Quote from: estar;679312After writing the revised Thieves of Badabaskor for Goodman Games I never want to write another 3e style stat block again. Talk about being picky and detailed obsessed. Hell even GURPS doesn't have as complicated stat blocks as 3e.

The statblocks in 3X slowly converted me from somone who liked 3X to someone who can't stand to gm it now. I can play it but all that useless extra crap statblock stuff made gming it a chore for me.

Quote from: Bill;679313The statblocks in 3X slowly converted me from somone who liked 3X to someone who can't stand to gm it now. I can play it but all that useless extra crap statblock stuff made gming it a chore for me.

My road to Castles & Crusades and then on to OSR games started out with me, as a DM, getting burned out on stating things up for 3e. I was initially enthusiastic about all the options and customizability, but that wore off as the extra work began to make DMing less fun and more of a chore.

Quote from: Dimitrios;679317My road to Castles & Crusades and then on to OSR games started out with me, as a DM, getting burned out on stating things up for 3e. I was initially enthusiastic about all the options and customizability, but that wore off as the extra work began to make DMing less fun and more of a chore.

I also started comparing the 'chore' factor to HERO.

I realized that HERO requires up front work, but once you have that done it is a breeze.

3X has slightly less up front chore work, but straps a huge weight on your back forever; the chore remains all the time.

Quote from: estar;679312After writing the revised Thieves of Badabaskor for Goodman Games I never want to write another 3e style stat block again. Talk about being picky and detailed obsessed. Hell even GURPS doesn't have as complicated stat blocks as 3e.

There was a prolific reviewer back in the day who used to review lots of 3E adventures, including the Necromancer Games stuff I was using. An essential part of his reviews was analyzing the stat blocks to make sure all the feats, stats, and numbers jibed and were legal. If they didn't, the adventure was more or less 'broken' in his eyes.

That's when I realized the emergent playstyle of WotC D&D was hostile to my preferences.

The thing I can't figure out about the success of Pathfinder is why DMs don't burn out and leave the game.

Quote from: Haffrung;679328The thing I can't figure out about the success of Pathfinder is why DMs don't burn out and leave the game.

Adventure paths perhaps?

It would be interesting to see some data on the number of Pathfinder GMs who primarily use  APs vs those who mostly homebrew.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;679334Adventure paths perhaps?

It would be interesting to see some data on the number of Pathfinder GMs who primarily use  APs vs those who mostly homebrew.

Yeah, I think Paizo definitely sells the game via the APs. But I've actually seen admissions on the part of Paizo's brass that a lot of people don't play out the APs to conclusion because  they find high-level play onerous. And that's where everything in the campaign - the adventures, maps, NPCs, stats, etc. - is already laid out on a platter for the DM.

Why assume that GMs don't burn out on Pathfinder? I've had more than a handful, both online and off, express to me that they have.

Quote from: Bobloblah;679336Why assume that GMs don't burn out on Pathfinder? I've had more than a handful, both online and off, express to me that they have.

So that suggests they're doing well at attracting new DMs to fill the ranks.

Quote from: Haffrung;679335Yeah, I think Paizo definitely sells the game via the APs. But I've actually seen admissions on the part of Paizo's brass that a lot of people don't play out the APs to conclusion because  they find high-level play onerous. And that's where everything in the campaign - the adventures, maps, NPCs, stats, etc. - is already laid out on a platter for the DM.

It's surprised me how persistent the "every campaign will run the full gamut from level 1 to level 36 (or 100, or 1 billion or whatever)" idea has been since WotC introduced it with 3e. It was the one thing that I houseruled right out of the box to achieve the older "speed through levels 1-3, slower through levels 4-8, really slow down from level 9 on up" sort of progression.

There are all sorts of issues that only become problems in high level play, which is why the default was to make it rare. Slowing down the level progression seems like such an easy fix compared to the various other things people have tried (such as revising the game beyond recognition...).

Quote from: Haffrung;679328The thing I can't figure out about the success of Pathfinder is why DMs don't burn out and leave the game.

I know there are at least a couple of long running Pathfinder games run locally where the DM has ended up really simplifying a lot of rules and have started basically building NPCs by just eyeballing them.

Quote from: Bobloblah;679336Why assume that GMs don't burn out on Pathfinder? I've had more than a handful, both online and off, express to me that they have.

I burned out on Pathfinder.

After my last Dark Sun setting game using Pathfinder I finally realized the system was not for me.

Quote from: Dimitrios;679342There are all sorts of issues that only become problems in high level play, which is why the default was to make it rare. Slowing down the level progression seems like such an easy fix compared to the various other things people have tried (such as revising the game beyond recognition...).

If I was in charge of D&D Next, I'd make the standard game levels 1-10 and have an optional rules package for high-level play. My guess is no more than about 20 per cent of groups play past 10 anyway (not counting 4E, which like everything else, has a different leveling model). Even with a very rapid leveling pace of every second session, no TPKs, and weekly sessions, it would take half a year of real time to max out. At leveling every third session, and sessions twice a month, it's a year and a half.

Quote from: Haffrung;679379If I was in charge of D&D Next, I'd make the standard game levels 1-10 and have an optional rules package for high-level play. My guess is no more than about 20 per cent of groups play past 10 anyway (not counting 4E, which like everything else, has a different leveling model). Even with a very rapid leveling pace of every second session, no TPKs, and weekly sessions, it would take half a year of real time to max out. At leveling every third session, and sessions twice a month, it's a year and a half.

I think a lot of 3e players play at "end game" levels.  A huge portion of 3e is around level 20 builds.  Now, I know that doesn't mean they actually play the game up to level 20, but still

Quote from: Sacrosanct;679395I think a lot of 3e players play at "end game" levels.  A huge portion of 3e is around level 20 builds.  Now, I know that doesn't mean they actually play the game up to level 20, but still

I think there is a whole lot more building and theorizing about level 20 than there is actual play.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;679395I think a lot of 3e players play at "end game" levels.  A huge portion of 3e is around level 20 builds.  Now, I know that doesn't mean they actually play the game up to level 20, but still

It is weird.

I don't know anybody IRL that's reached level 20. the closest I got was 18 before the campaign ended... mainly because D&D frankly does not really work at those sort of levels.