|
It is hard to start a thread with “back in my day” and sound legitimate. I understand this RPG hobby of mine evolves and changes and every generation handles things differently. I also will concur it is my right to avoid game systems that use point buy and min/max stat blocks. With all of that being said, my question is:
“Do your players put as much time in their backgrounds as they do their stat blocks and feat choices?”
I just long for the day when Roger used a Scottish accent for his dwarf and suddenly all dwarves needed to have one. When you had four dump stats because your 3d6 didn’t like you. A fighter was still pretty awesome if he has 15 strength.
I just don’t understand the “uber” factor of my current player set. That is a broad generalist stroke I know, but I enjoy knowing my ranger should have bees wax for his bow string, so it doesn’t get ruined in the rain, and the rogue carried chalk to mark the corridors that were scouted… we made characters that played roles in a great story…not stat blocks for a squad combat mini game.
Maybe I just need a change of scenery, or to find a group of 40 somethings that are like minded and stop gaming with the younger gamers…It is probably just me being cantankerous….
I think that there are a lot of people who feel the same way you do on these boards myself included. However, I love theory craft and stating out characters almost as much as I love creating elaborate back stories and quirks that make my role playing experience that much better.
To each their own I suppose, but I'd bet that finding a group of 30-40 something gamers is a lot easier that you would think.
I'm 25 and I agree entirely. Over-powered characters is not what makes the game fun.
I'm all for running a combat game when we're in the mood for it, but call it like it is: no story, just rolling random events in the GMG, and randomizing the monsters and treasure. A game that's centered on combat is fun when your not pretending it's something more.
I miss the days when GMs would take responsability for their own games, and understand that if their players were playing in a manner that didn't set well with them, then it was up to them to try and direct the game.
Perhaps your players are too far gone with the poison that is the MMORPG, maybe not. Maybe you should try and encourage them to make more interesting characters. Maybe that's not the game they want to play, and then yes, maybe you should find another group.
I do feel for you, at least a little. Last few games I ran I had one guy turn in a writen back story, the rest kinda came up with something the morning the game started. But at the same time, none of them seemed to put an abundance of thought into their stat blocks either, so I do have to say at least your group is interested in half the game.
Where I strongly have issue with what you said though, is the age comments. I'm thirty, started playing while second edition was out, but the first several games I played were first ed rules, and very first ed mentality. I've played with some amazing people, and some horrible people, and I pay a lot of attention to the specifics of each type. Never have I noticed a difference in quality based on age. There have been just as many people I wanted to throtle who were older than me as were younger.
Now, some of the problems the proplem players had were different between younger rather than older. I could go on for hours about the sniveling brats who can't stand to hear the word no. At the same time, I could go on about the groganards who respond to everything with "back in my day it worked like..." Infact, its hard to keep myself even remotely on topic here...
but yeah, my point is, you could find a group of twenty/thirty somethings and be perfectly happy, just as you could find a group of forty/fifty somethings and be absolutely misserable.
Developer
|
I'll be honest. They aren't mutually exclusive. I spend as much time on backstory as a do mechanics, and one can equally fault another for neglecting the latter.
That's not to say that neglecting either actually is negligence, or that one is greater than the other. Different tables value different things, and some will just want to get into a dungeon and kill things and take loot. It's not like there weren't games than involved only that in the "good old days".
When you get down to it, a 15 STR in those editions was pretty powerful. It was a different thing entirely than a 15 is now. The stat blocks were designed around a bell-curve, and you cannot compare them number-for-number against a linear progression.
Further, I played older editions of the game, not the oldest editions, but 2nd ed and then skills and powers when it was available. This is a better game. Not because the power has increased, but because the options have. The options also allow for much much higher power play. They do not require it.
It becomes harder to run a lower powered game, as CR's are adjusted for the higher tier, yes, but no harder than it was looking through a Monster Manual and judging difficulty based on solely the exp numbers.
You can play Pathfinder the way you'd play OD&D. You can map by hand, and worry that the next encounter will be your end. You can roll 3d6 and assign as they fall. No one is stopping you. If that's fun for you, go for it. Good. Fun is the goal here, there is no other overarching aim for this activity greater than having a good time with your friends.
That is not the way I play, though. I do enjoy playing a powerful character, and I want my character to be the thing I envision from creation. Being forced to deal with random stats and adjusting roleplaying can be fun, but the ability to plan a character, and write a backstory, and not have that concept ruined by bad rolls is also quite nice.
I'm not sure where the thinking arose that the ability to design a character within the rules, without random rolls throwing things off, somehow makes for bad roleplaying. There are entire systems out there where not a single die is rolled anywhere during creation, and they are very well suited for roleplay. Just because you can play a suboptimal character does not make you an amazing roleplayer any more than playing an optimal one makes you a bad roleplayer. Your roleplaying ability is entirely separate from your use of mechanics.
The game can accomodate multiple playstyles, moreso than any previous edition, in my mind. There's room for both, perhaps not at the same table, but definitely within the community.
And for what it's worth, my PFS Paladin has chalk to mark walls should the need arise.
|
|
+1 to you Sir. For bringing it back old school. Personally, I focus on the concept of the character first and adjust my scores as best I can. My friends and I are getting together to play 1st edition and we will be rolling 3d6 top to bottom. I think everyone should play that way for an adventure or so. Give them some perspective. Heh.
“Do your players put as much time in their backgrounds as they do their stat blocks and feat choices?”
I actively discourage my players from "putting time into their backgrounds".
I get where you are going with this, but I would not use involved backstory as the counterpoint to power-hungry player traits. In my experience, an involved backstory is often the enemy of actual role-playing. I much prefer to have a party shaped by the story's events, versus a story shaped by the party's events.
Anyway, different people are out for different types of game. If you find that your players want something different than you, you have three options:
I have never seen the opposition in play styles myself. My group loves playing around with the rules and making characters, but we also like to linger on the details and play unique personalities.
Then again, part of the attitude you are observing is a symptom of how the game has changed, and it has. Characters are much more über than they were before the third edition. Most of the gritty obstacles (your beeswax and chalk) are completely vanished from the game after 6th level, because every character is superhuman. I recommend googling "D&D E6", if that's the kind of game you want to play.
I put alot of time into both the mechanics of my character and his personality, backstory and how he interacts with my word. Honestly I dont like doing anything half way. My magus in a kingmaker campaign is meticulously planned with each feat and talent chosen for a reason. I want him to be capable and of 'feeling' the way I think a fightermage ought to. I am an optimizer, and I enjoy that side of things.
That said, I like to put alot of work into interacting with world my dm lays before me as well. You can check the kingmaker boards for a constitution I worked out with my dm and some of the other players purely as a roleplay tool. I spent hours on that, and on working out the organizational structure of my military (I am the general in the kingdom). Why? Because I wanted a salute and a rank to call our Councils Guard by, and I wanted a system of government to use to interact with the npcs in my dm's world.
And while i never liked 3d6 down the line, I have played in varying power levels in games, and I prefer higher power ones on both sides of the dm screen. I dont see being awesome as a mechanical character as any imposition on being part of an awesome story. Never have, never will.
I'll be honest. They aren't mutually exclusive. I spend as much time on backstory as a do mechanics, and one can equally fault another for neglecting the latter.
+1
It is a game and characters who are dead make for poor role playing options. It's neither fun to be crippled nor bland.
“Do your players put as much time in their backgrounds as they do their stat blocks and feat choices?”I actively discourage my players from "putting time into their backgrounds".
I get where you are going with this, but I would not use involved backstory as the counterpoint to power-hungry player traits. In my experience, an involved backstory is often the enemy of actual role-playing. I much prefer to have a party shaped by the story's events, versus a story shaped by the party's events.
Anyway, different people are out for different types of game. If you find that your players want something different than you, you have three options:
Accommodate the players, give them the fun that they want.
Teach the players your way, make them enjoy it.
Step down as GM and go run/play for the right group. I have never seen the opposition in play styles myself. My group loves playing around with the rules and making characters, but we also like to linger on the details and play unique personalities.
Then again, part of the attitude you are observing is a symptom of how the game has changed, and it has. Characters are much more über than they were before the third edition. Most of the gritty obstacles (your beeswax and chalk) are completely vanished from the game after 6th level, because every character is superhuman. I recommend googling "D&D E6", if that's the kind of game you want to play.
In 2E it was the same, by 6th you were super human more so than in 3E because there was no such thing as Level 12 Commoner. Basically you had adventures and every thing else was about the same a wizard with out casting ability.
As for backgrounds, I find them useful. Sure the story shapes the characters but you need somewhere to start. Why would you go adventuring in the first place for example, the background explains that. Like the aristocrat with an arranged marriage who decides to run away and gets their trust fund cut off. They gained some skill on the streets using their fencing training to become a mercenary to make ends meet. Mercenary work just isn't paying for their lavish jaded lifestyle so they turn to tomb raiding. That makes a Character easier to play and give you an idea how to introduce them to the party.
It is hard to start a thread with “back in my day” and sound legitimate. I understand this RPG hobby of mine evolves and changes and every generation handles things differently. I also will concur it is my right to avoid game systems that use point buy and min/max stat blocks. With all of that being said, my question is:
“Do your players put as much time in their backgrounds as they do their stat blocks and feat choices?”
No. Well maybe at lower levels because a 1st level character can be created pretty quickly if you know the rules well. It also depends on the player. I have one that gives me a great background story every time we play and some just want to kill things. I used to be that guy that just wanted to kill things. Sometimes you have to find a way to make them care enough to RP, but some just won't change. It took me 2 years to begin to change so you might have to be tolerant if you are waiting for the RP side of the players to develop.
I just long for the day when Roger used a Scottish accent for his dwarf and suddenly all dwarves needed to have one. When you had four dump stats because your 3d6 didn’t like you. A fighter was still pretty awesome if he has 15 strength.
I don't like the Scottish accent because it is stereotypical. As an example I had two players that hated goblins. I understand in a world like FR or Greyhawk where they are little more than child sized mosnters, but in my game they had a great empire, and are some what sociable. That does not mean there are not bad ones out there, but I don't like holding on to a stereotype just because it is a stereotype.
I just don’t understand the “uber” factor of my current player set. That is a broad generalist stroke I know, but I enjoy knowing my ranger should have bees wax for his bow string, so it doesn’t get ruined in the rain, and the rogue carried chalk to mark the corridors that were scouted… we made characters that played roles in a great story…not stat blocks for a squad combat mini game.
The chalk thing is an idea I had never thought of even though I normally buy things like winter blankets or anything else I might think is useful. If you want to players to change the way they game then you might have to GM or if you are the GM then change some of the combat encounters our for social ones or puzzle based ones. In their defense the game is very combat based and unless the DM is going to pull punches there is no reason to make a less efficient character. Actually both can be achieved, combat prowess, and good RP. They don't have to be enemies staring at each other over a wall.
It is hard to start a thread with “back in my day” and sound legitimate.
Not at all. You'll sound like a legitimate oldtimer! :P
I also will concur it is my right to avoid game systems that use point buy and min/max stat blocks.
Do you think the two need to be the same? Case in point: WoD games (Vampire, Mage, Werewolf etc.) don't roll for stats - or anything else that has to do with character creation or advancement. And those games are as far from min/maxing as you can get. In fact, to many a WoD player, all D&D is pure min/maxing, having nothing to do with murder and monty haul campaigns and no roleplaying whatsoever.
So the right way to say it could also be "It Is my right to avoid game systems that roll for stats and min/max stat blocks." ;-P
With all of that being said, my question is:“Do your players put as much time in their backgrounds as they do their stat blocks and feat choices?”
Usually. The characters are usually optimised (sometimes more, sometimes less), but they don't tend to be two-dimensional.
I just long for the day when Roger used a Scottish accent for his dwarf and suddenly all dwarves needed to have one.
Man, was that stupid. It's a stereotype, and as such, bad for innovation and thus bad for roleplaying.
When you had four dump stats because your 3d6 didn’t like you.
And that's good? The player might have played a more diversified character. But because of pure random chance, he had to play a one-dimensional stereotype.
A fighter with two good scores and four dump stats is basically a min/maxed fighter.
See, I'm a all for choice. The choice, for example, to play the character I want instead of the character the the dice force me to play.
Some people prefer to be told what character to play and call that "better roleplaying". But that's not really true. It's just one type. I think the way where you play the character you want is the better way. It makes for better roleplaying. If someone wants to play a flawed character, he can do so.
But forcing people to do so doesn't make for better roleplaying.
I just don’t understand the “uber” factor of my current player set. That is a broad generalist stroke I know, but I enjoy knowing my ranger should have bees wax for his bow string, so it doesn’t get ruined in the rain, and the rogue carried chalk to mark the corridors that were scouted… we made characters that played roles in a great story…not stat blocks for a squad combat mini game.
You seem to be incompatible with your players. And they with you.
But again, I have to note that you can have a min/maxed character who knows about the wax. Or a crappy character who doesn't know about the chalk.
They're two different things.
One is "min/maxing or not", the other is how much detail you want to get into.
And many of the characters in great stories I read/saw/heard didn't ever mention bees wax or chalk. It's simply not part of a great story. Let me rephrase that: It's not part of what makes a story great. It makes a story detailed. Maybe "realistic" (though there are so many other things you have to observe - I always thought that selective realism was worse than everything else.). There are great, detailed stories. There are also great stories that don't sweat the small stuff. There are crappy stories that are detailed (and sometimes the details make them crappy because the author is so distracted with that stuff that he forgets to tell a good story). There are crappy stories that have no detail at all (and sometimes the lack of detail is what makes them crappy, because the author couldn't be bothered to look into what he was writing about.)
Maybe I just need a change of scenery, or to find a group of 40 somethings that are like minded and stop gaming with the younger gamers…It is probably just me being cantankerous….
Well, I know people who have been playing RPGs for twice as long as I do, and they don't care too much detail. I also know people who are new to the game, and young (damn whippersnappers) to boot, and yet you can make them bite their tongue off in a fit if you mention how you keep your crossbow stringed and loaded at all times because the rules never say that this will have an adverse effect.
I know people who used to be obsessed about small details like exactly how much water you have with you, make you mark off ammunition and track every copper you spend. Because that's how you played.
But then I gold them my opinion about this: How you can't hope to capture every detail however small. How the character has a point of view about these things that is very different from the player's (because the player just plays at being a rogue for a couple of hours every other weekend and spends the rest of his life being a, say, engineer, and thinking about all the small details in his own life because he has to; while the character grew up to be a rogue and has been doing this all his life, every day, for decades.) and you can't really expect a player to have the same eye for detail than his character (especially if the character actually lives in the world that is only a story for the player). How in the grand scheme of things, the coppers and silvers one pays for food and lodging won't matter, especially compared to the thousands of gold pieces the characters will spend on fantastically expensive magic stuff. How keeping track of how many days worth of trail rations the characters have is not really interesting it's tedious, it doesn't add any excitement or heroism to the campaign - in fact it makes it more boring, because the time spend tracking that stuff is time not spend being heroic and experiencing exciting encounters against foe, monster, trap, or anything else.
And they realised that I had a great point. They never cared for the stuff themselves. They had enough of that tedious stuff in their own life, the life they wanted to escape for a few short hours a week.
Let me close this by saying that I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong by playing the way you play. There is no way of playing that is right or wrong. There are only ways of playing that are right or wrong for the individual. I'm saying that I probably wouldn't enjoy playing in what you'd call your ideal campaign, but I'm not saying that it's wrong for you to enjoy that sort of campaign. I'm not saying that I'm better than you at this game because I like the stuff I like. I'm just different.
The thing I do want to point out things you might be wrong about is that you seem to conflate a lot of concepts that don't have to be encountered together. They often are, and sometimes, they will work well together or encourage each other (metaphorically speaking), but it's necessarily always that way.
I refer to stuff like "min/maxing and good roleplaying are mutually exclusive", "point buy equals miniature gaming, rolling equals roleplaying", and things like that. Just some food for thought.
And some advice from me (or at least stuff I think could work well): Think about the stuff you seem to insist on. What parts actually belong together and what parts do you only think should be together? What parts do you really prefer, if you actually think about them, and what parts are more mere inertia? (Not that I'm saying that it's all inertia for you. I'm just saying it could be. I've seen both. I've experienced both in my own habits).
And then talk to the players. Tell them the stuff you prefer. Ask them what stuff they prefer. Discuss the matter, and see if you can't find a compromise that has all the stuff everyone wants and avoids the stuff everyone hates (as far as your likes and dislikes aren't actually mutually exclusive).
Talking is usually the best solution to this stuff. Sometimes, it reveals interesting stuff. Just as I suspect you might find that some of the things you seem to insist on might not be as important to you as you think, they might be the same: Maybe they just don't know any other sort of playing and would have a real blast playing in a different way if it was shown to them.
Ask them if they'd be willing to play the way you like. It seems you have been playing the way they know how to play, they might be prepared to try something else.
It's not impossible that you'll find a new way that everyone likes better.
As for backgrounds, I find them useful. Sure the story shapes the characters but you need somewhere to start. Why would you go adventuring in the first place for example, the background explains that.
Oh that's all great, but I have met (and been) the type of gamer who goes too far with too elaborate a backstory. The type that more or less hijacks the campaign, or whines and pouts when the events are not relevant to their exquisitely crafted backstory. That's the level of development pre-game that I discourage.
All this is in service of the notion that there is no continuum with Story vs. Stats.
You can have story, you can have stats, you can have one or the other, or you can have both. No continuum.
If you have players who love stats but there's no demand for story, well then, you need to teach them to appreciate a good story. That's actually really hard. Some GMs think they can add realism to their story by simply mandating players track all sorts of crap they weren't expecting. That's bad. You need to warm them up to the notion slowly, and remember your role as a GM is a communicator.
Not everyone starts with the same vision of the game world. If players have different notions, it isn't their fault. The GM needs to actively communicate the basic assumptions.
Players need some leeway too. If you know a lot more about bows than me, it's not fair to punish my PC (a professional archer) for my forgetting to pack beeswax in a rainstorm. By all means, if you raise the topic of beeswax and rainstorms I will think it cool, but is this something (just as an example) you're going to spring on me mid-game?
If you enforce that level of detail, you must do it selectively or the game would take infinitely long to resolve.
Rant rant rant. Too much coffee. TLDR version: It's all about communicating your expectations to the players so everyone can agree on how to have a good time.
I think the better you are at roleplaying, the less you really need a huge backstory. A good roleplayer knows her character. That's all you really need.
With the beeswax and such, I call that adding color to a game. That's all good and fine -- a little color can go a long way. But just like any canvas, too much color is clown barf.
|
Stuff
I agree with you 100% but I don't think it's an age thing. I'm 27 and in the same boat. I abhor the level of mechanics focus and min/maxery that gamers crave these days.
Finding a full group of like-minded folks is difficult - I would say impossible as I have yet to find a single person in my local area even among the fairly large table top RPG population in the area. My suggestion is to find some middle ground that you can have fun with. It's not ideal and you're definitely going to have those occasional players/sessions that rub you the wrong way but it's better to have some fun than none.
I think a large part of stat dump/min maxing is partially due all the canned adventure options or organized play options available. I think there's a certain class balance/stat balance expectation to survive/succeed today's canned adventures versus customized games where the GM can tailor it so characters are free to make sub-optimized choices for the sake of roleplaying or character purposes and still win the day.
While a GM could also do that in pre-written adventures, it can be tricky.
To be honest, you saw this sort of thing in 1E and 2E but that was as a main byproduct of completely rolling stats and trying to be at least somewhat effective in your primary functions. Then again, character options/abilities weren't so set in stone by "builds". If you had 3 good stats (14+) you were a demi-god back in 1E/2E.
|
I'll be honest. They aren't mutually exclusive. I spend as much time on backstory as a do mechanics, and one can equally fault another for neglecting the latter.
That's not to say that neglecting either actually is negligence, or that one is greater than the other. Different tables value different things, and some will just want to get into a dungeon and kill things and take loot. It's not like there weren't games than involved only that in the "good old days".
When you get down to it, a 15 STR in those editions was pretty powerful. It was a different thing entirely than a 15 is now. The stat blocks were designed around a bell-curve, and you cannot compare them number-for-number against a linear progression.
Further, I played older editions of the game, not the oldest editions, but 2nd ed and then skills and powers when it was available. This is a better game. Not because the power has increased, but because the options have. The options also allow for much much higher power play. They do not require it.
It becomes harder to run a lower powered game, as CR's are adjusted for the higher tier, yes, but no harder than it was looking through a Monster Manual and judging difficulty based on solely the exp numbers.
You can play Pathfinder the way you'd play OD&D. You can map by hand, and worry that the next encounter will be your end. You can roll 3d6 and assign as they fall. No one is stopping you. If that's fun for you, go for it. Good. Fun is the goal here, there is no other overarching aim for this activity greater than having a good time with your friends.
That is not the way I play, though. I do enjoy playing a powerful character, and I want my character to be the thing I envision from creation. Being forced to deal with random stats and adjusting roleplaying can be fun, but the ability to plan a character, and write a backstory, and not have that concept ruined by bad rolls is also quite nice.
I'm not sure where the thinking arose that the ability to design a character...
Why do I always agree, totally and completely, with every post you ever make, Alorha? Do I secretly know you from somewhere and haven't realized it?
If you have players who love stats but there's no demand for story, well then, you need to teach them to appreciate a good story. That's actually really hard. Some GMs think they can add realism to their story by simply mandating players track all sorts of crap they weren't expecting. That's bad. You need to warm them up to the notion slowly, and remember your role as a GM is a communicator.
I have a slight problem with this idea. Why does anyone need to teach anyone "how to enjoy" another possible aspect of D&D? I don't really agree with this.
Everyone plays D&D for different reasons - I play it for 3 main ones - a creative outlet for myself, a way to kick butt like I can't in real life, and a feel of power that I don't have in real life. I think these main reasons are something most people can relate to. One can infer from this that I play partly for strong role-playing opportunities, and partly to smash monsters in need of smiting.
Just because someone focuses on one aspect of the game (I have a player who is 110% power gamer, not concerning himself with backstory or any over-arching plot), doesn't mean they're playing the game wrong, or need to take an active part in any other part of the game - they are probably getting what they want from the game, and that's the point.
I rate myself as the following (using the Player Archetypes in the 3.5 DMG II) - 40% power gamer, 30% Story, 15% Psychodrama (exploring my character's moods and motivations from her point of view), 15% Brilliant Planner (setting the stage for a perfect rout of enemy forces).
I play for various reasons and motivations - I don't want a useless character, but I don't want a brick for personality, either. My desires are different from Mr. Power Gamer I mentioned before, and it's up to our DM to balance out our tastes and make sure we all get something we enjoy - we get some good 'ol combat for XP harvesting and gold, and some plot for me and the others to gobble up while Power Gamer stares at us.
My ultimate point being (forgive my rambling) - People play for all kinds of reasons, all kinds of desires - why is it up to me, you, or anyone else to tell them "Hey, you need to enjoy this part of the game, too?" The fact is, it isn't: People play video games just because their friends play the same game, and they like their friends - why can't D&D be something similar to that, and why does every person need to be a perfect representation of a "balanced gamer"?
@The Red Army: I feel like you may have misinterpreted my comment, or else I explained myself badly.
The statement: "If you have players who love stats but there's no demand for story, well then, you need to teach them to appreciate a good story." presumes that the OP GM's style is story-based, and that he is unhappy with the dissonance between him and his players.
If the GM and the players are both happy with 100% "crunch" games, I fully support a group of like-minded players having fun, no matter how they do it.
This was advice to a specific GM (the OP) who seems to want something different from his players. My advice to him remains the same: teach the players to like your kind of game by doing it right, and also work accommodate their kind of game, because they are not opposites.
I play with a young group who play all kinds of video games. I'm an old grognard who remembers when having enough food was a problem, encumbrance, etc. I remember playing forever to hit your next level, and almost dying in the process, only to have your small amount of loot get taken from you. Wizards usually died. TPKs were the norm, not just the result of some bad rolls.
I blame it on the AD&D dungeonmaster guide. It encouraged DM cruelty.
I've walked away from many a table over DMs who just had to make PC lives as miserable as possible. I want to be heroic and cool, not counting coppers to see if I can afford to drink with the NPC with the next adventure hook. I do plenty of "loser" in real life. I want a game world where I can be awesome if I play well, get a lucky roll now and then, and win the day with forethought and some cleverness. If I'm sitting at a table with others trying to do the same, it's a lot of fun.
If you haven't noticed, PF is all about a tactical combat squad fighting things in fairly rapid succession. Look at combat feats. Fighter types wait for levels to get that one feat that finally allows them to do what they've built their character to do in tactical combat. Spellcasters wait until they can gain the right spells and feats to finally be truly awesome.
Not min-maxing at least a little in order to be effective is death. It was in 1-2e, and it is now. It is in my game, where my players are just beginning to understand that there's a story here, and they need to pay attention to clues and details, not just kill every piece I put on the table.
That has 0 to do with RP. My group likes RPing "just sitting in the tavern," and that's why they like tabletop gaming. There's a real life element that's missing on a computer. They're just now getting that their characters should have personalities, and they're rising to the level of RP that makes it fun. This is not a video game.
AD&D can bite me. I was there, and I say that. 3x, and, even moreso, PF are player-centric, not GM-centric, and that's as it should be. I reward good knowledge of the rules, clever play, and good humor. Poking skunks will get you stinky. Deliberate foolishness is fatal. That's just how it plays out. I don't have to fudge rolls for that to happen.
I give my players ridiculous stat arrays. That's because they're the stars of the show. They are naturally born better than human. They get the starring roles in our little play, and they're in every scene. Nothing can happen without them.
If the PCs have no hope of making that one skill check that can save them, or point them in the right direction, then it all grinds to a halt. Forget about having chalk or beeswax. That's for characters who consider Light to be a first level wizard spell.
There are still people playing older editions. Perhaps PF is just not for you.
|
I play tabletop to gather around a table with friends and tell jokes and describe awesome events.
I don't sit down to become a different person. I could be in theatre for that.
I don't sit down to make up a life history. I could be writing a novel for that.
I don't sit down to be given targets to kill. I could be playing a video game for that.
I don't sit down to listen to the GM talk about his story. I could go to the movies for that.
I don't sit down to be told what and how to do things. I go to work for that.
My characters background starts when the campaign starts. His personality will grow out of what happens to him. </rambling>
Understand the OP's frustration. I too am an old school grognard at heart. Tracking arrows and rations, using chalk to mark walls, drawing maps on graph paper as my character went through the dark and dismal dungeon...
Oh yeah. Good times. The original group I played with would role play the evening camp activities, telling stories and reliving the day's adventures. We would track spell material components and if we didn't have a live spider? Well, no spider climb for you! Spells were things you prepared for, and discovering a spider web in a dank dungeon was a chance to replenish my spider climb supply. My first wizard had two hit points at level 1, and could have literally been killed by a rat bite. No "-10 hit points" in those days, you went below zero, you wuz daed, dude, daed. Magic items were not merely rare and expensive, they were magical and valuable. It took so long to level up that the first magic sword you got was something that you used forever. You named it, and treated it with respect and awe.
Today's game is not the same. I'm not saying better or worse, just not the same. Back in the old days GMs (called "DMs" then) had to wing just about everything, and if you had a battle mat, you were a DM legend. Throw in a set of Ral Partha lead/pewter miniatures and you were a DM god. To get extra damage you had to attack from behind, and we spent many an evening arguing about the PC and NPC positions, locations, distance and speed with no battle mats or counting squares. Some of those arguments got nasty.
I greatly appreciate, as a GM and a player, that today's game is far more tactically solid and refined. Arguments about cover, concealment, distance, range, speed, etc. are almost a thing of the past. But at the same time, I can't remember the last time a group I was with role played an evening campfire meal, with much hearty laughing and poking fun at each other.
I had a great time in those days. I have a great time today. But there is no doubt in my mind that the game has changed, the players have changed and the atmosphere has changed. The wonderful work done to fix all the broken tactical aspects of the game has led to a completely predictable and understandable obsession with stats and numbers. When the game revolves around stats and numbers, that's what you have to expect people to focus on. When the stats and numbers were much fuzzier and the GM had to rule on a whim and a prayer, focusing on numbers wasn't nearly as valuable.
I still try to do the old style play in our groups, and when my character charges into the enemy boss, spits in his face and says "Your sister was a lousy lay!" the other players laugh and snicker, but they rarely do the same thing. Which is sort of a shame I think because I love that part of the game, and my characters will do that sort of stuff until the game is a long-forgotten memory, or I am.
Back in the day, I found that people still tried to pick the most powerful choices for their characters, generally -- they just didn't get as many choices.
For instance, I noted that in 1E AD&D, Magic Missile and Sleep were way more popular 1st level spells than Burning Hands and Affect Normal Fires. Likewise, long swords and 2-handed swords were much more popular than horseman's picks and bec de corbins (becs de corbins?). YMMV, of course.
I assume OP that you never had someone play a Snrfelbin Gnome Stalker(i think it was a fighter/ thief kit) out of complete book of Gnomes in 2ed over 50% MR and a negative AC even if naked at first level. Or push for a better than 3d6 as rolled dice system. Do not try and say that min maxing only occurs in 3.5. Also lets not lump point buy based systems with min maxing as KaeYoss pointed out they can be exclusive of one another. Please do not let your rosy rear view of the days gone by cloud what occurred.
StuffI agree with you 100% but I don't think it's an age thing. I'm 27 and in the same boat. I abhor the level of mechanics focus and min/maxery that gamers crave these days.........
I will say it again. Mechanics and RP are not at opposite ends of the spectrum. It is not like you have to make a choice to either make a mechanically good character or RP well.
I agree that the game has lost something, but for me it has nothing to do with a lack of roleplaying.
If you want to focus less on crunch and combat then you as DM need to design a campaign where combat is infrequent and investigation, traps and exploration take centre stage. When players start to realise there Is more to the game than combat their characters will adapt.
Likewise, don't scale encounters if they're tougher than average, let them be tougher than average. Either they'll breeze through fights and have more time for roleplaying, or they'll realise the can be a little less optimised and flex their creativity instead when designing characters. If they complain fights are too easy just tell them they're extremely heroic.
I think the biggest change between editions is the speed of levelling and number of levels though. Try running a campaign for characters from 2nd to 5th level with a minimum of twenty sessions to level up. Be completely clear about this up front, both max level and speed, and I suspect the game will change. Sadly in my local area I only really get to play PFS which, although fun, is a bit of a treadmill.
|
I play tabletop to gather around a table with friends and tell jokes and describe awesome events.
I don't sit down to become a different person. I could be in theatre for that.
I don't sit down to make up a life history. I could be writing a novel for that.
I don't sit down to be given targets to kill. I could be playing a video game for that.
I don't sit down to listen to the GM talk about his story. I could go to the movies for that.
I don't sit down to be told what and how to do things. I go to work for that.
My characters background starts when the campaign starts. His personality will grow out of what happens to him. </rambling>
ROLLPLAYER. ;P
|
|
I read your replies and thank you all for the forethought and effort you put into explaining your viewpoints. A few points I didn't make as clear as I liked, were mainly due to my inability to stop the ramble and get to the point.
Min/Maxing isn't bad; it's a style of character creation. 3d6 and "let them lay" is a different style of character creation. Heck we have a game running now where folks roll 2d6+6 for a heroic feel...
My point was simply that most of the players in the local game store and my table (whether I DM or play) are more likely to tell you the next feat they will select than their character's home town.
"I make my story start at the campaign's beginning"...is something I simply can't understand. Why does your character have a tattoo, wear all blue, fight two handed, why are the class they chose, why did they leave their home? How do they feel about discipline, ethics, and morality? How strongly do they feel about those things? These aren't fine details I am bringing up. They are general concepts that will help any player wrap his/her head around the character they portray, and the party/team knows what to expect from that character.
I can play a dutiful rogue or a cowardly paladin, a stalwart fighter or a zealot druid...I am pretty sure in all those cases I know what feat I am going to take next level or what prestige class I hope for and when.
What I don't see in my local game store or my gaming table is the same effort put into the simplest of character concepts that is being put into stat blocks and build points.
-Oggie
YMMV (your mileage may vary?)
OP (original poster or Old PeePeeHead?)
No, role playing and stat optimizing are not two mutually exclusive endeavors. However it is not possible that two significantly different game systems encourage either or both equally. A game where you spend literally hours working on the numbers for your character at first level character creation is necessarily going to make numbers more important than a game where you spend fifteen minutes on the same activity. That's just how human minds work. PF, 3.5 and even to a lesser extent, 2e have each expanded the importance and quantity of stats, skills, feats and bonuses. The result has been a game that rewards number crunching so much that I have encountered some players for whom number crunching is all that matters. They have literally zero interest in character backstories and their idea of role playing is to try to describe their attack in particularly gruesome detail.
I still role play. In a recent campaign my character was a has-been soldier who was a level 6 fighter, but was down on his luck and had a weakness for alcohol and gambling. His wife had taken his kids and left him and his main concern when not gambling or drinking was that his daughter was reaching marrying age without a dowry big enough to get her a good husband. So he sent 1/3 of all his money to his ex-wife with instructions that it be used strictly for his daughter's dowry. And he did that. 1/3 of all his treasure was sent to his daughter. Since his wife and daughter were off-screen NPCs who weren't even in the campaign (living in the far away town of his wife's birth) that meant that treasure simply disappeared from the game. But that was his story and to him his daughter was real and the money was well spent. Yes, that meant his gear was not quite as good as some of the other PCs. Thems the breaks.
In another campaign my character was a custom race druid who grew up in a dryad grove with no contact with civilization. After training with a local druid and becoming a druid herself, she still did not understand the concept of money and for the first three levels or so she had a tendency to give her gold away, until the other PCs finally demonstrated to her the value of money in a way that she understood, although she still finds the concept somewhat distasteful.
And in yet another campaign, long fallow I'm afraid, my wizard is quite literally insane and there is really no telling what he will do from day to day. To make matters worse he is very nearly chaotic evil, but firmly believes himself to be lawful good. He just comes up with very reasonable, to him, rationales for his evil acts.
All of these characters are just as viable as any other character and I would have no problem playing any of them in a group of hyper-optimized characters and I think they would hold their own.
But their backstory matters. They are key to each character's concept and drive their motivations. And I believe that add great color to the campaign. Because I spend time on my character's backstory and motivation, it is typically my character for whom the GM is able to provide interesting plot hooks and quest opportunities.
As I said, I am old school. I believe the story is more important than the character, and that the characters add to the story. I want my characters to make the GM's life more interesting and his/her efforts to come up with content and run a campaign to be more fulfilling, and as I am a GM myself, I know that the best way to make a GM feel like they are providing a good game, is to have my character interact with and contribute to the story, not just beat down the bad guys with awesome abilities.
Since very few other players seem to take the same approach to character backstory, motivation and creation, I can't help but feel that they are missing out on what I consider to be a very important and fulfilling part of the game. I know that the game is still fun even if a player doesn't get fully into their character's role, but as fun as it is, I just can't help but feel it would be more fun if they cared about more than being the baddest XYZ class possible. Some of my most memorable characters started with some of the lowest stats. My druid started with a 15 wisdom. My fighter had a 16 strength. My wizard had a 16 int, and not much else above a 10. In each case the GM gave opportunities for these characters to advance in power as they advanced in level, so they now have "optimized" their key stats, but they did so by earning those advances, and it is important for me to know that my wizard's 18 intelligence is due to his victory over powerful enemies and taking deadly risks (such as the Deck of Many Things to get a wish).
It is all too easy to say that modern players have it all too easy to optimize their characters, but it's still objectively and factually true.
I read your replies and thank you all for the forethought and effort you put into explaining your viewpoints. A few points I didn't make as clear as I liked, were mainly due to my inability to stop the ramble and get to the point.
Min/Maxing isn't bad; it's a style of character creation. 3d6 and "let them lay" is a different style of character creation. Heck we have a game running now where folks roll 2d6+6 for a heroic feel...
My point was simply that most of the players in the local game store and my table (whether I DM or play) are more likely to tell you the next feat they will select than their character's home town.
"I make my story start at the campaign's beginning"...is something I simply can't understand. Why does your character have a tattoo, wear all blue, fight two handed, why are the class they chose, why did they leave their home? How do they feel about discipline, ethics, and morality? How strongly do they feel about those things? These aren't fine details I am bringing up. They are general concepts that will help any player wrap his/her head around the character they portray, and the party/team knows what to expect from that character.
I can play a dutiful rogue or a cowardly paladin, a stalwart fighter or a zealot druid...I am pretty sure in all those cases I know what feat I am going to take next level or what prestige class I hope for and when.
What I don't see in my local game store or my gaming table is the same effort put into the simplest of character concepts that is being put into stat blocks and build points.
-Oggie
YMMV (your mileage may vary?)
OP (original poster or Old PeePeeHead?)
I plan my feats ahead of time also. Of course they are not set in stone. I do this because I have a good working knowledge of the game, and I know which ones make my character more likely to survive and flesh out the concept. Picking a feat after the game starts in no makes ways for a better game than picking it before the game starts.
As for concepts I come up with a basic personality, but how it is shaped is determined by the story. If I decide my character is going to be a certain way before the story begins I don't see how that is any different than selecting all my feats before the story begins.
This was advice to a specific GM (the OP) who seems to want something different from his players. My advice to him remains the same: teach the players to like your kind of game by doing it right, and also work accommodate their kind of game, because they are not opposites.
OK. I probably got the wrong idea. My overall statement stands, but I didn't realize you were being specific in your address.
I can play a dutiful rogue or a cowardly paladin, a stalwart fighter or a zealot druid...I am pretty sure in all those cases I know what feat I am going to take next level or what prestige class I hope for and when.
What I don't see in my local game store or my gaming table is the same effort put into the simplest of character concepts that is being put into stat blocks and build points.
I see your point. And sometimes that can be frustrating.
One thing you could try is leading by example - Next time you play with the group (as a PC), drop your backstory into the DM's lap. Strike up in character conversations with people. Express dismay a particular actions because of your morals. If you play with them as a DM, then I think you should scale back this a little, but maybe throw out little hints here and there. Give them what they want, but maybe have a commoner ask about their jobs and such, and show disdain for one or more of the classes (particularly wizards, sorcerers, and oracles), or favor for other classes (particularly clerics, paladins, and bards).
By easing them into it, little by little, you can show them something they might be missing out on - if they fall in love with it, great! If they don't, be ready to still give them what they want as a DM, and to play the game you like as a PC.
|
|
“Do your players put as much time in their backgrounds as they do their stat blocks and feat choices?”I actively discourage my players from "putting time into their backgrounds".
I get where you are going with this, but I would not use involved backstory as the counterpoint to power-hungry player traits. In my experience, an involved backstory is often the enemy of actual role-playing. I much prefer to have a party shaped by the story's events, versus a story shaped by the party's events.
Anyway, different people are out for different types of game. If you find that your players want something different than you, you have three options:
Accommodate the players, give them the fun that they want.
Teach the players your way, make them enjoy it.
Step down as GM and go run/play for the right group. I have never seen the opposition in play styles myself. My group loves playing around with the rules and making characters, but we also like to linger on the details and play unique personalities.
Then again, part of the attitude you are observing is a symptom of how the game has changed, and it has. Characters are much more über than they were before the third edition. Most of the gritty obstacles (your beeswax and chalk) are completely vanished from the game after 6th level, because every character is superhuman. I recommend googling "D&D E6", if that's the kind of game you want to play.
Generally I agree with you, but on this point I could not disagree with you more.
In my experience, the games unfold as they unfold based on what players create in their stories and back stories. That is what the DM integrates into a setting to create a story cooperatively with the players.
If my players have no back story, I find it boring as a DM, since I have to do all the work in creating a story from scratch.
If the players spends time coming up with a story, all I need to do is ask the question "And how would that play out in the setting that exists"
Without a back story, players are just stats in a combat game. Meh on that.
|
|
I play tabletop to gather around a table with friends and tell jokes and describe awesome events.
I don't sit down to become a different person. I could be in theatre for that.
I don't sit down to make up a life history. I could be writing a novel for that.
I don't sit down to be given targets to kill. I could be playing a video game for that.
I don't sit down to listen to the GM talk about his story. I could go to the movies for that.
I don't sit down to be told what and how to do things. I go to work for that.
My characters background starts when the campaign starts. His personality will grow out of what happens to him. </rambling>
In our group, some people come to the table with very little background, but they all have a very strong "concept".
All our DM's ask for back story of some kind specifically to be able to craft the story for the characters coming to the table.
Even an AP can play out in a million ways depending on the party that appears. Without back story and/or strong concepts, the game seems like a railroad to me. I don't want to ride a railroad, I want everyone, including the DM, to be part of figuring out what the motivations are and how the story plays out.
It requires a more flexible (and creative) DM this way, as you have to adjust on the fly regularly, but that is what makes it fun for me.
Oh my lord I get so sick and tired of listening to these baby-boomer grognards whine about the current generation of gamers.
I can't stomach any more of this "back in my day, we didn't have your fancy dice, we had to go find a rock, use a lathe to cut it into the shape of a 20-sided die, then we had to paint numbers on it!". What a bunch of absolute garbage.
Gamers now are the same as they've ever been; there were powergamers back in the '80s, and they still exist. There were lurkers, players who insisted on playing exact copies of their favorite movie/comic book/anime character, great roleplayers and terrible roleplayers back in the day, and all those types still exist. NOTHING has changed except some people got old and cranky.
Oh, and by the way, rolling 3d6 straight down the line and making a character based on some crappy random stats doesn't qualify as good roleplaying. It's plain lazy and terrible character design. Instead of crafting a useful, well-designed and played character, you end up with a klutz who trips over his own feet, can't lift a sword, is such a jerk he gets thrown out of every tavern, and is dumb as a stump! You end up with a party full of characters who are walking liabilities.
That's not good roleplaying, that's trying to make lemonade out of a steaming pile of crap.
|
|
Oh my lord I get so sick and tired of listening to these baby-boomer grognards whine about the current generation of gamers.
I can't stomach any more of this "back in my day, we didn't have your fancy dice, we had to go find a rock, use a lathe to cut it into the shape of a 20-sided die, then we had to paint numbers on it!". What a bunch of absolute garbage.
Gamers now are the same as they've ever been; there were powergamers back in the '80s, and they still exist. There were lurkers, players who insisted on playing exact copies of their favorite movie/comic book/anime character, great roleplayers and terrible roleplayers back in the day, and all those types still exist. NOTHING has changed except some people got old and cranky.
Oh, and by the way, rolling 3d6 straight down the line and making a character based on some crappy random stats doesn't qualify as good roleplaying. It's plain lazy and terrible character design. Instead of crafting a useful, well-designed and played character, you end up with a klutz who trips over his own feet, can't lift a sword, is such a jerk he gets thrown out of every tavern, and is dumb as a stump! You end up with a party full of characters who are walking liabilities.
That's not good roleplaying, that's trying to make lemonade out of a steaming pile of crap.
While I don't totally agree... HeHateMe does kinda make a good point...
|
|
Now im not one of the baby boomers. How ever I have played with 3ed of D&D(Missed 1st it was on the way out when I started. 2nd ed was so broken I can't list the amount of times I bork it. 3, 3.5 and 4th Are ed are harder to brak.), Paladium Games(in it's meny forms)(Becous of how it's layed out it's hard to brak. With out the DM being realy nice to you.), Star Wars(West End Games, And all 3ed of Wizards of the Cost. West End Games verson was so broken. After the first few games the other players where very mad at me. WotC verson did not do much better on the crunch then WEG.), L5R (1,2ed)(Very story driven system not much in the way of crunch. Makes it harder to brake. Not that you can't.) Im sure there are some I missed. All of them reqire learing the system. All of them can be broken. I'v broken more then my fair share of systems. Most of the time to prove a point to the DM/GM.
A few things I know.
1: System mastery dose not make you a better role player.
2: Being a good role player dose not mean you can ignore the number crunching.
3: Being good at role playing games requires you being good at. role playing and system mastery.
4: System mastery leades to optimization.
5: If you come to my table for months. And are still asking me what you should do. Im going to tell you read the rules.
6: Tatical awarnes can be learned. How ever not meny players don't have it.
7: Every player is difrent. ( I like low power and low magic words that are grity. Thats why I like paladium fantisy better then pathfinder. Every one else in my group likes pathfinder better so we are playing pathfinder.)
If you want a game that is more role play orented. There are other systems that are better base for that then pathfinder. If you want a game that is more number crunch then role playing. There are better systems then pathfinder.
PATHFINDER dose a very good job of mixing the two. You have alot of crunch and role playing options. You can not play a game like this and not optimize your character and have it work. I'm useing a base of 15 point buy not 20 or 25. That means if your using a higher point buy you broke the game by default. So if you use a higher point buy you don't have to optimize your character. For it to still be powerfull. That dose not mean your better at role playing or roll playing. The system was not made to handle higher point buy.
|
|
HeHateMe and TriOmega: I meant no disrespect to your generations. Only stating some frusteration with my personal gaming table and the type of game I want to participate in. Please keep your name calling to a minimum.
Your are correct there are and were power gamers in the 1980's we invented the term Monty haul campaigns and Hack-n-Slash. There are also great role players in your generation. My generation didn't have anime cos play and conventions. What an awesome opportunity to advance my hobby this generation has.
In one of my other threads I point out I have started family campaign night to teach my 9 and 11 year olds the hobby and they are loving the Kingmaker. (Great way to get them to clean too...no Pathfinder until I see bedroom floor)
There are good role players in your generation too. I just haven't experienced many. I would really like to. I read BrassBaboon and know his side pouch has a whetstone in it, and if we lived closer we would share a fairly like minded table...and perhaps a frosty beverage.
What a bunch of absolute garbage.
NOTHING has changed except some people got old and cranky.
That's not good roleplaying, that's trying to make lemonade out of a steaming pile of crap.
Not disputing your post, but it is rather funny that crankiness transcends generations (:
|
Developer
|
Well, playing with especially young players might be part of the issue. Looking back, even to Freshman year of Highschool, I was nowhere near the RPer I am now. I wasn't terrible, but it didn't have the emphasis it did in the activity for me. It just wasn't what was fun (and this was 2nd ed)
I don't think it's so much the generation as the age. Which isn't to say that everyone under 18 is too immature to properly roleplay; just that it's easier for such an individual to lack some maturity. I did.
Give tangible in-game incentive for good roleplay. Hero points for answering a 20 question background thing (where did you get your equipment, how did you learn your skills, why adventure, etc). Don't ask for a novel (no one wants that), but you can get some of the "why" and "how" you're seeking that way.
Further, by rewarding the act of background creation, maybe they'll see how fun it is, and maybe they'll want to do it on their own next time, no incentive required. If you want your group to do something, give them a reason to do it. The game already rewards smart mechanical choices, but there's nothing stopping you from rewarding story, too.
My point was simply that most of the players in the local game store and my table (whether I DM or play) are more likely to tell you the next feat they will select than their character's home town.
Actually, you were fairly clear in your first post and I totally missed the point. Mea culpa.
My two cents: I like a more "beer & pretzels" game where the focus is more on fighting monsters than what my PC's favourite colour is (although I always try to have an interesting background and personality for my characters as well). And I've always liked it that way, going back to 1E AD&D.
So from my point of view, things haven't changed much from AD&D to PFRPG except in the obvious way -- it's possible to talk a lot more about the "crunchy" aspects of your character since there are a lot more "crunchy" bits to talk about.
E.g. in AD&D, I could say that I have a 6th level human fighter with 17 Strength, a +2 longsword and +1 plate mail, and there's not much more to say after that. But in PFRPG, you can talk for longer about the various feats, skills, items, variant class features, etc. your fighter has (or hopes to have in the future).
|
Developer
|
When we added in the Skills and Power rules to our 2nd Ed game I was horribly guilty of defect abuse. I also ridiculously min/maxed the subabilities of my stats. I might optimize now, but I was straight up awful back then. Present me and past me would not want to play at the same table.
Still, we had good times, and I still RPed pretty well back then... better than nothing at least.
Who doesn't want to go back in time and smack their highschool self upside the head every now and then, though?
NOTHING has changed except some people got old and cranky.
Getting a bit cranky yourself aren't you? You must be getting old!
<-- all in good humour :)
But seriously, you made some good points in your post, but your vitriolic tone ruined it all... Lighten-up a bit.
'findel
|
From I've heard and what I experienced, people have always talked more about crunch than fluff.
I don't know how many stories I've heard of people playing 1E and killing Lolth, Tiamat, and all those beings for their treasure. It's no different than going on WoW raids or Onyxia instances.
2E I played, and all of us ended up talking about how badass our characters were, and who would win, and etc.
3E I played, and there were still endless debate of that. Although at this point I was far more interested in role-playing and fluff. My optimization got weaker, but I still kept it sharp enough as I understand if I'm dead, I can't RP.
*sigh* What is it these days with all the threads popping up about point buy and not-rolling-HP turning roleplaying into cold minmaxing?
Thanks to Kae Yoss for investing his time in a statement I can fully support.
It is hard to start a thread with “back in my day” and sound legitimate. I understand this RPG hobby of mine evolves and changes and every generation handles things differently. I also will concur it is my right to avoid game systems that use point buy and min/max stat blocks. With all of that being said, my question is:
“Do your players put as much time in their backgrounds as they do their stat blocks and feat choices?”
I just long for the day when Roger used a Scottish accent for his dwarf and suddenly all dwarves needed to have one. When you had four dump stats because your 3d6 didn’t like you. A fighter was still pretty awesome if he has 15 strength.
I just don’t understand the “uber” factor of my current player set. That is a broad generalist stroke I know, but I enjoy knowing my ranger should have bees wax for his bow string, so it doesn’t get ruined in the rain, and the rogue carried chalk to mark the corridors that were scouted… we made characters that played roles in a great story…not stat blocks for a squad combat mini game.
Maybe I just need a change of scenery, or to find a group of 40 somethings that are like minded and stop gaming with the younger gamers…It is probably just me being cantankerous….
I began playing 3E at the age of 13. That was 11 years ago. While I didn't play OD&D, 1E, or much 2E (barring PC games and research for curiosity's sake), I can say with confidence that it's not quite as bad as many might think it is.
I won't touch on the mechanical differences at the moment (there are some major considerations in that area but...), I feel like you're more nostalgic for what you might consider a quality game, where it's a little more personal than +X to hit and +Y to damage.
Fret not, my friend, for you are not alone. I run 3.x/PF pretty much exclusively, and yet the days of carrying whetstones and chalk are far from behind. While whetstones have no obvious mechanical benefit (you could easily make it so, but it hasn't been an issue), virtually every character I make has a bag (or several) of chalk. This is usually accompanied by a mule or ox to carry all my gear (much of which is entirely mundane). Characters are far more than their statistics on paper.
I believe that the stats on the paper are nothing more than the physics associated with your character in the world. A row of ability scores does not a character make. I love coming up with unusual solutions to things, and I can enjoy a puzzle from time to time. I like excitement, and adventure, and of course role-playing.
An elven vagabond that searches for her lost daughter?
Perhaps a gnostic paladin who worships a goddess of undeath and magic?
The samurai who honed her honor to redeem herself from the taint of evil?
Perhaps a tiefling wizard who eventually helped save the world from her fiendish father?
Much more than statblocks. ☺