Too Many Rules?

[rollfrenzy]

Ok, here's the situation. I have a regular gaming group. We have been playing together for 15 or so years. They are a good group of guys, and excellent roleplayers. Well, anyways, about a year and a half ago I started to get burnt out and stopped roleplaying altogether. I recently got the bug (thanks in large part to discovering this forum) and started playing again.

Well to make a long story short, I am wondering why I ever came back. My group seems to have lost the ability to "role"play and seems to be "Roll"-playing focused.

I know they are good players, but they seem to have given up. For example, I recently asked in-character to an NPC mage "What is it you can do? what form of magic are you capable of?" the DM's response was "I'm a conjuration specialist who gave up abjuration and evocation." It completely ripped me out of fantasy. I persisted in character and finally got him to speak character to character, but it felt like I had to rip it out of him.

I was wondering if this could be a symptom of the fact that in d20 everything is quantified by the rules. I guess, I notice that when we play a "rules light" game, they tend to roleplay alot more.
There seems to me to be less use of imagination and creativity now. Since if you can think of it, it has stats. Has anybody else had this kind of problem. Has too many rules, and too many classes and too many magic items spoiled the game for anybody else? or am I looking for answers in the wrong place and all the rules and books and 1001 flavors of everything a "Good Thing"?

[Premier]

Has anybody else had this kind of problem.

Many more people than you imagine. You just won't hear of them around here, since they are posting at other boards, populated by those people who agree with them.

[SpiderBrigade]

I don't really see why his answer was particularly immersion-ruining? You asked him about his magical talent and he told you what he specialized in. I mean, the schools of magic aren't some purely mechanical thing. People familiar with magic would know the names of the schools, and a wizard definitely would. I mean, how would it have been better if he'd said "well, I'm really good at summoning spells (except not all conjuration is summoning) , but not very good at protection or energy attacks?

Now, if you asked him about his capabilities and he said "I'm a level 7 wizard with 2 levels of Loremaster, yeah, that ruins immersion. It's not something a character should really say. But if you ask him specifically about his magical abilities, you should expect an answer like the one you got, in character.

Edit: I should say, I agree with your general point. D&D is definitely a game that easily lends itself to preoccupation with numerical, mechanical abilities and rules. Doesn't have to be that way, of course. But it's easier to play it thus than it would be for a rules-light game.

Also, could you clarify what the "In character" answers you eventually got out of him were like? I'm curious.

[rollfrenzy]

Many more people than you imagine. You just won't hear of them around here, since they are posting at other boards, populated by those people who agree with them.

I guess my problem is my group won't play anything else. Which is why I am posting here. I need the opinion and help of people with a different viewpoint.

@Spider(since I don't know how to do multiple quotes) : It ruined immersion becuase my character (a rogue) would have no clue what an abjuration or evocation is, plus he said it in an OOC, kind of off-handed way. It kinda took any mystery out of it, and made it sterile.

[ndragonsbane]

I have to start by saying that d20 hasn't spoiled me because I started with d20 and only later went to other systems (although never for d&d).

I can empathize with you here, but in our groups there tends to be a lot of shifting back and forth between roll-playing and role-playing (different campaigns have different focuses; the shifting has never yet occurred during a single campaign). With us it's simply a need to do something different changing how we play; we want to keep playing d&d but feel the need to switch things up. I'm not saying that's what's happening in your situation, but since you can evidently recapture some of your heavier role-playing from times past in "rules light" campaigns maybe it's just them getting tired of doing the same thing constantly and finding out that they enjoy d&d 3.5 as a system as much as they enjoy role-playing in a general fantasy setting. If that's the case, maybe you should introduce them to miniatures or something so they can get their war-game fix without spoiling your d&d sessions (though I wouldn't put it past myself to have completely misunderstood the issue).

[nerulean]

I know what you're talking about. Okay, our group is good on the whole and we've got some excellent roleplayers who do roleplay more often than not, but when we get to some situations, especially combat, the nice characterisation goes out of the window and the dice and stats come out.

What we've done recently is to intersperse our campaigns with single sessions run entirely without stats. Character sheets left at home, and the only element of randomisation in the hands of the DM, from a coin to flip to the random number generator on a calculator. Mention anything to do with the rules of the game and rocks fall. This has given us some really wonderful roleplay and has been universally popular, even (unexpectedly) with the more stat-optimisation-focused players, and I'd really recommend it.

[rollfrenzy]

Also, could you clarify what the "In character" answers you eventually got out of him were like? I'm curious.
He eventually broke down into describing the schools a little in character and what they could do.

@ Dragonsbane:

If there was a shifting back and forth I would be ok with it more. It really has become all about crunch, though. One of the players hates mini's, so that's out. The problem is though, They don't play any "rules light" games, or campaigns. I have pushed for a new system, and the response I get is "We spent all this money, why should we switch?"

@ nerulean
That's not a bad idea, don't think it would fly though.

[Teloric]

I say keep roleplaying it. If I asked a wizard such a question, and he gave me the rote "game mechanic" answer, my character would scratch his head, look puzzled, and respond with something like, "Huh? I don't understand your 'wizard speak'. Can you please tell me what you can do in plain, ordinary Common?" or something like that...

Roleplay it. Make it fun for yourself. When the rest of your group sees how much fun you're having, it'll catch on. And, even if it doesn't, you will be creating your own fun...

Hope this helps...

[Premier]

I have pushed for a new system, and the response I get is "We spent all this money, why should we switch?"

And the traditional answer to that is: "Because I'm sick of this system, and so once the campaign is wrapped up, I'm not going to DM any more with it. Meaning either someone else steps up to take over, or you switch. By the way, here are some free systems/free intro documents you can look into."

[Diggorian]

Perhaps if you turn up the depth of your roleplaying they'll feel the urge to reciprocate. If you think and behave as your character should they'll have to react to you as their characters would. In effect, you're showing that you're someone else.

EDIT: In other words what Teloric said :smallamused:

[rollfrenzy]

Premier: I only run the game sometimes, so it's not really a valid threat, plus they continued playing while I was gone, So I feel if I tried that, I would be kidnapping thier game.

Teloric and Diggorian: That's what I tried and it eventually worked, but it's like beating my head against a wall.

[Jasdoif]

It ruined immersion becuase my character (a rogue) would have no clue what an abjuration or evocation is, plus he said it in an OOC, kind of off-handed way. It kinda took any mystery out of it, and made it sterile.Wait, what? It ripped you out of the immersion because the wizard didn't know that your rogue has no clue what abjuration or evocation are, and because it was presented in an off-handed fashion?

Sounds like a wizard with a bit of a know-it-all attitude, or perhaps a bit absent-minded, to me.

[Diggorian]

Teloric and Diggorian: That's what I tried and it eventually worked, but it's like beating my head against a wall.

If it worked, how is it still like beating your head against the wall?

[rollfrenzy]

Diggorian: It worked by eventually getting them to respond IC. But it took three or four OOC responses to get there.

Jasdoif: If it was IC at all I wouldn't have minded the response. I guess I am not presenting it well. It felt like he may as well have told me to look it up on page # whatever. completly OOC. There was no attempt to RP the response.

[Snooder]

Somehow I have a feeling that somewhere else, there's a post that goes:
"Man, there's this troublesome player in our group. He just doesn't seem to want to go along with the party and always slows down the flow of the game. I was DM and was introducing an NPC wizard to the party, nothing big, just some guy to get em where I want em in the story. Of course Player X has to pipe up and ask what kind of magic the NPC does. He doesn't even ask it straightforwardly, he takes freaking forever to do it, all 'in character' too. Don't want to be a jackass, so I respond in character, tell him the guy's a conjurer who doesn't do abjuration or evocation. Of COURSE X doesn't let it go at that and keeps at it forever until he gets the 'in character' response he wants. The rest of the party is just sitting there waiting for him to shut UP so we can get on with it. So, any tips on how to get this guy to tone down the role-playing so we can have fun? Don't wanna kick him out, he's an old friend and we used to have fun playing together."

Not that this is necessarily your situation, just wanted to point out that there is another side to the issue. It is likely that your friends don't want to role-play as immersively as you do. It's a style that doesn't appeal to everyone. That said, just play along with their style taking every appropriate opportunity to role-play; important events like character death, or taking to extremely important NPCs and don't worry about mundane activities.

[Cyborg Pirate]

Jasdoif: If it was IC at all I wouldn't have minded the response. I guess I am not presenting it well. It felt like he may as well have told me to look it up on page # whatever. completly OOC. There was no attempt to RP the response.

Out of curiousity, how did he say it Exactly? Can you give us more details? From what I read here, I can't imagine what other way he ought to have said it if it was just a causual conversation between two partymembers.

And can you give us an idea what he should have said exactly to maintain your immersion?

[Narmoth]

Well, get back to playing 2nd ed then!
I refuse to DM 3.5 because of the amount of rules (and becasue I bought all the 2nd ed books right before they released 3.0, so I didn't wan't to buy a new system) and homebrew a simplification of most things like encumbrance. Ok, it lets the ranger carry around 20 swords and 5 full plates unnoticed until he tries to sell them, but it just slow down the game to consider how fast the person would normally be able to run.
Or you could run a simplified version of 3.5 as a DM, getting the others back on track into roleplaying.
Or you could just roll with their way of rollplaying

[rollfrenzy]

*SNIP*
Not that this is necessarily your situation, just wanted to point out that there is another side to the issue. It is likely that your friends don't want to role-play as immersively as you do. It's a style that doesn't appeal to everyone. That said, just play along with their style taking every appropriate opportunity to role-play; important events like character death, or taking to extremely important NPCs and don't worry about mundane activities.

First, it's an NPC party Member, so not just random Wiz. but you are prolly right on. That's what I am afraid of. I try not to monopolize the time in game, but for me it's no fun to just gloss over till you get to combat. The problem is theres very little roleplaying now, and there used to be. It used to be that we could go several adventures and never role a dice. I honestly don't remember the last time a party memeber died.

Cyborg Pirate: We had accepted a job to go into a mine and retrieve something for said wizard. We get down there and came across an obstacle that my character thought the mage could have helped out with (a giant earthen wall in our way and our retreat path if necessary) So I asked the wizard to do something. He said I can't, this got my character wondering, because he didn't know what the wizard was capable of if it came to a fight So I asked. The response came completely OOC for the wizard and was abrupt and the Dm started to continue us down the corridor. I asked IC what that meant and the Dm out of character told me "those are what schools he banned" Finally after staying IC and asking more pointed questions, I got the DM to respond IC "Well I have focused my magical training on summoning things and energy and have neglected the more barabaric science of just creating energy for combat purposes." Which was a very good IC repsonse.


As far as playing 2ed, that's right out, they won't play anyhting but dnd 3.5. I am trying to run a game, but theres been very little roleplaying, and I am losing interest in trying to force them to rolplay.

I guess I just need to "go with how they roleplay" because It's thier game. I don't want them all to have to change for me. Out of curiousity, Is there a place on this board to post for tabletop players in your area?

[Cyborg Pirate]

Cyborg Pirate: We had accepted a job to go into a mine and retrieve something for said wizard. We get down there and came across an obstacle that my character thought the mage could have helped out with (a giant earthen wall in our way and our retreat path if necessary) So I asked the wizard to do something. He said I can't, this got my character wondering, because he didn't know what the wizard was capable of if it came to a fight So I asked. The response came completely OOC for the wizard and was abrupt and the Dm started to continue us down the corridor. I asked IC what that meant and the Dm out of character told me "those are what schools he banned" Finally after staying IC and asking more pointed questions, I got the DM to respond IC "Well I have focused my magical training on summoning things and energy and have neglected the more barabaric science of just creating energy for combat purposes." Which was a very good IC repsonse.

Ahh I see what you mean now. It does sound indeed like a case of the others (or at least the DM) glossing over the roleplay in favour of continuing towards an ingame goal or destination.

Have you talked to the others about it? Getting a bead on what they want out of the game is quite important, tho if they indeed don't care much for roleplay anymore, you'll probably be stuck with no other option then to find a group with which you can get your kicks.

[rollfrenzy]

I have spoken with one of them. Honestly I feel a little put off by the others. I don't want to be " the Jackass player" from Snooders post. It's thier game that I rejoined. I seem to be the only one with a problem. I guess my only real options are find a new group or play thier way.

[Kiero]

Sounds to me like the things that caused your burnout are still no longer fun, and are present in the games your friends carried on playing, and play now. Problem is they still find it fun, whereas you don't. You can't make people play in a different way if they aren't interested in trying it themselves. Trying to "change" them without their buy-in is a recipe for anguish and antagonism.

For your own sanity, and their enjoyment, stop running D&D if you aren't having fun doing so. Your lack of enthusiasm will poison the games you run, which means no fun for anyone.

Then it sounds like you've already considered the need to find new players. Possibly bringing along a subset of your existing group, if any of them individually are less resistant to something different.

[rollfrenzy]

Sounds to me like the things that caused your burnout are still no longer fun, and are present in the games your friends carried on playing, and play now. Problem is they still find it fun, whereas you don't. You can't make people play in a different way if they aren't interested in trying it themselves. Trying to "change" them without their buy-in is a recipe for anguish and antagonism.

For your own sanity, and their enjoyment, stop running D&D if you aren't having fun doing so. Your lack of enthusiasm will poison the games you run, which means no fun for anyone.

Then it sounds like you've already considered the need to find new players. Possibly bringing along a subset of your existing group, if any of them individually are less resistant to something different.

*SIGH*

You win the prize Kiero, cuz that's exactly what's happening. I would look for a new group (and am kinda) but I don't meet people well, (A gamer with poor social skills? I know you are all shocked, but it's true). Plus, these are my freinds from further back than roleplaying in most cases. I guess I will have to adjust.

[Kiero]

*SIGH*

You win the prize Kiero, cuz that's exactly what's happening. I would look for a new group (and am kinda) but I don't meet people well, (A gamer with poor social skills? I know you are all shocked, but it's true). Plus, these are my freinds from further back than roleplaying in most cases. I guess I will have to adjust.

If they're genuinely your friends, you should be able to stop gaming and still spend time together. Long as you're clear that you no longer enjoy that kind of gaming. Not as a judgement on them, just differing tastes.

I can empathise as someone who's tastes have moved a long way from where it was when I started (I had a thread devoted to my journey elsewhere (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=252750)). I began roleplaying with Red Box OD&D, moving swiftly on to AD&D2e. Couldn't face that level of crunch nowadays, especially not as GM.

Although in some ways I've actually come full circle, now I'm more about simple, episodic sessions with a focus on the action, rather than deep immersion and character play or anything like that.

[rollfrenzy]

If they're genuinely your friends, you should be able to stop gaming and still spend time together. Long as you're clear that you no longer enjoy that kind of gaming. Not as a judgement on them, just differing tastes.

Yeah, I can. I can have fun Roll playing too. I just need to change my expectations to more like a board game. (heroquest anyone?). I am just disapointed cuz I got back in under the pretense that alot of the stuff had changed back to Roleplaying intensive, and it hasn't. I just need to stop trying to change thier style of play to mine, just accept it as different and have fun anyways.

[horseboy]

This degrade tends to happen pretty often as you get older. Do they play as much as they used to? "Back in the day," when we used to play after work every night, yeah, we could maybe have one bar fight, and spend the entire evening slacking off in the tavern. Now a days. We play, two, maybe three times a month. We just don't have TIME for slacking it in that fashion, fun as it is.

That being said, yeah when I came back myself and caught the tail end of 3.5 all the DM did was say (Such and such) hired you to go do (so and so) grab what gear you need. Then, when we were done, drop the battle map and said here's encounter 1. Mainly because that's all 3.x is built for.

[Rakin]

I liked your idea above about looking possibly into a "rules light" approach.

Here's what I'm thinking what has happened to alot of folks, including myself and others I've talked to:

Once apon a time I played D&D with my friends, all the rules where overwhelming and fun by challenging to find out. All that reading! Now D&D got stale after a while, or you moved away, or <insert reason you quit D&D here>.

Now there's a gaming void in your soul, what should you do? You try some 1 player perhaps computer titles, ugh, playing by yourself although can be simpler gets on the dull side, you have no one to share your experiences with. No one to go "Woah man! Remember that one time!?!". So maybe you look into a console RPG (if you really enjoyed old SNES RPGs like I did you were in for a bad suprise). So whats next???

MMOs!! Woohoo!!

But what does an MMO do? Unless you're on a heavy RPG game/server/guild. The whole game becomes the gear and stat grind and since the computer does all the work for you, you go into a indorphan releasing over drive of megical gear, epic numbers and eventually thats all you see and what you get comfertable doing, and it's not long before you don't give a crap what your lvl 70 mage would say when he met a giant fire god, you just care what it would take to take him down with your 39 other buddies.

Anyway long story short. If your players are really interested in transitioning back into the roleplay mindset (don't forget! Just because you do, doesn't mean they do! Every minute that you drag your friends together, WoW or EQ2 or whatever might be racing through their minds) but if they really are interested a rules light like C&C might be what you need.

Get away from the computer game on paper (D&D) and pick up a game where one or 2 rules govern almost anything you can do, where your friends minds can't fall back into that comfertable video gamesque number crunch and tactics.

But like I said, your players will honestly want to make the transition back, if they really don't or is doing it because they're trying to be nice, I'm sure the game will end very quickly. Oh yea and I'm sure some patience will be needed on both sides.

For you on them, as they fumble through, and get their minds back into roleplaying. And for them on you as you offer suggestions, or get a little hard on them to help them along.

[LotharBot]

I'm pretty sure the problem isn't "too many rules", it's "different expectations of the game".

Everyone else in the group is experimenting with game mechanics, while you're looking for theatrics. (It's possible they're doing what they consider "role-playing", too -- making character choices. See "Portrayal vs Exploration (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49157)", especially my post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49157&page=2&p=2809616).) You may find that you have to change your expectations.

You may also find that, as you play, others will start to mimic you a little bit. If you set an example by acting IC, others may choose to follow.

[Kizara]

Ok, here's the situation. I have a regular gaming group. We have been playing together for 15 or so years. They are a good group of guys, and excellent roleplayers. Well, anyways, about a year and a half ago I started to get burnt out and stopped roleplaying altogether. I recently got the bug (thanks in large part to discovering this forum) and started playing again.

Well to make a long story short, I am wondering why I ever came back. My group seems to have lost the ability to "role"play and seems to be "Roll"-playing focused.

I know they are good players, but they seem to have given up. For example, I recently asked in-character to an NPC mage "What is it you can do? what form of magic are you capable of?" the DM's response was "I'm a conjuration specialist who gave up abjuration and evocation." It completely ripped me out of fantasy. I persisted in character and finally got him to speak character to character, but it felt like I had to rip it out of him.

I was wondering if this could be a symptom of the fact that in d20 everything is quantified by the rules. I guess, I notice that when we play a "rules light" game, they tend to roleplay alot more.
There seems to me to be less use of imagination and creativity now. Since if you can think of it, it has stats. Has anybody else had this kind of problem. Has too many rules, and too many classes and too many magic items spoiled the game for anybody else? or am I looking for answers in the wrong place and all the rules and books and 1001 flavors of everything a "Good Thing"?

To an extent, I agree. Allow me to elaborate.

I feel that its important to have rules to cover every eventuality and to have enough character options to allow your RP choices to be reflected mechanically.

However, in 3.5 there is simply too much. It's gone from covering all the bases to just having 'more' and is more of an escalation then anything.
See: phb2, ToB, dm2 etc.

Having to be concerned about keeping a plausable world when there's so many possibilities detracts from my RP experience both as a player and as a DM. I want my 18 Int wizard to use the best-possible tactics to reflect his intelligence, and with using all the published material out there, that means I have to literally memorize like 300 spells as a player or DM of that character.

You have to draw the line for yourself somewhere. I have alot of empathy for the people that just use the core (PHB DMG MM), since having a more reasonable metagame makes for an easier time to RP and make the characters you want instead of always worrying if there's something better out there.

[Damionte]

I pointedly dissagree with the concept that the having too many rules detracts from the role play experience. to be honest I am puzzled at this line of thinking. A few of the players in my own group bring it up from time to time as well. They even state soem of the problems that the above poster did. With the amount of options being overwealming.

The reason I dissagree is that I simply don't have that problem. I've never felt overerealmed by the amount of rules and splat options out there. I've also never had a problem narrowing down what I want to play. I don't have this problem BECAUSE everything is codified.

For the most part if there's a character concept I want to play there's probably a mix of class/race/feat/whatever combinations out there that will allow me to play what I invision. Back before 3.5 I did have trouble with the game. he lack of codified rules made it difficult for me to play the types of characters I wanted too. without rules many DM's had trouble seeing what I was trying to do.

I don't see a problem with the system. I see problems with the players. some players don't know how to set thier own limits. If you're going to play a wizard but you have trouble coming to grips with the vast array of spells out there, then chose a smaller array of spells. Or make yourself a specialist wizard or something. Or don't play a wizard. Yes I understand that many folks want to role play outside of themselves but you're still in some extreme cases limited by your own abilities.

Make a character concept, figure out what works in that concept and stay in it, and the splat books won't give you trouble. If you're lookign for the books though to inspire your character choices you'll go for a spin as the splats give you too many choices.

EDIT

LOTHAR - I went back and re-read your post in the explorer/portrayer thread. Thank you, your discription made sense to me. I look at my own gaming group and think about how many times myself and my main nemisis at the table have stared each other down across the table and complained that the other is role playing goofy.

[Matthew]

Definitely a playstyle preference thing, Damionte. Some people prefer a simple system, some prefer a more complex one. It's the old beef with the Fighter Class. There are those who hate the (A)D&D version (they were mechanically too limited to support variations) and those who loved them (they were so simple you could imagine them however you liked).

Personally, I don't mind either approach, but I think both have problems when it comes down to it.

[Ceridan]

Yeah, I can. I can have fun Roll playing too. I just need to change my expectations to more like a board game. (heroquest anyone?). I am just disapointed cuz I got back in under the pretense that alot of the stuff had changed back to Roleplaying intensive, and it hasn't. I just need to stop trying to change thier style of play to mine, just accept it as different and have fun anyways.

Hello all. As I am the DM so mentioned, I thought it just to respond.

The game we now find ourselves in was not the world or flavor I had origanally intended. Rollfrenzy did not like playing in a medieval Germany and using the Catholic Church in a game setting so I changed it to a homebrew world.

The Campaign used to talk Rollfrenzy back to the gaming table was a low magic medieval England. The players started without class and besically played the backstory. The game was role playing heavy with each player having two characters and switched back and forth at the needs of the story.
Less than half the Games had any Combat, the focus was on politics and character interaction.

The current gameworld was done more or less on the fly. The first game, which Rollfrenzy missed broght the rest of the party together. When listening to Rollfrenzy's concept I stated "I need you to play a character who does the right thing even if he does it for the wrong reasons." Good or evil it was fine as long as he could work with the party. The concept was a good one for a Thieves campaign, but may have problems with the party. Think Michael Corleone of the God father goes adventuring. So far the only motivation I have found for him is gold or the guild. Neither are very party friendly for those who have no intrest in joining the guild.

The first game rollfrenzy joined I think he mixed up what he intended to play with default rogue. The second game whent better as I think He got back toward what he intended. That aside, I am trying to accomodate, we have been friends for 15 years after all, so I ask for your patients. The wide range of individual goals for the characters makes it, at times, difficult to give you a reason to adventure together.

[Ceridan]

I guess my problem is my group won't play anything else. Which is why I am posting here. I need the opinion and help of people with a different viewpoint.

@Spider(since I don't know how to do multiple quotes) : It ruined immersion becuase my character (a rogue) would have no clue what an abjuration or evocation is, plus he said it in an OOC, kind of off-handed way. It kinda took any mystery out of it, and made it sterile.

High again. I do believe that you are a Cleric Rogue in said game. The bookish and socially akward wizard hired you as a Cleric, and has no idea that you are a rogue. It would seem to me that a cleric would have at least a basic understanding of magical theory and the schools of magic.

We have played other systems. You bought a Cyber Punk system. You ran a game. We enjoyed. We wanted to play again. You stoped running. I understand you wish to 'Play' other systems. It seems to me the best way to achive that is to run a short campaign of 4 or 5 games to let the group get a feel for the flavor and mechanics of a system. Then some one else could pick up from there. One member of the group is more than willing to run Shadow Run. I know you do a Zulu Warcry for anything cyber punk. Hell we even made characters for it.

Bring the White Wolf stuff over and I will even run mage. Just stop complaining about things you think we won't do when we said, time and again, that we are willing to do.

[Kiero]

High again. I do believe that you are a Cleric Rogue in said game. The bookish and socially akward wizard hired you as a Cleric, and has no idea that you are a rogue. It would seem to me that a cleric would have at least a basic understanding of magical theory and the schools of magic.

We have played other systems. You bought a Cyber Punk system. You ran a game. We enjoyed. We wanted to play again. You stoped running. I understand you wish to 'Play' other systems. It seems to me the best way to achive that is to run a short campaign of 4 or 5 games to let the group get a feel for the flavor and mechanics of a system. Then some one else could pick up from there. One member of the group is more than willing to run Shadow Run. I know you do a Zulu Warcry for anything cyber punk. Hell we even made characters for it.

Bring the White Wolf stuff over and I will even run mage. Just stop complaining about things you think we won't do when we said, time and again, that we are willing to do.

Ceridan, sounds to me like the issue is much less the systems, and more the kind of play rollfrenzy is getting. Which he feels is lacking in the aspects he prefers. You're focusing on what games are being played and whether people are willing to try them, he's more interested in how they're being played. Until you resolve that disconnect, you're talking past each other.

[banjo1985]

This is a difficult one, I've never left a roleplaying group and tried to come back, but over time peoples style and preferences change, so I imagine it's rather difficult.

From your GMs posts above it would seem that maybe the dynamic of the group has changed, and that re-integration is maybe the real problem. Different systems might work, but if expectations are still different it will only paper over the cracks for so long.

The main point is to have fun! You stopped roleplaying because it got stale, and now you've come back you're not enjoying it, maybe the best thing to do is to find another roleplaying group that better suits what you want to get out of it. It could be best for your enjoyment of roleplaying, and your friendships in general.

[Raum]

I pointedly dissagree with the concept that the having too many rules detracts from the role play experience. to be honest I am puzzled at this line of thinking. A few of the players in my own group bring it up from time to time as well. They even state soem of the problems that the above poster did. With the amount of options being overwealming.The rules have gotten bloated. The sheer quantity of spells and feats are probably the biggest negative - their mere existence is a limitation on what a character can do without said feat or spell. In AD&D we used to allow anything from Deflect Arrows to Ride by Attack or even Track based on what was appropriate to the story and some attribute or skill roll the DM made up on the spot. Now you can't do it unless you have the feat. Skills are similar. Going from proficiencies to ranked skills and set DCs makes some things not even worth attempting without sufficient ranks in the appropriate skill. And don't let me get started on skill tricks - why couldn't those have been handled under the existing skill system?!

While I'm not sure that's the sole reason for less role playing, it does limit spontaneous creativity. The rules do detract from role playing if players (including the DM) use the mechanical description to describe actions rather than a description of what the character does or sees. In other words using, "I Spring Attack the balor" in place of "I quickly leap forward and hack at the demon's legs, leaping out again before he can react."


The reason I dissagree is that I simply don't have that problem. I've never felt overerealmed by the amount of rules and splat options out there. I've also never had a problem narrowing down what I want to play. I don't have this problem BECAUSE everything is codified. I don't think it's a matter of being overwhelmed so much as a limitation or even prevention of spontaneous creative actions.


For the most part if there's a character concept I want to play there's probably a mix of class/race/feat/whatever combinations out there that will allow me to play what I invision. Back before 3.5 I did have trouble with the game. he lack of codified rules made it difficult for me to play the types of characters I wanted too. without rules many DM's had trouble seeing what I was trying to do.I agree! The issue is creativity is front loaded now. If you didn't build a mounted combat character he can't make the attempt to fight from the back of his mount later.


I don't see a problem with the system. I see problems with the players. some players don't know how to set thier own limits. If you're going to play a wizard but you have trouble coming to grips with the vast array of spells out there, then chose a smaller array of spells. Or make yourself a specialist wizard or something. Or don't play a wizard. Yes I understand that many folks want to role play outside of themselves but you're still in some extreme cases limited by your own abilities.The number of spells is a different problem. They're outright power bloat. All too often they add abilities that you probably shouldn't have - Celerity for example.


Make a character concept, figure out what works in that concept and stay in it, and the splat books won't give you trouble. If you're lookign for the books though to inspire your character choices you'll go for a spin as the splats give you too many choices.In D&D 3.x, if I want to make a rogue who uses creative combat options such as jumping from stairs or swinging from chandeliers onto opponents, I have to find the feats and skills to support it. And, with a limited number of feats, it's not certain I'll be able to do so. Alternatively, we had AD&D where I'd have created a high dexterity character with balance and jump proficiencies and then relied on good descriptions and off the cuff ability or skill checks to resolve such actions.

[rollfrenzy]

< Responds to Ceridan via PM >




While I'm not sure that's the sole reason for less role playing, it does limit spontaneous creativity. The rules do detract from role playing if players (including the DM) use the mechanical description to describe actions rather than a description of what the character does or sees. In other words using, "I Spring Attack the balor" in place of "I quickly leap forward and hack at the demon's legs, leaping out again before he can react."

I don't think it's a matter of being overwhelmed so much as a limitation or even prevention of spontaneous creative actions.



QTF. This is EXACTLY the problem I have with 3.5 rules. If I want to think on the fly or improvise in combat, I have to plan ahead and make sure I have the right feats to do so.

The sheer volume of things out there is ridiculous. I don't have the time or the money to invest in this Hobby to go over thirty different books to find the proper feats and class and whatever to fit the idea in my head. and all too often, the ideas and creativity turns into crunch.

[Tormsskull]

I hate to sound like a televangelist, but sometimes people don't know what is good for them. There is a certain type of gamer that I like to call the Reluctant Role Player. At face value they don't really enjoy Role Playing, they just want to get phat loot and more abilities and be able to throw x amount of differently sided dice at a problem and resolve it.

However, when nudged (or sometimes pushed through a window), they begin to immerse themself into the Role Play, and suddenly they are having a BLAST!

This happened with a couple of players that I know. One of them was all about the treasure, all about the goodies, etc. Then when his character was talking to one of the NPCs, he started to make up some minor details about his character. Talking about his childhood, his previous experiences, etc. Then he would try to tie future events back to some memory he had or some way impacted his character.

To me, an avid Role Player, it was great. I was really glad to see him come out of his shell so to speak.


That being said, some people genuinely do not like Role Playing. Some people would rather stick to hack n slash adventures with just hints of role playing. And as you have already determined (the right choice IMO), trying to force those type of players to role play is wasting both of your time, and probably making them enjoy their session a bit less.

[Matthew]

< Responds to Ceridan via PM >



QTF. This is EXACTLY the problem I have with 3.5 rules. If I want to think on the fly or improvise in combat, I have to plan ahead and make sure I have the right feats to do so.

The sheer volume of things out there is ridiculous. I don't have the time or the money to invest in this Hobby to go over thirty different books to find the proper feats and class and whatever to fit the idea in my head. and all too often, the ideas and creativity turns into crunch.
You might be better off playing Castles and Crusades, then, as I think somebody else has mentioned (or, indeed, (O)D&D or (A)D&D). C&C is really just a stripped down version of D&D 3.x.

Whilst I agree with the thrust of Raum's argument, there are a couple of things worth mentioning in the context of 3.x, the main thing being it is still possible to do stuff without the Feat or Skill, but the fact that they exist tricks people into thinking you cannot. Spring Attack, for instance, should be perfectly possible without the Feat. The DM just ascribes a penalty to AB, AC, both or whatever, requires an Attribute check of some kind or ascribes a 'risk' roll. All these things are still possible with 3.x, but the sheer volume of things that are legislated for obscure that fact. The same is true of pretty much any unusual action, so long as it is not easier to accomplish the task without the relevant Feat/Skill/whatever than with.

Otherwise, I'm with Raum on this.

[Diggorian]

The sheer volume of things out there is ridiculous. I don't have the time or the money to invest in this Hobby to go over thirty different books to find the proper feats and class and whatever to fit the idea in my head. and all too often, the ideas and creativity turns into crunch.

If Ceridan has a certain collection of books that he uses for 3.x, and you can borrow those books to peruse for ideas, then really you dont need anything else. Or, you could explain a concept to him and he, who has read these books, can reccommend something to ya.

Theres no need to buy every single book, or even a quarter, of what has been put out for the game if it isnt relevant to your game.

[Charity]

I am still very much in the 'rules make no difference' camp.
I can agree that peoples expectations are affected by which game they are playing, but their abilitys to realise their character are not. IM(oh so very)HO

[Kiero]

You might be better off playing Castles and Crusades, then, as I think somebody else has mentioned (or, indeed, (O)D&D or (A)D&D). C&C is really just a stripped down version of D&D 3.x.


It's a nitpick, but C&C is a cut-down version of 1st edition AD&D, and it shows. If you come to it anticipating any of the things you'd expect in D&D 3.x (unified XP charts, Feats, Skills, etc) you'll be disappointed.

On the other hand True20 (which was free for a while) is stripped-down D20. Three classes, modifiers instead of ability scores, a damage save in place of damage rolls and hit points, fewer Feats and Skills (no AoO).

[Raum]

I am still very much in the 'rules make no difference' camp.
I can agree that peoples expectations are affected by which game they are playing, but their abilitys to realise their character are not. IM(oh so very)HORules make a big difference in both play and expectations. Compare Wushu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wushu_%28role-playing_game%29) to D&D 3.5 for an extreme example.

[Matthew]

Hmmn. I knew there were no Skills or Feats to speak of, but I thought they used the Unified Experience Progression Charts. Oh well, shows what I know. Maybe I will take a closer look. Yeah, I was thinking of True D20 as well, but I thought the generic Classes and condition charts might be a turn off.