Celebrim said:
I disagree. I've played too many games where I didn't know the rules or only knew the rules in part. Knowing the rules is not necessary to evaluating what sort of game is being run. It might can help, but it is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition.
It is a critical element to determining player expectations. Sometimes, you might be familiar enough with someone on a personal level to generate expectations based entirely on personality, but absent such personal conbtact, the rules are a critical element in determining what sort of game you are going to get.
I had to reread the whole thread when I saw that. I'm still not at all convinced that the person you are having an argument with is me. If you can show me where I said that, I'd appreciate it. I really think you are hearing things that I'm not saying.
Did you not say that the Dm doesn't need to tell the players anything about the system? That's basically saying the rules don't matter, when clearly they do.
No, I know what argument I'm making. I believe its you that don't know what sort of argument I'm making. You are focused on mechanistic attributes. I'm point out that in so far as I want to run a simulation, I can if I want run trolls as 2HD monsters in the first age, and Balrogs as 8HD monsters, and run 1st age PC's in the same fashion as 3rd Age PC's. And if you didn't get behind the screen to see that Balrogs where 8HD monsters in defiance of your expectations, you'd never know. Latter I could run Balrogs as 24 HD monsters versus the 3rd age PC's, and if you didn't get behind the screen, you'd only know that your 1st age PC's where really poweful compared to your 3rd age PC's and seemed to move across a grander stage. But you wouldn't need to know that to run a campaign in either the 1st age or the 3rd age, and you wouldn't need to know that I'd simply shrunk the stage. What you'd really need to know to RP a 1st age Noldor lord or a halfling from the Shire has nothing to do with the mechanics, and they can both have 20 hit points and they can both move across a stage designed for them.
And that's a critical element in determining what sort of game you are going to have. Your statement that you are running a game based on Tolkien gives virtually no information - because if I don't know what era or region you are talking about within Tolkien, I have no idea whether to expect my character to be a Noldor lord who can take on Balrogs and ignore mooks, or a halfling who struggles to overcome blind goblins. And that infleunces choice. Defining which one you are talking about isn't a mechanistic issue, its an informational issue, something you seem to have trouble doling out to the players.
In this case, if you are rules centered in your understanding, 8 HD balrogs seem unsatisfying. If you aren't rules centered, you don't know that your 8th level fighter isn't 'epic' because you define character by what he does, and not by numbers on the page.
Actuially, the HD of the balrog doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is to know what sort of thing to
expect. And your descriptions (as given here, until you started clarifying them with information you initially asserted was "unneccessary") quite simply don't give enough information to do so. I need to have some sort of idea how competent my character is compared to the opposition (in general). Do orcs pose a threat to me? Do trolls? Do blind kobolds? These are the sorts of things a reasonable inhabitant in most game worlds would know, and are heavily driven by the rules structure of the game.
Of course, that's not what we have been talking about. What we are talking about is a DM who says "We are playing 3e D&D" and then, when the 1st level characters approach some orcs are informed that orcs have the ability to breathe fire and blink at will. Changing the rules without letting anyone know you are doing it, on the fly, just to make a "better story" is the problem.
Again, you don't understand what argument I'm making. Go back and find where I said that the rules system doesn't matter at all. Please go back and show me where I made that my first argument.
Okay.
Things like whether the players have any idea of what the game rules system is or what it says on thier character sheets (or what exactly the things that it says on thier character sheets mean) are irrelevant.
By experience, the players that have entertained me the DM don't need to know the rules in order to do so.
The DM has no responcibility to tell the players the rules. The DM has no responcibility to even tell the player's what rules system they are playing.
What conclusions are we to draw from these sorts of statements other than "the rules don't matter"? Since it doesn't matter what game system you are using, and don't need to bother to inform ther players, we can only conclude that, apparently, the rules don't matter.
I'm not defeating my argument, you have invented what you think my argument should be. I didn't say that the rules system didn't matter. I said that the rules system belonged to the DM and was a tool of the DM to moderate the game, and further that the player did not need to know what the rules system was or how it worked in order to be a good player and enjoy the game.
Which is tantamount to saying that "rules don't matter". I also disagree with you on one fundamental point: the rules belong to everyone at the table, not just a DM with megalomaniacal delusions about how powerful he is. When you say "I'm using the D&D system" you are telling me something. When you say "I am using the Hero system", you are tleling me something different. Saying "I am using the D&D system" and then expecting to radically modify it without bothering to tell me what you've changed is basically bad DMing.
Now note, because some other people misunderstood me to be saying that it is better for the player to not know the rules, that that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is not necessary for the player to know the rules, and that it is not a precondition of good role play for them to do so.
It is a precondition for them to make intelligent choices about their actions. If I don't know how the mechanics of spells work, how should I decide which spells to learn, which spells to cast, and when to cast them? The rules give guidance on these issues, guidance you seem all too willing to discard.
And further, I'm saying that it is not necessary for the player to see the magic behind the screen and that everything that goes on behind the screen is the perogative of the DM. I'm not saying that it is impossible to be a bad DM. I am saying that a DM has the right and authority to rule however he likes.
Actually, the DM has the duty to play fair with the players. He is an arbiter, but one who should, above all, play fair, since he holds all of the cards. Besides, what a character decides to do isn't part of "the magic behind the screen", it is out in the open - and the player should have a good idea what he can expect from taking a chosen course of action. You seem to think that the ignorant, who don't know what they are doing is more fun for you, and it might be, but that just tells me you have some power issues.
But please, go back and read where I said that I had less respect for DM's that break the rules all the time than I have for those that use them again, because that is one of the many things I've said that you did not hear.
I heard it. You said it. You then go on to essentially say that even if DMs do that, they are great guys who have the authority to do it, and no mere player should dare to contradict their mighty sayings from on high. I see a contradiction in these stances.
I disagree. I disagree not only as a DM, but as a player who has played in games where I did not know the rules. Furthermore, I remember a time when most game books advised that the various resolution systems and rules not related to character generation be kept secret from the players.
I remember those rules systems too. That sort of pronouncement was dumb then, and it is dumb now. If I want my character to jump, I should have a good idea how far he can jump. The jump rules aren't part of character generation, so by that sort of rule, I couldn't figure out my own capabilities ahead of time, because, apparently, PCs are too stupid to know how good they are at jumping.
So I think I'm on pretty safe ground in saying that the PC's don't need to know the rules.
You think you are, but since that sort of rule was discarded by the end of the 1970s along with the detrius of many other ill-conceived rules ideas, I think the trend is very much against you. It was a silly idea then, and you thinking it is a great idea doesn't make it any less silly now.
No, it wasn't. I don't know who you think said that, but it wasn't me. I said that the rules system was less important than the story. That is very different than saying that it isn't important, and in fact several times during this thread I've explicitly argued that its the job of the DM to craft a rules system that supports the story.
And he should let the players know what he's done to the system. Otherwise, you are just jerking people's chains. You might find people who like their chains jerked, or who are desperate enough to put up with it, but unless a DM gives out information about the changes he's made, he's likely to end up with an acrimonious relationship with his players, and a shrinking game group.
The one I made, and not the one you keep trying to put in my mouth. The DM can discard rules because he is the DM. The DM can even do it willy-nilly, but to do so suggests that he should have had more foresight as a DM. And the DM can discard rules because the story is more important than the rules are. I never once said that the rules don't matter at all. They certainly matter to the DM, because those are the tools he's going to use to arbritrate the game.
Except that the DM
shouldn't discard rules willy-nilly to further his "story". Because its not the DMs story. Its the group's story. And the players come to it with the expectation that the "story" will operate under certain rules, and their actions will be predictable in effect.
I disagree. I think that any game which recognizably is D&D is D&D. If you pick up a character sheet and it looks like a D&D character sheet, then its probably D&D regardless of whether they are using AU, Iron Lore, Vitality Points, or whatever.
A house ruled version, yes. But discarding the rules willy-nilly doesn't fall into this category. It isn't D&D, it's just "let's pretend" with D&D books nearby. Altering the rules
ahead of time is perfectly kosher, virtually every DM does it to some degree, either for simplicity (e.g. various house rules concerning Dodge), or for thematic purposes (e.g. banning
teleport to get a more travel oriented game). But if you just change the rules on the fly, you aren't really playing D&D any more.
The DM is always hiding the ball from the players. That's part of the DM's job. If the ball didn't need to be hid, you wouldn't need a DM.
No, it isn't. The DM is the window onto the world for the players. Hiding the ball from them concerning things they reasonably should know (like their own capabilities) is poor DMing. The DMs job is to present the information to the players, so they can then take action based on that information. If you want a predetermined outcome for your "story", then you shouldn't be using PCs.
But this is really silly. I'm tired of fisking you. As I said before, it was pretty obvious that you weren't going to listen. Anyway, I hope you have fun with your implied social contract, but they have a name for players whose social contract implicitly includes a clause that demands all rules and rulings follow that of the books and be spelled out for them in documents ahead of time. My social contract as a player is alot less demanding in that way.
Yes, it's called being a player. You have the right to expect that the
rules of the
game you showed up to play will be followed, unless you are told otherwise. If you didn't want to play D&D using the rules of D&D, why did you bother to show up for a D&D game?
A agree that they are bad DMs, and usually become lonely DMs. However, there's nothing to do about it but let Darwin work.
