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

[WayneLigon]

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.

A golden rule for any game system, any time, anywhere. The only time I will ever stop play to look up a rule is if potentially a character's life hangs in the balance.

 

[barsoomcore]

The campaign I DM'd previous to that lasted for over 5 years of weekly play.

Well, sure, anyone can do that if they're just ruleslawyering all day and not "JUST PLAYING THE GAME AND TELLING A STORY."

Sheesh

 

[diaglo]

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.

no problem.
when you want to learn how to play real D&D just let us know.

 

[Ulrick]

no problem.
when you want to learn how to play real D&D just let us know.

Do you play 1974 D&D with all the supplements? Like Greyhawk, Eldritch Wizardry, etc.

Because I have Greyhawk and Eldritch Wizardry and it seems like a lot of what they introduce ended up in AD&D. So I figured, I might as well play AD&D.

---

I'm definitely going to run AD&D for my next campaign. I've managed to convince the players to go along with this, with the stimpulation that if they come to not like it we'll somehow convert back to 3.5. But most of them seem pretty excited. I know I'm excited. I'll probably houserule a few things like letting wizards use the Cleric extra spells table for high wisdom and maybe allow ability score advancement every 4 levels.

But I'm excited to go back to were things weren't so "balanced" and the players won't exactly know what to expect.

I'll be running a low-magic setting. And I know that will be easier to do in AD&D.


And, after reading following thread, one of the PCs main villains will be an assassin!

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=213887

 

[diaglo]

Do you play 1974 D&D with all the supplements? Like Greyhawk, Eldritch Wizardry, etc.

Because I have Greyhawk and Eldritch Wizardry and it seems like a lot of what they introduce ended up in AD&D. So I figured, I might as well play AD&D.

i use what the players ask to be included.

Supplement I Greyhawk unfortunately was the introduction of powergaming. it was the start of the stat/arms race

 

[Imaro]

Okay, I just finished my 3.5e campaign tonight, after running it for a year and half.

The end of the campaign climactic battle was slowed down as the PHB was consulted again and again by players desperate to get whatever advantage they could. Even the DM's guide needed consulted by the player's who have prestige classes and when uncertain about certain abilities. In general, the game had lots and lots of rule consulting, as usual. A nose in a book isn't a nose in the story.

Meanwhile, in the next room, a 1st Edition game was in full swing. During the 15 min break I allow every two-hours for my game, I take a peek.

Totally different atmosphere.

The players were engaged with the story the DM was telling. It seems that the only time a player had to look in a book was if he was a spellcaster. Combat went a lot smoother with less interruptions to consult the damn books.

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.

3e seemed to give power to the players at the expense of the DM. For me, as a player, 3e is okay, but to DM it sometime is just a chore.

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.

Just a few comments...

From your first pargraph I wonder if you have what are often refered to as "casual gamers". IMHE, I have found D&D 3.5 is not a verry good system for casual gamers. It requires a noticeable effort in all classes (even what have traditionally been considered simpler classes such as fighters) as far as rules memorization and comprehension go. If your players are looking up their abilities/feats/spells every round it will definitely slow play and create more frustrating and booring gameplay, especially if you as DM know the rules well. IMHO 3.5 does seem to place a higher importance on players knowing and understanding more rules than previous editions (where it seemed the burden of rules knowledge and outcome determination was mainly DM based).

As to the AD&D game, this could be the opposite of the above, where the players have actually taken the time to learn the rules or even the fact that there are less rules for them to learn.

Finally let me suggest Castles and Crusades, if your looking for what I would call an AD&D flavored game with more modern conventions in it's gameplay. I have found that, under a GM with experience running D&D/d20, it works great for casual gamers. It has an easy to grasp base system that really does determine the success of any action the players take. There are definitely less fidly bits for players to have to memorize and remember the effect of, and leaves most system mechanics and judgements in the hands of the GM. Give it a try if your interested.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Well, sure, anyone can do that if they're just ruleslawyering all day and not "JUST PLAYING THE GAME AND TELLING A STORY."

Sheesh

whuh?
I think most campaigns woudl be awful stories but they are still fun to play. I wouldn't want to read about a party exploring a dungeon for a year and a half in room by room detail as a matter of entertaining story reading. I might love it as D&D research but that's because i'm darned strange.

 

[diaglo]

I wouldn't want to read about a party exploring a dungeon for a year and a half in room by room detail as a matter of entertaining story reading. I might love it as D&D research but that's because i'm darned strange.

read the story hour in my sig.

it is basically my player journal to help me remember what happened in the campaign.

spread over years it works out great.

i have always done this. from the first day i started gaming until well present.

 

[kigmatzomat]

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.

Obviously your 2e players didn't argue with you about allowing the "Player's Options" or "Tome of Magic", the "Complete (race)" or any of the dozens of 2e splat books. I ran 2e for about 10 years and I ran into the splat book escalation back then. Nothing to do with the edition.

1e had similar problems with Oriental Adventures and Unearthed Arcana. Not sure if the "Immortals" supplement for D&D was as much of a problem but I'm sure the setting books introduced optional rules that started the process. Heck, virtually every Palladium game system was filthy with power creep, IIRC.

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?" .... I wanna tell a great story dammit! Would you just let me entertain you? Please?

Play style conflict. Your gamers are more "tacticians" and you're more "storyteller." Nothing wrong with either but they don't necessarily mesh.

There's also the possibility that your "great" story" isn't such a great game. All to often "Would you just let me entertain you?" can be translated as "Relax and enjoy the ride on the railroad."

The only one of the campaigns I ran that ever crashed and burned was because I was more focused on the story than the game. There was railroading, unavoidable events, and what in retrospect was a Mary Sue NPC (Okay, he was a reincarnated King Arthur and the whole point of the plot was to send him away to Avalon but he came across as a Mary Sue). It's like I got DM cancer and was riddled with every bad game trope possible, just to make sure the The Story was told as I envisioned it.

My players forgave me since most of them had been in my games for 5+ years and until the sudden craze to "Tell the Great Story" the campaign was fine. The game only lasted for a year after that but I never forgot the lesson.


Great Gaming is always Fun
Great Story are not necessarily Great Gaming
Therefore Great Story are not necessarily Fun


As a player I hate GMs who want to "tell a great story" because inevitably their great story conflicts with my character's personal legend. I want GMs who set up a great world, and create great plots where the players actions result in a great story. That's the GM I try to be for my players.

Semantics, but important semantics.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Do you play 1974 D&D with all the supplements? Like Greyhawk, Eldritch Wizardry, etc...Because I have Greyhawk and Eldritch Wizardry and it seems like a lot of what they introduce ended up in AD&D. So I figured, I might as well play AD&D.

IMO, when you add in a lot of the material from the Supplements, you end up with something *very* close to AD&D (conforming to what I would call "Gygaxian" D&D). In that case, I agree that it's easier to just use AD&D.

IMO, OD&D[1974] is best used when you're not aiming for an AD&D-ish, Gygaxian game, but making "your own D&D" that might do things a little differently. It excels in that role.

I'm definitely going to run AD&D for my next campaign.

Sounds like fun; Fight on!