Game Mecahnics Versus Role Playing Focus

[Spatula]

I just don't get the appeal of all the planning and working and min-maxing...

It's an activity that gearheads find enjoyable.

...without the character to back it up.

I think Nightson, Toben, & Burrito have the right of this (mechanics & roleplaying aren't mutually exclusive), but in the interests of exploring the topic more... what defines the character? Is it just personality? Background? Those elements aren't totally divorced from the mechanical aspects. If you're a fighter that carries some assumptions about the character's personality (probably not afraid of a fight) and background (well versed in the use of arms & armor), and being a wizard carries different assumptions. And to go further, what type of fighter, or wizard, or what have you, might also say something about who the character is. A diviner would probably have a different outlook and approach to problems than an evoker, for an easy example. Having those mechanical options available opens up new ideas for roleplaying options.

And Martial Power, at least, does give you a bunch of new & different styles for the martial classes. A beastmaster ranger has an interesting roleplaying hook - the beast companion - that archery/2WF rangers don't have. So perhaps the players in question already have their "character" created, and it is married to these splatbook mechanics.

Or they could just be powergamers who don't care about roleplaying at all. Only one way to find out!

 

[JoeGKushner]

Well, the player dropped. " I played with a bunch of builds for characters just using the core books, and i didnt like any of em enough to use for playing. They all lacked a little something, be it weapon choices, power, or build choices. So I don't want to waste my time playing a character i know i wouldn't enjoy. Goodluck in your game."

It's probably for the best. No point in playing in a game you know you're not going to enjoy.

 

[howandwhy99]

Might be my age or something there. I didnt' say anything as I want to see how it actually plays as opposed to how it talks out. Some of the best role playing elements come out in play and dont' need background options. Hell, I like it when role playing elements come out in play. I just couldn't fathom all discussion being on the game mechanics.These mechanical concerns may be just that, game mechanic concerns.

In my opinion, this is going to keep happening over and over until you put the rules behind the screen and let the players figure the system out from your in-world descriptions over time. They'll learn most of the core rules eventually, but it will be from the point of view of the characters - and that's the whole point, right? To be in a fantasy world as a hero? To be in the place of the character? I'm a bit long in the tooth too though, so...

 

[Fenes]

My ideal style is: The player makes a concept, and I help building a character that fits it.

The concept part can be "Two weapon fighter with daggers, and crazy tumbling, and kuing-fu moves", or "A mixture of Drizzt and Jackie Chan, without angst", or a short novel. I simply help fiilling out the blanks, be they mechanics or background related.

 

[Aus_Snow]

In short modern games need a Soul once again.

Unless you have already (and therefore are entitled to your informed opinion; please don't get me wrong here), I strongly suggest checking out some more of the modern games out there. If what you posted there had read, 'In short modern D&D needs a Soul once again', well then, sadly I'd pretty much have to agree and that would be that. But I feel compelled to offer the suggestion above, because in my opinion (which, hopefully, is in this instance reasonably informed) a fair number of these modern games you referred to en masse are in fact well and truly 'ensouled'.

Not to mention that a good number of older games also are, of course.

 

[roguerouge]

As the DM, you get to be anybody you want. As the player, you're this one person for months or years at a time. Of course you're a bit picky about it.

And, as far as mechanics go, they're a proxy for anxiety about character death. If you're going to invest in creating a detailed character background, forming relationships with all of these PCs, and playing them for months to years, you want to feel like you've done everything possible to make sure that this guy lives. Because it stinks if your guy dies just when the story gets good because you failed him. And it stinks worse if you are invested in the story, only to realize that your character is weak and unable to affect the story through combat or skills at level 10.

 

[roguerouge]

As far as old version DnD... well, you're forgetting just how replaceable those characters could be, simply because it was so easy to replace them.

 

[Mallus]

The soul of the game has always been in the hands of the participants. Modern games appear to be constructed to permit a wider range of mechanical options but the defining elements of the actual character were never in a D&D rulebook.

I don't think it can be said better (or more succinctly) that this.

 

[roguerouge]

I'm just worried that the whole of the character is what the character can do as opposed to who the character is.

You are what you do. That's true of real life too.

 

[Mallus]

They'll learn most of the core rules eventually, but it will be from the point of view of the characters - and that's the whole point, right?

Not for the people I've gamed with over the years. The point --if it can be distilled down into a single one-- is to be an active participant in a fantasy adventure story. Learning the game system from the inside-out is orthogonal to the this. In fact, it would be a hindrance.