"I strongly recommend that you begin posting in the Actual Play forum, rather than here. When you talk about what published games you've played, and how it went for you, and what you like and don't like, that generates a useful portrait of your interests and priorities for everyone else"
^ Sounds like good advice to me.  Hello all, I'm Slashandz, the as-of-now newest member of the Forge.

I don't have very much experience with table top RPGs.  I tried to get into DnD with a group of college friends, but I had no idea it required such commitment.  I had to buy this (expensive) massive textbook just to understand the basics.  There seemed to be a needlessly large amount of options, from races to alignments, each with tons of skills and attributes to memorize.  I would sit down and try to read the book, just to have my head spinning.  And what was with all of the dice!?  The battle system had so many checks, even for the most simple tasks!  And then there was the stats... "Initiative", "Str", "Dex", "Int", "Wis", "Cha"... why so many?  I still don't get the point of Wis or Cha.

...So what would I personally want in an RPG?  Something simple.
You know, something I could explain to a friend in a few minutes, rather than making him sit down and read a novel.  I feel an easy to learn system should keep players in check, but the vast majority of the game should be decided by the people playing.

Always nice to see new faces around here!

(Do you mind providing a real first name?  The prevailing attitude around here is that it's easier to have deep discussions with a name rather than a handle.  You can drop it into your title, signature, or display name.)

I agree with you insofar as I've always found D&D to be number soup; a game that tries to be everything to everyone (simulationists, narrativists, gamists) and fails on most counts.  That's not to say you can't have a good campaign with D&D -- I know a lot of people who have and would foam at the mouth at that charge -- but there are simpler, more direct systems out there.

We can probably get more into what you want out of gaming if you provide an account of a session you played recently in D&D that chafed you.  Ron prefers to have Actual Play threads rooted in an account like that for similar reasons.

Glad to have you aboard!

Hello and welcome,

Your initial reactions to role-playing texts and procedures were very reasonable, as I see it. A lot of us here, me included, have a lot of love for baroque, even arcane methods for role-playing, but most of that is probably historical placement; we encountered it at a given point in our lives, at a given point in technological entertainment history, and in a given subcultural context. Shaking off what I perceived as a preference but was merely a circumstance was a long process for me, and for many others.

I would like to know more about what you perceive as positive about the hobby or activity, especially if you found some glimmer or moment that you really enjoyed, or hoped to enjoy, in play. Is it based on the subject matter, and if so, what kind? Or on a particular creative or social urge that seems like it might be fulfilled this way, and if so, what kind?

Best, Ron

Jim:

My first name is Josh.  I'll see if I can get that added into my title.

A DnD match that chafed me... I played while ago with a DM that was quite good at building mysteries.  I would love to hear the next plot twist and really enjoyed having a direct impact on where his story went next.  But then we'd enter a battle.  And the whole story would be put on hold as we busted out tons of dice, figures, drew a map of the battle, pulled out our reference books, and took turns slowly whittling down an enemy's Hit Points.  If the battles were quick and fun, I wouldn't mind, but it seemed like a chore you had to perform to get to the next bit of the plot!

Ron:

If I had to pick what I like most about RPGs, it'd be three things:

1) The chance to create an original character.  I tend to play a hopeless womanizer in most games, so whenever we stop at an Inn, I'm sure to keep an eye out for any attractive maidens.  That sets the DM up for all sorts of adventures and mischief.  I don't have to play as an avatar who doesn't interest me.

2) The complete customization.  The sky's the limit in an RPG.  Any skill, weapon, enemy, or location a DM comes up with is fair game, which is something you don't see in anything else.  If the DM willed for their to be a shield that could seduce any woman who gazes at it, then it shall be so (which would be great for my character! :P).  Granted DnD had a list of monsters, classes, and skills that you had to pick from... which totally defeated the point.  My ideal RPG would leave a lot up to the players.

3) My "gotta learn 'em all" syndrome.  I love that I play as the same character each session.  Any skills and items I obtain are permanently mine.  As such, I begin to try to collect as much as I can, which causes me to play more and more.  The idea that a pimped-out unstoppable character lies at the far end of the path is enough to keep me playing.

Hi Josh,

My apologies for not replying sooner. That was a helpful response, and I think your replies to me and Jim are related. And yes, I can cite about a thousand historical reasons why any iteration of D&D, and the subculture of play surrounding it, is probably not going to be much fun for you. (And yes, again, everyone, you can insert your personal "but with the right DM" rhetoric; it doesn't change my point.)

For a strong link between combats (or shall we say high-attention conflicts) and the larger scale of play and story, I recommend a look at Mouseguard if you haven't seen it. That provides a GM with a lot of structure. Or if you really want to minimize the hyper-attention to details of combat or conflict, and focus absolutely on story-forward thinking about such moments, then I suggest Primetime Adventures, with the warning that it can be a little too heady and disorienting for some groups. My own game Trollbabe is kind of a midpoint between these two in a lot of ways.

If you have any questions about these, or if I'm missing what you'd like to get from this thread, then let me know.

Best, Ron

Hey Josh,

I feel much the same as you regarding newer versions of D&D.  It's not enough that you have 10+ classes to choose from, you also have skills, feats, powers, and spells.  Pages and pages and lists and lists, full of little numbers and bonuses.  In a way it is really cool - I liked Temple of Elemental Evil (the 3.5 D&D video game remake of the old module).  It was cool controlling all those options in a video game.  On the table top, it's a drag.  I just want to focus on playing the game, not on reading menus and weighing a million options. 

And like you, I've grown insanely frustrated with long combats in D&D.  They get in the way of what most interests me; engaging with other characters, NPC's, and all sorts of interesting scenarios and environments.  I want choices that matter.  I, more often than not, want to avoid combat so that I can accomplish whatever it is that I really want.  I like sneaking around and plotting and planning and negotiating - not simply killing, killing, killing.  I especially like making some kind of plan, and seeing how it unfolds over time, perhaps without any combat at all.

I'm intrigued by the "old-school renaissance" D&D players, and the old editions of D&D.  Maybe you should check out Swords and Wizardry.  It is a free "clone" of original 1974 D&D, and makes it explicit in the rules that you should do what you want with the game.  Make up your own monsters, classes, spells, items, etc.  Add rules, or keep it barebones (as written, it is pretty damn barebones).  Handle things ad-hoc if you like (as you seem to like).  I've not had the chance to play it, but it appears to me that it might appeal to you.  More and more I see Swords and Wizardry, and similar old D&D type games, as a strong option for introducing new players - free and very simple systems.  There's also Microlite, and Searchers of the Unknown, which mostly do away with stats like Wis and Cha (in the case of SotU, there are no ability scores at all).  These are free games also.

There is much that I find really ridiculous in every version of D&D.  Still, there is a way the older, simpler versions call out to me.  In some ways, there really isn't any system there to get in the way. 

Nick

"In some ways, there really isn't any system there to get in the way."

Be careful not to argue that system doesn't matter. It does. Otherwise, you wouldn't use any rules at all and you'd just play freeform all the time.

But it's fine to argue that the system of a game takes play in a direction you don't enjoy. I think that's what you're saying newer versions of D&D do, compared to the old versions (say, Moldvay "red box" Basic D&D). Moldvay D&D is simpler in many ways but lacking in many ways, too. For example, if you want psionics, it just doesn't have any. It lacks specific rules for handling a variety of things that come up while exploring a dungeon. It has a /system/ for these things though: the DM decides. The rules make that system apparent, and that system has numerous pros and cons.

Points of contact with the system is one of those metrics that you can use to judge if a game is something you'd like. Maybe you want to be referencing the rulebook all the time; maybe you want to roll dice and consult your sheet constantly. Maybe rarely. It's a judgment call.

It's a judgment call until the system, played as described in the text, fails to do what the players expect of it. Then it's a failure of design.