The game police, they live inside of my head

[howandwhy99]

There is absolutely no reason that should be the case.

Uniformity of rules means a uniformity of play styles. I'm asserting that any set of rules makes certain playstyles easy, others difficulty without changes, sometimes significant, and other playstyles downright unworkable without the rules being changed to a near unrecognizable form. This last may be what is happening for me. The rules continue to change for easier play based upon styles that are not mine. And with these changes my playstyle may end up near impossible to play under 4E. Under 3.5 it is/was a huge chore.

My preference is toward simulation, player challenging, player learning, player driven D&D, focused on speed, strategy, flexibility of style, simple rule alteration/addition, and minimalism of player metagaming (specifically, the thinking OOC definition).

There are tons of ways to play RPGs. The more focused the rules are, however, the fewer functional styles are possible under it (with corresponding amounts of work to make them functional). I could play a tactical submarine RPG with Dogs in the Vineyard rules, but that ruleset will likely be unrecognizable after I've put all the necessary work in.

In my games the players are not supposed to know the rules.

In the real world I do not know how everything works and I get along just fine. IME, folks who can play "Let's Pretend" without being told how to, have no problem about needing to know "the rules". The catch is the consequences of our actions, right? The referee is there to let us know what worked and what didn't. They play the world and the world makes sense because they follow rules. It's as simple as that.

Yes, certain characteristics that represent how good we are at an action are necessary. These are defined by class, an iconic character type that fits the world. These representations are sometimes numerical, but the certainly don't need to be. For flexibility, D&D sometimes uses numbers systems on PC sheets instead of terms like "hurt", "badly hurt", "immobile", unconscious", etc.

When starting out I've found it is best to have a smaller number of these numerical representations and focus on the flexibility player definition offers. This can happen in play or out of play with communications like character backgrounds. The referee uses these and defines how they work in their world with properly constructed rules. The players do not know these rules. They merely know how they work when they act in character. OOG thinking is minimized and play speeds along.

The key is: no matter if the numbers are on the character sheets or the DMs, they always represent something in the game world. There is no "numbers game" that has nothing to do with playing let's pretend. (i.e. Action Points do not work well as they rarely have an in-game rationale, the golden rule for deciding upon RPG rules).

The rules are the province of the Referee. To be "good" the world requires consistency. It's cause and effects don't simply change causing questions by the players. When the Ref adds new rules or alters others, it is up to him. Can players suggest new rules or better "feels" for the simulated world? Sure. It's a group game. But they cannot presume to know what rules are in effect no matter how long they have played. Their understanding of the game as Players has nothing to do with the rules. Now, how to best "win" according to their own policies and what earns XP... (yes, that matters)

If my world conception is different than the rules are properly simulating, I'm going to ange the rules, not the world. If the rules don't allow me to change them without days or even weeks of work, I'm stuck looking for another game. And most folks like to play what's in fashion, so I hope 4e will work for me.

 

[howandwhy99]

I don't get this so I must be missing something.

Rules in games exist so that from a certain perspective (how to play the game by knowing the rules), the playing field is level. Everyone must 'know' the rules to compete equally. It is a handicap to try to play a game (strategy, tactics, etc) while at the same time trying to get a handle of the rules (the mechanism by which you actualize your strategy/tactics).

Games like chess are based on both players understanding the simple rules of how each pieces move. At it core, Chess is a easy game - rules wise; but the strategy is what makes it a challenge enjoyed by millions. But it presupposes that both players know the basic rules of the game to start with.

How can someone play in your RPG game by not knowing the rules without it turning into 'Simon says' or 'Mother, may I'? Example: I want to do 'action X'. Either you allow it or not in your game. If you don't allow it, then I am frustrated because I don't know what I can or cannot do, without your approval.

If you do allow it, then I, in essence, must have your approval and any future action must like wise go through an approval process. And I must remember that the approval for action X under condition Y may not necessary mean that action X will be allowed under condition Z, in fact, soliciting approval of that.

I suspect I am totally missing the point so what do you mean when you say players don't need to know the rules?

RPGs are not chess. Most boardgames are games with defined borders. RPGs really have very few borders, but HUGE amounts of possibility. Not just numerical possibility like Go, but "what would you do if you were a wizard in a fantasy land" possibility. The most important limit is one's capacity to dream. Others include: the ability of the DM, the strength and breadth of the rules he or she uses, the limits of what can be done in hypothetical, and probably a bunch more.

The point is, RPGs are slightly less flexible than playing Let's Pretend. The cool thing is they can offer surprising, mirth inducing, previously unknown results for our actions. There is the feel of a real world there that doesn't happen in Let's Pretend.

So when you say, "I want to do 'action X'" and "I must remember that the approval for action X under condition Y may not necessary mean that action X will be allowed under condition Z, in fact, soliciting approval of that", you are talking about acting like a real person in a real world. The consequences of our actions are learned through practice. The promise of heroic ability is valid. The strengths of the iconic class are existent. They can even by purposefully changed (again, in character). What is not know is everything about how the world works before the Players/Characters begin to explore it.

To be fair, most actions we do are well known by us as to what is possible. It is the degree to what is possible that you may be wondering about. Strengths are represented by numerical scores more often than not and their abstract representations are as well known to the players as those in 3.0 are who don't know the DCs for their actions. I believe most DMs wouldn't want Target Numbers known for what the characters do without previous experience with them.

Even then, when you're sure you should have hit, 14 hit for everyone else right?, you begin to learn something else may be going on you have yet to discover. [cursed weapon ]

 

[howandwhy99]

But I don't think it would work for D&D.

Damn! I want to play more Paranoia now. It's a world meant to drive you insane. Happily though, Mr. Computer!

D&D can or could work under similar ideas. The Player has a numerical representation showing how good he is at swinging a sword. He gets a better idea after he's swung it at something a few times.

How good does that reflective armor work? Again, learn in character. Study it, practice on it with a wooden sword, and you should get be able to work your way down to a numerical understanding. More fun is when its' attributes are more than just numerical. Like knowing it reflects only magic from arcane m-u's. And that you can cut it up and place it on your castles' front door.

EDIT:
Jer,
Yeah, that is one style. We use character sheets as they are good to have. Most of what is on them are the notes and equipment lists (more notes really) of the Players. HP, AC, Weapon Damage, Ability Scores, and the like are the simple numerical representations players can use as a good approximation of what their character is and can do. That is D&D to me. No need to keep it all behind the screen.

Not to get off topic, but my concern with Sorcerer, as I understand it, is the players can alter the world by controlling how it behaves. Story emulation over simulation. That's metagame thinking in my mind and not necessary for creating cool stories. It's more of a round robin, campfire, story telling game where everyone gets to add their part rather than a hypothetically "lived" event that is a story when talked about afterward. The focus is on challenging and improving the Players rather than the narrative quality of their actions.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

My preference is toward...and minimalism of player metagaming (specifically, the thinking OOC definition).

Even then, when you're sure you should have hit, 14 hit for everyone else right?, you begin to learn something else may be going on you have yet to discover. [cursed weapon ]

er..

um..

Eh.. nothing really to add here



Cadfan Thanks for the entertaining read! I miss playing Paranoia!

 

[Varianor Abroad]

My hope is RPGs will be designed with multiple options for putting together rulesets rather than a strongly embedded one. Many optional combat and magic systems, level disparity, monster CRs, spell lists, feats, etc. etc. I don't think it will happen this go around.

Don't we have the OGL and a world of spinoff d20 games? What about GURPS? Both of these games have multiple options for putting together rulesets. Outside of these two games where the rules tend to follow close paradigms, I think that the internet is a vast playground where you can find others of a similar mindset for the game that you want.

 

[howandwhy99]

er..

um..

Eh.. nothing really to add here

Think of it as noticing your hitting is just as good as Gordak's, but he's getting ones in that your not. It must be the joystick er... sword, right?

The numbers are abstractions that allow simple math to be used and predetermined granularity. If I could think of as useful and simple a system that is also better termed in-game, I'd use it. Like some videogames using life bars instead of HP numbers. Don't you swing slower in Diablo when you're not as skillful or some such?

Don't we have the OGL and a world of spinoff d20 games? What about GURPS? Both of these games have multiple options for putting together rulesets. Outside of these two games where the rules tend to follow close paradigms, I think that the internet is a vast playground where you can find others of a similar mindset for the game that you want.

I'm playing D&D, just not finding 3.5 as useful for me as past editions have been. GURPS doesn't work at all for me at it assumes the DM understands how all skills work and the players don't necessarily need to. All that learning is waved... which isn't bad in a modern setting. In fact, it's pretty much a necessity. But in D&D, the challenge is all on the Players.

Variant rules are hardly a new thing. Every version of AD&D has had 'em. I just want to be able to play without certain rules that don't work for me. That was easier when there was a Core Basic.

 

[hong]

Variant rules are hardly a new thing. Every version of AD&D has had 'em. I just want to be able to play without certain rules that don't work for me. That was easier when there was a Core Basic.

If I can ban wizards, so can everyone else.

 

[Cadfan]

Uniformity of rules means a uniformity of play styles. I'm asserting that any set of rules makes certain playstyles easy, others difficulty without changes, sometimes significant, and other playstyles downright unworkable without the rules being changed to a near unrecognizable form.

I do find it impressive that your first sentence and your second sentence contradict so directly. You begin by asserting a uniformity of playstyles, then immediately retreat to asserting merely a finite multitude of playstyles, while demanding infinite.

My preference is toward simulation, player challenging, player learning, player driven D&D, focused on speed, strategy, flexibility of style, simple rule alteration/addition, and minimalism of player metagaming (specifically, the thinking OOC definition).

I've always found that not knowing the rules of the gameworld reduces speed and strategy, while increasing metagaming. You can't quickly decide what to do because you don't immediately know your options. You can't strategize because you have no idea the chances your decisions will work. And you can't avoid metagaming because you're always asking the DM how good your character thinks his chances are of success. "Does Starlight the Elven Rogue think she can climb a wall of this type without waking the sleeping guard?" is metagame reasoning when you ask it of the DM.

And you can't just declare, "You can trust your character to be able to do what's reasonable." That would work just fine in a low fantasy levelless RPG. In D&D, you have to account for class levels. And what's reasonable for an eighth level rogue? You can't exactly sit back and think about what real life eighth level rogues can accomplish. Its inherently a game construct.

If that's the sort of game you're looking for, you might want to just give up on high fantasy. Find a game where the players all have Indiana Jones level abilities, that can be logically reasoned from first principles by the player. D&D is not and has never been that game.

 

[Andor]

And you can't just declare, "You can trust your character to be able to do what's reasonable." That would work just fine in a low fantasy levelless RPG. In D&D, you have to account for class levels. And what's reasonable for an eighth level rogue? You can't exactly sit back and think about what real life eighth level rogues can accomplish. Its inherently a game construct.

If that's the sort of game you're looking for, you might want to just give up on high fantasy. Find a game where the players all have Indiana Jones level abilities, that can be logically reasoned from first principles by the player. D&D is not and has never been that game.

And it's ten times worse than that when magic gets involved. If I'm playing a character who has spent half his life studying arcane lore I, as his player, ought to have some clue what he can do, and how magic works in your world. Otherwise it's like playing an ancient text based PC game where I'm endlessly trying different synonyms to see if the parser knows one of them.

"I blast him." 'Magic doesn't do that.'
"Uh. Okay.. I levitate a rock into his head?" 'No brute force! Think more fairytale magic.'
"Right. I charm him into being my friend?" 'No messing with free will.'
*sigh* "I turn him into a frog." 'Wrong phase of the moon.'
"I turn him into a newt." 'Okay, but he'll get better.'

 

[TwinBahamut]

Uniformity of rules means a uniformity of play styles.

I can't say I agree with this statement at all... I am not sure you agree either, considering all your claims about how RPGs surpass other games in terms of imaginative quality...

Anyways, I believe that every player should know all the rules of the game, simply because it allows for more creativity on the part of the player, and because it helps the game run a lot faster. Also, from my own experience playing RPGs that I did not know the rules for, it was irritating, and far too often led to the GM telling me how to play the game, and a lot less fun on my part. It felt like the other players who did know the rules tended to treat me like an idiot... Not fun at all.

To explain the creativity matter... Knowing all the options the rules provides for can serve as a source of inspiration, seeding new character concepts and adding to the flavor of the game. Without any sources of inspiration, ideas tend to lead towards the stereotypical, and that is no fun. At least, having character ideas that fluidly mesh with what is supported by the rules is helpful and more fun than the alternative. Who wants to play a character concept that just won't work with the rules of the game? It is not like the DM can magically create balanced new rules just because he doesn't let the players know them...

Also, I reject the idea that people will just forget about 3E concepts just because they move on to a new edition. I think the costant references back to older editions that are found everywhere here on ENWorld is proof enough.