We've seen the same thing in Video Games. Younger generations don't want to sit down and meditate to regain mana like we did in Everquest... much less hand craft arrows...........I think 4e worked well to do two things that brought D&D up to bringing in a younger crowd. Tactical tabletop (love it or hate it, the first few times you play it was fun... and then you realize how much of a time sink it is) and video game style progression. Faster in, faster out.
All in all, I like the move away from the video game style that was 4e and the throwback to earlier editions without as much complicated math0s. I am seeing a larger pool or people that are interested in playing or at least aware of the game (though other sources have also helped this phenomena). I also find it the easiest edition I have ever tried to explain to anyone. So, if we lose some things in speed of progressions in today's fast paced society... at least we are expanding the audience. And over time, I think mature groups will find they want to enjoy the richer aspects of the game than speed leveling.
I must be one of the younger generation! Yay! I don't want to sit down and regen mana, and I certainly don't want to craft my arrows; I want to shoot a dozen a minute and not worry about it. Although I don't want to craft arrows or scribe master level fireball or thornskin spells, a lot of people seem to find it interesting, otherwise we would have a lot less "Sandbox Survival" games that seem to be all about the gather/craft mechanic.
Although I rarely play a character, I would be happy to level every week (well, maybe every other) so that I can reach level 20. Then start another character. Or better, carry on from level 21.
I like my toys. I like them to get bigger, louder, faster, flashier. And I don't want to wait too long for that to happen.
I also really liked 4th edition, although nobody else at the table seemed to agree. But it just wasn't D&D as I understand it, Jim. I am shallow and like computer games. I guess it's because I am only 18. And have been for 30 years now.
So although I can respect the viewpoint of people wanting a more realistic levelling schedule, my warning is make sure your players are happy with that. If they are, there are some excellent suggestions above.
When asked which edition chris hated the most he answered 3.5. He feels it served no purpose in being. And if you look closely... They didnt make a 4.5 edition... Nope... 5.5 isnt coming... But they confirmed 6th is in the making already !
As for leveling... I did a campaign where we levelled up every weaks cause the dm wanted to play gods and we didnt want to start at epic levels. I can safely say that it sucked to level every weeks. No time to learn or play your level. It just felt rushed. I have settled at 3-4 session a level up. Once a month is perfect to me.
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I can safely say that it sucked to level every weeks. No time to learn or play your level. It just felt rushed. I have settled at 3-4 session a level up. Once a month is perfect to me.
Really? I don't have much trouble 'getting a handle' on a character going up a level - A few extra hit points, skills slightly improved, a new ability, perhaps a couple of spells added to my repertoire......and there are plenty of people here willing to help. People manage to play MMOs where you can knock out the first 10-15 levels in a couple of hours, and MMOs just throw new abilities at you all the time just to keep you plowing through. Diablo 3 - Not only do you get new abilities, but then they add runes which modify how those abilities work; if you want to min-max that, you need a spreadsheet!
Streamlined 5th Edition D&D.....? My 12 year old plays with us, and he seems to do just fine. (And combat is the main pillar of our adventures.)
If your game is mostly about the role-play side, talking to people and chillin' in the tavern, then slower progression may be fine - why do you need levels for that? - but there are many ways to play.
Quite literally Tom and Jerry (two animals that talk and spend all their time murdering each other and never dying) could be re-created using unaltered D&D rules.
Tom's obviously a tabaxi, but what's Jerry? A halfling? Okay, that works, oddly enough. Just give humans ogre stats, possibly with increased Int. Which mechanic are you using to keep them alive, though?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
I've noticed this too though it was also an issue in 3rd edition as well. I used to use the double XP system but this time, in 5th edition, of just gone with the event based level up. So basically I tell the party when they go up a level. Just saves the group leveling up too quickly and the campaign racing out of control. I love the party developing links to NPCs and locations, I love the players building up a strong story and I love being able to flesh out a world. If the group advances too quickly then we might as well be playing a computer game with no social interaction at all.
The reason D&D appeals to me is banter, the shared story telling and the play acting. If the characters advance too quickly, never have downtime and are always in a hurry to get to the end, then that makes for a very shallow and superficial experience imho. Just let the players know that you won't be rushing them up levels and you'll let them know when they advance. My group is loving the campaign we play so far because of it.
The problem with what you are saying... Which i totally agree with. Is that it doesnt count those rules lawyers who do not want to create rules. There are a number of people who walks by the rules as is. If those people wanted to create a game they wouldnt be buying those books. Reality being we buy those books expecting rules that makes sense. Not asking for realistic stuff but at least making sense. Exemple we dont expect fighters in cloth, unable to swing a sword and unable to cast a spell. While this could be a class itself it definitely isnt a fighter.
Making sense is what most of us want with the rules. Hence why players dont wanna be dms. Mostly...
Gygax created the game to troll the players who always defeated his armies in war games. Hes far from a good exemple to follow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I've only played D&D from 5th edition (I DM'd my first game when it was 4th but we don't talk about that one game). I can see your point, and especially with something like ToA you can't really avoid it. I do however also feel that this leveling up pace is what a lot of new players will be comfortable with. Video games sees character's level up over the space of a day or night (the Arkham games).
I just listened to a podcast with Mike Mearls and his view is basically, to not be afraid to level up fast! He says, as others have mentioned, a campaign now often spans months, not years. He actually encourages you to level up your party every 4 hours of play time - that would be once or twice a month for me. I might try it in my upcoming homebrew.
I think you should read on gygax a bit more... A lot of info you give is kinda wrong. Yes he never really followed his own rules but he really wanted his players to follow them. The proof is that hes the one who wanted a much more advanced ruling on gaming. The other guy wanted to keep things basics after od&d but gygax created the advance edition instead which was an edition with like 500 more rules then od&d.
If the guy didnt like rules then why the need to make d&d into a very rich wargame with rules for everything including the bonuses for standing on a chair ?
If anything by history of d&d, gygax was a rules lawyer that wanted very real mechanics into the game. Most of the monsters he created were also mainly to wreck specific characters in his campaigns.
Thats my problem with it all... People bring gygax as the creator of d&d but he wasnt alone and right away he forced his own version on his partners who really didnt want the game to be that rule heavy.
The same way people forget that tesla nailed down electricity before franklin did. Yet its franklin people talk about.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I guess it depends on what sort of campaign you enjoy. If you enjoy the hack and slash with minimal roleplay then leveling up quickly and finishing a campaign in a few months is great. Means you get to level up quickly, gain new abilities and powers fast and focus completely on the battles.
I don't enjoy DMing this type of game. I might as well just create a string of battle encounters, perhaps in a Colosseum, where the characters just fight relentlessly with breaks to heal and level up. It's just a form of arcade gaming imo.
I think what makes D&D different and ultimately more attractive to many, is the roleplay and shared story telling. When is the time to do this if you are continually leveling up? When is the time to form connections with NPCs, settlements, organisations and even villains/nemesis? There needs to be time for this. If players get to high levels but they don't have any connections anywhere with any people then in my experience the player motivation and investment quickly disintegrates.
If DMs can allow time to create these links then it doesn't really matter how fast or slow characters level up. Slowing down character advancement certainly would help though and give players more time to invest in their character stories.
Just makes for a far more richer, fuller, authentic game
"Why don't we do both?" Milestone advancement seems to solved this - milestones can be RP encounters, not combat. Or even no milestones at all, just engineer some downtime training or something.
There seems to be a lot of snobbery over how to play D&D. Grown-ups are here for the roleplaying and talking about feelings, while the children just want to hack and slash like they do on their consoles. OK - That may be simplifying things a tad (if a tad actually meant shed-load). And before I get slapped for trolling, there is a 60 year+ age spread at our gaming table, so I have nothing against the youngsters or the ....more mature players.
Without combat, and conflict with nature and gravity and necessary bodily functions, there would be no need for rules. I'll bet David Gemmell had no idea what level Druss was, or the exact spiritual powers exercised by The Thirty. Was Snaga a +3 artifact, bane of Angels? Or just an axe with a back-story that never got utilised? What were the effects of the Elf-stones on a user? Was there a saving throw to avoid the bad stuff? How much Stormlight would it take to bind a dragon's tail to the the floor for ten minutes? How long does it take a shard of Morgul Blade to wriggle to a halfling's heart? How many sorcerous allies did Elric have?
"A wizard is never late, nor is he early; he arrives precisely when he means to."
Story tellers don't need exact rules and actors don't ask "What are the rules in this scene?" they say "What's my motivation?" Heroes make the impossible shot when it counts, and fail when it is too early in the story to kill the bad guy. Story tellers shouldn't need dice to decide the best outcome of an action. A flipped coin is just as good if you wan't some randomness.
I have tried to watch Critical Role, and I just don't see the attraction. Maybe if I was taking part, and drunk........
D&D has always been about the action and the dice, using rules to make good decisions, to outwit the monsters (NOT the DM) when you are outnumbered and outgunned. A bit like video games, sure, but more like boardgames and wargames....
Roleplaying is an exercise of the imagination. Boardgames/wargames are an exercise of the logical mind.
D&D is a beautiful fusion of the two.
Now go and listen to Hemispheres by Rush. They get it.
@plundered_tomb your post seems to say that roleplaying is not your cup of tea. Of course your fun is not wrong. Thats the fun of d&d and tabletop gaming in generals. The problem that arises is not about the style of game you get going at the table but mostly about how much your players are willing to make consensus about what type of game they want.
Exemple would be... You get a guy who just murder everything because hes focused on combat and do not care for story. Then you get the guy who stealth his way because he hates combat. Then you get the chatty mage who just loves the lore around him and finally the random guy who just want to use random items and try new stuff. How do you dm such people ? The fact of the matter is that given time you can dm them all and give them what they want... But problem arises when players dont wanna wait !!!
I would tell you... If you want wargames you shouldnt play d&d at all. Go play warhammer or real wargames of old. Not because your fun is wrong... But because said wargames are much better then d&d for the style of play. Much like white wolf vampire the masquerade is much better then d&d for vampire gaming. The same way call of c'thulu is better for lovecraftian horror.
Unfortunately players often play and just ignore other players or even worst, just follow around cause they fear the reprisal of certain players.
My 2 cents on it is... 50/50 with your table is the best way to go. Dont try to force your game. Let others habe theirs sometimes. The table will be better if players are willing to give some of their freedom to other players and the dm. Of course the dm should do the same.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
There seems to be a lot of snobbery over how to play D&D. Grown-ups are here for the roleplaying and talking about feelings, while the children just want to hack and slash like they do on their consoles. OK - That may be simplifying things a tad (if a tad actually meant shed-load).
Sounding a little condescending there Tombs! There is no need to feel defensive or belittled for enjoying the mechanics of the game more than the story telling. The best part of the game is that you can mold the game to suit you.I just feel people are robbing themselves by only focusing on one part of a much larger game.
My point is that D&D is built on creative role-playing and social interaction over tactical warfare. D&D is not Warhammer and its not Assassin's Creed. There is certainly a place for tactical battle in D&D but it is far more than this. Its about playing a character, not simply battling through a war zone with figurines and dice. Its about how a player interacts with others in the group and the NPC's through the DM. Its not an individual game. Its not solely about combat. Its about the story. The dice determine the random, but the dice are not the game.
This is why D&D has remained so popular and appeals to such a diverse range of people for over 40 years now. Developing a character in the D&D world is the most important component of the game. It is why leveling up too quickly can rob players of that crucial treasure. If a character is little more that stats on a page then they are no more than a computer game avatar or X-Wing figurine in a battle. Playing a character in a campaign is about building a story around the adventures of a group and how they change a world. The battles are the action and excitement of the story but not the story itself. Its like watching a movie but fast forwarding to the action scenes - its robbing you of the build up, the drama, the understanding.
So are people being snobs to those who enjoy hack and slash more than roleplay - No, but they are saying that they are not getting the most out of D&D playing that way. There is so much more to this amazing game than powering up
Roleplaying is an exercise of the imagination. Boardgames/wargames are an exercise of the logical mind.
D&D is a beautiful fusion of the two.
Now go and listen to Hemispheres by Rush. They get it.
I suspect some people got upset after the first paragraph and didn't read the whole post. :)
I remember reading articles in the early eighties by Mr. Gygax, and if my failing memory serves, his group of players were Power Gamers - the original Munchkins - "Kick down the door, kill the monsters..." Maybe instead of stabbing their buddies they retired to their castles and played space invaders on their Palantirs. An awful lot of the 'original' artifacts once belonged to the characters in Mr. Gygax's game. The same is true of many high (and low) level spells. How much roleplaying they actually engaged in - I don't know.
I like Munchkin - it's a great game, made better by the D&D references...."rewrite character sheet - GUAL" Ah the XP that can be gained by a carefully planned coffee spillage. :) But it is still a pure game, albeit with a lot of social interaction - mostly boasting and/or pleading for help.
@DnDPaladin - I have played Warhammer Fantasy Battle, and I'm not sure how it would be a better experience for "the guy who stealth his way because he hates combat," or "the chatty mage who just loves the lore around him." So half of your hypothetical players are probably going to hate WFB. You also say that Vampire the Masquerade is better for Vampire Gaming - I agree - although 'better' is highly subjective - but would argue that it is the setting that is better for a heavily roleplay based style of game. Yes, I have The Masquerade, and Werewolf the Apocalypse. I am surprised you like them though as a thourough knowledge of the World of Darkness setting and rules (not the game rules, but the rules of the various pack and clans) to be able to navigate the complex politics involved. Why am I surprised? "Had a dm once requiring me to read the setting we were playing in... Felt like an homework from school..." I will accept that the White Wolf sourcebooks were probably better written and edited than your mate's setting, but still...
I suspect without the World of Darkness setting we would never have gotten to enjoy Kate Beckinsale running around in tight fitting black leathers...
TL:DR I have nothing against Story Telling D&D and people who enjoy it heavy and hammy (I am looking at the Critical Role guy who always does an over the top English voice) but as nobody else seems to be defending Power Gaming and just good ole fashioned dungeon crawling, I thought I would take up arms and fight on their behalf. If the story tellers start getting a hard time, I will swap sides in less time than it takes to summon a Shardblade.
D&D players are already a minority, let's not split the community up further by getting elitist.
@DelvesDeep "Sounding a little condescending there Tombs!" Damn, I was going for aloof and wise, like Anthony Hopkins in Thor. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Roleplaying since Runequest.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't want to sit down and regen mana, and I certainly don't want to craft my arrows; I want to shoot a dozen a minute and not worry about it.
Although I don't want to craft arrows or scribe master level fireball or thornskin spells, a lot of people seem to find it interesting, otherwise we would have a lot less "Sandbox Survival" games that seem to be all about the gather/craft mechanic.
I am shallow and like computer games. I guess it's because I am only 18. And have been for 30 years now.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
When asked which edition chris hated the most he answered 3.5. He feels it served no purpose in being. And if you look closely... They didnt make a 4.5 edition... Nope... 5.5 isnt coming... But they confirmed 6th is in the making already !
As for leveling... I did a campaign where we levelled up every weaks cause the dm wanted to play gods and we didnt want to start at epic levels. I can safely say that it sucked to level every weeks. No time to learn or play your level. It just felt rushed. I have settled at 3-4 session a level up. Once a month is perfect to me.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Citation needed.
People manage to play MMOs where you can knock out the first 10-15 levels in a couple of hours, and MMOs just throw new abilities at you all the time just to keep you plowing through. Diablo 3 - Not only do you get new abilities, but then they add runes which modify how those abilities work; if you want to min-max that, you need a spreadsheet!
Roleplaying since Runequest.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
I've noticed this too though it was also an issue in 3rd edition as well. I used to use the double XP system but this time, in 5th edition, of just gone with the event based level up. So basically I tell the party when they go up a level. Just saves the group leveling up too quickly and the campaign racing out of control. I love the party developing links to NPCs and locations, I love the players building up a strong story and I love being able to flesh out a world. If the group advances too quickly then we might as well be playing a computer game with no social interaction at all.
The reason D&D appeals to me is banter, the shared story telling and the play acting. If the characters advance too quickly, never have downtime and are always in a hurry to get to the end, then that makes for a very shallow and superficial experience imho. Just let the players know that you won't be rushing them up levels and you'll let them know when they advance. My group is loving the campaign we play so far because of it.
@xguild
The problem with what you are saying... Which i totally agree with. Is that it doesnt count those rules lawyers who do not want to create rules. There are a number of people who walks by the rules as is. If those people wanted to create a game they wouldnt be buying those books. Reality being we buy those books expecting rules that makes sense. Not asking for realistic stuff but at least making sense. Exemple we dont expect fighters in cloth, unable to swing a sword and unable to cast a spell. While this could be a class itself it definitely isnt a fighter.
Making sense is what most of us want with the rules. Hence why players dont wanna be dms. Mostly...
Gygax created the game to troll the players who always defeated his armies in war games. Hes far from a good exemple to follow.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I've only played D&D from 5th edition (I DM'd my first game when it was 4th but we don't talk about that one game). I can see your point, and especially with something like ToA you can't really avoid it. I do however also feel that this leveling up pace is what a lot of new players will be comfortable with. Video games sees character's level up over the space of a day or night (the Arkham games).
I just listened to a podcast with Mike Mearls and his view is basically, to not be afraid to level up fast! He says, as others have mentioned, a campaign now often spans months, not years. He actually encourages you to level up your party every 4 hours of play time - that would be once or twice a month for me. I might try it in my upcoming homebrew.
@xguild
I think you should read on gygax a bit more... A lot of info you give is kinda wrong. Yes he never really followed his own rules but he really wanted his players to follow them. The proof is that hes the one who wanted a much more advanced ruling on gaming. The other guy wanted to keep things basics after od&d but gygax created the advance edition instead which was an edition with like 500 more rules then od&d.
If the guy didnt like rules then why the need to make d&d into a very rich wargame with rules for everything including the bonuses for standing on a chair ?
If anything by history of d&d, gygax was a rules lawyer that wanted very real mechanics into the game. Most of the monsters he created were also mainly to wreck specific characters in his campaigns.
Thats my problem with it all... People bring gygax as the creator of d&d but he wasnt alone and right away he forced his own version on his partners who really didnt want the game to be that rule heavy.
The same way people forget that tesla nailed down electricity before franklin did. Yet its franklin people talk about.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I guess it depends on what sort of campaign you enjoy. If you enjoy the hack and slash with minimal roleplay then leveling up quickly and finishing a campaign in a few months is great. Means you get to level up quickly, gain new abilities and powers fast and focus completely on the battles.
I don't enjoy DMing this type of game. I might as well just create a string of battle encounters, perhaps in a Colosseum, where the characters just fight relentlessly with breaks to heal and level up. It's just a form of arcade gaming imo.
I think what makes D&D different and ultimately more attractive to many, is the roleplay and shared story telling. When is the time to do this if you are continually leveling up? When is the time to form connections with NPCs, settlements, organisations and even villains/nemesis? There needs to be time for this. If players get to high levels but they don't have any connections anywhere with any people then in my experience the player motivation and investment quickly disintegrates.
If DMs can allow time to create these links then it doesn't really matter how fast or slow characters level up. Slowing down character advancement certainly would help though and give players more time to invest in their character stories.
Just makes for a far more richer, fuller, authentic game
"Why don't we do both?" Milestone advancement seems to solved this - milestones can be RP encounters, not combat. Or even no milestones at all, just engineer some downtime training or something.
There seems to be a lot of snobbery over how to play D&D. Grown-ups are here for the roleplaying and talking about feelings, while the children just want to hack and slash like they do on their consoles.
OK - That may be simplifying things a tad (if a tad actually meant shed-load).
And before I get slapped for trolling, there is a 60 year+ age spread at our gaming table, so I have nothing against the youngsters or the ....more mature players.
Without combat, and conflict with nature and gravity and necessary bodily functions, there would be no need for rules.
I'll bet David Gemmell had no idea what level Druss was, or the exact spiritual powers exercised by The Thirty. Was Snaga a +3 artifact, bane of Angels? Or just an axe with a back-story that never got utilised?
What were the effects of the Elf-stones on a user? Was there a saving throw to avoid the bad stuff?
How much Stormlight would it take to bind a dragon's tail to the the floor for ten minutes?
How long does it take a shard of Morgul Blade to wriggle to a halfling's heart?
How many sorcerous allies did Elric have?
"A wizard is never late, nor is he early; he arrives precisely when he means to."
Story tellers don't need exact rules and actors don't ask "What are the rules in this scene?" they say "What's my motivation?"
Heroes make the impossible shot when it counts, and fail when it is too early in the story to kill the bad guy. Story tellers shouldn't need dice to decide the best outcome of an action. A flipped coin is just as good if you wan't some randomness.
I have tried to watch Critical Role, and I just don't see the attraction. Maybe if I was taking part, and drunk........
D&D has always been about the action and the dice, using rules to make good decisions, to outwit the monsters (NOT the DM) when you are outnumbered and outgunned. A bit like video games, sure, but more like boardgames and wargames....
Roleplaying is an exercise of the imagination.
Boardgames/wargames are an exercise of the logical mind.
D&D is a beautiful fusion of the two.
Now go and listen to Hemispheres by Rush. They get it.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
@plundered_tomb your post seems to say that roleplaying is not your cup of tea. Of course your fun is not wrong. Thats the fun of d&d and tabletop gaming in generals. The problem that arises is not about the style of game you get going at the table but mostly about how much your players are willing to make consensus about what type of game they want.
Exemple would be... You get a guy who just murder everything because hes focused on combat and do not care for story. Then you get the guy who stealth his way because he hates combat. Then you get the chatty mage who just loves the lore around him and finally the random guy who just want to use random items and try new stuff. How do you dm such people ? The fact of the matter is that given time you can dm them all and give them what they want... But problem arises when players dont wanna wait !!!
I would tell you... If you want wargames you shouldnt play d&d at all. Go play warhammer or real wargames of old. Not because your fun is wrong... But because said wargames are much better then d&d for the style of play. Much like white wolf vampire the masquerade is much better then d&d for vampire gaming. The same way call of c'thulu is better for lovecraftian horror.
Unfortunately players often play and just ignore other players or even worst, just follow around cause they fear the reprisal of certain players.
My 2 cents on it is... 50/50 with your table is the best way to go. Dont try to force your game. Let others habe theirs sometimes. The table will be better if players are willing to give some of their freedom to other players and the dm. Of course the dm should do the same.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
An awful lot of the 'original' artifacts once belonged to the characters in Mr. Gygax's game. The same is true of many high (and low) level spells.
How much roleplaying they actually engaged in - I don't know.
But it is still a pure game, albeit with a lot of social interaction - mostly boasting and/or pleading for help.
You also say that Vampire the Masquerade is better for Vampire Gaming - I agree - although 'better' is highly subjective - but would argue that it is the setting that is better for a heavily roleplay based style of game. Yes, I have The Masquerade, and Werewolf the Apocalypse.
I am surprised you like them though as a thourough knowledge of the World of Darkness setting and rules (not the game rules, but the rules of the various pack and clans) to be able to navigate the complex politics involved. Why am I surprised? "Had a dm once requiring me to read the setting we were playing in... Felt like an homework from school..."
I will accept that the White Wolf sourcebooks were probably better written and edited than your mate's setting, but still...
Damn, I was going for aloof and wise, like Anthony Hopkins in Thor. :)
Roleplaying since Runequest.