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

[TheAuldGrump]

Your game:


Somebody else's game:

Why do you assume the primary difference is the rule set? The other obvious difference is the people involved. Maybe it's you. Maybe it's your players. But in my experience, the people involved have FAR more to do with the fun quotient of the game than the rules.

I believe you will find that a more useful line of inquiry than switching rulesets around.

But it is so much easier to blame the rules - it means that you are not at fault.

The real test is whether a GM has the same problems with the same players under a different rules system. For me, the rules lawyers became most prevalent under 2e - until one player was kicked out of the game. Even after there were a fair number of rules arguments, but he was the only player unwilling to take no for an answer. (Just in case anyone wonders - it involved The Complete Elf....)

The Auld Grump

 

[Fenes]

I'd say it is the players/DM, not the rules, at least in the case of 3.X E. If your players are the "I jump over the goblin in front of me, and stab the Orc Shaman in the eye with my rapier, what do I have to roll?" type, then you'll not really find much rules lawyering at the table because they focus more on what they want to do, and leave how to resolve it up to the DM.

If you have the "I move 5 foot to the right, flanking the orc for the plus 2 bonus, then do my full attack with... +2 power attack... and use my dodge against the archer on the balcony, since the archer on the tower top has no LOS anymore" type, then no matter what system you use, they'll try to use it best.

Usually, there's something in between, where players know what rules they use the most, and may have spent some time pondering what feats and skills and classes to take, but will not hold up the game too long during sessions for rechecking.

But the story is not a major factor here - how your players handle the rules is independent from the story.

 

[kensanata]

What have you done about it?

I use the rules lawyers to help me: Let them help newbies create characters. Let them create NPCs for me to use. Let them suggest spell lists for high-level mages. Let them suggest flight maneuvers for my dragons during combat. Having friendly rules lawyers in your party is cool.

And I use NPCs and monsters from published sources and don't bother creating my own. Too much work.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I know that some people disagree with me, but what I'm complaining about IS a 3e phenomenon. I remember playing 2e as player and only occasionally needed to consult the books during a session.

And I remember some huge arguments involving AD&D rules. It's all a matter of perspective and player/DM personalities interacting with the rules. While AD&D might be a better fit for you and your players, I don't think your experience supports the claim that the current edition is too complex or takes power away from the DM -- especially when my own experiences are quite the opposite (over the course of seven years, no less).

I would totally recommend that you give AD&D a try, if you think that game will fit what you want better. But I don't think you've provided anything to really support your claim that 3rd edition takes away from role-playing and telling a story.

 

[LostSoul]

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?

I switched to games that were designed specifically to allow the group to tell a story. (Not just the DM, the group.) Those games had their own little player network, so I ended up meeting players with the game goals as me.

 

[shilsen]

Therefore, I think I'll give AD&D a try. Sorry Diaglo and Philotomy, I think playing 1974 OD&D might be going too far. I have a copy of the Holmes edition, though, and I do understand the appeal.

As some people have already noted, the issue seems to be much more with your players and, to be frank, your DMing style and ability, than with the system.

Will you be playing AD&D with the same group of players? In that case, I'd be curious to hear what you find to be different when you've played a few sessions of AD&D with them.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

...I think I'll give AD&D a try. Sorry Diaglo and Philotomy, I think playing 1974 OD&D might be going too far.

No need to be sorry. I like AD&D, too (1E, anyway).

(On the subject of story, I'm from the "let the players create the story" school of DMing. That is, I present the context/environment and provide some hooks, but the players' actions determine the plot; story-wise, I react to and build on what they do.)

 

[Meeki]

You know occasionally I run into being mired down in rules but hardly ever, it's not my experience that story is lacking in games I have DM'ed and played in or that the rules intrinsicly damped or inhibit story from being incorporated. In fact I find this version of D&D simple to use.

One of the downfalls I have seen DM'ing 3.x is that memorizing the rules in their entirety or ad hoc'ing rules are two different ways to go (that can be combined). One may take longer and the other may make your players angry. However I have memorized the rules almost in their entirety so my games run very smooth. Since I know most of the rules and feel comfortable ad hoc'ing rules for non-rules we are never mired down in the rules, unless it's someone's class from a source I'm not too familiar with and neither is the player.

However, one of the great things about 3.x is the D20 system! It makes ad hoc'ing rules on the fly simple and allows for the game to run smooth. On top of that memorizing the rules is simple since you know its going to revovle around a D20 roll some where. I enjoy DM'ing 3.x D&D and I am able to incorporate enough player driven story and DM created story for everyone to have fun.

 

[an_idol_mind]

However, one of the great things about 3.x is the D20 system! It makes ad hoc'ing rules on the fly simple and allows for the game to run smooth. On top of that memorizing the rules is simple since you know its going to revovle around a D20 roll some where. I enjoy DM'ing 3.x D&D and I am able to incorporate enough player driven story and DM created story for everyone to have fun.

As I got into the game with BECMI D&D, I borrow a lot of my gaming style from that. One of the most important things that edition pushed is that if you don't know a rule, it's better to make something up than stop play and look things up. For 3rd edition, that usually means setting a DC and having a player make an ability or skill check. If there is some confusion in the game or a bit of a dispute, that gets noted and the rule gets looked up after the session is over. That allows the rules to be clarified as needed, and also keeps the game from grinding to a halt when someone disagrees on something.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Ten to fifteen games is about as long as I want to play any particular campaign personally. So that sort of thigns works well for me.

huh? How the heck do you ever have continuity? Is it always new characters?
My current campaign has run for at least 16 sessions and I consider it just getting off the ground. The campaign I DM'd previous to that lasted for over 5 years of weekly play.