Stances on system mastery

[Ozreth]

Do you believe it is an intergal part of 3.x or do you ignore it entirely?
Are you not really playing the game if you aren't adhering to some sort of mastery?
Do you think many of the 3e era's modules were written with system mastery in mind?

I for one have never bothered to master the system. As a DM I tell my story, grab monsters from the MM and let players take whatever feats/spells/skills they think compliment their characters design. Delving into system mastery would feel a bit too gamist for me.

Thoughts? And let's try to get through it without a link to Monte Cooks article :)

[Fouredged Sword]

Yes, you need at least some mastery of the system. You need to know how to play and what will work/not work and how to dial a character up or down in effectivness.

You can play the game at any mastery level, but you need to be able to tell what level you are playing at to be fun to play with. There are games that a toughness takeing fighter will fit in. Othertimes you need to be tier one or go home. Knowing when to do what is vital.

Most stuff I see comeing out of WotC shows no regard to system mastery.

It's not all about powergameing, but more about playing the game you Want to play, rather than getting frusterated by ether being not good enough or being so powerful you feel like you need to not do anything or ruin the game for others.

[Elitarismo]

It's integral, in part because it was intentionally implemented and in part because some things are just bad.

As for modules, it largely depends. Many of them do enhance existing balance problems instead of helping to correct them. That goes double for the ones that are difficult as written.

Knowing the system allows you to make what you want. Both in terms of power level, and in terms of concepts. You flat out are not making a viable unarmed fighting character without some serious system mastery. It just is not going to happen. You are also not making a viable dual wielding character without the same.

[Knaight]

System mastery is a good thing to have, simply because it allows one to use the system in a greater variety of ways. Its a part of every system to some extent or other, the better one knows it, the more versatile it is. That said, D&D 3.5 takes an inordinately long time to become highly usable, and entire character concepts are basically shut down until one learns non-intuitive tricks to get them to work. That is a systemic flaw.

[Yora]

In my groups, I somehow happen to be the only one who actually knows all the options of the PHB. The people I play with usually don't seem to care about character optimization at all, and campaigns usually involve relatively few combat, so we never even get to levels where character builds really matter.

Players usually decide on a race and a character archetype, and then ask me what class and 1st level feat would be the most practical choice to get such a character. And that's pretty much it.

[DeAnno]

Are you not really playing the game if you aren't adhering to some sort of mastery?

I wouldn't quite say that, but I would say if you are playing 3.5 without system mastery, or at least system competence, you are playing a very different game (to the point of feeling almost as different as 4.0 is from either of them) than 3.5 with system mastery.

[Frozen_Feet]

Some level of system mastery is necessary, especially for a GM. It allows for better designed adventures, characters, settings, so on and so forth.

That said, 3.x D&D is a hodge-podge of different rules that makes me weep, becoming worse with each additional book. It's often better to just limit yourself to the rules you can easily understand, than try to include and master all of them.

[Jude_H]

It's not always necessary, but it's easy for situations that necessitate system mastery to come up - one player choosing a Warblade alongside a Monk and Samurai, different players juggling different magic systems in the same game, opening the page to Clockwork Horror and saying "that looks cool." Without knowing how he system works, it's hard to deal with the metagame issues when they arise or to anticipate them before they do.

If you don't master the system, sure, you're playing the game. The mechanical system is still there, though, and it has a fair chance of blind-siding you with mis-advertised balance or unfamiliar mechanics. It's also an awfully dense system to pick up just to neglect.

I don't think any of 3e's modules expected system mastery - at least not to the degree that you see from people who still fret and fiddle with the mechanics on the internet, years after the game left the market: I haven't delved very far into any modules, but the ones I've seen (RHoD, a couple Eberron one-offs) and the sample encounters in published books have all been demolished by min-maxers. I don't think the developers recognized how hard some of the game elements would be able to push the system.

[Godskook]

Do you believe it is an intergal part of 3.x or do you ignore it entirely?

Integral, but some of my PCs disagree.


Are you not really playing the game if you aren't adhering to some sort of mastery?

I'm not really sure if you're using "Mastery = high-end optimization" or "Mastery = rules knowledge". In the first case, you can play low-end optimization. In the latter, how can you 'play' a game without knowing it? Sure, I could throw playing cards around, but until I know that having 3 cards with an "A" on them means I got 3-of-a-kind, I can't really 'play' poker. And while D&D doesn't require full-system knowledge to play effectively, if you're blatantly ignoring rules on the fly(rather than properly houseruling), you're not playing D&D. Your roleplaying, using D&D to give you some pretense(not that there's anything wrong with that, if you're honest about it).


Do you think many of the 3e era's modules were written with system mastery in mind?

Don't know exactly, cause I really haven't played them, but from hearsay, they're typically set up to be as underpowered as any other encounter that DM would throw at the party.


I for one have never bothered to master the system. As a DM I tell my story, grab monsters from the MM and let players take whatever feats/spells/skills they think compliment their characters design. Delving into system mastery would feel a bit too gamist for me.

Your playing a game. Feeling like you're playing a game should be part of the experience. That doesn't have to come throw delving into rules minutiea, but still.


Thoughts? And let's try to get through it without a link to Monte Cooks article :)

In reference to that article, I'm a fan of Ivory Tower game design, at least partially. I like puzzling out combos and enjoy being challenged. On the other hand, I dislike 'traps', i.e., blatantly bad options. To this end, I ban, houserule or discourage the use of choices that are painfully underpowered(such as Monk and Fighter), while leave the 'cool combos' hidden where they belong.

For instance, I'm fine with scout, mostly, only house-ruling the skill-set to actually be able to perform the 'rogue' job that scouts are practically required to perform by virtue of being the only rogue-like in the 4-man party. But things like Swift Hunter, Extra Favored Enemy, Cloister Cleric dips and other similar optimization ideas are "left as an exercise for the reader" so to speak.

To this end, I'm starting to like the tier ~3 adjustable classes, like Incarnum, Factotum, and Binder. Mistakes are often times as easy to fix as they are to make, since a bad bind, meld, or spell gets replaced just as easily as it gets picked.

'Course, I also use a few houserules that are *EXTREMELY* different from standard 3.5. Think WoD, and you're getting close. My current campaign offers the following at the cost of xp:

Improved point-buy: Current point-buy squared.
Feats: 1k xp plus an additional 1k xp per feat bought this way.
Max HD: The level of the HD, minus 1, times 250 xp.
Gestalt: 1k times the gestalt level you're adding(4th gestalt level is 4k xp)

I also allow retraining, but at an xp cost there too.

[Ozreth]

In my groups, I somehow happen to be the only one who actually knows all the options of the PHB. The people I play with usually don't seem to care about character optimization at all, and campaigns usually involve relatively few combat, so we never even get to levels where character builds really matter.

Players usually decide on a race and a character archetype, and then ask me what class and 1st level feat would be the most practical choice to get such a character. And that's pretty much it.

Sounds almost exactly like my games, and I like it that way. But over the years I've begun to think that I play 3e in such a way that I might as well be playing AD&D. Things tend to stay low level and I use the prolonged experience progression. Magic items are a bit more rare. Players typically go for the fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue party. Multi-classing never happens. I use generic monsters with their generic stats. I use the level based skill system (UA) so skills are stereotypically relevant to the class and hardly change. So on and so forth.

Heck, I've even considered using the generic classes from UA. Where is the room or need for system mastery in such a game?

[KoboldCleric]

System Mastery is not necessary to enjoy the game; playing with system mastery is an entirely different experience compared to playing without. I often wish I could unlearn the 3.5 system; in this case, ignorance really was bliss.

[Knaight]

Sounds almost exactly like my games, and I like it that way. But over the years I've begun to think that I play 3e in such a way that I might as well be playing AD&D. Things tend to stay low level and I use the prolonged experience progression. Magic items are a bit more rare. Players typically go for the fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue party. Multi-classing never happens. I use generic monsters with their generic stats. I use the class based skill system so skills are stereotypically relevant to the class and hardly change. So on and so forth.

Heck, I've even considered using the generic classes from UA. Where is the room or need for system mastery in such a game?

You know the rules and their interactions within that limited sphere, and that is limited system mastery. Knowing that one uses a d20 in most rolls is in and of itself part of system mastery, having any idea what feats are better than what other feats - such as toughness being worthless - is system mastery, and both of these are inevitable coming from actual play where people pay attention.

[Tvtyrant]

I don't believe its necessary; games can be run just fine without it and terribly with it, or vice versa. I didn't have a single balance issue in any of my games until I began to really get into system mastery. Then my group followed me into it, and we quickly abandoned a lot of the things that had made the game fun in favor of rules oriented responses.

The best example of this was skill checks; we pretty much made any skill check below a 20 to succeed and no skills needed to be trained to be attempted. The Bard might be the best singer in the group, but the Dwarven Cleric can sing beer songs just fine. When we instituted the games skill checks it quickly became apparent that the game was actually terrible at things like jumping, and a lot of the more realistic day to day options stopped coming up in play.

[Ozreth]

Actually, I suppose optimization (of characters, monsters, spells etc) is more what I am getting at.

[Telonius]

The DM needs system mastery in order for there to be an enjoyable game. If the guy in charge can't figure out how to set up an appropriate encounter, ban a Pun-Pun in the making, or even fix an accidentally-powerful/weak character, it will not turn out well.

Otherwise, I'd say the best groups are ones where there's a roughly comparable level of system mastery across the party.

[Knaight]

Actually, I suppose optimization (of characters, monsters, spells etc) is more what I am getting at.

Ah. Being able to keep things where you want them matters, but that's about it.

[Fiery Diamond]

Well, really, I'd say there's a spectrum (the borders of the divisions not being at all clear and often being controversial):

1) System knowledge: Basic understanding of the rules of the system; knowing "how to play." The amount of knowledge covered by this is, of course, subject to debate.

2) System competence: Understanding of the rules and options of the system such that you can reliably create a character have it do what you want it to do, or throw monsters at your players and have a decent challenge, with some acceptable measure of success. While this would obviously (for a DM) include understanding of monsters and the ability to look at something in the MM and realize that a Chuul is not an appropriate encounter for second level characters, nor is a Dire Rat going to pose a challenge for tenth level ones, the extent of the knowledge and understanding required to be "competent" is under heated debate, and probably the cause of questions like the OP being asked.

3) System mastery: Extensive knowledge of rules, options, and the plethora of interactions that various rules and options can have, as well as their implications. This is where high-end optimization and encyclopaedic knowledge of splatbooks comes into play. Some people, for some reason, seem to believe that this level of understanding is required for "system competence," at least for D&D 3.5. I think those people are off their rocker, but that's just a personal opinion. What's really important is that you don't have people of wildly different levels of knowledge/competence/mastery trying to play the same game and refusing to adapt.

[AzazelSephiroth]

Well, really, I'd say there's a spectrum (the borders of the divisions not being at all clear and often being controversial):

1) System knowledge: Basic understanding of the rules of the system; knowing "how to play." The amount of knowledge covered by this is, of course, subject to debate.

2) System competence: Understanding of the rules and options of the system such that you can reliably create a character have it do what you want it to do, or throw monsters at your players and have a decent challenge, with some acceptable measure of success. While this would obviously (for a DM) include understanding of monsters and the ability to look at something in the MM and realize that a Chuul is not an appropriate encounter for second level characters, nor is a Dire Rat going to pose a challenge for tenth level ones, the extent of the knowledge and understanding required to be "competent" is under heated debate, and probably the cause of questions like the OP being asked.

3) System mastery: Extensive knowledge of rules, options, and the plethora of interactions that various rules and options can have, as well as their implications. This is where high-end optimization and encyclopaedic knowledge of splatbooks comes into play. Some people, for some reason, seem to believe that this level of understanding is required for "system competence," at least for D&D 3.5. I think those people are off their rocker, but that's just a personal opinion. What's really important is that you don't have people of wildly different levels of knowledge/competence/mastery trying to play the same game and refusing to adapt.

I am going to +1 this:smallsmile:

[Laucorn]

Well, really, I'd say there's a spectrum (the borders of the divisions not being at all clear and often being controversial):

1) System knowledge: Basic understanding of the rules of the system; knowing "how to play." The amount of knowledge covered by this is, of course, subject to debate.

2) System competence: Understanding of the rules and options of the system such that you can reliably create a character have it do what you want it to do, or throw monsters at your players and have a decent challenge, with some acceptable measure of success. While this would obviously (for a DM) include understanding of monsters and the ability to look at something in the MM and realize that a Chuul is not an appropriate encounter for second level characters, nor is a Dire Rat going to pose a challenge for tenth level ones, the extent of the knowledge and understanding required to be "competent" is under heated debate, and probably the cause of questions like the OP being asked.

3) System mastery: Extensive knowledge of rules, options, and the plethora of interactions that various rules and options can have, as well as their implications. This is where high-end optimization and encyclopaedic knowledge of splatbooks comes into play. Some people, for some reason, seem to believe that this level of understanding is required for "system competence," at least for D&D 3.5. I think those people are off their rocker, but that's just a personal opinion. What's really important is that you don't have people of wildly different levels of knowledge/competence/mastery trying to play the same game and refusing to adapt.

I think this hit the nail on the head perfectly :) I'm probably number 2 as I dont break characters, and still ask for input and suggestions from people but I can still make a character do for the most part what I am trying to do. Then again I am constantly reading different books and wanting to try different things so I've yet to focus on a single type of character so who knows for sure.