It's fine if you want to tell people they lose their action because they don't decide quickly, and it's also possible that the other players will push the player least familiar with the rules toward a particular course of action.  In fact, that's usually what I see happen.

But from the new player's perspective, it's not as much fun to go through the whole session just being told 'Just attack him' or 'Just charge'.  Taken to an extreme, the 'new player' is really just an auxillary of an experienced player - and I've seen that happen.  I've even seen experienced players get angry with a new player for doing something 'stupid' - which if they knew the rules they might not have wanted to do.  3.x offers great examples - since it uses attacks of opportunities, doing something that provokes is usually unwise.  The new player that says 'I shoot him with my bow' not recognizing that firing a bow in melee has negative consequences is a problem - both because the character would know, but also because once you take the 'preferred option' off the table, the player has to come up with a new action.  

Again, this matters most when effectiveness is an important part of play.  

But certainly for the game to work, players need to have general ideas of how actions will work.  There are things that I would do in real life that I won't do in a game - the way they work out in the game just don't reflect reality very well.

In the "rules versus rulings" controversy (which goes back almost two centuries), the rules in question are formal, abstract rules. More fundamental are the facts of life the abstraction is supposed to model.

The flexibility of a GM is a solution for the simulator, a problem for the competitor.

On one hand, even an encyclopedic codex could not cover every real possibility. On the other hand, however bizarre such a text may be from a simulation perspective, it admits of comprehensive analysis: if X then Y, with no unknown members in the sets.

The roleplaying element was prominent in the Prussian kriegspiel. The GM gave you only the information you would actually get on scene, and you had all the options in response that you would have in real life.

In the 1960s, hobby gaming rose to new levels of popularity with "hex and counter" map games mainly designed for use without a GM. As a practical matter -- quite regardless of desirability! -- this typically meant that all players had access to perfect information about the abstraction.

The simulator does not like to hear, "You can't do that, because the model does not permit it." If a new domain of X or Y must be introduced, then so be it!

Neither is it a great thing to be given information to which one would not be privy in the real situation; that is at best a necessary evil.

As an offshoot of military history, the field of hobby gaming has an inherent element of simulation; as a hobby, it has a do it yourself, home-brewed element.

As a kind of game, it has an inherent element of pure competitors as well.

To complicate matters further, there are people who partake of both elements to varying degrees, even depending on the occasion.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650996But from the new player's perspective, it's not as much fun to go through the whole session just being told 'Just attack him' or 'Just charge'.  Taken to an extreme, the 'new player' is really just an auxillary of an experienced player - and I've seen that happen.  I've even seen experienced players get angry with a new player for doing something 'stupid' - which if they knew the rules they might not have wanted to do.  3.x offers great examples - since it uses attacks of opportunities, doing something that provokes is usually unwise.

Well, that's an argument against 3.X and attacks of opportunity rather than the practice in general.  

At the same time, I have seen the same thing in earlier editions with spells - i.e. if a new and/or young players casts all their spells too quickly, say, or the wrong ones at the wrong time.

Quote from: talysman;650918Now, an interesting aside might be: was Paranoia partially written the way it was to mock the style of some extreme GMs who banned players from the rules?

Maybe, but the game came well before WEG's text.

Quote from: jhkim;650994I'm suspicious particularly of people who are arguing for no rules knowledge for players, when they themselves generally know the rules.

I generally know as little as I am allowed to.

I was introduced to D&D in a way that did not entail learning the number-crunching bits. Dealing with those was simply not the game's interface, any more than waggling a joystick at the video arcade required learning machine language.

Having long since been a D&D DM, I am fairly well acquainted with the main TSR-era books. I am likely often to notice if a DM is using things as written or modifying them. That's just an occupational hazard of being a DM!

I also went through a phase of collecting published RPG rules sets, reading them even if I never got around to using them.

It does not at all follow that I expect a "by the book" game, unless such is advertised.

Quote from: jhkim;651001Well, that's an argument against 3.X and attacks of opportunity rather than the practice in general.  

At the same time, I have seen the same thing in earlier editions with spells - i.e. if a new and/or young players casts all their spells too quickly, say, or the wrong ones at the wrong time.

Apples and oranges, friend.

What a spell does is no different than what a real-world tool does, in feasibility of description in plain language. Learning to use a tool in its own right well is quite another matter from needing first to learn how to use a technical simulation-model description of the tool.

As I mentioned in a previous post, there's the difference between being able to grab a joystick or needing to learn machine language.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764reread what he said as the scenario.  It wasn't just jumping straight up to grab the chandelier.

Your saying that the idea of swinging after grabbing the chandelier, completely changes it from a mundane action to an action requiring a Dex check?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764Tell you what hot shot, you put 3 full grown men standing on a typical inn table (usually pretty thick and heavy itself) and try to flip it.  Go ahead you stud you.  Especially with a floor that is supposedly easy to slide all the way across.

Yeah it isn't that hard.
It sure the shit ain't
* Sorry, but your strength doesn't allow you to lift 600+ pounds.
I'm not dead lifting anything I'm flipping or more accurately tipping the table over.  The act of tipping makes use of one of the 6 simple machines, a lever. I'm not dead lifting 600+ lbs.  Perhaps in your world using a wheelbarrow is deadlifting weight.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764Because it's treated like any other attack roll.  Dagger or stew, doesn't matter.  You're throwing an object as an attack.  Seriously dude.

I'm not attacking I am trying to cause a distraction.  I don't need to hit him right between the eyes, a glancing hit of some kind is more than sufficient.  It matters not if the bowl hits him or if it is just the stew or a combination of either

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764Again, you're essentially making an attack.  So just make an attack roll.

Why?  You described him as a skinny farmer with a broken bottle in his hand, who I will assume is feeling the effects of alcohol. Here I am a season adventurer and I still have to roll dice to roll into someone like this?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764You know, if you actually read the scenario before responding, you'd save yourself a lot of time.  If it were fairly easy to "slide across the bar floor" anytime food or beverage got spilled, you don't think that would be a problem?  People would be falling all over themselves.  There's a big difference in being somewhat slippery and slippery enough to slide a significant distance.

The wood would be slippery, why do you think hay or reeds or other plant material was strewn across the floors for?
If you are going for a more upscale establishment, yeah spilled liquid causes people to slide,  ever heard of hydroplaning?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764The chandelier rope isn't moving, thus no attack roll needed.  If anyone is underneath it when it falls, they get affected.  What's so hard about that?

He automatically cuts clean through. No negatives to draw and strike.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;650764And this is why most people here think you're an idiot, because you're not actually thinking before needing to post an antagonizing diatribe of tripe.

Oh so I'm an idiot because I poked holes in your 'rulings'.
And you wonder why some people don't like the concept of rulings instead of rules.

Quote from: jhkim;650994On the one hand, I generally agree that systemless play and/or play without knowing the rules is quite possible and can be fun.  It's a fairly empirical thing - I've played a wide variety of new systems including ones where I didn't know the options and was being walked through them.  

Thus, I disagree with the extremes of Gleichman and Anon.  

However, that said, some stuff from the non-rules side strikes me as a bit off.  While it *can be* fun, I have seen and experienced some problems with no-rules-knowledge play.  I'm suspicious particularly of people who are arguing for no rules knowledge for players, when they themselves generally know the rules.  


I believe your experience - but how many of those in-character choices of charge, attack, etc. are in cases where you have no knowledge of the rules being used?  

Sure, in a D&D game, you can easily choose between casting Sanctuary, casting Cure Light Wounds, and using your mace.  However, you know what those options do.  If you were completely new to the game, you could choose between those options arbitrarily, but I think there's a case that it isn't really in character - since the character does know how the Sanctuary spell works (for example).

Well, the description of the spell should make it fairly clear what the spell does. the gm would presumably tell the new player at least "Santuary may protect you or another until you do something violent'

Sure, a wizard or cleric is potentially tricky for a brand new player, but the gm can tell you 'Magic missle always hits its target'

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650996It's fine if you want to tell people they lose their action because they don't decide quickly, and it's also possible that the other players will push the player least familiar with the rules toward a particular course of action.  In fact, that's usually what I see happen.

But from the new player's perspective, it's not as much fun to go through the whole session just being told 'Just attack him' or 'Just charge'.  Taken to an extreme, the 'new player' is really just an auxillary of an experienced player - and I've seen that happen.  I've even seen experienced players get angry with a new player for doing something 'stupid' - which if they knew the rules they might not have wanted to do.  3.x offers great examples - since it uses attacks of opportunities, doing something that provokes is usually unwise.  The new player that says 'I shoot him with my bow' not recognizing that firing a bow in melee has negative consequences is a problem - both because the character would know, but also because once you take the 'preferred option' off the table, the player has to come up with a new action.  

Again, this matters most when effectiveness is an important part of play.  

But certainly for the game to work, players need to have general ideas of how actions will work.  There are things that I would do in real life that I won't do in a game - the way they work out in the game just don't reflect reality very well.

Most players get up to speed fairly quickly in play, but I have seen a few players that cant add up to hit bonuses after a solid year too

Quote from: Sommerjon;651010Your saying that the idea of swinging after grabbing the chandelier, completely changes it from a mundane action to an action requiring a Dex check?

Yes.  It's safe to assume that players don't have a lot of practice leaping up in the middle of combat to swing on chandeliers towards an opponent.

QuoteYeah it isn't that hard.
It sure the shit ain't
* Sorry, but your strength doesn't allow you to lift 600+ pounds.
I'm not dead lifting anything I'm flipping or more accurately tipping the table over.  The act of tipping makes use of one of the 6 simple machines, a lever. I'm not dead lifting 600+ lbs.  Perhaps in your world using a wheelbarrow is deadlifting weight.

I'll bet you $100 you can't do it.  Especially on a floor that is so slippery that, according to you, is easy to slide across like an ice rink.  How are you going to get your footing?  Also, a table doesn't have a single pivot point like a wheelbarrow.  And I doubt a thick wooden table is just so easy to flip over.  If it's stable with 3 people fighting on top of it, you think it's a card table?  Jesus, you're just failing all over the place.

QuoteI'm not attacking I am trying to cause a distraction.  I don't need to hit him right between the eyes, a glancing hit of some kind is more than sufficient.  It matters not if the bowl hits him or if it is just the stew or a combination of either

According to you, a player wanting to throw a flask of acid on an opponent does not need to make an attack roll?  There's no real difference in throwing a bowl of stew and throwing a bowl of acid, mechanically.  Not only are you being stupid here, but the rules actively disagree with you as well.

QuoteWhy?  You described him as a skinny farmer with a broken bottle in his hand, who I will assume is feeling the effects of alcohol. Here I am a season adventurer and I still have to roll dice to roll into someone like this?

Again, because you're essentially doing an attack.  Where do you draw the line?  If the farmer was 100 pounds?  150 pounds?  200 pounds? before an attack is necessary?  I guess my fighter doesn't need to roll to hit any more when fighting goblins or other similarly small creatures.  He can just barrel roll them all automatically...

QuoteThe wood would be slippery, why do you think hay or reeds or other plant material was strewn across the floors for?
If you are going for a more upscale establishment, yeah spilled liquid causes people to slide,  ever heard of hydroplaning?

Do you know how hydroplaning works?  I'm guessing not, unless you are assuming that a player is sliding at 40mph.  You're describing a floor that is as slippery as a sheet of ice.  If that were the case, you don't think it would affect everyone else that is currently fighting on it?  There is a big difference is sliding a few inches or even a foot on a slippery surface, and sliding a dozen feet.  You really have no concept of physics or friction.

QuoteHe automatically cuts clean through. No negatives to draw and strike.

Exactly.  A non moving rope right there getting hit by a sword or axe?  why not.  Maybe if it was really thick it might take more than one hit, but why would you need a to-hit roll for this, when you don't when throwing a bowl of stew at someone who is presumably going to try to avoid it?

QuoteOh so I'm an idiot because I poked holes in your 'rulings'.
And you wonder why some people don't like the concept of rulings instead of rules.

no, you're an idiot for completely missing the point (none of those scenarios resulted in paralysis by analysis).  Completely failing at things like basic physics or common sense doesn't help either.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650996It's fine if you want to tell people they lose their action because they don't decide quickly, and it's also possible that the other players will push the player least familiar with the rules toward a particular course of action.  In fact, that's usually what I see happen.

But from the new player's perspective, it's not as much fun to go through the whole session just being told 'Just attack him' or 'Just charge'.

You're making a leap of logic here that nobody made: you're assuming that making a decision to do something will automatically default to "I just attack" or "I just charge" or that players will bully others into just doing that. This is a systematic error in those kinds of discussion to default to the worse case scenario. That's not what I see at game tables. What I see is instead just going with the first idea, way more often : "Okay then I'll just jump over the fence, swing on the chandelier and crash onto these brawling guys there." And on we go.

And yeah, for some people, once they stop worrying about whether they get +1 doing this or +2 doing that, they in fact may have a LOT more fun playing the game, as opposed to pixel-bitching about the math, in my experience.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650996The new player that says 'I shoot him with my bow' not recognizing that firing a bow in melee has negative consequences is a problem - both because the character would know, but also because once you take the 'preferred option' off the table, the player has to come up with a new action.

Player: "I shoot the guy in front of me."
DM: "You are in a melee. You know that shooting in melee might cause you to hit someone else, and provide an opening to your opponents to hit you."
Player: "Fuck. OK. What if I drop the bow and draw my sword?"
DM: "This could take some time, and again, while you're doing this, your opponents are free to take the opportunity to hit you."
Player: "OK then. Here's what I'm going to do: I'm going to just crash into the guy in front of me to hopefully break from the melee and be able to shoot next turn."
DM: "Works for me. Roll to hit..."

Done. This is not rocket science.

Quote from: Bill;651014Most players get up to speed fairly quickly in play, but I have seen a few players that cant add up to hit bonuses after a solid year too

Yep, and IME I've found that if newbies see their fellow players pulling off fun cinematic shit with their PCs, they'll want in on that action right quick.

It might start off with a tentative "..can I try the leaping chandelier thing like Nate did last combat?  I'm close enough to one..." but after they've been told "Sure you can!" by the GM a couple times they'll lose that timidity.

(and yes, there are players - good and bad ones - who don't like trying cinematic shit with their characters...no problem there, they probably don't care)

Quote from: gleichman;650766It could very well be one.

If the campaign's genre and rules say that being in the open against missile fire is a dangerous move, leaping up and hanging from the chandelier when there's a foe nearby with a ready missile weapon is, well dumb no matter the height advantage the player gained on his melee foe.

A GM that failed to take the shot (and thus cause player failure) has broken the rules *and* the genre. He has also reduced the risk of the game.

It's that reduced risk that is a common feature of free-wheeling GM who ignore or override the rules. He will almost always do this in ways to favor the players (as you note, saying 'not doing so is being an asshat').

So, having claimed to never played this way, how could you possibly know what a "common feature" is? Consider how few roleplayers you know out of all the roleplaying groups across the world. at what point have you done the research to make assertions about what is common in games you're ignorant of?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;650996It's fine if you want to tell people they lose their action because they don't decide quickly, and it's also possible that the other players will push the player least familiar with the rules toward a particular course of action.  In fact, that's usually what I see happen.

But from the new player's perspective, it's not as much fun to go through the whole session just being told 'Just attack him' or 'Just charge'.  Taken to an extreme, the 'new player' is really just an auxillary of an experienced player - and I've seen that happen.  I've even seen experienced players get angry with a new player for doing something 'stupid' - which if they knew the rules they might not have wanted to do.  3.x offers great examples - since it uses attacks of opportunities, doing something that provokes is usually unwise.  The new player that says 'I shoot him with my bow' not recognizing that firing a bow in melee has negative consequences is a problem - both because the character would know, but also because once you take the 'preferred option' off the table, the player has to come up with a new action.  

While some players may learn this stuff most effectively from reading the rules, a lot of players will learn it by experience and watching play. And they don't necessarily learn the rule, they just learn the likely consequence.

So is it necessary for a player to know that firing an arrow into melee results in a 25 per cent chance of hitting a friendly on a missed roll? No. Maybe it's just necessary for the player to know that it's usually a bad idea, unless he has a feat that cancels the penalty.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651010Oh so I'm an idiot because I poked holes in your 'rulings'.

At an actual game table, you'd be the idiot because you would be a dick to everybody else stopping the game to a crawl engaging in arguments with the DM. Don't be a dick. After it's clear the DM has his ruling and won't budge, just roll with it. Play the game. If you think you can run the game better, you can take a shot at it yourself afterwards.