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

[Jhaelen]

There is zero chance that I could immerse myself in a character if I knew much less about how their world worked than I know about how my own world works. The rules in the book are the bare minimum I need before I can make reasonable decisions from the perspective of someone living in that world.

That isn't anything covered by the rules, it's background information about a setting.

 

[pemerton]

There's a big flaw in this comparison: In Chess, Monopoly or Axis & Allies you are competing against each other and trying to win. If you're approaching an RPG with the same mindset you're doing something wrong.

But in playing a RPG I might want to have a confident sense of what moves I can make to impact the setting. If the GM is determining all that via processes that I don't know about and can't easily control or even predict, that might affect my ability to meaningfully engage.

That isn't anything covered by the rules, it's background information about a setting.

The same thing applies here: if a player (like Saelorn) equates player's ability to impact the fiction with PC's ability to impact the imagined world, then knowing the former is part of RPing the latter.

 

[Nagol]

That isn't anything covered by the rules, it's background information about a setting.

Umm. Nope. Here's an example: There is a kitchen grease fire in your 5th floor apartment. Which is the safer course: trying to put it out or jumping off your balcony? In CHAMPIONS the answer is jumping off your balcony.

Here's another: Is it better and more effective for someone trained but inexperienced to use a sword normally against another person or to pull a dagger and use it as an improvised punching weight? In 1e, pummeling beats attacking hands-down for anyone under about 5th level.

Is it better to learn the Long Sword skill or the Katana skill. In Aftermath, all the oriental martial skills are so much better than any other analogues it is silly.

I can go on all day. Developers build so many biases (often about things they have literally no expertise in) into the rule sets and many have a limited understanding of probability that the mechanics become very poor models of expected behaviour. In fact, the mechanics are often at odds with the exposition and presented genre.

 

[Jhaelen]

The same thing applies here: if a player (like Saelorn) equates player's ability to impact the fiction with PC's ability to impact the imagined world, then knowing the former is part of RPing the latter.

Generally, I try to ignore Saelorn because our ideas about what constitutes a good RPG are completely at odds.

I.e. I'll refrain from further comments.

 

[aramis erak]

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

No. I hate it with great passion. I'm too pedantic and rules-minded.

 

[DragonLancer]

There was a point back in the late 90's and early 00's where I did wish that new players didn't know the rules other than the absolute basics. My reason was that people often get into a mindset once they know the rules and it dictates what they do rather than just doing what they want to try. These days I think that players should know the basics but don't worry about things they don't need to.

 

[5ekyu]

I enjoy making choices that matter and if i do not know enough about the "reality" the rules create to make informed decisions it doesnt hold my interest.

Poker, rummy, go, chess Frag, Munchkin all hold my interest more than "flip a coin" or "cut for high card" because my decision matters and is informed, not just a random guess with no foundation.

Few game i run or pkay in are so mundane as to be playable using just normal real world expectations as a guide.

Most likely my character does things i dont have a foundation in. Without some framework to make an assessment from, i am just blindly drawing cards like war - hope mine is higher.

Not my thing... Since way way younger days at least.

 

[5ekyu]

That isn't anything covered by the rules, it's background information about a setting.

Sorry but i disagree.

If there are choices i can,make that matter then i have three options.

Make a guess without any idea which option is more likely to get what i want to happen. Random draw.

Make a choice with what i can figure out the odds to be from my knowledge of my character, the world, the physics etc and how that i,teracts.

Ask the GM "what would my character think the best course is based on his knowledge, skill and experience?" Basically, the GM tells me the answer.

Now of course any of these can be made on other emotional basis but even then thats a choice intentionally going against the isual process.

So, without sufficient knowledge on my own to do the "choose for myself" I am left with random choice (why am i here) or Gm tell me what to do (why am i here) and i should be re-watching Justice League waiting for the GM to send me the solo play recap.

Ymmv.

 

[Xaelvaen]

The closest experience I've had to that was one of the 4th edition experiences at my local game shop before the release, where we had the pregen character cards and ran the mini adventure. Think I got the cleric. However, let's face it - just another rendition of Dungeons and Dragons, so I knew the rules; roll a d20, add a number, beat a static.

So in all honesty, I've never had the chance to experience what you're asking OP, though I think it might be interesting. I started playing 28 years ago by picking up a boxed set from a gaming store because 'it looked interesting' and played with my cousin. I read the rules, ran the game for us, and we expanded from there.

We played 2nd edition up until 3rd came out. On release day, my group chipped in and bought the books. They gave them to me as a gift so I didn't have to shell out all the cash myself and said "We play in two days - we expect you'll have them memorized and we can make new characters and try out the new system right?"

So I've always been that kind of guy; get the books, learn them, play them. I imagine I might quite like to go into something blind for once. Could hate it, could love it, but it'd be an experience.

 

[pemerton]

There was a point back in the late 90's and early 00's where I did wish that new players didn't know the rules other than the absolute basics. My reason was that people often get into a mindset once they know the rules and it dictates what they do rather than just doing what they want to try.

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.