Measure twice, cut once, so deep breath first.
Rounser, I agree that certain rules can influence the way that you role-play, and if I gave the impression that they had no effect then I am sorry, I overstated myself. But the rules themselves never actually stop you from role-playing itself, since it is in the bailiwick of the group to reject, modify or ignore-at-times any given rule. I think probably it's the overall framework that has the biggest impact, since they create the expectations. D&D is a certain sort of heroic fantasy, with larger-than-life characters, and I agree that trying to use the system to play too far against that grain will feel a little frustrating (I am minded of the thread concerning the realism or otherwise of D&D combat affecting the suspension of disbelief). But I
do think these things can be worked out on a group level, provided that referee and players can broadly agree as to the type of game they want. It's where there are serious mismatches that things come unstuck.
Bendris Noulg: I really don't want to get into a slanging match with you. I actually expect that if you and I role-played together we'd have quite a lot in common. You may have coined IDRP as an expression, but the
idea of in depth role-playing goes back a lot further - I recall earnest converstions about the styles and effects of role-play in my University days (and that was back in the mid-80s - ack! I am getting old!).
I think if you play D&D 'straight', in so far as that actually means anything, it probably does suggest certain types of character. That's because D&D encourages combat; it's part of the 'swords-and-sorcery' genre. But I have no doubt - because I have seen it - that the game can and is taken in other directions. You can even have quite a lot of in-depth role-play in and around the combat-intensive play. The CR system you single out as a problem, but I think that a DM can adapt that to suit his needs. If combat is not to be an important part of the game, then award more XPs for other challenges and pitch weaker opponents against the (less combat oriented) PCs. Provided that you and your players are clear on what sort of game you are running it will still run smoothly.
D&D has always had certain expectations built into it. I think 3e has had those design decisions stated much more expressly, and I think that that has helped less experienced DMs and players know what to shoot for. If the game that you or I want to run differs widely from those expectations then we have to put in more work, and we have to make sure that our players understand our expectations. That, though, is true of
any game system, be it D&D, Vampire: the Masquerade or Traveller.
I was annoyed about your remarks on Andy Collins since I don't think that it's useful to attack the man, nor contributes to making your point. I understand now that there is a 'history' between you, but all you can truly say is that the way he approaches an RPG differs sharply from your own approach. Munchkin carries a lot of emotive baggage, and also means quite significantly different things to different people. Better to say what it is about his approach that you think will affect the design, and how it differs from your own.
At the last I am firmly of the opinion that we can get the sort of games we want to play out of 3.5e as we can from 3e. It might take more work, it might not. It may require the decision not to go down that path. But we, the players, ultimately make the game (and thus the role-play experience). It behooves us to consider the game
in toto and use it as a toolkit for our gaming experience.
edited spelling mistakes
