Not knowing the rules would annoy me as a player, and as a GM, players not knowing the rules annoys me as well; esp as it slows down the game.

Quote from: taustin;694708What this thread is about is an extreme towards roleplaying, and isn't a game any more.

That makes about as much sense to me as saying a computer game "isn't a game any more" because you can use a more intuitive interface than typing in obscure code.

The machinery continues to do the same job behind the scenes, only now you can focus on doing things from your role's perspective instead of on the details of the "machine language."

Quote from: PhillipI think, though, that the mere act of tossing dice is properly distinguished from "directly interacting with the rules."

Quote from: WarthurLet's say it isn't for the purpose of this thread; the GM handles all the rolls (or the system in question is diceless anyway, or there's a handy app which handles most of the rules and rolling burden for the GM).

That's fine for me personally, but I'll trust 30+ years of testimony from many sources as to the value of handling dice when it comes to engaging most players. That doesn't necessarily mean knowing the underlying algorithms, or even the resultant probability; "Higher is better" might be enough.

Quote from: Warthur;695071Conversely, I think running a game where you kept players ignorant of the mechanics except for what their characters would know can help immersion greatly.

I would suggest that, perhaps, everybody is right. For themselves, at least. Some people enjoy gaming more if they know the crunchy bits, and other people are happier not knowing. Because, you know, there's no One True Way of Gaming.

I would, but then, as the realism thread demonstrates, somebody would start humping my pantleg and peeing all over the carpet for challenging their Grand Pronouncements from On High about the One True Way of Gaming, and therefore, I'm a poopy head. So I'll refrain.

Quote from: Phillip;695092That makes about as much sense to me as saying a computer game "isn't a game any more" because you can use a more intuitive interface than typing in obscure code.

The machinery continues to do the same job behind the scenes, only now you can focus on doing things from your role's perspective instead of on the details of the "machine language."

Your first paragraph disagrees with me. Your second paragraph agrees with me.

You make no sense. You are literally incoherent.

Quote from: Warthur;694605How would such a game appeal to you?

As a GM, I would not find this appealing because distributing the mechanical load across the table makes it considerably easier to manage. This not only means that I have more time to focus on all the other balls I'm juggling; it also makes it a lot easier to manage pacing at the table.

As a player, I would not find this appealing because the bandwidth of speech is very narrow and open to far more interpretation than actually experiencing the world is. When GMs unnecessarily obfuscate target numbers, for example, I find it generally increases the number of nonsensical disconnects between the version of the imaginary world I'm making choices in and the version of the imaginary world that the GM is resolving those choices in. What you're discussing here is not just obfuscating the target numbers, but a whole bunch of other stuff.

It might be interesting to run an experimental session like this. But extrapolating from my existing experiences, I'm guessing you won't see the increase in immersion you're anticipating: Instead, that immersion will be getting constantly disrupted by the mismatched expectations of the game world. It will also be degraded by a less efficient GM.

Quote from: taustin;695118Your first paragraph disagrees with me. Your second paragraph agrees with me.

You make no sense. You are literally incoherent.

My two sentences agree with each other, which I reckon is the coherence reasonably demanded.

Quote from: Warthur;695071Conversely, I think running a game where you kept players ignorant of the mechanics except for what their characters would know can help immersion greatly.

Sure, it can assist in some ways. But I don't think a blanket "players must not see the mechanics" approach is actually the overall best way to achieve that kind of immersion, given the realities of RPGing. If for no other reason that it relies on the GM making the best interpretation of the mechanics every single time and communicating over that divide clearer than anyone else. IME this is a very heavy burden on a GM and almost never true in actual play.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;695122It might be interesting to run an experimental session like this. But extrapolating from my existing experiences, I'm guessing you won't see the increase in immersion you're anticipating: Instead, that immersion will be getting constantly disrupted by the mismatched expectations of the game world. It will also be degraded by a less efficient GM.

Yeah, i pretty much agree with this. It'd probably turn into a guessing game for the player.

The "hidden mechanics" aspect of this does obviously detract from the "Game" aspect, but whether the mechanics are hidden or not has nothing to do with storytelling per se.  Now obviously it could, and people who want a collaborative storytelling experience could use hidden mechanics to great effect, but roleplayers could as well without viewing things from a narrative perspective.

My question would be, if the GM is so good that he could pull off a hidden-mechanics game, and all the players trust him, why do you need mechanics to begin with?

Personally, the closest I've gotten to this is running games in "teaching mode", where players roll their own dice and worry about their character, not why a 12hits and an 11 misses.  Some players I've run across simply prefer to roll what dice when and have the GM determine the task-resolution aspect.  I've usually seen this is crunchier games like Rolemaster and Harnmaster.

I've played D&D where the GM kept track of all player's HPs.  It sure eliminates some of the weird situations that crop up with HPs when players can't reliably factor current HP totals into choices.

Quote from: Phillip;695126My two sentences agree with each other

No. They don't. You can keep claiming otherwise, while stomping your feet, hands over ears, shouting "I CAN'T HEAR YOU" for as long as you want, but no, they don't.

Quote from: CRKrueger;695158My question would be, if the GM is so good that he could pull off a hidden-mechanics game, and all the players trust him, why do you need mechanics to begin with?

That's my thought, though obviously, others disagree. To me, if the player can't tell the difference between hidden rules and GM fiat, there is no difference to the players. Or to the GM, really, since "I'm going to use these mechanics" when the players have no input is just another form of GM fiat.

Quote from: CRKrueger;695158I've played D&D where the GM kept track of all player's HPs.  It sure eliminates some of the weird situations that crop up with HPs when players can't reliably factor current HP totals into choices.

It does. But its also reliant on the GM accurately describing the PCs injury level to each player at all times. This is a good example of how I found this kind of play can actually not be the most effective way to immerse the players into their PCs, as the game can become an exercise of "guess the GM".

Amber runs a little like this. Especially if you do the auction blind so no one knows where they rank until they compete over something.

What I mean but this is that

i) There are 4 stats which in the base game cover how good you are at skills as well as the 4 stats themselves.
ii) those stats are kind of fuzzy
iii) the Powers in the base game come in big chunks and the description of thsoe powers is much more about decribing how they work in the fiction rather than it is about providing mechanics as to how they work
iv) Your stats exist on an open ended scale and if you bid blind unless you buy down a stat you really have no idea where you sis on that scale becuase its determined by the ranks not he points spent
v) When you do combat or use powers you decribe what you want to do and the GM adjudicates if it work
vi) damage is decribed there are no HP or heal rates etc recorded

The only exceptions might be sorcery and items.
Sorcery has quite complex mechanical rules in the game although they are trying to mimic the actual mechanics of sorcery in the fiction as opposed to creating a set of meta mechanics about range and effect and damage that exist in game but would make no sense if two sorcerers discussed them in such terms in character.
Item generation is very old school point buy but there is no reason why the GM couldn't just ask PCs the rough power of an item then spend that many points in the background on it. In any case whilst the point buy mechanism is mechnaically precise the actual effect of the items in play is less so becuase the rules for damage and effects are more descriptive. So the mechanically defined item is interacting with a universe where everything esle is described by narative.

So on the basis that Amber is a lot liek this yeah I have played games like this loads of times

(I actually added a lot more structure to my falour of Amber so my Amber is much less like this and the players have more mechanics to understand and interact with)

Ok,

Here is the difference between a totally freeform rpg with no rules and a gm,

and an rpg with a gm who is using the rules but the players just have a descriptive character sheet (no rules or explicit stats)



The gm is using rules. Thats the difference. Very different for the gm.

In my experience, a gm will run a more internally consistant game when using rules.
 


Now, the players may not see a difference unless the gm strugglers with not having any underlying rules.

But the players in my not so humble opinion, should hopefully be roleplaying and not metagame thinking if the character sheet has no explicit mechanical info on it.


If a player has a character sheet that says he is strong, agile, and athletic, he can make a judjement call if leaping a 10' chasm is do able.

The player does not need to know he has 50 percent chance to clear the chasm and a 50 percent chance to fall a bit short and catch the edge.

If the player says 'I leap over a 30 foot chasm' or the player says 'I leap straight up 20 feet' The gm can always warn that it is unlikely or impossible.

Just like a gm can say 'no roll to leap a 5 foot chasm'