I have a hard time picturing a game of Champions or D&D 4E (a session involving combat, anyhow) without the players directly addressing the abstraction.

1. It would be a hell of a lot of work for the GM, expect perhaps with really good computer assistance.

2. That's a big part of "where the game is" in those cases, starting with the "character build" system.

3. Although many things in Champions could with some labor translate to/from plain description, a lot of strategy has to do with using more precise information than we get (at least consciously) in real life. With D&D 4E, I -- and I gather many other people -- find that the relationship between the domain of pure game and the domain of imagined reality is a lot harder to discern.

I'm in the "rules are a referee resource" camp. The players should be describing what their characters *do*, not what rules they're using. Anything that shifts the focus to the system instead of the fictional situation is BAD.

The players can ask "Can I do X?" That's not against the rules in OD&D. From the way some people talk, it seems to be against the rules in new school play. I'm referring to people who post angry screeds about players who won't learn the rules; there's usually one of those threads on some forum or other every six months.

Do I tell players what house rules I'm using? Only if it directly affects their choices. Usually, it's nothing more than assurances "you can try anything" or suggestions that I have custom character classes or something like that. Or when they say they're going to try something, I tell them what the risks are. "You're firing an arrow into melee? There's a chance you may hit your friend instead. Still want to do that?" I don't tell them the actual mechanics of anything, unless a player wants to learn that in their spare time, just out of curiosity, or if they want to adapt that rule into games they run.

If I had a house rule that was something like "in my game, clerics have to roll 2d6 every hour; on snake eyes, they explode into flames because of divine ire," I'd tell players about that before they chose a cleric. But then, why have a rule like that?

In contrast, if I change a rule about monsters, I won't tell them the mechanics, but if their characters would be aware of the change in monster behavior, like "trolls can smell Lawful characters from a hundred yards away," I'd tell them that.

Rules are not there to make the game fair. They are there to make fictional stuff happen.

Rules should be for the ref, at my table I prefer my players to know just what is needed to get by. This is why I run OD&D, because the rules are so scant that players really don't need to know anything. I have my players tell me what they are trying to do and I work the mechanics out on my end.

I have met with mixed levels of success with this approach. The last few games I ran were for my wife, brother, and a couple of close friends. Only one of them had any prior gaming experience, with no preexisting expectations it worked out fantastically. I walked them through character creation and that was it, after that they told me what they were trying to do and if needed I told them what to roll. The games flowed smoothly, the players consistently thought outside the box and great fun was had by all.

I however have ran a few games for friends that were gamers, mostly 4e and 3.X/Pathfinder players and it was difficult to get them on board. They wanted to know how everything worked and one player bitched constantly that he didn't like that OD&D didn't have a system for adjudicating every little situation. There was a lot of complaining that there was no way to customize their characters, I got a lot of "well I want to play X kind of fighter so how do I make him like a dual wielding death cultist that specializes in katanas?". Part of the problem I am sure was just the group but it is the sort of thinking that makes me prefer playing with non gamers to gamers.

Quote from: Arkansan;650244I however have ran a few games for friends that were gamers, mostly 4e and 3.X/Pathfinder players and it was difficult to get them on board. They wanted to know how everything worked and one player bitched constantly that he didn't like that OD&D didn't have a system for adjudicating every little situation. There was a lot of complaining that there was no way to customize their characters, I got a lot of "well I want to play X kind of fighter so how do I make him like a dual wielding death cultist that specializes in katanas?". Part of the problem I am sure was just the group but it is the sort of thinking that makes me prefer playing with non gamers to gamers.

Assuming the players know how their PCs work, I am not sure what else they need to know.  I guess they feel limited, when in actuality, they can TRY anything.  I dunno.  That feels a lot more free than a sundry list of what I can and can't do. (Style preference, I know, but I've played both ways--just feel like simpler is peferable).

I agree, I think the problem is more one of mindset, there is this mentality I have come across from time to time that if it isn't on the character sheet it simply can't be done. That is what I like about the non gamers I have played with, they don't have that mindset when I tell them they can try anything they take me at my word and run with it.

Do the players need to know the riles in the book? Not necessarily, and several games can be run that way. But do they need to be working under a shared set of rules and assumptions? Hell. Yes. And you can look to almost any failed Supers or Pulp campaign to see why.

Personally, I do not differentiate between 'hard' and 'soft' rules. They both modify behavior to the same degree, just one is less explicit about it.

Quote from: jhkim;650099If everyone is agreed on the match-up of rules and fiction as truly common sense, then it doesn't matter whether the referee is choosing the rules option or the player is.  However, sometimes common sense differs - particularly when using abstract rules like one-minute-long rounds and hit points.  The real question is what to do in the case where:

(a) if they knew the rules, the players really would want X;
(b) the referee decides based on their description that they are doing Y instead.

Communicating these expectations explicitly is exactly what the rules should be doing in the first place. The problem is that rules are still too complicated and they shift player priorities to playing in the mechanics as opposed to the fiction. And since I love fighting zombie horses, I'll add that it wasn't Storygames which caused this shift, but the evolution of D&D, and if people were happy with the state of 'old school', they wouldn't have changed.

Quote from: Spinachcat;650110I want immersion in our story, not noses in rulebooks.

Nothing breaks immersion faster than a disconnect of expectations.

Quote from: TristramEvans;650174"Rules are for the referee", much like "rulings not rules" a style of play. Its not everyone's style of play.

It's not a style of play, it's outright nonsense. Rulings require rules, and players need to be aware of a set of rules in order to form intent and take appropriate action. Perhaps these terms are deliberately hyperbolic to support a point, but they've become meaningless slogans and battlecries at this point.

For me, playing a role playing game has fuck all to do with contributing to some piece of fiction. Looking at it as a piece of fiction is the kryptonite of the actual point of playing a role playing game in the first place, from my standpoint, which is the immersion in the "now" of the game world, as though it were real in your mind's eye.

THIS is the rift guys like you Anon with their heads so far up their asses into hipster fiction-writing story-telling "RPG as a writing/movie-making medium" whatnot can't seem to understand, though it does indeed predate the Forge's story games, and has been going on for decades, point of fact (hi, Margaret Weis). It's just that the Forge and its friends (hi, Robin Laws) took it to the next step and actually designed game mechanics specifically built with the intent to build a piece of fiction, as opposed to playing a role playing game. Hence, actual story games.

Just my two cents.

I assume you grind the axe against Trail of Cthulhu in Robin's case. It is more into ensuring that the story is told than creating one, so if anything, it's more guilty of old WoD sins. I found the tools there interesting, though I've never bothered with some of the more railroad mechanics. Ultimately I've mostly resigned from using it because the Stability checks and the whole "say how many points you spend to add to roll" were a bit too byzantine for me.

I'd still say that ToC is a worth purchase, if only as an interesting guide to CoC. Not all things one may agree there, but there is advice there worth reading. I've adapted some of GUMSHOE's principles to the CoC games, without much of the odd baggage of it.

Other than that, the thread's another spin of the same wheel.

Quote from: TristramEvans;650174Its a style that makes powergamers feel helpless and angry.

Amen.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;650265Nothing breaks immersion faster than a disconnect of expectations.

I fully agree.

That's why even at convention games, I give a quick speech about how I am a freeform GM who is more interested in them doing cool stuff than worrying about the exact rules. My interest is in the wild tale of our adventure when the session is done.

This has gotten me lots of sighs of reliefs from gamers and over the years, a couple people have gotten up and left, which then led to more sighs of relief at the table.

You absolutely must have buy-in from the players with clear explanations to achieve immersion and that does include a general agreement on how the game rules work in regards to the players.

Quote from: Rincewind1;650268I assume you grind the axe against Trail of Cthulhu in Robin's case.

Actually not. Laws wrote other games besides GUMSHOE. ToC is just a blip on the radar in that regard.

Quote from: Rincewind1;650268It is more into ensuring that the story is told than creating one

RPGs aren't about "telling stories."

PS: You know what? This is stuff we've been talking about on this Site for years now. Regulars who still claim to not see what this is about will either never get it or never recognize they've already gotten it a long time ago. So it's basically a waste of time to start this back-and-forth all over again. It's best for me to just move on and do something more productive with my time.

In my games I always make all the rules available to the players, and I always answer honestly and openly about any question they may have. Also, I encourage them to read as much about the game and seting as they wish.

90% of them never bother doing shit.

Quote from: Imperator;650297In my games I always make all the rules available to the players, and I always answer honestly and openly about any question they may have. Also, I encourage them to read as much about the game and seting as they wish.

90% of them never bother doing shit.

I played for a while in a sci-fi hero-system game where the GM had written about a text book on history for his setting, and would regularly provide quizzes to the players with experience awards based on their performance.  Nothing drastic, but it served as a prod to get the players to read some of the stuff.  I used it to come into the game late and catch my character up with the rest of the players'.

Quote from: TristramEvans;650174Its a style that makes powergamers feel helpless and angry.

Yup. Let them play with other powergamers and enjoy thier dick measuring wankfests. I won't miss them.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;650265It's not a style of play, it's outright nonsense. Rulings require rules, and players need to be aware of a set of rules in order to form intent and take appropriate action. Perhaps these terms are deliberately hyperbolic to support a point, but they've become meaningless slogans and battlecries at this point.

Bullshit. If players "need to be aware of rules to form intent" then roleplaying games would never have gotten off the ground and become popular in the first place. I have introduced new players to the game with no more rules instruction other than telling them to just play thier character and do whatever they would like to do.

Forming intent comes naturally to people. Perhaps not always choosing the most rule optimal actions, but always doing that and only that is push button mechancs manipulation, not a roleplaying game. Computer and console games handle this better and reward this kind of play so there isn't any reason to reduce interaction with real people to that level of repetitious drudgery.

Quote from: Arkansan;650244Rules should be for the ref, at my table I prefer my players to know just what is needed to get by. This is why I run OD&D, because the rules are so scant that players really don't need to know anything. I have my players tell me what they are trying to do and I work the mechanics out on my end.

I have met with mixed levels of success with this approach. The last few games I ran were for my wife, brother, and a couple of close friends. Only one of them had any prior gaming experience, with no preexisting expectations it worked out fantastically. I walked them through character creation and that was it, after that they told me what they were trying to do and if needed I told them what to roll. The games flowed smoothly, the players consistently thought outside the box and great fun was had by all.

I however have ran a few games for friends that were gamers, mostly 4e and 3.X/Pathfinder players and it was difficult to get them on board. They wanted to know how everything worked and one player bitched constantly that he didn't like that OD&D didn't have a system for adjudicating every little situation. There was a lot of complaining that there was no way to customize their characters, I got a lot of "well I want to play X kind of fighter so how do I make him like a dual wielding death cultist that specializes in katanas?". Part of the problem I am sure was just the group but it is the sort of thinking that makes me prefer playing with non gamers to gamers.

Yes, this is exactly the axis of tools and purposes I was talking about earlier. Simpler game systems make the freeform GMing style a lot easier, which is why it can be baffling for people who've never run across it. It would be quite difficult for one GM to run an entire game in a more complex system - not impossible but not fun, probably even for the players.

It's not the only way to play though (and that doesn't mean powergamers are the alternative).

Quote from: Imperator;650297In my games I always make all the rules available to the players, and I always answer honestly and openly about any question they may have. Also, I encourage them to read as much about the game and seting as they wish.

90% of them never bother doing shit.

Agreed fully, this has been my experience.

Quote from: Benoist;650271RPGs aren't about "telling stories."

PS: You know what? This is stuff we've been talking about on this Site for years now. Regulars who still claim to not see what this is about will either never get it or never recognize they've already gotten it a long time ago. So it's basically a waste of time to start this back-and-forth all over again. It's best for me to just move on and do something more productive with my time.

I agree on both counts, so you're attacking the wrong tree. As I pointed out, if anything GUMSHOE was adhering to the other problem with design, one that WoD shared (except WoD, while made to supposedly "tell stories", didn't even do that properly, resulting in...something), rather than storygames.