When the system gets in the way

[ChristianW]

I've been getting an awful lot of use out of my Basic D&D rules these days for reasons similar to yours. The rules-light system allows for more focus on role-playing instead of frantic rulebook flipping. I grow weary of meta-gaming and that is such a huge component of 3.5.

I admit that I like D&D 3.5 for lower level gaming, but by 9th level, the game is just too complex for my pea brain.

 

[Umbran]

In your new d6 game, it looks like the players don't have mastery of the rules, so they can't min-max even if they desire to do so. They just don't know how. That situation does not provide a good measure of differneces in the systems.

In terms of having lots of fiddly-bits that players can min-max with, I'd have to say that GURPS is worse than D&D. And yet, I'm playing in a GURPS game in which we have minimal references to rules or mechanic. We rarely even roll the dice.

I've found that how rules-heavy a game turns out is as much (or more) a function of the intent of the players and DM as it is a matter of the system. If the players choose activities that are not rule-centric, then the rules won't come up that often. Even when they do, most games have a basic level of complexity, and then options. Simple fireballs and swinging of swords isn't rocket science. Trying to squeeze out every single ounce of power from your sword or fireball is rocket science.

So, the trick is either to have a gentleman's agreement that neither side will join the arms race, or to create an atmosphere where trying to squeeze every single ounce out is unnecessary, ineffective, or even undesireable (if not impossible).

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I've been getting an awful lot of use out of my Basic D&D rules these days for reasons similar to yours.

I've played some classic D&D, lately, too, with my wife and oldest son. (This is turning into the "summer of role-playing" for me -- I'm gaming at least once a week, which is a huge change from my previous once a month gaming schedule.) We've had a blast with, it, too. I gave my son (he's 10) a copy of the Mentzer basic set (red box, Elmore art), which he thought was really cool.

Which basic rules are you using? Years ago, I used the Homles Basic "blue-book," but later ran a campaign with the BEMCI rules (Mentzer boxed sets and Rules Cyclopedia). Earlier this week I picked up the B/X rules (Moldvay/Cook/Marsh edition with the Erol Otus art), because I hear a lot of people swearing by them, so I thought I'd check them out, too.

For now, I'm using the BECMI rules, again, when I play classic D&D.

 

[Nomad4life]

Now, my question here: do you people find that some systems allow for role-playing better than others? Do you find that D&D gets in the way of role-playing, that you have to pay conscious attention to the rules of the game, and that this gets in the way of your role-playing experience?

I would say absolutely. Which is one of the big reasons we’ve switched to True20 and other rules-light systems.

 

[Odhanan]

Now, my question here: do you people find that some systems allow for role-playing better than others?

I wouldn't say particular rules system dis/allow anything.

However, rules systems rely on different components of the game. If you create a rules light game system, this game system will by definition not include all the particular cases and thus, rely on DM fiats, players winging it, and thus role-playing to fill in the gaps. That's what a system like the Storyteller (TM) system does.

D&D does that less. It is extremely codified, and less particular cases are left for adjudication on the spot. DMs running into such particular cases have then a hard time to adjudicate within the frame of the game system because it's harder to have a clear view of the big picture, or how the system is supposed to work, as opposed to how it actually works in the game. Fundamentally, that's a problem of prep time for some, and psychology for many. If you start to think that D&D is too mechanical and too hard to grasp, you won't have any chance to understand the big picture, basically.

I still think that these metagame design/DMing rules are cruelly missing from the DMG. That's a real lack: there should be a chapter/book about "create your own rules: basic metadesign principles of the d20 system".

Do you find that D&D gets in the way of role-playing, that you have to pay conscious attention to the rules of the game, and that this gets in the way of your role-playing experience? And, if you do find some systems work really well for role-playing, what systems?

D&D doesn't impede role-playing. However, many players and/or DMs have a hard time to grasp the big picture, as explained above. Therefore, they will think about rules consciously, which will be put in conflict with the immersion in the game world.

Systems that rely more on role-playing are generally rules-light or rules-light with the option of adding/discarding some complex aspects, like the Storyteller with automatic successes rules, or GURPS, or INS/MV. Etc.

To play D&D and role-play to your heart's content, you have basically two solutions:

- prep more and learn how the big picture, the logic of the system, not the system itself, works. That takes some time but you can do it bit by bit, by experiencing the game. Nothing replaces the actual play experience, of course. And some reading. Including the parts of the DMG that "experienced DMs don't read".

- don't be so hard on yourself when you're winging it, and that includes the players not falling on your back as soon as you DM adjudicate something. Everyone takes a step back and tries to enjoy the game rather than showing off this or that inconsistency with the "almighty rules".

 

[Vrecknidj]

I agree with the posts that point out that the system is important, but that it doesn't have to have the impact that it seems that it has on some DMs and players. I've only played the d20 system since its released. (I've played D&D since 1980, and I've played other systems once upon a time, from Villains and Vigilanties to Vampire.)

I too found that I really disliked the digital nature of 3.0. When I was riding home from that GenCon, PHB in hand, devouring it like I had all the previous incarnations, I was saddened by much of the uniformity and "binary" nature of the thing. I saw immediately the connection to online gaming that was just about to blossom, and was afraid for the game.

But, for the most part, my players are decent role players and haven't had all that much problem. However, an this is an important caveat, they have learned that "if you don't learn the rules, you get screwed by the rules." Unlike the "good ol' days," they have to know about 5-foot-steps and how to withdraw and when to cast on the defensive and all that. The mechanics are more thorough and more intimidating.

But, once they're in place, and in mind (and, as DM, I remind my players of their options--I'm not out to get anyone), the players have been able to fold the mechanics into their role playing and, though it's not seamless, make it work.

I had an old college professor once who said that what metaphysics gains in scope it loses in accuracy, and what physics gains in accuracy in loses in scope. I think that the d20 system is so focused on the minutae that the scope can get lost. This, I think, is the DM's job. It takes work, to be sure, but the DM can keep the "R" in the RPG if he works at it.

Dave

 

[mcrow]

I think d20's video gamey/power-up feel makes stats more important in d20 than they are in most other systems. When the game is so focused on stats and such it tends make players want to speak and think in terms of stats instead of worrying about being and thinking in character.

That's why I like games like D6,C&C,Iridium System,unisystem, and HARP.

The system is just sort of in the background during play and prep time is non factor. Since players aren't so distracted with stats, feats, and so many special rules they naturally tend to role-play more.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Uh, at the risk of sounding like some kind of 2000ed fanboi (a la Diaglo-speak), I'll just note that my experiences have not shown (me) that this is the case.

Basically, it seems to me that players tend to be of a certain 'kind', regardless. Sure, they can change over a period of months, and especially over the years. But generally, yeah, IME a more mechanics-focused player will be that no matter the system. Likewise a more acting-focused player.

This seems to be in absolute contrast to the OP's experiences (and others') though. So, who knows.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I've been feeling like my group has been RPing too much lately I want to kiss some butt and do some power gaming. Wish I could loan the OP some of my excess RP.

 

[Voadam]

The rules of 3.5 are pretty cumbersome and give a DM a lot to track.

I've winged entire combats against skeletons, elves, and orcs at low levels without monster books or written stats in a basic D&D module I was running with 3.5. Creating and tracking stats in my head at that level was not a problem. I would not do so for encounters with my 16th level group, I would always want some hard stats in front of me, either a monster book entry, a stat block, or 3.0 DMG NPC entries I can use on the spot.

And stat blocks take time. Even simplifying some aspects and ignoring skills as I do.

Even with the stats in front of me there is a lot to track, dodge assignments, different types of AC, buffs and debuffs changing stats, etc.

Also there is the pressure to apply the rules "right" and apply the fiddly bit modifiers. It takes a conscious effort to say "It happens this way." because it seems right without making rolls or going "Make a balance check DC 10" which sounds right but you are not sure how balance check DCs are generally determined.