When the system gets in the way

[WizarDru]

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.

You do realize where most video-games drew those concepts FROM, right? Consult the .sig, my son.

 

[ChristianW]

Which basic rules are you using?

Hiya Philotomy,

Basic D&D with the family sounds like such a great time!

I use the "magenta" basic set by Moldvay with the Erol Otus cover art. They are pretty great. I've been writing some material for Basic D&D in my fanzine and have been having a blast. I hear so many good things about the Rules Cyclopedia. I need to get my hands on a copy. I'm trying to find a new gaming group, so hopefully I can get them to play Basic D&D or 1e AD&D.

 

[Shadowslayer]

Not much to add here, except that Odhanan put it best.

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.

Unfortunately, for those of us who haven't attained true mastery of the rules, the simple explanation is that the ruleset takes up a pretty good portion of brain power. We focus on it instead of RP because we kinda have to.

The farther those rules go into the background, the more RP you do. So this leaves you three options.

1. Rules Mastery...so you don't have to think about rules anymore. (I don't travel in ENworld circles....but I've never met a player yet that had real mastery of this thing)
2. A simpler game. That's why games like C&C or d6 seem to be more conducive to storytelling.
3. Trim the fat off of 3.5. Which is a pretty tough undertaking, really. You remove one thing, you invalidate something else.

Or 4, accept it as it is and deal with the nuts and bolts, and learn to have fun with the wargamey aspect of it.

I've tried 2 and 3 but grudgingly settled on 4. 2 was great...I love the C&C system, but my players thought of it as a refreshing switch-up from D&D, rather than a replacement for it. 3 was like trying to un-build a house of cards without knocking it down.

Don't know if this helps, but that's my input.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You do realize where most video-games drew those concepts FROM, right? Consult the .sig, my son.

That is absolutely true. But it is also true that, particularly early on, video games began be taking only a few aspects of the RPG experience. It is quite a bit easier to deal with G than RP in a video game, if only because the system (1) allows only limited response and (2) allows only limited actions by you. Of course, nowadays, MMPORPGs can offer quite a bit of RP from the other players, but I don't think that's what people mean when they say "video-gamey".

 

[Nebulous]

3. Trim the fat off of 3.5. Which is a pretty tough undertaking, really. You remove one thing, you invalidate something else.

3 was like trying to un-build a house of cards without knocking it down.

Don't know if this helps, but that's my input.

Just curious, what did you try to trim? I've noticed that with Call of Cthulhu d20, based on the 3.0 rules, they removed AoO completely, and i don't use XP, and the game flows exceptionally well without it. Of course, there's not as much combat either.

 

[buzz]

So, in the hope of fixing things, I switched systems this week. As of this week, our group started playing in West End Games' d6 system.

Wik, I want to commend you. That you recognized the concept of systems facilitating some types of play better than others is very refreshing to see. You realized what it was you wanted out of your games, and grabbed a system that fit those needs. Kudos to you and your players!

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? And, if you do find some systems work really well for role-playing, what systems?

Okay, now here I'm going to give you some flak.

All the min-maxing and rules-focusing your group was doing was roleplaying.

It may not have been the kind of roleplaying that you enjoy most, but it was roleplaying. Maybe more tactical, more rule-focused, more about mastery, but it's roleplaying nonetheless.

Ergo, assertions about one system encouraging roleplaying more than another are, IMO, bogus. All RPGs, by definition, invovle roleplaying. The question is, which ones best facilitate the kind of roleplaying you enjoy? (Or, at least, enjoy right now.)

You were wise enough to realize that D&D wasn't meeting your needs, so you found a system that better served them. You ROCK.

But let me offer myself as a counter-example.

I play D&D3.5 and HERO, and I play them pretty rules-rigorously. I also love crunchy games like Spycraft 2.0 and Burning Wheel. I have never found their complexity to be an impediment to "roleplaying" in the sense you and others are using it here, i.e., "immersion" and "story". I enjoy the detail and the tactical options, too.

If anything, I've found traditional "lite" systems to be unsaitsfying. When I've run them, they've felt very "floaty" to me. I feel like I'm "just making stuff up," and I don't like that. I.e., I'm not big on heavy GM fiat, even when I'm the GM.

Ergo, for me, it's the "lite" systems that get in the way.

(I will distinguish "lite" from "simple," though. I like RPGs such as Dogs in the Vineyard and HeropQuest. I would not call them "lite" in the traditional sense, though.)

Really, the bggest impediments I've seen in my gaming (and in your OP), are players. Having players (this includes the GM) who are not on the same page about what they want, or who want something that the system being used can't provide is, IME, a sure-fire recipe for disaster. In my Top 10 Impediments list, "players" would be #1, and "system" would be #409.

So... how have the players who were min-maxing and rules-focused taken to using D6? Does everyone seem to be having fun?

 

[buzz]

I've noticed that with Call of Cthulhu d20, based on the 3.0 rules, they removed AoO completely...

Remember that CoC also removed anything that depends on AoO, such as AoO-related feats and a lot of combat details. You'd need to replicate that work in overhauling 3.5.

 

[WizarDru]

That is absolutely true. But it is also true that, particularly early on, video games began be taking only a few aspects of the RPG experience. It is quite a bit easier to deal with G than RP in a video game, if only because the system (1) allows only limited response and (2) allows only limited actions by you. Of course, nowadays, MMPORPGs can offer quite a bit of RP from the other players, but I don't think that's what people mean when they say "video-gamey".

Agreed...to a point. The point is that there is some romanticizing the frequently occurs, where someone seems to think that old school D&D wasn't about leveling up for new powers and getting new magic items, spells and abilities. To which I say 'Poppycock'. I can accept refering to D&D as a whole as 'video-gamey' from a certain perspective; but the implication that this is a recent development/sin of 3E is what I found questionable.

 

[Rasyr]

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? And, if you do find some systems work really well for role-playing, what systems?

I'll keep this short.

First off, a rules system can only encourage certain styles of play, it cannot require/enforce them.

Secondly, as a GM, you need to know all of the ins and outs of the system that you are using. Or at least know them well enough to know when a certain combination or inclusion is going to disrupt the game in some manner.

Third, if you don't that level of comfort/familiarity with the rules system, then you should most likely be using a different system. It seems that you found that with the D6 system. I know that while I will play D&D, that I will never GM a game for it, simply because I recognize that I find that side of the screen too complicated for *MYcomfort levels*.

Fourth, what really matters is that everybody is having fun! It doesn't matter if you are using D6, HARP, Exalted, Unisystem, or D&D, it only matters that everybody (all the players AND you) is having fun. It seems that you found that with D6.. Congrats!

 

[mcrow]

Agreed...to a point. The point is that there is some romanticizing the frequently occurs, where someone seems to think that old school D&D wasn't about leveling up for new powers and getting new magic items, spells and abilities. To which I say 'Poppycock'. I can accept refering to D&D as a whole as 'video-gamey' from a certain perspective; but the implication that this is a recent development/sin of 3E is what I found questionable.

I'll point out that I did not say that this is a recent developement. I also did not mention any version of D&D being less or more video gamey than the other. I am very aware of the influence of RPGs on video games, I have played video games since the first atari came out.