PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Does anyone else feel like hack-and-slash just isn't doing it for you anymore?



newbDM
2009-05-15, 10:26 PM
While wikipedia article hopping I just came across the article describing the 4x genre of video games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4X), which reminded me of what I have heard of Birthright, and I realized what I have been wanting for a while was a more complex and in-depth level of play.

I have tried incorporating things like the Stronghold Builder's Guide, the DMGII's rules for business, and followers, and even basic role-playing into games for two years now, but there doesn't seem to be any kind of place for such things in D&D. Was there ever a time or edition where there was?

The term I kept seeing in the above article which caught my attention was "micromanagement". I remember one DM I had saying he did not care about players keeping track of food or water for said reason, yet I have always kept track of my supplies regardless.

Lately I have had a strong urge to pick up on an old MMO I used to play, and get a lot more into video and computer games. I am now believing it is related to me possibly losing interest in D&D and/or hack-and-slashing.

Anyone else having a similar issue?

DaltonTrigger
2009-05-15, 10:44 PM
Back when I was a kid I got a chance to play Birthright. If only I had realized and appreciated back then how lucky I was to have such a good DM and to be able to play a game with real roleplaying and politics.

There is a place in D&D for good roleplaying, like in any RPG. But as a general rule, D&D holds the mainstream crowd and the mainstream crowd doesn't like to really roleplay.

I find that free form gaming can be really fun if you're looking to avoid the hack and slash.

Personally I like a mix of both. Purely social RP is dull. If I want to roleplay a guy sitting around a bar talking to random people, I'll go to a real bar and pick up real girls, thanks. I don't need an RPG to experience it. And yet pure hack and slash games are dull as well. If all I'm doing is crunching numbers and killing monsters I can load up a game of Fire Emblem rather than spending forever manually adding numbers and rolling dice for D&D. At least Fire Emblem wouldn't be so stupidly unbalanced.

But fortunately for me games I've been getting into lately have had that perfect blend of action, roleplay, and intrigue that I've been looking for. It's really all about finding that one-in-a-million group of people that like styles similar to yours.

kjones
2009-05-15, 10:47 PM
Sounds like you've had enough of the sort of gameplay for which D&D is best suited. Try some different systems.

Hawriel
2009-05-15, 11:03 PM
There is nothing about D&D that forces you to only do dungeon hacks. Roll playing is purly in the domain of the DM and the players. You dont need rules for managing a keep. Its alot easly to have guidlines but you dont need wizards to publish them in order for you do actualy do it.

The_JJ
2009-05-15, 11:14 PM
Roleplaing can be done in any system, or outside of any system. It requires not the right system but the right GM and players.

However the games you and others choose to play will be colored by the way they look at roleplay.

Solutions to your problem:
1. Talk to your groupmates.
2. Talk to your groupmates.
3. If wither of the above fail, consider finding new people to play with. I don't mean switch groups, nessesarily, but you could bring someone else in to shake up the dynamic.

Yahzi
2009-05-16, 02:20 AM
I am now believing it is related to me possibly losing interest in D&D and/or hack-and-slashing.
Hack-and-slash is inherently boring. What makes D&D engaging is the role-playing. If the only reason you're killing orcs is for xp and gold, then after you've got a pile of xp and gold, you're going to be bored.

You need your players to believe in your world, which means it needs to make sense. Which means you need to move away from the standard D&D world, which makes no sense at all. Why is the King a 3rd level aristocrat when the players are 7th level superheroes? Why don't monsters conquer everything and take over the world? Why do 1st level adventurers fight monsters when there are 7th level superheroes around? Why are people poor if magic can create food?

These are legitimate questions, and they need answers that let your players become outraged over injustice and feel triumphant when they defeat evil.

I have a way to resolve all those questions and still stay within D&D (although I had to pull a bit from 2nd Ed).

Check it out in my sig and see if it helps renew your interest.

Xuincherguixe
2009-05-16, 02:48 AM
Roleplaing can be done in any system, or outside of any system. It requires not the right system but the right GM and players.

Some games are better at promoting it than others. The fact of the matter is that when D&D gets out of combat, there's not a whole lot of support for it. Sure, you can just kind of talk it out but isn't the reason for the rules to provide some kind of frame work?


I haven't played a lot of games, so I don't know how they do it in all of them. But in Shadowrun, there's a ton (or tonne considering it's a metric game) of social skills. What's more, the system itself is considerably more flexible, and so it's easier to adapt to the general weirdness that arises once the players have gone to that point where they realize, "there are problems that can be solved without violence". Instead of just shooting the crooked cops, and waiting for legitimacy to magically return which would be the typical fantasy approach... you could follow them around and collect incriminating material to black mail them with. Or even just make up black mail material.

Or, let's go with a weirder scenario. There's a Sasquatch running for Mayor, and you're hired to help the campaign against racists. The PCs would then help derail the arguments, and return the general nastiness in kind. And being that they are Shadowrun players between the group they can probably beat them in terms of the underhanded techniques. Doctored Photo's, falsified money trails, dead bodies in the closet...


It's not like you can't engage in that kind of thinking in D&D mind you, but it's not well supported. In 3.5, you might roll 1d20 with some skill, which you could only really afford to have if you picked a certain kind of character.

That's another point actually. Basically all the character classes revolve around murdering your enemies. Even support type classes are mostly there to support the murder.

People talk about Batman Wizards around here a lot. But the kind of thinking that goes into one of those is pretty much exactly how you should play a Shadowrun magician. Attack the situation. Help out your buddies. Grab a stun spell because they cost less than physical spells, and you can still kill them if you really want to. You don't need to be the blaster, the Cyborg is right next to you, and there's a kill drone with a big machine gun floating close by.


No system can stop imagination, even if they try which I have felt like D&D does at times. It was worse with 2nd edition than 3.5, but there still seems to be a bit of that attitude. But, a good game system acknowledge that PCs are going to try something weird. And that's good. And they should be allowed to try.

Shadowrun, with it's grades of success (It may not be enough to get 1 die over a certain number, you might need to get 4), claseless system, and open ended rules makes it much better for roleplaying.


It also kind of relates to the original post actually. Shadowrun is not supposed to be just a hack and slash game. You can do that, but it's not really it's strong point. If however a group of Shadowrunners got trapped in the D&D world, you can expect to see things like burning down the temple to an evil god before they enter it, stabbing the villain in the side of the neck when he goes off on his evil speech, teaching democracy to the elves, and sucking up to the dragon because they recognize how helpful a giant fire breathing lizard is. That, and a hold over from their Shadowrunning days from when not sucking up to the Dragon means that doctored photos of you get out.


... I'm almost tempted to try running a game like that. Though to be fair, in any game I run I encourage the players to be creative. Not necessarily do they have to be good roleplayers(though they should at least have interesting characters). Good roleplaying doesn't exactly hurt though. The two kind of go hand in hand, but aren't strictly the same thing. But it helps a lot to roleplaying when the System is more free. It also encourages the GM, because since the PCs can solve their problems in interesting ways you can also create interesting problems.

Really though, my main concern is, "Are the players having fun?" Sometimes I ponder about the use of RPGs as a narrative for telling a story. With actual themes and messages and things to make people think. Maybe even for people to learn something. But I think it all comes back to, "Are the players having fun?"

It's like the difference between Darths and Droids (http://darthsanddroids.net/) and DM of the rings (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612). Notice how the Darths and Droids GM involves the PCs in the story. They actually have an influence on the plot instead of just being along for the ride in DM of the rings. I know, both are comedies. But, the Darths and Droids GM in being less overbearing has made a much funner game.

Tempest Fennac
2009-05-16, 03:00 AM
I agree with everyone else about RPing making the game fun. I tend to see it as being suitable for any system assuming the DM and the players want to RP (eg: I've had a couple of situations when DMing when the players were able to "win" fights by just talking the enemy down when I didn't expect them to).

Tsotha-lanti
2009-05-16, 03:15 AM
Sounds like you've had enough of the sort of gameplay for which D&D is best suited. Try some different systems.

This. There are so many RPGs out there that are so much better than D&D, especially for doing different things.

shadzar
2009-05-16, 03:16 AM
I didn't really care for what I read about the Birthright campaign setting. I never really got involved in hack'n'slash games.

While combat is needed in an RPG and D&D specifically, if that is all it was was just dice rolling to beat monster X; I just told people we might as well remove the entire game and just roll dice against each other to see who got the highest roll, or cut cards to see who gets the highest value.

Seatbelt
2009-05-16, 03:26 AM
An old maxim in Journalism etc is "The medium is the message"

it means that certain kinds of information naturally work better in certain kinds of media. This could probably be translated into RPGs. Certain kinds of systems naturally tend towards certain kinds of play. So if system X seems to be mostly hack n slash, turn to system y.


also I'm a little drunk so I'm sorry for incoherence.

Satyr
2009-05-16, 04:23 AM
Different systems act as carriers for different moots in a game. While it is probably possible to use pretty much every form of atmosphere and acting in pretty much any system, some systems create more or less hindrances or supports for some issues and work better with different agendas and atmospheres. Some systems have a broader arange of playing styles they support or tolerate, others are more hidebound in their focus, like D&D.

You could probably try another system (for example Witchcraft (http://www.edenstudios.net/witchcraft/WitchcraftCorebook.zip), ehich is not only very good, it is also free)

But, the most influential part of any game is not the system, but the participants. So, perhaps you should try to dsiscuss what anny you with your co-players, and if the diverge of interests is irreconcilable, try to find a different group who put a different emphasis on the game.

imp_fireball
2009-05-16, 04:48 AM
How many people have sent letters to wizards arguing this fact?

Really, the attempt of 4e to make combat more fun (by adding more rules and 'streamlining') is a pathetic way of bowing to the trend.

Players want hack'n'slash because most of them are young. Heck, original D&D suggested a typical age of 10. 10, for crying out loud.

3.5 can be used as well as any other system with a little imagination. You could run a game in a shadow run universe with 3.5 if you put enough effort into it.

Classes focus on combat because that's where the most danger is. If you don't know how to fight your screwed. For everything else, there's skills. A character who is a comedian can't honestly devote several years of experience to mastering that art (so as to make it a class)- being a comedian is one skill in fact, perform: comedy. Becoming better at it is devoting more ranks and becoming famous is a use of the reputation system. Seducing is a diplomacy check and so the girl who deceives people and divorces millionaires uses one skill and happens to be a commoner. Stabbing her with a knife and killing her would be no problem. In this way, level is a measure of might and how well you could hold to your mortal coil (hit points).

Intelligent characters are equally as good at solving a math equation and coming up with a new theorem as they are at casting spells (if they're wizards). Spells aren't all evocative anyway.

Players simply demand that they head into dungeons and so the GM bows to those demands - which is fine really.

But, really, it's unfair to say that D&D doesn't have anything for outside of combat. Heck, if it was anymore combat intensive, we'd be seeing maneuvers sprouting right from the original PHB, twenty different iterations of a fire spell and fourty some odd instances of damage reduction related to material. That would be mechanics for you.

But we don't see that. D&D still focuses on roleplaying as much as any other system. Seriously, you don't honestly wanna spend more money on other systems do you - particularly when its hard enough to get friends together for even one campaign?

Core D&D is still open for a reason. You can't look at D&D and tell me that the supplements and majority play-style is what it represents. Hell, it's the most popular system, so odds are that it could involve any other manner of campaign. The use of any other system is also that of popular opinion and so I think people should just open up their eyes a little more (roll a higher wisdom score!).

Be mindful that this was a ramble and may not make complete sense in the manner of sentence/paragraph construction.

-----------
Requests

Could someone link me to the business rules in DMGII?

Chiron
2009-05-16, 05:19 AM
Having played a LOT of different systems over the years (WHF, Feng Shui, Blue Planet, n/WoD, GURPS, Mechwarrior, Fallout [Gods what a nightmare that is] and a couple of D20 derivatives [Star Wars and B5]) I find something incredibly paradoxical about roleplaying systems:

The amount of roleplay possibilities is inversely proportional to the number of rules governing a character's personality.

Complex, involved systems that have all sorts of personality advantages and disadvantages physical trait feats and such automatically exclude certain kinds of ideas. Take 3rd Ed GURPS for example (I dunno if it's any different in 4th, I've never used it) you have four primary stats, Health, Intelligence, Agility, and Luck (I Think). In the basic scenario, all willpower checks are basically done as IQ rolls, meaning that a highly intelligent person has loads of willpower. As we know the real world is NOTHING like this, plenty of otherwise intelligent people have addictions, phobias and habits they just can't seem to shake. The suggested fix is to make will a fifth stat, or take certain disadvantages etc. etc.

Take advantages/disadvantages under the same system: say in DnD you have a first level wizard with an intelligence of 20 (natural 18 +2) and your character justification is that your character has a photographic memory. Now, in GURPS you can't do that, because a photographic memory is a 60-point advantage (typically character creation gets you just 100 points to spend), so you'll take a few disadvantages to gather up points, so great, you've got your GURPS wizard with his photographic memory, but he's terrified of clouds, addicted to dwarven ale, and missing his left foot. Not what you had in mind huh?

I'm not a fan of those kinds of systems so much these days, and I think DnD is just fine for complex roleplay. But it does require MORE finesse on the part of the player of that character, and when it comes to adventures, the same is required of the DM. Take a look at some of the character sketches on the gaming page (http://www.giantitp.com/Gaming.html) (This (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/G5PHLM4wbDdD47SKynO.html) is one of my favourites).

When it all comes down to it: Play everything at least once, even if you just roll up a few characters on your own and play out some scenarios with the rules to just learn the system mechanics, and most importantly:

'Never let the system tell you what it is.'
My favourite system all-round is the new World of Darkness. A gaming system that has a reputation for being full to bursting with angst and tropes up the wazoo. There's a certain amount of that, that is deserved, and White Wolf pretty much TELL you to play the game that way. But, you don't HAVE to. I like nWoD not for any of the supplements, but because the system is small and easily extensible with a small amount of imagination.
Want to run Star Wars? Sure. Make a list of force powers you want and the limits at every dot. Change the morality scale into a 20-point system +10 light side, -10 dark side. Want to run a generic space campaign? sure. Ditch the morality mechanics if you want; and driving can encompass piloting (and vice-versa) at -2. and so it goes. Small changes producing results without three hundred extra rulebooks.

Wouldn't it be nice?
Except I think I hear some merchandisers screaming in hysterics...

Gerion
2009-05-16, 06:00 AM
3.5 can be used as well as any other system with a little imagination. You could run a game in a shadow run universe with 3.5 if you put enough effort into it.

Classes focus on combat because that's where the most danger is.

Players simply demand that they head into dungeons and so the GM bows to those demands - which is fine really.

D&D still focuses on roleplaying as much as any other system. Seriously, you don't honestly wanna spend more money on other systems do you - particularly when its hard enough to get friends together for even one campaign?


Well, in D&D people demand to head into dungeons, because thats what the system is designed for. Is focused on this kind of adventure, not so m uch on roleplay. And when the system doesn't fit your needs, change it even if it costs money (because none of us would download the rulebooks somewhere), and i don't know where you live, but don' have any problems in finding Player's for 9 different systems (counting the third and fourth D&D edition as different system)

yes you can play every kind of game with any system you like. But why spending a lot of time to make d&d work in social situations, there are enough systems that do the job better.

D&D sucks when you roll skill checks. Serious after level 5 you don't need to role an untrained skill check, it will do no good. And a char who focuses on a skill has an insane bonus wich makes it an overkill.
Say level 6 bard with 18 charisma gets +13 on a diplomacy check (maxed skill) he has a good chance to beat any dc you throw at him. And thats without magic, feats and skill synergies.


Back to the original topic. Hack and Slay is fun sometimes, but not every game sesion. I'm forunate to have a very good DM who creates very good settings. And well If i don't want to play Hack-and-slay i change to " the dark eye" if you speak german -> http://www.dasschwarzeauge.de/

kjones
2009-05-16, 08:07 AM
Players want hack'n'slash because most of them are young. Heck, original D&D suggested a typical age of 10. 10, for crying out loud.


Out of your rant, this sentence struck me as probably false. The creators of D&D were adults; the first people to play D&D were adults. It's possible that you mean something entirely different when you say "original D&D", such as the "classic" D&D box set I have sitting in a drawer (the one with the red dragon on the cover of the box... Here it is. (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/basic96box.html)) I couldn't find any mention of a "suggested age" in the rulebook, but it's entirely possible that it was intended for the younger crowd, to rope them into shelling out for the AD&D books.

However, I think you ignore the possibility that adults could enjoy hack 'n' slash as well. I think it's harder for kids to appreciate the fine nuances of a high-RP game (he said snobbishly) but anyone can appreciate a good hackfest, and I think you're doing yourself a disservice by saying that it's a style of game "just for kids".

LOLC2k
2009-05-16, 10:01 AM
Out of your rant, this sentence struck me as probably false. The creators of D&D were adults; the first people to play D&D were adults. It's possible that you mean something entirely different when you say "original D&D", such as the "classic" D&D box set I have sitting in a drawer (the one with the red dragon on the cover of the box... Here it is. (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/basic96box.html)) I couldn't find any mention of a "suggested age" in the rulebook, but it's entirely possible that it was intended for the younger crowd, to rope them into shelling out for the AD&D books.

However, I think you ignore the possibility that adults could enjoy hack 'n' slash as well. I think it's harder for kids to appreciate the fine nuances of a high-RP game (he said snobbishly) but anyone can appreciate a good hackfest, and I think you're doing yourself a disservice by saying that it's a style of game "just for kids".

Nope, original D&D, before 1st edition, had a suggested min. age of 10. It said "Ages 10 and up" on the box. And OD&D came out before Basic D&D (Red book/ Blue book) which is what you have sitting in your drawer, although it probably also had that on OD&D, as you said, to guide older people to play AD&D. (Which is funny, because Basic actually allowed for more options, except casters).

Fhaolan
2009-05-16, 10:09 AM
I do vaguely remember one of the old Basic sets having a suggested age of 10, or maybe it was one of the 'intro' self-contained sets. Of course, I started before *that* when it was a college-age thing with the White set.

In any case, I would recommend trying other systems. Specifically weird ones that you wouldn't normally consider. Not because you *can't* role-play with any edition of D&D, but to give you some experience with alternative styles of gameplay that you can bring back to your favorite system afterwards.

Depending on your group, a complete changes in settings can break the dependancy on hack-and-slash. Weird West or Survival Horror can do that for some people. Given the lethality of the genres, doing hack-and-slash is somewhat contraindicated. :)

Mind you some people are more fixated on hack-and-slash and will attempt to do so even if it's a Harlequin Romance genre RPG... which I'm sure exists somewhere...

The big thing you have to consider is, is the rest of your gaming group interested in a change as well, or are they perfectly happy with the 'meet interesting new monsters, kill them, loot bodies' style of game-play? Unless the entire group wants a change, or is at least curious, then you're going to have a lot of difficulty experimenting with other rulesets.

Zeta Kai
2009-05-16, 10:24 AM
I find that a great way to encourage roleplay in my groups is to provide a concrete reason for the hack-n-slash. Why are the orcs attacking? How do the players defeat the duke's forces without inciting an insurrection? What will it take to end the civil war? Sure, the players are still chopping & stabbing, but now they are concerned with their character's motivations, & their role in the overarching plot. They learned that I'm not just gonna throw a random encounter at them without a plot-related reason, so they have become involved in the plot. First as a means to keep fighting, then later for plot-related reasons of their own.

I know that might not work for every group, but it's at least worth a shot. IT's certainly better than trying to gather a whole different group.

Glimbur
2009-05-16, 10:37 AM
You might try the Wuthering Heights system. It's very rules light, free, and very difficult to optimize for combat.

You have three statistics(Rage, Despair, and Oldness), problems that are randomly rolled on a table, and something that flutters in the wind.

The core mechanic is very simple. Choose a statistic, choose if you want to roll over it or under it, and roll 1d100. That's it.

Despite all that, in almost every game of this I have run, someone has ended up dead; usually due to another player.

The assumed setting is the English Moors in the Victorian Era, but the rules would also work for Antebellum South, Versailles when it was new, or even the future if you are all space-nobles.

It's available here:
http://philippe.tromeur.free.fr/whrpg.htm
Make sure you also get the rules for Art, they're not in the downloadable PDF.

Knaight
2009-05-16, 10:49 AM
I would switch up systems and genres a bit, with a lighter system and different, more realistic genre(probably hard science fiction or modern), and then encourage roleplaying. The system and genre shift allow for a cleaner break, meaning old habits get in the way less.

I would suggest the Fudge system, its a free PDF for the core rules.

Artanis
2009-05-16, 10:50 AM
You could try Exalted. Even if you ignore all the social stuff (of which there is quite a bit, especially in 2nd edition), the Stunt system alone would at least get your players to do something other than say "I attack" and roll the dice.

tyckspoon
2009-05-16, 10:56 AM
You might try the Wuthering Heights system. It's very rules light, free, and very difficult to optimize for combat.


I don't think I've mentioned lately just how much I love the Internet. :smallbiggrin:

Decoy Lockbox
2009-05-16, 10:59 AM
You might try the Wuthering Heights system. It's very rules light, free, and very difficult to optimize for combat.

You have three statistics(Rage, Despair, and Oldness), problems that are randomly rolled on a table, and something that flutters in the wind.

The core mechanic is very simple. Choose a statistic, choose if you want to roll over it or under it, and roll 1d100. That's it.

Despite all that, in almost every game of this I have run, someone has ended up dead; usually due to another player.

The assumed setting is the English Moors in the Victorian Era, but the rules would also work for Antebellum South, Versailles when it was new, or even the future if you are all space-nobles.

It's available here:
http://philippe.tromeur.free.fr/whrpg.htm
Make sure you also get the rules for Art, they're not in the downloadable PDF.

Wait, wouldn't that ability to roll over or under entail that a character with a 2 stat is more powerful than a character with a 90 stat? Since the odds of rolling over a two are higher than rolling under a 90?

Glimbur
2009-05-16, 11:08 AM
Well, if you have a 90 Rage, it does mean you're really really good at being angry. But conversely, if you need to keep your temper at a dance because your rival is insulting you, you have bad odds. You might have to leap at him and cause a scene.

Also, stats can't go below 25 or above 75, and they change in game. If something sad happens to you, the GM can give you some Despair. Oldness is the only one that tends to not change.

DaltonTrigger
2009-05-16, 01:20 PM
I can understand games having SOME framework for social RP and perhaps D&D could use a little more, but in general I find that I prefer more open-ended social RP. When I'm not doing D&D, I am a free form roleplayer. No rules needed for me to do anything socially related. If I'm playing a paladin I know it's wrong to blackmail, I don't need my lawfulness roll telling me that my moralness stat refuses to do it. I don't need a niceness stat to be polite and forgiving.

My groups that I play with tend to free form the social side of the game, only bringing in stats when fights break out or a person tries to do something with a clear chance of failure. That's the way I like it to be. With free form, the only limitation to what you can accomplish with social RP is the imagination of the players and the DM.

Tengu_temp
2009-05-16, 01:34 PM
The amount of roleplay possibilities is inversely proportional to the number of rules governing a character's personality.


This is not always the case. Exalted has a rather complex system of rules regarding personality (virtues, limit break, intimacies), yet at the same time it promotes roleplaying much more than any edition of DND ever did.

Chronos
2009-05-16, 01:35 PM
You can role-play in any game system whatsoever. Heck, I've seen people manage to role-play in Diablo II.


Well, if you have a 90 Rage, it does mean you're really really good at being angry. But conversely, if you need to keep your temper at a dance because your rival is insulting you, you have bad odds. You might have to leap at him and cause a scene.Now, see, that actually seems like less of a role-play focus to me, not more. In a system like that, you're not deciding whether to make a scene at the ball, your Rage stat and the roll of the dice is. I would actually assert that D&D's lack of roleplaying rules makes it better for roleplaying, not worse.

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-17, 05:14 PM
Well, hack and slash can be boring because it doesn't explore intriguing ideas nor require any deep thinking . So, start a Planescape (http://www.planewalker.com/editorial-section/30/35-pscs) campaign in the Outer Planes, that the characters might explore a realm composed of various beliefs (http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_031.htm), and then use their beliefs to beat people up (http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_059.html).

potatocubed
2009-05-17, 06:26 PM
D&D is built around combat - more and more so as you go up through the editions. If combat isn't doing it for you any more, switch to a new system for a bit. I recommend Exalted or Burning Wheel, both of which put exactly as much emphasis on social conflict resolution as violent conflict resolution, and should be pretty easy to pick up if you can get your head around the crunch of D&D.

EDIT: Or, if you're looking for something closer to the 4X genre and you're willing to rework the rules just a teeny bit, Reign might be the game for you.

Colt
2009-05-18, 11:13 AM
I just started a game of Scion, and I've found that even in our group of seemingly RP averse players, it's made RP a lot easier. The advantage is that while it is set in an almost completely normal modern-day earth, you still get the magic, monsters and miracles of a D&D system. The advantage is most of the skills and magics are geared towards out-of-combat usefulness. Heck, one of our characters doesn't even have a weapon. It also de-emphasizes dice rolling. The DM is encouraged to not have you roll on something unless it actually matters to the setting. If you have a strong character, and instead of kicking the door open, you say he kicks the door off the hinges and it flies into the room, as long as no-one was right behind the door, it just happens. It's assumed that you're strong enough to kick down the door in a normal way, so why not let you kick it in in a more awesome way?

newbDM
2009-05-18, 11:28 AM
Well, hack and slash can be boring because it doesn't explore intriguing ideas nor require any deep thinking . So, start a Planescape (http://www.planewalker.com/editorial-section/30/35-pscs) campaign in the Outer Planes, that the characters might explore a realm composed of various beliefs (http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_031.htm), and then use their beliefs to beat people up (http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_059.html).

Well, I tried DMing, and it just blew up in my face. I tried changing things up a bit, and tried taking the focus away from combat to more role-playing/resource management/etc, and it just spiraled downhill. That's when I realized no players want much more than hack-and-slash, and if you remove, add, or change anything in the core rules people (especially the rules-lawyers) will throw hissy fits.

I spent about a year working on my world, tweaking it, mapping it and such. Feels like such a waste now. Hence why I do not want to do it again.

newbDM
2009-05-18, 11:36 AM
Oh, and I would not mind trying new systems, but I have given up with that. Around two years back I spent a good year or so looking for people to try a new system with. Right now just finding a 3.5 edition game is difficult, much less another system. I tried internet group finders, stopped by local stores and spoke to their management, etc. I remember I was very interested in playing Exalted for a bit, so I went to White Wolf's site and went to their finding players near you option. I emailed every person around my area who had signed up since a bit over a year past. I only got two reply, the first said they were no longer playing, and the second said they had a kid.

Also, four times people had told me they were going to start a game with another system, so I should buy the book. I did the first two times, and nothing came of it. The second two times I was smart enough not to buy a book, and again nothing materialized.