Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="awesomeocalypse" data-source="post: 5080237" data-attributes="member: 85641">Maybe I've just had too many antagonist GMs, or GMs inclined to say no, but my experiences with closed rulesets have been nothing but frustration, where I find myself unable to play the character I envision except as it meshes with the sort of character the GM seems to think I should be playing. As an example, in non D&D or Superhero RPGs, my favorite character archetype to play, by far, is a manipulative "face". Politicians, con men, and just great liars, who trick others into doing what they want (think Ryan O'Reilly from Oz, Ben from Lost, or Littlefinger from A Song of Ice and Fire). In an open rules system like White Wolf, I can create such a character and have a reasonable expectation that he will be able to manipulate others like I'd like him to. Now, certainly the Storyteller can draw up antagonists who will not be easily deceived, and when facing them my character will be in trouble. But when dealing with an average person, I can tell a lie, roll whole boatload of dice, and more often than not my lie will be believed. I can do the same with the hard-to-deceive antagonist, and while the chances of success are lower, they still exist. If I roll a few 10s, it pretty much doesn't matter who I'm talking to, they're buying it. But in a system where I can't see the numbers or know the rules, this is not the case. When I tell a lie, whether or not it is believed is dependant either on the GM, or on some arbitrary ruleset which I have no way of knowing. In practice, I've found that my "master manipulator" characters often end up: No better or worse at lying than I am (i.e. if I myself can effectively and convincingly lie, then the GM will let it work. But if he's not convinced, then whoever my character is lying to won't be either. Which, given that I'm NOT the world's greatest liar like I'd like my character to be, effectively means I can't play the character I want to play). Only capable of deceiving those the GM thinks should be deceived, which rarely extends to include those antagonists or NPCs who are critical to the plot. In practice, I end up good at trivial manipulations, but with almost no chance to meaningfully influence the most important elements of the game. "You want to trick the dumb security guard? Sure. But no way you're tricking that Femme Fatale." In other words, if a DM intends that an NPC be intelligent, he is often unwilling to let me make that NPC look stupid. Open systems take that, to an extent, out of the DMs hand. So that Femme Fatale is smart? Too bad. I just rolled 6 successes on my manipulate + subterfuge check, so she's buying what I'm selling, deal with it.  In practice, I find that open rules systems are much more likely to result in players being able to successfully deal with threats by playing their characters the way they want to play their characters, rather than solving problems in the manner that makes the most sense to the GM. Master assassins can shoot at anyone, even someone the GM doesn't want them to shoot, and with a good enough roll, their target is in trouble. Master manipulators can trick people, even if they were not initially introduced with the intention of being trickable. That world-class surgeon has a shot of saving that NPC on deaths door, even if the GM only intended that the NPC would give a dramatic speech and then croak. The abilities of characters become actual, potent traits that players can use to impose their will on the world, making a situation go the way they want it to go (provided the dice roll their way). 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.</blockquote>

Verification