When the system gets in the way

[Raven Crowking]

WizardDru, gaining levels in earlier editions of the game was certainly a major goal. Depending upon how you played those earlier editions, however, gaining levels might well have been a secondary goal (because it took so long IME, you could not use it as a primary), and level-ups didn't often mean gaining as much as they do in 3.X.

While I agree with you that there is a certain tendency to romanticize the past, I also believe that there is a certain tendency to malign the past from another quarter.

Buzz, min-maxing and rules-focusing is not roleplaying. It may well be part of character creation that leads to roleplaying, it might be a necessary adjunct to resolving roleplaying decisions, and it is certainly not the antithesis of roleplaying. You can roleplay without rules, and you can have rules without roleplaying, but a roleplaying game requires both.

RC

 

[mcrow]

Buzz, min-maxing and rules-focusing is not roleplaying. It may well be part of character creation that leads to roleplaying, it might be a necessary adjunct to resolving roleplaying decisions, and it is certainly not the antithesis of roleplaying. You can roleplay without rules, and you can have rules without roleplaying, but a roleplaying game requires both.

RC

Damn right, min-maxing is NOT role-playing.

 

[WizarDru]

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.

Sorry, I interperted "I think d20's video gamey/power-up feel makes stats more important in d20 than they are in most other systems. " as a specific reference ONLY to d20/3e, not to D&D in general.

WizarDru, gaining levels in earlier editions of the game was certainly a major goal. Depending upon how you played those earlier editions, however, gaining levels might well have been a secondary goal (because it took so long IME, you could not use it as a primary), and level-ups didn't often mean gaining as much as they do in 3.X.

Very true...but that's why I mentioned spells and magic items, as well. Quite a bit of AD&D was focused around getting the best loot; levelling was not as significant in that respect as getting that +12 Hackmaster. A sizable amount of "Knights of the Dinner Table" focuses on this very concept. In fact, the emphasis of most adventures was doing things like finding Whelm...because not only was it a good weapon, but it granted magical powers.


To answer the central question:

I've found that certain systems suit certain gamers better, but no system has ever gotten in the way of our roleplaying...but many of them have gotten in the way of our FUN. I loved the setting for Castle Falkenstein...but the card-based resolution system was, IMHO, horrible. I loved using GURPS for many years...but the system eventually became too much of a burden. I loved using AD&D for many years...but it's inconsistency and arcane nature often became an impediment to play. I never much liked Paranoia....but I think that was the point.

 

[Raven Crowking]

WizardDru,

You're right about the nature of magic items in earlier editions. However, not only did you have to find the thing, but you then had to figure out what it did! This "exploration" concept of dealing with magical loot is one of the things I enjoyed about the earlier system and had to re-introduce to d20.

I don't think that the current version is too complicated, either, as some do. In fact, as many of my house rules serve to add complications to aspects of the game that I feel are glossed over as serve to remove complications from aspects I think should move faster. For example, the concept of arcane (and other) Secrets means that you can add qualities to a magic item that have nothing to do with spells. Suddenly there's the potential for items to be more than what spells they emulate. D&D already did this for weapon & armour qualities; I simply extended the idea a bit.

I guess I, personally, really do want "1st Edition (mostly) feel, 3rd Edition (mostly) rules."

 

[Shadowslayer]

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.

Thats a long post...but basically yes, tried to do away with AoOs, and made a mess of it. Also tried to trim the number of ways to temporarily change ability scores. (That's been a sticking point with me.) But in the end, ended up telling too many spellcasters "no you can't have that spell" I don't like DMing like that, so I gave up.

Anyway, that's the short answer.

Maybe it can be done...but not by me. Actually it can...C&C and some of those other games do it quite nicely. I'll leave it to the pros though. Rather write adventures than tinker with rules.

 

[Barak]

I dunno. Min-maxing -can- be roleplaying, to a point.

First a few truisms.

-Characters in the game are aware, to a degree of the rules. For a few examples, they -know- that some people can hit harder at the cost of accuracy (power attack) or that some people are adept of making a follow-through with a blow that fell an opponent (Cleave). Also, they know that they can move backa bit and unleash a volley of arrows, but that they can't move back a lot and do the same (5' step versus moving 10' or more). They also know that they can potentially achieve the previous two with enough training, if they have enough strenght. Thinking differently, to me, breaks the fourth wall and remove a degree of believability.

-Adventurers, if they are aware they are such, will make a point of learning as much as they can about said possibilities, for sheer survability. They won't know they are called feats, or class abilities, or PClasses. But they'll know the game effects. The Information DCs PClasses have been coming with for a long time now is a good indication of that, but I think that's just a start, not the be all end all.

Given that.. I don't think min-maxing is that bad. If I was an adventurer in a D&D game, I sure as heck would do all I can to assure I live as long as I can. And as proof, people do that IRL. Say you work as an IT dude. You learn that knowing Virtual Basic will help your chance of promotion. Even if you hadn't considered learning Virtual Basic before.. Wouldn't you now?

 

[buzz]

Given that.. I don't think min-maxing is that bad. If I was an adventurer in a D&D game, I sure as heck would do all I can to assure I live as long as I can. And as proof, people do that IRL. Say you work as an IT dude. You learn that knowing Virtual Basic will help your chance of promotion. Even if you hadn't considered learning Virtual Basic before.. Wouldn't you now?

Bingo. Min-maxing is human nature. It's also been actively encounraged by the D&D rules (though not always the rule advice) since day 1.

 

[buzz]

Damn right, min-maxing is NOT role-playing.

I am not going to presume that my prefered manner of play is the One True Way, and I'd advise others to do the same.

P.S.: You cannot roleplay without rules. See: Lumpley Principle.

 

[Treebore]

Another thing I like about C&C is that we don't have discussions like this on our forums. We talk about how to add complexity, or to have the complexity but keep it simply a SIEGE mechanic. Mostly we talk about how simple, liberating, and fun it is to play using C&C. Very refreshing.

 

[mcrow]

Bingo. Min-maxing is human nature. It's also been actively encounraged by the D&D rules (though not always the rule advice) since day 1.

it's still not role-playing.

Role-playing is doing/saying what your character would in a given situation.

A min-maxer is a person who has to have the stats,feats,skill, and whatever else as close to perfect for statistical performance as possible or he/she will not be happy.

The logic for the mechnics makes enough sense, but it is not role-playing.

Mechanics and Role-playing are two seperate things. If mechanics are to complicated or have to much book keeping it takes away from Role-Playing. But if your group likes a hack it out @ the table that's cool, there is nothing wrong with that.