Playing a Game When You Don't Know the Rules

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Sounds like what they did in : http://www.hulu.com/watch/212754/community-advanced-dungeons-and-dragons?cc=2

"I won Dungeons and Dragons...and it was ADVANCED!"

I'd be willing to play in a game like that, it sounds like it facilitates a lot more role-playing as opposed to meta-gaming and out of character stuff worrying about the dice rolls.

 

[Crothian]

In Paranoia if you knows the rules your a commie mutant traitor! That's the only game where not knowing the rules is an asset.

 

[Janx]

I think there's a number of factors influencing that decision.

Who's the DM?

Some DMs can handle the extra workload better than others.
Some DMs are more flexible/forgiving in what they interpret a player's intent to be than others. In a game where the player has less mechanical info on which to base decisions, that can be crucial.

What's the ruleset?
Once again, since the GM is handling all the math, a more complex ruleset will make things harder on him, and likely affect the decisions made.

What kind of information DOES the player have?

Barring an amnesia game, what do I know about my PC in non-game terms. Do I know my IQ? How much I can benchpress or run? Do I know what skills my PC has, and a descriptor of proficiency?

Knowing I am a novice at swordfighting impacts my decision to enter a sword fight than knowing "I know swordfighting!"

I would think the rules-less format would be a failure IF:
players are reluctant to take action due to apprehension aboutt difficulty (basically, they see that everything is hard and leads to death, so they stop doing anything)
GM is overloaded with work, trying to keep track of everybody's stats and resources plus his own.

Bear in mind, in a game like Dread, it works like this. PCs have no stats. They have a written summary of their interests and goals and role. The GM interprets everything and decides when to ask for a pull. But Dread also has no stats. The DM tracks no monsters, no HP. The GM simply looks as anything the PCs want to do as a skill challenge and based on whether he thinks the PC is skilled in that area or the task is easy, he asks for zero or more pulls.

 

[prosfilaes]

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.

For one, the adventurer does know how grappling works in their world; if they're a fighter, they've probably been doing it all their life. They know what effect size does--or doesn't--have on grappling, etc.

For another, dramatically speaking, in fiction adventurers are competent people. They do things right even when realistically, they shouldn't know how. If you're running horror, you may not want this effect. But it's part of the effect I signed up for in D&D; I bumble around incompetently enough in real life, I don't need that in my games.

One very real impact I think you would see is that people will get a lot more cautious. If you have no idea what grappling the troll will do to you, you're not going to grapple it. Players are either going to have characters die a lot more, or they're going to be way-more cautious about everything.

I think also that there are a lot of examples that could be used that wouldn't be opaque to the adventurer. What are the odds of hitting something with an arrow at 100 yards? Well, if an archer is any good, realistically, they got that way by setting a target on a haybale at 100 yards and shooting arrows at it. Many arrows. Hours and hours on end, day after day. They know pretty exactly whether they're consistently hitting the bullseye, the target, the haybale or the broadside of the barn at that distance.

 

[Wycen]

Hiding the rules would probably annoy me unless the GM said before hand it was an experiment and I knew it would end soon. What you describe does not sound fun to me.

Ignorance of the rules is another thing. Trying a new game where you don't know the rules can be fun, in fact, for me, if I enjoy the game enough it may get me to purchase a copy to learn the rules. This may be a bad idea since it could remove the "mystery", but oh well. On the other hand sometimes I wont care about learning the rules because I'm just not that into it.

 

[OnlineDM]

I'd try it as an experiment if there were an absolutely fantastic GM. I mean really, super-GM.

And frankly, I think the most interesting manifestation of this would be if the super-GM were largely making it up as it went along. As the players say, "My character does X..." X becomes part of the game.

It feels like experimental theater to some degree; something I probably wouldn't enjoy too frequently, but would try on rare occasion with someone I knew to be a fantastically talented and imaginative GM.

 

[Jhaelen]

No thanks!

 

[howandwhy99]

I play reality puzzle games as my go to RPGs, which sounds a something like what the OP is saying. It's basically a cooperative simulation game played like a situational puzzle only on a multiversal scale. Well, not quite that big, but scaled by the scope of character classes. I don't take account of NPC classes to nearly such detail as played ones.

To OP: whatever you do make sure you write down and agree on some firm table rules. And for your own methodology of play you will want a sheet of rules for how play is performed at the table. I'm always working on mine, but it's only about a page of rules and a few pages more of explanation. My basic method is Attempt-Result with the players having autonomy within the table rules and the referee reading the results from the current configuration of the simulated reality.

I've found a highly detailed version of Conway's game of life works best for me as a code to be deciphered behind the screen. I generate out a campaign setting based upon the code to a large enough body of material to begin. Then I generate out a scenario or future time line of events that changes based on player actions in the game. This is done before every session as each session allows for players to sort of program the game whenever they attempt something not covered by the rules. My game is based upon a more or less large number of English words, so when the players use a word not accounted for in the code I ask for clarification, which usually means defining the term with terms I've already accounted for. Plus, the player just configured a new part of the code, which is then in the game from that point forward (and backwards via game history unknown to the players).

It can be an interesting model as pretty much everything called a computer game is a reality puzzle more or less too, but it all depends upon the players point of view.

 

[concerro]

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?

I would not like it. I want to build my own character, and some GM's run games like novels. In other words they ignore the dice and do what they want. I don't want to play a game where my decisions may not matter. GM's also may mistakes and if he messes up I want to be able to tell him he messed. I am a GM who does not mind being told he messed up if it matters to anyone.
Not knowing the rules is only going to make me focus on how much the GM is taking control from me. Knowing the rules does not nothing to distract me from the enviroment especially in a PbP where I may have an entire day to think about my next action.

 

[concerro]

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.

People would have some idea of the odds of success. As an example if I see someone who outweighs me by 20 pounds, assuming that person is not particularly strong or weak for their size, I can get an idea of my chance against them. If I am in the game world I might have a good idea of how strong a troll is, just like in our world I know not to even think about going after a bear.
People also make characters with a risk/reward ratio. Maybe the ratio that is acceptable to you is not to me.
If I am a caster maybe I don't like your spell choices.
How do I know you won't alter my choices? How do I even know you are using a game system. You might just be making things up, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but I want to know what my guy is capable of, and different systems place things in entirely different realms of possibilities.
Etc.