Has D&D become less about the adventure?

[Flexor the Mighty!]

The question still hasn't been answered: should the DM change to fit his players if they're L&L players?

Should I just face the music and start running L&L campaigns because that's what people want nowadays?

Jay H

Play if you are having fun. I don't play just to play, if I'm not having fun that the end for me. If you can have fun running L&L games then have fun doing so, but don't run one that you don't enjoy simply becuase the players want that. Tell them you will run X kind of game but that Y type of game is no fun so you won't run that. You aren't being a jerk, you are just dealing with the fact that you shouldn't waste your time on leisure activities that you don't enjoy.

 

[buzz]

Everyone should be having fun. It's a game after all. If you're not going to have fun running the type of game that your players would prefer, then it would be time to find a new group whose interests are more in line with your own.

QFT.

It doesn't matter what "everyone" wants; what matters is what your group wants. And, indeed, you are a member of your group, so your vote counts, too. If you can't reach consensus, do like Kane says and find people who want what you want.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Maybe, but there's a the rarity of folks willing to roleplay a situation as opposed to rolling dice to speed things along.

I have 13 people who play in my campaign, and even the rules lawyer talks first with rolling the dice as a distant second.

It's impossible to make these sorts of generalizations, given that everyone's pool of players is so small.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I have 13 people who play in my campaign, and even the rules lawyer talks first with rolling the dice as a distant second.

It's impossible to make these sorts of generalizations, given that everyone's pool of players is so small.

We tend to roll first and then let the dice decide our words, but we like the randomness that causes. The point being we still roleplay out whatever situations arise, the dice merely facilitate the roleplaying. They are not the focus of the game.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. That is quite the comment.

I prefer the more barebones adventures I can flesh out to mega-campaign adventures, which I will never run again after the last one.

Its always funny how people confuse lack of substance with actual substance. A bunch or nonsensical rooms randomly thrown together is preferrable to something designed with rhyme and reason? Take your grognard blinders off man, the old adventures largely sucked. If it didnt, its because you put a LOT of lipstick on that pig.

 

[The Shaman]

IOW... most of my enjoyment of my 1e PCs came out of elaborate backstories, which of course had zero impact on the game. In actual play, they pretty much did a lot of the same stuff, and 1e, being 1e, didn't do any of it as competently as I hoped, prior tp 7th-10th level.

I don't know what game we were playing back in the day - I mean, it said Advanced Dungeons and Dragons on the cover, so I just assumed that's what it was - but my experience is so different from yours.

With 3e, I find that my PCs are actually interesting to play in-game from level 1; the numbers alone are fun to fiddle with and produce cool results. I don't feel like I need to rely on a bunch of "imagined coolness" (i.e., "let me tell you about my character") to enjoy them.

Again, I'm completely confused - were we playing the beta-edition of 3e back in 1980 or something? The version of AD&D with extra combat options not available to most gamers?

Or is it just that we actually read the rules and understood them, and used them in play? It's a puzzlement. :\

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Its always funny how people confuse lack of substance with actual substance. A bunch or nonsensical rooms randomly thrown together is preferrable to something designed with rhyme and reason? Take your grognard blinders off man, the old adventures largely sucked. If it didnt, its because you put a LOT of lipstick on that pig.

Sorry, I'll take Against The Giants over a mega-campaign book like Shackled City any day. Not saying Shackled City sucks but I have no desire to run campaign length adventures. I can tweak and modify a bunch barebones modules that are basically an encounter locations with suggested text to involve the party and get more out of it than buying a mega-campaign and having to rework a lot of material becuase changing A means affected B, and C has no place in my game, etc.

To each his own, I'll just keep gaming the wrong way and entertaining my players with adventures that objectively suck.

 

[Henry]

...I'm completely confused - were we playing the beta-edition of 3e back in 1980 or something? The version of AD&D with extra combat options not available to most gamers?

Or is it just that we actually read the rules and understood them, and used them in play? It's a puzzlement. :\

I can understand where he's coming from: In 1E, a fighter had lots of hit points, maybe a weapon specialization or three, and that was it. Eveything else was in the background, and a DM had to work with you to give mechanical life to anything outside of the default combat rules that you wanted to do. (Remember in 1E when you wanted to close with someone, you couldn't both close and attack at the same time without them getting a free swing on you? Not very conducive to Three-mustakeers-style acrobatic antics.)

In 3E, you have the ton o' hit points, and now you have the feats to give you that edge that required the DM to accomodate. Now, you take Dodge, mobility and spring attack, and avoid that free swing altogether! Plus, the dodge and mobility make you HARDER to hit while doing your shtick, on top of that!

It all comes back to the whole discussion we once had months ago, about DM-player trust issues over the years of the development of the hobby. A DM that gives you a mechanical means to put your "cool character" to life causes you to NOT NEED the extra rules. However, your group was blessed with at least one good DM, I'm guessing; not all DM's allowed it back then, myself included.

 

[Henry]

To each his own, I'll just keep gaming the wrong way and entertaining my players with adventures that objectively suck.

I'll give it this: It depends on the standard you're using. As a pre-fleshed out campaign adventure, the old classics sometimes fell down; as a bare-bones kit of great ideas and concepts, they were genius. Your goal was different, so the material was more than sufficient.

Even now, I'll take Keep on the Borderlands over Red Hand of Doom; but mainly it's because the setup is a classic, and I know it well enough to change it up. Red Hand would require a LOT more prep time than I can give.

 

[Storyteller01]

So, Storyteller, basically any player in your game should entirely ignore their character sheet and play whatever they feel. After all, if I have 15 ranks in Gather Information and Grungar the Barbarian has none, we both have the same chances of gaining information.

Well, that was... unnecessary. My apologies if I offended in some manner.

I'm not saying you should ignore the character sheet, but it shouldn't limit you either. There are usually more options available if you think it through.

If your party is stuck on open plains populated by barbarians, Grungar may have an advantage.

The party knows that the villages has info the party needs. Said villagers/barbarians don't talk to (insert race, social class, or perceived physical status) so the character with GI isn't helping much. Someone makes a challenge (we go through X challenges of [add manly experience here]), and a few opposed strength checks later you all walk away with the info. Different mechanic, same result (the challenges might actually be faster in the long run). The barbarian gets to do something other than beat people with heavy objects (unless that's a challenge), and will most likely enjoy the experience.

The guy with 15 ranks in GI can make up for it when they get to town, and the barbarian's player has a new story to tell.