How much of the rules can the players process?

[Frostmarrow]

I was reading along at my own pace, hopping from one thread to the next when I saw another instance of someone pointing out that modular rules will cost adventure pages. It dawned on me that in order for modularity to work the DM must be left without the burden of various modular rules. Also, if D&DN is going to be compatible with older material the DM still must be free from having to convert everything on the fly.

What if game rules are for the players only and that the DM is all about words and common language? The players can calculate odds, roll dice and determine whether they are successful or not without needing a DM. The only thing a DM can do, rules-wise, is set DCs anyway. So if the DC is always set by the rules instead of the DM the players can mind themselves. The DM on the other hand is only interested in one thing: is an attempt successful or not?

Without rules role-playing works just fine. But without rules it's not a game. So we need some rules to make it a game. However, the DM needs no rules – he's got players.

The players need rules. A player wants to do something with his character. But he needs to back it up with something to convince the DM to let him have his way. A successful check is a good argument. Sacrificing resources is another good argument. So when a player says "I seduce the princess" the DM can ask what he's got going for him and the player can reply fancy clothes and a successful charisma check. (Which is better than rags and a failed charisma check).

This is harder to explain than I thought. Take combat for instance. A DM can say an ogre attacks you, and that is all the DM needs to know. You as a player need to know the odds of hitting and how hard a hit is. After you have rolled to hit and damage and crossreference the amount of damage on a chart you find that the strike is "enough to fell a charging ox". You tell the DM and he replies that "well, with such a hit the ogre is slain".

Help me out. How much of the rules can the players process? What is the minimum amount of rules the GM must know?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Interesting playstyle but somewhat tough on new players. In this model the player has to know what checks to make, what the modifiers are, etc. Its much easier for a new player to just say what they want to accomplish and let the DM handle the mechanics.

Also, with experienced players it seems the role of DM would get a bit boring just being a pass/fail checker.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Interesting playstyle but somewhat tough on new players. In this model the player has to know what checks to make, what the modifiers are, etc. Its much easier for a new player to just say what they want to accomplish and let the DM handle the mechanics.

Also, with experienced players it seems the role of DM would get a bit boring just being a pass/fail checker.

I'm thinking most of the stuff you need is on your character sheet, which can be as simple as six ability scores or as complex as Rolemaster. Doesn't matter, it still just a question of pass/fail.

As the DM is no longer necessary as a referee he can concentrate on story, role-playing NPCs and describing the environment.

The problems I see are more along the lines of monsters. –While players can be made to roll defense checks or suffer damage I don't think the DM is completely obsolete in combat. The DM will at the very least need to count hit points.

Oh, and modifiers are redundant. Essentials have shown as much with level based DCs.

 

[Ratskinner]

I was reading along at my own pace, hopping from one thread to the next when I saw another instance of someone pointing out that modular rules will cost adventure pages. It dawned on me that in order for modularity to work the DM must be left without the burden of various modular rules. Also, if D&DN is going to be compatible with older material the DM still must be free from having to convert everything on the fly.

What if game rules are for the players only and that the DM is all about words and common language? The players can calculate odds, roll dice and determine whether they are successful or not without needing a DM. The only thing a DM can do, rules-wise, is set DCs anyway. So if the DC is always set by the rules instead of the DM the players can mind themselves. The DM on the other hand is only interested in one thing: is an attempt successful or not?

Without rules role-playing works just fine. But without rules it's not a game. So we need some rules to make it a game. However, the DM needs no rules – he's got players.

The players need rules. A player wants to do something with his character. But he needs to back it up with something to convince the DM to let him have his way. A successful check is a good argument. Sacrificing resources is another good argument. So when a player says "I seduce the princess" the DM can ask what he's got going for him and the player can reply fancy clothes and a successful charisma check. (Which is better than rags and a failed charisma check).

This is harder to explain than I thought. Take combat for instance. A DM can say an ogre attacks you, and that is all the DM needs to know. You as a player need to know the odds of hitting and how hard a hit is. After you have rolled to hit and damage and crossreference the amount of damage on a chart you find that the strike is "enough to fell a charging ox". You tell the DM and he replies that "well, with such a hit the ogre is slain".

That is a very intriguing suggestion....I know I've run different versions of the game like that in a pinch before. (Thank the gods for DM screens hiding my blank notebook paper.) I've also run Indie games that are designed to run like that, but they also had other mechanics involved, so I don't know if they could be bent to feel like D&D or not. (I don't see why not, but the DM experience would be wildly different, at least.)

That Dungeon Master's guide would be a treat to read, though.

The other problem with such a "rules light" approach is that WOTC needs to sell you things. If the DM doesn't need to buy anything else...ever...that makes it harder to do. So, I'm guessing this kind of thing is going to stay in the realm of cheap/free pdf indie games. (That, and emergency DM situations.)

Help me out. How much of the rules can the players process? What is the minimum amount of rules the GM must know?

From a technical standpoint the answers to your questions are:
The players can process all the rules. This is actually done in other games...so yeah.
Enough to be familiar with what the players expect and do.

 

[delericho]

Help me out. How much of the rules can the players process? What is the minimum amount of rules the GM must know?

It's probably a playstyle thing, but I wouldn't be happy DMing a game unless I had a reasonably solid grasp on all the relevant rules. I don't need to know every detail, but I need to know the general shape. If nothing else, how am I supposed to create adventures without understanding in some detail what the PCs are capable of?

As for "how much can the players process?", my answer to that is much more permissive. I trust my players, broadly speaking, so I'd have no great problems telling them to make the roll and let me know if they succeed. But, even so, I still need some sort of baseline for assigning the difficulty, because that is still (and, in my games, always will be) the role of the DM.

 

[El Mahdi]

...if D&DN is going to be compatible with older material the DM still must be free from having to convert everything on the fly.

If and when you do see this in threads, I'd say you should make a quick clarification for the person posting it as this just is not true. I don't know how this idea keeps getting spread around or where it started, but nobody from WotC has ever said this. They are not making this game to be compatible with older edition material in any way, shape, or form. They are making a game that will be able to make characters and run games with the feel of older editions. That's a significant distinction.

We should all do our best to nip this misconception in the bud, everytime we see it.


As to how much of the rules can the players process...it varies considerably from group to group and player to player. That's why I believe that the GM should be the rules expert on all the rules. I do advocate making the system as easy as possible on the DM, but I don't advocate making more of the rules the responsibility of the players in an effort to lighten that load.

But, I do think that the rules modularity they are talking about needs to predominantly be the perview of the DM. I like the idea that a player can make a character with a feel similar to any edition, with the varying levels of complexity that goes with that. I also like the idea that a game could have players with characters made using different type builds (for different edition feels), and be able to play all of those characters at the same table...compatibly and seamlessly.

But just because it can be done that way, it doesn't mean that a game has to be played that way. I believe the DM should have the perogative to decide what modules and complexity are allowed in the game that they are DM'ing. If a DM doesn't want to deal with more complex 3E or 4E type characters, and wants only simpler builds (older edition type builds), then the DM can simply say that the 3E/4E type builds aren't being used in this game.

Basically the DM says something like: "we're using the core system with b, d, and e type builds; all classes except t, s, and r; all races except j, k, and l; and we're using optional modules x, y, and z (but not that clunky w module...nooooo, never w)." And then everyone's ready to play.

For a DM that doesn't have a problem with them all being mixed in, then that DM can do that.

It's an aspect of the rules flexibility (or what I hope the rules end up being, and what Monte and Company have said they are endeavoring towards), that I think will lead to DM's not being nearly as taxed as some are afraid of. And likely only as taxed as the DM wants to be.

 

[Yora]

I just got the Dragon Age Box 1, and that's a neat system. The player rules are 66 page, which you don't all need, and it's in fairly large letters.
You can explain the rules and make characters in about an hour I would guess.

Don't expect 5th Edition to be that brief, but it would be nice to closer to that than 3.5e.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Interesting playstyle but somewhat tough on new players. In this model the player has to know what checks to make, what the modifiers are, etc. Its much easier for a new player to just say what they want to accomplish and let the DM handle the mechanics.

Also, with experienced players it seems the role of DM would get a bit boring just being a pass/fail checker.

I agree - I don't think I'd enjoying DMing that sort of thing. Plus, I think it's a lot more fun for the players to have that mystery of not knowing how many hit points an ogre has, or how many hit points that healing spell cured on the bad guy, or what powers or spells the evil necromancer still has in his arsenal.

 

[Mokona]

What is the minimum amount of rules the GM must know?

My Dungeon Master could care less about the rules. Certain players, myself included, provide technical rules answers if they're needed at the table. The DM has just enough experience to set DCs and make combat decisions for the monsters.

She provides a strong setting & story, though!

 

[kitsune9]

Interesting playstyle but somewhat tough on new players. In this model the player has to know what checks to make, what the modifiers are, etc. Its much easier for a new player to just say what they want to accomplish and let the DM handle the mechanics.

Agreed!