I'm going to be running a game where all system elements including dice rolls, character sheets and all mechanics are handled by the GM behind the screen.  The players will have a sheet to write down any items they might have and any notes they want to keep.

The point is to both raise my game when it comes to description and to provide an experience where the player's only traction comes in the form of saying what they do rather than ordering mechanics to use off their character sheet like it's a menu.  What I'm going for is to emphasise this:

1 - GM describes a situation
2 - Players describe what their charactes do in response to the situation
3 - GM uses the system when needed and tells the results
4 - Go to 1 and with the resultant situation

I'm going to go with a rules light system and am leaning towards some form of Microlite.  My default rules of choice is some form of d100 like Call of Cthulhu or BRP, but since this is going to be a description only dungeon crawl, I'm leaning more towards something like early D&D.

I'll go into the premise behind the game in a future post, but for now I'd just like to ask for your opinions and input.  Have you played in a game like this? Ran one?  Any advice?

Real people have some idea about their competence. They are often wrong about the details, but as an example, I know which languages I can speak, read, and understand and how well (great at English but it goes rapidly down hill from there), how good I am at several academic subjects, what my strengths and weaknesses are as a negotiator or presenter, how skilled I am at carpentry, plumbing, and simple electronics, (not very) how well I can drive (more or less average going forward, pretty bad in reverse), how good I am at hand-to-hand combat (not very) and how I react when attacked, how fast and far I can run and walk (way worse now than when I trained and ran a marathon), etc.

So one suggestion is to figure out how you are going to let the players know what their PCs are good, average, poor, and unskilled at. Sounds like you don't want them to know or think about exact skills, but they should have some information.

Most of my games are somewhat like this. Most of the players in my campaigns over the years have been "casual" players (in that they have near zero interest in buying, reading, and/or learning rules). So while I make no attempt to pretent players from seeing the rules (and most players quickly learn to read their character sheets), what you describe is how I run games. The players tell me what they want their characters to do without reference to game mechanics and I tell them the results (or what to roll if a roll is needed). Most players enjoy rolling the dice for their characters, but if they don't I'm happy to roll for them behind the screen.

Not quite what you are planning but close enough, I think, to say it should work fine. Or it will if your players aren't "mechanics first/system mastery" players who simply will hate what you are doing.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.  It's a fun experiment and good for everyone to experience to decide how they feel about that style of play.

I found it doesn't jive with me, but I know a CoC GM who made this his default style of play. He lets players roll dice if they really want to, but its not necessary. His games are awesome, especially for players who are all about the acting/immersion.  

I agree with Bren that players need to understand the scope of their PC's abilities, strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps you would want to consider a game like FUDGE where descriptors matter more than numbers.

Have fun!

Quote from: Bren;838946So one suggestion is to figure out how you are going to let the players know what their PCs are good, average, poor, and unskilled at. Sounds like you don't want them to know or think about exact skills, but they should have some information.

The character creation process will be a conversation about how they see their characters and their capabilities and while I'll be writing down some numbers, they can take whatever notes they like.  I'll be sure to be clear that it might be a good idea for them to have a good idea about their characters.

Quote from: RandallS;838948So while I make no attempt to pretent players from seeing the rules (and most players quickly learn to read their character sheets), what you describe is how I run games. The players tell me what they want their characters to do without reference to game mechanics and I tell them the results (or what to roll if a roll is needed). Most players enjoy rolling the dice for their characters, but if they don't I'm happy to roll for them behind the screen.

Dice are fun.  My initial email to the prospective players included the idea that after a couple hours of play, we'll have a short chat about whether we want to continue as is or start to bring some of the elements out from behind the screen.  I imagine dice will be first on the list.

QuoteNot quite what you are planning but close enough, I think, to say it should work fine. Or it will if your players aren't "mechanics first/system mastery" players who simply will hate what you are doing.

It's good to hear that a hybrid approach with differing levels of system access is working for you.  My email was pretty straightforward so I shouldn't get anyone showing up who doesn't at least like the idea of trying this out.

Quote from: Spinachcat;838950Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.  It's a fun experiment and good for everyone to experience to decide how they feel about that style of play.

I know one person who will be there is really into it.  And I was very upfront about it being an experiment.  It's entirely possible I won't enjoy running the game this way as I might find the system managing to be distracting.  Hopefully the rules I'm going with will be sufficiently light.

QuoteI agree with Bren that players need to understand the scope of their PC's abilities, strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps you would want to consider a game like FUDGE where descriptors matter more than numbers.

Have fun!

I think Bren's point was really good add I'll make sure it's addressed in actual play.

Quote from: NathanIW;838961I know one person who will be there is really into it.  And I was very upfront about it being an experiment.  It's entirely possible I won't enjoy running the game this way as I might find the system managing to be distracting.  Hopefully the rules I'm going with will be sufficiently light.

You are approaching this with the right attitude for trying something new. :cool:

You are trying to avoid any pitfalls. You are interested in trying it out, but you are neither wedded to success or failure. And you have actively tried to get the players on board with the concept. And you sound willing to change things if they don't work out. Yea you!

Though I don't enjoy new just for the sake of new, I don't hold with the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" school of gaming. Trying new things as a GM is a great idea. It lets you learn and experiment. It lets your players learn and experiment. Maybe you all find some new tools to add to your GM toolbox. Or find which tools are dangerous (to you) power tools that are just going to remove a thumb so you can avoid those tools. And maybe you find a new way to play that you enjoy. Or learn that what you are doing already is better than the alternative. All these things are good to learn.

We did this a number of years back using RoleMaster. I was the GM, and I created an Excel spreadsheet which had detailed sheets for each character (including all skill ranks, skill bonuses, stats etc.) and then a summary sheet which just had the key numbers (typically total skill bonus) for every character together to make the information manageable in play. Naturally I had a laptop which this was running on at the table.

When we levelled up, the players had full access to their character sheet for that purpose, and so had an overall idea of where their big numbers where, and any areas of weakness. But it was practically impossible to remember specifics during play, so it kept meta gaming to a minimum.

During play, if a player wanted to take an action I would give them an indication of how difficult their character would think that might be ('you think you could easily do that', 'you're not sure if you could make that leap' etc.) and I would allow them to rethink if they didn't want to take the perceived risk. There could also be unknown risk factors making things trickier for them, of course, and that was accepted by the players.

We ran the game that way for several sessions, and over a few levels. It worked, but it didn't stick. It didn't really add anything for us that made the effort worthwhile.

Quote from: BrenMaybe you all find some new tools to add to your GM toolbox. Or find which tools are dangerous (to you) power tools that are just going to remove a thumb so you can avoid those tools. And maybe you find a new way to play that you enjoy. Or learn that what you are doing already is better than the alternative. All these things are good to learn.

One good thing that has already come of this is that I've sat down with Microlite20, Swords & Wizadry and Philotomy's collected blog post and cobbled together a D&D with an eye towards what works well if everything is behind the screen and I think I've come up with something I'd like to play or run no matter if the system is hidden or on the table.

I've gone without Players having their character sheets a number of times over the years... and I generally prefer it as Player and as GM. If I'm running a game for a group who aren't self-described 'gamers' I'll usually at least try to start off without the distraction of character sheets in favor of everyone just having notepads instead.
I think it works out particularly well for horror games like CoC, adding an extra layer of mystery and insecurity.
For something like a superhero game I don't think it would fit as well.

I still favor having the Players roll for themselves though... just tell them that they want to roll as low/high as they can.

Quote from: dbm;839067RoleMaster

Did you find that system well suited for this kind of play, or would it have been hard without electronic assistance?

QuoteDuring play, if a player wanted to take an action I would give them an indication of how difficult their character would think that might be ('you think you could easily do that', 'you're not sure if you could make that leap' etc.) and I would allow them to rethink if they didn't want to take the perceived risk. There could also be unknown risk factors making things trickier for them, of course, and that was accepted by the players.

I'm definitely keep in mind that my description needs to be the basis for the players to make meaningful decisions.  Hopefully things don't end up as a regular conversation about the odds of success though.

Quote from: Simlasa;839080I've gone without Players having their character sheets a number of times over the years... and I generally prefer it as Player and as GM. If I'm running a game for a group who aren't self-described 'gamers' I'll usually at least try to start off without the distraction of character sheets in favor of everyone just having notepads instead.

When retroclones and the forming of communities devoted to older versions of D&D started to become more prevalent, one of the proposed strengths of the older games was that they were accessible to people using normal language.  At least compared with the popular d20 system which heavily rewards system mastery.

QuoteI think it works out particularly well for horror games like CoC, adding an extra layer of mystery and insecurity.  For something like a superhero game I don't think it would fit as well.

I think this distinction by genre is a good insight.  I'm going for a slight horror vibe.  The dungeoneers will be exploring the underworld itself and I'm planning on using next to no easily recognizable monsters.  For example zombies will be living scarecrows with needle sharp teeth and an insatiable hunger for flesh who can only be permanently destroyed with fire and whisper pleas to be fed from the dark as they close.  

QuoteI still favor having the Players roll for themselves though... just tell them that they want to roll as low/high as they can.

I imagine this will happen in my game as well.

Quote from: NathanIW;839085When retroclones and the forming of communities devoted to older versions of D&D started to become more prevalent, one of the proposed strengths of the older games was that they were accessible to people using normal language.  At least compared with the popular d20 system which heavily rewards system mastery.

Yep, that and the general DIY atmosphere of the OSR are the two major aspects that appeal to me. Just tell me what you want to do... skies the limit until the dice say 'no'.

Quote from: NathanIW;839083Did you find that system well suited for this kind of play, or would it have been hard without electronic assistance?

It would have been unmanageable without the spreadsheets, due to the volume of skills available in that edition (it was either Standard System or 2nd Edition, IIRC).

With the sheets it was perfectly do-able.

Quote from: Simlasa;839080I still favor having the Players roll for themselves though... just tell them that they want to roll as low/high as they can.

Or just tell them to roll and tell you what they got so you can tell them what it means.

Quote from: NathanIW;839085For example zombies will be living scarecrows with needle sharp teeth and an insatiable hunger for flesh who can only be permanently destroyed with fire and whisper pleas to be fed from the dark as they close.

:cool: Now that's an idea I will steal. Thanks!

Quote from: Simlasa;839087Yep, that and the general DIY atmosphere of the OSR are the two major aspects that appeal to me. Just tell me what you want to do... skies the limit until the dice say 'no'.

I'm finding my tolerance for games that ask the players to make decisions based on the system rather than the described situation to be lessening with each passing year.  And right behind that is my waning interest in decision making based on what the expectation of normal play is for a given set of rules.  If a player can't listen to my words and make a meaningful decision about what their character does and then describe it, I probably need to reevaluate how I'm approaching things.  It's one of the reasons d100 games took over my play.  Our understanding of percentage chance is pretty intuitive.

Quote from: dbm;839099It would have been unmanageable without the spreadsheets, due to the volume of skills available in that edition (it was either Standard System or 2nd Edition, IIRC).

With the sheets it was perfectly do-able.

In the end I decided not to go with a game with so many skills like BRP or RQ for the reasons you site.  I'm liking the framework available in Microlite20 where its one of three stats plus one of four skills plus die roll vs target number.  

I'll have my tablet with me, but I don't enjoy working with things like spreadsheets on a touch screen.