The Line Between Cautious Optimism and Utter Apathy

[Terramotus]

Dude, why do you even care? OK, so you don't like rules... I'm guessing that D&D has been steadily moving away from what you want since the "Advanced" was placed in front of it. Why post here about it?

It sounds to me like you don't like the randomness factor of the dice and the level to which rules take things out of the realm of GM fiat. The only thing that's not directly under the GM's thumb is combat in OD&D - everything else you get to propose an idea and beg for it to work.

It works well under a great GM, but not at all for less than that unless you're doing dungeon crawls. And since you're talking about the great stories you're telling, you're probably not just running dungeon crawls.

If that's the case, why NOT try a diceless system, since that's basically what you're using anyway. I mean that in a non-snarky way. The cooperative nature of the rules and the randomness of the dice gets in the way of the pure story sometimes. That's OK, and that's part of what I love about D&D, but the things you're complaining about seem to be the things that get in the way of pure storytelling.

Some of the magic for me was discovering the rules. I spent hours poring over the rulebooks when I first discovered D&D. Surely you can see that what gives others enjoyment might be different than what gives you enjoyment? Surely you must also see that what gives you enjoyment is in the extreme minority, since you don't like the rules-heavier 3.x D&D, and don't like systems with traits such as GURPS.

Given that, I must wonder at your motivations for posting a rant like this here. Are you trying to convert us to your way of thinking?

 

[outsider]

Yeah, enough people have the problem that mechanics = no roleplay that there's obviously some level of truth to it. I just don't understand how it happens. I'm as big a powergamer as anybody. I agonize over what class or feat to take on levelling up. I plan and optimize my character to the hilt. I just don't do it during a session. If I've got all week to think about it, why would I waste time with it during a session when I could actually be playing this character that I've been agonizing over? During the session I'm there to kick some monster butt, rescue damsels in distress, gloat to the peasants about slaying dragons, and generally be a hero.

It really doesn't make any sense to me. Do they not have their own books? Don't they talk to you and the other players about the campaign when you're not in a session? Why not figure out the character build stuff then?

At any rate, glad OD&D is working out for you. The only problem may be the short life expectancy of low level characters in non-house ruled OD&D. Developping an interesting personality can be hard when you're on your 3rd new character this month.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I'm not that "diceless role-playing, Vampire-LARPing pansy" type of gamer.

I was with you until this part of your post. Thanks for kickin other peoples playstyles. Oh, and regarding your original topic: I agree. 4th edition will be for people who like the game side of RPGs.

 

[outsider]

While I'm thinking about it, have you ever tried the "You're sitting in a tavern, what do you do?" routine on your group? Don't have an adventure planned, just play off of what their characters do, and make an adventure out of it somehow. There's no better way to get into character than to decide what the character wants to do when left to it's own devices. Depending how it goes, this could require alot of improv ability on your part. You need to make it fun for them somehow, so they'll remember it and want to do it again. You'll usually want to make sure something funny happens, as players tend to remember the funny things the most. It's probably a good opportunity to really let your players kick some butt too, give them opponents that are somewhat weaker than themselves. Depending how things go, you might want to reward them in some way as well.

If you've tried stuff like this and it doesn't work, I don't know what to tell you. You've got the worst players ever. :\

 

[Yair]

I like 3e way better than previous editions. One of my players said, shortly after we switched, something like "Wow. I'm NEVER going back. This is the one true edition".

3e has its warts, but I much prefer it to AD&D. My games are much more about killing things and taking their stuff than they are about "the immersion in the story, the fantasy, the role-playing". Story happens along the way, and we certainly do roleplay, but we are also having lots of fun killing things and taking their stuff.

And 3e allows us to do that in dynamic and varied ways, and to play varied and interesting characters that we never could in AD&D. My party includes a dwarf psychic warrior that uses a plethora of tricks and powers to do all sorts of crazy stuff on the battle-field, and a pixie paladin. I've played a half-giant and a mad druid/cleric of the storm lord. I revel in the options and variety allowing me to play (as a DM or player) lots of characters, and do it all in a game of interesting resource-management and tactics.

3e has it warts. But I don't expect 4e will become the rules-light game you seek. It will instead continue to revel in the variety of options and fun combat tactics that I like so much. Which is why it will be a great game for me, but I think you'll be better off with the Rules Cyclopedia.