The Hidden Rules

[Celebrim]

In a closed ruleset, my capacity to impose my will on the world inevitably feels limited by the DMs willingness to let the world be imposed upon.

I don't think the two have anything to do with each other.

First of all, your capacity to impose your will on the world is inevitably and always limited by the DM's willingness to the let the world be imposed upon. Even with an open system, there isn't a DM worth his pizza that can't use the rules to achieve the results he wants 99% of the time if he really wants it. Storyteller is IMO particularly bad in this regard, in that in my experience its a system very open to interpretation by the storyteller - including, because of the intricancies of its dice pool system, even accidental manipulation because no one really knows the odds of anything.

Secondly, Storyteller is by no means an open system. You can run Storyteller as a closed system. You could even run it as a completely closed system (that is, the players don't even know what the rules system being used is). All that determines whether a system is open or closed is whether or not the players know the rules. Once you know all the rules, the system is an 'open system', even if, like 1e AD&D, it was not intended to be an open system.

So the question is, supposing I ran Storyteller as a closed system, and you played a face man, wouldn't you have the same ability to impose your will on the game world even if you didn't know the rules that you had if you knew the rules? If you proposed to tell a lie, the chance that the lie would be believed is the same regardless of whether you know how that outcome is generated.

 

[amerigoV]

Honestly, I have no interest in playing "figure out what am I thinking" with a DM. I got a boss and wife (Boss) with whom I can play that game.

All I ask of my DM is
1) Learn the f'ing rules
2) Give me a modestly entertaining story
3) Give me a some good fights

In turn, I will
1) Show up and eat munchies
2) Might bring dice and a pencil
3) Will keep my character sheet up to date
4) Follow your cheesy hook just to get to the action
5) Will only derail your plot if you fail your end of the bargain.


(note: tongue in cheek, but with a big kernel of truth)

 

[Celebrim]

You obviously never played cops and robbers as a kid.
"Bang, you're dead!"
"Am not, you missed!"
"Are so!"
"Am not!"

No, I did play cops and robbers as a kid.

And I'm still playing 'cops and robbers' because I figured out that when you had a disagreement over the outcome of a proposition like that, you could use a fortune mechanic like throwing a dice to resolve the outcome.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Interesting thread!

What does a player base his PC's decisions on when he knows that he doesn't have all the information?

It seems that the player will explore the game world to fill the gaps in his knowledge, especially if the game is about challenging the player.

What about metagame considerations? That information doesn't leave a player even if he's going through multiple PCs. It can be hard to forget that fire stops a troll from regenerating, or deciding when a new PC might put two and two together and come to this realization.

You could also metagame by reading the DM - "Joe doesn't believe in pacifism, so there's probably something up with those peaceful monks living in the middle of Demon Valley." But is that metagaming or making assumptions about the setting? Hmm...

What responsibilities does the DM have when running a game like that? It seems as though his rulings would have to be principled and consistent.

The DM's responsibility is to run the game in a manner which is neither "for" or "against" the players.

As far as metagame knowledge goes a lot of "well known" facts may or may not hold true for a given campaign. Lets consider the troll lore knowledge example for a bit. Is this metagame knowledge being used to player advantage or not?

The answer could be either yes or no. Lets say that the PC's encounter what the rules system defines as a troll. If this creature in this particular campaign world is a unique abberation, a true "monster" as opposed to a member of the humanoid race "troll" there may or may not be any lore about the creature. From other games the player might be very familliar with trolls but that knowledge applied in the current game would be pure metagame.

If trolls were a known type of creature in the campaign world there might be lore around from people who have encountered them and lived to tell the tale. In this case it would be a question of whether the character was aquainted with that lore.

Rulings should be made fairly and consistently. Fair and consistent does not automatically translate to the same exact mechanical resolution method for every similar situation. A very limited menu of hard coded pre-packaged options can actually stifle creativity. For players who are aboslutely obsessed with the exact resolution method used to determine every outcome a rulings based game will drive them nuts.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

No, I did play cops and robbers as a kid.

And I'm still playing 'cops and robbers' because I figured out that when you had a disagreement over the outcome of a proposition like that, you could use a fortune mechanic like throwing a dice to resolve the outcome.

Interesting. We just argued until someone gave in. (Or left.) And no one carried dice around with them. (Then again, we usually ended up playing that sort of thing when it was starting to get dark out anyway. We were weird kids! )

 

[Celebrim]

Interesting. We just argued until someone gave in.

That was a very simplified account. I didn't mean to imply that we literally invented the role playing game by our selves while playing a game of 'Cops and Robbers'.

'Cowboys and Indians' => lots of other games were we tried different ways of resolving who shot who => playing role playing games

By the time we got to 'playing role playing games' we generally weren't playing 'Cops and Robbers' or 'Cowboys and Indians' anymore (though I did play a little Boot Hill), but I see it as a very clear progression.

 

[howandwhy99]

This is a good topic worthy of it's own thread. I thought it would be best to get it out of the edition war thread.
SNIP

Lostsoul's and your post blend into each other for me. I answered his questions in the other thread. Can you post some short conclusions of your thoughts in the OP? I did not understand exactly what you were saying.

@Celebrim - you have some awesome points about how rules confine the mind. That roleplaying was created to break out of old ways of behaving matches right up to what you are saying.

(still reading the thread)

 

[howandwhy99]

Whew! There is a lot of thread to go through. Below are some points of my own regarding some topics I've read so far:

1. The world does not work according to how a player believes it should. Patterns are fantasy, not reality. Learning how the world behaves and using one's suppositions to their advantage is the players' role. Saying, "This is nonsense! Samurai swords can cut through steel!" is treating the game like a trivia game. There is no right answer to killing orcs to be found in our reality. The fiction should not be treated as if it is real and obeying of the laws of whatever each of us holds as our own "reality". We cannot know fundamentally how either the pattern or reality works, but we theorize based upon past experiences in hopes of predicting future consequences. This is why PFGs are pragmatic games placing players into something like the human condition. IOW, "how many times do you need to bang your head against a dungeon wall before you start positing it is there?"

2. Character knowledge is largely held to be identical to player knowledge. As characters don't exist you cannot rely on them to "do the right thing" in a given situation. It is the role of the players to investigate the expressions of the referee for what might happen next. If they are encountering something without any prior experience, something endemic to the beginning of any RPG, then they cannot be sure of any outcome. The character cannot save them from this. The character only "knows" the background as submitted.

3. In a PFG you cannot ask "Is doing X risky?" and expect an answer. You have to trying doing X and find out. Roleplaying was posited to be the performance of a behavior, not the discussion of such.

4. The rules set up behind the screen are a mathematically finite system (not a closed mathematical system, which would allow no outside interaction). Attempted actions by the players that are not covered by any rule receive neither a yes or no answer, but an "irrelevant, so yes" one. "Okay, you dance the hula." However, once defined that is the answer from then on. This is not a common game rule, but one found in other PFGs like situational pattern puzzles.

 

[howandwhy99]

Interesting thread!

What does a player base his PC's decisions on when he knows that he doesn't have all the information?

It seems that the player will explore the game world to fill the gaps in his knowledge, especially if the game is about challenging the player.

Think of a way to learn the information you seek. This can be indirect like setting off a false alarm in an bugbear complex or direct like jumping through a portal. Neither needs to be done for the story to happen. It is exploring a potential path that may lead to accomplishing one's current self-selected goals.

What about metagame considerations? That information doesn't leave a player even if he's going through multiple PCs. It can be hard to forget that fire stops a troll from regenerating, or deciding when a new PC might put two and two together and come to this realization.

Bob #2, #3, #4, and #5 all do have some oddly similar behavior and knowledge, but they look different, have different gear, ability scores, and are treated differently by things in the world. Ditto when playing two or more PCs at the same time.

You could also metagame by reading the DM - "Joe doesn't believe in pacifism, so there's probably something up with those peaceful monks living in the middle of Demon Valley." But is that metagaming or making assumptions about the setting? Hmm...

Trying to guess the Refs preferences in a pattern finding game is irrational. All the Referee does is express the same pattern over and over and over again. A good one will keep a poker face regardless, but determining an outcome without trying it is easiest by actually reflecting back on the game or checking your journal notes. This is not a GM freeform game.

Plus, a referee can use any module or setting desired, by the ref or the players. That's merely the fiction.

What responsibilities does the DM have when running a game like that? It seems as though his rulings would have to be principled and consistent.

Responsibilities? Don't lie. Don't cheat. As this is all fiction it is probably more accurately stated as: only respond with the predetermined outcome, do not cheat on randomizers, and question a player until their actions definitively fit under one or more rules or none at all. Recognizing that an attempted act falls under a rule is the only "ruling" done here. There is no "Rule Zero".

So, players are primarily engaged in pattern recognition with everything that comes along with that. Referees are primarily engaged in enforcing the rules, a role normally performed by everyone in a typical game. "The rules say he may move up to six 5-foot spaces. He moved two feet which leaves him in the same square."

 

[Ariosto]

Apparently, Monty Haul is dead.

There are no Judges Who Give Too Much, no Campaigns Killed With Kindness.

There are no greedy players either, maybe asking first for an inch but glad to take a mile if they can get it. A player never seeks anything but a fair advantage.

D&D-land today, to judge from the reports I read here, is just full of malicious referees determined not to let anyone do anything fun. Why, it's a wonder players play at all.

Indeed, it's a wonder that anyone at all should volunteer to put in all those hours of work to provide a game, when it is obviously the road to perdition! Why not leave it to computer programmers, who need not actually face the players?

Oh, but who would actually play a computer game? Do you get all the source code? If you did, how long would it take to read?

I guess it's best now just to leave the players -- those dear cherubs! -- to themselves. After all, they could never disagree with each other, could they?