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

[Ulrick]

Remember back when you first played D&D?

For me, this was the tale-end of 1st Edition. I was so excited about playing dwarven fighter--just like a dwarf out of Tolkien. I couldn't wait to start playing. I got to battle orcs! "Same orcs as in the Lord of the Rings?" I asked my brother who was the DM. "Yes."

"Sweet!"

I was addicted. I had already been a reader of fantasy and sci-fi. And I thought D&D was great way to play out those stories.

My early attempts at DMing were haphazard at best. I didn't really read the rules--I wanted to tell a great story! Dammit! I soon moved on and mastered the rules for 2e and enjoyed the game.

3e started off as something great for me to DM...but soon made DMing a chore. I wanna tell a great story dammit! Having players poor over the rule books during a session to tweek out that extra little bonus gets old. Having players sit there and ponder for an hour on what feat their character should take at next left gets old. Having players argue with me about why I don't allow such-and-such splatbook get very tiresome. So-called "dead levels," unbalanced characters, babble-babble-babble-blah-blah-blah... just shut up and play the game.
I'm trying to tell a great story dammit, and you're angry about not getting a cookie at your next level.

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

3e seems to encourage both players and DMs to over-analyze the rules. Whatever happened to thinking up a character concept and then translating that into the rules, instead of thinking up rules and translating them into a character concept? Whatever happend to thinking up a story and translating that story into the rules, and vice versa?

It seems like more ruleslawyers have come out of the woodwork since 3e appeared. Armed with their PHBs, DMGs, and MMs (you shouldn't even consult the DMG or MM during the session! Don't you like surprises?) they nag about game balance, whine about being shorted on XP because a CR should be higher for a monster, bitch about power attack, remind me of the ghoul's multiattack penalties, and often the first word out of their mouths at the end of session is "experience?" (Before even I had a split-second of a chance to calculate it).

Fortunately, I'm very picky about chosing the players I DM for. But this mentally of "rules before story" occasionally sneeks in. I wanna tell a great story dammit! Would you just let me entertain you? Please?

Has anybody else encountered this phenomenon? It has gone beyond the simple ruleslawyering, it's like there this entitlement mentality permeating the gaming culture (maybe coming from video games, though I hate to blame one source).

What have you done about it?

What will it take to going back and sitting down and playing the game and telling a great story?

 

[diaglo]

i'm refereeing a session of OD&D(1974) this sunday.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I'm running OD&D[1974] this weekend, too.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

You are aware that you hit nearly every anti 3.5 cliche available on the open market in your first post, right?
Anyway, sometimes i´m glad that D&D isn´t the only RPG on the market. I mean, GURPS, Rolemaster, The Dark Eye v4, HERO System: All games where choosing options is part of your fun. And believe thou me, people playing those HAVE story in their games. Loads. Droves.

But in D&D, once lots of options are available, we´ve reached fist-shaking territory. Strange.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Skip the story ... just play the game!

 

[diaglo]

Skip the story ... just play the game!

ha! read the story hour in my sig.

 

[Maggan]

Whatever happened to thinking up a character concept and then translating that into the rules, instead of thinking up rules and translating them into a character concept? Whatever happend to thinking up a story and translating that story into the rules, and vice versa?

Nothing happened to it. It's still here. You're just not seeing it, since it can't be watched from the Internet. This medium is for good and bad a medium for discussing the game, in every aspect.

This medium is not the game.

/M

 

[shilsen]

Fortunately, I'm very picky about chosing the players I DM for.

In all honesty, it doesn't sound like it. All of your complaints seem to have more to do with the players than the system.

Maybe you should visit the Story Hour forum sometime. Lots of us are running 3.xe games and having a grand time and creating fascinating stories all at once. It's not that hard.

But this mentally of "rules before story" occasionally sneeks in. I wanna tell a great story dammit! Would you just let me entertain you? Please?

Maybe it's just your phrasing, but this really makes me leery of your approach. As a DM and a player, I don't want the DM to tell a story and I definitely don't want the players to just let the DM entertain them. I want the DM to create a context where the players get to entertain each other and the DM through the interaction between their choices and the DM's running of the game. And the rules are there to make that possible. The story isn't even the aim of the game, as far as I'm concerned. The story emerges from the game, and there's a big difference between the two.

Incidentally, have your players given you the sense that they're not entertained? Or are you assuming that because you're not, they must not be either? There might be a simple difference in taste, in which case, I recommend you play with different players.

What will it take to going back and sitting down and playing the game and telling a great story?

My answer: Just play the game and forget about the story. If you run a game that's enjoyable for both the players and yourself, you'll get some great stories out of it.

 

[an_idol_mind]

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

I still do that. The only difference between my games now and the games I ran when I first got into D&D is that my games now are a bit more coherent in terms of logic and characterization.

3e seems to encourage both players and DMs to over-analyze the rules. Whatever happened to thinking up a character concept and then translating that into the rules, instead of thinking up rules and translating them into a character concept? Whatever happend to thinking up a story and translating that story into the rules, and vice versa?

This is either one of those Internet "truths" that exist because a lot of people have said it, or my groups are very different from the norm. I've run 3rd edition since it came out (switched over to 3.5 about a year or two ago), and my average group has maybe 1 or 2 people at the most that have read through the Player's Handbook, let alone other books. Most of them just know to roll high on a d20, and expect me to fill them in on the rest.

It seems like more ruleslawyers have come out of the woodwork since 3e appeared. Armed with their PHBs, DMGs, and MMs (you shouldn't even consult the DMG or MM during the session! Don't you like surprises?) they nag about game balance, whine about being shorted on XP because a CR should be higher for a monster, bitch about power attack, remind me of the ghoul's multiattack penalties, and often the first word out of their mouths at the end of session is "experience?" (Before even I had a split-second of a chance to calculate it).

This is a perpetual complaint that has come out of every single edition of D&D. I don't think that it's actually increased in 3rd edition, despite the perception. I remember the same stuff being said when 2nd edition was out, and I'm sure people griped about it before then, too. The oD&D manual "Gods, Demi-gods, and Heroes" even has a foreward railing against the proliferation of rules lawyers/monty haul gamers that existed in the 70s.

What will it take to going back and sitting down and playing the game and telling a great story?

I think scaling back the number of rulebooks used helps a lot. In 2nd edition, I used the Player's Option series in conjunction with the Complete Handbooks and wound up burning out. I eventually scaled back to just the three core books (using the "Build Your Own Classes" section from the DM's Guide to flesh out concepts that didn't fit into the core classes), and ran a good fun game for close to a year. I think part of the reason that I haven't experienced a lot of the rules burn out that some complain about in 3rd edition (besides having good players) is the fact that I haven't bothered with the splat books.

Another thing to consider could be going back to an older edition of the game, so long as your group is willing to give it a shot. oD&D, B/X, AD&D, and BECMI each have their warts (as does 3.x), but are all great games. Maybe one of them suits your preferences better. Or, if you prefer some of the innovations of the d20 system, there's always Basic Fantasy Role-Playing, Castles & Crusades, or True20, among others. There are many great games out there, many of which have more focus on storytelling than the current edition of D&D.

On the other hand, if your problem stems more from a prevalent player attitude than an individual system, then you might have a harder time getting what you want. Some players seem to make it their life's goal to "win" the game, which can be quite irritating.

 

[TerraDave]

Skip the story ... just play the game!

Exactly.