I think I've lost my way.

[billd91]

Short answer is try playing a game whose business model is not based on selling the players packs of rules.

I think this sort of view is unnecessarily cynical, most of the time. Game companies build their business model on selling the players what they want. For a lot of players and for many years that has meant more rules. Should we really blame a game company for giving the players what they seem to want?

 

[Argyle King]

I think this sort of view is unnecessarily cynical, most of the time. Game companies build their business model on selling the players what they want. For a lot of players and for many years that has meant more rules. Should we really blame a game company for giving the players what they seem to want?

Good point, but there's a difference between want and need.

I bought GURPS Horror because it was (in my opinion) an excellent product, and I wanted it.

I bought Divine Power for D&D 4th Edition because (again, in my opinion) I felt I needed it for Paladins to be a worthwhile option.


Note: This is not intended as a knock at a particular game. That was simply an example which easily sprang to mind.

I have no problem with a game company selling me rules. I have no problem with a game company making money. However, I feel a lot better about buying a product when I feel as though it's more of a want than a need. I much prefer buying things which augment my ability to have fun as opposed to buying things which I feel are required for me to be able to have fun from a product which I should already be able to have fun with.

Now that I think about it more, I think that is part of what worries me about some of the language (and discussions) being tossed around concerning D&D 5th Edition. I highly enjoy the idea of a modular game (which should be obvious given that I'm a fan of GURPS.) However, it is my impression that the core game will not be able to produce the type of game I want, and that I will be required to buy some of the 'options' if I want the product to function in a manner that I want. Some of the media releases which feature the designers have also made mention of some of the options I would like to have not being available until a lot longer down the road after the final 5E product is released.

Hopefully I am misunderstanding some of the language being used, and hopefully -much like the other modular games I play and enjoy- there will be enough possible right out of the gate that I can play and enjoy the game. If that's the case, then the later modules will (ideally) help me refine my experience, and not be so heavily required for me to define (and enjoy) my experience with the game. Hopefully, the modules are things which my mind defines more as wants than needs.

 

[Evenglare]

I vote for a different system. I have been into HERO lately and it's just so awesome, my mind is racing with the possibilities. Check it out, or gurps even. Get out of d20 , itll do you a lot of good. Or hell, if you want to play d20 give mutants and masterminds a go. All of those games are much more free form , and that seems to be what you are looking for.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I have been into HERO lately and it's just so awesome, my mind is racing with the possibilities.

Welcome to the game!

 

[Dire Bare]

As the GM you have more control, and I'd simply suggest that you disallow everything but the core rules, requiring everything else be okayed by you before coming in.

There's a lot of good advice in this thread, but the piece that has been echoed by many to place limits on character options is one I can't agree with. I DM'd 3rd Edition for almost the entire length of the game's published history, and only let D&D slide onto the back burner for non-gaming reasons (RL got too busy) just before the transition to 4E. During the entire time, I let players choose any options present in any WotC book or magazine, and probably would have been cool with any d20 3rd-party material too, but my player's never asked. I firmly believe in saying "yes" almost 100% of the time. I very rarely say "no".

This never caused more than minor problems that only briefly interrupted action time, if even then. This worked for me because I am a very laid-back DM who can't (or, well, won't) memorize rules and dislikes looking up rules mid-game. Like others have suggested above, whenever a rules question came up in game, I made an on-the-spot call, and if anyone was bothered by it, we could research/discuss it between sessions and I might make a new call. My player's learned that trying to meta-game didn't work with me all that well, because I would simply adapt my story to whatever they did with their characters.

I only had two problems, one that bothered me and one that didn't. The easy problem that wasn't really much of a problem was the one player in my group who we all suspected of both cheesy powergaming and fudging rolls. He played a suspiciously successful wizard who rolled lots of high numbers. I simply decided that his character had become an infamous wizard, and like famous Wild West gunslingers, other powerful wizards and creatures came out for him so they could become famous for taking him down. I never killed his character, but threw big stuff at him while other baddies occupied the rest of the party. He had a great time battling these powerful foes, and he didn't outshine the rest of the party (by making them feel unnecessary) while they fought other foes. My players, except for the power-gaming cheater, caught on to what I was doing, and it became fun for them to see what I would throw at him next to "distract" him. More than a few times the party had to save his bacon after they dealt with the other foes. But it was all in story and we all had fun, even if I felt slightly guilty for targeting him separately.

The other problem that did bother me was a player who joined my group only briefly, and asked if he could use a character class he created himself, a "candle mage". I was leery, but didn't want to say "no", so I let him, and it was (as you might expect) ridiculously over-powered and weak of concept . . . . to an embarrassingly obvious degree that angered all the other players and did disrupt the game. And to this day (not that I DM much anymore) it is the only limit I place on my players, is that I don't allow homebrew character options (unless *I* create them).

While I am generally opposed to placing limits on character options, if you are doing so for story reasons, such as creating your own campaign setting with a different feel and tone than standard D&D (like, say, Dark Sun), then I say go for it!

 

[Lord Pendragon]

The other problem that did bother me was a player who joined my group only briefly, and asked if he could use a character class he created himself, a "candle mage". I was leery, but didn't want to say "no", so I let him, and it was (as you might expect) ridiculously over-powered and weak of concept . . . . to an embarrassingly obvious degree that angered all the other players and did disrupt the game. And to this day (not that I DM much anymore) it is the only limit I place on my players, is that I don't allow homebrew character options (unless *I* create them)

Thing is, I've found things in published 3.5 material towards the end of its cycle that I'd definitely classify as "overpowered and weak of concept." I don't blame my players if such a thing catches their eye, but I'm not afraid of saying "no" to something that could get out of hand.

Regarding folks talking about switching to a rules-lite system, that is definitely one way to go, but bear in mind that some of us really enjoy a denser rules system, so you may be sacrificing one player's fun for another's. I'd definitely recommend a talk with the whole group before such a change.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

And so I sit here now, staring at my campaign notes, wishing that there was some way for me to recapture the games of old. When I wouldn't have to sit at the table and listen to the GM and two players argue about the physics behind a falling book for a half hour. When no one cared what your classes were, so long as you were having fun.

Maybe I'm just nostalgia blind. But I'm curious what advice you have to give me enworld. What can I do?

I discovered that you *can* go back, and have it be more than just mere nostalgia. So that's my advice. If you long for the kind of game you ran back in the day, then run that kind of game, again. The rules are still available. There are as many modules and as much support for TSR D&D at your fingertips, now, as there ever was in the 70s and 80s.

I also found that running TSR D&D (original D&D and 1e AD&D, in my case), again, isn't *exactly* the same as it was. It's better. I'm a better DM than I was. I understand the system better. I understand why things were done a certain way. I understand what *not* to add. Et cetera.

My only real complaint is that I don't have the same amount of time for gaming, compared to "back in the day."

 

[jbear]

Hmm ... most responses seem to take it as a given that the issue is system specific. From what the OP describes the problem seems more player specific. I'm sure that many many people on the boards (and elsewhere) can testify that they don't encounter these problems using the same game mechanics (I'm guessing 3rd edition from the OPs comments). And that is because they will be playing with different players who don't cause the issues described.

My suggestion: In a calm manner in a one on one situation with the player tell them that the issues you mentioned are making the game not fun for you anymore. Remind him that even when you are DMing you are a player too, and that you want to be having fun. Tell him explicitly what it is that is killing your fun. Explicitly tell him the attitude/style you want to play the game. Lay down your non-negotiables: "No arguing over rules at the table: I don't care what the rules are, I care about fun". Ask him if he can get on board and support you in this. If he says yes, remind him of that each time similar issues arise during the game until the new desirable behaviour develops. If he says no ... well, either you are going to have to pack it in or send him packing.

The one time I straight out told my problem player that her behaviour was making the game unenjoyable for me, and told her explicitly my point of view and expectations for her and the game, the result was almost instantaneous. She not only got on board and backed me up, she became the most enthusiastic player (organising game nights and chasing people up to commit), and gave me full support when bickering began at the table amongst other players. It was a radical change and it was awesome.

Basically, share your feelings. They are valid. But your players can't do anything about it if they are not aware of them. Don't take for granted that they are.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think this sort of view is unnecessarily cynical, most of the time. Game companies build their business model on selling the players what they want. For a lot of players and for many years that has meant more rules. Should we really blame a game company for giving the players what they seem to want?

Man, you sound like Damon Killian.

At a certain point of giving the players what they want, a situation is created where no one wants to run a game for these players. What good is a horde of players that have everything they want except a campaign to play in?

At least in this area, the players who want the most rules and options never want to DM a game. All the rules and cool stuff are marketed towards the player and after investing in all that crunch geared toward building the perfect scenery chewer, no one wants to do the gruntwork of preparing a campaign for these munchkin monsters.

When the game focus shifts to competitive deck building and away from the campaign world and adventures, it just sucks the will to DM out of you like a vacuum.

Who wants to put in all that prep work for a table full of players that only want to chatter about what abilities/feats/powers/items that they want to get next?

With players becoming more absorbed in crunch, the things that are shared by the group, such as actual adventures, and events in the campaign world, get relegated to background status. The DM (unless inflicting a Mary-Sue on his/her group) has only these shared elements of the game to enjoy.

I'm done running bloated crunch heavy systems and have been happier for it. I'm not surprised that no one else has volunteered to run anything so I'm currently playing with two other groups.

 

[Desdichado]

Maybe I'm just nostalgia blind. But I'm curious what advice you have to give me enworld. What can I do?

Find out who in your group is like-minded, and try to meet some other people that are also like-minded, and start up a group based deliberately on the type of playstyle that you want to employ. Powergamers gonna powergame. If you don't like that kind of play, it's probably best to not play with them. I was literally shocked a few years back when I got more serious about roleplaying again (because I had finished grad school, started working, and generally had more time and money than I had had previously) when I realized how good gaming could be if you're playing with the right people.

It took me a little while to find a group that was more like-minded than not, and a few folks who I otherwise quite like as people, we had to jointly recognize that we just fundamentally enjoyed the game too differently for either of us to ever really have a great time in each other's games... but hey, it wasn't anything personal. We remain friends, we just don't game in the same group anymore.