Playing a Game When You Don't Know the Rules

[onedtwelve]

This isn't about someone who didn't read the rules and frustrates the other players by asking simple questions or anything like that.

This is something that's piqued my interest for about a week now, and I'm wondering what others think of the idea, since I know it's a pretty old-school topic and has been addressed in other threads.

What do you think of the idea of playing a game where only the GM knows the rules or even what system is being played. The players describe their characters and the GM creates the character sheets based off the descriptions, he also makes all the rolls for them and anything they do is sort of blind play. They never know what their characters are capable of mechanically, so they have to try different things. They know how their characters would act, so they act in that way to see how things turn out. Basically, take the crunch away from the players and leave only the fluff.

I play a lot of play-by-post games, and using that interface, this is a much easier thing to pull off. I've been wanting to run a dungeon crawl, and I think this would be a very interesting way to do that, making the players focus on the room and environment around them to solve the traps/puzzles and make their way through.

Any opinions on this?

 

[mmadsen]

I'm strongly in favor of "hiding" the rules, but there are some strong requirements for making it work. For instance, the underlying rules must match the simulated reality, so players can make reasonable decisions and get plausible results. As a corollary, the players need to know, as well as their characters would know, what their odds are when they're deciding between various courses of action.

In real life, we often don't know our odds of hitting, dodging, etc., at least not explicitly, but we know when something looks really hard or really easy. There shouldn't be any, "I told you the pit was 10 feet across, and you can only jump 9 feet at your current encumbrance level. Sorry."

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I might give it a try once but generally I think playing in a game like this would be a turn off to me. The issues that I have are:

1. It's fun to roll dice and try to get that crit. If the GM's doing all of the rolling, the players lose out on that side of the fun.

2. The odds of success and the benefit for succeeding on an action can vary greatly between systems. Maybe I assume there's an 80% chance of leaping the bottomless pit but in the systems that's being used there's really a 15% chance of success. Or maybe I want to grapple that troll and think that if I succeed I'll have it in a deadly sleeper hold. But the grappling rules for the system being used mean it moves at half its normal speed. Without knowing how the system works I think the risk/reward balance is too obscured and I could end up overextending myself too much.

3. Without knowing what system is being used you could create a character conceptually who you dislike playing mechanically. For example, I really dislike the magic system in Dresden Files. If I had the character concept of a mage and the system ended up being Dresden Files, I'd have a harder time enjoying playing the character. (Maybe this issue is lessened since I wouldn't be running the mechanics of the character. But it's still an issue.)

4. Maybe it's just me being overly protective of what I want out of a character but I know I can better customize a character concept for my preferences than someone else can when given the same concept. I'm sure they'd get the core of the character similar but I'd have a hard time shaking off the "I can do it better, why not let me?" feeling.

All of that hesitation aside, I would give it a try. Since you're very interested in the players exploring and problemsolving, if I were playing in this sort of game I'd go almost entirely crunch free and make it more of a collaborative storytelling game.

 

[the Jester]

I'm a fan of hiding the rules, but it fails miserably unless you have a great group dynamic, a lot of trust in the gm, a system that allows the dm's character generation to match the players' expectations and shared assumptions about, for example, whether attacking a monster is suicidal or not.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

2. The odds of success and the benefit for succeeding on an action can vary greatly between systems. Maybe I assume there's an 80% chance of leaping the bottomless pit but in the systems that's being used there's really a 15% chance of success.

Do you have to have rules knowledge or would a usable description by the GM suffice? "It's a hellish deep pit, but you think you should be able to get across it" versus "You might be able to get over it, but you wouldn't try it unless you really had to."

The masking of the rules leads to the situation old-schoolers relish: you don't have hard and fast rules for most situation. The players' description and the GM's discretion are the decisive elements.

Or maybe I want to grapple that troll and think that if I succeed I'll have it in a deadly sleeper hold. But the grappling rules for the system being used mean it moves at half its normal speed. Without knowing how the system works I think the risk/reward balance is too obscured and I could end up overextending myself too much.

But how would a adventurer know what trying to grapple a troll would lead to? This action is very high risk with unforeseeable results. Any game system which, by design or by being veiled from players' eyes, should absolutely offer unpredictability in situations like this. Grappling a troll isn't like playing a game of chess or Risk.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Do you have to have rules knowledge or would a usable description by the GM suffice? "It's a hellish deep pit, but you think you should be able to get across it" versus "You might be able to get over it, but you wouldn't try it unless you really had to."

I think usable descriptions by the GM similar to your examples would suffice. As long as there's a decent way to balance the risks and benefits of an action.

But how would a adventurer know what trying to grapple a troll would lead to? This action is very high risk with unforeseeable results. Any game system which, by design or by being veiled from players' eyes, should absolutely offer unpredictability in situations like this. Grappling a troll isn't like playing a game of chess or Risk.

Clearly you've never played Risk with Newman!

The point I was going for is that a player (and therefore the adventurer) should know what a grapple in general would lead to, not specifically what will result from grappling with a troll. If the grappling system being used favors the defender (like SW SAGA where a minor action negates the grab) the player could be throwing themselves in undue risk if they assume the grappling system will keep them engaged with their target.

Like your examples above this could be handled with a description from the GM.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

The first time I did this, which was the first time I played D&D, it led to an argument that almost made it my last time playing D&D. In fact, it almost ruined a good friendship. Player expectations vs. Game Rules can turn out to be very frustrating. (The key phrase being: "That's Stupid!".)

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I have played in a game like this before. I found it to be a frustrating and generally unsatisfying experience.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I would not enjoy such a game, though it would depend on the other players to a large extent.

I like having the rules aboveboard, so everyone knows what is goin on.

I would play something like this for a short while, to see how things go, or maybe an introductory session, but I like my rules.

I jsut see this as too close to freeform gaming, and I am far form a fan of that style.

 

[SiderisAnon]

They never know what their characters are capable of mechanically, so they have to try different things.

In general, I am not in favor of the players having no knowledge of the rules whatsoever. It makes it very difficult to play the game when you have no idea of what your character can do. The line I've quoted above is the one that would destroy any such game, in my opinion. Players are likely to quickly feel like they're being randomly punished for trying things since they never have any idea of what they can mechanically do. You cannot decide if you should face that enemy or bravely run away if you have absolutely no way to determine your capabilities, let alone theirs. Heck, you wouldn't even know if riding a horse could be fatal.

I don't think it would be long before players would refuse to try anything for fear of failing or dying. (Assuming you could get players to play this at all. Few that I know would even give it a try.)

On the other hand, I have played in and run games where the players did not know the rules in detail or where the players only had their character sheets. The difference there is that the players have a way of understanding how they interact with the game world and they have some perspective. They can know that they have a 75% base chance of making a particular skill roll or that they have a combat bonus that gives them a 20% better chance of hitting than someone without any bonus at all. It may not be everything, but it gives them a framework to use.



The one exception to the above I can see would be a one-shot or short term campaign where the character all start out with amnesia and have to discover what they can do. Basically, they're building their character sheet as they go. That could be fun and in such a short-term focus, I think more players would be willing to accept the lack of information.