Gaming in a high-trust environment

[the Jester]

Touched on elsewhere in the thread, I'd like to turn the equation around. HTEs "lighten" the rules level of the games played in those environments. IOW, 3e played in a HTE will be a lot looser than 3e played where rules-lawyers rule. The complexity of the rules is glossed over in such environments.

I play in an extremely high trust environment, and yet we are fairly rules-heavy. We cite ruling precedents, too.

However, this is where I feel that you have it right: if we have a hard time finding the answer to a rules question, we make one up and move on easily. Some groups can't do this; they have to find the 'right' answer, or else they can't come up with an answer that satisfies everyone (or the dm hasn't built up the authority to impose an answer).

Another thing is taking cinematic liberties with describing the action. We have an unwritten rule in my group that, so long as it doesn't actually have an in-game effect, I (as the dm) can pretty much describe what's happening in the fight however I want, elaborating on parries and cuts and people stumbling and springing back into guard positions, etc. Again, some groups that I have seen would feel pushed around by this and would riot against it.

Shrug. I like my group, and we've had great gaming for years. I think that we have the highest trust environment that I've had the privilege to be a part of- feels that way to me- and an hour of gaming is, at a minimum, 45 minutes of fun for me, not 15. And we play in a rules-heavy, tradition-heavy, precedent-using style.

 

[jdrakeh]

I think luck plays a huge factor in finding the right people just like luck plays a factor in finding friends. I've played with some awesome people whom I've become life long friends. In my case though, I've moved to different states (for a number of reasons) three times and have had to search for a new group/new players. Staying in one place with your buddies is ideal for building high trust environments.

I think you'll notice as you and your group get older that Real Life gets in the way. Games will become fewer and fewer and players will drop out for any number of reaons. Then you'll be faced with the prospect of finding new players, most of whom will be much younger than you by that time. The demographics of D&D is not encouraging, ENworld notwithstanding. For me personally, I find it a lot easier to build HTEs with people who are not more than 10 years my junior. This is not to say that I didn't have HTEs in my 20's. I did have a few HTE games… which consisted of other 20-somethings. In my 30s, I had an HTE campaign with other 30-somethings.

Bottom line, is enjoy your HTE while you can. In my personal experience, playing an RPG in a high trust environment is tremendously enjoyable and fulfilling. They're just not commonplace just as finding close friends takes both hard work and a lot of luck.

All sage advice, which I echo.

I know that your observations have certainly held true for me and several of the people from my early HTE groups (many of whom I keep in contact with today, despite the thousands of miles that divide us). I'm starting to explore new kinds of games (boardgames and PC games), as well as new mediums for play (Skype, Open RPG, etc). Really, all of these things seem better-suited to gaming in my adult life than traditional RPGs do, sadly.

I still buy RPG books though, realistically, it might be a long time before I use a given book (if I ever get a chance to use it). I'm starting to come to terms with the reality that if I want to both earn a living and continue to roleplay, I need to make some changes and explore new avenues in gaming and gaming mediums to make it work. Otherwise, it's not much of a choice -- earning enough money to live beats games every day of the week.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

...yet we are fairly rules-heavy.

The rules facilitate a (theoretically impartial) degree of adjudication to the interactions, but the rules are only so good as the people who play the game and their willingness to play by them. Further, there are many aspects the rules do not cover - basic civility for one things. How do you manage that?

 

[the Jester]

The rules facilitate a (theoretically impartial) degree of adjudication to the interactions, but the rules are only so good as the people who play the game and their willingness to play by them. Further, there are many aspects the rules do not cover - basic civility for one things. How do you manage that?

We're all good friends, and we all like to have fun together. We have had people in our group who made it less fun for everyone in the past; those experiences have made us highly aware of what it takes for our group to work well, and of what kinds of things cross the line for us (I think this is a lot of it, anyway).

 

[Jeysie]

And there is the rub, as they say. It is very human to be a total butthead and trash the game. In my experience this has less to do with people trying to avoid being taken advantage of in the game than is does with them abusing other players.

Well, I more meant that although players in HTE probably still have their own personal butthead tendencies, they're willing to recognize this and take steps to prevent them from being a problem. And rules-heavier systems can help with that, not to mention taking a lot of the busywork out of gaming.

I remember during my brief DMing stint I always hated it when I ran into something not covered by the rules, because then I'd have to take forever trying to figure out what was the most logical and fair way to adjudicate things.

My group is pretty good about being fair. We agree to avoid stuff that looks too powerful (even if it's legal), stick to the rules even if it disadvantages us, and try to do things like making sure everyone gets a chance at the spotlight and feels like a part of things.

I think we *could* probably use a rules-light or freeform system if pressed, but the consensus from discussions about that in the past seems to be that we'd rather concentrate on roleplaying instead of having to think up mechanics on the fly, too.

Peace & Luv, Liz

 

[talien]

I think this expands beyond RPGs, though the fact that the basic activity of an RPG is sitting around talking to other people makes it especially noticable in RPGs.

I've played pickup basketball, flag football, soccer, and ultimate frisbee for years. It is easy for a game to get bogged down in disagreement on fouls, out of bounds, incomplete passes, "these teams are unfair," etc. It is much more enjoyable to play a with a group where everyone is trusted to try to make a fair call, play hard no matter whose team they are on. Such a spirit is basically written into the rules of ultimate frisbee so that's become my game of choice over the years, but even in ultimate frisbee there are different amounts of trust in the groups.

Amen, SlagMortar!

I've seen it in online Halo 3 games. I play with the GeezerGamers crowd (shameless plug: http://www.geezergamers.com) which is all adults (in body, at least). There's a huge difference between playing with people who all generally understand that having fun is what is most important for the collective good of the whole and the random occasional interloper who comes into our games, plays ruthlessly, and otherwise interested in having fun.

High trust is a rare thing and it's integral to any cooperative play game involving rules. I also think that lack of high trust is something that no one will ever admit to having in their games:

"You do know that all the people you hang out with a pretty much jerks, right?"

"But...if I admit to that, I guess I can't hang out with them anymore then."

 

[Belbarid]

Which is where that whole thing with "rules lawyers" pops up. The problem with them isn't that someone is skilled in the rules, the problem is that the expectation is that the rules have _replaced_ the option to negotiate and accept/refuse an option in the game based on what people are willing to accept.

And have no problem interrupting an intense moment (combat or RP) to discuss the finer points of whether or not a Monk is proficient with unarmed attacks. True story.

Unless I'm walking cold into a game with a bunch of strangers (which I do on occasion), I won't play in any other environment than a high-trust game. It's not worth the hassle.

I'm in two games right now- I run a Kalamar game and play in a Midnight game. My Kalamar game consists of my wife, and 4 others whom I've known an been friends with for at least 7-8 years now, pushing 10 years for a couple of them. Two of the players have been friends for probably 12-15 years now. Rules are pretty fluid- I use what makes sense to me and ignore/change the rest. The players get the leeway they need to be what they want, and when the occasional mistake happens (I was *really* tired once, and allowed the Warlock to critically hit an undead with an Eldritch Blast), I don't have to waste time justifying it (Sorry guys, I'm tired, I goofed), and the next time someone rolls a 20 against an undead, I don't have to put up with any "But you let *her* do it" nonsense. Role-playing is good and getting better. There's a little bit of twinking and munching- for instance the dwarven fighter/barbarian who is at 4th level and sitting on around 70hp- but it's not a problem and kept to a respectable minimum. In short, very enjoyable.

In the Midnight game, it's mostly the same people, so the friendship level is about the same. The DM is a little stricter on the rules than I am, mostly because he's still learning them, but stopping the flow of the game for a rules debate is simply not acceptable. I think the most we've had to do with an in-combat rules discussion was me reminding him how grappling worked to save him the time of looking it up. He knows I'll screw with his plotline a little, just to keep him on his DM toes, but if I ask about using a non-Midnight feat/PrC his first thought isn't "How is he going to break things with this" or "What's the catch that he isn't telling me". It's mostly "Does this fit the setting".

Don't think I could play this game any other way anymore.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I don't allow interruption of the game for rules discussions except under highly limited circumstances, and that's been my stance for years. If I screw over the players by misinterpreting or ignoring a rule, I make it up later. If the players steal a march on me via a rules mistake, more power to them.

The rules facilitate a (theoretically impartial) degree of adjudication to the interactions, but the rules are only so good as the people who play the game and their willingness to play by them. Further, there are many aspects the rules do not cover - basic civility for one things. How do you manage that?

By playing with people who aren't obnoxious, which is, I think, part of what shilsen was referring to at the start of this thread.

I started playing D&D as part of hanging out with my friends, and that's been the way of it for the entire 27-odd years I've been playing; my current game marks the first time that I've played with people whom I didn't know before getting together to game, and we're all friends by now after about a year and a half of play. For me, playing D&D (like playing videogames or music, or dining out/drinking out/going to the movies) is a fundamentally social experience. I try not to undertake any of those experience in anything other than a high trust environment.

All of which doesn't mitigate my enthusiasm for rules, which is based largely on a single precept:

Rules are good because they enable meaningful choices.

Freeform collective storytelling is fun, but it's not my idea of a game. The largest part of the fun of playing a game, to my mind, lies in having the ability to make a choice, the tension over the (un)wisdom of that choice, and seeing the consequences of that choice play out. (The remaining part is essentially the role of luck, of course, and the Vegas-like element of palpitating over that critical die roll.)

As to trust, I'll echo what Doug McCrae said about the DM-player power imbalance, and add that as a DM, I've been happy to have rules to keep *myself* honest. It's easier for me to run an NPC using RAW than to wing it, because it allows me to focus on narration and world-building and not worry about calibrating a free-form challenge to hit that sweet spot of being tough without overwhelming.

 

[prosfilaes]

I think there's a strange element of taking the game too seriously in such cases,

I think that's sort of a bad-fun type argument. A lot of people do take their games seriously, and a lot of people just don't like change. I don't find it strange at all that when you've got your character a cool defining ability that you may be a little unhappy about having it changed; that in fact you might rather create a new character rather than having what you thought cool about this character being taken away.

Some of this is not as much trust as flexibility. There are good people and good players who like to build their characters on the strong side of things, and get frustrated when things get changed on them. To change the rules on them feels like retroactively declaring the Princess not royalty half-way through the game. If you want to play with them, a firm rules set at the start helps, not because they're untrustworthy, but because that's key to the style of game they want to play.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I think that's sort of a bad-fun type argument.

I don't think shilsen's making a badwrongfun argument there. I think he's saying (and I agree with this) that concerns over rules are significantly less severe in a high-trust environment. "Taking the game seriously," like it or not, *does* lead to a situation in which people are going to have a greater personal investment in rules interpretations, etc., and therefore (by definition) a less easygoing environment regarding gameplay.