Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[Raven Crowking]

As like as not, when a player in my playtest group wants to perform a stunt, he is able to suggest a penalty and benefit using the guidelines presented, and all I need to do is say "Go for it!"

Likewise, that stunt is tied into the narrative. The player is describing what he wants his character to try, and it has to make sense in terms of what is happening in the game world. In some cases, a player negates his own thought based on the environment ("This is a stone floor; I can't use my dagger to nail his foot to it.....I'll try this instead.").

I like that level or engagement, both with the game milieu and with the ruleset.

YMMV.

RC

 

[Water Bob]

Well, that sums it up, though: players like to know the rules so that they can make informed decisions.

It's a two-edged sword. I'm into experiencing another life in a fantasy world. Immersion. Other people are just playing a game.

It's sometimes helpful if a player knows the rules. If a player likes to play the game, he's naturally going to be curious about it.

But, in those instances where the players don't know much about the rules and aren't thinking about the rules--they're just living in that other world we've created together--man! That's some prime-time roleplaying there.

This rule-naive player isn't thinking about target numbers, modifiers, AC's, or what he's got to hit his enemy. He's standing there, with the ground beneath his feat, breathing hard, looking at that minotaur, wondering to himself, "Oh my god, how am I going to live through this!"

You can't help but run into players who know the rules. Most of them do. In a d20 based game, the player almost has to know the rules in order to take full advantage of his character's abilities.

But, man, it sure can be sweet when a player doesn't know much about mechancis and just becomes totally immersed in that other world.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But, man, it sure can be sweet when a player doesn't know much about mechancis and just becomes totally immersed in that other world.

IMHO, and IME, it sure can be sweet when a player becomes totally immersed in that other world.

But, IMHO and IME, a player can know the mechanics and still do that.

In fact, in your examples where the GM wings mechanics, they are still conveyed to the players in some form or other. The player is still rolling dice, still marking off hit points, etc.


RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

In many ways, player immersion can increase with a proper understanding of cause and effect. Player buy-in can also increase with more understanding of what they can do to influence the world around them. Both of these things are represented as game rules. When the game rules are consistent with what the player expects (if I do X, then Y happens... if I do A then B happens... I'm going to do A!) they they are more invested in the game, and thus have a stronger tie to the narrative being expressed at the table.

This isn't to say that they should always know what the outcome will be. But, they should have a reasonable expectation as to possible outcomes and general chances of said outcomes. This can, often times, create a better experience for the player.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It's a two-edged sword. I'm into experiencing another life in a fantasy world. Immersion. Other people are just playing a game.

You keep arguing like these are separate things, and ne'er the twain shall meet. Like you can only have one or the other.

They aren't like that at all.

Maybe that's the problem?

 

[Barastrondo]

It's a two-edged sword. I'm into experiencing another life in a fantasy world. Immersion. Other people are just playing a game.

It's sometimes helpful if a player knows the rules. If a player likes to play the game, he's naturally going to be curious about it.

But, in those instances where the players don't know much about the rules and aren't thinking about the rules--they're just living in that other world we've created together--man! That's some prime-time roleplaying there.

I agree that this is great roleplaying. But in my experience, it's not predicated on ignorance of the rules. "Not thinking about the rules" isn't reliant on "doesn't know much about the rules," and "doesn't know much about the rules" can lead to "thinking a lot about the rules just so you can try to figure out whether your character is good doing at this thing you saw him as being good at doing." I play regularly with people who think about game rules all the time, being designers, and they're great at immersion. It depends on the moment rather than whether or not you know roughly what sort of DC you need to hit should it come to die-rolling.

But, man, it sure can be sweet when a player doesn't know much about mechancis and just becomes totally immersed in that other world.

Sure. But it's also sweet when a player does know much about mechanics and becomes totally immersed, and it's also kind of awkward when a player doesn't know much about mechanics and the uncertainty makes it hard for him to get into his character. So there's really multiple factors at play at any given time.

 

[Mallus]

I'm into experiencing another life in a fantasy world. Immersion. Other people are just playing a game.

And some folks are mindful of both the in-game fiction and the rules that support it. At the same time! While making Python and Princess Bride jokes (am I dating myself?).

But, man, it sure can be sweet when a player doesn't know much about mechancis and just becomes totally immersed in that other world.

My experiences tell me immersion and engagement with the game's world have everything to do with said world being an interesting and exciting place. Complete pig-ignorance of the rules won't make a dull, badly-presented setting/adventure into Middle Earth, Barsoom, and/or Hyperborea.

 

[TheUltramark]

here is the other sticking point to this argument
why is it ok for players to cheat and not the dm?

if a player's number one weapon of choice dealt poison damage, and he was fighting undead, he would automatically know poison is useless vs undead, why? because it's in the rules. So, if the player elects NOT to use his #1 weapon, isn't he cheating (assuming of course that no kind of knowledge checks were rolled before hand) - or at least I believe the phrase is meta-gaming?

it has been argued by many that players "should know the rules" and while the rules for their characters should be very well known, I think players know way too much about what the DM may have up his sleeve, and this is wrong in MY opinion. In the infamous "zombie vs hydra" scenario from a different thread, the "players" are only bent because they know what the hydra's stats are, so if the DM says, nope, sorry, this monster (the hydra) cannot be knocked prone, everyone goes bat crap. Yet if you attack a zombie with poison, and the DM says nope, sorry, poison doesn't work on this monster....the likely response is "oops, I forgot"

I could be way off base with this, and as usual, I could be saying it wrong, so if you are offended, I am sorry.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

here is the other sticking point to this argument
why is it ok for players to cheat and not the dm?

It's not okay for anyone to cheat, IMO.

if a player's number one weapon of choice dealt poison damage, and he was fighting undead, he would automatically know poison is useless vs undead, why? because it's in the rules.

Or because it's a pretty obvious guess that skeletons and zombies don't care about being poisoned since, you know, they're already dead, or that swords don't work all that well on skeletons, or because it's "common knowledge" in the setting ...

I mean, I've never grown up in a fantasy world in which skeletons and zombies and vampires and werewolves are literal facts of life that show up with some regularity, and I know that you use silver against werewolves and crosses and stakes against vampires. Shouldn't my character know at least that much, assuming he isn't a blathering idiot?

 

[TheUltramark]

It's not okay for anyone to cheat, IMO.



Or because it's a pretty obvious guess that skeletons and zombies don't care about being poisoned since, you know, they're already dead, or that swords don't work all that well on skeletons, or because it's "common knowledge" in the setting ...

I mean, I've never grown up in a fantasy world in which skeletons and zombies and vampires and werewolves are literal facts of life that show up with some regularity, and I know that you use silver against werewolves and crosses and stakes against vampires. Shouldn't my character know at least that much, assuming he isn't a blathering idiot?

interesting point...using that thought process isn't it "obvious" that something slithering on the ground can't be knocked prone?