You should try Warhammer Fantasy RPG!
To answer your question directly, "What happens when power-gamers write DnD", I think your going to get the best efforts to make a balanced play system.
One of my fellow gaming buddies is such a hardliner power-gamer that he might nearly qualify as a munchkin. He knows unbalanced when he sees it, and exploits it, loopholes and all. We discuss the virtues of a balanced game system, and is keen on what makes for a balanced game. This same guy has had his hand in writing a home-brewed game system, with the primary point being game balance. In any system, its very difficult (arguably impossible) to do.
As an aside, I argue that any game system can be a story-centric game system. Admitingly sme are better than others, however, the degree to which a game relies heavily on a good story and not kick-in-the-door dungeon crawl lies squarely on both the DM and players.
Squarely on the players and DM? I dissagree. If you have a ruleset where there is no social attribute, no social skills, everything revolves arround combat and you try to make a story driven campaign, you know what your doing? A joint writing exercise. The reason we have rule books is to have rules. If everything is based on how well you yourself act out the scene, then why not go the same route for combat, and whoever discribes their attack/defence the most vividly wins? Cuz then we get those fun little discussions we all remember from play cops and robbers when we were four.
I shot you
No you didnt
yes I did
no you didnt
Granted this is a pretty extreme example, but I just want to try and show that it isn't entirely up to the players to give the game a good story/roleplay opportunity.
Good luck, David. IMHO, D&D will never be the game you are looking for.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I beleive the exact answer is a) Rules Compendium and b) Untapped potential.
This does lead to another concern of mine with 4e, the flaw in the d20 itself.
When the bonuses and targets get so high, the d20 doesn't matter anymore. to use a 3e example, my battlesorcerer has a +24 to her spellcraft check. It's what, 15+ spell level to recognize a spell being cast? She already can recognize any spell in the book this way. the roll just doesn't matter.
If (using the spined devil card as a basis) the attribute bonus is actually (stat bounus + 1/2 character level) how long is it before some skills/to hit rolls become so high that the d20 is moot?
|
I personally think that the system is largely divorced from the story. After all, the "plot" and campaign style are down to the DM - roleplaying can be done without any system at all. That said, the xp system is predicated on combat in D&D, which gives it a certain emphasis. But I don't see it as a big problem - though it requires a bit of work to get around.
I think in a perfect world story and rules are totally seperate, but I don't find myself in the perfect world. Very few DMs can truely create what I feel is an amazing story, regardless of the system. Infact, I don't think I've ever seen someone who could do it with any system, some are just crap that you can't do anything with. I don't consider a session of not rolling dice as a good example of what we (or at least I) am talking about. Yeah, those nights are great, but that is a great story WITHOUT a system, not making a great story WITH a crappy system.
I beleive the exact answer is a) Rules Compendium and b) Untapped potential.
This does lead to another concern of mine with 4e, the flaw in the d20 itself.
When the bonuses and targets get so high, the d20 doesn't matter anymore. to use a 3e example, my battlesorcerer has a +24 to her spellcraft check. It's what, 15+ spell level to recognize a spell being cast? She already can recognize any spell in the book this way. the roll just doesn't matter.
If (using the spined devil card as a basis) the attribute bonus is actually (stat bounus + 1/2 character level) how long is it before some skills/to hit rolls become so high that the d20 is moot?
A lot longer than it currently is in 3rd Edition. A 20th-level character can have a base of +23 to a skill check, or +20 to hit assuming a full BAB. In 4th Edition, barring Talents and feats and whatever else, the base skill check is +15 to either a skill check or attack roll, at 30th-level. The skill check can be ramped up to +20 if its a Trained skill, assuming D&D does what Saga Edition does.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I reject the idea that the current game is not both. Also, I reject the idea that power gamers aren't great story tellers. I am a character-optimizing fiend. It doesn't make sense to me to take a lesser choice when there's more synergy, a weakness to cover, something that would be better. Yet I am very much a story guy. Voices, detailed terrain and scenery, characters (including NPCs) with exploitable personal flaws, big dramatic moments.
That's not a 'hooray for Steve', there are lots of gamers like that. Terre Haute, Indiana is full of them. It's where my skills and tastes were developed, and where the greatest gaming moments of my life (outside GenCon) happened.
Like the post above says, there are nights where you don't even pick up the dice. The rules of the game are mechanical, the spirit of the game is ambience.
I do like the drama die feature of AEG's games. I have been thinking about that as I think about Dreads and myself putting something together for GenCon. But beyond something like that, I don't think the game needs anything mechanically to encourage in-character roleplaying. It just needs you to prevail on the poeple you game with to emphasize that element.
There is nothing wrong with this. People have fun playing RPGs with these rules. If they wish to have Big Numbers then, by God, let them have big numbers!
There's nothing wrong with a Big Numbers power game. And I'm certain talented power-gamers could write a balanced power game. It could be a lot of fun. 4E might even be that game. But it's flavor seems so alien to a lot of us that it just doesn't seem like we're talking about D&D anymore. I mean, I like DC Heroes and Marvel Super Heroes, both as a player and a GM. It can be a lot of fun to toss cars around and knock your opponents through walls. But that's definitely not my style of fantasy gaming, of any flavor.
I would like to see rules where skills were just as important as a base attack bonus.
Perhaps they could make an alternate rule set for gamers like myself... a set of DnD rules that still has the familiarity of the game (because I do really like the game and would be sad to break from it) with rules that are more role-playing centric. If I play a figher, I don't want to be doomed to be some sword-swinging dolt with two skills... I want to be a knight who rises through the ranks and becomes a general, marshal, or warlord, who commands troops and liaisons with other leaders, offering the services of myself and the members of my party to change the course of history. I want to see rules for this kind of RPG, where adventures are not just about crawling around a dungeon or finding the demon lord after slaying 1,587,234 of his minions. I want adventures that call for a group of heroes to rebuild a failing city, to act as an emissary and convince two nations to stop warring, and, if necessary, lay down the law with sword and spell (because combat it truly fun).
Hi David,
I guess D&D can be what you are longing for, at least if the GM and the players wants it to be so, and put the focus on this.
But if you want a ruleset that favors this type of playstyle you like, maybe Rolemaster Classic (RMC) or Warhammer FRP (WFRP) are better cut for you.
The current D&D rules seem very much optimized to organise games where a small shock-troop bursts through places to decimate ennemies en masse and get rich and more powerful in the process.
The deadliness of systems like RMC or WFRP usually tend to force the players to use their brains more. And the latter game offers career paths and options that do just what you describe.
Maybe Paizo's "3.75 OGL" could also turn out to be less combat-centric than 3E so far? Not sure.
One of the problems I have with what I have seen of 4E is that it basically takes this "let's butcher masses of critters and loot their stuff" mentality to the extreme (noticed how they highlighted the fact that, because fights were faster, you could take on more ennemies in a game session?).
If I want combat to be streamlined and faster, it's not so I can squeeze in two or three more in my Wednesday evening gaming session, but because I'd like some more gaming time for my character to do something else! Just like you. So I am afraid 4E won't be for us.
Bocklin