So we had the experiment tonight.  About an hour and a half in, we stopped play.  I asked everyone what they thought and if anyone wanted their character sheet and/or some dice.  Everyone said they liked playing this way and everyone declined their character sheet.  One person said the missed rolling dice, so we decided anyone could roll the d20 with high always being good if it was something they felt was important.  Of the three players, no one really wanted to make every roll.

At this point I have a new appreciation for the older game texts that clearly separate the player and DM sections (perhaps even into different volumes).  I also feel that there are many mechanics that are a poor basis on which to make decisions, but are great in terms of resolving things in game.

I'm shocked no one lost a character.  They were very tactical and clever in dealing with the living scarecrows and only once met them straight on in a fair fight.  And likely after one character nearly died they never repeated the error.

The ended up making a deal with a group of anthropillars (think centaur, but a caterpillar instead of a horse) that in exchange for some armour, a few spears and some food, they'd find the source of the creatures and put the scarecrows to an end.

Two players had played a lot of 3.5 and 4e and they were shocked just how much happened in the session.

Looks like this might be our weekly game going forward.

For those wondering, it's a  Microlite20/74ex hybrid with some house rules, d6 weapon damage, spell points and no set combat mode.  We stay in description mode and instead of initiative we handle things as they make sense.  Like at one point a player was trying to keep a living scarecrow at bay with a trident while it tried to close to grapple and bite.

I think that for dice-using games, it's generally better to have both sides of the 'screen' rolling dice.  Call me crazy but yeah... as a GM I don't like games that say the GM isn't allowed to roll any dice.  And I think my players would feel a lack of agency if the GM was rolling all the dice and they weren't.

If you really want a game where the GM handles the mechanical side of things and the players do all the descriptive stuff, that's what Amber/Lords-of-Olympus/LoGaS are for.
With no dice needed.

By the end of the session I think we found a good balance in terms of what the players were rolling.  They were rolling most of their attack rolls, their saves and the occasional check for a life or death situations (like to keep their footing while struggling with a monster on the edge of a ravine).

I've done this, and also played with people who had character sheets, but who had never read the rules, and with players who hadn't played an RPG before, and in groups where some people knew the rules and others didn't. I've also played where the sheet the players have of themselves isn't entirely accurate (it just represents what they think their own ability levels are).

I've found it all works quite well, at least for me, until/unless there are players who know the rules and really want to have their game stats, but almost all of my players have been ok just knowing in general what their levels are.

Of course, unless you're playing an amnesia setting, the players should have a fairly good idea what their PCs abilities are like, and as a player I do like those things to have values and a semi-realistic and consistent system behind them. While I think numbers and mechanics can get in the way of immersion, I also think that if the PC knows their own abilities, that the player should also have that explained, so I feel the GM should educate the player during play with information about what the character feels they can and can't do ("you're almost certain you can jump that pit", "you think you might be able to hit him in the hand or disarm him, but your chances are much better if you just aim for his body"), and insights from the character's mental skills ("you think someone might be following you", "you think you could probably haggle the merchant down a bit", "you're sure the army isn't going to march through the ford, though they'll probaly have a couple of scouts watching it").

This is only semi-related, but I've found that it can be great to have maps out with figures for people to show and see where they are, even when not needed, or even practically all the time.

I generally use GURPS, which is great for this because practically everything is based on real-world scale, ability levels, dangers, and consistency, so it both translates well into English without needing numeric stats, and it tends to have rules or framework that covers everything without being based on arbitrary mechanics that would be really useful to know or that are hard to use if you don't have the table and/or know the rules. However GURPS takes a lot of learning and  experience to do really well.

As a player, where this breaks down for me is when the system doesn't have enough grit or logic, or outcomes seem to be based on something I'm not interested in. For me, these are:

* Games where the fastest-talking, loudest, most forceful personalities get to do things first, and/or the most entertaining or "cool" suggestion for results of action almost always becomes what happens. This might be entertaining to watch, but I'd rather be able to quietly await my turn, and then say that I do something that makes sense, and have it work or not based on the game situation and reality-oriented rules. Just my thing.

* Games where there are mechanics, but they're not based on how things work in real life, at all. But then, I don't like those games with visible rules and stats, either.

Issues I've seen include:

* Players who try to do things that aren't in the rules, or in ways that the rules don't support. This can either indicate that the rules are weak in that area, or that the player doesn't get the situation the way the game handles it, or both, and it becomes up to the GM to sort that out in a way that doesn't torment the player. If you have players who don't know the rules, and your game has limits that don't make sense, you may need to choose between changing your rules, or finding natural language ways to explain the unnatural rules in the system.

* Players who try to see what they can get away with using the natural language interface. It's good to agree in advance whether you're offering that interface, or whether you're playing RAW but just not telling people their stats.

* Players not realizing they are not playing as well as their character probably would, because they don't get what their abilities are. I intervene when I notice this and explain to the player in natural language what I think their character would know, that the players don't seem to get. e.g. "You realize that if you take a second to aim before firing, you'll probably hit, but otherwise you'll probably miss." or "You realize that you'd better not speak before the introductions are complete and if/when the king asks you to." or "You realize Bob could probably get by with some herbs and bandages, and doesn't need you to use the rare and expensive healing potion on him." or "You don't think you have any chance of knocking over that troll with a shield-rush."

Quote from: Skarg;839676As a player, where this breaks down for me is when the system doesn't have enough grit or logic, or outcomes seem to be based on something I'm not interested in. For me, these are:

* Games where the fastest-talking, loudest, most forceful personalities get to do things first, and/or the most entertaining or "cool" suggestion for results of action almost always becomes what happens. This might be entertaining to watch, but I'd rather be able to quietly await my turn, and then say that I do something that makes sense, and have it work or not based on the game situation and reality-oriented rules. Just my thing.

The first part doesn't really have much to do with hidden systems though.  It's a social issue about forceful personalities dominating the game.  Whether the players have their character sheets or not, managing talking time and ensuring a particular individual doesn't dominate play is something that will have to be dealt with.

The second idea (the cool or entertaining suggestion is what happens) also seems to be in front of the screen.  I think behind the screen system resolution shouldn't involve taking suggestions from the whole table as that's a collaborative player facing process.  The circuit of play I'm talking about is:

1 GM describes the situation
2 Player describes how their character responds to the situation
3 GM uses the system to resolve the character's actions
4 An updated situation results.  Go to 1

So I think you're totally right that things would break down in the two situations described as they basically involve adding in steps like:

2 Those with the most forceful personalities speak the most and lobby for their desires.

And

3 The table is opened up for suggestions and the most entertaining option is what happens.

Both of those departures sound pretty terrible to me as well.

Quote* Games where there are mechanics, but they're not based on how things work in real life, at all. But then, I don't like those games with visible rules and stats, either.

That would be especially bad in a behind the screen system type of play.  It relies on people making decisions based on reasonable expectations of how reality works.  Take that away and play becomes groundless.  I suppose once one figured out the bizarre way things work you could start making meaningful decisions again, but they wouldn't be based on the described situation, but on figuring out the proper whacky interpretation of it that is being used.

QuoteIssues I've seen include:

* Players who try to do things that aren't in the rules, or in ways that the rules don't support. This can either indicate that the rules are weak in that area, or that the player doesn't get the situation the way the game handles it, or both, and it becomes up to the GM to sort that out in a way that doesn't torment the player. If you have players who don't know the rules, and your game has limits that don't make sense, you may need to choose between changing your rules, or finding natural language ways to explain the unnatural rules in the system.

I think one of the strengths of OD&D is the reliance on the GM to make rulings on areas the rules don't cover.  Other games like BECMI, Microlite and others will have simple universal resolution mechanic that the GM can apply to situations not covered by any other rules (attribute checks or d20 + stat + skill vs target number).  Add in iideas like opposed rolls and prolonged contests and there really shouldn't be anything not covered by the system process.

Quote* Players who try to see what they can get away with using the natural language interface. It's good to agree in advance whether you're offering that interface, or whether you're playing RAW but just not telling people their stats.

I don't think I quite get what you are saying here.  If running the rules as written doesn't work for the approach then they're probably the wrong rules to use.  I think we're on the same page that unrealistic things happening for social reasons isn't desirable.  I guess I don't see any opposition between using natural language and rules as written.

Quote* Players not realizing they are not playing as well as their character probably would, because they don't get what their abilities are. I intervene when I notice this and explain to the player in natural language what I think their character would know, that the players don't seem to get. e.g. "You realize that if you take a second to aim before firing, you'll probably hit, but otherwise you'll probably miss." or "You realize that you'd better not speak before the introductions are complete and if/when the king asks you to." or "You realize Bob could probably get by with some herbs and bandages, and doesn't need you to use the rare and expensive healing potion on him." or "You don't think you have any chance of knocking over that troll with a shield-rush."

I did have to remind one player that he was the best warrior in the group when he was making sure others were interposed between himself and a monster.  Turns out he knew already and was just making sure he wasn't being pinned in place dealing with a foe before he picked the best way to strike.  In describing challenges, I did my best to give a good indication of difficulty.  For example when a character was contemplating descending down a shaft, I described how it would be a straightforward task if he had access to rope, spikes and proper climbing gear, but without them it would be incredibly treacherous and slow going.

Quote from: NathanIW;838941I'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?

I would find this incredibly frustrating, personally.

Half of the fun of RPGs is to use and interpret the character sheet.

Quote from: NathanIW;839616So we had the experiment tonight...

Thanks for updating us. I glad to hear play went well and everyone had fun.

Quote from: Bren;838946Real 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.

Yeah, I'd at least want the basics for my character's strengths and weaknesses even if I don't have an exact figure.

I hope your players take well to the GM rolling dice for them. Many are keen on rolling them bones.

You have your work cut out for you.  Let us know how it works out.

Quote from: RPGPundit;839632I think that for dice-using games, it's generally better to have both sides of the 'screen' rolling dice.  Call me crazy but yeah... as a GM I don't like games that say the GM isn't allowed to roll any dice.  And I think my players would feel a lack of agency if the GM was rolling all the dice and they weren't.

If you really want a game where the GM handles the mechanical side of things and the players do all the descriptive stuff, that's what Amber/Lords-of-Olympus/LoGaS are for.
With no dice needed.

I have found folks get more annoyed if the GM rolls poorly on their behalf than if they roll poorly on their own.

Quote from: Matt;839736Yeah, I'd at least want the basics for my character's strengths and weaknesses even if I don't have an exact figure.

I hope your players take well to the GM rolling dice for them. Many are keen on rolling them bones.

You have your work cut out for you.  Let us know how it works out.

You may have missed the post where NathanIW lets us know how the session turned out.

Quote from: Matt;839738I have found folks get more annoyed if the GM rolls poorly on their behalf than if they roll poorly on their own.

We hilariously had the opposite.  Once the players had the option to roll dice, one rolled three 1s in a row add the other players were all jokingly telling him to stop rolling and let me roll.  It was quite funny, though with critical fumble rolls it was also nearly deadly.:eek:

Quote from: NathanIW;839690The first part doesn't really have much to do with hidden systems though.  It's a social issue about forceful personalities dominating the game.  Whether the players have their character sheets or not, managing talking time and ensuring a particular individual doesn't dominate play is something that will have to be dealt with.

You're right this is more about pushy vs. reserved players, but it seems to me it's come up more in games where verbal narrative rather than game rules are the GM/player interface. Especially for sequence of play.

In one example I played with a usually great GM, who in past games would always use a map and rule-based turn sequence for tactical combat. Then for a one-off adventure, she decided we didn't need maps for most combats. We cornered some villains inside a tavern, but I and some other players assumed there would at least be a description of the layout and we'd get an equal chance to take part in the action. Some players started saying they charge into the tavern and attack the enemies. The GM just went with it and had those PCs get to roll for attacks, and the encounter was over before we got a chance to do anything, based on those players talking first and assuming they were close enough and had an unobstructed path to the targets.

In other words, the GM decided not to stop them (e.g. by saying "You start to do that and advance into the bar... what do you others do?)  and see who would actually move first (GM: "Sam, you actually get to move first..."), or whether there was really a clear path and the distance was short enough. The mechanic became governed by the fast talk and the talker's subtle assumptions in the absence of a map or detailed situation, and ignoring the usual sequence of play.

Similar sorts of issues came up in later actions, as well as outside combat. Some were more subtle that others.

It might not seem like this is directly about hidden systems, but I think it shows a sort of thing that can be more likely to happen and could be something to watch out for when taking player actions in English rather than game mechanics. When players aren't thinking in terms of rules, stats, and die-rolls, some may start gaming the narrative interface, and even a very experienced GM who's not had problems before, may end up going along rather than correct players and get the quick talkers to shut up while she asks what the others are doing, and determines what's fair and logical even though the players aren't seeing the mechanics.

It might not come up for you, or you might already know to catch and shut this down. I'm just reporting I've seen it happen, and it seemed related to the move to narrative interface, to me..

Quote from: NathanIW;839690The second idea (the cool or entertaining suggestion is what happens) also seems to be in front of the screen.  ...

Yes, we agree on that, though not all players nor all game rules do. Again, I'm just saying it may tend to happen more with a natural language interface. When I've GM'd for players who don't know my game system and/or don't know their character stats, and/or are encouraged to play by describing things in English, they seem more likely to embellish or try to do fantastic things, and then the GM needs to decide what to do from a range of possible reactions – either let them try at whatever odds, tell them their chances and see if they still want to do that, ignore the embellishment and resolve it how you think it's sensible, or invent new mechanics on the spot and/or just allow what their embellishment is.

Quote from: NathanIW;839690That would be especially bad in a behind the screen system type of play.  It relies on people making decisions based on reasonable expectations of how reality works.  Take that away and play becomes groundless.  I suppose once one figured out the bizarre way things work you could start making meaningful decisions again, but they wouldn't be based on the described situation, but on figuring out the proper whacky interpretation of it that is being used.

Again we agree. I was just answering in general, as some games would be hard for me to play this way since they don't work how I'd imagine. (For example, I've lost interest in Fallout 3 because people keep taking bullets to the head and aren't slowed down and return fire immediately... and then I'm expected to pause during a fight to eat several meals while the action is frozen, to recover health...)

Quote from: NathanIW;839690I think one of the strengths of OD&D is the reliance on the GM to make rulings on areas the rules don't cover.  Other games like BECMI, Microlite and others will have simple universal resolution mechanic that the GM can apply to situations not covered by any other rules (attribute checks or d20 + stat + skill vs target number).  Add in iideas like opposed rolls and prolonged contests and there really shouldn't be anything not covered by the system process.

Yes. I'm just sharing that I think I've noticed that players using natural language tend to come up with odd tactics more often. I'm not saying it can't be handled, but I think it comes up more, and becomes a skill which might be tricky at first. Examples I remember:

"I got through his breastplate on the last hit right? So I'll aim for the hole I made in his armor last turn!"

or

"I want to create a magical fire above my wound and have it fall on me to cauterize it and stop the bleeding!"

Or one I did as a player which actually worked out and seems to have saved our party from a likely TPK:

"I hold my sword out where I think the magic whip is likely to lash through, hoping the whip gets cut." (I lucked out.)

I've seen these things be pretty fun and interesting, actually. Sometimes I assign a very small chance but the oddball tactic works. Other times the characters get a memorable tragicomic death. It can possibly be less fun when the player thinks their idea should work, and the GM really doesn't, and the PC just fails awfully. Again I'm just pointing out experiences, not saying these are bad or hard to work around.

Quote from: NathanIW;839690I don't think I quite get what you are saying here.  If running the rules as written doesn't work for the approach then they're probably the wrong rules to use.  I think we're on the same page that unrealistic things happening for social reasons isn't desirable.  I guess I don't see any opposition between using natural language and rules as written.

I'm not saying it's a fatal or even a serious problem if you don't let it be. However I have noticed that some players try (consciously or not) to see what they can get away with and bend the situation by asserting things such as their character uses their will to overcome whatever effect they're under, or describing how cleverly they do things in ways that try to short-cut the rules, and will require shutting down what they've said and correcting them. Which can totally be done. There are various styles for handling such, ranging from indulging non-problematic ones, to correcting what they try to say happens, and training them what sorts of things they should ask and say, and what they don't get to say.

Great post and points.  I get what you are saying now and agree.

The rushing into the inn thing is definitely an example of the ref messing up a few things.  Description is so key when playing in any mode that doesn't use game maps and doubly so if the whole system is behind the screen.  And just going with whatever is said first happens first is pretty terrible.  And they'll feed into each other as jumping in with action as soon as possible can cut short description or questions asked to clarify things.

As for the oddball tactics, I think they're great, but depend heavily on having a realistic system like you mentioned.  A "whatever sounds the coolest happens" approach combined with oddball tactics and quick-draw players who cut short the options of others would be horrific.  Well, except for the social monopolizer who has figured out how to game the process.  They'd probably enjoy the game at the expense of others.

Quote from: Nikita;839856Thus when you think about it, the wargaming did not really bring anything to table as far as core roleplaying concepts and referee role were concerned. What wargaming did bring to table was complete combat rules...

For that advice you need to go all the way back before supplements were published. D&D was published in 1974 and it told the DM to make up stuff to cover settings and situations outside the little brown books. I'm not going to dig up my copy and read through it to give you citations, but OG has the darn things memorized and he can should be able to give you a quote or three.

I clearly remember that I knew to make shit up and so did the other guys who were DMs when we all started playing RPGs. And we all came from years of war gaming as our background. Given the number of different rules we could buy for war gaming, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that making up some rules was a thing you could do. We'd already house ruled a bunch of the war games we were playing. It wasn't a bit stretch to do that to D&D and unlike Risk, for example, D&D told you to make up your own stuff.  

Quote from: Skarg;839943You're right this is more about pushy vs. reserved players, but it seems to me it's come up more in games where verbal narrative rather than game rules are the GM/player interface. Especially for sequence of play.

That's a GM problem, not a system problem. The GM didn't do her job with the less rule bound system. Turn taking should still be occurring in a narrative style game so that all the players get to participate and so one or two forcefully talkative players don't hog all the screen time.

QuoteIn other words, the GM decided not to stop them (e.g. by saying “You start to do that and advance into the bar... what do you others do?)

This is why it is a GM problem not a rules problem. The GM could easily have stepped in, but chose not to - or maybe wasn't experienced enough with playing in a looser way to enforce time for all players. This may have been exacerbated because you all were used to the rules managing turn taking, so some of you passively waited for someone to tell you it was your turn now while others of you charged forward without considering giving the other people at the table a turn. They may even have thought your silence and the GMs was tacit permission to keep talking and charging forward.

It's always better when the fast thinking, fast talking players are self aware enough to rein themselves in. But some people just aren't that self aware or they are but they don't care. So some players will always try to game the interface whether that is gaming the GM or gaming the rules mechanics. The GM's job and to a lesser extent the job of the other players is to ensure that everyone gets a chance to have a turn whatever the game is.

When a group moves from a familiar framework and system to a different way of playing there are always going to be hiccups. That's just part of the learning process for the entire table.

QuoteYes. I'm just sharing that I think I've noticed that players using natural language tend to come up with odd tactics more often.

I agree and that makes sense. People who talk in rules mechanics have narrowed the scope of what they can describe to the technical language of the rules mechanics. This allows them to more precisely describe and control what thir character does. But this will limit not only what they describe, but often it will limit what they can even imagine or conceive of as a tactic. Whether that limitation is a good or a bad thing is something people will naturally disagree about. I do think it is important for people to consciously realize the effect that natural language versus technical language has on their gaming.

Quote“I got through his breastplate on the last hit right? So I'll aim for the hole I made in his armor last turn!”

Seems something that it is possible to do, but kind of difficult to do. In Honor+Intrigue that would be a called shot to avoid the armor. The fact that they hit previously might or might not mean they punched a hole in the armor. They may just have hit where the armor wasn't or was weaker.

Quote“I want to create a magical fire above my wound and have it fall on me to cauterize it and stop the bleeding!”

I'm not a trauma doc, but I think cauterization will cause more damage, though it may stop the bleeding. A lot of game rules don't give the magic user that level of fine manipulation control. If I want to allow it, maybe a DEX roll with a penalty for being wounded and if it is an arm wound, for working one-handed.

Quote“I hold my sword out where I think the magic whip is likely to lash through, hoping the whip gets cut.” (I lucked out.)

Yes. That seems possible but pretty unlikely. In Honor+Intrigue you could use Bind followed by the Weapon Break maneuver, that is assuming magical weapons are damaged by whatever kind of sword you were holding. In a lot of systems magic items aren't very breakable, especially by normal weapons.

QuoteI'm not saying it's a fatal or even a serious problem if you don't let it be. However I have noticed that some players try (consciously or not) to see what they can get away with and bend the situation by asserting things such as their character uses their will to overcome whatever effect they're under, or describing how cleverly they do things in ways that try to short-cut the rules, and will require shutting down what they've said and correcting them. Which can totally be done. There are various styles for handling such, ranging from indulging non-problematic ones, to correcting what they try to say happens, and training them what sorts of things they should ask and say, and what they don't get to say.

I find I am happier as a GM if I interpret all such statements with the preface of "I try to ..." as in.

Player: I hit the Orc with my axe.
Translation: I try to hit the Orc with my axe.

Player: I cut off his head.
Translation: I try to cut off his head.
GM Clarification: So, are you using a called shot to the neck then?

The player then either says "Yes I'm using a called shot" which has significant penalty to the chance to hit. Or the player clarifies they were just being enthusiastic and hoped their hit would kill the Orc, but they don't want a penalty on their to hit chance.

Quote from: NathanIW;839673By the end of the session I think we found a good balance in terms of what the players were rolling.  They were rolling most of their attack rolls, their saves and the occasional check for a life or death situations (like to keep their footing while struggling with a monster on the edge of a ravine).

That does sound like more of a good balance.