Falling out of interest with D&D

Remove all ads!

It has been a while since I have played D&D, but recently I have realized that I have lost a lot of interest in the game. In retrospect, especially, running a game may have been more trouble than it was worth, although there have also been some memorable moments in DM'ing and playing.

Maybe my interest will resurface after a while, but I am just curious: have any of you lost interest (for a while or forever) with D&D, and found it more fun to, for example, play computer games or take up a new hobby?

 

Interest in D&D is long gone - interest in roleplaying however isn't. Maybe you should try a different system or a different style of RPing entirely? One that doesn't take much trouble to run (low prep time, no rule book flipping, or whatever else is 'too much trouble')

 

Let's say for me interest in roleplaying is declining along with interest in D&D.

I read a little on the World of Darkness games, but didn't really like it. WoD seems to be less time-consuming, however, and less rules-oriented than D&D, but I just don't like the content.

Still, I am trying to get back into D&D, but I don't really see roleplaying as a big part of it. Just playing D&D again to have that feeling of adventure would be nice.

 

Well, I would recommend trying something like Fallout, just to get a completely different sense of what roleplaying is. From there, I would recommend something akin to D20 modern.

Oh, and BTW, Oaz. I finally joined the SP member photos site and lo and behold! Is that CTY camp that I recognize?

 

Fallout and D20 Modern really aren't that great a steps away from the usual D&D stuff.
Have a poke around www.indie-rpgs.com - they have a huge library of various indie games, most of which sound really good and have a totally different focus than D&D. Some that get recommended a heap are Sorcerer, Inspectres, The Riddle of Steel, My Life with Master, The Pool, ect ect.
(Note that of those I just listed, I've only actually played The Pool, but it rocks )

 

I started out with the red box, almost 15 years ago, we played a lot. Then we played occasionally. We also played other games than D&D. Then we stopped playing.

I didn't play for years, and I lost interest in fantasy completely. Years passed by. Now I missed the role playing but searched for something a little different than earlier.

Guess what I found : Baldur's Gate. That really got me going. A week after I got the game, we started role playing again...

Theese days we don't play much, but it happens, and we enjoy it

 

Just about everybody I know loses intrest in any game especially when you, A) Don't play for awhile and get tied in things like life, girlfriend/wife/mistress, work or other hobbies.

Or B) You play a lot a feel there is nothing else you can do in the game to make you want to play it again and just get bored with the game whichs leads to A.

In time I have found that playing other games of a completely diffrent setting, Cyberpunk comes to mind or Deadlands, or just sitting down and creating a game yourself can really cause intrest again or in my case me and all my buddies went to see Lord of the Rings the Fellowship and started a three year campaign.

So I would not fear you never know what might spark an intrest back into playing, a simple conversation, a movie even a book could do it.

Trust me I have been playing for over twenty years and out of those twenty I have lost intrest about five times and not played for maybe a year total in the twenty I have played due to lack of intrest.

Well I hope that helps you to keep intrest gaming enough to pick it back up we need all the gamers we can get!

 

Well, i think that it's something all of us will try. I, for example, lost my D&D possession a little when i got a work, a guitar, and worst of all a computer. I didn't had so much sparetime anymore to make campaigns (I'm usually DM) but by time, i started to miss it, so three weeks ago, i gathered with the guys again to play... So don't worry, the D&D desire will get back to you ! Just wait a couple of months.

 

I used to play D&D all the time when I was young. Though for several years I was unale to play, so my ferver died down. Never-the-less over two years ago I played Baldur's Gate and it rekindled my passion for RPGs. I think for everyone the lust for adventuring fades with time, (and growing up) but it always seems to pull you back in.

If you want something made of a different environment try playing Rifts.

If you want something less about the rules and more about the experience you should try something like NeverWinterNights or one of the older Black Isle classics. (i.e. baldur's gate) A toolset was packaged with NWN that allows you to buld your own campaigns, very useful if you like DMing.

 

No offense but when someone says something along the lines of "Try a less rules intensive (what they call a)RPG such as X(Where 'X' is some FUDGE-like home-brew or play-by-post forum gobbledigook)!", what this usually translates to is "Try drama club or improvisational acting instead of RP GAMING. It's Better!"

Not only do I disagree with the general sentiment(which is beside the point anyway) but I fail to see how such a shift in hobbies would lead to a revised interest in gaming?

More to the point though, interest in table-top gaming is often replaced with CRPG enthusiasm for a number of reasons.

P&P RPGs are a load of trouble and it is arguable whether they are worth the effort. They require gathering a half-dozen people together for several hours a week. One of these people must be a gifted/talented GM/DM. And no, by "talented" I do not necessarily mean "trained actor" or "great storyteller" but if he IS going to 'reach' for that "holy grail" of juggling different NPCs with distinctive accents and personalities, then he better damn well be able to pull it off or it will come off twice as bad as a rehersal from that Dungeons & Dragons movie!
A good GM/DM need not be a great storyteller or performing artist(that is a subjective preference) but he DOES need to be a good "rules lawyer" contrary to what seems to be common sentiment today. He needs to know the mechanics of whatever system he is GMing and WHY the game uses those mechanics(e.g. Why DO RuneQuest PCs need to roll ABOVE their current skill percentage-scores in order to increase their skills for a successful experience check? or Why DO Villains and Vigilantes superhero PCs calculate their Carrying Capacity by cubing their STR and multiplying that result by their basic hits? THis stuff is of no interest to someone who just wants to gather around for improvisational storytelling or drama club but it is integral to Roleplaying Gaming.).

Computer RPGs take away these cumbersome worries for the most part. You can be as "free form" or interested in the rules mechanics as you care to and still enjoy(or be miffed about) Baldur's Gate or Blades of Avernum.

 

I really, really don't see what your problem is with rules-light (probably) narrativist systems. You seem to want to declassify them as RPGs - which is, by my definition of a RPG, totally and absolutely wrong. A RPG being simply a social game where people get together and interact in a shared imaginary space - regardless of the type of ruleset and the goal of that ruleset used.

Changing rulesets to something unlike Dungeons and Dragons would change the entire way the game is played (usually). D&D is a primarilly challenge-based systems, where the DM sets up problems for the characters to overcome and the goal of the players is (broadly) to make their character stronger. Now, that may not be how everyone plays the game, but that is what the system encourages with its XP system and other such things.

Gaming systems such as those that I prefer have a different outlook to how to play the game - focusing on addressing the character's conflicts and how they think. This is something totally different from the 'gamist' style of play - but it is still a game. It is simply in a different style, which might interest someone in a way that D&D and other such games do not, as it may or may not be designed with the things in mind that the person playing is interested in.

Everything else you say is highly slanted towards the gamist point of view, and is only relevant to that, so there is no need for me to reply.

A good place to find out about the different types of roleplaying games is here: www.indie-rpgs.com

Edit: and especially, as you seem to be in denial that there are other viable types of gameplay then those that you like to term as games: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html

 

I would not offer such a blanket assertion but, to great degree YES...they are not Role Playing Games as per the usage HERE. If you want to be ambiguous and technically correct, putting on an ape suit and grabbing your girlfriend while she screams like Fay Wraye is a "role playing game" but if such a person were to start gushing about how much he enjoys "roleplaying games"(meaning he likes to engage in bedroom recreations of movie classics) while I am reading Unearthed Arcana then we have a situation where one guy is asking about "shooting some hoops" while another is reaching for his gun and looking for circular targets.

I personally do not care a whole lot if you guys want to borrow our terminology to describe YOUR types of games. I just think that for clarity's sake we need to make the distinctions adn get away from this recent trend of looking down on mechanics-based games simply because you(not YOU specifically here) would rather act or sit around telling stories around a proverbial campfire.

My point being that, if you want to get general enough, "Cowboys and Indians", Space Invaders, Pac-Man, and "Honey please spank me with a riding crop!" are all "Roleplaying games" but not at the D&D forums.

I don't care. We have been using the term since around 1974-75 or so to mean a very specific type of simulation game that had it's roots in tabletop wargaming. We are not going to abandon the term NOW simply because you like the terms you were stuck with to describe YOUR "games"(Drama club, improvisational storytelling etc.).

As long as there IS a RULESET. A RPG must have quantified mechanics in order to simulate and resolve situations. At their heart they ARE tactical simulators! The problem that kids run into with "Cowboys and indians" or "Cops and Robbers" is that they have no way to resolve whether the "indian" or "Cop" got shot by the "Cowboy" or "Robber". They invariably degenerate into fights because there is no mechanism to objectively resolve whether Kid 'A'(the "Cop") managed to shoot kid 'B'(the "Robber") before Kid 'B' ducked behind the cache of military weapons he claims to have found behind Bush 'C'.

That is not a role playing game. It is kids playing until they are seperated for fighting too much.

Yes, and so long as you are still using RPG mechanics, regardless of system, it will be a roleplaying game. But Going from D&D(or RQ or GURPS or HERO etc.) to "Let's wear stupid home-made costumes and speak in faux Shakesperean engrish without any rules systems to simulate anything!" is NOT changing systems. It is abandoning one activity(RP Gaming) for another(acting).

Yeah, I understand all that. What you are not getting here is that you can prefer Baldur's Gate over Unreal Tournament but that does not make BG a "first person shooter".

BTW, the article you linked to was pretty bad and misinformed IMO but understandable since the author admits he is a (what he calls)"narrativist"(actor/storyteller). But even by his definitions I am not a "gamist". I would be a "simulationist".

Also, I am not saying that you guys are not playing games(anymore than I am saying that "Furries" are not playing games). I am just saying that "rules-lite"/Play-by-post/free form and LARP , by and large, have no more to do with RPGs(like D&D) than playing the stockmarket has to do with stocking the shelves in a market.

Again, it is not just a "different style". It is a completely different activity! GURPS and Rolemaster are different "styles" of RPG. GURPS and starring in an off broadway production of The Death of a Salesman are diffferent activities.

Again, I am no "gamist". You misunderstand the definitions in the article you reference.

Already hip to it but thanks anyway .

Thanks for the link.

[ March 19, 2005, 14:17: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Okay, well after that post, I now have no idea really what you're ranting against. No one in this thread suggested anything like drama groups, LARPing, or even freeform. I suggested rules-lite, so that's about all that your rant covers. So let's ditch waffling about things which no one has even brought up...

vs

So, by your own logic - how is 'rules-lite' not an RPG? They are, after all, only roleplaying game systems with less mechanics.


As to calling you gamist - I was making large screwy statements based on nothing that you actually said. So yeah, you're probably very right to call me out on that one.
BUT
To call the writer of the article misinformed about the definitions he gave to gamism, narrativism, and simulationism is, I think, rather dodgy seeing that these are his terms that he's making up. He's quite allowed to define things how he likes - and as far as these definitions go they do seem to portray (broadly, if not exactly) the three main groups of people/systems that exist.
If you disagree with that - well, why? What is so wrong with it that you see him as misinformed?

You also seem to be calling CRPGs 'RPGs' - which I think that if you're going to be calling LARPing, ect as totally different things then RPGs, methinks you should make the same distinction for them.

And though you and me are just going to have to disagree with this because it's entirely subjective - I would still call LARPing, freeform, and such 'roleplaying games' despite system or lack thereof. It's not redefining any specific term to do so, because, well - I don't know anyone besides you who doesn't classify a RPG as (in its simplest form) 'a game in which you roleplay'.

(Hmm, this post sucks. And we are both admirably off topic...)

 

Regretfully I find the market to be oversaturated with rediculous supplements and far more fluff than substance.

On the personal note, I wouldn't mind playing again, but finding the right group is neigh impossible. (One with players who can mix fun in a mature way without acting like the steriotypical D&D geek.) I really haven't played for about 5 years...mostly due to the lack of time and my dislike of the 3rd ed. rules that tried to make the game less complex and instead made it more complex than it had ever been.

It come and goes in cycles I suppose.

 

Aikanaro:

I don't think this is the case. \|Maybe for some, Aik, but interest in D&D hasn't gone for us ll.

 

Also, while I am no fan of D&D period, the 3rd Ed. rules are FAR less complex than any previous editions. The reason some percieve differently is simply that you are used to the complications of previous editions of (A)D&D. Even if you are using every optional rule possible from 3rd ed. it is not half as complicated as AD&D 1st and 2nd ed.(and makes a lot more sense from a logical standpoint besides).

I strongly suspect that by 4th ed. they will have done away with the cumbersome and senseless "Fire and Forget" magic system and the downright laughable "Save throws", at which point D&D will be the most streamlined and logiocally consistent it will likely ever be.

 

Just curious, how do other systems deal with magic as opposed to "fire and forget" and why are they more sensible? Also, what do you find laughable about saving throws?

 

There are many different magic systems in existence but the 'standard' system typically involves some sort of "point-based" mechanic. Sometimes this is a simple 'fatigue-point' system where casting spells actually drains the character physically, draining "Stamina"(where "Stamina" is based on some physical attribute(s) like Constitution/Endurance/Health/etc.
Tunnels & Trolls(1st - 5th ed. circa 1977-1979) and GURPS(at it's most basic level) are examples of this sort of system.

Another "Point-based" system involves a seperate 'pool' of "Magic points"/"Power"/"Spell points" based on some mental/spiritual attribute(s)(often in combination) like Intelligence/Presence/etc.
RuneQuest and RoleMaster would be examples of this sort of system.

The optimal systems employ a sort of combination/mixture of the 'Fatigue' mechanic AND the 'Spell-point' systems, wherein one has both a seprate pool of "Magic points" but can also(usually after the spell points run out) drain himself physically through spell-casting. GURPS(at the not-so-basic level) and HERO would be prime examples of this system(and even THEY are not without flaws but are a DAMNED sight better than AD&D!).

Why are these systems better than the "Fire and Forget" system of AD&D?

Simple: first of all(and most importantly) they resemble magic as it is depicted in heroic fantasy as a literary genre. In pretty much NO books(aside from the TERRIBLE Jack Vance Dying Earth sci-fi/fantasy books) before the AD&D based Dragonlance(also terrible for the most part), did spell casters employ such a convulted system of having to memorize specific instances of a spells casting and then "forgetting" those specific instances as spells were cast. Not Gandalf, not Elric, not any spell-caster in any Conan book, not Merlin...no mage ever did anything so silly.

Note: do not take this to mean that I am against having to "know" or be limited by one's memory-capacity a specific numer of spells themselves. Just that having a specific number of INSTANCES of castings is silly. For example, in RuneQuest Sorcerors and Shamans are still limited to casting the spells they 'know' based on the limits of their INT(which represents how much information they can commit to memory), but the actual number of times they can cast these spells is based on how many magic points they have left, which regenrate over time.

Since you will no doubt lack a frame of reference to understand RQ's system, allow me to try an analogy here:

Imagine that the party of 'Grandolf' the Great' and 'Fraux bo' the hobgit' are locked in an intense battle with orcs. In AD&D, 'Grandolf' is SOL("sh!te out of luck" for the acronym impared) because he fell aspleep last night without spending several hours first commiting to memory, 4 castings of Magic Missile, 3 castings of Mirror Image and so forth and he and Frau bo are quickly slaughtered.

In a more logical/realitic system(like RQ), Grandolf did not "forget" the spells he knew and the 8 hours rest he got still rejuvinated him enough to zap a few of the half dozen orcs that stumbled into their camp without the player having to have sat in front of an open spell book for 5 hours before going to bed. He will still be too tired to immediately cast all of his spells immediately AFTER the fight with the orcs, but it is not like he, Grandolf the Great, simply got all "Duh...Grandolf no 'member majuk Misuls?" after the fight.

Secondly, such a system simply makes no logical sense. It is akin to some character preparing for a battle by commiting to memory six 'overhand sword swings', 5 'shield bashes', four 'parries', three thrown axes' and two 'elbow smashes' with the full knowledge that he will "forget" one of each as he uses them in the coming fight adn after they are used, even though he is not too physically tired to walk or swing a sword, he simply cannot participate in combat anymore.

Sound sensible to you?

Me neither.

Secondly, despite what you may think, being intimately familiar with the Vancian "Fire and forget" system, the "point-based" systems are WAYYYY easier to learn and understand and use than the AD&D system. There are almost no tables and charts(and certainly no mind-boggling ones) required(unless you play RoleMaster but that particular game is built on such "table-heavy" mechanics regardless of whether ANYONE is casting spells in the game). These systems are (generally) easy to learn and understand(Spell 'X' costs you 'X' points to cast and spell 'Y', being more powerful, costs you 'XX' points to cast).

I could go on for a whole book but will refrain adn assume such is not necessary.

Oh man...where to begin?!

First of all, if you examine the system(and I don't have the charts and exact numbers in front of me now so I will be general here), not only are the "saving throws" organized(for lack of a better word) into sometimes bizarre, arbitrary groupings but there is no rational reasoning behind the class-based progressions!? Why is an older and wiser Gandalf-type wizard able to better dodge dragon-breath and fireballs than a DEX = 19, young elven rogue, all other considerations(magical resistances etc.) being equal??? Why is an old cagey veteran warrior(high level) with 12 Strength and 10 Wisdom able to resist being magically frozen in place better than a a "young"(low level) 15 Strength & 16 Wisdom warrior?
I know why they do this from a game-balance perspective, but it makes no sense logically. Wouldn't it have been better to simply base one's ability to avoid the effects(to whatever extent) of such things as fireballs and being magically held in place on consistent checks against attribute or derived attributes?
Note: this does NOT mean that I am asking for some "Roll a d20 for less than your STR/WIS to resist being held." or "Roll a d20 for less than your DEX to avoid being burnt to a crisp(though even this would be far more sensible than the saving throws system, especially if the "attirbutes were 'dynamic' in that they varied based on in-game factors such as age and(in the case of STR) physical exercise).

This will probably seem to be complicated to you but only because you are used to AD&D and NOT used to anything else. I submit that if one is raised on the teachings that getting and losing jobs is based on one's "karma" and relationship with the "labor-spirits", then this will be far less complicated and far MORE sensible than the idea that timing, circumstance, presentation, education, performace(on the job, assuming one gets it) and the like actually determines whether one gets and keeps a job, to said person.

Those of us who made it through high school/vocational training/college however will have a different perspective adn one that more closely matches reality.

[ April 26, 2005, 01:13: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

This seems to have drifted horribly off-topic; the thread was supposed to be about losing interest in RPing... or maybe it's not so off-topic after all?
Mechanics can severely influence how often/what you play/how efficiently you play it.
If you want simulation at its finest, and don't mind a lot of recreational reading, go for GURPS. I did, for years, during a hiatus from D&D--a hiatus I observed because 2nd edition was so damned complicatied. (Yes, I went to GURPS to avoid complication, silly me--at its heart, GURPS is streamlined. In practice, not so much).
What brought me back to D&D for the 3rd edition was twofold: first, Neverwinter Nights showed me how the rules work (enough to get a working knowledge so the books make better sense), and I needed something light-hearted. That's it.
D&D is light-hearted fantasy. Any DM who tries to take it too seriously will find himself burning out fast.
How can you take it seriously, honestly, if you step back and examine the sheer xeno-ecology of Faerun, for instance? That many intelligent races, mostly not killing each other except when pcs roll up new characters? It's hilarious, and that's why I love it.
To the originator of the thread: Back off, look at it from a new point of view, maybe switch games. I doubt you're fed up with The Game Itself. You're probably just ready to try a new flavor--and whatever you choose (D&D, GURPS, Masquerade (blech. sorry, not my fave), Oblivion, Rifts, Cyberpunk), you'll always be right--as long as you're having fun.
Final aside: My wife plays--first girl I've ever known who was willing to try it (who wasn't a total troll-geek). She's a hell of a sorceress. The interest will grow if someone you love joins in.