System-Naive and System-Informed Play

[calithena]

It seems to me that a lot of modern RPGs, both 'mainstream' and 'indie', expect that the players of the game will be involved with the nuts and bolts of how the system works.

There's nothing wrong with this approach in principle, but it cuts against the way I like to play. The way I've always enjoyed fantasy roleplaying the most as a player is when I FORGET about the mechanics and options, and just try to think about what my character would do and how they would do it.

I've also had a lot of success running OD&D and AD&D this way. I find that when people focus on their vision of the imaginary world and the kinds of things their spell and equipment lists make possible and just 'try anything' it's a lot more fun. Whereas once people start calculating percentages, comparing maneuvers, etc. that kills a lot of the fun for me. I mean, I like that kind of fun: I was a tournament chessplayer for pete's sake; it's just not what I look for when I'm playing RPGs. I'm much more into everyone using their imagination, and my job as DM being to figure out how to make that imagination work in the context of the system we're using.

The last time I played OD&D with a large tabletop group I even went so far as to just give people descriptive character sheets: they knew if they were strong or smart, but they didn't get a number, and they might find a magic sword, but they wouldn't know the 'plus'. That's an extreme solution and probably not necessary, although it did work really well for me that time.

When I'm running OD&D I guess I think that thinking about how the system handles things is my job, and that the player's job is really just to imagine the situation and think about what his character would like to do. I tend to play pretty naively as well, although with high level characters it does take some time considering all the options your equipment and magic open up for you.

I mean, if your character knows that an ochre jelly is immune to something, then OK, don't use it - that's not what I'm talking about. I just mean that number crunching, calculating percentages, weighing effectiveness of tactical options, etc. is often not something I like to be part of play as DM or player. And something I like about OD&D that I don't enjoy as much with a lot of modern games is that it seems somehow easier to push the system stuff into the background, both because it's lighter and because so much is up to the DMs discretion anyway.

Any thoughts? Do other people play OD&D like this? Different perspectives?

[coffee]

Absolutely.

That's why I'm here, in fact. Playing 3.x got me so burned out, I actually dreaded my weekly game (and I wasn't DMing, I was a player.)

It wasn't fun anymore. And games are supposed to be fun.

I like using my imagination at the table, not while sitting at home working out what class to take next level to optimize my combat monster.

(And the guy who did that then took up to 20 minutes to decide what to do when his turn came around. Not 20 minutes to do it; that's just to decide what to do. When there are three players in a game, and you still get in one melee round every hour of real time, something is terribly terribly wrong. I've never had that happen in D&D or in AD&D, only in 3.x)

Sorry, went a bit off the rails there.

I remember the first time I played D&D (doesn't everyone?) (actually it was AD&D, but I didn't know the difference). I didn't know what any of the rules were, but I knew I was having a good time.

And that's what counts.

[WSmith]

See my other post about the house rules. That is one benefit of the simple character sheet. Take the online game for example. We know ability scores, HP, level, languages, spells, and what equipment we have. We don't even have our Armor Classes listed, or saving throws. I don't have the Turn Undead table listed. That is a good thing.

I am all for saying the "glowing sword shines a blue hue..." and not telling the player of its +2 bonus, as long as I remember it when roll times comes. Through experimentation, they will figure it out anyway.

[WSmith]

coffee said:

I remember the first time I played D&D (doesn't everyone?) (actually it was AD&D, but I didn't know the difference). I didn't know what any of the rules were, but I knew I was having a good time.

And that's what counts.

This is why I like system-naive. Anyone that has had the pleasure of playing with either children or adults that have no prior experience with RPGs will know exactly the fun and pleasure they create while having no working knowledge of the rules of the game.

[ffilz]

While the idea of the players not knowing the rules sounds appealing in some way, I think I do prefer the players to have the rules and apply them. On the other hand, I think D20 has become WAY too fiddly. D&D (or even AD&D 1e) has enough detail to make combat interesting to run (especially if miniatures are used, at least to some extent, not necessarily to the detail and precision and fiddlyness of D20), but not overwhelming.

That said, we did find AD&D got to be a bit of a pain when the PCs got too many magic items. The players started agonizing over which item to use, or would forget about items. I think we actually did a magic item trim in one of my campaigns (not sure how we did it, but I do remember trimming the NPCs).

I also appreciate that without too many rules, it's easier to be creative. Without a laundry list of skills, it becomes easy to just assign a percentage chance of success, or use an attribute roll, or to compare the task to something the system does cover (such as the suggestion I've seen recently on using a thief's find traps to look for secret doors).

Frank

[Finarvyn]

Heck, most of my gaming group is system-naive. They have no idea what rules I'm running, and sometimes I get confused myself. I run OD&D mostly, but also throw in a mix of C&C or AD&D or whatever happens to seem to fit at the time.

One of my favorite options is just to have a player grab some sort of dice and roll. Tell me what kind and what the number is and I decide what happens. No charts to consult, no rules to look up, just roll and keep playing.

[coffee]

admin said:

One of my favorite options is just to have a player grab some sort of dice and roll. Tell me what kind and what the number is and I decide what happens. No charts to consult, no rules to look up, just roll and keep playing.

I love it!

The best kind of chart is the one the players never see.

What they can't see, they can't rules lawyer.

As a recovering rules lawyer myself, I say that anything that allows you to just get on with the game is A Good Thing^tm.

[crimhthanthegreat]

I agree with what you all are saying. I can not imagine playing in a game where 1 melee round with 3 players takes an hour real time. One of the things I like about OD&D, especially with my group is that we make decisions quickly and even with a large group the combat goes very quickly. I have seen a combat with as many as 30 players go by at an average of about 30-45 sec per player in real time and with just us old guys I have seen melee play out at about 10 sec per player in real time. Now granted they don't all go that fast and especially if you have some brand new players, but when you have guys that have been playing together as a combat team for 36 years and change you can cover a lot in a very short time.

[Finarvyn]

coffee said:

The best kind of chart is the one the players never see. What they can't see, they can't rules lawyer.

It also helps that my group has played Amber Diceless where there are no charts or modifiers that the players ever get to see. It all happens "behind the screen" (or "inside my head" ) and they can't argue that kind of system.

[coffee]

I always wanted to try Amber, but diceless sounds scary to me. Also, I've grown to dislike games based on specific works; they never live up to the original (in my experience; YMMV).

[tgamemaster1975]

I have never played diceless either, could you tell us a bit about how that works?

[Finarvyn]

The diceless mechanic in ADRP is all about conflict resolution. There are four stats and three types of conflict: weapons (Warfare), mental (Psyche), and fists/martial arts (Strength). The fourth stat is Endurance and tells how long you can last before you tire.

The simple way to think about conflict is that each person has a stat and the GM simply compares the stats and the higher person wins. Unless it’s close. For example, if a swordsman of Warfare 20 battles a swordsman of WAR 2, then the 20 guy will win if they fight to conclusion. The GM gives verbal clues to both sides as to how the battle is unfolding (a very descriptive game) and both sides get to decide how they react to the information – fight or flee or other. If the battle is close, say 20 to 18, then the GM might give the edge to the 20 in the short run but default to Endurance to see who wins in the long run. The 20 guy might grow tired first.

The mistake people make is that they assume that the GM will “just decide who wins” and that is a grossly oversimplified solution. Each person in the conflict should get several rounds worth of clues and opportunities to make some choices that may influence the end result. One player might pretend to be a lesser fighter just to see what the other can do, like the duel scene in The Princess Bride where each is fighting off-handed and switches to their correct hand as they tire. Players can try dirty tricks, cinematic moves, or whatever, and the GM can use that information to secretly modify that character’s ability in the conflict.

In many ways it’s like OD&D or any other RPG, except that the formality of the dice roll is taken away. If a 20th level fighter battles with a 2nd level fighter, there’s no doubt as to who will win unless the 2nd level guy has some tricks up his sleeve…..

I owned the rulebook and read it many times and never quite “got it” until I got to play Amber Diceless in a game convention and actually see it in action. The presence or lack of dice in the game tends to get lost in the story. If the adventure is fun you never even realize the dice are gone. They key is that you need to trust the GM to be fair, but if you can’t do that you won’t enjoy OD&D much either.

[Finarvyn]

coffee said:

I've grown to dislike games based on specific works; they never live up to the original.

The first campaign I ran with the Amber Diceless rules was based on a world of my own creation so there was no original to not live up to. ;D

Then I found some diceless Middle-earth rules based off of ADRP and did a bit of Tolkien, and I agree that it's hard to be as good as the master wordsmiths.

In fact, I've never actually gotten around to running my group through the actual Amber universe yet.

[coffee]

A friend of mine put it best when the d20 Star Wars was coming out. There were ads everywhere, like on the backs of comic books, showing a still from the movie and having an arrow pointing at the third stormtrooper from the left. The ads said, "What's this guy's story?"

And my friend said, "Who cares? That's not Luke!"

That's why I prefer separate worlds to game in. The big story hasn't been told yet. The PCs get to be the heroes.

And that's why I play.

[rogatny]

On the original question...

I like to be informed of the rules, and I like the other players to be informed of the rules. However, I don't like there to be a lot of rules. Does that make sense?

Basically, I think it's more fun for everyone to be aware of the basic risk and reward of actions. I think a lot of the rules in D&D are to inform players of what they should be doing. (i.e. Xp for gp lets players know they should be trying to get treasure, adjusting xp gained on lower levels by higher leveled characters lets players know they should be delving deeper into the dungeon, etc.)

As DM I will often "stop time" and let the players know the possible consequences of the various choices they are contemplating. ("If you try that you'll have a 50% chance to succeed but will be in bad shape if you don't, if you try this, you'll probably fail, but the monsters won't be able to get you, etc.") I don't like surprising the players with rules.

By the same token, I don't want there to be so many rules that the players (and the DM) are continually fumbling around for the proper rulings. That's why I like there to be a small ruleset. Once the basics are mastered, everything that's uncovered is the ground for the players and DM to work out between themselves. I don't like DM rulings from on high. I like the player and DM working out the proper ruling between them. (Of course the DM gets the deciding vote, but he should listen to the player before making the decision.)

I've stated before (and Andy Wojcik has a article about this somewhere on the Forge) that a good OD&D game is as much like a negotiation session between the players and DM as anything.

[Finarvyn]

rogatny said:

I like to be informed of the rules, and I like the other players to be informed of the rules. However, I don't like there to be a lot of rules. Does that make sense?

It makes a lot of sense! Players should have at least a general idea of how the rules work, even if they can’t quote page numbers.

rogatny said:

Basically, I think it's more fun for everyone to be aware of the basic risk and reward of actions.

A great point. If players don’t understand the goals of the game (or a specific campaign) they often wander aimlessly or get frustrated when they don’t advance as they think they should. I don't want them to "work the system" but they need a clue as to how to play the game.

rogatny said:

I don't like surprising the players with rules.

I won’t suggest that they are surprised, per se, but it sometimes is fresh to be spontaneous. Suppose a character rolls a one and gets a critical miss. Rather than consult a chart I might say “let’s see … how about you roll a d6 and on 1-3 you drop your weapon and on 4-6 your weapon breaks?” I don’t always know what options will pop into my head at the moment, but I let the players know what I’m thinking before I roll. I like your comment about negotiations, because I’ve had players come back with other options like “how about if 1-2 I drop my weapon, 3-4 my weapon breaks, and 5-6 I slip and miss a turn?” Often I take their idea and run with it.

rogatny said:

By the same token, I don't want there to be so many rules that the players (and the DM) are continually fumbling around for the proper rulings. That's why I like there to be a small ruleset.

I had a friend in high school who ran an AD&D campaign. We’d get into the action and suddenly Mike would say “hold on, I know there’s a rule about this somewhere…” and we’d all go off and watch TV while he hunted through the rule books. Ouch.

[calithena]

This is the article rogatny is talking about:

www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/24/

It tends to bear out some of what Fin is saying IMO.

[Finarvyn]

rogatny said:

I've stated before (and Andy Wojcik has a article about this somewhere on the Forge) that a good OD&D game is as much like a negotiation session between the players and DM as anything.

You caught me with the name reference. The author is actually Erick Wujcik, and he's the author of the Amber Diceless RPG.

Erick has some really interesting things to say about gaming. I'm not sure how much interest there is on an OD&D site, but his entire concept deals with the interaction between players and GM. There has to be a lot of trust or the game falls apart. Actually, any DM who has "fudged" a little behind the screen has subconsciously adopted some of Erick's philosophies that the story is often more important than the actual numbers.

[rogatny]

admin said:

The author is actually Erick Wujcik...

I was close... (oops)

...and he's the author of the Amber Diceless RPG.

And more importantly, he's the author of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Other Strangeness!!! ;D

[Finarvyn]

I like the concept of TMNT and Other Strangeness but am not a big fan of the Palladium RPG (which, as I understand it, TMNT is based upon) becaise of the way I percieve its mechanics to be sort of complex and I prefer a more rules light game. In spite of that, Erick Wujcik is actually one of my favorite game designers just because of ADRP.

I must confess that I've never actually read the TMNT RPG.

[philotomy]

I think the Referee/DM should have a good knowledge of the rules and the why/philosophy behind the rules. I don't think the players need that kind of knowledge at all.

[tgamemaster1975]

philotomy said:

I think the Referee/DM should have a good knowledge of the rules and the why/philosophy behind the rules. I don't think the players need that kind of knowledge at all.

I think the better the Referee/DM understands the rules and the reasons behind or for the rules the better job he/she can do with making rulings on the fly so that the game moves and flows. Nothing worse than players sitting loosing interest while some DM is hunting through a rule book. I like players to have a good knowledge of the rules, after they play for a few years I don't see how they can avoid it. Just my 2cp.

[philotomy]

I guess "don't need it at all" is a little too much. Actually, I do like the players to have some understanding of the why/philosophy; that way even if they don't know ALL the rules, they're less likely to say stuff like "we need a skill system," et cetera.

[serendipity]

In true OD&D philosophy, my group's DM knows his stuff but isn't afraid to make up a rule to resolve any situation that might come up. Doesn't matter if somewhere there's a rule that will fit; we don't stop for anything. As for my group's players, we have some of each--rules lawyers and non-rules sorts. Frankly, I'm just as happy concentrating on the action of the storyline rather than on the rules. If I try to do something that's out of bounds, my DM gives a foreboding flavor text that warns me off, and if I ignore it, bad stuff happens; that's good enough for me.

I want to play fair. Period. I don't want to know how I could min/max my character. I don't want to know by the description that that monster is a troglodyte, and they can do X to you, and you kill them by doing Y. Unless I've encountered them before (in which case, I'd use what knowledge I gained then), I don't want to know or use that stuff. My DM knows how I feel, and tends to give unusual descriptions of even common monsters so the rules-lawyers of the group don't say, "Aha! That's what it is! I know what to do now!"

[coffee]

serendipity said:

In true OD&D philosophy, my group's DM knows his stuff but isn't afraid to make up a rule to resolve any situation that might come up. Doesn't matter if somewhere there's a rule that will fit; we don't stop for anything. As for my group's players, we have some of each--rules lawyers and non-rules sorts. Frankly, I'm just as happy concentrating on the action of the storyline rather than on the rules. If I try to do something that's out of bounds, my DM gives a foreboding flavor text that warns me off, and if I ignore it, bad stuff happens; that's good enough for me.

I want to play fair. Period. I don't want to know how I could min/max my character. I don't want to know by the description that that monster is a troglodyte, and they can do X to you, and you kill them by doing Y. Unless I've encountered them before (in which case, I'd use what knowledge I gained then), I don't want to know or use that stuff. My DM knows how I feel, and tends to give unusual descriptions of even common monsters so the rules-lawyers of the group don't say, "Aha! That's what it is! I know what to do now!"

Hear, hear! That's the way it ought to be!

Regarding that last bit, I had a DM once of a similar philosophy. He described what we encountered in a cave one time, instead of just saying "you see a bear." One poor player could not for the life of him figure out what it was; he racked his brain trying to dredge up any and all critters from the rules he'd ever heard of. We all got a good chuckle out of that (except that player, of course...)

[Deleted]

When I GM I want to know the rules better than the players, and when I play I'm happy not knowing the rules at all.

Sometimes it's more fun not to know the rules because then you do what your character would do rather than do what gets you some phony dice bonus. When I play a character I always pick a weapon that fits my character's style, but others search for the best damage mods. That's just not my style.

[thorswulf]

O.K. I have to get away fro OD&D for a second or two to relate a story about System naive/aware. I played Shadowrun a lot with some friends of mine many years ago. I asked the GM if I could run an adventure as a one off for the rest of the group and let him play a new character he made up. I based my scenario on Mike Grell's GrimJack and Cynosure.

Cynosure is a meeting of all the worlds/dimensions. It is split up into numerous areas that are an actual part of that place with all of it's natural and unnatural laws. Some places high tech works, and magic doesn't. Others the magic works, and your guns won't. Still others allow both. Let me tell you, the players had a great time because they didn't know which end was up! And most of them knew enough of the rules to play without having to reference them.

So what I am saying is that you can have it both ways. Try this kind of switcheroo in a dungeon and see what happens!

[badger2305]

Something I came up with a long time ago is: "rules exist to adjudicate situations that the referee is not confident he can reasonably adjudicate himself." (or she and herself; you get the idea.) Put another way, the only rules you need are the ones that are a reference for how you want to play - everything else is up to you and your players.

As a principle of play, it has allowed me to run games with no printed rules and no dice - a kind of interactive storytelling, because of the level of trust (or "contract") between all of us. I don't do that very often, but it also runs right alongside the idea that if you can't remember a rule, just make a decision and go on - you can look it up later, if you want. But you can also decide to do it differently, and if that is seen as a fair way to do things - keep going and don't look back.

[dwayanu]

To me, this is a difference between OD&D (in which at last I get to play a character again, thanks to Makofan's game -- and Greentongue's EPT -- at this site) and AD&D (which I've DMd infrequently but experienced much as a player).

Part of the appeal I find in Advanced comes in the form of rules manipulation. For all the much-discussed vagaries, it has a great deal of subtle verities BTB. A good part of that comes from the attention given magic. Consider for instance schemes to defeat Acerak in the Tomb of Horrors. There's a certain sort of "it's a game" delight in that aspect.*

On the other hand, I must distinguish my looser approach to OD&D from the full-blown improvisation of (e.g.) Amber Diceless.

My role as GM is very different. In Amber, I must ask what "purpose" an encounter serves -- because the outcome depends so much on my judgement. If the players meet a Panzer platoon, there are no mechanics "impartially" to say whether they survive to reconsider their options or get mowed down in the first round.

In OD&D, the players need not know the rules -- but I do, and am bound by them. To depart (barring compelling "simulationist" reasons) from the "laws of the universe" I have set up would be to me a form of cheating.

* Of course, one is unlikely to get the chance with characters who say, "Bring it on!" to the demi-lich in the first instance -- an example of the Gygaxian genius.

[Finarvyn]

dwayanu said:

Part of the appeal I find in Advanced comes in the form of rules manipulation.

Just a semi-random thought here ... we typically talk about the "rules lawyer" as if that's a bad thing, but rules manipulation can be a lot of fun, too.

Indeed, I remember the time that I took the Champions RPG and bent the rules to the point where I could create a character significantly better than that of my peers. (Of course, it wasn't as much fun to play, but I loved the challenge of finding a way to make it.)

The point is that many gamers are into RPGs for the challenge of the character puzzle as much as the adventure puzzle. Just something to keep in mind.