Quote from: Kyle Aaron;730347I've always viewed the stuff on the character sheet as being an inclusive list rather than exclusive. As you say, in video and board games the list is exclusive.

Whenever young newbies have come to our game table it's always been a struggle for them to wrap their minds around this. When you ask them what they're doing next, they reflexively look down at their character sheets. It's the drop-down menu effect.

This effect came before video games, though. It's a natural result of any rules-heavy system.

But if you expand that out. In a board game or video game there is a list of core stuiff everyone can do. This isn't on each chanrater card it's in the core book. So in Arkham Horror for example there is an extensive list of standard actions. Then the character card gives you a smaller list of stuff you can do either better or apart from everyone else.

RPGs are just the same but the standard actions are "anything a real person could do in a situation like this." So you just need to make this explicit from the get go. You want to try and climb the wall of course go on anyone can try that.

I have been loving disadvantage for this. In my heartbreaker if you don't have a skill and its fairly straightforward you get a disadvantage +stat bonus, if its hard you get 2 disads and some are impossible. So you can fly a jetpack (1 disadvantage) or drive a car (1 disadvantage) but flying a star fighter (2 disad) is harder and constructing a fusion reactor without materiel or a guide book is impossible.

Quote from: Phillip;730325Somehow, billions of people get by in the real world without resorting to gamespeak.

It's hard to know where to start with this. Maybe the fact that they're not playing a game? That they causally interact with the world they're engaged with? That none of them are wizards?

Quote from: estar;730349By the character description on his sheet.

What game are we talking about? If we're talking about a traditional D&D-ish RPG, there is no character description on the sheet other than a series of mechanical labels (stats, skill bonuses, to hit and save numbers, etc). Saying that my THACO is 15, or my AC is 2, or my STR is 18/57, or that I have 3/2 attacks, has no meaning outside the mechanical framework of a particular rules system.

Of course, there are RPGs where the PC sheet is something more like a freeform description of the PC, but my impression is that those games aren't very popular on this site.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;730339I don't need to know the mechanics or have abilities written on my sheet to say "i go into the tavern and check the place out" or "i go into the woods and look around for clues" or "i examine the walls of the cave carefully" or "i say 'how is it hanging my lord?'".

Sure. But I do need to know the mechanics to know, when the GM tells me what I see in the tavern, whether or not I'm likely to have noticed any disguisd assassins. I do need to know the mechanics to know whether or not my PC is any good at looking for clues in woods (contrast, say, the barbarian and the settlers in Beyond the Black River). I do need to know the mechanics to know whether or not my PC is generally perceived as a nice guy or a foul oaf - if the latter, I might want to take mitigating steps, like hiring a herald or a scribe to write me a letter.

Quote from: estar;730349The "physics" are what the referee describes them to be or they are the same as real life.

The same as real life - except, presumably, for magic, for human physiology and injury (if I"m using a hit point system of the traditional sort), and perhaps for jumping and running (many RPGs make it difficult or impossible to actually run or jump as fast or as far as modern athletes can).

As for referee descriptions: is the referee just making stuff up, or are there action resolution mechanics in use? If the latter, a player might want to know what they are to help build a PC fitting a certain description. For instance, if part of my PC conception is that I'm fast, I might want to know what the game's movement and chase rules are so I can build a PC who has a good chance of success when engaging with those rules.

Quote from: jibbajibba;730368RPGs are just the same but the standard actions are "anything a real person could do in a situation like this." So you just need to make this explicit from the get go. You want to try and climb the wall of course go on anyone can try that.

With what prospect of success? And once the dice are rolled, does that mean I can do it whenever I want to (which tends to be how things are in real life) or do I have to roll again if I try it again (which tends to be the default approach for a traditional RPG).

What "a real person could do in a situation like this" is just not very helpful as a specification of what realistic range of options is available to me. Especially once obstacles - and in particular NPCs - start to be defined in mechanical terms. If the situation is defined as "fighting an orc with 7 hp, AC 6 and a THACO of 18 with a sword that does 1 attack per round for d8 damage", what viable options are open to a real person in such a situation? I can't know until you tell me the mechanical definition of a real person.

Quote from: estar;730353if the two sides are truly of equivalent power then the outcome in the end will be similar.



I am aware of the different possibilities. In D&D low probability critical attack simply don't exist like that do in GURPS, Rolemaster, and other system. But critical attack are just that low probability. Which is why I say in general rather than all attack. Because detailed combat system of other games take in account more factor than the abstract system of D&D.



It the referee job to set the tone and use the rules as tools to produce the desired outcome.

What does "equivalent power" even mean across (say) D&D and Runequest? A peasant in Runequest has a chance to do what not even the greatest warrior can do in AD&D, namely, fell a bear in a single blow. This chance - the possibility of death via crit result - shapes the whole dynamic of combat in a game like RQ or RM. It's part of my conception of what my PC can or can't do.

There's a school of though that says, when playing D&D, I should have my PC with 50 hp act as if there is a chance of death from a single arrow. I don't subscribe to that school of thought, nor to the related idea that the GM should produce such an outcome via manipulating or suspending the rules.

Conan doesn't hold back out of the fear of death from a single arrow, so why should a D&D PC? If I want that sort of dynamic, I'll play with different rules.

Quote from: Arminius;730344The bigger point though is that however much or little two games may differ, the significance of the difference is relative. I've had Mike Holmes say to me with a straight face that D&D and Runequest are basically the same game. I'm sure you'd agree, based on your use of Rolemaster as a benchmark, that D&D and Runequest are worlds apart. But if you're looking to describe the gist of those games or most any other traditional game, they're fundamentally similar in that they support the player taking a view of the game which is analogous to the PC's view of the game-world.

Sure, from a certain distance D&D and RQ are basically the same. (From the relevant distance I'm not sure Burning Wheel is very different either!) But I'm not sure how that sheds light on "your character can attempt anything". If I'm teaching a new player to play the game, I might explain to them (if it's not already obvious to them) that the game is played essentially from the perspective of the PC. But I would also tell them things like whether a having a skill at 2 ranks is relatively strong (Traveller) or weak (d20, Rolemaster); whether having 50 hits is relatively strong (AD&D) or rather typical (Rolemaster); whether a party of 4 taking on 20 orcs is to be regarded as somewhat routine (a wide spectrum of D&D play) or risky (RQ or RM except perhaps at the highest levels of the latter).

I don't think leaving new players to learn the meaning of the mechanics via trial and error serves any great purpose: I learned the game by reading the rulebook, after all; and at least in my experience the former approach tends to reduce the new player to utter dependance on the referee, to the extent that they're not really playing at all.

An exception might be a system in which PCs are built via free description, and action resolution draws on the interaction between those free descriptions and genre considerations; so the new player can know what is feasible for his/her PC without having to understand the mechanics. But again, I don't think that's the sort of RPG we're talking about on these boards.

OK, my attempt to min/max a cleric using S&P Players Option (not tackling race, which I'm sure I could squeak out a few extra bonuses here and there).

Clerics get 125 points to spend

Major sphere, healing: 10 pts
Major sphere, creation: 10 pts
Major sphere, elemental: 15 pts
Major sphere, summoning: 10 pts
minor sphere, necromancy: 5 pts
minor sphere, divination: 5 pts
Casting reduction (-1 speed): 5 pts
Hit point bonus, d10: 10 pts
spell duration increase: 10 pts
warrior priest (use str/con bonus of fighters): 10 pts
weapon specialization: 15 pts
turn undead: 10 pts
detect evil: 10 pts

So yeah, full armor, weapon specialization with the mace, d10 for HP, with only a small reduction in available spheres from a "by the book" cleric?

Yes please.

Meanwhile the S&P fighter that's min/maxed would probably have a 20 Strength (Muscle) due to the games subability rules [+3, +8]. Easy to bypass percentile strength since with even a 17 you just skip to 19. Then later on there are weapon styles, so IIRC you could have twin longswords for d8+10 damage and (with specialization) 5/2 attacks a round at 1st level.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;730526Meanwhile the S&P fighter that's min/maxed would probably have a 20 Strength (Muscle) due to the games subability rules [+3, +8]. Easy to bypass percentile strength since with even a 17 you just skip to 19. Then later on there are weapon styles, so IIRC you could have twin longswords for d8+10 damage and (with specialization) 5/2 attacks a round at 1st level.

Also weapon mastery for extra goodness...

In my Games we kept the subability thing at the step level rather than the stat level so your Str 17 fighter would/could have 18/01 muscle rather than 19...in order to keep stuff somewhat grounded & keep the percentile strength thing meaningful, besides racial Max stats.

But well, to balance the ubercleric...

---

Btw I generally used the cleric pointbuy stuff to help create specialist priesthoods a la the FR deity books.

Quote from: pemerton;730496What game are we talking about? If we're talking about a traditional D&D-ish RPG, there is no character description on the sheet other than a series of mechanical labels (stats, skill bonuses, to hit and save numbers, etc). Saying that my THACO is 15, or my AC is 2, or my STR is 18/57, or that I have 3/2 attacks, has no meaning outside the mechanical framework of a particular rules system.

Are you seriously telling me that you are incapable of creating a detailed character without a corresponding mechanic?

Egric; 1st Level Thief
Str: 12 Int:10 Wis:8 Dex:16 Con:10 Cha:13
AC 7[12]; HP 5; Move 120';
Posses: Leather Armor, Shortsword (1d6), Dagger [2], 80d.

Egric was once a prosperous farmer in the village of Meldan. Unfortunately he had a violent temper to go with his great strength. In a fit of rage he killed a man and was forced to flee. The first gang he joined was wiped out by one of the baron's patrols.

Quote from: pemerton;730496IAs for referee descriptions: is the referee just making stuff up, or are there action resolution mechanics in use?

Quote from: pemerton;730496If the latter, a player might want to know what they are to help build a PC fitting a certain description. For instance, if part of my PC conception is that I'm fast, I might want to know what the game's movement and chase rules are so I can build a PC who has a good chance of success when engaging with those rules.

GURPS, Runequest has more detail allowing for more variety of character types. You can make a character a specialist. The lack of detail other than attributes make OD&D generalists outside of their class.

If you having trouble wrapping your head around this look at Green Ronin's Freeport for Fate. In there characters have six skills; Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. If you need to do research you use Intelligence, if you need to persuade somebody use Charisma, if you trying to run down somebody you use constitutions. In this aspect OD&D was very similar.

If you look at the older D&D supplements, Judges Guild etc. You will see that it is very similar in that for activities outside of a class, attribute play a heavy role in task resolution.

However the primary rule was to describe what you are doing as if you were there. You use your common sense decide as whether your action like swinging on a rope over a lava pit is a good idea or not.

Quote from: Arminius;730352What you're omitting, Rob, is that the GM shouldn't describe the physics one way and then use mechanics that produce a different physics. Nor should the GM even tell the players how the rules work (give them access to the text, etc.) without making the non-rules descriptions consistent with the rules.

Beyond a simple matter of aesthetics, there's also the practical reality that in the battle between what the game world is "supposed" to be and what the game world actually is as a result of the mechanics, the latter almost always wins out.

You want to describe a gritty world where gunshot wounds are lethal and combat is dangerous? More power to you. But if the mechanics allow PCs to move through a hail of gunfire without risking more than a superficial scratch, I can pretty much guarantee you that your game is going to look like a John Woo film within a half dozen sessions.

Sure, but that example is practically benign compared to the scenario under discussion here where a player comes in with the idea they're a big damn hero and then gets whacked.

I think that's a legitimate concern in the real world, but I also don't think it's terribly pertinent to the idea of in-character play. It's basically taking a tractable issue and presenting it as a massive obstacle, to what end I'm not sure.

There's plenty of problems from splats, and PO:S&P has been a great example with its poorly thought out conversion of WP/NWP slots into CP.

That said my pedantic inner self must note that cleric weapon specialization only opens up at lvl 5. And unlike the plain fighter, everyone else can only ever get one. So you have to pay in advance and wait. From what I hear a lot of people skipped this part in the Weapon Proficiency section.

The real brokenness is the unlimited Detect spell effects and the spell buffs (cast time reduction, spell duration increase, access to one school of wizard spells). But again, like any splat, PO:S&P has horrible results when unsupervised.

Quote from: estar;730531Are you seriously telling me that you are incapable of creating a detailed character without a corresponding mechanic?

Egric; 1st Level Thief
Str: 12 Int:10 Wis:8 Dex:16 Con:10 Cha:13
AC 7[12]; HP 5; Move 120';
Posses: Leather Armor, Shortsword (1d6), Dagger [2], 80d.

Egric was once a prosperous farmer in the village of Meldan. Unfortunately he had a violent temper to go with his great strength. In a fit of rage he killed a man and was forced to flee. The first gang he joined was wiped out by one of the baron's patrols.

No, he is saying:

Egric; 1st Level Thief
Str: 12 Int:10 Wis:8 Dex:16 Con:10 Cha:13
AC 7[12]; HP 5; Move 120';
Posses: Leather Armor, Shortsword (1d6), Dagger [2], 80d.

only has context within the rules. Without knowing the range of those scores, I couldn't tell you how strong a 12 is or how low an 8 is. And even knowing the range, I have to know how D&D defines the stats, because the int/wis divide is always a bit hard to define without knowing how D&D divides the two.

And how good IS AC 7. What does that even mean? That isn't a real word thing, its a game mechanic, and unless I know the game mechanic, it doesn't have a lot of meaning.

I don't agree with everything Pemerton is saying, but I will say that the rules of a game influence the actions people will take in it, even in the case of OD&D. Why do you think people did the 10 foot pole exploration, or had tons of hireling groupies? Because they were fragile as glass and they KNEW they were fragile.

Game rules define how the world works to a degree, and players will generally include that in their definition of "reality" for that game. The system matters (though not in the forgey "System Matters" definition. Just that what system you are using influences the game you will end up playing with it).

Quote from: Emperor Norton;730679And how good IS AC 7. What does that even mean? That isn't a real word thing, its a game mechanic, and unless I know the game mechanic, it doesn't have a lot of meaning.

I guess it obvious to me that you have to learn what the stats mean. Permerton seems to me arguing that if a system doesn't represent something mechanically it not part of the campaign. Which I strongly disagree.

[/QUOTE]Game rules define how the world works to a degree, and players will generally include that in their definition of "reality" for that game. The system matters (though not in the forgey "System Matters" definition. Just that what system you are using influences the game you will end up playing with it).[/QUOTE]

Yes and no. If you are talking Magic, Psionic, the abilities of the denizens of Amber then you are absolutely correct.

If you are talking about combat, leaping, jumping, doing research, trying to sway a crowd. Then you are wrong. The rules are tools to use by the referee adjudicate. They don't define the physics because the physic are defined by what goes on in real-life.

Sometimes it not clear. For example wuxia martial arts are as fantastic as anything else in fiction. The only way you are going to figure out what wuxia does in a campaign is by the rules that the referee defines or uses.

In contrast Martial Arts is practiced in the real world with a known body of knowledge. In a campaign with martial arts the referee will be using the rules as a tool. And if the rules conflict with an aspect of what known about martial arts then the referee needs to come up with a different method of adjudicating the action.

And for those reading this, use your common sense. People have different views on how martial arts works, how to do research properly, etc. That means that Referee A view of realistic marital arts won't be the same as Referee B.

The difference between the two is that one by necessity relies on the internal logic of the rules. For example magic or super powers. The other relies on an external reference and the rules are employed as tools. In all cases the external reference defines how the setting operates in that regard not the rules.

And make it even more confusing you have situations where you are adapting other material. For example the magic described in Lord of the Rings, or the combat styles used in the Avatar cartoon. In these case the external reference is another work of fiction not something in real life. Again it is the external reference that defines the physics not the rules.

With the Majestic Wilderlands over a number of years I defined the setting independently of any particular rule system. When I use a given system I use the rules as a tool to adjudicate various aspects of my setting. If there is a conflict I disregard that particular rule or substitute one that does the job better.

If my setting was like Tekemul or Jorune then this approach would cause me a lot of work. But in my case still use many of the D&D tropes that I started out with. So it wasn't that hard making the leap from AD&D to Fantasy Hero to Harnmaster to GURPS to D&D 3.X to Fudge to OD&D. The major thing I have to fiddle with is the magic.

Lord Vreeg is correct in saying that "The setting will match the rules". What I add "Only if you keep the rules static and let it."

In the end there is nothing wrong with the referee letting his setting being defined by his rules. People have fun campaigns all the time.  But understand it occurs because the referee lets it happen not because it is destiny or a law of nature.

When people say well "You can't run X with Y system". The above is why I roll my eyes. Since the beginning tabletop gamers have given rules too much importance. What important that you and I are sitting across from each other, you tell me what your characters does and I describe the results. That you know that you can do anything that your character can do. Everything else is subordinate to that including the rules themselves.

We're going in circles.  Yes, the system matters, but only if/when you defer to it.  If you use the rules only to they extent that they support one's own understanding of how the setting/game world works, then of course the system doesn't matter nearly so much.

I agree, fuseboy.

Rob, however much I see excess in the "player empowerment via rules" that's common in Forge-influenced thought, I can easily see a difference in play between (for example) Labyrinth Lord and The Fantasy Trip.

Moreover I want that difference. I think I can appreciate a free-form GMing style, but once we sit down to play D&D or GURPS or Harnmaster or any game that's got a rulebook, I expect a semblance of the rules actually being used, especially in highly procedural areas such as combat (as it is in most traditional RPGs). If I'm GMing I may plan on mastering the game but I'm not going to use a set of rules that's strongly at odds with my vision, just to ignore them. I'll play with no rules or I'll pick a set that's closer to how I want things to work.

But again, "you can do/try anything" is still the core of what I see as the RPG experience. If someone doesn't understand what I mean by that they can ask or look at Haffrung's longer explanation upthread.

Quote from: Arminius;730728I agree, fuseboy.

Rob, however much I see excess in the "player empowerment via rules" that's common in Forge-influenced thought, I can easily see a difference in play between (for example) Labyrinth Lord and The Fantasy Trip.

Moreover I want that difference. I think I can appreciate a free-form GMing style, but once we sit down to play D&D or GURPS or Harnmaster or any game that's got a rulebook, I expect a semblance of the rules actually being used, especially in highly procedural areas such as combat (as it is in most traditional RPGs). If I'm GMing I may plan on mastering the game but I'm not going to use a set of rules that's strongly at odds with my vision, just to ignore them. I'll play with no rules or I'll pick a set that's closer to how I want things to work.

But again, "you can do/try anything" is still the core of what I see as the RPG experience. If someone doesn't understand what I mean by that they can ask or look at Haffrung's longer explanation upthread.

Exactly. If I'm spending more time overriding the rules than using them, why the hell am I using the ruleset at all?

And as a player... its not entitlement that when I sit down to play X system, that you know, I'm going to be playing that system. I'm not talking about a nip here, and tuck there, a few rule changes, but if the system isn't resembling what I made a character for, I'm probably leaving the game.

As for the "everything works just like reality" idea... man I have never played with a GM who ACTUALLY knows what medieval combat works (not saying no one does, but I haven't gamed with them). Its why I would rather have combat be taken over by the rules (including house rules!). And the combat rules for OD&D and the combat rules of 3.x D&D and the combat rules for say Cyberpunk 2020 all create VASTLY different experiences, so yes, they make the game vastly different.