Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Emerikol]

"Minor" is doing some structural support in that sentence. Your idea of "minor" may not be everyones.

It is in the eye of the beholder. (Forgive the pun)

I don't consider "we actually expect to play by the rules" "rules lawyer" in any negative sense. If you do, then yes, I think that's a problem.

I think it's a problem if you are playing in my campaign. Every GM has a tolerance level for rules lawyers. I got my fill early in life and my tolerance is now low. And where I come from, rules lawyer is universally viewed negatively. Calling someone a rules lawyer would be an insult.

 

[Emerikol]

@Thomas Shey is right: I know we all think we are great at spotting patterns, but we are not. We are terrible at it. Saying "I can always tell when a GM is changing some math" is a useless statement -- you cannot notice that you do not notice it! It would require an active test. And you would fail it, almost certainly.

I did actually do this as a test once. I ran four D&D 4E sessions where I modified every d20 roll to round down to the nearest multiple of 5 (so I just used results of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20). I also modified all NPC stats to be multiples of 5.

No one noticed. Not even slightly. Not even when I asked about it. It is very hard for people to spot statistical patterns -- we are not designed for it. Our reward system makes us see patterns where there aren't any (penalty for thinking that pattern in the bush is a tiger when it isn't -- you look silly as you scream and run. Penalty for thinking a tiger isn't actually a tiger -- you do not have offspring) so trying to evaluate fairness is exceptionally hard for us.

Practical application: If you want to be a professional gambler, bet on events where you betting against other people whoa re evaluating odds. They are going to be terrible at it, so you will have an edge. I had a friend who did this for at least a decade, betting on unusual events occurring more often than people expect them to.

You and Thomas Shey are right. No way is it universally detectable. I would say though that over time depending on how it's happening it might get detected once which is enough to shatter trust. Though just changing numbers up or down slightly would likely never get detected. So not everything for sure!

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think it's a problem if you are playing in my campaign. Every GM has a tolerance level for rules lawyers. I got my fill early in life and my tolerance is now low. And where I come from, rules lawyer is universally viewed negatively. Calling someone a rules lawyer would be an insult.

It usually is. Its just that its also used pretty regularly to shut up people who expect the GM to actually follow the rules they're avowedly using. And I don't much care whose campaign it is in regard to that; the fact that in practice a GM can usually enforce it that way is what it is, but that doesn't make it automatically better.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You and Thomas Shey are right. No way is it universally detectable. I would say though that over time depending on how it's happening it might get detected once which is enough to shatter trust. Though just changing numbers up or down slightly would likely never get detected. So not everything for sure!

The problem is people can throw false positives on this sort of thing too. And they're more likely to do so if they've hit cases of it before even on different GMs.

There's a reason I'm not sad my die rolling is functionally transparent these days most of the time (though that doesn't make it impossible to cook the books at the other end in some cases).

 

[Emerikol]

The problem is people can throw false positives on this sort of thing too. And they're more likely to do so if they've hit cases of it before even on different GMs.

Absolutely. If you do happen to roll that one monster on the random table that can avoid the alarm. I think if dealing with "jaded" players you build trust for a bit. If nothing happens, or the alarm just works enough times, you shouldn't be suspicious if it goes the other way on a rare occasion. I think unfair DMs, those who just make the bad thing happen to suit their agenda, are why so many are jaded.

There's a reason I'm not sad my die rolling is functionally transparent these days most of the time (though that doesn't make it impossible to cook the books at the other end in some cases).

What is funny is that just as many GMs are secret player helpers as there are secret monster helpers. So rolling in the open gets rid of both to a degree. Some things can't be rolled in the open but when you can its best I agree.

 

[pemerton]

Some things can't be rolled in the open

That depends very much on the system. And some systems say that not everything can be rolled in the open but are wrong. Eg I've GMed Classic Traveller rolling everything in the open, and it has not caused any problems.

 

[soviet]

Everything can always be rolled in the open

 

[Emerikol]

That depends very much on the system. And some systems say that not everything can be rolled in the open but are wrong. Eg I've GMed Classic Traveller rolling everything in the open, and it has not caused any problems.

If an enemy is stalking the party and using stealth to avoid detection, then I need to make the rolls but if the roll is a success the party does not know about it.

Now, I roll dice randomly behind the screen all the time not just when something is really happening. This has two effects. It raises the tension because it makes the group think something might be happening and it hides the cases where something really is happening.

I'm sure you can design a system I suppose where you never need to roll or you can arbitrarily just decide but I find for the games I play it is a necessary component of my games.

 

[soviet]

If an enemy is stalking the party and using stealth to avoid detection, then I need to make the rolls but if the roll is a success the party does not know about it.

Now, I roll dice randomly behind the screen all the time not just when something is really happening. This has two effects. It raises the tension because it makes the group think something might be happening and it hides the cases where something really is happening.

I'm sure you can design a system I suppose where you never need to roll or you can arbitrarily just decide but I find for the games I play it is a necessary component of my games.

'OK, make a perception check'.

Success = you can see an enemy in the bushes. It appears to be stalking you.

Failure = an enemy bursts out of the bushes and attacks you from ambush

 

[chuckdee]

Now, I roll dice randomly behind the screen all the time not just when something is really happening.

Imagine how much more tension would be generated if you did that in the open. Not having a screen doesn't make you unable to make random rolls.