When the system gets in the way

[Gothmog]

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.

What you just said here is something I've been trying to put into words for a couple years, but haven't been able to explicity state- thank you! "If you don't learn the rules, you get screwed by the rules." That is what REALLY bugs me about D&D 3.x (and D20 Modern)- the overpowering shift towards using a rule to account for any situation. AoO, skill synergies, feat chains, etc- its all connected, and unless a player is a master of the rules and plays the metagame of D&D, they are decidedly subpar compared to other players, monsters, and NPCs in published materials. So while everybody is there to roleplay and have fun, the fiddly-bits of the rules tend to get in the way and occlude ACTUALLY PLAYING. Truly a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

While I understand this may not be the case for everyone playing D&D, it definitely has been for my long-term group, and for 8 or 9 other groups I've played in since 3.x came out. I don't remember the stressing over the rules and the metagame aspects when playing AD&D or 2E- mostly because the complicated fiddly-bits weren't there. And while its cool to be able to personalize a character with tons of mechanical options, in the end the character feels more like a robot with statistical capabilities than it does a character- because to succeed in 3.x, you have to focus on the mechanical aspects. Its the way the game is built. Thats a smart move by WotC because they can (and have) come out with endless varieties of "crunch" books that players want to buy to trick out their characters- and that means $$$$ for WotC. But I think this is bad for the game as a whole, since the complexity of the 3.x rules will drive new players away from the game (and yes, I've seen this happen at least a dozen times), and I don't know how many times I've heard in real life and on these boards "something just doesn't feel right about 3.x".

While other RPGs out there still have some metagame aspects, none of them (with maybe the exception of HERO or GURPS) can rival 3.x in that regard. For me and my group, the convoluted ruleset DOES get in the way of having fun, creativity, and enjoyment. We like a certain degree of DM fiat and player freedom. And while the mantra of D&D 3.x was "options, not restrictions", the 3.x ruleset IS restricting, unless you have one style of game in mind (metagaming, combat heavy with superpowered characters).

My group and I have found that Savage Worlds, BRP, and WHFRP 2 suit our gaming needs much better- allowing for more freedom to act and not worry about the stats as much. While 3.x has concerns about "optimal character builds", those three games don't to nearly the degree 3.x does. So if someone isn't the best at some action, it doesn't matter as much- you just come up with an interesting plan and go for it. In D&D, a lot of people micromanage out their synergy bonuses, skill ranks, feat chains, and even character advancement to 20th level- and that behavior is rewarded and encouraged because of the assumptions in the books.

 

[mcrow]

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.

I never said anything of the sort.

You can play a Role-Playing Game without doing much Role-Playing and still have fun. That's, cool IF that is what your group likes. Whatever works for you and your players.

I think what is going on here is I'm refering to Role-Playing as being in character and doing/saying what they would do. Where as I think you are refering to Role-Playing as playing a role-playing game. These are to very different things in my mind. Neither is better than the other and most games have some of both elements in them.

and you can role-play with almost no rules, it's called pretend or LARP.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Anyone who has watched childen playing (or who has been a child) has witnessed (or done) roleplaying without any min-maxing involved, and often enouch without any means to imagine events agreed upon by the group.

The problem with the Lumpley Principle is the same as that with "The fittest survive." With Darwin's statement, since only survival determines fitness, the statement itself contains no actual information. With Lumpley, any action is evidence of rules, and the rules are only defined by the action; no codification, awareness, etc., is required. The principle is tautological in that it is self-defining, but I don't think that this is the definition that most of us think of when we say "rules".

It is certainly true that, once established, a character can certainly maximize his odds as part of roleplaying. That is, as you say, human nature. In some worlds, Greyhawking a dungeon is just the smart thing to do. In other worlds, it's joining the Brotherhood of the Crimson Fist (which might be represented in the game rules as a prestige class). You don't need to know the numerical bonus to know that having higher ground in a fight is often a good thing....as is being in a position to strike an enemy that cannot strike back at you.

Which is why I said "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."

There was once a Gygax article entitled "Good Does Not Mean Stupid" (or something very like) that suggested quite vehemently that people in a D&D world understand the sort of world they live in and act appropriately. Tarzan doesn't fail to recognize that lions are dangerous. Conan doesn't go barehanded when a sword is within reach. Being able to make a character in a rules-savvy manner has nothing to do with whether or not you can then roleplay that character in an enjoyable manner conducive to suspension of disbelief.

RC

 

[Barak]

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.

As I said, it sure can be. My character, when he's able, will learn to do feat X. That's what he'd do, because that will help him survive. As for stats, I still have to learn how picking stats in any way is roleplaying. Skills? See feats.

See, the thing people on the other side seems to fail to understand is that the character itself chooses his feats and skills. And, I'm sorry, but choosing sub-par feats/skills is -not- roleplaying, it's making a character who decides, for whatever reasons, to study/learn stuff that won't help him out as much as the person who chooses the "best" feats/skills.

Sorta like people chooses philosophy as a major in college instead of going for a nursing degree. They both are valid choices, but one has a better chance of being, you know, useful.

 

[mcrow]

See, the thing people on the other side seems to fail to understand is that the character itself chooses his feats and skills. And, I'm sorry, but choosing sub-par feats/skills is -not- roleplaying, it's making a character who decides, for whatever reasons, to study/learn stuff that won't help him out as much as the person who chooses the "best" feats/skills.

Yes, but again this is not Role-Playing.

Your stats, feats, and what not will factor into how you decide to RP your character, but this is not role-playing it's chargen.

 

[billd91]

As I said, it sure can be. My character, when he's able, will learn to do feat X. That's what he'd do, because that will help him survive. As for stats, I still have to learn how picking stats in any way is roleplaying. Skills? See feats.

See, the thing people on the other side seems to fail to understand is that the character itself chooses his feats and skills. And, I'm sorry, but choosing sub-par feats/skills is -not- roleplaying, it's making a character who decides, for whatever reasons, to study/learn stuff that won't help him out as much as the person who chooses the "best" feats/skills.

Sorta like people chooses philosophy as a major in college instead of going for a nursing degree. They both are valid choices, but one has a better chance of being, you know, useful.

I largely agree. There are very few character development decisions (the picking of feats, skills, whatever) that cannot be explained and rationalized by role-playing motivations. Why is the min-max player's fighter taking min-maxy feats? Because "I want to be the best warrior there is and I think I have devised an effective style that will help me attain my goal. Perhaps I will set up a fighting school to teach young men these methods... when I am old and ready to hang up my sword and shield (so as not to invite competition)."

Separating the mechanics and role-playing strictly is a false distinction.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Actually, one of the article's base assumptions is not true IME:

Thirdly, in terms of most RPGs, player enjoyment of the game, in terms of effectiveness in contributing to play and admiration of their peers, is directly related to character power.​

This is a faulty premise, IMHO, and leads to faulty conclusions.

In the article, Tyler Durden claims that when he uses the term "player" he means the players and the GM. If the above statement was true, then by necessity the GM could either ensure the greatest "effectiveness in contributing to play and admiration of their peers" by using the Tarrasque against low-level characters, or would have no effectiveness because none of the NPCs is truly "his".

Imagine a game where seven 1st level PCs travel with 1 20th level PC. By the above statement, not only should this be a great dynamic for the 20th level PC's player, but the seven other players should admire that player more as a result of his relative uber-character. Yet this is not what would occur within my experience.

Imagine a game like Call of Cthulhu, where a great deal of the fun is based upon playing characters who are much less effective than what they are going up against. Having foes that you cannot face directly provides, IME and IMHO, some of the most satisfying and involving gaming. When your foe is too rich or connected to assault directly, or just too powerful, you have to think more, plan more, and sweat more. Victory, should you succeed, is all the more sweet.

I would argue that the above statement should instead be

Thirdly, in terms of most RPGs, player enjoyment of the game, in terms of effectiveness in contributing to play and admiration of their peers, is directly related to character involvement.​

Which leads, perhaps, to different conclusions.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Separating the mechanics and role-playing strictly is a false distinction.

Strictly? Perhaps, but only due to the nebulous nature of language itself.

If you want to be the best fighter in the world, so you seek to train with Sir Hacksalot because he knows a thing or two about which end of the sword is pointy, then that is role-playing. When you then determine what that means in game terms (skills, feats, prestige classes, or whatever), that is rules.

Which is why I said "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."

Or, another way of looking at it is this:

In the game, there are two manticores. One is a big, scary lion-bodied thing with a human head, sharp teeth, and a nasty disposition. The other has Armor Class, hit points, and a damage roll. The "manticoreness" manticore informs the "rules" manticore and gives it meaning. The "rules" manticore informs the "manticoreness" manticore and gives it meaning within the context of the game.

Similarly, Lady Bobbette the Mighty (a knight) exists both in a imaginary version (who she is, why she is that way, what she looks like and is liable to do) and in a game version (stats). The first version is the only one you need to write a story, the second is the only one you need for a game like chess (knight, remember? ). In a role-playing game, both versions are necessary. How you weight the two versions, though, in terms of importance is more of an "IMHO" sort of thing than a concrete observable fact.

RC

 

[buzz]

Separating the mechanics and role-playing strictly is a false distinction.

QFT.

 

[buzz]

I think what is going on here is I'm refering to Role-Playing as being in character and doing/saying what they would do. Where as I think you are refering to Role-Playing as playing a role-playing game.

Right. I'm saying that if you are playing a roleplaying game, you are by definition roleplaying. What you're using the term for is what I called earlier "immersion" and "story". I prefer not to use the term that way, because there's an inherrent value judgement in doing so (which I realize you don't mean to do maliciously).

Being into immersion and story is great, but it's not the only way to play an RPG, and it is not a superior way to play. It's just a way.

and you can role-play with almost no rules, it's called pretend or LARP.

Right. But, no matter what, you have rules. Even if the only rule is, "The GM gets to decide what happens," you're playing with rules. You've set up conditions on which the group has (ideally) agreed that define what happens inside the game ("Lumpley Principle"). There is no such thing as an RPG, much less a game in general, that has no rules.

What the OP was wrasslin' with —and what Rasyr sagely pointed out above— is finding out what kind and how complex a ruleset he could use and still have fun.

Your stats, feats, and what not will factor into how you decide to RP your character, but this is not role-playing it's chargen.

I can agree that chargen, in itself, is not roleplaying, i.e., roleplaying is what happens at the table when it's "game time". Chargen is "roleplaying-related."

But there is absolutely nothing that's "not roleplaying" about playing a PC for whom you made optimal choices during chargen or advancement. D&D is all about optimal choices.

I think the sticking point is just that "min-max" as a term has been so closely associated with "munchkin" that the discussion becomes co-mingled with the whole topic of disruptive and abusive players. And I'd hope that, by now, enough gamers are aware that no one play style has a monopoly on disruptive players.