Do you enjoy playing roleplaying games in which you have no clue about the rules?

[Jhaelen]

What happens if the player of a fighter or thief in D&D declares "I read the spell from the scroll we found!" or "I try and jump across the cavern!" where the cavern is wider in feet than the PC's STR score?

According at least to my reading of these boards, at most tables these action declarations default to failure, not for any reason to do with the established fiction but purely for reasons to do with the D&D (5e) game rules.

I'm not sure I agree about the first example. Being unable to read a spell without any arcane (or divine) knowledge? That's a rule grounded in fiction, and can be explained thusly to the player.

The second example just shows that the D&D 5e rules covering 'jumping' are bad. In 3e and 4e the maximum jumping distance depends on the outcome of your skill check. So, if I was playing 5e and decided not to house-rule this, I'd inform the player about the rule if he wanted to attempt something that the rules consider an auto-fail.

Having said all of this, I don't feel there's anything wrong with explaining the rules the moment they become relevant. In fact, when explaining complex board games, I'm doing the same thing. Otherwise it would be overwhelming.

Likewise, when using a setting that is unfamiliar to the players: Since their characters have been born and brought up in the game world, they'll know about a lot of things the players don't. Rather than providing a novella-size introduction to each player that they're expected to read and memorize, you only give them some basics and explain the intricacies of the game world as soon as they matter.

 

[pemerton]

I don't feel there's anything wrong with explaining the rules the moment they become relevant. In fact, when explaining complex board games, I'm doing the same thing. Otherwise it would be overwhelming.

I agree with this, but I thought the OP (and the post I replied to not far upthread) were talking about a more deliberate and enduring sort of rules opacity.

I'm not sure I agree about the first example. Being unable to read a spell without any arcane (or divine) knowledge? That's a rule grounded in fiction, and can be explained thusly to the player.

Well, in classic D&D (OD&D, B/X, 1st ed AD&D) there is no fiction that governs the inabilityof fighters to use magic except the rules for spellcasting that pertain only to wizards and clerics. The whole class architecture is established rules-first, with the fiction to be read off that, rather than vice versa.

I've got nothing against that, except that as a player I want to know the rules! (Which will also give me the fiction.)

Personally, if I wanted to get the sort of "no mechanics", "fiction first" effect the OP seems to be directed at, I would just use a "no mechanics", "fiction first" system - eg Cthulhu Dark uses a dice pool made up of (1) an occupation die (if the attempted action pertains to the occupation the player chose for his/her PC at PC gen), (2) a humanity die (if the attempted action is within human capabilities), and (3) an insanity die (if the player is willing to risk his/her PC's sanity to succeed). The highest die in the pool is the result, which establishes degree of success (and if an opposed die has been rolled, it also determines whether or not the action succeeds at all). And there are special rules that can be triggered if the insanity die rolls high.

Obviousy this is not a tactics-rich system (the closest thing to tactics is choosing whether or not to include the insanity die) but presumably a game in which the players don't know the rules isn't meant to be providing a tactics-rich experience.

 

[Jhaelen]

I agree with this, but I thought the OP (and the post I replied to not far upthread) were talking about a more deliberate and enduring sort of rules opacity.

Ah, I see. It's been a while since I read the OP, but that wasn't my impression.

Only the Dungeon Master had any books. He would let us peruse them but such a limited look meant we relied on him for any mechanical information. We just made characters according to our vague ideas and he would walk us through the relevant character generation.

This very much sounds like providing information about rules on an 'as needed' basis.

Recently my friend Jef Fej started his own homebrew, but most of the other players want to know the rules instead of go with the flow of experimentation and exploration.

I suppose this could be interpreted as the GM refusing to explain the rules, instead expecting players to figure them out 'by experimentation'. 'Going with the flow of exploration', though, sounds much like my proposed approach of slowly easing the players into the game by introducing the rules and setting background over time.

Maybe [MENTION=84661]Tallifer[/MENTION] can chime in to clarify?

 

[Tallifer]

My experience and my question presupposes a Dungeon Master who only reveals (or codifies in the case of homebrew) the rules when necessary. Since my only experience with this has been as a player, I cannot say for certain how deliberately opaque some of those dungeon masters were in the past. I do know that in the early 1980s almost none of us had our own books and there was no internet. My most recent experiences have been with homebrew systems and worlds in which the dungeon master has not completely codified everything, and there is nothing published, so the players are naturally ( and in my case happily) in the dark.

 

[pemerton]

My most recent experiences have been with homebrew systems and worlds in which the dungeon master has not completely codified everything, and there is nothing published, so the players are naturally ( and in my case happily) in the dark.

This makes me think that the GM must have a lot of influence over how things unfold in the game.

 

[Tallifer]

This makes me think that the GM must have a lot of influence over how things unfold in the game.

Not really. It is a sandbox. The players make the story. Even for training, we tell the Dungeon Master what we want to learn, and he tells what we can attain in what time.

On the other hand, I run a mostly by-the-book 5E campaign and allow every source for the players. Yet I exercise far more control in matters of story and combat.

 

[DragonLancer]

What happens if the player of a fighter or thief in D&D declares "I read the spell from the scroll we found!" or "I try and jump across the cavern!" where the cavern is wider in feet than the PC's STR score?

According at least to my reading of these boards, at most tables these action declarations default to failure, not for any reason to do with the established fiction but purely for reasons to do with the D&D (5e) game rules.

If the GM is going to be applying rules to work out whether or not my action declarations even have a chance of success, I - as a player - want to know what those rules are.

Reading the scroll would fail if the character doesn't have any spellcasting abilities. As for jumping the chasm, once it becomes relevant then you bring up the appropriate rule. Rather than bog players down with everything in one go, it's better that things come up when they come up, if that makes sense?

 

[5ekyu]

Reading the scroll would fail if the character doesn't have any spellcasting abilities. As for jumping the chasm, once it becomes relevant then you bring up the appropriate rule. Rather than bog players down with everything in one go, it's better that things come up when they come up, if that makes sense?

Just want to chime in on...

There is a huge difference between "here are the basics of gameplay and we will dive deeper into specifics when we hit those" and the OP topic of not knowing the rules at all.

 

[pemerton]

There is a huge difference between "here are the basics of gameplay and we will dive deeper into specifics when we hit those" and the OP topic of not knowing the rules at all.

I agree with this.

Reading the scroll would fail if the character doesn't have any spellcasting abilities.

If the players don't know the rules, then how do we work out whether or not a PC has spellcasting abilities? Is that a fiction thing? A mechanics thing? A fiction-read-off-the-mechanics thing?

 

[pemerton]

double post deleted