So, as I have mentioned elsewhere, Jeff with all the numbers sent me a copy of the Classic Traveller reprint.

One of the things I'm discovering is that there's a definite split between the amount of crunch the players have to address, and the amount of crunch that's present in the more DM oriented parts of the rules.  It also puts a lot of the actual application of the usage of stats and skills on DM fiat.

It's a game I'd love to play, but I'd be a little nervous about running it.  

I've heard a lot of people level similar accusations at D&D3, but more in the sense that the character-side crunch encroaches on prep speed.  I'm more of a "by the MM" sort of guy, only using the PC rules for special NPCs, but I can see where actually customizing in more depth would bog down prep work quite a bit.

Any other games folsk can think of with this same sort of split?  And I don't just mean that the DM has to do more work than the players, I take that as a given, but in that thee rules themselves seem to level a lot more detail at the DM than the players.

Quote from: J ArcaneI've heard a lot of people level similar accusations at D&D3, but more in the sense that the character-side crunch encroaches on prep speed.  I'm more of a "by the MM" sort of guy, only using the PC rules for special NPCs, but I can see where actually customizing in more depth would bog down prep work quite a bit.

Well, monsters out of the MM are well and good, but the character generation is detailed. This is usually okay for players, as they generally only make one level's worth of choices and tabulation at a time, but in a high level game, the DM is frequently confronted with a lot of work if they aren't the sort that just does a monster-bashing campaign.

Spycraft 2.0 addresses this by making a different system for NPCs than for PCs. It doesn't require you to use classes or skill points, and automatically scales the NPC with level. However, this lets you keep the more detailed generation more desirable for PCs. (Feng Shui uses a similar arrangement, but the difference is less stark as FS characters are simpler to begin with.)
This is sort of the opposite of what you were getting at, but in a good way.

J A, re. CT: One thing to be aware of is that CT contains a bunch of mini-game-ish subsystems that you don't ever need to use as a GM unless you're so inclined--world generation and starship construction above all. There are sourcebooks for ships and planets, and online info/software for them galore.

Quote from: J ArcaneAny other games folsk can think of with this same sort of split?  And I don't just mean that the DM has to do more work than the players, I take that as a given, but in that thee rules themselves seem to level a lot more detail at the DM than the players.

HeroQuest. I have no idea what the split is like...but I suspect there's a heavy burden on the GM.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Caesar SlaadWell, monsters out of the MM are well and good, but the character generation is detailed. This is usually okay for players, as they generally only make one level's worth of choices and tabulation at a time, but in a high level game, the DM is frequently confronted with a lot of work if they aren't the sort that just does a monster-bashing campaign.

Spycraft 2.0 addresses this by making a different system for NPCs than for PCs. It doesn't require you to use classes or skill points, and automatically scales the NPC with level. However, this lets you keep the more detailed generation more desirable for PCs. (Feng Shui uses a similar arrangement, but the difference is less stark as FS characters are simpler to begin with.)
This is sort of the opposite of what you were getting at, but in a good way.

Well, I also have the advantage of e-Tools, which speeds things up quite a bit.

I'm a big proponent of roleplaying software.  Computer assistance FTW.  

Quote from: J ArcaneWell, I also have the advantage of e-Tools, which speeds things up quite a bit.

I'm a big proponent of roleplaying software.  Computer assistance FTW.  

TruDat.

But for me, one of the big selling points of D20 is the support. And no tool seems to be able to simply support adding new extensions (heck, ironically, the easiest I've found is coding PCgen source files, and that's still not easy enough). Doubly so now that CodeMonkey can't sell WotC extensions anymore.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadTruDat.

But for me, one of the big selling points of D20 is the support. And no tool seems to be able to simply support adding new extensions (heck, ironically, the easiest I've found is coding PCgen source files, and that's still not easy enough). Doubly so now that CodeMonkey can't sell WotC extensions anymore.

There's a program called ETHelper that's designed to let you add new stuff to eTools, though it's kind of barebones, and doesn't always work so hot for some things.

Quote from: J ArcaneThere's a program called ETHelper that's designed to let you add new stuff to eTools, though it's kind of barebones, and doesn't always work so hot for some things.

Yeah, I know about it. I tried it, still find hand coding PCGen files easier and more flexible.

Which isn't saying a whole lot.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadYeah, I know about it. I tried it, still find hand coding PCGen files easier and more flexible.

Which isn't saying a whole lot.

In the end I just wound up downloading a big fat bundle of the addon files from my favorite IRC network.  I've not got all of them I'm sure, but I've got a pretty healthy percentage, and there was no way in hell I was paying for that crap.  especially since the implementation of the rules on some of the addons leaves a lot to be desired, thanks to CMP's not so hot programming skills, and eTools limitations.  

Occasionally I will add something using eTools built in tools if I need a new race or something, but that's about it.

I never liked PCGen at all. I love eTools, however. In the past I used eTools to quickly generate NPC and monster stat blocks to use in play.

Even with programs to generate higher level NPCs, what always got me was the list of feats or spells that I could remember the details of. For the most part I would ignore a lot of the feats because I wasn't sure how they worked.

With my players, I trust them to have read the book and make note of the feats they have and what they do. For me, as the GM, I don't know what every single feat does and end up fudging it quite a bit. This is one reason I don't use optional feats and spells from other books (like the "Complete" series) for my NPCs.

One reason I never like running spellcasters as a DM is that I just don't have that good of a handle on too many spells outside of the most basic ones. As such, I usually play my spellcasting NPCs rather ineffectually. The last thing I want to do when running a game is spend too much time looking things up in a book during play, especially during a combat.

What I may do in my next D&D campaign is to start fudging more NPCs and enemey combatants, just detailing the important stats and ignoring most of the the other stuff. Whether or not an NPC could be built legally during the game rules shouldn't affect how I tell the story, and might improve the story if I wasn't so worried about niggling details.