When the system gets in the way

[pogre]

AT the O.P.:

I switched to WFRP2 for my current campaign and I still like D&D. My next campaign is likely to be a D&D one. I'm hoping playing WFRP2 for a while will help the players be more involved in the story and immersion parts of the campaign. We'll see how it goes - I may stay with WFRP in the end. I'm looking for a game somewhere in the middle I suppose.

 

[SSquirrel]

The main rule I tend to recall ever being enforced where pretend was concerned was "We're at my house so what I say goes or you go home". Not necc by me, just what I recall from some. There are always SOME rules

 

[Wik]

Well, there's certainly been a lot of comments regarding this. Excellent. Just a few things I'd like to address.

For starters, I'm fairly comfortable with the D&D rules - I know how the mechanics work, and I have no problem pulling numbers out of the air. The only time I ever get confused in the game is when I'm dealing with Grapple checks and such. My big problem with the game is the GAP between the PCs when I run - I have about half the group that is optimized for combat, and the other half who can't do squat. Poor communication between the players, I suppose.

But, beyond that, I seem to feel that, with the level and complexity of D&D's mechanics, the players become less focused on WHO their character is. While in our Iron Heroes game there was some character building (we had the son of a nobleman, a tattoed arcanist, and the like) the fact is, none of the characters had NAMES that anyone remembers. Compare this to in our d6 game I ran. My friend Squee was playing "Taint", a crazy knifefighter, while Shelley was playing Julianna, the hacker. When Squee made a decision to abandon the group at a nightclub in search of a quick fix, Shelley was able to say something along the lines of "That sounds like something Taint would do". In other words, not only were my players more aware of their own characters, but they were also more aware of the REST OF THE GROUP'S characters. I definately noticed a difference in the role-playing quality. How much of this is due to the system, and how much is due to my own decision to focus on role-playing, I don't know.

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

Fairly well. My brother is the main "optimizer" in our group, and when we switched to d6, he knew it was at least partially because much of the group wasn't having as much fun with his absolute focus on utilizing the rules. So, he took control of a Hit Man template I had written up (I wrote about twelve templates up so that players could quickly jump into the game), making only a few quick changes. He was pretty adamant about finding information on a sniper rifle he wanted ("how much ammo can it hold? What is it's range?") until he realized that, well, it doesn't really matter too much.

He enjoyed the game, I think, but I have a feeling he likes D&D a bit better. But that might just be because he screwed up a fairly big scene involving a taxi service last session.

The Rest of the group, on the other hand, was having a blast. My quietest player, Shelley, who usually is one of those "Just glad to be here" players who isn't heavily into the game, was really getting involved. Up to the point where, by the end of the session, she had become the group's unofficial leader.

So, the group has really enjoyed the switch to a lighter rules system.

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*.

1) I realize this, and I just think that D&D is getting in the way of MY role-playing. I find it very hard to focus on characterization, funny voices, and setting evocative scenes when I'm also really busy worrying about spot checks, spell-effects, and balancing all my encounters. And the rules-heavy nature of the game makes me feel more like I'm playing a strategy game than an RPG. That's a personal hang-up, I realize.

2) I *do* know all of the rules of the D&D game - the only thing I have problems with are the grapple rules, pretty much. I have the tables in the book memorized, so that if I need to know a modifier to an attack roll, I can open the PHB and be there in about two seconds.

3) Even though I am comfortable with the system, and how it works, I find that the system impedes RP. I've noticed a DRAMATIC shift in the level of role-playing around the table with a system change. It's really quite amazing - I wish you could see the difference in my group.

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.

d6 is fairly hard to min/max at, in any case. But, yes, they don't really know the system,so it would be hard to do. However, a few players made their characters from scratch, and none of them took advantage when I said "pick whatever gear you want from the book, I don't care". But, you're right, in terms of character generation, it's not a good measure of difference between systems. But in terms of actual play, I saw a HUGE difference in how players approached the game itself.

.................................

I guess my whole point here is this: in every RPG, players and GMs have to pay conscious attention to the rules. In D&D, this level of attention can get to the point where they become the main focus of the game. In a game like the d6 system, these rules are so light that players are able to focus more on the story and role-playing; they can pay attention to other players, set up their own scenes, and such. In my experience, a heavier game (such as D&D) takes a lot more attention to the rules, and, as such, characters become reflections of those same rules.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The 3.5 skills system adds an extra flavor to the game, but also limits role-playing by design.

Nah- D20/3.5 provides a certain focus on skills & tactics that might distract one from role-playing, but it wasn't designed to hamper role-play.

I'm another one of those guys who has played dozens of systems over the past 28yrs, and I've found that familarity with a system can lead to min-maxing at a subconscious level.

I've also run into gamers who insist that every one of the 4 core roles of FRPGs (Warrior/Wizard/Priest/Rogue) gets filled in any campaign.

OP, what you probably needed more than anything was a shakeup- something to get everyone out of their respective ruts. It could have been an unusual campaign idea; it happened to be trying a different system. But just remember, ANY system can be min-maxed, any system encourages certain play styles and PC concepts over others- you'll need to prepare yourself for the inevitable time when the min-maxing occurs in D6.

 

[Menexenus]

I feel the OP's pain. Sometimes I also lament that 3rd edition seems to have a rule for everything and that (consequently) role-playing seems to go out the window. But then I remember what it was like playing 2nd edition. My group really wasn't a whole lot better at role-playing back then. The only real difference is that now we players have a bit more power to call the DM on bad calls.

So I understand the desire for more satisfying role-playing, but I try hard to avoid the knee-jerk reaction of blaming 3rd edition. Being a rules-heavy game, D&D may *contribute* to a lack of role-playing, but the root cause of this for any given group has to be traced back to the players and their DM. (There's nothing in the rules that *prevents* you from role-playing; it's sometimes just easier to focus on other things.)

 

[Treebore]

I feel the OP's pain. Sometimes I also lament that 3rd edition seems to have a rule for everything and that (consequently) role-playing seems to go out the window. But then I remember what it was like playing 2nd edition. My group really wasn't a whole lot better at role-playing back then. The only real difference is that now we players have a bit more power to call the DM on bad calls.

So I understand the desire for more satisfying role-playing, but I try hard to avoid the knee-jerk reaction of blaming 3rd edition. Being a rules-heavy game, D&D may *contribute* to a lack of role-playing, but the root cause of this for any given group has to be traced back to the players and their DM. (There's nothing in the rules that *prevents* you from role-playing; it's sometimes just easier to focus on other things.)

I thought that school of thinking may have some merit, then I switched to a rules lite game and found out it wasn't true. 3E is the only rules system I have ever played or DMed where roleplaying and story were seriously weakened/interfered with by the rules. A core rules only game isn't as bad, but it is still worse than even 2E. True20 might be lite enough to give me a system where I will DM something close to 3E, but I doubt I will ever DM 3E again. I play, I am even playing 3E Warcraft this evening, but I won't DM it ever again, at least not for a long term game.

So Castles and Crusades is my DMing system of choice for a D&D style of game. I have fun, my players have fun, and that is what we play this game for, so C&C does the job admirably for us.

I refuse to hurt my brain with 3E ever again.

 

[Gundark]

While I'm glad that you obtained the role playing that you were looking for, but the pessimist in me suspects that the number crunching will return after prolonged familiarity with the game occurs. It's been my xp that no matter what the system it starts off as more roleplaying, but as time passes and familiarity grows the players will make characters who are more "efffective" than the original characters were. Then you'll have a return to what you were upset about to begin with.

But hey maybe I'll be wrong and it'll all be peaches and candy

my $0.02

 

[RFisher]

So, I've been in the dumps lately concerning RPG's. It seems like I spend so much time worrying about character builds and monster books, and other stat-related aspects of the game, that there isn't a whole lot of role-playing going on.

As I've said around here before: The thing I like least about 3e is that it feeds my rule-lawyer habit.

I really enjoy digging into the rules & finding all the nooks & crannies. I can hardly keep myself from doing it. Yet, I find I enjoy my overall gaming experience more when I'm not doing that.

Sometimes, you just have to remove the temptation.

Our group consists of two people who will use the rules to make strong characters (one uses whatever feats look best; the other tends to just focus on things that are "cool" but often just a bit broken), and two who are more into just playing the game.

This was actually the first thing that got me moving away from more complex games & towards simpler games. (Only at the time it was Gurps, Rolemaster, & Hero rather than D&D3e.)

When playing one of the more complex systems, my groups have ended up with only two or three people who want to master the rules. They rest of the group just doesn't have the desire to do it. Things would go OK, but I've found it's much more enjoyable when the system is simple enough that everyone at the table can master the rules.

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

• Fudge & Risus--I haven't actually played either yet, but they've had some influence on how I approach other games
• Classic Traveller--sticking pretty close to just Books 1-3 (or Starter Traveller) & just a few of the extras
• Prince Valiant, the Storytelling Game
• Classic D&D: The 1981 Basic & Expert sets
• Toon
• Buck Rogers High Adventure Cliffhangers--looks pretty good, but it's pretty new & I haven't had a chance to play it yet

Unfortunately, most of those are out-of-print.

 

[Hussar]

Also, the characters are extremely more powerful than in past versions of DnD. This causes the players to spend less time coming up with a complicated plan to even the score, and more time buffing themselves with magic before wading in for the kill.

Digging back in the thread for this, but, I gotta point out that this is pattently false. Or, rather, it's only true from a very skewed POV.

Yes, a 3e character is more powerful than a 1e character, but, only when you ignore the individual system. A 3e character is NOT more powerful compared to equivalent opponents in 3e.

In other words, my 1e 7th level fighter is FAR more powerful than my 3e 7th level fighter when you take the relative systems into account. My 1e 7th level fighter can single handedly wipe out giants, plural. My 7th level 3e fighter will likely get his ass handed to him by a single ettin.

Comparing systems while ignoring the relative levels within those systems is a no-no.

Now, that I've gotten that out of my system, I would also like to congratulate Wik for doing the best thing for his group. Switiching to a system that works better FOR YOU, is the best thing to do in all cases.

 

[doghead]

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?

Yes. And Yes.

Of course, the system is not the only factor. And of course, there are people who enjoy complex rule systems, and for them this makes for a more interesting role-play experience. But in general, I would agree.

thotd