You get equipment list. DM gets rest.

[fuzzlewump]

And most sensible people with experience of multiple systems wouldn't even try. As I said, I don't need to mix milk and lemon juice to know it's a disgusting drink.

At least one person in this thread have tried it and liked it. Some people thought it was bad. Call them 'not sensible' all you want, but I think you'll find the opposite.

The trouble is that the characters must. Mechanical effects are what stands between them (in character) and death or even accidental suicide. If the wizard doesn't know he can cast fireball, he's dangerous. And he damn well needs to know whether fireball is a 20' radius explosion or whether it fills a set volume and casting it in kobold tunnels or castle corridors is suicidal.

And a wizard would know that I imagine, in-game. The wizard wouldn't know it does 1d6 level per 'caster level' exactly, but the wizard would know things that the wizard could observe in-game.

At that point even in theory the players need to blind themselves to things their characters would care about. And that's really going to help them roleplay. Now if you want to instead go for an effects-based spontaneous magic system rather than one with predetermined hard-coded spells, a lot of the objections weaken or even evaporate. But D&D is not such a system. Which is why a lot of us have been suggesting that other systems that would suit the idea better.

No doubt other systems are better, but you're being overly critical of this idea. Hey, I don't like it either actually. But some of your criticisms aren't what the OP was talking about. In what way do the player's need to be blind? You're suggesting that a wizard wouldn't know his spells, but he would, he just wouldn't know the exact mechanical effect of those spells. He doesn't know that enemies can reflex save for half, he doesn't know the exact damage, and he doesn't know what his saving throw is that the monsters have to beat. Although, for the reflex save, he would soon observe some enemies dodging it. Or would simply know it from his magical studies.

And if the DM accidently wrote "Wizard" on the character sheet when the character concept was cloistered cleric of Bocobob or Ioun? The player can roleplay a desire for turning - but can go whistle.

Same thing when a DM does anything wrong, be it a wrong rule or something. Communicate with the DM. (Edit: [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION], same answer for your post here.)

This is why D&D is the wrong game to try this sort of nonsense in. There is a significant difference between a Paladin, a Fighter, and a Fighter/Cleric. And IC the character ought to know his magical capabilities (unless he's taken too many knocks to the head). Remember Clerics in D&D (pre-4e) wear heavy armour and fight in the front lines.

I'm not sure you're understanding where I'm coming from. I'm saying the player wouldn't care about those significant differences. The player would roleplay and state thematic criteria he wants his character to fill, and if the mechanics of the character follow those criteria, he's happy. If the players criteria is a mechanical class instead of a concept, then this type of game is not appropriate for that player. In other words, there's no way someone who was not (edit: extremely) flexible would enjoy playing this.

Again, I don't really like this idea and wouldn't ever do it. My players, and I when I play, have too much fun building characters and comparing numbers and junk. That doesn't mean the idea is 'stupid,' as you say, it just means it's not for us.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Here's the problem: the player RPs trying to cast divine spells (however THAT works, since he hasn't leveled yet) in a game presumably where undead have not yet appeared (robbing the DM of a data point), and the DM has to sort through the dozen or so divine caster classes, some of which do and some of which don't turn undead. He then chooses.

And his choice is 100% wrong because I was thinking of a feat, namely arcane disciple. I wasn't planning on multiclassing into a divine class at all- my plan was strictly staying within my arcane class, with a slight possibility of multiclassing into Ftr or Marshal.

I forgot to ask- how does one role-play the difference between a martial combatant and a martial combatant who breathes lightning occasionally in such a way to signal that, no, I really am still advancing in my original base spellcasting class?

Same thing when a DM does anything wrong, be it a wrong rule or something. Communicate with the DM.

That's great if you catch the error in time. If your DM Has you down in the crypt fighting a horde of undead and someone asks you to turn them and you say you can't...people will stare.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here but from what I can see, you don't get told what you actually leveled in. You're thinking you have a single-classed armored charismatic arcanist who has arcane disciple while the DM has something written down like multiclassed Ftr/Wiz/Clc with turn undead.

Neonchameleon
As I said, I don't need to mix milk and lemon juice to know it's a disgusting drink.

Actually, there is a Columbian drink which is essentially a lemonade milkshake- delicious. Just sayin'.

 

[Neonchameleon]

At least one person in this thread have tried it and liked it. Some people thought it was bad. Call them 'not sensible' all you want, but I think you'll find the opposite.

And if that's the one I'm thinking of, he wasn't playing 3e with its rule for everything. It was explicitely an older edition, which was one of the suggestions I mentioned. 3e is probably the worst RPG going for this type of game (if we ignore FATAL - which is always wise).

And a wizard would know that I imagine, in-game. The wizard wouldn't know it does 1d6 level per 'caster level' exactly, but the wizard would know things that the wizard could observe in-game.

Of course he'd observe it in game. The fastest, simplest, and most efficient way of getting that knowledge to the character is through the character sheet. And in D&D, the wizard and cleric would both know to within a level which level they were. It's trivial. Which level spells can they cast - discrete steps. The wizard would also have a reasonable idea of how much damage their fireball does - it is a standard and well known spell and can be quantified by testing it. At that point we might as well say in character that the fireball will break a Level 1 Standard Wooden Target, and normally a Level 2 - but seldom a Level 1 Standard Stone Target. Just give me the damn character sheet. It'll save time.

No doubt other systems are better, but you're being overly critical of this idea. Hey, I don't like it either actually. But some of your criticisms aren't what the OP was talking about. In what way do the player's need to be blind?

If all they have is their equipment list then they wouldn't know their class features. They'd need to be blinded to not notice they could lay on hands.

You're suggesting that a wizard wouldn't know his spells, but he would, he just wouldn't know the exact mechanical effect of those spells.

Yes. Of course they wouldn't know the exact mechanical effects. I don't know the exact mechanical effects of a fireball. On the other hand they would know approximations and probably with quantitative approximations. At that point you're simply talking about the DM rolling everything in secret rather than hiding the character sheet.

He doesn't know that enemies can reflex save for half, he doesn't know the exact damage, and he doesn't know what his saving throw is that the monsters have to beat. Although, for the reflex save, he would soon observe some enemies dodging it. Or would simply know it from his magical studies.

In character he damn well would know whether people got out of the way, hardened their mind, or were simply too tough to affect. He would therefore know the type of save - just not the number. And that is one of the things the d20 roll deals with.

As a reasonably bright PC in a D&D world I would expect to know every class feature and feat I had, and every spell in my spellbook. At this point unless my character had brain damage, I'd consider a minimum of a character sheet with all the numbers erased necessary. Anything else indicates a spectacular lack of self-knowledge in someone who relies on their capabilities to stay alive. (And I'd expect approximations of the numbers as well - banded and modified for self image).

I'm not sure you're understanding where I'm coming from. I'm saying the player wouldn't care about those significant differences.

Except that the reason he wants to run this is that apparently the players do and he doesn't like it.

The player would roleplay and state thematic criteria he wants his character to fill, and if the mechanics of the character follow those criteria, he's happy.

And this is why, as I have been saying all along, D&D is a horrible game to run this sort of approach in. Something much more open would work a whole lot better. (4e has the germs of it in a way 3e doesn't - but 4e has its own levels of specificity for combat; you'd need to half strip the combat engine and at that point 4e isn't the game you want).

If the players criteria is a mechanical class instead of a concept, then this type of game is not appropriate for that player. In other words, there's no way someone who was not (edit: extremely) flexible would enjoy playing this.

And there's the kicker. If they want to play a concept rather than a class, they don't want the specifics and catches involved in 3e.

That doesn't mean the idea is 'stupid,'

You aren't actually reading what I'm writing, are you? The idea itself is not stupid. Where the stupid part comes in is trying to implement it in 3e/4e/Pathfinder (and AD&D for that matter). Which is why I mentioned fresh lemon juice and milk. I like drinking lemonade. I like milk. But not together.

I have repeatedly stated that it might work in other systems and my objections have been late-model (A)D&D specific. (I think given the attitude of the OP it won't work in any system for him - but that's another story).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To put it differently: D&D gives things either in small bits (feats, etc.) or in huge chunks (classes) where other systems dole them out one way or another.

A system with more fine control (using bits like HERO, GURPS, W&W, etc.) makes this kind of game MUCH more feasible.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Of course. And this is where the idea is revealed to be an absolutely stupid one. The characters should know what they are able to do and roughly how effective it is. The devil, as always, is in the details.

I read what you are writing. Sorry if I misinterpreted the meaning behind the 'stupid' statement, but I don't know why you're saying I'm not reading what you're writing. Maybe there is a little bit of emotion coming into the discussion, so I'm going to back down after a couple points:

If the player is writing down in character notes like, "fireball appears to break 3x3 inch stone cubes, but not metal cubes" then mission accomplished. The whole point is to be in character. I'm not saying that's fun or whatever, from my point of view, but that's the idea.

As far as having a character sheet with all the numbers erased, I think that's a good idea. Especially if it's in kind of narrative format. 15 strength being written as, "stronger than most," or, "as strong as an ox" or whatever. Players need to agree that this is a good idea. Since you're saying the OP's player's care all about mechanics, then yeah, this would be a bad move, just like it would be in my group. But you're arguing principle, not the specifics of his situation. D&D might not be the best game to run this in, but it's doable. What if it's horrible, and people still have fun with it? That's all that really matters.

Good gaming.

 

[GrimGent]

A system with more fine control (using bits like HERO, GURPS, W&W, etc.) makes this kind of game MUCH more feasible.

This actually is more or less how a rather obscure Finnish alt-history RPG from the 90's, Hiljaisuuden Vangit ("The Prisoners of Silence"), is meant to be played.

During chargen, all players fill out in-character "surveillance reports" on their PCs (known in this case as "Dissidents"), official forms which include personal details on education, hobbies, medical examinations, personality tests, known associates, political affiliations, and so on. The GM (or "The Authority") then goes through that information and converts it into mechanical stats according to the steps and calculations listed in the book, recording the results on the actual OOC character sheets which will never be revealed directly to the rest of the group.

Ideally, the process should leave the players with a fairly solid impression of their characters' abilities and backgrounds, who they are and what they are capable of... but it's the GM who handles the entire matter of the system.

 

[karlindel]

I have done this twice, although not with D&D.

I ran an anime-inspired campaign with a group of anime fans, all of whom I had GMed in campaigns before. The game ran about 8 4-6 hour sessions, and everyone had a great time. The players gave me their character's background and history, and I talked to them and we tweaked a few things. The players rolled percentile dice, and knew that rolling low was good, and knew generally what their characters' capabilities were (as the abilities were based on their backgrounds), but did not know specific numbers. Guessing at the numbers wasn't particularly useful, as situational modifiers would often apply. We ran into issues a few times, in which the players needed to describe their actions more fully for me to understand what they were trying to do, and one player had trouble triggering his special ability (although this also correlated with the character trying to figure out the trigger, so it wasn't really a problem, just frustrating for the player as everyone else had figured out what triggered their powers). Everyone had a great time.

I ran a Halloween game using the Warhammer 2nd Edition rules. I used pre-gen characters, giving everyone a brief summary of the characters. After the characters were chosen, I gave the individual players a few more details on their characters (some of them had secrets). The party was a group of mercenaries and refugees near a war zone, the mercenaries providing a guard escort to the refugees (as well as some NPC refugees). Near the drop off point for the refugees, they run into a priest who is the last survivor of a team sent into the war zone to recover a relic, and he hires the mercenaries and anyone else he can get to help him get the relic. During the game, one PC left the group to try to find leftover treasure in the cathedral, the priest was possessed by a demon after being shot by a fellow PC (who didn't trust the priest), and the party recovered the relic. It was a very memorable evening, and several of the players have numbered it among their favorite roleplaying experiences.

I have told stories about both campaigns, and the reactions have run from "That's awesome, I wish I could play in a campaign like that" to "I can't believe you found players interested in doing that". Obviously, it's not a campaign that will work for everyone, and there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed.

1. The players need to trust the GM. If the players do not trust the GM, then they will constantly worry about the game being a railroad, their choices not really mattering, and the like.
2. The GM needs to be able to handle the mechanical side of the game quickly and efficiently. The game will seem like a drag for the players if they sit around twiddling their thumbs while the GM resolves their actions.
3. The players need enough information to make informed decisions about what to do. Players should know if their characters are proficient in a particular weapon or armor, what spells they can cast and their general effects (specific mechanics may or may not be necessary depending on the system).
4. The GM needs to have a way to resolve mechanical differences that could all be described the same way. For example, a high constitution vs great fortitude vs toughness vs improved toughness; combat expertise vs fighting defensively vs combat expertise and fighting defensively at the same time; power attack vs barbarian rage.
5. The GM needs to decide how to handle feats and abilities that require constant decisions by players. Combat Expertise and Power Attack are the best examples, as every round the player needs to decide how much, if any, to take off of their attack bonus for these feats.
6. If the players know how the game mechanics work, this will make it harder for them to roleplay without thinking about the system. Players will attempt to roleplay their character towards a particular class, prestige class, or the like.

 

[Umbran]

And his choice is 100% wrong because I was thinking of a feat, namely arcane disciple. I wasn't planning on multiclassing into a divine class at all- my plan was strictly staying within my arcane class, with a slight possibility of multiclassing into Ftr or Marshal.

I think the problem here is clinging to the idea that the player gets to determine the precise mechanical representation through roleplay. For a system akin to what the OP suggest to work, I think the player ought to stop worrying about exactly what classes and feats they're trying to get, and instead concentrate on what actions the character can take in the game world.

"I want to breathe divine lightning!" is fine. Let the GM worry about how that's accomplished.

Add that I wouldn't expect that a character can manifest this spontaneously - if you want to spout divine lightning, and you've never shown any divine powers in the past, then you probably have to seek out (and possibly train in) the use of such powers in-game before you'll be able to pull off the stunt.

I've run "rules blind" campaigns several times in the past. I don't find them to be worth the extra effort for the GM, except when there's some specific flavor in mind. Superhero stories, starting with the origin story, can work well rules-blind. Play in worlds that look contemporary but are actually strange underneath (say, like the World of Darkness) also can play out interestingly this way.

 

[Janx]

What I want to try and create, and I am not sure how well it will happen, is a system like some video games like Oblivian use. Skills are increased by your direct use of them. To me this would work better than run around killing everything in sight with your fighter until you level and then putting two skill points into diplomacy.

While the idea has merit, I've found a few reasons not to do it this way.

1) it's a lot of work tracking usage of skills. A computer can do it more readily with no hassle. Plus do to the nature of some skills (frequent use) you'd have to scale things so they don't get lopsided. You make far more sword swings than diplomacy checks.

2) it's easily abusable. Players will deliberately make skill checks in 'safe" conditions, just to pump the skill.

Case in point, while I love Oblivion, I don't leave the starting dungeon without at least 50% sneak. And I get it with a rubber band on the controller while sneaking into a wall near a goblin.

From there, aquire inviibility armor or reflection armor, and you're nigh unseeable or unstoppable. While there are other ways to play the game, being hidden is the easiest to get skill in and win with. thus its abusable.


Now at a table-top game, the GM might arbitrarily limit rewards when abuse happens. But a lot of times, that stuff sneaks up on the GM.

Ultimately, this idea, and the OP idea of full stat hiding may not be worth the trouble..

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think the problem here is clinging to the idea that the player gets to determine the precise mechanical representation through roleplay. For a system akin to what the OP suggest to work, I think the player ought to stop worrying about exactly what classes and feats they're trying to get, and instead concentrate on what actions the character can take in the game world.

"I want to breathe divine lightning!" is fine. Let the GM worry about how that's accomplished.

Add that I wouldn't expect that a character can manifest this spontaneously - if you want to spout divine lightning, and you've never shown any divine powers in the past, then you probably have to seek out (and possibly train in) the use of such powers in-game before you'll be able to pull off the stunt.

I've run "rules blind" campaigns several times in the past. I don't find them to be worth the extra effort for the GM, except when there's some specific flavor in mind. Superhero stories, starting with the origin story, can work well rules-blind. Play in worlds that look contemporary but are actually strange underneath (say, like the World of Darkness) also can play out interestingly this way.

Well, actually, what I was doing was "I want to breathe arcane lightning!" (very few ways to do that, and only one can be done at 1st level, which is what I stated when I introduced this chimeric PC) followed by "I want to cast some divine spells", a message that failed to be conveyed via words, apparently- how much more difficult a message to convey via role-play?

And because of the profound in-game differences between an arcanist who is religious enough to learn a few divine spells (while not multiclassing at all) and a PC who has actually multiclassed into a divine caster class (in D&D), my concern is non-trivial. The former adds a few divine spells to his bag of tricks while his breath weapon increases in power and uses/day every level, the latter probably gains power over the undead. That can lead to a huge disparity between expectations of play if the player & DM are not in agreement.

That disparity affects everything from adventure design (the DM expecting the divinely infused PC to turn undead may increase amount & power of undead in the campaign...a power the player has no reason to expect to have), to playstyle and combat tactics & results (when the player maneuvers his PC into a position and informs the DM he's breathing lightning at the target...to be informed that he's fresh out of attempts).

Thats a big gap between expectations, with REAL in-game consequences. And note, I'm just looking at the class benefits, not their strictures.

So forgive me if I continue to damn D&D for this kind of game.