What ever happened to just "playing" the game and telling a great story?

[redmagerush]

I don't know about your experience, but, in mine, when I've played in games that don't have xp or loot, the campaigns fizzle after about 10-15 sessions. At least, far shorter than D&D campaigns. Obviously YMMV.

Ten to fifteen games is about as long as I want to play any particular campaign personally. So that sort of thigns works well for me.

 

[DragonLancer]

As a DM I am full agreement that the rules-tweaking needs to take a backseat and players should partake of RPG's as a storytelling exercise with them as the characters dictating whether that story goes. It is very easy to run a story driven campaign without it falling into railroading.

 

[Banshee16]

hmm your question has part of the answer in it somewhere.

"What ever happened to "just playing the game and enjoying the story?" "


What ever happend to just playing the game?

A game without a story is boring.

Banshee

 

[Slife]

A game without a story is boring.

Banshee

Yep. That's why some obscure game with colored blocks never took off...

 

[DungeonMaester]

Yep. That's why some obscure game with colored blocks never took off...

Throwing Stones? Or something more obscure?

---Rusty

 

[The Merciful]

Gygax did an unbelievably good design solution in including xp/loot/levels in an RPG. The first RPG, no less.

Umm... Weren't those Dave Arneson's ideas? I do recal reading an interview with him where he states introducing the hit points and level progression.

But, yeah, progression in character power can and does keep people interested. Many WoW players have broken their marriages because of it.

 

[Maggan]

Throwing Stones? Or something more obscure?

---Rusty

I'm thinking Tetris.

/M

 

[Ulrick]

Okay, I just finished my 3.5e campaign tonight, after running it for a year and half.

The end of the campaign climactic battle was slowed down as the PHB was consulted again and again by players desperate to get whatever advantage they could. Even the DM's guide needed consulted by the player's who have prestige classes and when uncertain about certain abilities. In general, the game had lots and lots of rule consulting, as usual. A nose in a book isn't a nose in the story.

Meanwhile, in the next room, a 1st Edition game was in full swing. During the 15 min break I allow every two-hours for my game, I take a peek.

Totally different atmosphere.

The players were engaged with the story the DM was telling. It seems that the only time a player had to look in a book was if he was a spellcaster. Combat went a lot smoother with less interruptions to consult the damn books.

I know that some people disagree with me, but what I'm complaining about IS a 3e phenomenon. I remember playing 2e as player and only occasionally needed to consult the books during a session.

3e seemed to give power to the players at the expense of the DM. For me, as a player, 3e is okay, but to DM it sometime is just a chore.

Therefore, I think I'll give AD&D a try. Sorry Diaglo and Philotomy, I think playing 1974 OD&D might be going too far. I have a copy of the Holmes edition, though, and I do understand the appeal.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Remember back when you first played D&D?
What ever happened to "just playing the game and enjoying the story?"

I have few reasonable answers.

1) Nothing.
While 3rd edition did add more refinement to the tactical side of the game, the presence of such rules do not impact the ability of people to play the game while emphasizing story.

2) It depends on who you are playing with.
Different people play the game for different reasons. You are probably not playing with the same people you did when you first played. On top of that, you are also not the same person you were when you started playing. The expectations of everyone at the table affects the feel of the game. It is hard to create a feeling of an serious game when someone at a table keeps busting out with Monty Python quotes. It is also hard to ignore the rules when someone at the table puts a significant effort into exploiting the rules to their best advantage.

3) What ever happened to "just playing the game and enjoying the Game ?
I do remember when I first played D&D. For me, I got into the game much differently than you did. For one, the gateway to D&D for me went through the Dragonlance novels. I ended up Bootstrapping myself into the game. I bought the 2nd Edition PHB, then the other books. My first game experiences were rolling up PC's and having them kill one another. I ended up running games for my friends.

At no time did I find myself trying to ever recreate a particular feel from a Novel or a Movie. I had not even read Tolkein at that point (and did not until about 9 years later). But even in my early games, I can recall trying to figure out the tactical side of the game. Story was important. But making combat tactically interesting was equally important.

As time passed, the style of game I ran evolved. One of the big influences was the famous Tuckers Kobolds article. It drilled into me that I did not need to use the biggest monsters to make a fight challenging. The other influnce was the 2nd Edition Villains handbook. I do not generally plan out a story. I create a Villain. Than I figure out what that Villain wants to do, and work out hooks to pull the players in. Then we just see what happens.

I have generally found that for the most part, the points of a game that are about story do not really interact much with the rules. But if one of my players has maxed out Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense motive, i am not about to screw him over just because it is inconvenient for me to have the players learn that someone they are interacting with is lying. My adventure might be more interesting story wise if I can capture the players. But I am not about to kick on a bunch of extra hit points to a bad guy just because a player scored a critical while doing a heavy power attack. And while I may complain if a player nails a bad guy I want to keep alive with a Hold Person, I am not going to pretend he made the Will save.

I am told that I am generally a very good DM by the players I have ran games for. But I am not about to pretend that I am better at creating compelling fiction than what my players can find in the movies. When i am playing D&D, I am playing a game, first and foremost. I am not going to indulge in a personal vanity project where I inflict bad fiction on a captive audience. I am just going to create a game where I will let my players do anything they can justify with in the rules.

Saying that Story First is better than a Rules Heavy / Tactically oriented game is meaningless. It is like saying Coke is better than Pepsi. Many will agree. Many others will disagree.

(Also, Pepsi is way better than Coke anyway)

END COMMUNICATION

 

[barsoomcore]

Your game:

The PHB was consulted again and again by players desperate to get whatever advantage they could. Even the DM's guide needed consulted by the player's who have prestige classes and when uncertain about certain abilities. In general, the game had lots and lots of rule consulting, as usual.

Somebody else's game:

The players were engaged with the story the DM was telling. It seems that the only time a player had to look in a book was if he was a spellcaster. Combat went a lot smoother with less interruptions to consult the damn books.

Why do you assume the primary difference is the rule set? The other obvious difference is the people involved. Maybe it's you. Maybe it's your players. But in my experience, the people involved have FAR more to do with the fun quotient of the game than the rules.

I believe you will find that a more useful line of inquiry than switching rulesets around.