Quote from: Saurondor;888582Right on! And what happens if the barbarian magic user is in the rules and you just don't want to include it in your campaign? Technically speaking it's not in the rules because although it is in the printed copy it is not in your campaign and thus not available "in the rules" as set in the game by the GM.

The setting of a campaign defines what possible regardless of what the ruleset the referee chosen to use. The referee responsibility is too clearly communicate what options are or are not avaliable.

With that being said, you are ignoring how people deal with this in actual play. Most referees don't want or have the time to be authors so they pick something close to what they want and like. Then go from there. Most referees I know can persuaded by a logical argument that X should exist or be a possibility. Nobody can think of everything when they create a campaign. There are many times where I went "I never thought of it like that. Go ahead it is OK."

Quote from: Saurondor;888580There seems to be a paradox in your statement. It appears to be the consensus of this thread that the GM has complete control over the campaign and screw the game designer (I'm exaggerating a bit, but it drives the point). So how can the player feel limited by what is read in the rules if the GM is there?

I noticed (especially in rules heavy games) that players who "have a conversation with the designer" by more than skimming just the rules they need to make their character and understand die rolls and such, often never try things not specifically listed in the rules as things they can do. They see "not listed as something my character can do in the rules" as forbidding the action. Players who don't have that "conversation with the designer" are far less likely to so limit what they try to do in the game.

QuoteRight? Or am I missing something? Where is my logic flawed?

Your logic isn't flawed, but logic doesn't match up with reality where people are concerned. In other words, in a "white room" you are absolutely correct. However, my campaigns are NOT played in that "white room" where people behave logically and "perfectly". They are held in the real world where people behave illogically and do not always make the logical or optimal decision.

To me, RPGs are about playing in the setting, the campaign is actually a secondary thought;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;888558Because most of the people I game with, and I, would say "No thanks" and walk away.

I played D&D for two years with Gary Gygax BEFORE the rules were published.  Still the best way to play as far as I'm concerned.

"You don't need to know the rules, just tell me what you want to do."  And if you don't trust the referee, don't play.

Yes, it is fun:).
No, it's not possible with all games. In some detailed systems, you need to be able to make decisions about elements not commonly described.
Never played Fantasy HERO, but I believe it's one of those.

Quote from: Lunamancer;888597I haven't said you have to disallow it. Only that people aren't going to say, " I want to play a non-magical magic-user" as it is clearly self contradictory.

I have played a non-magical wizard. The setting had no magic, as far as I can tell, and this didn't change because of me.
Still, everybody that knew me believed otherwise at the end of the campaign, until I told them it's all "sleight of hand, and no cheating"!
I actually had to explain some of the tricks I had used, though.

Quote from: AsenRG;888665To me, RPGs are about playing in the setting, the campaign is actually a secondary thought;).

Rules are 2d20, d20, RQ6 whatever.

Setting is The Hyborian Age, Glorantha, Middle-Earth, whatever.

Campaign is what's happening at my table with RQ6 Hyborian Age, or MERP 4th Age, or AD&D1 Greyhawk.  It's the unique and specific application of Rules and Setting, as talked about here.

Players usually don't think "Campaign", it's indistinguishable from "Setting" from their perspective.

Quote from: AsenRG;888665To me, RPGs are about playing in the setting, the campaign is actually a secondary thought;).

A campaign is playing in the setting. It not something different. If you think there is a different then you have the wrong definition of what a campaign means when it comes to gaming.

To be clear a setting is an imagined world created by the referee. A campaign is one or more sessions of players acting their characters playing in that setting.

So how one plays the rules with an RPG game?

Quote from: AsenRG;888665Yes, it is fun:).
No, it's not possible with all games. In some detailed systems, you need to be able to make decisions about elements not commonly described.
Never played Fantasy HERO, but I believe it's one of those.

Anything described by rules can be described in natural language. Fantasy Hero is not in anyway different in that regard. What Fantasy Hero brings to the table is the ability for its mechanics to describe magic and abilities in precise game terms in a flexible manner without going the whole "be a game designer" route.

But the first step for any Hero System RPG is to describe what you are trying to make in natural language then put together the package of powers, advantages, and limitations to implement that description in game terms.

Quote from: jux;888683So how one plays the rules with an RPG game?

You describe what you are doing as your character based on your current circumstances. The referee uses the rules to to tell what happens as a result often this has a random element that require you or the referee to make a dice roll.

Rules interpret what characters can do. Setting is the world characters exist in. The Campaign is the expression of these elements in total around the table.

Quote from: AsenRG;888665I have played a non-magical wizard.

Notice, I said "magic-user," not "wizard." Notice there is no prohibition from dwarves using a little legerdemain. To the contrary, in AD&D 1st Ed, the Thief class, which includes as a primary class function some of the skills Harry Houdini possessed, is the only class where Dwarves are permitted unlimited advancement. You might say Dwarves are encouraged to play these sorts of characters.

Quote from: Rincewind1;888660So...basically, rules.

Nine out of ten human males in the Shield Marches have mohawk haircuts.

Section VIII Shield Marches
Subsection 5. Cultural Hairstyles
Roll 1d100 if you roll a 90 or lower and the character is a human male he will have a mohawk.


The former is written in natural language as a setting detail.
The latter is a formatted as a rule. Same concept different format.

What work better for you is a personal preferences. Some are perfectly happy with the various details kept in natural langauge notes. Other prefer that they are addressed through the mechanics of the rules.

But in the end it all toward to the same goal, that reality of the setting is adjudicated consistently.

Quote from: RandallS;888663I noticed (especially in rules heavy games) that players who "have a conversation with the designer" by more than skimming just the rules they need to make their character and understand die rolls and such, often never try things not specifically listed in the rules as things they can do. They see "not listed as something my character can do in the rules" as forbidding the action. Players who don't have that "conversation with the designer" are far less likely to so limit what they try to do in the game.

Yes, they learn "the puzzle" and immediately try to solve it. Question here is, will they arrive at the same thing over time as they play with you? I mean, do they infer the rules and their options become acquired habits through "inferred game mastery"?

More so, is it because they had a "communication with the designer" (not conversation) that taught them the inner workings of the game or because they already expect a "design pattern" and are just waiting for the specific details?

One thing I learned last year (ups, more like the year before last, how time flies!), what I learned was that many players have a "design pattern" in mind when they sit down to play a certain game. When they sat down to play a modern warfare game their minds went like "ah crunchy, rules heavy, detail", "lets wait to figure out mechanics", when there was no specific round unit or initiative mechanism they started dropping like flies. Under the advice of a playtester I added an extra page explaining how not to play the game. Please, before you nuke me from orbit, let me explain that this was not the "game designer telling me how to play", it was me stating that player reliance on rules and mechanics to survive was a sure road to failure.

So the issue is that keeping the rules away from the player does not eliminate this "subconscious" belief that there is an underlying "puzzle" to be solved. Their play style had adapted to some "design patterns" over time and they expected this. What they did not know was the details. That is, and as you mention, the rulebook.

Lets do an exercise. Break your rules into two groups: one is composed of those rules that explain the effect of an action (sword hit, magic, bullet, etc.) and the other group is composed of those rules that explain how to resolve an action (initiative, attacks per round, rounds themselves, to hit rolls, skill checks). Erase the later and give the former to the players. What happens?

I have found that the amount of crunch in the rules definitely has an impact on play style.

When my group play high crunch games, like D&D3.5, they tend to view the rules as prescriptive.  The rules prescribe what they can and cannot do. If there is not a specific rule for doing something the assumption is it cannot be done. Don't have the right feat or skill on your character sheet? Don't even try.

When I run low crunch games the paradigm shifts and they view the rules as descriptive. The rules describe whether or not they succeed at things. They view actions as being completely open and feel free to "try anything".

This may be part of why I don't generally care for heavy crunch games. I grew up with the more open and free form games. RuneQuest was about as crunchy as I got during my formative years of RPGing.

Rules define the universe to the players, that interaction is the game.

Quote from: estar;888662With that being said, you are ignoring how people deal with this in actual play. Most referees don't want or have the time to be authors so they pick something close to what they want and like. Then go from there. Most referees I know can persuaded by a logical argument that X should exist or be a possibility. Nobody can think of everything when they create a campaign. There are many times where I went "I never thought of it like that. Go ahead it is OK."

Totally agree with you. My line of comments derives from the initial position of a member here against any game designer influence in the game. Position which I find quite idealistic and detached from actual play because, as you mention, most referees don't have the interest or the time to build everything from scratch. I also raised the question because I perceive an implicit position in some here regarding a fear of having the rules used against them as referees. So it's not only that which is not in the rules "which might limit the player's  imagination" (how thoughtful of the GM), but also that in the rules which would be a pain to deal with if the players get wind of them.