Quote from: deadDMwalking;650383Announcing an action when you think you have a 90% chance of success and then finding out that you have a 35% chance of success makes a big difference.  Ultimately, it discourages players from trying 'interesting things' because they don't know what the possible consequnces might be.  The more arbitrary they appear, the more conservative players tend to be (characters represent a significant investment of time and emotion).  

So, for really exciting games, the more transparent the physics resolution is, the better.  That means everyone knowing what rules will govern their action before they attempt it.

As a side effect, the only things that get attempted are a safe set of stock moves that are on the character sheet leading to a button mashing playstyle.

It is important that a player be aware of general odds for success/failure before attempting something risky but a codified list of moves and rigid resolution mechanics aren't needed to provide this.

Quote from: silva;650391In other words, until a game comes out where the rules reflect with high fidelity real life behaviour ( = never) players should know the rules, even if its only for expectation managing.

Oh I see, I don't really agree it follows though unless you qualify it with 'simple enough rules for a GM to operate single handedly'. So yeah not very likely, although in that style of GMing the GM makes up for deficiencies in rulesets by their own knowledge and experience. And that can work, very well, but there are tradeoffs as with everything. A good ruleset is enabling rather than constricting, opening up new possibilities, but that doesn't neccessarily mean fewer or simpler rules.

A very competent GM will be able to run their game ad hoc with only a basic framework, but not many people are that good, plus there are other factors to consider, many of which others have already covered in the thread. So more complex rulesets are neccessary, and let a thousand flowers bloom.

I enjoy both rules-heavy and rules-light games at different times, though I'm tending towards more rules-lite these days for social reasons.  I don't think there's any need for one of them to be the one true way - both approaches can be fun.  

Quote from: Exploderwizard;650392As a side effect, the only things that get attempted are a safe set of stock moves that are on the character sheet leading to a button mashing playstyle.

It is important that a player be aware of general odds for success/failure before attempting something risky but a codified list of moves and rigid resolution mechanics aren't needed to provide this.

I think this depends a lot on the GM and the details of the system.  In my Hero System games, we would constantly be trying things outside of the stock moves - and the range of the stock moves gave a good idea about how to handle other variations.  

My limited experience of D&D4 was that combat was limited to stock moves.  Then again, I've also been in many pre-3E D&D games where combat was also limited to stock moves.  Every combat round was just choosing which monster to target or which spell to cast.

Quote from: Benoist;650064Either you trust me to do a fair, consistent job as a DM, and know what it is I am doing without switching the tables around or engaging in illusionism or whatever else, or you don't. If you don't, there's really no point in playing together, and I'm cool with that.

Excellent.

Quote from: Benoist;650266For me, playing a role playing game has fuck all to do with contributing to some piece of fiction. Looking at it as a piece of fiction is the kryptonite of the actual point of playing a role playing game in the first place, from my standpoint, which is the immersion in the "now" of the game world, as though it were real in your mind's eye.

For the record, although I also referred to fiction/fictional situations in my post, I do not mean it in the stricter sense of "some kind of story". I mean it in the broad, original sense of "made-up details". In this case, an imaginary world with imaginary people in it, and we are making decisions about what those imaginary people do in response to things we imagine are happening in the imaginary world.

It's fiction, as in "not real". Perhaps some people get confused between a fictional setting and fiction-as-genre... or they get excited by the idea of playing with genre directly instead of just playing in a fictional world. Either way, that's how storygames started, but that's not what *I'm* talking about.

It's relevant, though, to the topic, because I phrase the conflict between rules for GMs only and rules for players, or the "rulings not rules" debate, in terms of focus on a system of rules vs. focus on fictional situations. When you start getting bogged down in numbers and trying to crank out the best bonuses, you're focusing on system. When you just describe what your character does, and the GM tells you what happens as a result, you're focusing on the fictional situation.

I'd say something here about storygames actually being closer to the first than to the second, but that's getting off topic.

Quote from: Benoist;650266For me, playing a role playing game has fuck all to do with contributing to some piece of fiction.

I believe that completely. I on the other hand am all about creating a work of fiction.

Interesting then that I would be the one to obey the rules and you'd be the one to break them at whim. One would think the reverse would apply, if one didn't look too deep that is.

Quote from: jhkim;650398Then again, I've also been in many pre-3E D&D games where combat was also limited to stock moves.  Every combat round was just choosing which monster to target or which spell to cast.

"I hit with my axe."

The slogan from the OP seems completely obtuse as do some of the responses, such as implying that Dave Arneson didn't know the rules to D&D when he was playing.  

The absurdity is assuming you've got a lot of people still playing AD&D or OD&D that have absolutely no idea what any of the rules are (including potentially the people that co-designed the game).

If you want to get a scenario at your table where rules are only for the 'referee' you definitely don't want to play a published game that has been out for decades among people that have probably been playing that same game for decades, since at this point it's basically impossible.

If it really worked this way you'd see an abundance of say Fighters with their best stat in intelligence who can out-think their opponents that are stronger, tougher and faster than them.  Except in D&D those number actually matter, and Dunning Kruger, the super genius warrior is probably not long for this world.  The players know it and are going to wind up only playing Dunning Kruger when forced to roll down the line after picking their class and get dealt that character.

Players clearly have expectations about the rules based on having read the rules, and if the rules were only for the DM then they really shouldn't have those expectations and Dunning Kruger would probably be a common character type rather than a practically unheard of one.  Just based on a description and not knowing the rules there isn't any reason to not expect the Thief to be able to scrap almost as well as the Fighter, but in reality they aren't that good at it, people at least have a general idea of their hit matrix/thac0 because the game has been out forever, veteran players give the realtalk rundown of what to be able to expect based on those mechanics to the newbs, and people are playing a game by the rules.

The claim just seems hyperbolic and disingenuous.  There is a huge leap from "The DM is the final adjudicator of rules during play" and "The rules of the game that everyone is playing are only for the DM".

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;650489"I hit with my axe."

The slogan from the OP seems completely obtuse as do some of the responses, such as implying that Dave Arneson didn't know the rules to D&D when he was playing.  

The absurdity is assuming you've got a lot of people still playing AD&D or OD&D that have absolutely no idea what any of the rules are (including potentially the people that co-designed the game).

If you want to get a scenario at your table where rules are only for the 'referee' you definitely don't want to play a published game that has been out for decades among people that have probably been playing that same game for decades, since at this point it's basically impossible.

If it really worked this way you'd see an abundance of say Fighters with their best stat in intelligence who can out-think their opponents that are stronger, tougher and faster than them.  Except in D&D those number actually matter, and Dunning Kruger, the super genius warrior is probably not long for this world.

Except: in the original game, those numbers don't actually matter, and you can play your super-genius warrior as much as you want, as long as you, the player, can out-out think your opponent. Because the referee is not going to hand out wins to you based on your Int score, or your Strength score, either.

I suppose you might not have read the original rules and did not know that. And did not know that people, including me, played that way back in the '70s, and people, including me, play that way now. But then, the Old School Primer is specifically addressing the question of how the game was played in the old school days, and how old school people are playing the game when they go back to those rules. So, you shouldn't be surprised when the Primer describes something that doesn't match your experience from later editions.

There's a definite difference in the way the original game was played, and how it changed, first when Greyhawk was added, then when Holmes Basic was written, and again when the AD&D books came out, and so on down the line. The core old school principles don't have to be strictly adhered to, and the way they were used by individual groups varied, often diminishing over time. The AD&D player's manual clearly includes rules that players were supposed to know, and there's much more of them than in the earlier books. And yet, the combat matrices are in the DMG, and there's a warning in that book saying it's DM information only.

Do gamers today know those "forbidden" rules? Sure. No one's saying they aren't. What they're saying is that, if the referee changes or adds or removes a rule, that's the referee's business; there's no *necessity* that the player must learn those rules, if you are playing in an old school fashion.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;650489The claim just seems hyperbolic and disingenuous.  There is a huge leap from "The DM is the final adjudicator of rules during play" and "The rules of the game that everyone is playing are only for the DM".

It's not disingenuous, and it's only hyperbolic when interpreted in an extreme way. The rules are, indeed, only necessary for the DM, but that doesn't mean that a player can't look at the combat matrix, or learn what the default odds of wandering monsters are. All people are saying is that there's no need to learn all that crap, and if the DM is going to change the rules (as they are ADVISED to do,) it would be kind of pointless to learn them all, anyways.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;650265It's not a style of play, it's outright nonsense. Rulings require rules, and players need to be aware of a set of rules in order to form intent and take appropriate action. Perhaps these terms are deliberately hyperbolic to support a point, but they've become meaningless slogans and battlecries at this point.

Nope, its just a concept you don't get. Players need not be aware of the rules of a specific RPG systems, as long as they can make decisions from the PoV of a character. For example, in real life I don't need to know the rules of physics to make the decision to climb a tree, punch a guy, or to know that if I try to jump off a 5 story building and fly, it won't work. If the game system doesn't support this, its a weakness of the game system.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;650332If players "need to be aware of rules to form intent" then roleplaying games would never have gotten off the ground and become popular in the first place.

You seem to have left off the part about 'taking appropriate action'

And not only is this necessary to play an RPG, it's necessary to function as a normal human being in what we call reality. Adults in general have a pretty clear idea of what the consequences of their actions are, and they tend to stick to the actions with consequences they feel most certain of. That last bit is VERY important, and it causes new players and even some experienced ones to avoid taking action in games.

Quote from: TristramEvans;650528Players need not be aware of the rules of a specific RPG systems, as long as they can make decisions from the PoV of a character.

And I'm saying they cannot make decisions from the PoV of a character without being aware of the rules to the specific RPG system.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;650547And I'm saying they cannot make decisions from the PoV of a character without being aware of the rules to the specific RPG system.

Nonsense. They can, as long as they can relate to the game world as though it were real, with relevant information, gaps in the shared world, and questions being discussed between players and GM as the game unfolds. That's what a role playing game *is*.

Quote from: Benoist;650548Nonsense. They can, as long as they can relate to the game world as though it were real, with relevant information, gaps in the shared world, and questions being discussed between players and GM as the game unfolds. That's what a role playing game *is*.

This discussion has apparently never happened:

Player - "I jump the pit, what do I roll?"
DM - "a d20, and add your dex mod"

it CANNOT happen, as the player didn't know the specific rule for jumping he is incapable of making the decision to jump the pit.

Quote from: Piestrio;650549This discussion has apparently never happened:

Player - "I jump the pit, what do I roll?"
DM - "a d20, and add your dex mod"

it CANNOT happen, as the player didn't know the specific rule for jumping he is incapable of making the decision to jump the pit.

Yes, or...

Player: "If I jumped, would I make it?"
DM: "Hard to tell. Hm... with your armor and backpack on, probably not. Though without anything impairing your movement, running towards the chasm and jumping over it, you could maybe make it... one out of three times. Perhaps. It's quite far. You aren't quite sure."
Player: "Hm." *discusses the issue with the other players*
Player: "OK. I try. I lose my Chainmail and backpack - I DO NOT give them to the hobbit - I step a few paces back into the corridor, run... and jump. What do I roll?"
DM: Roll a d6.
Player: *rolls* *excited* 6! Do I make it... or *frowns, suddenly thinking about the other alternative*... totally not?
...

That can't happen. Didn't ever. Right? Right. Probably not. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Benoist;650550That can't happen. Didn't ever. Right? Right. Probably not. :rolleyes:

It happened, but the poor, hapless player in question didn't realize he/she was being abused and deprotagonized, and is probably brainwashed as a result.

Seriously though, if the player is playing a new system that is much more complicated, it's easy for the player to think they have a better chance at something then they actually do in the system.  That's why the GM is there, to tell the player the expression of the rules.  Is this going to be hard, easy, near impossible?

You could write a game that takes all that into account, so if all knew the rules, everyone knows what the chances are, but as long as the GM is forthcoming with the expression of the rules into the roleplay, players can still make informed choices.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;650547And I'm saying they cannot make decisions from the PoV of a character without being aware of the rules to the specific RPG system.

as others have made abundantly clear, this is just a silly claim. People can make decisions from a character's PoV without knowing the rules. And frequently *have*. And aren't bothered by it in the slightest.

Let's take a non-newb example: me. I know a couple systems thoroughly. I barely know anything at all about the Organic Rules Component System (ORCS) that's at the core of several games written by my friend: Fates Worse Than Death, Tibet, In Dark Alleys. I've played in each of those games, didn't know the rules, and yet, somehow, I was able to make decisions from a character's point of view. Which, according to you, is impossible. Am I to believe you, or my eyes and ears?

Just because it bothers you, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.