I was mulling over the idea of a hypothetical, "maximally immersive" game, when I hit on the idea of playing a game where only the GM is exposed to the actual numerical mechanics.

This would be a lot like free-form gaming from the players' perspective, except their knowledge that the GM is deferring to the rules for all the usual things (to-hit, damage, skill checks, etc.) from whatever game system is actually in play.

The main thing is that the GM never communicates to the players in terms of these mechanics or quantities, only with descriptions in the game world's fiction.

Players don't know their AC, they just know that they're wearing plate mail.  They don't know their hit points, only that they're "badly hurt and bleeding from the thigh".  They don't know when they earn XP or when they level up.

There are dozens of practical reasons why this would be tricky, not the least of which it would be annoying to have all these pauses while the GM struggles with everything he's tracking - initiative, to-hit rolls, hit points, encumbrance, etc.  But for the moment, I want to assume that there's some solution to this (however unlikely - magic software, an invisible army of assistant GMs, whatever).

Players generally say everything with in-character dialogue, only breaking character to tell the GM their physical actions ("I whack him with my sword,") and for occasional questions about PC knowledge and the like, (e.g. "Do I know anyone in the marketplace?"  "Do I know if the priests of Vecna in this part of the world have recognizable vestments?") (And of course for the usual OOC matters, like snacks and washroom breaks.)

Surely others have been down this road, either hypothetically or in actual play?

Quote from: fuseboy;659152Surely others have been down this road, either hypothetically or in actual play?

Flippant answer: Of course, that's how you play Paranoia (knowledge of the rules is treason, citizen).

Slightly less flippant answer: It's not all the way out to what you're describing, but I'd say that 75%+ of the role-playing I did in the 80s and 90s was pretty much in the vein of "players more-or-less understand the numbers on their character sheet, and what they need to roll when, but that's the limit of their knowledge of the rules". To my personal point of view, this is actually preferred to players knowing all the rules (or to be more precise - players needing to know all the rules).

I've known gamemasters I'd trust with at set up like that. I've known a lot more gamemasters I wouldn't. Of those I would, I doubt any of them would willingly take on that much work.

When you propose it to your players, pay attention to their reactions as individuals. If one of them doesn't trust you to be fair and impartial, it will likely show, and whether you are fair and impartial doesn't matter if they don't think you are.

(I've always wanted to try a game like that, but I'm not one of those gamemasters I'd trust with it.)

This is in fact the preferred mode of play for many of the GMs on this board. It's not to my personal tastes but I can definetely see how it can make deep immersion a lot easier.

It does need a fairly clear and minimal ruleset for maximum effectiveness though otherwise you'll run into the problem you mentioned ("it would be annoying to have all these pauses while the GM struggles with everything he's tracking - initiative, to-hit rolls, hit points, encumbrance, etc.") which is one of the reasons I'm not a big fan.

Also this style of play is probably the source of the 'rulings not rules' thing going around. It would be a lot easier to play like this if the GM's opinions and ideas are more important than the actual rules.

It can be effective for some people. I think it really varies from individual to individual. Ravenloft used to encourage the players not having knowledge of things like how much damage they take, monster ACs, etc (the advice on this ranged from module to module and product to product). I really embraced the idea when running that setting but ditched it entirely outside my Ravenloft games. I did find for most of my players this added to the intensity and immersion of the game. However some people didnt like it. If you take it too far it can pull lots of people out. At one point I took the approach tot he extreme of rolling attack rolls and damage for PCs myself (for a couple of game sessions) and it didnt go over well. Most of the players said they felt involved in the action when they rolled, and when they didnt they felt like observers. These days I usually keep all to hit numbers and stuff out in the open.

In my games, players will have character sheets, know their level, the armor they're wearing, what AC that means, equipment list, etc.

What they don't have on this sheet is something like a THAC0 chart. I use the to-hit matrices. I have the DMG and MM. The players have the PH - period. They will know what their possible bonus to hit is if they have say a weapon specialization or their sword is magical and been identified. But they will not generally know the AC of monsters, circumstantial modifiers and the like. I might describe a door as "sturdy" and say "it looks like it's brand new, and might be hard to force", not "you'd probably get a -15% or your open doors check".

There is a balance to strike between having information that allows you as a player to get an idea of what your character is, what he or she is capable of, etc, along with qualifiers that help you relate to the environment the way your character actually would, and the action that is going on in the game world. So the players will know the statistics relevant to their characters, but the other elements of the game stay behind the DM screen. It also allows for a very smooth introduction to the game for newbies, where they start by knowing what say STR or DEX represent, deal with stuff like flasks of oil and iron spikes and whatnot, and get introduced to the capacities of their chosen character gradually, by doing, as experience and levels are gained, rather than frontloading a whole bunch of abstract information from the get-go like what's a 5-foot step, an attack of opportunity, the list of "skills" in the game or what-the-fuck else.

Quote from: Benoist;659165There is a balance to strike between having information that allows you as a player to get an idea of what your character is, what he or she is capable of, etc, along with qualifiers that help you relate to the environment the way your character actually would, and the action that is going on in the game world.

That's a good point, I'm glad you brought that up. Having some mechanical information about your character serves as a proxy for the fact that the GM can't possibly convey everything.  Players who didn't know their stats might spend a lot time having their characters size up other people to try to get a relative measure of themselves, which is something they'd have acquired much earlier in life.

Quote from: fuseboy;659152I was mulling over the idea of a hypothetical, "maximally immersive" game, when I hit on the idea of playing a game where only the GM is exposed to the actual numerical mechanics.

This would be a lot like free-form gaming from the players' perspective, except their knowledge that the GM is deferring to the rules for all the usual things (to-hit, damage, skill checks, etc.) from whatever game system is actually in play.

The main thing is that the GM never communicates to the players in terms of these mechanics or quantities, only with descriptions in the game world's fiction.

Players don't know their AC, they just know that they're wearing plate mail.  They don't know their hit points, only that they're "badly hurt and bleeding from the thigh".  They don't know when they earn XP or when they level up.

There are dozens of practical reasons why this would be tricky, not the least of which it would be annoying to have all these pauses while the GM struggles with everything he's tracking - initiative, to-hit rolls, hit points, encumbrance, etc.  But for the moment, I want to assume that there's some solution to this (however unlikely - magic software, an invisible army of assistant GMs, whatever).

Players generally say everything with in-character dialogue, only breaking character to tell the GM their physical actions ("I whack him with my sword,") and for occasional questions about PC knowledge and the like, (e.g. "Do I know anyone in the marketplace?"  "Do I know if the priests of Vecna in this part of the world have recognizable vestments?") (And of course for the usual OOC matters, like snacks and washroom breaks.)

Surely others have been down this road, either hypothetically or in actual play?

1) People do play like this (as others have said)
2) For some people it helps with immersion

That said:  I don't think mechanics are necessarily un-immersive. My experience is that when people are comfortable with them, breaking out the dice and numbers doesn't necessarily break immersion.

Also: humans are generally pretty good at figuring out how good they are at physical tasks -- like throwing things, or running a certain distance (this is more true if you're actually good at running and throwing).

Mechanics help the players understand how their character will perform in a fight (or how far they can throw something, or what their chances of breaking a door are, etc.)

With the DM-only, you could still figure this stuff out, but it would require question-and-answer interaction that might be at least as immersion breaking as just using rules everyone knows.

Cheers,
-E.

I haven't done it. I believe Amber does a few of those things e.g. keeping character improvements secret.

I expect how well it will work depends on how much the game rules lines up with reality (or 'genre expectations', though that's muddier - with wuxia you might need to specify if you're going for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or Kung Fu Hustle).

Also tricky in combat since players will often be attempting actions that aren't covered by the rules, or that have no incentive or active penalties under the rules ('as the ogre swings at me, I drop to the ground under its blow and cut at its hamstring').
Some system have a 'stunting' rule where a descriptive action gets a bonus, or you may need to houserule a bit.

It's not the secrecy, but the intuitiveness that leads to immersion. If you have a secret set of rules which always results in outcomes the players find counter-intuitive, then it won't be immersive. But even blatantly obvious game mechanics can 'fade into the background' once they become 'second nature'.

For the first two years before OD&D was published, that's how Gary ran.  He even rolled dice for us.  "You feel like you've been hit a little."  "You feel about half down." "You feel pretty beat up."  Nobody else even had access to the rules.

WHICH is one reason I react so negatively to the whole "rules to protect my PC from evil GMs."  If you don't trust the fucker, don't play.

Also, if you can't bear the idea that somebody might make a mistake, don't play.

Quote from: Old Geezer;659209WHICH is one reason I react so negatively to the whole "rules to protect my PC from evil GMs."  If you don't trust the fucker, don't play.

Or to put the shoe on the other foot, if you don't trust your players enough to hold up their end of the system, don't play with them.

Minimal rules are great for this 'rulings not rules' style of play but you can sacrifice a lot of fun when using ultra light systems. A well considered system with hundreds or thousands of hours of aggressive playtesting behind it quite often does have better solutions to in-game situations than your average GM can come up with in a split second, especially when you're talking about fast moving opposed roll situations like combat.

I'm pretty comfortable with my players being aware of the rules, knowing houserules, and keeping their own character sheets in order. Indeed I insist that they at least look over and grasp some stuff like combat maneuvers and spells to get the most out of the game, also to avoid things like a player trying to sink a galley with a magic missile spell. Not that kind of missile dude.

Sorry for the OT, but this is too good to pass up...

Quote from: The Traveller;659223also to avoid things like a player trying to sink a galley with a magic missile spell. Not that kind of missile dude.

Elminster's Exocet
Evocation [Force]
Level:   Sor/Wiz 8
Components:   V, S
Casting Time:   1 standard action
Range:   Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Targets:   A single water-borne vessel or creature of Huge size or larger
Duration:   Instantaneous
Saving Throw:   None
Spell Resistance:   Yes
A missile of magical energy blasts from your arms, blasting the target with magical energy, dealing 1d4+1 per caster level, to a maximum of 40d4+40 at 40th level.

The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat or has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can’t be singled out.

For every five caster levels beyond 15th, you gain an additional missile—two at 20th level, three at 25th, four at 30th, and the maximum of five missiles at 35th level or higher. If you shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures. A single missile can strike only one creature or target. You must designate targets before you check for spell resistance or roll damage.

Quote from: The Traveller;659223Or to put the shoe on the other foot, if you don't trust your players enough to hold up their end of the system, don't play with them.

It's not that I don't trust my players to hold up their end of a more complex system, but that I know most of them aren't interested in doing so. They aren't interested in having to read and learn lots of rules. They have said so. Some won't read any rules -- if they can't pick up what they need to know in play, they simply aren't interested in playing.

My players tend to be not to be "gamist" players and not to be "hardcore" players. They are casual players who are playing because they enjoy experiencing a fantasy world through their character -- most really aren't interested in the details of the game rules. They are all willing to learn basic and simple things like what dice to roll for common activities, how initiative works, etc. Beyond that, they want to say what their character is doing in "real world" terms and have to GM apply any rules/game system wankery needed to figure out what happens.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;659231Sorry for the OT, but this is too good to pass up...



Elminster's Exocet
Evocation [Force]
Level:   Sor/Wiz 8
Components:   V, S
Casting Time:   1 standard action
Range:   Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Targets:   A single water-borne vessel or creature of Huge size or larger
Duration:   Instantaneous
Saving Throw:   None
Spell Resistance:   Yes
A missile of magical energy blasts from your arms, blasting the target with magical energy, dealing 1d4+1 per caster level, to a maximum of 40d4+40 at 40th level.

The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat or has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can’t be singled out.

For every five caster levels beyond 15th, you gain an additional missile—two at 20th level, three at 25th, four at 30th, and the maximum of five missiles at 35th level or higher. If you shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures. A single missile can strike only one creature or target. You must designate targets before you check for spell resistance or roll damage.

Too late with that joke - everyone knows' Isaac's Patriot Missile Storm joke. Or was that (Patriot) Hail Arrow of Doom? In regard to a certain item from Wood Elves armybook.

I hide some elements from my players, per se - Sanity Points in Cthulhu games, hit points. It does help us with immersion, even if slightly.

And well, for immersion, you need to use all you can get.