You get equipment list. DM gets rest.

[Neonchameleon]

I have to agree. Gamers will attempt to identify resources, the powers of those in regards to their current game objective, and then min/max their strategies to accomplish the goal. Just because the mechanics are behind the screen doesn't mean the behavior will stop. So making the mechanics better designed is the goal of a good DM or any game designer. I don't think you, Doc, are talking about dropping or banning the mechanics, just sticking them behind the screen. Exploration immersion may be increased by hiding them, but character immersion not necessarily so. And min/maxing to win the game likely won't stop at all as long as the situation is treated as a game.

I agree again. Calling out power-gaming is like calling Spassky a bad chess player. Attempting to accomplish an objective in a game is often the point of most games. Playing other systems where all these rules are in front of the screen may have soured you from this behavior, but having no ability to either Rules Lawyer (the rules are hidden) or min/max stats or class progression (these are also unknown) leaves far more time for these mechanically-minded players to focus on the role playing situation at hand.

Indeed. And putting things into D&D, in D&D you normally play adventurers who are battling for all their lives against apparently overwhelming odds. If you aren't making the in character choices that your character thinks will maximise their odds of keeping themselves and their allies alive, you are either playing a character with a deathwish or one who doesn't care about his life or the life of his allies. In short, if your character isn't at least attempting to min-max the things he controls IC (equipment, spell lists, skills, feats) then he's either incredibly arrogant or out of character. (This doesn't mean they have to always get things right - you don't need to realise that split, twinned, etc. rays of enervation are more useful than maximised empowered fireballs, just to have thought about it IC).

 

[Neonchameleon]

I will say AGAIN. The point of this thread was to ask who has run or played in such games and how did they turn out.

And I will say you're not paying attention to your answers. Games where the players don't know the rules are possible. But D&D is the wrong system to do them in. I do improv drama and systemless roleplaying as well as D&D (and rules light games). I know what works in each of them. And they are very much different, with the strengths of D&D (especially 3.X and 4e) being such that they would actively sabotage the strengths of systemless or rules light roleplaying.

To use an analogy, you are explicitely trying to restrict your question to people who cut down trees with herrings. And are throwing a strop when both lumberjacks and herring eaters are telling you not to try that, convinced that there must be a pool of people somewhere who try chopping down trees with herrings. You are refusing to accept comments about the effective uses for herrings, the effective ways of cutting down trees, or anything else.

I have also made some comments on a few of the ideas I have for running such a game.

And ignored when anyone else does that. Because it boils down to "Don't use D&D" (and especially not 3.x). Low system, low PC information on the rules is a great taste. D&D is a great taste. But they'll go together about as well as gold top milk and freshly squeezed lemon juice. (OD&D or RC D&D would have the advantage of at least being soya milk rather than the gold top of 3e/4e). And I don't need to have drunk milky lemonade to know what a bad idea it is.

If you have not played in such a game then comments about how you dont think you would like it are pretty pointless. I want to avoid this dragging away from the point I have in starting this thread.

You may have been the thread starter. But you aren't its DM or mod. You do not get to play out your power fantasies by telling people they are discussing it wrong. And you shouldn't be doing that when DMing either. Threads drift. Deal with it.

And I should leave this thread alone.

 

[fuzzlewump]

And I will say you're not paying attention to your answers. Games where the players don't know the rules are possible. But D&D is the wrong system to do them in.

Not that they don't know the rules, just that they aren't actively part of the game. When you say you swing the sword, the DM narrates how you hit or missed. As opposed to rolling the d20, asking if the number hit, and then rolling damage. In both cases the rules are applied, in the first case the DM doesn't tell you the numbers exactly. If it's high damage he'll probably say "a grievous blow" or something.

To use an analogy, you are explicitely trying to restrict your question to people who cut down trees with herrings.

He just wants lumberjacks who have tried to cut down trees with the herring.

You may have been the thread starter. But you aren't its DM or mod. You do not get to play out your power fantasies by telling people they are discussing it wrong. And you shouldn't be doing that when DMing either. Threads drift. Deal with it.

He can say to bring the thread back on topic. Deal with it. It's kind of meaningless to bring this up, because you'll just say 'deal with it' back to me. Let's just leave that out.

So again, it's not a rules light system, it's a rules heavy system (3.5) that's invisible to the players. I don't know if it's a good or bad thing, I'm leaning toward bad, but that's closer to the correct interpretation.

 

[Umbran]

Okay, so let's make it all official..

In the future, if someone threadcraps, report it and ignore it.

In general, if someone asks for constructive criticism and help, and your basic thought is to step in and say some variation of, "That idea sucks!" consider taking that thought elsewhere. Threadcrapping isn't helpful to anyone, and makes conversation around here just that much more unpleasant.

Okay? Is that clear? We now return you to your thread. Thanks for your time and attention.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In the light of the mod warning, I wish to clarify: one of the challenges in running any campaign is marketing it to prospective players. If it sounds like something you'd want to play, you're going to go for it. If not...

My challenge is intended to illustrate one of two things: either that D&D is the wrong RPG for this kind of game due to it's structure OR that DM has the chops to handle even outré PC designs.

If it's the former, several others have posted RPGs which would seem better suited to supporting DM's idea.

If it's the latter, then all he has to do is market his idea for the campaign to "the right players."

And being able to satisfactorily answer a prospective player about whether he can actually help realize the player's PC concept would seem to be an essential part of the pitch.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Under your proposed system, how would you and I come to agreement on the design of a 1st level human PC who wears armor, swings a maul and breathes lightning, considering that there has been no opportunity to roleplay? At this point, all you have in this thread is his backstory, summed up as: good looking son of a whore and a half-dragon mercenary, became a bouncer at the brothel, left when he accidentally killed someone powerful's slumming son for getting too rough with his beloved, who was only a seamstress, not a whore.

If you need more, ask. Think of it as a way to prove the efficacy of your system to a skeptic- if you're even close, that bodes well for your ability to sway a potential player.

Based on the original post, he didn't say that the DM would have to guess at what class the PC starts as, just that players would have to actively role play the classes they want to level up in. As far as the exact build of the starting class, that's an interesting question. If I was doing this, I would allow them to do everything to create the character, stat point buy, spell selection, whatever, then make them hand it over to me afterward. We would work out the character so that the class and skills and spells etc all make sense with the background, then start play.

If the player doesn't really care, which would be the more likely case if the player wants to do this kind of game, then as long as whatever the DM chooses fills the criteria that the player wants I don't see a problem.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Based on the original post, he didn't say that the DM would have to guess at what class the PC starts as, just that players would have to actively role play the classes they want to level up in.

You're right, but that doesn't eliminate the problem.

As several of us have been trying to point out, many concepts and classes in D&D play very similarly, but will have different mechanical effects. A person playing an armored warrior of faith has many options...but only a few of those can qualify for Kensai by 5th level, and then only if the right feats are taken. Nuances like that are damned difficult to role-play. This is character building via charades: if the perception of the GM varies too far from what the player believes he is acting out, the player's concept doesn't get realized as it gets lost in the gap between auteur/actor and audience/game master.

A game with a different mechanical structure- one without a reliance on classes; one more geared towards free-form storytelling; a toolbox system- would be infinitely easier to do this with.

 

[Umbran]

You're right, but that doesn't eliminate the problem.

Perhaps we should not assume that the role-play at the table is the only place the GM gets information about where the player's aiming to go.

While some things are difficult to get in nuances of role-play, they can come out in maybe two sentences of metagame conversation between the player and GM.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

No, I've never tried this as a DM and never will. I have enough to keep track of.

I'd try it as a player if a good DM insisted, but I don't think I'd like it. I like knowing what my character's little knacks are. If you want me to roleplay becoming a Vampire Slayer or whatever, I'm happy to. If you think it's stupid for the Vampire Slayers to deny me membership because I don't have the Breath of Garlic feat, I agree--so just drop the stupid prereq! But don't take control of my character sheet and rationalize yourself by saying "now that I have your character sheet, I can use house rules!"

That doesn't make any more sense than "now that I have a red hat, I can eat pretzels!"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Perhaps we should not assume that the role-play at the table is the only place the GM gets information about where the player's aiming to go.

While some things are difficult to get in nuances of role-play, they can come out in maybe two sentences of metagame conversation between the player and GM.

Beyond a few sentences about PC background, DM hasn't given us much else to look at.

Leveling up would be done by the dm and based on how a player had their character act. No more taking surprise levels in classes out of the blue to just fit a prestige class. You want your fighter to gain levels as a cleric then you role-play him asking question of clerics, buying a holy book and holy symbol, etc. When the dm says you have levele
you let him know if this is a deep interest of your character or just him being worldly. Deep interest can get you a level of cleric, being worldly may mean your character takes some levels in knowledge religion.

First off you differentiate between the two by talking. Either straight telling the DM or by describing the effect you want and letting the DM make the choice. Really up to the player on what they want.

Sounds like backstory to me. Part of playing a game like this would be each player writing a half page or longer backstory of their character (or less if they dont wnat to) telling of their growing up...

Which is not only kind of vague, but is anti-D&D mechanics, specifically PrCls. Furthermore, the "only through role-play" language and "telling the DM" language is self-contradictory. Worst, that phrase about letting the DM make the decision as to which particular class your PC gets to level up in infantalizes the player. He's not merely restricting your options, he's actually telling the player what his PC is. He is substituting his judgement for the players'. That's not a cooperative relationship, its dictatorial...or at best, parental.

PCs in D&D do make decisions based on what PrCl they'd like to take. That is no different than choosing a major in college at age 19 based on what you would like to be at age 34.

Frex, I'm an attorney: I double majored in Philosophy and Economics. However, by doing so, I cut myself off from being a Patent attorney, which requires a BS in Math, Engineering, Biology, Chemistry or Physics. Unless, of course, I "dip" (to use a D&Dism) back into the undergrad world and get that BS.