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.
Quote from: Bren;839106:cool: Now that's an idea I will steal. Thanks!
I wonder if the first time they hear "help... I'm so hungry" whispered from the dark ifnthe characters nwill head towards the sound.:D
Quote from: Bren;839106Or just tell them to roll and tell you what they got so you can tell them what it means.
It's total superstition but I find I like to know how I'd want the dice to land when I roll them... other people have mentioned the same... even though knowing makes no difference. I guess not knowing is just one veil too many, for me.
Quote from: NathanIW;839109I wonder if the first time they hear "help... I'm so hungry" whispered from the dark ifnthe characters nwill head towards the sound.:D
As a GM, one can only hope...
The Hungry ScarecrowsZombies-like 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.
At first they are only seen at night and at dawn and twilight, but over time and with food they grow stronger and will hunt during cloudy days, mist, fog, or rain. In large numbers they will even attack in full daylight.
If they have an opportunity to observe individual humans their pleas mimic the voices of friends, loved ones, and neighbors. This will especially occur to anyone who heeds their pleas or tries to help them.
Location: rural areas, the countryside, farms, fields, and especially near crossroads.
Source: a curse placed on a village or area most especially the dying curse of a burned witch, a magical army of an otherworld invasion, sorcerous construct(s) gone wrong.
Vulnerability: fire, lightning, electricity, some magic.
Original idea from here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=839085&postcount=11).
Quote from: Simlasa;839111It's total superstition but I find I like to know how I'd want the dice to land when I roll them... other people have mentioned the same... even though knowing makes no difference. I guess not knowing is just one veil too many, for me.
Yeah. I don't really do that. Though I used to be tempted when playing Runequest with people whose dice rolling made me, shall we say, suspicious.
Quote from: NathanIW;839077One 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.
You might want to take a look at my Microlite74 -- it is Microlite20 mixed with OD&D/S&W. The basic edition has the 0e boxed set classes/spells (Fighting-Man/Cleric/Magic-User). The standard edition has all the classes and spells from the boxed set and the supplements/zine articles. The extended edition is standard plus most of the house rules I used in the 70s. I'd recommend the basic or standard edition for what you are trying to do.
I came here to say this:
Quote from: Spinachcat;838950Perhaps you would want to consider a game like FUDGE where descriptors matter more than numbers.
Also I hope that you (OP) don't have very many players at that table. I have recently gamed with quite large groups (6-8) and would find that tracking all those PCs and NPCs/monsters even with a rules-lite system could be quite a hassle.
Happy experimenting and please come back to tell us how it went! :)
Quote from: Bren;839114The Hungry Scarecrows
Nice write up. I pasted it into my campaign document.
QuoteSource: a curse placed on a village or area most especially the dying curse of a burned witch, a magical army of an otherworld invasion, sorcerous construct(s) gone wrong.
A dark fey curse. Corby shamans would also find the idea of scarecrows turning on humans appealing.
In the underworld dungeon in my game there's an incongruous area where there are harvest elements that start to show up. Piles of dried leaves in the corners. Stones and statues changing to autumnal colours the next time you walk past them. An apple bobbing barrel with fresh water and apples showing up. And then the scarecrows start showing up. And if a living being survives and sticks around long enough, the Harvester himself arrives.
Quote from: RandallS;839116You might want to take a look at my Microlite74 -- it is Microlite20 mixed with OD&D/S&W. The basic edition has the 0e boxed set classes/spells (Fighting-Man/Cleric/Magic-User). The standard edition has all the classes and spells from the boxed set and the supplements/zine articles. The extended edition is standard plus most of the house rules I used in the 70s. I'd recommend the basic or standard edition for what you are trying to do.
I will take a closer look at it. I like the simple universal mechanic of m20 in the form of stat + skill + dice vs target, but maybe I just don't need it.
Quote from: Simlasa;839111It's total superstition but I find I like to know how I'd want the dice to land when I roll them... other people have mentioned the same... even though knowing makes no difference. I guess not knowing is just one veil too many, for me.
One houserule I like to apply to games is to make it so when a player rolls dice, it's always higher or lower is better for that sort of roll.
Quote from: Moracai;839118I came here to say this: Fudge quote
I ran tons and tons of Fudge 10+ years ago and found that the descriptors actually slowed things down compared to just using a number for each rank. Fudge is cool, but I'm itching for some OD&D type play.
QuoteAlso I hope that you (OP) don't have very many players at that table. I have recently gamed with quite large groups (6-8) and would find that tracking all those PCs and NPCs/monsters even with a rules-lite system could be quite a hassle.
Happy experimenting and please come back to tell us how it went! :)
Should be four, maybe five players. Three if someone flakes out last minute.
Quote from: NathanIW;839128I ran tons and tons of Fudge 10+ years ago and found that the descriptors actually slowed things down compared to just using a number for each rank. Fudge is cool, but I'm itching for some OD&D type play.
I was thinking more on those lines that Bren talked about in his first post. That the players probably should have some kind of idea what their characters are capable of. For that a descriptor type tool could be good to give to the players. You could handle things behind the screen in any way you want. I kind of guessed that I should've been more clear in my writing :)
Edit - perhaps describing character stats going from 3-5 = Abysmal to 16-18: Amazing. Or something like that.
Quote from: NathanIW;839128Should be four, maybe five players. Three if someone flakes out last minute.
Alright, that should'nt be a problem then.
Quote from: Moracai;839132I was thinking more on those lines that Bren talked about in his first post. That the players probably should have some kind of idea what their characters are capable of.
That makes sense. I'm definitely going to encourage them to take notes while we do character creation and make sure we are all on the same page before we start play. One area I'm breaking with an OD&D approach is that characters will have their attributes based on what they say they are best and worst at. It shouldn't take too long to work out some idea of how they want their character.
A friend of mine who can't make another gaming session is going to go through the process with me in a few minutes (once his 8 month old falls asleep) and we'll see how well what he thinks and what I right down match up.
Worst case scenario, I use pregens and just have info ready for them.
Quote from: NathanIW;839123Nice write up. I pasted it into my campaign document.
I'm glad you liked it. Your two lines inspired me and since I had written it down, it only seemed right to share.
QuoteA dark fey curse. Corby shamans would also find the idea of scarecrows turning on humans appealing.
In the underworld dungeon in my game there's an incongruous area where there are harvest elements that start to show up. Piles of dried leaves in the corners. Stones and statues changing to autumnal colours the next time you walk past them. An apple bobbing barrel with fresh water and apples showing up. And then the scarecrows start showing up. And if a living being survives and sticks around long enough, the Harvester himself arrives.
I almost wrote fey curse down as a cause, but I don't know/haven't decided if there are real fey in my campaign. The setting is mostly no, rarely very low supernatural/magical elements and as I was doing the write-up for me, I left that out, though the otherworld invasion I was thinking of was something like Hellboy 2 Golden Army which has fey as the antagonist. Fey would totally fit. I like the weird harvest area idea. It has a nice Ichabod Crane Headless Horseman kind of vibe. Well done sir or madam.
Friend and I talked about a character idea and I had all the stats I needed in three minutes. I showed him what I wrote and it matched what he was thinking. He was surprised it turned out to be D&D based.
Quote from: NathanIW;839149Friend and I talked about a character idea and I had all the stats I needed in three minutes. I showed him what I wrote and it matched what he was thinking. He was surprised it turned out to be D&D based.
Any chance of seeing a sample?
Jerome Johan -- HP 5 -- AC 12 (8 in descending)
STR +1
DEX +2
MIND 0
----
Athletics 5
Interaction 2
Lore 1
Skulduggery 1
----
Attack +2
Damage +2
----
Equipment
Rags
Jerome was described as a quick and tough 30 year old who spent his youth as a workman and guard for the Cartwright Guild. When the king consecrated the land to the Guardian, he went along to get along. Unfortunately a fellow guilder informed on him out of jealousy and he was accused of still worshipping the old gods in secret. He declined taking the magical brand of loyalty offered by the priests of the Guardian and has just been cast into the underworld as a heretic and undesirable. He hopes to find others who have been cast into the underworld before him and, if lucky, find a way out so he can get revenge on the informer.
----
The paragraph about him wasn't written during character creation, but is just my recollection of the short conversation. And yes, I'm stealing from an early 90s video game series unapologetically. The stats all might seem high, but they are still based off of the Microlite20 math which I believe is much higher than other D&Ds. I've also only bothered with the attribute modifier rather than the ability score because with the m20 universal mechanic of d20+stat+skill vs target, it's all I need.
Seems to be on same track mechanically and background-wise.
Are all the other PCs thrown into the underworld as well?
Quote from: Moracai;839255Seems to be on same track mechanically and background-wise.
Are all the other PCs thrown into the underworld as well?
Yes, as a group. And as the transportation is magical if new characters show up they can be popped in. There's towns and outposts down there as well.
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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=839616&postcount=31) 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.
Had another session with two more players. Things went fine. It's like a game system that works well for new people who don't know the rules would also work fine for people who can't know the rules. ;)
In the end the two new players also opted to roll their own attacks and their own saves vs lethal effects. We had one character death from a fall add another very close call during the battle for the Harvester's alter. They did manage to destroy the thing and end the source of the scarecrows.
So I figured I'd report back after running this game two or three times a month for a year.
Things are going very well in terms of players talking about the game with other people they know and me getting emails and requests to join in. I now have 7 players and find things run fast enough that everyone's input is manageable. People seem to really like how accessible the game is. Everything is in natural language and the only thing they need to know is to roll a d20, higher is always better.
So much gets done in terms of fictional content. So little time is spent on system concerns that a lot of quests get resolved, areas get explored and so on. The players character sheets are full of notes about things that interest them instead of stats.
While I started out with an 0D&D type structure, I eventually dropped a lot of it. instead of having multiple ability scores, I only have things of note about the character. So instead of STR, INT, etc., I just have things like Strong +1 or Weak minded -1. A character sheet might look like this:
HP 5 SP3 (spell points)
Strong +1
Training in all weapons and armor
Medium weight armor (14)
Large shield -2/-3 (cover penalty for attackers in melee/at range)
Magic users are all custom made based on what the player describes as wanting their character to do. I use spell points where after they are gone, spells drain HP at a 2:1 rate. Characters have killed themselves casting powerful spells when drained. Their level of magical depletion is communicated to them when they are at half or are empty or almost empty and certainly if they harm themselves through spell casting. In 30ish sessions no one has felt their spell usage hurting them in any way blind sided them in an unfair manner. They got very quickly that powerful spells are dangerous things to cast.
One thing it has done is really focused me on what details my description needs to have. And how to describe things so people can picture them in 3d in their heads more easily. My description needs work even still. We're getting by, but I think I'm just short of the amount of description needed for people to have a common idea in their heads while at the same time leaving room for their imagination to fill in the details of the picture. This isn't really specific to having the system hidden from the players except that since everything is moving faster as the players aren't fumbling around with game mechanics, so more locations and situations are described per hour, so there's more chances to both get things right and screw up.
I've never met a player who didn't like to or want to roll his or her own dice, so this seems weird to me. Even more foreign now that I'm having players make all the dice rolls (I haven't rolled a dice in-game in months).
You just running the one game?
You mentioned you thought the "behind the screen" parts were what was speeding up play.
I wonder if your games would slow right down again if you gave the players back their charcter sheets.
Also, you have custom multiple custom built magic users playing? That was a deal breaker for my Amber campagin, I told new players they could do anything and they were all parilized so the game never started.
Sounds like you found a system for a new inexperienced player to describe a magic user useing natural language. That sounds useful. Can it be taught?
I applaud you. This is an exercise for the GM's creativity and communication, as it is a liberation for the players to "look up from their sheet."
I'm gonna offer you a descriptive acronym in the form of a hip hop rapper's name, just so you can feed relevance to players and they don't feel like they're trying to "guess what you're imagining." You don't need to use all, but when stuck it helps remind the GM "have I given everything the PCs would immediately recognize?"
L. L. WAND
Location. Lighting. Weather. Access. Noticeables. Distance.
Location sounds basic, but every scene needs a surface to stand on. Describe it quickly if possible, but make sure players understand it means something when you do. Things like terrain, elevation, dominant flora (a form of terrain!), etc.
Lighting, again sounds basic, but you are all senses to your players' PCs. It can be broadly extended to visibility, so dominant flora can obscure things just as much as day/night cycles. Be fast and pertinent, but do emphasize their relevance.
Weather, because we often slip into it being all sunshine and cool breezes without thinking about it. Whole strategies, from travel to attack, changes from this encountered detail. People dressed accordingly for reasons; it's not a bad thing to reintroduce.
Access, because this defines challenges. Without this and distance players want to jump into the action altogether everytime, as if some teleporting gestalt. Chasms on the way, things partially buried, or frozen over, a dresser with closed drawers, even plain MacGuffins out of immediate reach on a high shelf, all define scene with their challenges and opportunities.
Noticeables, this is the "opportunities" in a scene. We often forget as GMs to sprinkle the world with lively bits, and then we lapse into "and combat devolved into stale back 'n forths swinging." You stock the scene with chandeliers and their rope tie, with sparkly earrings on a dresser, with a loose boulder on a ledge, with a six-fingered gloved hand... These are the freebies readily seen by most PCs.
Distance, sets the opportunity for either the party or the encounter (which can include sheer phenomena). This is the risk cost for the party's throttle setting; caution rewards in one way, thrill-seeker 'rewards' in another. Managing distance through demeanor has huge ramifications for strategic play, and further really shuts down 'teleporting gestalt' style play. Distance rewards splitting up to multitask, but also brings risk when there is danger. It makes the game about being in a time and a space matter over PC sheet widgets.
-------------
It seems like a silly thing to offer, but I found the acronym helped me (and other GMs sorta stuck with a frozen party) go back through descriptions and see if I gave all I could to the PCs' senses. It also keeps you on task from getting lost in embellishing lush environs with ever more purple prose, a nasty habit that can sneak up on you. It is a game, so players need more than "tumescent scabbards whose quivering susserous enthralls the martial soul..." Keep things on task and leave the frustrated novelization to NaNoWriMo.
I think that, if you want them to look up from their sheet, play a game where there is not much on the sheet. Or just don't call for as many rolls?
Quote from: cranebump;918884I think that, if you want them to look up from their sheet, play a game where there is not much on the sheet. Or just don't call for as many rolls?
Well, it still is a game, and part of that involves
tasks that matter, be it from pressures or just quality check (degree of success). So even if the game system is light, and most inconsequential tasks are handwaved, you'll still get to this moment where a decision must matter. So describe the scene thoroughly for audience's mind's eye, yet make the description short & sweet, then a better informed decision can be made. If it hits the sweet spot the audience feels emboldened to interact creatively off-sheet with the world, and the GM feels in sync with economical yet descriptive flow.
And that's a performance modulation, where you get to know your audience. We all think our descriptions are perfect, but we forget that others cannot read our imagination. Thus in practice sometimes players stall out onto the sheet from lack of where else to turn. This way you stretch that performance muscle to have players reconnect to GM trust as provider of all PC senses, and learn to improve providing that 'sensory' feedback.
Quote from: Headless;918824You just running the one game?
Yeah. My primary hobby is miniature wargaming, so I just have the two or three RPG sessions a month. They tend to go from 6 pm to 1 am though.
QuoteYou mentioned you thought the "behind the screen" parts were what was speeding up play.
I wonder if your games would slow right down again if you gave the players back their charcter sheets.
I think I'd have disappointed players who would be looking for more fiddly bits to play with using the game mechanics rather than concentrating on describing what they do. I think the system behind the screen has allowed the players to learn how to make decisions based on the description I give, but the actual system time being reduced is probably more to do with just how light the game rules are. The point of the referee in this instance is to produce results and describe them, so a system that does any more than that is superfluous. I don't need a system that is enjoyable for the players to use during the game. The system is for me, not them, in this case.
QuoteAlso, you have custom multiple custom built magic users playing? That was a deal breaker for my Amber campagin, I told new players they could do anything and they were all parilized so the game never started.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I mean that each character's magical ability is built based on how they describe things when their character is created. For example, a character that is a lunar priestess and thus has different spells based on the phase of the moon at the time. So they started with 4 spells (new moon, waxing, full, waning) which were things like darkness, bless, beastform, & deflect and all the time they have access to a spell to close wounds.
QuoteSounds like you found a system for a new inexperienced player to describe a magic user useing natural language. That sounds useful. Can it be taught?
Sadly it's not a free form type magic system. It's just a conversation at character creation.
"I want my wizard to shoot fire from his eyes and fly!"
"What powers his magic? How did he get his power?"
"He made a pact with a dark being when he was initiated into his order."
"Flying is a bit much for a relatively new wizard, so what do you think about being able to levitate and move slowly about for now and maybe he'll develop more speed or control as time goes by? The fire thing though, no problem."
"Cool!"
Then I scribble down something like Levitation (self only) 1 SP per 10 minutes. Walking speed, can move horizontally and vertically. and Fiery eye beams - 100 ft range - 1d6 plus chance to catch things on fire, 1 SP per shot.
Quote from: cranebump;918779I've never met a player who didn't like to or want to roll his or her own dice, so this seems weird to me. Even more foreign now that I'm having players make all the dice rolls (I haven't rolled a dice in-game in months).
They all roll their d20s. I roll their d6s + modifiers for damage (a two handed sword is d6+4 while a knife is d6-1, that sort of thing) and all the other rolls I might need on a dice rolling app.
Quote from: Opaopajr;918843I applaud you. This is an exercise for the GM's creativity and communication, as it is a liberation for the players to "look up from their sheet."
My mantra when it comes to RPGs has always been to make sure that players can make meaningful decisions. I've found that when decisions are not based on system concerns, they can be a lot more meaningful and powerful.
QuoteI'm gonna offer you a descriptive acronym in the form of a hip hop rapper's name, just so you can feed relevance to players and they don't feel like they're trying to "guess what you're imagining." You don't need to use all, but when stuck it helps remind the GM "have I given everything the PCs would immediately recognize?"
L. L. WAND
Location. Lighting. Weather. Access. Noticeables. Distance.
I wrote it in sharpie on the top page of my notes for next session.
QuoteLighting, again sounds basic, but you are all senses to your players' PCs. It can be broadly extended to visibility, so dominant flora can obscure things just as much as day/night cycles. Be fast and pertinent, but do emphasize their relevance.
Lighting restrictions are my favorite thing for D&D type games. It's so nice to have a set radius for light, only describe what they see and vague descriptions of anything they might only partially make out. I have had a bit of wilderness adventuring going on, so I do need to pay more attention to mentioning under brush and the nature of the terrain with regards to line of sight.
Quote from: cranebump;918884I think that, if you want them to look up from their sheet, play a game where there is not much on the sheet. Or just don't call for as many rolls?
I'd recommend anyone run and play in at least one session where your sheet has no game stats on it at all and all you know about the system is to roll a d20 and that high is better than low. It's different than just having a lighter system. It isn't so much about correcting problems in play, but maximizing opportunity to act based on description.
QuoteThus in practice sometimes players stall out onto the sheet from lack of where else to turn. This way you stretch that performance muscle to have players reconnect to GM trust as provider of all PC senses, and learn to improve providing that 'sensory' feedback.
We also have had a decade or two of versions of D&D where players were given complete access to the system. This was obviously for commercial reasons as players could then buy more options books for their characters (or even online subscriptions that aggregated them). Add in miniatures where the position of everything is spelled out on battle maps and there might be a good number of players and referees out there that haven't exercised those muscles in quite some time.
Quote from: Opaopajr;918843I'm gonna offer you a descriptive acronym in the form of a hip hop rapper's name, just so you can feed relevance to players and they don't feel like they're trying to "guess what you're imagining." You don't need to use all, but when stuck it helps remind the GM "have I given everything the PCs would immediately recognize?"
L. L. WAND
That is helpful as a reminder. I think I will print this out before the next play session.
It's silly, but it's useful. :o
Like presenting anything, it's easy to have things well-organized in your mind, but did you remember to communicate that as thoroughly as you thought? Sort of like a refresher checklist. Hope it helps!
Quote from: Opaopajr;919423It's silly, but it's useful. :o
Like presenting anything, it's easy to have things well-organized in your mind, but did you remember to communicate that as thoroughly as you thought? Sort of like a refresher checklist. Hope it helps!
I printed it and set it on top of my notes. I'll try to remember to use it tomorrow night and post anything interesting after. Feel free to remind me next week if it seems I forgot.
Just an update. This game is still going. 8 players and another 10 or so who have heard about the game that are on a waiting list. It really is true that when the players don't have to master a complex system in order to play, more people are interested.
Still doing d20 rolls by the players. High is good. Sometimes I roll myself and it's basically me interpreting the opposed rolls with general modifiers. No saving throws unless the player describes what they are doing to save themselves. Character death every 3 or 4 sessions on average. Character creation takes 2 minutes. They just describe their character and I write down a few important things like how they stand out and apply that to a normal dungeoneer profile I have. No one ever really stops being a normal person just because they are experienced.
So much happens. As there's no system based decisions we can easily get through three times the amount of material that I'm used to playing something like Dungeon Crawl Classics, Call of Cthulhu or whatever. I'm basically running a system behind the screen version of Swords & Wizardry with opposed rolls more than target numbers, so I imagine a similarly light game might be nearly as fast even played in the normal fashion.
Still reminding myself about LL WAND (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?32663-Starting-a-system-behind-the-screen-game-this-weekend&p=918843#post918843)every session and after every break.