Playing in the Blank Spaces of the System

[KYRON45]

At some point the players and the DM/GM have to trust that everyone will behave in a manner that is conducive to good storytelling. Regardless of what system you are playing....there can't possibly be a rule for everything.

 

[Umbran]

At best, you have a disagreement with what Ben is saying.

Well, except for the stove analogy, which is Brennan's, for which my comments do apply.
Your point?
Is Brennan such a big deal that, when a piece mentions him, we are only allowed to talk about him, and no other aspect of the piece?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Roleplaying for me is not “window dressing.” You’re playing your character after all. Good God, why do people love to live in MechanicsWorldTM? I’m playing in Ravenloft as a thief or in a Gloranthan cult or as an Arthurian knight or an occult investigator. Not the D&D or FATE or CoC or PbtA SystemWorld. The goal is to imagine the fictional world and my character in it, not the buttons and levers on my character sheet. I use those buttons and levers briefly and in passing to determine outcomes when a test needs to be made to determine which way an uncertain thing may go.

There are two elements of the game that I'm kind of comparing here. The performative aspect and the play aspect.

For me, it's more important that I play the game... that I declare what my character does and make decisions for them as needed. How I choose to portray that (speaking in first person, descriptive language, etc.) is secondary. That doesn't mean it doesn't matter at all, it just means that I'm more concerned with the play of the game.

As for the buttons and levers, I think in a way, the process in Mothership for stealth became MORE about the buttons and levers. I mean, we didn't avoid having to engage in mechanics. And instead of there just being a known process that was clear and easily applied, I had to consider how best to handle the situation. Which buttons and levers to use.

As to the hiding scenario, yeah most likely I would go through the exercise of asking where the person is hiding, what they are doing, and then ending it all suspensefully with a roll (modified by their actions) to determine the final outcome.

Sounds like what I did. It also doesn't really sound different than it would be if there was a Stealth skill to use.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I wish more people did LARPs, at least tried it once or twice. Things people say in these threads are often so wild to me, like there couldn't be an interesting choices and consequences without rules, and like inhabitation of expression of character were mere flavour. No, those are the essence of the thing itself, it is the rules which are the optional extra to facilitate things that are hard to do otherwise.

 

[Reynard]

I wish more people did LARPs, at least tried it once or twice. Things people say in these threads are often so wild to me, like there couldn't be an interesting choices and consequences without rules, and like inhabitation of expression of character were mere flavour. No, those are the essence of the thing itself, it is the rules which are the optional extra to facilitate things that are hard to do otherwise.

LARPS and TTRPGs are different things, and you don't need to LARP at the table to make it fun.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

LARPS and TTRPGs are different things, and you don't need to LARP at the table to make it fun.

They are not that different, at least the way I prefer to pay them (so the right way. ) Many of these streaming shows are very LARPy. Even though they are sat at the table instead of walking around dressed up as their characters, a lot of the play time is them just inhabiting and expressing their characters, acting whilst talking in-character with each other or by the NPCs acted by the GM.

 

[Reynard]

They are not that different, at least the way I prefer to pay them (so the right way. ) Many of these streaming shows are very LARPy. Even though they are sat at the table instead of walking around dressed up as their characters, a lot of the play time is them just inhabiting and expressing their characters, acting whilst talking in-character with each other or by the NPCs acted by the GM.

Yeah, I don't mean to say it is the wrong way or a bad way to play TTRPGs. People should do whatever is fun for them. But it isn't a thing I find especially interesting and have even seen it detract from play when people go too deep down the inhabitation hole. If forced to choose, I'll take slightly detached over immersed most of the time.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

RPGs are ultimately just a set of tools and procedures, so it makes perfect sense to use them to facilitate the parts of play you would not otherwise address by simply playing. You don't need a social system when you can rely on your own personality at the table. Likewise you don't need a combat system in a 'boffer' LARP when you can rely on your own athletic ability. And while there are typically at least some rules involved, the point is they aren't necessary when engaging the skills the players already have.

The biggest problem occurs when engaging the system takes more time and energy than engaging the play which isn't explicitly enforced by mechanics, and if you're not careful it will take all the oxygen out of the room.

As a player you’re always leaving it up to the referee anyway.

Not entirely, which is why we have rules in the first place.

LARPS and TTRPGs are different things, and you don't need to LARP at the table to make it fun.

The only difference is in the activities which must be abstracted, which is exceedingly relevant to this discussion.

 

[Li Shenron]

The video isn't about why he uses 5E combatvrules, it's about why he uses games (like 5e) that don't support an important aspect of play with mechanics. The point is that not having rules for a thing means they engage it more deeply, because it has to be more of a conversation than if there are rules for it.

I see myself a lot in this. It's not actually that much the social interaction pillar that bothers me, because in fact every D&D edition I know has had very light rules for this. It's more the exploration pillar... I am thankful that 5e goes light on that as well, but already the DMG text on finding hidden doors and stuff irks me a lot (but fortunately, as the other thread reminds up, few DMs actually read or use the DMG), because it does forcibly fill an otherwise very useful blank space in the rules, by telling the DM that she must use passive perception. It puts a spanner in my work, actually more as a player (if my DMs had read the DMG, which again they don't) than a DM, because for me a major part of the fun in the exploration pillar is trying to make the best decisions based on what I know of the surroundings, and using passive perception as described in the DMG makes every PC go on autopilot.

Like most things, it depends on the people involved. What Ben is saying makes sense, to a point. If there are no rules for something then the onus is on the referee to handle it. Which can be great or terrible depending on the referee.

What playing in the gaps allows is for the referee, and by extension the table, to customize their experience. Both in what is and is not relevant to their games but also in what ways things are handled during play. Whether mechanically with a roll or descriptively with back-and-forth conversation between the referee and players.

But, because the referee is on the hook to cover those gaps, they will be more or less willing to deal with things depending on how well they think they can handle them. If you happen to be a professional improviser, like Brennan, then great...you can easily handle all the social interactions seamlessly. But if you're not a professional improviser? You might want at least some advice or guidance on how to handle those things. Maybe even have some simple rules to use (cough Reaction rolls & tables cough).

This is also why I prefer rules light or ultra-light games and FKR. Playing a custom experience is fun. Playing in the gaps is fun. Only having to deal with simple rules that can cover lots of things is easier than detailed systems with rules for everything. And players who gravitate to those games also have a similar mindset.

I can't help but thinking there is too much hyperbole in gamers' opinions. No you don't have to be a professional improviser, as well as you don't have to be a professional mathematician/statistician, a professional economist, a professional biologist/ecologist, a professional historian or a professional martial artist and weapon expert to still deliver a very successful game of D&D with your friends, without the additional rules for all this stuff, or even the advice and guidance. This is the sort of stuff that a lot of gamers keep bringing up when they are not playing, but having played for almost 30 years I can attest that almost nobody cares that much once they get to play the game, they can have a lot of fun even with bogus economy models, flawed dungeon biologies, historical inconsistencies and even the occasional math errors.

That's not to say I don't want advice or guidance, but rather that I don't certainly need it. The game basic framework already has simple rules that cover everything: ability checks and its modifiers (dis/advantage, proficiency). Additions beyond those can be surely fun when designed nicely and when they match your playstyle, but can ruin fun when they are presented as must-use* and don't match your playstyle. In such case, a gap in the rules is much better than a bad rule.

*this is why I always advocate to treat any RPG ruleset as a toolset, even when it doesn't explicitly say that something is optional

That's understandable, but there's a flip side to this. I'd like to role-play social situations, but I have a social disability. I can't bluff or persuade any more than I can shoot fireballs from my fingertips. But I'll happily play a charismatic wizard on paper, because RPGs are all about pretending to be someone else.

Crunchy social mechanics help fill the gap between [certain] players and their characters. If you loathe them, that's fine. What exists can be ignored. On the other hand, it's trickier to wish mechanics that don't exist, into existence.

This is tricky... taken to its extreme, you could have a game where the players never make any in-game decision, because deciding what is the best thing to do is covered by an Intelligence roll of their characters. The DM doesn't ask a player what their PC wants to do next, it's always dice rolls that decide. Such game would be very similar to gambling (at a totally random gambling game like a slot machine, where your only decision is whether to play or not) and I don't gamble. I play a RPG because I like the idea that I have to figure out what to do.

In social interaction, it has always been said that a shy player should never be penalized because of their shyness. At the very least their PC's Charisma score is supposed to make up for that. But it would also be very bad for a DM to stop an otherwise talkative player to engage in a conversation on the ground that their alter-ego has a low Charisma. But then, this is an asymmetric situation in more than one way... if you as a player cannot come up with a believable lie, your PC's high Charisma is at least supposed to boost a bad lie into a believable one, while your buddy at the table might have a great lie in mind, only for his PC's low Charisma to spoil it. One thing is the content/decision provided by the players (i.e. the chosen lie, which door you choose to open, which monster you choose to attack) and another thing is the performance of your decision, which is carried out by the PCs. This dualism is great when everybody is onboard.

I think that if a gaming group decides to use zero social interaction rules (including never calling for Charisma checks), then it means they are putting the entire burden on the players. It can be done this way, but rather than a great DM, you need great players, at least great at social interactions. If I had someone with a social disability in my gaming group though, I would think twice about going totally rules-free on this.

What's NOT fun is saying "I Fast Talk the guard" without any roleplaying and then rolling some dice.

Talking about the other end of the spectrum! Well, I am not sure even the complete opposite will certainly be not fun. I can see myself playing a game where every single social interaction is in fact resolved by dice. As long as there is still some decision to be made about what to do e.g. fast talk, make up a lie, insult the guard's mother, tell them to look at their untied shoes... anything that doesn't turn the whole game into autopilot. I don't know if I would play such game longer than an evening or two, but it could be that perhaps the adventure's focus is on other pillars. Now clearly, if that would be the approach in all pillars, I probably won't have much fun at all.

 

[overgeeked]

Additions beyond those can be surely fun when designed nicely and when they match your playstyle, but can ruin fun when they are presented as must-use* and don't match your playstyle. In such case, a gap in the rules is much better than a bad rule.

*this is why I always advocate to treat any RPG ruleset as a toolset, even when it doesn't explicitly say that something is optional

I agree and I treat all games as toolboxes as well. Even if not playing them. Any mechanical widget or bit of advice is one more tool to use when appropriate and put down when not. Which is what lead me to rules light games an the FKR.

There is an apparently large section of gamers who want games played using the RAW, the whole RAW, and nothing but the RAW. I have run into enough of them in the last decade playing 5E to last me several lifetimes.