I feel compelled to share this map...

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

This is the map for my home campaign, obviously set in Meleon.

Might be that this game, AiF, has little representation on the web, these days.

But it's certainly far from forgotten!

[kesher]

Are you using AiF as the system for the campaign?

[Deleted]

No, we're suing a hodge-podge of DCC RPG and d20; the reason being simply, I can't ask my players to go hunting for antiquities:
We have to play a system that is accessible to them through some other way than just through me.

[Deleted]

Actually, what I perhaps should add: I am working on a map of the entire region, based on the elements from this one, that is nine times bigger...

And I will do it in English, this time!

[Deleted]

I am using material from this page to supplement the imagery that the original map cannot give:

recedingrules.blogspot.de/2014/07/public-domain-wilderness-map-symbols.html

[Deleted]

I kind of got hung up with the technique I applied to modify the AiF map, and now I am slowly mapping the whole Cold River Riding/Northern Duneyrr sector this way.

(The kingdom of Duneyrr, of course, is not an Arnesonian creation, but the setting for my home campaign.)

Anyway, superb fun!!! I'll post a small preview here, and the bigger final version, over in General Discussion, once I get the chance to finish it.

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

Nice maps!

Me, I still use OD&D, but I play very much by "Don't worry about rules, just tell me what you want to do!"

[Deleted]

Hehe, thanks - it's really just a poor copypasta job, but I enjoy it immensely.

Usually, I'd also simply run OD&D with my group - but most players from my generation, in particular in Germany, are simply more comfortable with Pathfinder-esque rules, or generic d20, as older editions of D&D are almost completely unknown. It's sort of a shame, but people are not really open for it, unless it's really one of the specifically "historical" one-shots I like to do from time to time, like the adventure in Glendower dungeon that we had last year.

[Deleted]

But that's my point about "don't think about rules, just tell me what you want to do." I don't want my players thinking about RULES at all, I want them thinking about what their characters are actually DOING.

[Stormcrow]

"This is how strong you are; this is how smart [etc.] you are; you're good at fighting and you're carrying X, Y, and Z. This is how close to death you are. Now, what do you want to do?"

D&D in a nutshell.

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2016 22:32:56 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

But that's my point about "don't think about rules, just tell me what you want to do." I don't want my players thinking about RULES at all, I want them thinking about what their characters are actually DOING.

We're really not disagreeing here; in my book, any sort of RPG needs to be smooth interactive storytelling, not a discussion about numbers and random calculations. At the same time, my face-to-face games are usually very focused on "player empowerment", of all sorts. So, it's generally attractive for me to have my players know the rules, and have them at their disposition if they want to use them. I don't really overthink my modus operandi all too much, but he point is, we haven't had a rules-related argument at the gaming table since I can remember. Simply works well the way we do it.

I think this is not a systemic question, as much as it is a question of player competence and maturity - I've been criticized for often running tables "like business meetings", though - I am pretty detached for most of the time of the games, while some DMs really get lost in their own stories. Like, I don't get carried away, and usually, I keep my enthusiasm to myself. I enjoy planning and plotting, but once the dice are rolling, I handle it like a very immersive game of poker.

[DungeonDevil]

Jun 20, 2016 22:32:56 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

But that's my point about "don't think about rules, just tell me what you want to do." I don't want my players thinking about RULES at all, I want them thinking about what their characters are actually DOING.

I cannot think of a better way to play the hobby in general!

[Deleted]

Just saying, I am really not sure how this applies to my situation, or rather, is in how this conflicts with what I wrote.
Do you take your players' charsheets away from them, then? Do you not explain to them how combat rolls work, in principle?

Because in the moment a player takes up a die, he needs to know what he's doing, or doesn't he?

[Stormcrow]

Character sheets have scores on them for various abilities and statistics that the players should be aware of (strength, intelligence, hit points, etc.) but not those related to tables or rules the referee controls (like attack tables and saving throws). Most referees let players roll their own dice because players like that, but they don't have to give players any understanding of what they need to roll or even why they're rolling. They usually tell players "roll high" or "roll low" because, again, players like that.

And if the players have no idea what's going on on the other side of the referee's screen, if he's using one, then it doesn't matter to them what rules he's using. He might not be using any significant rules at all beyond what he makes up that makes sense to him. Some referees even pretend to roll dice and look up rules to give the players the impression that he's just processing game rules, when what he's really doing is just making something up.

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2016 4:34:31 GMT -6 @rafael said:

Just saying, I am really not sure how this applies to my situation, or rather, is in how this conflicts with what I wrote.
Do you take your players' charsheets away from them, then? Do you not explain to them how combat rolls work, in principle?

Because in the moment a player takes up a die, he needs to know what he's doing, or doesn't he?

The character sheets are minimialist; attributes (which matter very little in OD&D), hit points, XP, and possessions. Period.

And no, I do NOT tell the players what any die rolls mean.

"Don't ask me what you need to hit, just roll the dice," to quote Dave Arneson.

[tog]

I said it for Tunnels & Trolls at one point, but I believe it in general for RPGs these days - any "character sheet" that can't fit on a 3"x5" index card is just too much for me.

[Deleted]

Ah, I see. Yeah, definitely. the *knowing* or *competent player* is one of most annoying concepts of modern RPGs - mainly because it's so badly executed in the vast majority of cases. Then again, your argument has one distinct bias: You all postulate that the DM is good enough to handle the rules aspect alone, which is obvious, because you all have a degree of experience that is highly above average. But the grim reality is, many, if not most DMs, tend to outright suck at their job. To have a controlling element, there, for their own sake, is not wrong.

Myself, well, I am not on this board for nothing: I like my games simple, compared to modern standards - DCC RPG is about as complex as I allow rules to get, precisely of the reasons you named: I've been running games since I was in 5th grade, perhaps. The guy who has been collecting Pathfinder books for six months, essentially because he likes the artwork, he need not tell me how I run my biz.

How do you guys handle strategies of player empowerment, then, for example? - For example, I like to have fairly complex dominion/regency system rules, and that's a stage when I only really moderate, and don't *tell*.

[Stormcrow]

Jun 24, 2016 6:54:06 GMT -6 @rafael said:

You all postulate that the DM is good enough to handle the rules aspect alone, which is obvious, because you all have a degree of experience that is highly above average. But the grim reality is, many, if not most DMs, tend to outright suck at their job. To have a controlling element, there, for their own sake, is not wrong.

A common attitude to RPGs, but not one that the pioneers of the game form had, is that the referee is a rules-processor rather than a judge. "Player empowerment" adheres to this idea: the players have a right to know that what the referee says happens to their characters is what the book says happens to their characters.

D&D did not start with this idea in it. As Gronan will tell you, it had the ideas of Free Kriegsspiel built into it: the role of the referee is to take what you say your character does and decide what happens as a result. The rules give the referee tools he can use to make his decision, but there is absolutely no requirement that anything in the rules dictate the referee's decision, or that the players have a right to know that the referee is following a certain rule.

There are certain practical considerations, of course. If a character's Strength score is 18, he'll expect his character to be able to do things any strong character can do; if the referee's decisions don't agree with the notion of a strong character, the player will understandably complain. That's not the say the referee is compelled to apply any rule about the character's Strength. If a player thinks he is being treated unfairly, he can leave the game. That's really the only right players have: to vote with their feet.

[Deleted]

Free Kriegspeil requires a high level of trust. I will be discussing that in my Free Kriegspiel Renaissance (FKR) pages. I'm not sure if it belongs in "The FKR's Manifesto" or not.

I don't know what "strategies of player empowerment" are. Any player is free to attempt whatever they like. They may or may not succeed.

[Deleted]

As far as "The DM must be good enough," the answer to that is practice. I'll be discussing that too.

[Stormcrow]

Jun 24, 2016 8:52:40 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

I don't know what "strategies of player empowerment" are. 

"Player empowerment" usually refers to the idea that players can leverage the rules of the game against the referee, theoretically for a fair and consistent experience, to prevent the referee from arbitrarily being unfair or stingy. It involves transferring some control of the game to the players.

On the other hand, sometimes the phrase refers to player entitlement, in which their characters are guaranteed certain outcomes regardless of their performance, like a guarantee to be a hero, or a guarantee to gain a certain number of experience points.

[Deleted]

Either one of those indicate a lack of trust.

Sadly, that's an inevitable legacy from the days of TSR shifting the game from adult wargamers to 13 year old boys. 13 year old boys are feral little beasts -- "Lord of the Flies," anyone?

[derv]

Jun 24, 2016 8:47:02 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Jun 24, 2016 6:54:06 GMT -6 @rafael said:

You all postulate that the DM is good enough to handle the rules aspect alone, which is obvious, because you all have a degree of experience that is highly above average. But the grim reality is, many, if not most DMs, tend to outright suck at their job. To have a controlling element, there, for their own sake, is not wrong.

A common attitude to RPGs, but not one that the pioneers of the game form had, is that the referee is a rules-processor rather than a judge. "Player empowerment" adheres to this idea: the players have a right to know that what the referee says happens to their characters is what the book says happens to their characters.

D&D did not start with this idea in it. As Gronan will tell you, it had the ideas of Free Kriegsspiel built into it: the role of the referee is to take what you say your character does and decide what happens as a result. The rules give the referee tools he can use to make his decision, but there is absolutely no requirement that anything in the rules dictate the referee's decision, or that the players have a right to know that the referee is following a certain rule.

There are certain practical considerations, of course. If a character's Strength score is 18, he'll expect his character to be able to do things any strong character can do; if the referee's decisions don't agree with the notion of a strong character, the player will understandably complain. That's not the say the referee is compelled to apply any rule about the character's Strength. If a player thinks he is being treated unfairly, he can leave the game. That's really the only right players have: to vote with their feet.

What's important to remember is that Free Kriegsspiel does not mean without logic, or anything goes. A ruling was expected to be well reasoned in such games. Only the truly experienced would be qualified to ref. Traditionally, these would have been professional soldiers who had been there, done that.

This idea of "GM competency" and "player empowerment" is often discussed as an adversarial issue. Possibly this has something to do with some of the early advice given to GM's about how to kill off players in more creative fashion- don't know. It's an interesting topic to think about because it really boils down to the idea of bias in decision making. The fact is, such bias is unavoidable without some method to curb it. We are humans, after all. Yet, contrary to the adversarial perspective, bias can and often is to the players benefit. To me, this is the more insidious problem of a Free Kriegsspiel approach.

So, the question becomes, how do you culture a more even handed and objective manner of judging without rules? Especially since we are not talking about historic simulations, but fantasy. This is what I think Raf is trying to say.

[derv]

To follow up, something to consider is that "GM competency" + "player empowerment" is intended as a check and balance that can foster trust, instead of adversity, within a group. Players who come to recognize or accept that the GM is capable and consistent will be less likely to leverage rules and instead, simply enjoy the experience. This is more easily accomplished in an open gaming environment where methods are not necessarily shared, but they are not hidden or mysterious either.

GM's who recognize that their players are familiar with how the game works are more likely to ere on the side of fairness. The reason we roll dice is to off set this tendency towards bias I mentioned above.

In my experience, core rule changes (house rules) are always established ahead of time and explicitly expressed. Rulings are used for those things that the rules do not cover. But, it is generally expected to be consistent with previous methods.

[Deleted]

Jun 25, 2016 9:24:56 GMT -6 derv said:

To follow up, something to consider is that "GM competency" + "player empowerment" is intended as a check and balance that can foster trust, instead of adversity, within a group. Players who come to recognize or accept that the GM is capable and consistent will be less likely to leverage rules and instead, simply enjoy the experience. This is more easily accomplished in an open gaming environment where methods are not necessarily shared, but they are not hidden or mysterious either.

That is your opinion and or experience. Mine is different. I have never, ever abided a plyaer who even TRIED to "leverage rules." Everyone at my table, EVER, including people who had never met me, was told "Just tell me what you want to do, don't worry about rules."

And that goes way way back to when I first started.

Jun 25, 2016 9:24:56 GMT -6 derv said:

GM's who recognize that their players are familiar with how the game works are more likely to ere on the side of fairness. The reason we roll dice is to off set this tendency towards bias I mentioned above.

Again that is purely your perspective. I roll dice only because ruling on everything is more difficult, and the dice sometimes lead to unexpected places.

Your experience is far from universal.

[derv]

Jun 25, 2016 12:36:46 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Jun 25, 2016 9:24:56 GMT -6 derv said:

To follow up, something to consider is that "GM competency" + "player empowerment" is intended as a check and balance that can foster trust, instead of adversity, within a group. Players who come to recognize or accept that the GM is capable and consistent will be less likely to leverage rules and instead, simply enjoy the experience. This is more easily accomplished in an open gaming environment where methods are not necessarily shared, but they are not hidden or mysterious either.

That is your opinion and or experience. Mine is different. I have never, ever abided a plyaer who even TRIED to "leverage rules." Everyone at my table, EVER, including people who had never met me, was told "Just tell me what you want to do, don't worry about rules."

And that goes way way back to when I first started.

Jun 25, 2016 9:24:56 GMT -6 derv said:

GM's who recognize that their players are familiar with how the game works are more likely to ere on the side of fairness. The reason we roll dice is to off set this tendency towards bias I mentioned above.

Again that is purely your perspective. I roll dice only because ruling on everything is more difficult, and the dice sometimes lead to unexpected places.

Your experience is far from universal.

Well yes, it is my experience. Sure, it's an opinion. And though it may not be universal, I doubt it is uncommon. But, I'm not telling you my opinion so as to appear right or wrong, only to suggest that there may be another way of looking at it. It is not always players being schmucks or GM's being jerks.

For example, if I tell one player to roll a d20 for an attack roll against an orc and he rolls a 12, I let him know he missed. But, then I turn around and another player rolls a 12 and I tell them he hit, something appears to be amiss. Well, the rules, your competency, or your integrity, may be brought into question. But, maybe there is a valid reason for the apparent discrepency, such as a +1 sword or something. Or maybe it was a simple mistake.

This is not a matter of a player attempting rules mastery or leverage in an effort to undermine or out smart the GM. It's because many of the rules are easily deduced after a short time of playing. The idea that most players will be ignorant of how the mechanics work is a misnomer, in my opinion.

Ultimately, if what a GM is actually doing behind the screen is winging it and not actually relying on any type of rules, it's questionable if they are actually playing a game. It might be better characterized as an exercise in make believe, with the illusion of a game, where the GM subjectively decides everything. Where is the chance of success or failure? What keep's the GM from going down the rabbit hole of his own whims? There would be little wonder why such a GM would prefer players not knowing the rules.

Certainly, if this is the intent of the LBB's, why didn't we get a treatise on how to play pretend instead and forgo any and all the mechanics? Because rules do have a purpose. This is not a live by the rules and die by the rules explanation either. I'm simply of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with players knowing the rules. That it can be beneficial.

[Deleted]

While I appreciate the discussion, shouldn't we separate it from this thread?

Like, this discussion, at its core, is supposed to focus on mining the old AiF "Adventure Book", and the default setting that is Arneson's "Bleakwood" for gaming purposes. - It's a really solid RPG product, and it gets next to no respect, other than as a curiosity. I'd like to change that; especially, because it was one of the major inspirations for my own home setting, in general, after my old pal havard and I first contemplated in, what was it, 2008, whether creating an oldschool-inspired setting for our own purpoes would make sense, given that Blackmoor was always to going to be locked in copyright hell. - So, AiF really holds a special place in my heart.


As to the topic we've been discussing instead, I have to confess that I am still not really sure what this is really supposed to be about: Is my game judged based on a subordinate clause?

Generally, that's a bit like judging other people's marriages: Unless you're asked for advice, you should better not give it.
Specifically, the game we play is a modern one: DCC RPG + Pathfinder + RC D&D + some stuff by Green Ronin, and it's intentionally so. And the players are pretty happy how things are going, and have been, since forever. Could they theoretically be "happier"? - Maybe. And perhaps all our wives could be happier if everyone of us lost twenty pounds, if you know what I mean. It's going to be a thing that is welcome if it happens, but that noone will really work for, unless forced to.

And, personally, what the hell? Anything I've given out, anything you know about who I am, does it indicate that I don't know what I am doing, gentlemen? Seriously? - Like, everyone of you is always invited to join, both my online games here, as well as my offline games, if you happen to drop by the Germany backwoods. So, it's not an entirely abstract thing we're talking about; you can be part of it.



Now, I am happy to debate the issues some of you seem to see on a general level, but given that the issue seems mostly one based on semantics, I discourage any comments directed at people on an individual level:
Really, player empowerment = "lack of trust"?! Do we really want to get into stuff like that, and debate it on a fundamental level? I think not. Please always assume goodwill, gentlemen, and always assume that everyone here knows the trade of gaming.