entire crew of an astral flier so quickly and stealthily that four opponents haven't even hit the floor before the sole remaining crewman, the captain, has a chance to notice.
> 
> There are lots of things we do to speed up combat, many of which I'm sure you've heard of doing in other threads.  Pre-rolling, rolling damage at the same time, keeping players aprised that their turn is coming up and making sure they know their action and relevant information....and we don't even 'pay the pig'.
> 
> The two biggest necessities?  Trust your players and let it go.  That assumes, of course, that your players rock.  Mine do.



 My impression is that high level d20 required dedicated players who have "mastered" the rules vs more casual players.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jul 22, 2004)

And there it is. IMX, math in high-level D&D isn't a problem unless 1) your players don't feel like doing the work OR 2) you don't trust them to do it. I know that in previous editions, I assumed the role of an utter control freak, keeping all applicable modifiers totaled on a separate party summary with complete "stat blocks" for each PC, and even rolling damage instead of my players doing so. Then I relaxed, and let the players figure out all applicable modifiers. Guess what? The game got terrifically easy for me. A player rolls, does his _own_ math, and tells me what the result was; I compare it to the applicable AC or DC, and it's either a success or failure. Easy-peasy. 

And yes, there are applicable and inapplicable modifiers for every situation, and yes, the number of modifiers can be huge. What you need is an iterative process for determining what applies. In general, though, I find that the vast majority of modifiers to rolls apply across the board to all situations, once the effects that generate those modifiers are in place. The only ones I can think of that change from moment to moment are:

1) Cover bonuses
2) Circumstance bonuses/penalties
3) Alignment-based bonuses/penalties, and those rarely IMX, since IMC, most combats are good vs. evil
4) Favored enemy bonuses

Those are pretty easy to deal with, IMX.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 22, 2004)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Then I relaxed, and let the players figure out all applicable modifiers. Guess what? The game got terrifically easy for me. A player rolls, does his _own_ math, and tells me what the result was; I compare it to the applicable AC or DC, and it's either a success or failure. Easy-peasy.



 Give that man a Ceegar!  They don't need to have mastered the rules any more than casual players...but they do need to be actively playing and helping things along.  I rarely keep a creature's AC a secret more than a round or so...with six PCs, they can usually narrow the range very quickly.  "_Let's see, I hit three times, getting a 44, 40 and 36, but missing on a 32 and 31....well, that narrows it down, some._"

 I don't bother tracking all the bonuses the PCs have...they can take care of that.  "_Did you remember to add the bonus from Prayer?_"  "_Hey, aren't you blinking?_"  I respect and trust my players.  

 I wouldn't consider it expecting rules mastery to read a spell description ahead of time and compute the DC of your spell, ready to report it when asked.  I don't consider it a lot to ask to expect a PC to know his attack bonuses prior to proximate factors or what his ranges and other relevant information are.  I'd expect that at 1st level, 5th level or 20th level.  Players don't suddenly wake up and find themselves with three more iterative attacks one day...they've developed into them, generally.  Asking someone who's played a rogue for 5, 10, 15 or 20 levels about when he can use his sneak attack and how much they do isn't unreasonable, I don't think.

 High-level play isn't about pulling tight on the reins, IMHO, but about letting the PCs drive the game with you.  It's a social and cooperative game.  Looking to the other folks around the table to help keep the game moving is a wise thing.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 22, 2004)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Then I relaxed, and let the players figure out all applicable modifiers. Guess what? The game got terrifically easy for me. A player rolls, does his _own_ math, and tells me what the result was; I compare it to the applicable AC or DC, and it's either a success or failure. Easy-peasy.




That's great if you're 1) Not playing with young players.  2) Not playing with new players who don't understand all the rules yet.  3) Not playing with players who don't care to remember all the correct rules when it comes time to re-calculate their mods due to a Dispel Magic, a foe with special rules, etc. or 4) Not playing with old senile players who forget which can of Mountain Dew is theirs (guilty   ), let alone what amount of BAB they assigned to Power Attack two minutes ago when it was their turn in the round.

I'm glad your players are together enough to learn and remember all the rules.  Some of us aren't so lucky.  All it takes it 1 player sitting at the table who's not willing or able to do that and the DM is stuck with checking/re-checking every number whenever situational modifiers pop up.

Personally, I don't LIKE that the game requires that sort of commitment to rules knowledge from the players.  What kind of barrier to entry is that?  When I started playing with Moldvay Basic, someone handed me a character and told me what to roll for the first hour.  By the end of that hour, I knew all I needed to about the rules in order to "be a good player".  Now in order to "be a good player" by your definition I need not only an encyclopedic knowledge of the PHB, but also several sections of the DMG.  That's not something you learn in one hour WHILE HAVING FUN GAMING!


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jul 22, 2004)

True, Ourph, very true. However, I think that D&D is only really so grueling at high levels and if you purposely introduce a great deal of complexity. In the cases that you mention, I would a) start the game at 1st level and go very slowly through lower levels (perhaps increasing the XP required for level advancement; b) completely remove some of the more complicated rules, such as AoOs; and/or c) reduce the number of bonus/penalty types available. There is no question that allowing your players to assume some of the responsibility assumes that your players have the ability and willingness to assume that responsibility. However, I also find that this leads to more satisfying gaming, as the game becomes less the dictatorial bailiwick of the DM and more of a collaborative process. 

Note that I have a very simple means of dealing with forgetful players: If you don't remember a modifier or rules exception, and it hurts you, that's your problem. If you "forget" something that ends up helping you, my honor system kicks in: Players are obligated to pull their own weight and to help out less experienced or more scatterbrained players to deal with issues, and it's simply expected that if you forget something to your advantage, you let me know afterwards and make sure not to do it again. I don't find this a problem at all. I _would_ find it a problem if I DM-ed a tournament game where I didn't know the players, and they didn't know each other, but I'm fortunate enough to play with friends.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 22, 2004)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> True, Ourph, very true. However, I think that D&D is only really so grueling at high levels and if you purposely introduce a great deal of complexity. In the cases that you mention, I would a) start the game at 1st level and go very slowly through lower levels (perhaps increasing the XP required for level advancement; b) completely remove some of the more complicated rules, such as AoOs; and/or c) reduce the number of bonus/penalty types available.




All very good suggestions.  The main problem comes in when you have a mixed group of players.  When I was running 3e I had several players who were completely "with it" as far as the rules were concerned.  They knew their stats, knew their abilities and generally knew when certain modifiers did and didn't apply.  I had a younger player who started out with the problems of a noob and eventually graduated to being fairly rules conversant but still not as expert as some of the older more experienced players.  I had at least two of the "can't be bothered" type players and one who meant well, but would forget where he put his character sheet between rounds.  If I changed the game enough to make it workable for the not so "with it" players, the responsible, informed players would have resented playing a dumbed down version of the game.  Therein lies the problem.  There is a tremendous range of possible rules savvy players can achieve in 3e D&D.  Some other games (D20 games included) have a much narrower range of rules expertise attainable by the players, making a mixed group such as mine more compatible.  Though I've never gotten a chance to play it, Mutants & Masterminds seems to me (after a thorough reading) to be a good example of what I'm talking about.



> There is no question that allowing your players to assume some of the responsibility assumes that your players have the ability and willingness to assume that responsibility. However, I also find that this leads to more satisfying gaming, as the game becomes less the dictatorial bailiwick of the DM and more of a collaborative process.




Me too!  If I could figure out how to clone responsible, intelligent rules-knowledgeable players who always show up on time, always bathe before the game and bring munchies or pizza money I'd be rolling in it!    

Unfortunately, the men in black suits took away the Spaarti cylinders last month and told me not to make any more.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 22, 2004)

Correct.  That rules knowledge, even for beginners, is only required at high levels.  3rd level characters aren't tossing around tons of spells, loaded with lots of feats or magic items.  New players shouldn't be playing at levels where this should be an issue.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 22, 2004)

I've got my fingers crossed that Castles & Crusades will solve a ton of my problems with D20 D&D.  It's OGL so it can have it's own character creation rules and not require a PHB allowing it to get away from the 3.xe "mindset" or philosophy if you will. Plus it's supposed to be fairly compatible with AD&D to boot.  I'm pumped.  Shorter books with less crap in them.  Yay!  

I just hope they don't lose thier original vision and go and try to re-invent the wheel like a few of the people who playtest have suggested on thier boards.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 22, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Correct.  That rules knowledge, even for beginners, is only required at high levels.  3rd level characters aren't tossing around tons of spells, loaded with lots of feats or magic items.  New players shouldn't be playing at levels where this should be an issue.




So if you were incorporating a new player into an existing campaign you would...

1) Start the campaign over at 1st level?
2) Make the new player play a 1st level character no matter what the average level of the existing players in your campaign is?
3) Play a completely separate game with the new guy until he learned the rules?

Again, mixed groups are the norm IME and none of those options seem appealing to me.

Also, I've started new players at 1st level, and there's still a very steep learning curve for 3rd edition.  I know you can always give people pregens for character generation or have them go with the class packages in the PHB, but no new player is going to want to limit themselves like that forever.  So their choice is to play a character they've had no hand in customizing or get familiar with ~160 pages of rules PDQ.  That's a tall order for a 10 year old, even WITH help.


----------



## Funksaw (Jul 23, 2004)

I think that there is a call and a market for a highly simplified version of D&D which *is* playable as a full game (unlike the D&D adventure boxes) and where math takes a back seat to action and having fun.  

That is not to say that the "regular" D&D market would buy it.  D&D players tend to like crunch rather than fluff, tend to prefer tactics to roleplaying - that is not to say that they won't or don't roleplay - but that D&D tends to facilitate and spend more time and detail on the mechanics of system and tactics rather than roleplaying.  

Indeed, I'd like to see the continued support of D&D 3.5 as a main line, and a second, smaller break-away line for those who like D&D's setting or presumptions but just want to set up action-packed adventures and intreguing stories.  It would also increase sales for D&D settings, such as Eberron, which are nice, but are tied too strongly to the mechanics to be useable on it's face by GMs who are turned off by the "math" of D&D.  

Indeed, I do like the idea of a return to the "Basic D&D/Advanced D&D" dichotomy - there's a significant market for rules-light gaming.


----------



## Luvin Lt. Fingers (Jul 25, 2004)

Deimodius said:
			
		

> Well, can you be more specific about the math to which you refer?
> 
> I am currently playing an 18th level Cleric. In order to speed things up, I have pre-calculated the affect of all buff spells (and in their various stackig combinations) on his stats, so that whne the time comes, I don't have to sit there and figure out To Hit, Damage, AC and Ability bonuses, etc.
> 
> ...




We have an engineer in our game too.  The guy is a genius, and we both have minors in math.  D&D is basic algebra and it keeps the mind sharp, plus most any situation in the game can be solved with simple dice rolls.  Math is power (hey, you should see how much fun I have adding up all that sneak attack damage!).


----------



## ashockney (Jul 31, 2004)

Funksaw said:
			
		

> D&D players tend to like crunch rather than fluff, tend to prefer tactics to roleplaying.
> 
> Indeed, I'd like to see the continued support of D&D 3.5 as a main line, and a second, smaller break-away line for those who like D&D's setting or presumptions but just want to set up action-packed adventures and intreguing stories.




I would like to see us take D&D to a new level, which would allow for the "common gamer" to reach 40th level (ala Neverwinter Nights).  

We CAN do it.  I've found at least one way (with many, many thanks to everyone who posted thoughts and ideas on this thread.

Other pitfalls?  Other recommendations?  What would you like to see?


----------



## Quickleaf (Jun 29, 2005)

Great thread, everyone! Just finished reading everything. Ashockney, thanks for playing "moderator"!

*FIRST: My Recommendations*
These recommendations are to help with several of the pitfalls discussed in this thread.

1. Design a simple mass combat system. This system must provide a way for both large-scale wars and also small groups of PCs against overwhelming forces. 
_(helps reduce the pitfall of too many rolls)_

2. Eliminate Hit Points in favor of a UA Damage Save Mechanic or Mutants & Masterminds style wounds. At the very least, create a "Mook" system for minions which allows them to be dispatched in a single blow, thereby eliminating the need for a GM to keep track of so many hit points. 
_(reduces the pitfalls of too much record keeping)_

3. Eliminate feats/spells/or magic items which provide modifiers. In other words, reduce the number of modifier sources in the game. For example, a GM could eliminate feats like _dodge_ or _weapon focus_ which provide adjustments to a roll. I think that eliminating spells and magic items like _shield_ or _strength_ would greatly reduce the number of modifiers, though it would create a different feel to magic (and require new spells to replace the eliminated ones). Above all, a "Master Table" of situational modifiers should be included as a guideline for GMs to create their own modifiers. 
_(helps to reduce the pitfalls of too many modifiers)_

4. Eliminate most initiative rolls by using the SNAP system. 
_(again, reduces the pitfalls of too much rolling)_

5. Provide an action point-integrated method for allowing players narrative control. In many games, the GM has final say on modifiers or DCs; this attempts to return some power to players. The Adventure d20 rules provide some good options. In a more narrative game, allowing the players to narrate the results of their investigation based on a new "Clue Roll" system might work. In addition, players could have the option of sacrificing damage on their attacks to dictate special effects.
_(helps to overcome 2 pitfalls - (1) players feeling their GMs have too much powers, and (2) combat feels to dry and lacking in suitably suspenseful & amazing stunts)_

6. Limit each character to 1 attack roll per round. This requires re-working the move action/full action rules. One possibility is allowing 1 roll to be made for multiple attacks. Another possibility is providing new rules which allow a player to take advantage of their environment to create modifiers for themselves. Obviously combat-centric classes would need a little extra boost to compensate for the loss of multiple attacks. More high-level fighter feats would be appropriate, as would be providing class abilities to high-level warriors like "size up your opponent" or  "conceal weapon".
_(helps reduce the amount of dice rolling and quickens the tempo of combat)_

7. Create more clearly/better defined rules for non-combat situations in d20. Great examples include _Hot Pursuits_ guide to chases, and _Dynasties & Demagogues_ guide to debates. Skills should be given much more uses (e.g. what about using Bluff to feign death or to get a villain to gloat?), and Diplomacy especially would be revised. Investigation montages (from the M&M adventure _Church & State_) would be incorporated into the "core rules".
_(Allows a GM more options in planning an adventure. Rather than planning combat tactics, a GM could record chase tactics, debate tactics, or detail an investigation. This encourages players to try other tactics beyond combat, seeing that there are rules for them.)_

8. Provide clear examples of a scaled "Role-Playing Standard." In other words, you decide if your group is Hack-n-Slashers, Adventurers, or Method Actors. Then, finding the appropriate section in the rules book, you would be given examples of what sorts of modifiers (bonuses & penalties) are appropriate for a player's detailed description. 
_(This would clear up confusion and player-GM debate when a player wants to try something the "rules wouldn't otherwise let them do". In this case, the rules would provide examples of how a GM could reasonably handle the situation.)_

*SECOND: Rules Should be Modular*

I think Ourph states a really important point.... What kind of game you run depends on the type of players, the trust between GM and players, and whether everyone is more interested in tactical or narrative gaming. 

I would find it very helpful if a new version of D&D provided more modularity to the rules, rather than stated "these are the rules." I think any RPG should be treated like a supplement (even the so-called "core rules") from which a GM can pick and choose as is appropriate to their group.
I've never seen this written in any rulebook (for any RPG), and I think it is sorely needed. Here is an example of the kinds of guidelines I would find helpful. I will only write up the first  as a model, but I'll include a lengthy list of important topics that I'd like to see covered in any rulebook.

*Players and GM Trust Each Other 100%*
Your gaming group might be old friends who have gamed together for a while. But even then, having total trust between players and the GM is rare. Many consider this to be the ideal gaming group. In this case, the GM can let the players calculate all modifiers for their PCs. Likewise, the players acknowledge and embrace the GM fudging rules for the sake of gameplay. If the group is more focused on tactical simulation, the GM is expected to be open to the players about his or her house rules, and likewise the players are expected to be understanding and avoid bickering. Often such groups find it easy to create house rules on the spot for every situation. GMs need not worry that their ruling appear "inconsistent" because the players put their trust in the GM to apply the same logic next time.
*How do I know if this is my group?* Putting it to a vote is one way to tell. A better indicator is how the group handles a gap in the rules. If a GM is open to a player's argument about modifiers, resolving the debate quickly in order to get on to the game, the GM is showing trust in his/her players. If a player questions the GM only rarely and is willing to accept GM fiat, the player is exhibiting trust in the GM.
*Rules:* In "100%" games, players put their faith in the person of the GM as opposed to the rules. Thus, rules can be modified or changed at will - provide advance notice is given. Rules will often be sacrificed in order for the sake of the genre / theme of the RPG. 
*Players:* Accept the GM's fiat. Should handle determining all modifiers for their PCs, and any cohorts. Encouraged to present house rules for inspection by the GM. No secrets about the character are kept from the GM (i.e. full disclosure). Knowledge the player has but their PC doesn't stays won't impact the PCs' decisions.
*GM:* Acknowledge every rules question/argument the players bring up. Fudging the rules is part of your "job description." Can present new rules to the group in between game sessions. Dice rolls are made in the open. Doesn't need to hide information from the players (e.g. no GM screen is needed).

*Players and GM More Interested In Narration Than Tactical Simulation*

*Senile Players Who Can't Remember Which Can of Mountain Dew Is Theirs*

*Adult GM Runs Game For Young Players*

*Everyone Is New To Gaming*

*Experienced GM Runs Game For Mostly Newbies*

*First Time Playing Together (e.g. Convention Game)*

*Running A Game For Split-Up PCs*


P.S. And Ashockney, since I know you're going to ask... I DMed up until 15th level in AD&D, then switched to 3e until 17th level.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 29, 2005)

Basic math is fine. It is algebra that I hate.


----------



## ashockney (Jun 29, 2005)

Quickleaf, thank you for your participation in this topic.  I hope this will be something looked at by the many designers who are out here on the boards, as we look at our next edition.  I think you've done a nice job of providing some great credits to other companies that can provide very complementary rules.  

Seeing this thread was a terrific blast from the past.  It was about a year ago, that it came up!  Origins is coming up again, and this year, I have a new system I've developed (in part, highlighted by the things on this thread).  I'll be playtesting it in two different games, listed under Myrik Games.  I hope to see some of you at Origins this year.  I'll let you know how it works out.

Thanks again to everyone who participated in this dialogue.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 29, 2005)

ashockney said:
			
		

> More options, more actions, more dice, more modifiers...
> 
> Here's a great example from Origins: A fighter/rogue with Expert Tactician, 4d6 sneak attack, a holy weapon, and Greater Invisibility, (Mass) Haste, and had drunk a potion of Bull's Strength.  Wielding a keen falchion with improved crit.  Now, her bonuses to hit were pre-calc'd with bull's str, but not the +1 from haste (from party), or the +2 from fighting invis, or the +2 if she could get flanking.  The attack routine could be anywhere from one - four depending upon movement, haste, and expert tactician.  If she hit, she has a 45% chance of threatening.  For each hit, she deals 2d4+8 damage per swing +4d6 sneak +2d6 holy (what multiplies)?  At the end of this little routine, the cleric reminded them that they just cast prayer for another +1 to hit and damage to each roll. (Rolling to hit required up to 8 rolls with up to six modifiers, and damage required rolling and adding up 8 dice per attack times 4 attacks + with up to seven modifiers per attack).




That's mostly _not math_. Its mostly _lots of dice_. This isn't that hard to do either.

The bonuses you listed to hit are simple to work with - they are adding 1s and 2s. I'm not sure how that becomes "difficult math". Or even "a lot of math". His attack roll, with _haste_, _prayer_, flanking and invisible adds +6 to his normal roll.

For the criticals, the rule has always been that extra dice of damage don't multiply, everything else does. So, on a critical, he deals 4d4+18 (because _prayer_ adds to damage) +6d6 (sneak attack plus holy damage). Now, that's a lot of dice, but not a lot of math.

I use a house rule that if you forget to add in a modifier and don't remember until later, you don't get to go back and add it back in. It is a self-imposed penalty. Remember next time.


----------



## Psion (Jun 29, 2005)

I don't hate math. I hate accounting.

If you are holding your breath that the designer of the next editions are taking notes on this thread, I would say that chopping out character options is the _wrong_ way to go about it. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater AFAIAC.

If there is one thing that would speed up high level play, it would be a mechanical change that would minimize accounting. To wit: do away with iterative attacks.

Iterative attacks are, IME, the bane of game flow at high level. IME, character options that Quickbeam wants to throw out with the bathwater actually speed play by producing effective means of neutralizing enemies.

But tracking 3 or 4 different numbers every time your turn comes up is a pain in the butt. It's like the storyteller hit/dodge/damage/soak thing all over again. Lost of rolls, lots of adding, lots of numbers that are easily lost track of.

Even giving the players a single number that they consistently add to all rolls would be a significant improvement -- then the dice become the record (which works for d20 since there is only one dice roll.... storyteller is frelled because you need to have too many dice and associated them so you couldn't use dice to keep records.)

In my high level games, I get around this by haking characters keep a scratch pad and adding their numbers up once or jotting it on the battlemat. But it's just a workaround.


----------



## glass (Jun 29, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> A Rogue with bracers of armor +3, Dex 18, ring of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +2, the Dodge and Mobility feats and fighting defensively.  The Rogue moves through the threatened squares of a wraith and an invisible fighter wielding a longsword; ends his movement next to a Cleric holding an inflict light wounds spell in his hand and tries to initiate a grapple.  The rogue has declared his Dodge vs. the Cleric.
> 
> What is his AC vs. each opponent for the AoOs he provokes?




21 vs the cleric for the grapple.

20 vs the fighter for the movement.

19 vs the wraith for the movement.

_EDIT: Well, those are completely wrong. I missed that Mobility was a Dodge bonus, that the character was fighting defensively, and that the cleric was using an on-hand spell for his AoO. But, the point still stands -the arithmetic was not a problem, I just misremembered what certain abilities did, and misread the post. If this were actually my character I would have all that info on hand, and would be tumbling anyway._


Done in my head in virtually no more time than it took to read your post. I haven't looked anything up, so it's possible I have missremember something somewhere along the line, but that has nothing to do with the difficulty of the arithmetic (or lack thereof).

_EDIT: I should say, I am all in favour of streamlining high level D&D, as long as it doesn't involve throwing the baby out with the bath water. High level D&D is complicated, but it doesn't have any maths._

glass.


----------



## glass (Jun 29, 2005)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> The game would be simpler if there were only so many modifiers. Each of them would get a space on the character sheet. The short description of spells would always include the modifer type for ease of reference.




Well said.


glass.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 29, 2005)

I've played up to 16th and 17th before and we just started a campaign that is plotted out 'til 20th. It's no harder keeping track of various modifiers than it is at, say, fifth level. It all comes down to organization. 

For example, I know the standard attacks I'll be doing and the feats I have. I know what bonuses are operating all the time and so I go ahead and add them in on the weapon line. Currently I have a BAB of +0, str mod of +4 to hit and damage, a masterwork weapon for +1 to hit, and I have the feat Wpn Focus for that weapon. On the weapon line all it says is +6 hit. Surely there are not people recalculating all that stuff each time?

Probably the confusion also comes in from a spellcaster, usually a bard or cleric, that isn't clear on what their spells do and cannot effectively tell people what to add.


----------



## SweeneyTodd (Jun 29, 2005)

There are tons of games that are less math- and accounting- intensive. Honestly Hero, GURPS, and Exalted are the only games I can think of in the same complexity level as 3.x. I found it overwhelming as a player with 3.0 and no expansions -- I wouldn't even touch it now.

There's nothing bad or good about level of mathematical involvement in a system, just preference. I do think that a fair amount of people playing D&D would prefer less math. Some people, though, heck, that's half the reason they play, calculating up the odds and figuring out complex tactics.

As for less math-intensive systems for fantasy roleplaying, off the top of my head there's True20, Castles&Crusades, Burning Wheel, The Shadow of Yesterday, FATE, The Riddle of Steel, etc. Some of these have different base assumptions than others, given that there's a lot of non-"D&D-like" fantasy out there. All of these are discussed fairly often on RPG.net.


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 29, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I've played up to 16th and 17th before and we just started a campaign that is plotted out 'til 20th. It's no harder keeping track of various modifiers than it is at, say, fifth level. It all comes down to organization.
> 
> ...[snip]...
> 
> Probably the confusion also comes in from a spellcaster, usually a bard or cleric, that isn't clear on what their spells do and cannot effectively tell people what to add.




Speaking as someone who DMs a group of six 25th-level characters, I can assure it gets exponentially harder to account for EVERY bonus under EVERY situation as time goes on.

A running gag in our game is this: Paladin attacks creature. Paladin then runs down the list: Is it evil? Is it an Outsider? Is it Chaotic? Is it resistant to fire? Does it criticals?

When you have dozens of spell-effects from multiple items, monsters powers, spells and a littany of class abilities, it's a question of context. The issue isn't the individual, it's the collective whole. The actual math isn't the problem, as Psion said...it's the accounting. Keeping track of all the data is the problem with high-level play, IMHO, not the adding of the actual numbers.

The problem compounds when you have multiple similar effects, and sometimes it's unclear how they interact. Are you within 20' of Bob? Then you have SR32, unless you're chaotic, then you only get SR21, but that's superseded by your class benefit of SR25. But which comes first, your spell-based SR, bob's item that gives SR or the SR you get from your class ability (but that only works against outsiders)? Which insight bonus do you have that's the greatest...oh wait, that's not an insight bonus, it's a competence bonus...or is it a luck bonus? Hold it: it's nameless, so it stacks.

And so on, and so forth.


----------



## Silverleaf (Jun 29, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> This is why I refuse to DM 3.x any longer.  If I have to use a spreadsheet to keep track of stuff while running, that sort of turns what should be "fun" into "work" AFAIC.
> 
> When running Warhammer or Basic D&D I need 1 rulebook, my DM's screen, some dice, a pencil and either a published adventure or a few pages of hand-written notes.  That's it.
> 
> So yeah, put me in the "I hate math (while gaming)" camp.




That's pretty much it for me.  I don't mind math per se, it's a tool and an indispensable one for certain tasks.  But when I play D&D, I want to delve and remain into a fantasy world for several hours, not play accounting 101 or remedial arithmetic.  All those modifiers, stacking bonuses, special cases, move/countermove and precalculated task resolution stuff just gets in my way, and waste a lot of time.


----------



## Silverleaf (Jun 29, 2005)

Luvin Lt. Fingers said:
			
		

> We have an engineer in our game too.  The guy is a genius, and we both have minors in math.  D&D is basic algebra and it keeps the mind sharp, plus most any situation in the game can be solved with simple dice rolls.  Math is power (hey, you should see how much fun I have adding up all that sneak attack damage!).




I design & code software, of all sorts, for various OS's.  That's what I do all day long at work (and in much of my free time too), and others look up to me when they need help to solve problems.  It's sometimes fun, sometimes frustrating, sometimes rewarding and fulfilling.  Invariably though I spend a great deal of my time banging my head against brick walls until I break through them.  I'm not particularly bright, or dumb.  But I'm tenacious, and computers have always "clicked" with me ever since I touched an 8-bit CP/M micro at age 9.  Those are the systems I enjoy figuring out and making them dance to my tune.  That is my purpose, if there ever was one.
But I play D&D to get away from that, to take a break.  Much in the same way as I read comic books or watch movies.  I don't read the latest Heavy Metal and try to stat out the protagonists in Bilal's latest graphic novel.  That stuff gets in the way of the story, the fantasy.  And using a D&D session as an workout for the math part of the brain is much the same.  D&D is better left as an excercise of imagination and creativity, using the rules only at the most basic level.  Unfortunately 3e has made this rather difficult, so I play a house-ruled version of Basic/Expert...


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 29, 2005)

Some people like to couch this as a battle between those who like (and are good at) math, and those who dislike (and are bad at) math.  Many of us here though, like (and are good at) math, but don't want to dwell on arithmetic minutia either during a game or in order to prepare for the game.

A complicated mathematic model is _not_ necessarily a more accurate (or "realistic") model -- especially when you have human arbiters around to make nuanced assessments without resorting to inflexible lists of modifiers.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 29, 2005)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> A complicated mathematic model is _not_ necessarily a more accurate (or "realistic") model -- especially when you have human arbiters around to make nuanced assessments without resorting to inflexible lists of modifiers.




And that's why Space Opera failed and D&D survived.  As far as the math goes, d20 is pretty darn simple.


----------



## Silverleaf (Jun 29, 2005)

Zappo said:
			
		

> I've found that high-level games are slower because of the wider range of options available to the players, not because of the math. What should I cast this round? What special attack should I use? The math is just adding one and two; the time it takes is irrelevant. Personally, I hardly call it math.
> 
> The real time is spent in making choices. Some people would point to other systems, such as OD&D, and say that they work faster. I answer: duh, of course. If a fighter can only whack, whack and whack again, it's fairly obvious that the game is faster. The players simply don't have to think. If that's desirable for you, good. Me, I think that a few extra seconds are a fair price for the beautiful complexity of 3E combat.




That only happens if you take the written rules as unflexible law, and frankly it's not the way OD&D was meant to be played (the DM section in 1981 Basic D&D makes this point quite clear).  Fighters attack yes, but they also sneak around (which is different than move silently/hide in shadows), grapple, disarm, tumble under an ogre or giant's legs, snipe with bow/x-bow, swing from chandeliers, and pull down tapestries on top of the BBEG...
The players do have to think, but they don't do so in terms of preset maneuvers or by picking from a menu.  They imagine what their character is going to do, and then we resolve it with a simple, basic mechanic.  That is the beautiful simplicity of OD&D combat.


----------



## Silverleaf (Jun 29, 2005)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I find it humorous that a lot of folks don't blink at 3es convoluted math, but bitch about Thac0 being too hard to figure.




Some people do have a problem with THAC0.  But it's okay because there are other options.
Personally I don't like THAC0 or using the attack matrix.  But one day I realised that the attack tables in Basic D&D follow a linear pattern, and you can use a simple equation to figure of if your attack was successful:  d20 + ToHitMod + opponent AC.  If the result is 20 or above, then you hit.  The ToHit modifier is based on class & level (just like BAB in 3e) and I wrote those down next to each class XP chart, so they can be recorded at character creation time & advancement.  The neat thing here is that monsters don't need a ToHit modifier, because it happens to be equal to their hit dice.  One less stat to keep track of, hehe. 
Others who don't like THAC0 have retrofitted the d20 "positive AC" system into their game, and that works fine too, though they have to go change the AC for every monster in the book.  That's why I didn't go that route.


----------



## Andre (Jun 30, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> To wit: do away with iterative attacks.




Agreed. I've been toying with the idea of eliminating iterative attacks and simply adding the attacker's BAB to damage. A high level fighter, therefore, does a lot more damage with a longsword than a mid level wizard does. Which makes a lot of sense to me. 

I can see a number of potential concerns: 
*one blow can quickly take a character to -10 or lower
*AoO's become more powerful
*it doesn't account for creatures with multiple natural attacks
*likewise, it would change the CR of some creatures noticeably, e.g., a Titan loses a lot of melee damage potential
*it makes certain feats/abilities more powerful, e.g., Rapid Shot, Flurry of Blows

I don't think the problems are insurmountable, but it would require playtesting to be sure. What is certain is that it would simplify melee/ranged combat considerably.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 30, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> And that's why Space Opera failed and D&D survived.



I have no idea what that means.


			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> As far as the math goes, d20 is pretty darn simple.



And all the math in tax accounting is pretty darn simple too.


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 30, 2005)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I have no idea what that means.




I'm guessing he's referring to Traveller losing to D&D in a commercial sense.  I think that's grossly oversimplfying things, but I can see some point in it.  iirc, Traveller had some funky mathematics that may have been scientifically accurate but absolutely no fun to use for anyone but a science or math enthusiast.



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> And all the math in tax accounting is pretty darn simple too.



Yeah, but unlike your taxes, D&D and d20 have clear and concise rules that are easy to understand and follow.  Even the most complicated grappling example is much less difficult to decode than figuring out how to depreciate a piece of equipment on your SOHO when you're self-employed and you have to find specific sub-forms...unless you're married, of course, then a different set of rules apply...especially if that spouse is employed and pays taxes in a much different structure than you do.  Try even finding the proper forms on the IRS website;  it's no accident that there's a multimillion dollar industry dedicated to helping you complete your 1040s....whereas the d20 market merely has oodles of books to ADD to the complexity of the game in the form of options.  Other than D&D for Dummies, there really aren't many such materials for the d20 system....that alone shows the difference between the two.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 30, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> it's no accident that there's a multimillion dollar industry dedicated to helping you complete your 1040s....



Well, the cost of tax compliance is multi-*billion* dollars. In 1999 estimates were that $250 *billion* was spent on tax compliance for federal income taxes _alone_.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 30, 2005)

glass said:
			
		

> _But, the point still stands -the arithmetic was not a problem, I just misremembered what certain abilities did, and misread the post._



_

You're right the arithmetic isn't a problem.  It's getting it correct that's the problem.    

Fortunately, it's a problem I haven't had to deal with since just before I made that post last summer.  WFRP and now WFRP v.2 rekindled my enthusiasm for gaming and I can't envision anything that would induce me to go back to all of the unnecessary complexity of 3.x D&D ever again._


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 30, 2005)

> Fighters attack yes, but they also sneak around (which is different than move silently/hide in shadows), grapple, disarm, tumble under an ogre or giant's legs, snipe with bow/x-bow, swing from chandeliers, and pull down tapestries on top of the BBEG...



And how, actually, is this done in earlier D&D?



> They imagine what their character is going to do, and then we resolve it with a simple, basic mechanic.



Again, what is this mechanic in earlier D&D?



> You're right the arithmetic isn't a problem. It's getting it correct that's the problem.
> 
> Fortunately, it's a problem I haven't had to deal with since just before I made that post last summer. WFRP and now WFRP v.2...



Interesting. WFRP doesn't require the Players correctly add and subtract.

Player: "I rolled a 6, add in my +4 bonus, and I get. . . 17!"

GM: "Uh, well, OK. That's good enough. We're playing WFRP tonight, not D&D."

Quasqueton


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 30, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I'm guessing he's referring to Traveller losing to D&D in a commercial sense.  I think that's grossly oversimplfying things, but I can see some point in it.




He's probably referring to the game _Space Opera_, which had some extremely complicated mechanics.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 30, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Interesting. WFRP doesn't require the Players correctly add and subtract.
> 
> Player: "I rolled a 6, add in my +4 bonus, and I get. . . 17!"
> 
> ...




It's usually a good idea to go back and read the entire context of what you're commenting on; unless you're just trying to be an ,which is, I suspect, the case.

And if voicing my preference for a game offends you so much, please feel free to crawl back under your d20 and die.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 30, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Snipped




Well...



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> You're right the arithmetic isn't a problem.  [It's getting it correct that's the problem.]
> 
> Fortunately, [getting arithmetic correct is a] problem I haven't had to deal with since just before I made that post last summer.  WFRP and now WFRP v.2 rekindled my enthusiasm for gaming and I can't envision anything that would induce me to go back to all of the unnecessary complexity of 3.x D&D ever again.




There are two possible ways to read this.

1) When playing Warhammer, getting your arithmetic wrong doesn't matter
2) The math is so gosh darn easy in Warhammer that someone who has a problem with keeping track of "+10 BAB +4 Str +2 Flanking = +16 / +11" in D&D has no problem keeping track of it

Since you didn't specify, nor explain the reasoning behind your comments, assuming you mean  either of them is fair game.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 30, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Since you didn't specify, nor explain the reasoning behind your comments, assuming you mean  either of them is fair game.




If you actually go back and read the example given earlier in the thread, the one Glass kindly quoted for everyone to see in his post, the actual subject of our little exchange, I think Glass's comments and my response will be crystal clear.

Surely a little reading in order to be informed before making a comment isn't beyond the capabilities of someone who apparently doesn't have a problem with the intricacies of D&D's combat rules.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 1, 2005)

D&D does throw around a lot of numbers at high levels. Other systems that don't go into "high levels" don't throw around those bigger numbers, and so are quicker, easier to calculate, etc.

In fact, I think part of the reason we can have convos about how high-level D&D involves a lot of math is purely because they *finally* got High-Level D&D into a form that is playable without resulting to DM caprice....it's the first success, and it does involve a lot of math.

What is "a lot of math" varies from person to person, of course. It definately involves more than low-level D&D. For my milage, it's not too much. I can add +x pretty quick, no problem. If you can memorize times-tables, you can add numbers 1-10 without much of a problem.

You do encounter more varied scenarios, and there are more options, and this does bog down play. The way I've helped it IMCs is by encouraging specialization. If he's a Paladin, then I know he's good against Chaotic and Evil things, and otherwise won't have as many options. If he's a fire-wizard, I know he'll have a lot of bonuses against water elementals, not so many against demons. This helps limit the types of things they can do, and makes the occasions for adding up a lot of dice specific to the moment that the character shines at.

There hasn't been much of a problem IMCs adding up the bonuses and deciding on a course of action before taking the turn and resolving it quickly. No more than introducing new people to the game, anyway. And the more you play high levels, the more familiar the bonuses and strategies become.

So instead of bemoaning the options, play it, re-play it, and play it agian until you're comfortable with it. Or just ignore it.


----------



## Silverleaf (Jul 1, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> And how, actually, is this done in earlier D&D?
> 
> Again, what is this mechanic in earlier D&D?




Well it depends on the DM and players.  The player describes what he's going to do, and if there are no rules for it in the book, then the DM comes up with a die roll and, if necessary, a difficulty modifier.  Typically the die roll will be simply an ability check or saving throw.  But it could be anything, even a d100 percentage chance, much like in the earlier discusssion about Kriegspiel.  Though unlike Kriegspiel, the player may be told what his odds are before rolling the dice, so he can decide whether to really attempt that maneuver, or do something else instead.
Sometimes a particular maneuver is done often enough that it becomes a house rule.  In Basic D&D for instance, I'll let anybody attempt multiple attacks (usually you only get one/round) but they take massive penalties on every to-hit roll that round.  The more attacks they attempt, the greater the penalties (-4/-8/-16 for 2/3/4 attacks respectively).  And this applies universally to every class, not just say fighters, though their chances of hitting will be higher since they're better at that sort of thing to begin with.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 1, 2005)

> The player describes what he's going to do, and if there are no rules for it in the book, then the DM comes up with a die roll and, if necessary, a difficulty modifier. *Typically the die roll will be simply an ability check or saving throw. But it could be anything*, even a d100 percentage chance, much like in the earlier discusssion about Kriegspiel.



Emphasis mine.

See, this kind of thing is something I just don't understand.

D&D3: 

Player: "I run up and jump over the 10' pit."

DM: "OK, make a jump check, DC 10."


Earlier D&D:

Player: "I run up and jump over the 10' pit."

DM: "Um, well, let me think. Eh, how about. . ." And the DM comes up with an ability to check, and a DC to check against, all on the fly.


And the complaint is against D&D3 for actually having a codified mechanic already in place? Forcing/needing a DM to make something up off the top of his head is considered a *good* thing?

Quasqueton


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 1, 2005)

It seems that most of the complaints of complexity revolve around the levels over 10. And the "solution" is to play games that, essentially, don't go that high. I mean, the Basic D&D game keeps getting bandied around here, and by god, it only goes to level 3.

Hello? So why not just stop your D&D games at level 10?

Quasqueton


----------



## Silverleaf (Jul 1, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> And the complaint is against D&D3 for actually having a codified mechanic already in place? Forcing/needing a DM to make something up off the top of his head is considered a *good* thing?




Well yeah.  In 3e there are preset DCs for specific situations.  If you deviate from those, or don't include the required modifiers (feats, skills, buff spells, your mother's maiden name, etc.) then the players may get pissy about you not following the rules.  So you end up looking things up a lot, and making sure everything's kosher.

In contrast, in OD&D you just guestimate the probabilities and go with the flow.  There's hardly any page-flipping during adventures, and the game moves hella fast.  Combats in particular take probably 1/4 as long as 3e, and I'm being conservative here.

And it's not like coming up with a die roll is hard or time-consuming.  You just think about two things:
1. what kind of action is this?
2. how hard is it?
Jumping is a measure of dexterity, so you just make a DEX check.  A 10' pit is a piece of cake if you've got a running start, unless you're very encumbered.  So you ask the player "What's your encumbrance?" and give a -1 penalty for every encrumbance category.  No running start?  Take an additional -2.
Not so difficult is it?  It took me a lot longer to type this than it would to arbitrate it in-game.  In practice the action is resolved in a matter of seconds, with very little math or accounting involved.

Perhaps the same kind of action won't get the same kind of die roll every time, especially if it doesn't come up that often (jumping is pretty standard, and most everyone uses a simple DEX check for that).  But even so, that's okay.  Not every 10' pit is identical anyway, so it's not like the resolution has to be exactly identical each time either.  Every situation is potentially different.  All that matters is that the DM try to remain fair and impartial.  So long as he keeps that in mind, it all works out.



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> It seems that most of the complaints of complexity revolve around the levels over 10. And the "solution" is to play games that, essentially, don't go that high. I mean, the Basic D&D game keeps getting bandied around here, and by god, it only goes to level 3.  Hello? So why not just stop your D&D games at level 10?




Basic D&D is somewhat of a misnomer.  That refers to only the first boxed set, out of five:
Basic (1-3)
Expert (4-14)
Companion (15-25)
Master (26-36)
Immortals (everything beyond!)
You can see pretty pictures and more descriptions here:
http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/ddindex.htm
There is also a book called the D&D Rules Cyclopedia which combines all the rules from the first 4 boxed sets into one 300-page hardcover tome.  It's the only edition of D&D ever published into one single volume, and it allows running epic-scale campaigns from level 1 all the way to 36!  After that though you have to get the Wrath of the Immortals boxed set if you wish to venture into those eternal realms...  But it's kind of strange compared to normal D&D, and few have ever made it that far anyway.
Nonetheless, the game mechanics remain much the same, whether you're playing at levels 1-3 or 26-36, so it doesn't suffer from the same playability problems as 3e.  There is one optional rule called Weapon Mastery which can add some additional complexity, but it's entirely optional (many don't bother with it) and yet it's much less hassle than the 3e combat stuff.
The old D&D also has many less buff spells, and for that matter the spells themselves have much shorter descriptions and stats.  Monsters also have many fewer stats.  And most spells and magic item effects don't stack...
This probably sounds horrible to you, but it actually works out great and provides just enough information to the players and DM to move the game along without bogging down in details.


----------



## Psion (Jul 1, 2005)

Silverleaf said:
			
		

> Well yeah.  In 3e there are preset DCs for specific situations.  If you deviate from those, or don't include the required modifiers (feats, skills, buff spells, your mother's maiden name, etc.) then the players may get pissy about you not following the rules.




If the players don't trust you to run the game when you have guideance, how are they supposed to trust you running by the seat of your pants?

The rules are there to help you. _Use the rules; don't let the rules use you._

If your players are that rules-lawyery, and you have so many rules problems, enlist them! Or assert yourself! Or both!


----------



## Silverleaf (Jul 1, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> If the players don't trust you to run the game when you have guideance, how are they supposed to trust you running by the seat of your pants?
> 
> The rules are there to help you. _Use the rules; don't let the rules use you._
> 
> If your players are that rules-lawyery, and you have so many rules problems, enlist them! Or assert yourself! Or both!




In practice it's not that simple.  Someone still has to physically lookup the rules.  Someone has to add all the bonuses (after figuring out which ones are relevant and which ones aren't).  That still takes time.  That can even be the source of dissent, and arguments take away even more precious time.
And of course there are cases when the DM doesn't want to spoil a surprise, so he can't just ask someone to lookup something for him.  Nor can he ask players to keep track of hit points, buff effect and durations and such things for the monsters.  Well he can, but there again it spoils some of the surprise.
As far are the rules-lawyereness  of players goes, it tends to manifest less when playing with fewer rules.  Kinda makes sense if you think about it...


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 1, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I mean, the Basic D&D game keeps getting bandied around here, and by god, it only goes to level 3.



Do you seriously think that the Basic boxed set are what people *actually mean* when they use the term "Basic D&D", do you? Because I've played D&D for years and have heard the term "Basic D&D" used to refer to the rules sytem that was composed of the Basic box, Expert box, Companion box, Master box, and Immortal box... and I knew precisely that people using that term didn't exclude every box that came after the Basic set.

Pretty much every single person who has ever played AD&D that I have met refered to the "other" D&D rules that TSR published side-by-side with "Advanced D&D" as "Basic D&D".

Or are you just being coy...


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 1, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> D&D does throw around a lot of numbers at high levels. Other systems that don't go into "high levels" don't throw around those bigger numbers, and so are quicker, easier to calculate, etc.



Except that a system like _Mutants & Masterminds_, which deals in superheroes, can handle very, very powerful characters without the minutia of high-level D&D.


----------



## Psion (Jul 1, 2005)

Silverleaf said:
			
		

> In practice it's not that simple.




What do you think you are selling me? I play this game. It pretty much is that simple.

Your example, while it certainly sounds annoying, lacks generality and relies upon the GM and players not doinig some common sense preparations and not having a relationship of trust with the GM. I mean how often do you REALLY need to add different modifiers? IME, seldom. You add up your persistent modifiers before the game, and during the game, how much effort does it really take to add +2 from a bulls strength (for example)? Just note it on the character card or battlemat. Players forget? Make table rules that a forgotten modifier has no effect and move on; they'll remember in a hurry. How difficult is it to figure out which modifiers apply? With the name stacking convention, it's trivial.

Lay down some table rules and apply a little common sense, and given a reasonable set of players, IME the game flows just fine.

I appreciate that you may nore feel comfortable doing this, but it serves little purpose to come here proclaiming that it is a persistent headache week in week out when you are talking to players who seem to do just fine with it week in week out. If you are happy playing your game, have fun. But you are going to have a hell of a hard time convincing people that are having fun that they aren't really having fun. Simply accept that people have different tastes and capacities than you do and more on.


----------



## Silverleaf (Jul 1, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> What do you think you are selling me? I play this game. It pretty much is that simple.




I was hoping to generate enough interest in Basic D&D to make the Rules Cyclopedia books into a high demand item and thus sell my copies and retire to some island paradise.  No, you don't think that's a good idea? 



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Your example, while it certainly sounds annoying, lacks generality and relies upon the GM and players not doinig some common sense preparations and not having a relationship of trust with the GM. I mean how often do you REALLY need to add different modifiers? IME, seldom. You add up your persistent modifiers before the game, and during the game, how much effort does it really take to add +2 from a bulls strength (for example)? Just note it on the character card or battlemat. Players forget? Make table rules that a forgotten modifier has no effect and move on; they'll remember in a hurry. How difficult is it to figure out which modifiers apply? With the name stacking convention, it's trivial.
> 
> Lay down some table rules and apply a little common sense, and given a reasonable set of players, IME the game flows just fine.




Buff spells, potion/scrolls and feat effects are quite prevalent in 3e.  Heck even monsters have feats, and high-level PCs and enemy spellcasters are buffed like the Governator whenever given the chance...  It all "adds up" after a while. (bad pun, bad pun )

It's certainly not unsurmountable, but for me at least it's annoying.  And the idea of having to organize with flash cards and delegate various tasks to players kinda reminds me of the way Rolemaster fans like to point out that the game is perfectly playable so long as you're on the ball.  I'd rather none of those issues even exist, hence my attraction to lighter rulesets.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> I appreciate that you may nore feel comfortable doing this, but it serves little purpose to come here proclaiming that it is a persistent headache week in week out when you are talking to players who seem to do just fine with it week in week out. If you are happy playing your game, have fun. But you are going to have a hell of a hard time convincing people that are having fun that they aren't really having fun. Simply accept that people have different tastes and capacities than you do and more on.




Nah I'm not trying to convince them so much as point out why I enjoy Basic D&D in preference to 3e.  The only right game to play is the one that you feel most comfortable with.  Though like RFisher said (perhaps it was in a different thread though, can't remember): make sure you know if your players are enjoying the game to the same extent you are.  Some of them simply don't care for all that extra detail, and some of them crave it.


----------



## SweeneyTodd (Jul 1, 2005)

I've seen what Silverleaf is talking about in actual play. I had at least one player who was really uncomfortable with any rules changes I made to D20 -- causing the group to get into a half hour debate about the ramifications of removing attacks of opportunity, for example. That, and most of the players were stopping to look at their listed maneuvers just about every turn during combat. We were playing it as a freewheeling investigation with a little combat, but not much rules contact at all, but they were in D20 mode.

Then after we'd switched to a different system (FATE in this case), the same player had absolutely no problem with me doing things like handling the opposition's stats in terms of something like "You could probably take these guys". He was narrating John Woo-level gunplay stunts (the setting was set up to allow this kind of thing from the start), without even knowing the probability of success. And he was having a blast. It was like, "Okay, I really like Chinese food, but this pizza you gave me is good!"

You'd be surprised. Even with people who have a strong preference for a certain kind of play, if you explain that you're using a particular ruleset to set a particular tone in the game, they'll try it -- and if they're having fun, they'll stick with it.

Heck, one of my players, the one who tries the most off the wall things in my game, DMs his own high-level D&D 3.5 game on weekends. 

I decided early on that I could offer a pretty good session, with poor to mediocre rules handling in D20, or I could offer a damn good session, with solid handling of a rules-light system. ("Damn good", only because I spent less time on stat blocks and more on everything else.) 

I decided that I'd fix the meal my way, using my tools, and see if they'd like it. They did, whether or not it was like their usual fare.


----------



## glass (Jul 1, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> You're right the arithmetic isn't a problem.  It's getting it correct that's the problem.




But were I actually playing D&D, I'd have got it correct. The only reason I didn't was


I didn't read the scenario in your post properly. Obviously not an issue in real life.
I couldn't remember what a couple of the abilities mentioned did. I have been playing Shadowrun rather than D&D for the last few months, and I don't have my books with me. If this were my character, I would no what his abilities did, and would have precalculated his base ACs, so would have just had to apply the Dodge & Mobility bonuses where the applied.


glass.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 1, 2005)

> Except that a system like Mutants & Masterminds, which deals in superheroes, can handle very, very powerful characters without the minutia of high-level D&D.




I'm not familiar with the system at all, so I can't really compare what's "powerful" in M&M to what's "powerful" in the D&D kind of baseline. I just know that when characters can pretty much alter the fabric of reality to suit their own needs on a daily basis (_wish_ being the D&D holy grail of this), you're either going to need a lot of rules about what it can actually do (what 3e does), or just say "It's up to the DM to make sure the power isn't out of control" (the majority of other systems I've seen).

Personally, I'd rather have a baseline that I can deviate from than be told that I have to basically use my own capricious judgement to determine if something is going to make my game less fun. If I have a baseline, I can depart from it, and I can explain my departure. If it just says "Hey, DM! Make it up as you go along!" it's making me do it's job. The Rules are supposed to, you know, give me rules. It's my call on which ones I want to use and why I want to use them, but if they didn't give me the rules in the first place, why am I buying their books instead of playing glorified army men? 

But that really gets into Abstract vs. Concrete gaming systems. 3e is NOT an abstract gaming system. It's got nuts, bolts, and gears. It isn't very fast and loose. It's not going to satisfy those needs. It doesn't have to. I don't want it to. The nuts, bolts, and gears make me feel like I have tools to engineer a game.

Role Playing is all painting on the same blank canvass. Abstract systems that leave it in the DM's hands are fingerpainting. But I like using a brush, because it helps the picture to look more like what is in my head than my fingers do.

I don't want interactive storytelling. A pox upon it. I want a game, and a game has rules. "Too Many" is *entirely* a matter of personal opinion. D&D, AFAIAC, has just about the right amount -- enough to tell me how the world works, not so many that I have to care about the inch-length of every elf's ear to tell me how good their hearing is. At higher levels, when a player can martial more forces, these get more numerous, but level off  quickly enough for my milage, and can largely be solved with preparation, DM interaction with the rules (rather than trying to be liberated from the rules), and familiarity with the party and combat.

In a con setting, you don't get this, which is why high-level con adventures are almost always going ot be bogged down. In my groups, I've always had this, so it has been fairly seamless.

Show me a better way that doesn't result in DM Fiat, and maybe it'll make my game better and I'll adopt it. Otherwise, this is an agree-to-disagree situation between abstract play style and concrete playstyle, from what I see....


----------



## Ourph (Jul 1, 2005)

glass said:
			
		

> But were I actually playing D&D, I'd have got it correct. The only reason I didn't was
> 
> 
> I didn't read the scenario in your post properly. Obviously not an issue in real life.
> I couldn't remember what a couple of the abilities mentioned did. I have been playing Shadowrun rather than D&D for the last few months, and I don't have my books with me.




Fair enough, if you say you'd have gotten it correct in an actual game I'm not willing to belabor the point.  However, if you'll go back to approximately page 3 of the thread, you'll see that at least 3 people (all of whom are or were ENworld regulars at the time and I'm assuming were at least competently rules savvy in regards to 3e) answered the question as well and also gave incorrect answers.  So while it's certainly possible to get it right (I was never arguing that it wasn't) it's apparently not as easily done as some comments in this discussions would make out.

It's not that the math is hard, it's that the rules are full of exceptions, special cases and conditional modifiers that require an intricate understanding of every rule in order to apply consistently and correctly.  While some people may enjoy that level of dedication to rules familiarity in order to run a game, I didn't.  And now that I'm playing a game with a much simpler set of rules (which doesn't give up anything in terms of options or flexibility) I don't have to worry about it.



> If this were my character, I would no what his abilities did, and would have precalculated his base ACs, so would have just had to apply the Dodge & Mobility bonuses where the applied.




Even with pre-calculation, the DM still has to deal with the modifiers for invisibility, the differences in the application of force armor, regular armor and natural armor bonuses and a few other issues in that scenario (which is, by the way, a real encounter from a real game I played in - but not one that I was running).  Are you seriously telling me you'd have all of those parameters pre-calculated?  This isn't a simple application of the three AC types (normal, touch and flat-footed) it's a case where a bunch of the exceptions and special rules related to AC come into play.  For each of the three main AC types, you're having to make modifications to what is counted based on the special circumstances the rogue finds himself in.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jul 1, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm not familiar with the system at all, so I can't really compare what's "powerful" in M&M to what's "powerful" in the D&D kind of baseline. I just know that when characters can pretty much alter the fabric of reality to suit their own needs on a daily basis (_wish_ being the D&D holy grail of this), you're either going to need a lot of rules about what it can actually do (what 3e does), or just say "It's up to the DM to make sure the power isn't out of control" (the majority of other systems I've seen).




Caveat: I'm familiar with Champions (a superhero point-buy RPG, albeit one of greater complexity) and somewhat with True20 (a rules-lite d20 RPG related to M&M), but haven't ever played M&M itself.

With that said, the problem with high-level D&D is not and never has been the power of the characters.  The problem with high-level D&D is not and certainly never was the variety of choices players could make in their characters.

The problem with high-level D&D is 100% the number of choices players can make in every single situation.

An extremely powerful point-buy-supers-RPG-style character might only have five or six powers - but those are tailored precisely to what the player wanted.  He's every bit as powerful as his 20th level D&D counterpart.  But he doesn't have 90+ spells on his spell list, 40+ magic items and 20+ class features.

In Mutants and Masterminds, as far as I know, he has feats (which add very little complexity, and you don't get that many anyway) and probably a similar suite of powers to what he would get in a HERO system game - maybe a dozen Powers, tops.

That's a lot less bookkeeping than a D&D spellcaster with his 90+ largely redundant legacy spells.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 1, 2005)

Silverleaf said:
			
		

> In practice it's not that simple.  Someone still has to physically lookup the rules.  Someone has to add all the bonuses (after figuring out which ones are relevant and which ones aren't).  That still takes time.  That can even be the source of dissent, and arguments take away even more precious time.




I use, as a table rule, a standard that if the player or DM doesn't know the rules to a maneuver off the top of their head, then the player who wants to do it is responsible for looking them up _before_ their action in combat rolls around. Otherwise, we aren't going to spend time looking it up, If the player wants to do it anyway, I'm going to make a ruling on the spot, and the player can accept it. I tell the players this ahead of time, and that usually gets rid of most arguments.



> _And of course there are cases when the DM doesn't want to spoil a surprise, so he can't just ask someone to lookup something for him.  Nor can he ask players to keep track of hit points, buff effect and durations and such things for the monsters.  Well he can, but there again it spoils some of the surprise._





In that case, I'd say the DM, should have that sort of thing prepared ahead of time, with appropriate cheat sheets on hand (printing material off the SRD is quick and easy).



> _As far are the rules-lawyereness  of players goes, it tends to manifest less when playing with fewer rules.  Kinda makes sense if you think about it..._





I'd say it manifests itself in different ways. I believe everyone who has gamed for any length of time is familiar with the "that's not the way it is in real life" guy.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 1, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> In Mutants and Masterminds, as far as I know, he has feats (which add very little complexity, and you don't get that many anyway) and probably a similar suite of powers to what he would get in a HERO system game - maybe a dozen Powers, tops.
> 
> That's a lot less bookkeeping than a D&D spellcaster with his 90+ largely redundant legacy spells.




Unless he's got Sorcery or the like, which is effectively a pool of powers, but Yeah.  M&M characters are tightly focused on very specific subsets of abilities....but the combat system also has very different applications and intents.  I'm not sure it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, because they're modelling very different things, by design.

In M&M, everything is streamlined to keep the action flowing; it's much easier to sacrifice verisimilitude when you're a super-powered professional wrestler putting a suplex on a killer death-robot while yelling a batttle-cry of "_I can hold my breath for a whole hour!!!_"  In M&M, characters get hit with lamp-posts...and get back up again.  More than once.  Most of the powers are fairly simplistic in implementation, and the DM has a lot of lattitude, by necessity, to adjudicate their use.  They are so broad as to not be worth trying to codify...which is a good approach for superheroes.  

That approach CAN work for D&D, but many folks (myself included) would find it unsatisfactory.  M&M's power levels put an effective cap on certain things that D&D doesn't.  Under M&M, there's no way for a team of PL15 heroes to defeat a PL20 villain, per se.  With pluck, they might be able to incapcitate or slow him down, but generally they're not scratching him.  In D&D, a clever 15th level character just might have a chance of defeating a 20th level attacker...potentially slim odds, but not a statisical certainty of failure.  In M&M, it's just plain not going to happen.

And M&M, for all it's reduced complexity, still has to deal with the interaction of diverse power sets together and against each other.  Again, not a fault, but there is plenty of potential complexity there.  A quick glance at the M&M FAQ shows that it suffers from rules confusion, too, and from many of the same kinds of questions as high-level D&D.

But let me be clear: If you haven't bought M&M, and you like superheroes...You owe it to yourself to pick it up.  It's my favorite superhero RPG, bar none.


----------



## swrushing (Jul 1, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> If the players don't trust you to run the game when you have guideance, how are they supposed to trust you running by the seat of your pants?




Its not an issue of trust. its an issue of expectation.

if the rules we are playing by, as in the books i told them to use, define explicit numbers for this and that and the other, then the players will EXPECt that. They will if they have sense even plan on that. 

My following those numbers is me keeping my promise to them. They expect me to keep my promise. 

if, on the other hand, they rules i gave them are less specific, giving more general guidelines, then their expectations are not so precise. Smaller variances caused by seat-of-the-pants handling wont be a problem they percieve.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 1, 2005)

> Well yeah. In 3e there are preset DCs for specific situations. If you deviate from those, or don't include the required modifiers (feats, skills, buff spells, your mother's maiden name, etc.) then the players may get pissy about you not following the rules. So you end up looking things up a lot, and making sure everything's kosher.



This is an absurd complaint. First off, why would you deviate from the preset DCs? If there are circumstances, give circumstances bonuses/penalties.

Second, you don't have to include feat/skill/buff modifiers in determining a DC.

Third, pissy Players are the problem, not the game.

Fourth, you don't need to look everything up. If you can't remember: DC 0 = very easy, 5 = easy, 10 = average, 15 = tough, 20 = challenging, 25 = formidable, then you shouldn't be DMing.

You guys are just complaining to hear yourself complain. As Psion said, you're talking to people who know better. It's like telling the regular patrons of a restaurant that the food prices here are too expensive. We're here, we're fine with it. We don't want to go back to the fast food joint down the street.

I'm done with reading this absurdity.

Quasqueton


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 1, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> However, if you'll go back to approximately page 3 of the thread, you'll see that at least 3 people (all of whom are or were ENworld regulars at the time and I'm assuming were at least competently rules savvy in regards to 3e) answered the question as well and also gave incorrect answers.




Well, then, here we go.

Here's the original situation:



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> A Rogue with bracers of armor +3, Dex 18, ring of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +2, the Dodge and Mobility feats and fighting defensively. The Rogue moves through the threatened squares of a wraith and an invisible fighter wielding a longsword; ends his movement next to a Cleric holding an inflict light wounds spell in his hand and tries to initiate a grapple. The rogue has declared his Dodge vs. the Cleric.
> 
> What is his AC vs. each opponent for the AoOs he provokes?




On my character sheet, I've got, precalculated, the following:

AC:  20 = 10 + 3 (Armor, Force) + 4 (Dex) + 2 (Natural) + 1 (Deflection)*
Touch AC:  15 = 10 + 4 + 1
Flatfooted AC:  20**

Near that, I'd've written:  

Dodge: +1 Dodge AC
Mobility: +4 Dodge AC
F. Def.: -4 AB / +3 Dodge AC**
T. Def: +6 Dodge AC**

* Note that we use a house rule that Dodge is a straight +1 AC increase normally, but for purposes of this thread we'll assume that we're using RAW.

** Given the equipment, I assume we're dealing with something higher than, say, 1st-level.  Accordingly, I'll assume our Rogue has at least Uncanny Dodge (if not Improved) and more than 5 ranks in Tumble.

Now, assuming I flub all my Tumble checks and actually get targeted with any AoOs by the wraith or the fighter, my ACs against each are as follows:

Wraith:  Incorporeal Touch Attack, so my "base" AC is my Touch AC, 15.  However, since it's incorporeal, I get to keep my force-effect Bracers of Armor, for +3, for a total of 18.  Finally, it's a movement-based AoO, so I get a +4 Dodge bonus from Mobility.  My total AC against the wraith's attack is *22.*

Fighter:  Normal attack.  The fighter's invisible, however, which would normally deny me my Dex bonus against him, as well as giving him a +2 bonus on attack rolls.  However, since I've got Uncanny Dodge, I retain my Dex bonus (and associated Dodge bonuses).  He still gets the +2, of course, but since that's not a modifier to my AC, it doesn't apply as far as this discussion is concerned.  It's still a movement-based AoO, so Mobility applies.  My final AC against the Fighter is *24.*

Cleric:  Touch attack (assuming he wants to hit me with his spell, rather than the mace or shield he's got in his other hand).  So, base AC of 15.  However, I'm Dodging him, so I get a +1 bonus to 16.  This is not a movement-based AoO, so I don't get any benefit from Mobility, but I am finally attacking, so Fighting Defensively applies for a +3 Dodge bonus.  I get a -4 penalty on my touch attack to initiate the grapple (but not on any subsequent grapple checks  ), but have a *19* AC against his ILW attack.

EDIT:  Hah!  I'm so used to attributing quotes to the SRD that I attributed Ourph's original situation to it.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 1, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Well, then, here we go.
> 
> <snip>




1) For anyone confused by the original "correct" answer, the original example was given using 3.0 rules which didn't (I believe) give the +1 to Fighting Defensively for ranks in Tumble and gave the Fighting Defensively AC bonus from the beginning of the character's action, not from his first attack.

2) The entire point of posting that particular example in the first place was to illustrate the point that if the DM asks the Rogue's player "What is your AC?" during that combat round, there is no single answer to the question.  The answer is, in fact, extremely complex.  It's not so complex that it cannot be done (I did it for years).  I had no doubt in my mind when I posted that example that someone (in fact, numerous people) here would be able to answer it correctly (I was actually really surprised when not 1 but 3 posters got the answer almost 100% wrong).  It is, however, complex enough that I didn't find it fun or relaxing.  If you and others find that level of complexity fun, super-duper for you.  I don't.  Apparently the original poster didn't either.  I find it quite humorous that you and Quasqueton seem to be so offended that someone might not want to have to deal all that crap while trying to relax and play a game.  Does it really hit that close to home?

3) I have no real way to check whether your answer is correct.  At first read it appears so.  To tell you the truth, it's this kind of thing that drove me away from the game in the first place and I'm not willing to go through the work of checking it out because at this point I don't have to deal with it in order to get my fantasy RPG fix and I really don't give a  anymore.  If you want to deal with this kind of stuff in order to game, go for it.  It wouldn't even be on my radar if someone hadn't resurrected this old thread and specifically quoted me.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 1, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I find it quite humorous that you and Quasqueton seem to be so offended that someone might not want to have to deal all that crap while trying to relax and play a game.  Does it really hit that close to home?




Whereas I find it quite insulting that:

1) people can't help but play armchair psychologist, and
2) the "OD&D Crowd" - here and elsewhere - seem to operate under the general assumption that, because I *can* calculate such things easily and even *enjoy* doing so, I'm some kind of munchkin powergamer with no particular imagination.

As in, because I've got a pretty good idea how far my PC can jump without trying pretty hard, that PC suddenly becomes nothing more than a statblock to me.

It's a ridiculous non sequitor, but it seems to be accepted wisdom among the stick-in-the-mud crowd.

In other words, I haven't called you "dumb" because you can't add or don't like adding these kinds of numbers, so don't call me names because I can and do.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 1, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Silverleaf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




For me, I don't like the fact that 3e has skills for things that don't need a skill. Hiding is typically boolean. Either you've got a good place to hide & take advantage of it or you don't. No skill or roll needed.

(Now yes, I know that I can ignore the Hide skill &/or leverage the take-10 & take-20 rules, but my point is that I don't miss 3e's Hide skill when I play classic D&D.)

Plus, the thief's cool Hide in Shadows class ability has been turned into a general skill everybody has. Either the rogue has lost a cool ability or his cool ability isn't so special anymore.

For me, though, classic D&D combat is typically more about high level tactics than theatrics, so I don't need rules for these things. They're below the level of abstraction.



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> It seems that most of the complaints of complexity revolve around the levels over 10. And the "solution" is to play games that, essentially, don't go that high.




I couldn't agree more. There's a point at which PCs should go into retirement (or at least semi-retirement) or the nature of the game changes (more political & less combat & looting) because they've outgrown the game. IMHO.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Jul 1, 2005)

*The complexity is in the number of variables.*

Any complaints about the math are unfounded.  Anyone of us is capable of adding +1 or +2.

The probelm is that we have a slew of modifiers from many sources that may or may not stack, combined with modifiers that are purely situational.  Keeping track of all the variables becomes very cumbersome.  It becomes moreso when you have mixed opponents that are affected by different modifiers.

This results in having to setup near algerbraic equations for every combat encounter.  Expressing it as near pseudo code:

for each player;
     for each attack option player can make;
          for each enemy;
             determine attack to-hit;
             determine attack damage;

for each enemy
     for each attack option enemy can make;
          for each player;
             determine attack to-hit;
             determine attack damage;


And for determining attack to hit and damage, you have something that looks like this.

To Hit = Bab + SB + WB + RM + Buff + SM + SA;
Dmg = Multiplier x (Base Dice roll + SB + WB + Buff + SM + SA) + SneakAtk;
AC = Armour + Dex + Dodge + SM + Buff + SA;

Where:
Bab = base attack bonus
SB = Stat bonuses
WB = Weapon Bonuses
RM = Range Modifier <ranged weapon only>
SM = Situational Modifier <higher ground, charge, suprise>
SA = Special abiilities, such as class abilities
Multiplier = Critical or lance charge multiplier

Any sane DM and player pre-calculates most of this, leaving only things that change round to round, such as range modifier, situational modifiers, and the use of special abilities and buff / anti- buff spells that dont come up too often, like chill touch.

The only part where this really breaks down is when you have crap like a sword with +2, +5 vs Evil, of Wounding.  That weapon alone has a to hit modifier that may not always apply to every opponent to hit, and a damage modifier that wont affect a slightly different subset of opponents.  It is very possible to come up with a fight with 3 opponents that the weapon affects differently.

The only way to avoid these problems is to quietly cut out the parts of the game that add complexity you do not see as necessary, and not giving out magic items that add too much work, not using combat options that you cannot resolve quickly (typically bull rush, grapple, and trip, and any other action that has more then 2 or 3 potential variables) and not using enemies that do the same.

The complaint about complexity is a valid one I am afraid.  But I think that in practice it is largly mitigated by the fact that people dont seem to use many of the rules that annoy them.  Have any of you had a bull strenghed, and blessed player performing a bull rush down hill into a waist deep river against an enlarged giant alligator while hobgoblin heavy crossbow specialists where shooting at him from 2 range increments away in a late evening battle under heavy fog?

Can you name all of the situational modifiers involved without checking a rule book?

Hell, I like that question, and will drop it into the rules forum...

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## RFisher (Jul 1, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> 2) the "OD&D Crowd" - here and elsewhere - seem to operate under the general assumption that, because I *can* calculate such things easily and even *enjoy* doing so, I'm some kind of munchkin powergamer with no particular imagination.




I wish to go on record as _not_ feeling this way. I enjoy 3e myself. It's just that these days I prefer classic D&D.

Now it may be that I don't prefer 3e because *I* have a bad tendency to become a munchkin powergamer with no particular imagination when I play it. But that's my problem, & I don't intend to project it onto others. If I have ever or ever do so, I apologize.

Now, I used to think those fools that were still playing classic D&D (instead of AD&D) were wrong-o weird-os. Then I thought that those fools who were still playing AD&D (instead of GURPS, Hero, &c.) were wrong-o weird-os. I'm better now.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 1, 2005)

RFisher said:
			
		

> I'm better now.




So, how was the 12-Step Program?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 1, 2005)

> The problem with high-level D&D is not and certainly never was the variety of choices players could make in their characters.
> 
> The problem with high-level D&D is 100% the number of choices players can make in every single situation.




Got it, and I can easily see that being a problem. Of course, some would call it a virtue, but either way, this is absolutely true, it does bog down gameplay.

IMC, I encourage specialization rather than diversification (e.g.: it's cheaper to get flaming burst put on a flaming sword, and it's easier to summon fire elementals with that sword), ending up solving the problem the same way in the end....a tightly limited group of powers. Awarding powers instead of magic items helps this in VOLUMES, since the powers are always built on a theme.



> Most of the powers are fairly simplistic in implementation, and the DM has a lot of lattitude, by necessity, to adjudicate their use. They are so broad as to not be worth trying to codify...which is a good approach for superheroes.




I think this is very true, too. D&D has deep wargaming roots, and probably isn't going to get rid of them any time soon, and this aspect is a lot of fun and very gamist about it, but does get complicated at higher levels. D&D is designed to be played something like a wargame. An abstract system is more concerned about overall effect than specific cause. D&D is defiantely a game concerned about the *cause.*

And no matter the system, I myself as a DM and a player prefer if the books tell me what I should do and why I should do it, because then when I alter it for my own game, I have a baseline. Systems that leave significant values in the hand of DM Contrivance make my skin crawl, because most DM's are not trained game designers, and shouldn't have to be to run a fun game...

But I digress. Yes, absolutely, some method of themed power-set would give high level D&D combat much more streamlined, and an easy way to impliment this is to give themed powers to the players as treasure. It's not a perfect solution, but it helps when something can unify the powers of the character (kind of the logic behind classes to begin with).


----------



## Ourph (Jul 1, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> the "OD&D Crowd" - here and elsewhere - seem to operate under the general assumption that, because I *can* calculate such things easily and even *enjoy* doing so, I'm some kind of munchkin powergamer with no particular imagination.




1 - I've never played OD&D.  I don't play it now.  My particular RPG drug of choice ATM is WFRPv2.

2 - I don't assume anyone here is a munchkin powergamer.  I do assume if you enjoy keeping track of all the variables of 3e combat that you enjoy keeping track of variables - that's it.  I don't share your enjoyment, so I don't play that game anymore.



> As in, because I've got a pretty good idea how far my PC can jump without trying pretty hard, that PC suddenly becomes nothing more than a statblock to me.
> 
> It's a ridiculous non sequitor, but it seems to be accepted wisdom among the stick-in-the-mud crowd.




I never said that, because I don't think it's true.  If you enjoy the game more because you can tell me exactly how far your PC can jump in feet on a specific dice roll or because combat is complex enough that you can have a different AC against every opponent attempting to hit you in a round, good for you.  I'm glad you've found a game you enjoy.



> In other words, I haven't called you "dumb" because you can't add or don't like adding these kinds of numbers, so don't call me names because I can and do.




Names?  Did I do that.  I called Quasqueton an  (actually I said he was probably being an , but that's just semantics) because I thought he was being an .  Other than that, have I insulted anyone for their preference of game?  I think you're taking the comments of other posters and associating them with me because we seem to be arguing from the same POV.

Honestly, I don't understand what the rancor is about.  It seems that you an I agree on my original point (i.e. - 3e combat rules - in particular the ones covering AC computation - can get quite complex in certain situations).  If so, is there really anything left to discuss?  Since when is saying "I don't like that level of complexity" the same as impugning someone else for liking it?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 1, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Honestly, I don't understand what the rancor is about.






			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Surely *a little reading* in order to be informed before making a comment *isn't beyond the capabilities* of someone who apparently doesn't have a problem with the intricacies of D&D's combat rules.






			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> I find it quite humorous that you and Quasqueton seem to be so offended that someone might not want to have to deal all that crap while trying to relax and play a game. Does it really hit that close to home?




'Nuff said, and then some.


----------



## Silverleaf (Jul 1, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> This is an absurd complaint. First off, why would you deviate from the preset DCs? If there are circumstances, give circumstances bonuses/penalties.




Situational modifiers are a separate thing altogether.  I would deviate from the preset DC if I don't know it and don't feel like cracking the book.  Actually I'd rather not know it, and just make it up as we go along.  I'd just like to pick something that sounds good.  If it's not perfectly consistent, so be it. 



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Second, you don't have to include feat/skill/buff modifiers in determining a DC.




That's right, but they do come into play to resolve the action.  No matter how you cut it, you have to account for that stuff.  And I failed accounting class. 



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Third, pissy Players are the problem, not the game.




I think the problem is I'm unwilling to put the effort into doing justice to 3e as written.  Mind you I'm not willing to run Rolemaster, HERO or Exalted either.  I'm sure these are fine games for people who dig all the details and stuff, but that's not my cup of tea.  Not anymore at least (had fun with RM back in the day).
That's not to say I like OD&D exactly as written either, I've added plenty of house rules there.  But it makes a better starting point.  I may look into C&C if/when they ever fix all the editing gaffs.



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Fourth, you don't need to look everything up. If you can't remember: DC 0 = very easy, 5 = easy, 10 = average, 15 = tough, 20 = challenging, 25 = formidable, then you shouldn't be DMing.




That's easy enough to remember.  However, each skill has specific DCs given in its description.  Now it so happens that Jump (the long jump variety) maps exactly to those numbers, but high jump doesn't.  Nor does Listen, and a heck of a lot of other skills.
Anyway, I pretty much do the same thing with ability checks or saving throws in OD&D.  An average maneuver is a straight-up roll, with no modifiers.  If it's harder or easier than that, it just gets modified up or down.  If it's really easy, I don't even bother rolling.  Ditto if it's impossible, though I sometimes give a couple % chance to succeed.  After all who knows, maybe the gods are watching...



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> You guys are just complaining to hear yourself complain. As Psion said, you're talking to people who know better. It's like telling the regular patrons of a restaurant that the food prices here are too expensive. We're here, we're fine with it. We don't want to go back to the fast food joint down the street.
> 
> I'm done with reading this absurdity.




Damn straight it's too expensive.  I'm going to Taco Bell. 
Once again, I'm not trying to convince you that 3e is too hard for you, or that you shouldn't play it.  I'm just saying it's too much trouble for me, and why I feel that way.  There have been some pretty interesting points made in this thread, and it'd be a pity to cast it all aside because of a misunderstanding...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jul 2, 2005)

Silverleaf said:
			
		

> That's easy enough to remember.  However, each skill has specific DCs given in its description.  Now it so happens that Jump (the long jump variety) maps exactly to those numbers, but high jump doesn't.




Actually, it does.

If you look at the skill, the distance you travel is equal to your check in feet.  The height at the midpoint of your jump is equal to 1/4 of the horizontal difference.  In other words, a DC 10 jump moves you 10' across the floor, and at the height of your jump, you're 2.5 feet above the floor.

If you look at the DC for a vertical jump, it's 4x the height you wish to jump.  A DC 10 vertical jump, therefore, moves you 2.5 feet above the floor.

Symmetry.


----------



## Silverleaf (Jul 2, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Systems that leave significant values in the hand of DM Contrivance make my skin crawl, because most DM's are not trained game designers, and shouldn't have to be to run a fun game...




You don't have to be trained.  In the early 80's, we played D&D very ad-hoc like, probably more than I do now, and it was loads of fun.  We also played games with even less rules than Basic D&D, such as Das Schwartze Auge (the Basic version) and even used straight-up Fighting Fantasy (only has 3 stats, the entire rules fit on a few pages) to run games at school.  We were 12, 13, 14 years old maybe and didn't know or care about game design.


----------



## Silverleaf (Jul 2, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Actually, it does.
> 
> (cut geometry class discussion)
> 
> Symmetry.




That's more than I wanted to know. 
You understood what I meant though, right?  I'm fine with the 5/10/15/20/25 DC increments, but start getting more specific than that and I'm snoozing.  I think I've got some networking code to debug, my custom layer-7 protocol needs some work.  That should wake me up.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 2, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Ourph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree wholeheartedly.  Those comments are my justifiably disgruntled and well deserved replies to several unsolicited and uninformed responses directed toward me over my simple little unprovocative statement (to another poster) that I've given over playing 3e D&D for Warhammer.  So what's the problem?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 2, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> So what's the problem?



It's always the person who _responds_ to the foul that the officials blow the whistle on... (a little basketball wisdom for ya...  )


----------



## RithTheAwakener (Jul 2, 2005)

Actually no. We've never had a problem with high level math, it has actually tought some of our players to add, subtract, multiply, and divide very quickly. Mind you, our group doesnt consist of the brightest people (mathematically) but its only made us better at math. Yet another reason for kids to play D&D? Maybe...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 2, 2005)

> You don't have to be trained. In the early 80's, we played D&D very ad-hoc like, probably more than I do now, and it was loads of fun. We also played games with even less rules than Basic D&D, such as Das Schwartze Auge (the Basic version) and even used straight-up Fighting Fantasy (only has 3 stats, the entire rules fit on a few pages) to run games at school. We were 12, 13, 14 years old maybe and didn't know or care about game design.




Well, I didn't say it was impossible, just that it isn't my cup of tea. IMHO, 3e is BETTER because it involves less of that. It is more fun, more like a game, and less like collaborative fiction. The wargamy elements are enjoyable to me. Make it much more abstract, and it's not something I really like to do, because it's not like playing a game anymore to me when what my roll means is defined almost entirely by the mood the DM's in and if he's a good storyteller or just relies on cliches, or whatever....

This is mostly just a personal thing, but if D&D today was like that, I wouldn't be playing and loving it. I'd be pretty much playing videogame RPG's, because they feel like playing a game....


----------



## RFisher (Jul 4, 2005)

Silverleaf said:
			
		

> Though like RFisher said (perhaps it was in a different thread though, can't remember): make sure you know if your players are enjoying the game to the same extent you are.  Some of them simply don't care for all that extra detail, and some of them crave it.




Rereading this thread I caught saw reference to myself that I'd missed... & it's a point worth expounding on, because I think it is one of the most important things I've learned about this hobby & how I want to play it.

My group at the time played GURPS with the advanced combat system & all the options. We played Rolemaster with every option we could. (You can't use them all because there are so many & some of them are mutually exclusive.) We reveled in the segmented Hero combat round. A couple of us were even trying to build our own system that combined the "best" of all of them & then some.

When I say "we", though, it was--I began to realize--really only the two or three of us who usually GM'd. The other players didn't complain. They just tended to go along with whatever we wanted. But once I started looking, I realized how often we were boring them.

Playing a campaign of AD&D2e with_out_ all the options made me realize that I had just as much fun & the "other players" almost never got that old glazed expression.

Now there was one person who resisted.  Other factors led us in different directions before I ever discovered whether he couldn't enjoy a less complex system as much as the rest of us or whether he just needed to come around to approaching it with an open mind.

I'd love to have an entire group that enjoyed all-options-on GURPS combat as much as I do, but I haven't. Thinking about it now, though, I don't know that I would love it. I think I like more diversity in my group.

Anyway, that's a bit of my own story, for whatever it's worth.


----------



## Abulia (Jul 4, 2005)

swrushing said:
			
		

> Its not an issue of trust. its an issue of expectation.
> 
> if the rules we are playing by, as in the books i told them to use, define explicit numbers for this and that and the other, then the players will EXPECt that. They will if they have sense even plan on that.
> 
> ...



You, dear sir, are right on target.

When I run D&D I do everything I can to be "fair." That means following the rules for all the players. That also means being consistent and ensuring that the NPCs and monsters *also* follow the rules. Not because I'm a slave to the rules, mostly because D&D is so insanely intertwined and "balanced" that hand-waving one little thing aside can have huge repercussions.

Trust? There's plenty of that at my gaming table. What I don't have plenty of is time. I'm sick of 3 hour D&D combats that cover 5 rounds. Haven't seen a player take his character from 1 to 12 and *still* not know what his total bonus to hit in melee is? I have, regularly.

Mostly, the past few D&D games have had *stacks* of books on the table, with people constantly flipping through them, trying to make sure they know what spell they're going to cast will do what, or looking up that last feat selection. There's so much rules metagaming going on ("use two hands; better damage curve!") that the _storytelling/game_ aspect is nigh forgotten. Game prep is a statistical orgasm of numbers that makes me want to claw my eyes out.

YMMV, of course. 



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> _Use the rules; don't let the rules use you._



"This homespun wisdom sucks."


----------



## ashockney (Jul 5, 2005)

Well it is interesting to see the divergent opinions on the subject at least.  Thank you for all your contributions.  I'm sure we can keep it civil moving forward.  I'd love nothing more than for a mod to edit this thread of several unnecessary comments and retorts.  

So, I tried out some new stuff for high level play at Origins this weekend.  Here it is in a nutshell: 

Use average rolls (for attack and damage). 
Use a simplified "buff" system.

Ta dum!

There's a bunch of sub-rules to these rules (and I mean a BUNCH!), but the long and short of it, is what you see above.  All you really need to play high level D&D (I ran at 14th level) is a 20 sided die, make a small number of calculations in advance, and you're off to the races.  Get your game on, focus on the tactics on the board, and focus on your characters/roleplaying and story.  

Feedback I received was generally positive.  I had a rules-lawyer and dedicated character optimizer at my table (twice) who indicated that they felt it was a little oversimplified, but got what I was trying to do.  Frankly, if the reason (sole) you play this game is to optimize a character, you're playing the wrong game (IMHO).  In the category of "smashing success" I had two 14 year olds (one male and one female) sit at our table.  Neither had ever seen the character before Sunday, and both ACTIVELY participated in the combats, role-played their characters, and enjoyed the adventure.  I asked if they felt they could continue playing at this level, to which they both responded, "oh, yeah."  That is it! 

Please recall, the title of the thread is a direct quote from one of my players, at Origins, one year ago.  They were even in the same adventure.  This year, I had two young teenagers at the table, actively participating.  We also completed the entire adventure in 3:45 min.  That's a 14th level adventure, with four encounters, completed with characters most had never seen before, in less than four hours.  There were two character deaths (huzzah!), and there was one combat that pitted the six player characters agains 5 Fire Giants, 6 Elite Fire Giants, 3 Hell Hounds, and King Snurre himself (with his 3 pet "uber" hell hounds).  How long do you thing this combat would normally take?  24 combatants, 14th level.  We did it in an hour or less.

If you'd like to find out more, I'll be posting some information on our website in the coming weeks at www.myrikgames.com.


----------



## Endur (Jul 5, 2005)

Well, yes, that is what lots of people mean.  The Basic boxed set with the wizard, warrior, and dragon on the cover had a circulation of over 1 million.  I believe the expert, companion, etc. had circulation of under 100,000.  The other boxes, while dealing with the over level 3 situation, had nowhere near the circulation of what most people call "Basic D&D".  



			
				Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Do you seriously think that the Basic boxed set are what people *actually mean* when they use the term "Basic D&D", do you? Because I've played D&D for years and have heard the term "Basic D&D" used to refer to the rules sytem that was composed of the Basic box, Expert box, Companion box, Master box, and Immortal box... and I knew precisely that people using that term didn't exclude every box that came after the Basic set.


----------



## Silverleaf (Jul 5, 2005)

Endur said:
			
		

> Well, yes, that is what lots of people mean.  The Basic boxed set with the wizard, warrior, and dragon on the cover had a circulation of over 1 million.  I believe the expert, companion, etc. had circulation of under 100,000.  The other boxes, while dealing with the over level 3 situation, had nowhere near the circulation of what most people call "Basic D&D".




I think there's no need to try proving anything one way or another since there was a misunderstanding at play...  If you hang around old-school players enough, you'll soon find out that many of them use the terms OD&D, BD&D, Basic D&D and Classic D&D interchangably to imply any of the D&D stuff released by TSR that wasn't "Advanced".  There is no one true terminology, nor do many of us really see the need for one.  One of the strengths of those old games is that they can be easily mixed & matched together or with the original '74 rules & supplements or with AD&D. 

P.S.  Sometimes to make it clear someone will say B/X D&D to imply the earlier Moldvay/Cook boxed sets or BECM D&D for the later Mentzer boxed sets (or RC D&D, which is identical to BECM rules-wise but comes in a hardbound book format).  Or sometimes one will refer to the editor's name (frex: Holmes Basic, to mean the '77 boxed set).  But otherwise there is no great distinction made.  And anyway this stragegy can be confusing when speaking to people who aren't very familiar with the history of D&D, so the more general terms are often preferred...


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 5, 2005)

Abulia said:
			
		

> Mostly, the past few D&D games have had *stacks* of books on the table, with people constantly flipping through them, trying to make sure they know what spell they're going to cast will do what, or looking up that last feat selection. There's so much rules metagaming going on ("use two hands; better damage curve!") that the _storytelling/game_ aspect is nigh forgotten. Game prep is a statistical orgasm of numbers that makes me want to claw my eyes out.
> 
> YMMV, of course.




And I assure you, it does.  While I agree, it can be a problem, it doesn't have to be.  If the storytelling/game aspect is nigh forgotten, that's not the rules fault, IMHO.  We have a group of 6 25th level characters...some with characters who have four or possibly five classes, at this point.  In their words: "_Our enemies were powerful enough to stop a small army....unfortunately for them, we stop LARGE ONES._"  We still manage to have sessions where virtually no dice roll, because the topic of storytelling takes over.

At high levels, PCs can accomplish astonishing things...and in some ways, that makes things easier.  The rogue is virtually unstoppable and undetectable...making skill rolls against her is a pointless endeavour for all but the most canny of enemies.  So in almost every situation, we assume success and move on, unless I deem otherwise.  Spellcasters flipping through books for exact spell descriptions has been the case since first level in every game I've ever played and continues to the present day and 25th-level.  That's because few folks have complete rules mastery of even the basic game...and when you get to higher levels, some things just have to be interepeted: "_Does Otto's Irresistable Dance work on a giant fiendish psionic shapeshifting Ochre Jelly?_" and so on.  

High-level prep makes me want to slam my head into a wall...but it doesn't detract from role-playing, IME, unless you let it.  I could do a search on our high/epic level speed-up threads and post links, if you'd like suggestions on how to reduce the length of those combats, btw.


----------



## Psion (Jul 5, 2005)

swrushing said:
			
		

> Its not an issue of trust. its an issue of expectation.
> 
> if the rules we are playing by, as in the books i told them to use, define explicit numbers for this and that and the other, then the players will EXPECt that. They will if they have sense even plan on that.
> 
> ...




Okay, as I see it we are talking about two similar but conflated issues.

But as a thread over on the d20 other forum shows, switching rules does not automatically change the expectations of the players. Players who demand that every point in the book be accounted for will expect a degree of consistency. If you can't deliver that consistency with a set of written guidelines, then how are you going to deliver it with a looser set of guidelines?

Now if you and your players are all comfortable with less rigorous and consistent play, then great... a more loosely defined game may be just the ticket. But just changing rulesets is not necessarily going to change expectations. I think if your players are of the sort that would obsess over a point here and a point there in the first place, then formalizing the removal of power from their hands by shifting rules is not going to make them much happier than ignoring the rules.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 5, 2005)

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> I've seen what Silverleaf is talking about in actual play.
> 
> I decided early on that I could offer a pretty good session, with poor to mediocre rules handling in D20, or I could offer a damn good session, with solid handling of a rules-light system. ("Damn good", only because I spent less time on stat blocks and more on everything else.)




Thank you SweeneyTodd.  You've said it very eloquently here.  

The point of my post (again, a quote from a player) is that the majority of gamers (which this board is most definitely not), will not and do not play above 12th level.  With foresight, can we help to build a better infrastructure that allows for all the beautiful complexity and character optimization of 3ED&D, but is graspable by the majority of gamers, above 12th level.  And even more importantly, can allow the majority of DM's the time they should invest in building GREAT adventures, not just mediocre ones.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 5, 2005)

> I'm sick of 3 hour D&D combats that cover 5 rounds.



Tighten up your play. I don't have this problem. Our combats take about 6 minutes per round -- 4 PCs, 1-2 NPC allies, 1-12 NPC enemies. And most of that time (probably 4 minutes) is taken by me, the DM, thinking and acting for the dozen NPCs.



> Haven't seen a player take his character from 1 to 12 and still not know what his total bonus to hit in melee is? I have, regularly.



Problem Player. This is the kind of Player who asks, "The knight can move two forward and one to the side?" everytime you play chess. It's not a problem of the game of chess, and it's not a problem of the game of D&D. 



> Mostly, the past few D&D games have had stacks of books on the table, with people constantly flipping through them, trying to make sure they know what spell they're going to cast will do what, or looking up that last feat selection.



Any book beyond the Player's Handbook is your own choice and fault. You allow it, you can't complain.

It's a shame how some D&D games have to be protected from its players. Any book beyond the core -- PHB for Players, MM and DMG for DMs -- is optional and unnecessary. Anyone who can't remember a set number is a moron -- write the base attack bonus on your character sheet for god's sake!

Quasqueton


----------



## amethal (Jul 5, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Anyone who can't remember a set number is a moron -- write the base attack bonus on your character sheet for god's sake!



I would if I knew how to calculate it. How does it work again?


----------



## ashockney (Jul 5, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> This is an absurd complaint. First off, why would you deviate from the preset DCs? If there are circumstances, give circumstances bonuses/penalties.




First off, Quas, have you ever played the game above 12th level?  A DC25 (as you point out down below, as one of the highest in the game) is a joke for any PC of this level to make.  The average bonuses range around 15 (base) + 3 - 6 for stat and if it's of any relevance there will almost certainly be a +5 to +15 from an item.  I DM'd a game this weekend and a 14th level character had a +17 base hide, +4 from race, +10 from an item, +7 from stat, +2 from feat = that's a +40 to his hide check.    This is an extreme case, but fairly representative of the challenge.



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Second, you don't have to include feat/skill/buff modifiers in determining a DC.




I think my example above indicates the relevance of including all modifiers when determining ways to challenge a high level party.  



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Third, pissy Players are the problem, not the game.




Your tone with this comment is unprofessional, and uncalled for.  My players (one group who has played together for over 20 years, and one group who ranges in age from teens to mid 30's, are most certainly not "pissy" players.  I recognize that their opinions may diverge from yours, but please seek first to understand why their opinions differ, then to be understood.  This can be done in a dialogue, while maintaining professional behavior.



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Fourth, you don't need to look everything up. If you can't remember: DC 0 = very easy, 5 = easy, 10 = average, 15 = tough, 20 = challenging, 25 = formidable, then you shouldn't be DMing.
> 
> You guys are just complaining to hear yourself complain. As Psion said, you're talking to people who know better. It's like telling the regular patrons of a restaurant that the food prices here are too expensive. We're here, we're fine with it. We don't want to go back to the fast food joint down the street.
> 
> ...




Frankly, as I've said several times on this thread.  I appreciate that opinion.  If you'd like to start a different thread about WHY D&D shouldn't ever change, I would encourage you to do so.  I started this thread with the intent of looking at the game, based on my and other's experiences, that there were some opportunities for improvment.  I appreciate a good dialogue, challenging our ideas, and causing us to see things from a different perspective.   If you don't feel like you're adding constructively to the discussion, please refrain.


----------



## ashockney (Jul 5, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Whereas I find it quite insulting that:
> 
> 1) people can't help but play armchair psychologist, and
> 2) the "OD&D Crowd" - here and elsewhere - seem to operate under the general assumption that, because I *can* calculate such things easily and even *enjoy* doing so, I'm some kind of munchkin powergamer with no particular imagination.
> ...




Let's try our best to keep it civil here, please.  These are close to attacking words.  

I disagree with the assessment that you are perceived as a stat-blocking min/maxer (as that's what I am!), but rather, can't we be stat-blocking min/maxers without this much complexity, thereby opening up the possibility for NON-stat blocking min/maxers to play in the same game with us, and significantly freeing up the resources required to DM such a group?


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 5, 2005)

> I would if I knew how to calculate it. How does it work again?



If you can't figure your base attack bonus (that thing listed in the column titled, "Base Attack Bonus"), well . . . .



> "Third, pissy Players are the problem, not the game."
> 
> Your tone with this comment is unprofessional, and uncalled for. My players (one group who has played together for over 20 years, and one group who ranges in age from teens to mid 30's, are most certainly not "pissy" players. I recognize that their opinions may diverge from yours, but please seek first to understand why their opinions differ, then to be understood. This can be done in a dialogue, while maintaining professional behavior.



I was referring to this statement by Silverleaf, "...then the players may get pissy about you not following the rules." (I even quoted him in my post.) Take your complaint to him. Get off your high horse.



> First off, Quas, have you ever played the game above 12th level? A DC25 (as you point out down below, as one of the highest in the game) is a joke for any PC of this level to make. The average bonuses range around 15 (base) + 3 - 6 for stat and if it's of any relevance there will almost certainly be a +5 to +15 from an item. I DM'd a game this weekend and a 14th level character had a +17 base hide, +4 from race, +10 from an item, +7 from stat, +2 from feat = that's a +40 to his hide check. This is an extreme case, but fairly representative of the challenge.



Yes, I have. And if you get overwhelmed and can't challenge characters above 12th level, maybe you should end your games at 12th. Nothing wrong with that. 

*I* don't want to play over 20th level. But I don't moan and complain about it things getting too complicated at that level.

Quasqueton


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 5, 2005)

I'd just like to remind everyone to keep cool and civil. Disagreeing is fine, reasoned discussion is fine too. Always interesting to see the interplay between different points of view.

However, in the last couple of pages quite a few people have veered towards being more aggressive and confrontational - not so nice at all.

So please continue to talk about what you like, but don't denigrate other styles which may differ from yours, and let any such posts prior to this one just be water under the bridge.

Cheers


----------



## SweeneyTodd (Jul 5, 2005)

Something I think people are missing is that ashockney, the thread originator, is a fan of the game. He's trying to find a way to keep the crunch and tactical options around while making the game accessible to a broader audience. I can't see why that's worth attacking. 

I know there's another group of people in the thread who are saying "I handle this by using a simpler system" (myself included), but it's not the only approach brought up here. ashockney's post on the previous page offered some concrete examples, and he's asking for more: anybody have more?

The one thing I don't think is very helpful is to say "Well, they should just deal with it." The original poster likes the game and wants to expand its audience; a dismissive reply doesn't help much with that. So Quasqueton, I think you've stated your opinion clearly: People who aren't comfortable with the complexity of D&D at a given level, shouldn't play it. I hope you won't take offense that the likely response will be to nod and move on, since it's a valid opinion but not one that offers insights on how to simplify the system.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 6, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> > Haven't seen a player take his character from 1 to 12 and still not know what his total bonus to hit in melee is? I have, regularly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's not as simple as that.  The player has a problem with the complexity of D&D.  If the "problem player" becomes a good player when playing with a less complex set of rules, then obviously the problem lies in the combination of that player and a specific game.  If the player in question happens to be someone you enjoy gaming with, it's reasonable to switch games rather than writing someone off as hopeless because they can't or don't want to wrap their head around a fairly complex system.

D&D doesn't need to be fixed in order to compensate for such a player, but the opposite is true as well.  The player isn't obligated to "fix" himself just to accomodate the complexity of the game.  It's not like there's only one RPG extant and all players have to mold themselves to its strictures or get out of the hobby.


----------



## RFisher (Jul 7, 2005)

> > > Haven't seen a player take his character from 1 to 12 and still not know what his total bonus to hit in melee is? I have, regularly.
> >
> >
> >
> ...



At my table, I would tend to see this as a problem with the DM. Whether I'm running a complex system or a simple one, if I have a player who isn't into knowing the rules, I'll just keep a copy of his character sheet & handle figuring out his attack modifier myself. It's up to me to translate what he wants his character to do into game terms, let him know--as far as his character would--the chances of different actions succeeding, & translate the results from game terms into everyday terms.

Now, it does make me happier when the system is simple enough that pretty much everyone takes the time to understand it. Which is one reason I prefere simpler systems. But I don't want a player to have to know anything about the system if they don't want to. That's not to say they might not enjoy the game more if they do, but I'll do my best to communicate with the player in everyday terms instead of jargon.

Although, I can understand that others might not be willing to do that.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 7, 2005)

RFisher said:
			
		

> It's up to me to translate what he wants his character to do into game terms, let him know--as far as his character would--the chances of different actions succeeding, & translate the results from game terms into everyday terms.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Although, I can understand that others might not be willing to do that.




I'm usually more than happy (actually I prefer) to handle things exactly this way.  I'm just not willing to do it with a ruleset that passes a certain level of complexity.


----------



## mmadsen (Jul 7, 2005)

Ourph said:
			
		

> It's not as simple as that.  The player has a problem with the complexity of D&D.  If the "problem player" becomes a good player when playing with a less complex set of rules, then obviously the problem lies in the combination of that player and a specific game.



Ourph, that kind of nuanced argument is not acceptable on an Internet message board.


----------



## Abulia (Jul 8, 2005)

> > > > Haven't seen a player take his character from 1 to 12 and still not know what his total bonus to hit in melee is? I have, regularly.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ...



(This is not directed at RFisher specifically.)

I get weary of this de facto response that "well, it must be the DM" that conveniently crops up nearly anytime someone has problem with 'X' game. Is there truly no allowance that some games are _inherently more complex_ than others and that some players struggle with those games, _to no fault of the DM/GM_?

Since my quote is the first one in this chain let me state, without throwing around my considerable D&D credentials, that it *wasn't* the DM. It's disconcerting to have a player who's fine in several other games (notably less math intensive than D&D) struggle in a different game for no other reason then the rules.

I'm not eager to so easily dismiss a "problem player," as he's now been labeled, by virtue of the fact that the complexity of D&D is a stumbling block for them. But then, I apparently game with "morons" according to some people in this thread. :\ 

On a side note, the "stack of books" were all WotC core books; you don't need to go to third party publishers to build up a D&D stack.


----------



## WizarDru (Jul 8, 2005)

Abulia said:
			
		

> Since my quote is the first one in this chain let me state, without throwing around my considerable D&D credentials, that it *wasn't* the DM. It's disconcerting to have a player who's fine in several other games (notably less math intensive than D&D) struggle in a different game for no other reason then the rules.




I think you're right.  I also think you're right that some folks pull out the 'bad dm' and 'bad player' cards as fast as they possibly can.  It's a lousy position to take in an argument, and rarely engenders any nuanced or rational discussion.  Part of the problem is, of course, folks who don't read the thread, and assume facts not in evidence.  When you go three quotes deep, what one person used as an example becomes the fifth person's truth to rail against...and so it goes.  Curse you and your wrongfun, anyways.


----------

