In my opinion the main stream players have the assumption that, you can only do what the rules allow. This causes the requirement for more and more rules to allow options.

What happened to the assumption that, you can do anything the rules don't prohibit?

or am I just Hanging With The Wrong Crowd?
=

This question seems very familiar. I wonder why that is?

Oh yeah, this is why.

You're definitely hanging with the wrong crowd. It's the player's jobs to do odd things that nobody could have predicted, let alone wrote rules for.

Coming up with a solid set of rules that can be extrapolated from, and some guidelines on how to use them at the table, is the designer's job; but actually doing the extrapolation and making the calls is the GM's job.

And thus is the social contract.

When the best selling RPG books have hundreds of pages, plus dozens of supplements filled with rules, how are we to honestly blame players for not assuming their action choices must be pre-approved?

The crowd is fine. The problem is the games.

Introduce your crew to a free, rules-light RPG from the Internet. There are a gazillion and plenty of threads have jabbered about them. Publishers profit by selling piles of thick books, but they don't actually help at the table.

I argue there's a correlation between the increase in RPG page count and the decrease in the popularity of the hobby.

BTW, here's my favorite free RPG: Mazes & Minotaurs (Greek Fantasy)
http://mazesandminotaurs.free.fr/

I think its healthy for every new roleplayer to play at least once with no rules at all, just a GM to rbitrate what happens. I think its a necessary eye opener, not only to show how rules are unnecessary, but also to show how rules can be used to make the game fun but not limit creativity.

Also, you could print out copies of the Old School Primer for your game group.

Quote from: Spinachcat;817090When the best selling RPG books have hundreds of pages, plus dozens of supplements filled with rules, how are we to honestly blame players for not assuming their action choices must be pre-approved?

The crowd is fine. The problem is the games.

Introduce your crew to a free, rules-light RPG from the Internet. There are a gazillion and plenty of threads have jabbered about them. Publishers profit by selling piles of thick books, but they don't actually help at the table.

I argue there's a correlation between the increase in RPG page count and the decrease in the popularity of the hobby.

That is an interesting theory. I definitely think its played a large part in creating a barrier of entry for new players. I think the biggest mistake WoTC continues to perpetuate is not supporting a Basic and Advanced version of the game, with a Red Box style (in content, not appearance - God tht 4th edition crippleware thing was frustrating) intro set that keeps the rules to under 30 pages.

QuoteBTW, here's my favorite free RPG: Mazes & Minotaurs (Greek Fantasy)
http://mazesandminotaurs.free.fr/

Thats a great game.

It sometimes occurs to me how unusual my entry into gaming was. Most of my early games were effectively rules-less (generally there'd be some chargen I made up, and then mostly ignored after that).

Quote from: Spinachcat;817090When the best selling RPG books have hundreds of pages, plus dozens of supplements filled with rules, how are we to honestly blame players for not assuming their action choices must be pre-approved?

The crowd is fine. The problem is the games.

I'd say rather that - as with other cultural things - there's a two-way influence. But how did those books come to be in the first place? From the shifting demographic of the crowd!

Arneson, Gygax, St Andre, et al, pretty explicitly encouraged making it up as you go. That suited much of the original demographic of miniature-wargamers, in which several sets of home-brewed rules per household was a common state of affairs (and where there was no GM and something seemed reasonably possible, players in a friendly game might agree to toss for it).

Simbalist & Backhaus with C&S (1977) - surprisingly low page count due to tiny print - were notably ahead of the curve in complexity, which became rather FGU's hallmark as a publisher. Nonetheless, this was a matter of more detail in select areas, it being again pretty plainly stipulated that it was up to the GM to adjudicate the imponderably vast domain of things no rulebook could be comprehensive enough to treat exhaustively.

Then that original hobby-game crowd got vastly outnumbered by a (generally younger) influx of players not steeped in that tradition.

Various developments asserted the more rules-lawyering type's claim to "the norm." Was it really the majority, or just a bigger attention getter?  It certainly had more reason to spend money on Handbook IV and Compleat Subclass X, etc.

Third Edition D&D seems to me a watershed. The dominant player culture outstripped the designers' own estimate of how much 'rules' should be binding. WotC perhaps responded by catering more to that market, shifting its presented attitude to be more sympathetic.

QuoteIntroduce your crew to a free, rules-light RPG from the Internet. There are a gazillion and plenty of threads have jabbered about them. Publishers profit by selling piles of thick books, but they don't actually help at the table.

I argue there's a correlation between the increase in RPG page count and the decrease in the popularity of the hobby.

BTW, here's my favorite free RPG: Mazes & Minotaurs (Greek Fantasy)
http://mazesandminotaurs.free.fr/

when running RPGs (Typically DnD 5e atm), I make a special point at the start of sessions for new players telling them that they shouldn't feel like just because there's no official ruling for something, you can't do it.
But that I'll make it fit in if it makes sense/could be possible etc.
I go on to say I reward creativity when doing things, whether it's solving an encounter I had in my head would solved by combat and someone thinks of an alternative or even just small things in game whether it's by action or RP.
IMO it makes for much more fun for players to be open in that way and makes my job as a GM much more fun too, as I never know what they'll try next..

Kriegsspiel vs. Frei Kriegsspiel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsspiel_(wargame)

A view that seemed common among 4e D&D enthusiasts was that strict adherence to the written rules helped avoid problems with lack of skill in the art of DMing. From my experience, I reckon there's some truth in that.

However, I think that was a lot more significant to many people because they'd had a lot more bad experience than I'd had. I suspect that's not just luck of the draw, but that there's a sort of "birds of a feather flock together" effect in there.

Then there were people who seemed to parrot the line as received conventional wisdom, which I suppose added to its influence on similarly disposed minds.

From 4e RPGA events, I see another factor in that making the game more cut and dried like a boardgame might help make it more convenient for the sort of casual play to which many boardgames are well suited. I think the 4e system's appeal in that regard was limited by its complexity, but some of the ideas in the design have been implemented in simpler games.

A level of abstraction in which almost everything can be reduced to a few key mechanical effects - detailed simulation not being a concern - can be very simple while allowing great freedom in description. If the description has no significant effect, then there's no need to limit it!

That was in my experience pretty common playing D&D in the 1970s. Whether swinging from a chandelier,  hooting a rebel yell, or juggling cats had any effect was up to the taste of the group in question. If we preferred, we could toss attack dice and deduct hit points just the same regardless, leaving narrative interpretation wide open.

If a monster's hp were at zero, it rarely mattered (enough not to leave it up to the player) whether that meant it was dead (per the book) or merely disabled; and if dead, then whether by a thrust to the heart, a flying kick, or mortification from a lampoon!

Quote from: Bren;817016This question seems very familiar. I wonder why that is?

Oh yeah, this is why.

Only one place?

If I had a dollar for every time I bitched about the mindset of RPGS changing from "Everything not forbidden is permitted" to "everything not permitted is forbidden" I would be able to retire.

And fucking Crom's crusty bunghole, do I hate Pathfinder.  I told the referee "Oops, my character died from a ruptured bladder because I don't have KNOWLEDGE:  HOW TO PISS".

Quote from: robiswrong;817109Kriegsspiel vs. Frei Kriegsspiel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsspiel_(wargame)

* does the Naked Old Geezer Shimmy Shimmy Ko-Ko-Bop Happy Dance *

Exactly.

The games by Gygax and Arneson that preceded D&D, whether temporally or in subject, were all written in the "Free Kriegspiel" mindset.  Which, by the by, makes it much easier to introduce new players.

(CHAINMAIL, Don't Give Up the Ship, TRACTICS, and Cavaliers and Roundheads, specifically).

Probably due in part to some DMs demanding more rules to cover more things because they cannot, or do not want to think of a solution on the fly or use whats there allready for whatever reason.

But from accounts way back. More due to players wanting more rules to hammer down this or that so the DM couldnt argue with them that such and such wasnt possible.

Others may have simply had bad run ins with the more obnoxious of the "if the rules dont say I cant do it. Then I can do it."

But according to Gygax and others way back theres allways been an interest in more rules for this or that since right after D&D came out. Even when it wasnt needed or was allready covered.

Theres also the faction that gets frothing at the mouth maddog insane at the mere thought of the DM making anything up or altering the rules.

Quote from: Greentongue;817013In my opinion the main stream players have the assumption that, you can only do what the rules allow. This causes the requirement for more and more rules to allow options.

What happened to the assumption that, you can do anything the rules don't prohibit?

or am I just Hanging With The Wrong Crowd?
=

You are hanging with the wrong crowd.

Next time you're reffing, take away their character sheets.  Give them something showing class, HP, weapons/spells, period.

Next time you're playing say "It's silly that we can't do stuff that isn't explicitly spelled out.  There are no rules for taking a shit... does that mean our characters die of burst bowels?"  Or other opener to lead to a semi reasonable discussion.  (In my group, shit jokes are considered reasonable.  YMMV.)

And when that fails, kill them and take their stuff.