PDA

View Full Version : GM doesn't care about the rules : what to do ?



Yorkblack
2017-01-28, 10:48 PM
Hello everyone !
Recently I found a GM and recruited some players for a Star Wars rpg (saga edition, a d20 system).
We have not started playing yet, but we habe done the character creation (if you can call it that way), and already all my alarm bells are ringing.
First, he said that the rules were not that important because he preferred a more cinematographic play. Okay, nothing wrong about that. Then, we started making the characters. For the feats and tallents, he pretty much said "take whatever you feel is right for your character, just don't be too OP", so we proceeded to take like 5 feats and 3 talents (a class specific feat if you want) for a lvl 1 character. A lvl 1 char is supposed to have 1 talent and 1 or two feats, depending on the specie.
One of the players took some feats and talents without watching for the prereq, forgot some important things to add on his sheet (like the defenses, in saga you have three differents defenses, which are pretty much a mix between AC and saves from a d&d game). I corrected him (politely), and he began whining. There are so many rules, how can anyone in the world have fun with that, this kind of thing (when the most basic rules, which he clearly didn't read, were all clearly explained on three pages in the introduction of the book).
Then the GM, seeing that, just said "ok, don't worry about the rules, just tell me what your character is like and I will worry about the rules. In game I will just tell you what to roll and whether you succeed or fail, don't worry about anything."
I am definitely not fond of this kind of method but it would be fine if the GM knew just a little about the rules, but many times he called skills what really are feats, he didn't know at all what the abilities (you know, strength, dex and the like) were supposed to do in terms of play, he clearly didn't understand at all what was the meaning of the in-game effects of feats, to be short, he has no idea how does the system work.
Now I don't want to sound elitist but in a RPG I like to build ly character, decide what he can or can't do in playing terms, and simply play the game the way it's intended (not against a few house rules though), especially when it is known to be very good and balanced.
So, my question is, what should I do, aside from just leaving the table ?

Koo Rehtorb
2017-01-28, 10:59 PM
I don't think fixing a person's playstyle, who you just met, from the ground up, is a realistic possibility. I'd leave.

Temperjoke
2017-01-28, 11:09 PM
Well, you did the legwork to form the group, right? Why don't you give it a session or two and see how it actually plays out? If it doesn't work, then you have actual basis to discuss your concerns with the group, which if the others agree with you, might lead to finding a new DM. If the groups likes what the DM is doing, then you might need to leave. You might also decide that you like what he's doing after all, despite it being different from your usual preference.

kyoryu
2017-01-28, 11:27 PM
So, my question is, what should I do, aside from just leaving the table ?

His playstyle doesn't need "fixing". It is what it is.

You have three choices, really.

1) Talk to him about your concerns, and what you would prefer to see the game like, with the goal of finding a *compromise*.

2) Accept that his playstyle is quite different than what you're used to, go with it, and see what the experience is like.

3) Find another game (or another GM for your game).

You *cannot* change him. Won't happen. You can talk to him and find a compromise, but "make him do what you want" is something that doesn't happen, ever.

KillianHawkeye
2017-01-29, 12:34 AM
First, don't play in this game or with this DM. It won't work out.

Second, sometimes we have to refer to the old adage: "If you want something done right, do it yourself." Start your own game and DM the way you know it should be done.

tensai_oni
2017-01-29, 12:51 AM
I understand the feeling of playing it loose with character builds.

But this is why we have systems that have less strictly defined mechanics, ones that prioritize flavor over crunch - like FATE. Or lacking that, you can always play freeform, nothing wrong with that.

Taking an existing, crunchy system and doing something like this with it is pointless. You end up with a party of ridiculously varied power and competence levels, and doing any kind of mechanical (as opposed to strictly roleplayed) challenges turns into a nightmare both for the GM and players.

Tell the GM to run a different system, one that will fit his playstyle better. Same Star Wars fluff, less mechanics. Or if you really want to play saga Star Wars, change the GM. Vote with your feet, possibly taking other players with you if they feel similarly.

Mechalich
2017-01-29, 01:09 AM
Part of being a GM is being willing to read and to at least try and learn the rules. Note that some systems are complex, GMs may make mistakes, misinterpret rules, or complete misjudge the power level of any combination of abilities and powers, but a GM needs to make a good faith effort to learn a system. This is especially important if the GM intends to house rule extensively. It sounds very much like the GM is unwilling to put forth a minimum level of effort to learn the system. That's an insurmountable problem.

It sounds like some of the other players are unwilling to commit to a minimal level of rules awareness as well, which is also not acceptable.

If this is even salvageable, running the game yourself it probably necessary, at least long enough to make everyone learn the system.

SAGA's not even that complicated as a system, and can easily be simplified by the means of not including certain sub-systems in play (the Force, space combat, licenses, and several other mechanics can just not show up).

Yorkblack
2017-01-29, 06:33 AM
Well, thank you for your answers, ans it pretty much confirms what I was thinking about : it's an accept or leave situation. I don't think finding a compromise is something possible here, though it doesn't hurt to try. I think I will see how it goes for the first session, and if it's bad, which it will probably be, I will try to talk him out of it or find a compromise, though I don't have much faith. If it's still bad I'll just leave, and maybe as someone said, GM my own game, though I'm not very fond of GMing, I prefer playing.

Psikerlord
2017-01-30, 04:45 PM
why dont you play and see if you have fun. if no, you GM the next adventure instead.

GungHo
2017-01-31, 12:03 PM
You're just gonna have to go with it with this guy or leave. You're not going to be able to tell him "I wanna play rulesy" and force him to become (or enjoy) rulesy. It's possible he doesn't know much about the system or it's possible that he does but simply doesn't care. Personally, I end up being a lot like the latter where I know how everything works, but I simply "de-complicate" things (from my perspective).

The difference I guess between me and that guy is that I really do know the rules, I just have a reason for ignoring them (usually either because they're calling for multiple rolls where one roll will do or because it's something that annoys me [e.g. permanent level/ability drain, because eff that noise]). I try my best to be consistent and tell people what I am ignoring and why. I have not done "do whatever you want for feats", but I have done that for ability scores, and sure enough people have given me a bunch of 16s, 17s, and 18s, and I really didn't care, and I know very well the implications early on, particularly for casters. I will fight harder for race, class, alignment, & general theme choices, because no, we don't need any Munarvi ninjas that have major daddy issues.

I do take input, but I go from patiently explanatory to irritating as sand in the nether regions when someone starts pulling out books, ipads, or whatever and persists with telling me that I am doing it all wrong. I know I am doing it wrong. I did it wrong on purpose. If you're only happy when things are RAW, then you can run the game and I will play right along... unless you were particularly nasty, in which case I will be insufferably RAW.

CharonsHelper
2017-01-31, 12:12 PM
I understand the feeling of playing it loose with character builds.

But this is why we have systems that have less strictly defined mechanics, ones that prioritize flavor over crunch - like FATE. Or lacking that, you can always play freeform, nothing wrong with that.

Taking an existing, crunchy system and doing something like this with it is pointless. You end up with a party of ridiculously varied power and competence levels, and doing any kind of mechanical (as opposed to strictly roleplayed) challenges turns into a nightmare both for the GM and players.

Tell the GM to run a different system, one that will fit his playstyle better. Same Star Wars fluff, less mechanics. Or if you really want to play saga Star Wars, change the GM. Vote with your feet, possibly taking other players with you if they feel similarly.

This. If the GM wants to play this way - d20 is not for him.

But - you aren't going to change things as a player. I don't think that you're going to have fun with this game - I'd try again. (I think that you - like me - likely enjoy the tactical as much as the role-playing.)

Hawkstar
2017-01-31, 12:17 PM
And, d20 Star Wars Saga is notoriously bad for leaving low-level characters with stupidly few abilities at low levels (Probably a flaw in d20 in general).

Why do you have to be able to survive a TIE fighter crash to the face to be able to qualify for basic proficiency abilities? And god forbid you try to have more than one area of almost-competency.

CharonsHelper
2017-01-31, 12:25 PM
And, d20 Star Wars Saga is notoriously bad for leaving low-level characters with stupidly few abilities at low levels (Probably a flaw in d20 in general).

Why do you have to be able to survive a TIE fighter crash to the face to be able to qualify for basic proficiency abilities? And god forbid you try to have more than one area of almost-competency.

I haven't really seen that be an issue. You can't make Han Solo at level 1 - but you aren't supposed to be able to. They do a pretty good job of this in the fluff, such as explaining that those in the Jedi class are really just padawans until level 7-8ish.

Jay R
2017-01-31, 02:30 PM
This is what the game will be. You can play. Or you can choose not to play.

And the choice to play is not binding forever.

My recommendation is to go into the first game, expecting an unusual experience that might be lots of fun.

If you enjoy it, keep coming. If not, quit.

But one thing is clear: This is what the game will be. You can play. Or you can choose not to play.

kyoryu
2017-01-31, 04:04 PM
This. If the GM wants to play this way - d20 is not for him.

Probably not, but a lot of people don't realize there are games besides D&D.

WbtE
2017-01-31, 04:55 PM
I'm definitely with the folks who are saying that it's the wrong system. Have a word with the GM and suggest that there's no point in having a whole stack of rulebooks if the game is going to be fast-and-loose.

2D8HP
2017-01-31, 06:15 PM
...Then the GM, seeing that, just said "ok, don't worry about the rules, just tell me what your character is like and I will worry about the rules. In game I will just tell you what to roll and whether you succeed or fail, don't worry about anything."....

Sounds great to me, are you kidding?

As a player I prefer the DM handles that mess!

I just want to know what my PC perceives, the rest is rules minutiae, I'm well rid of. If the DM wants to add up the modifiers etc. instead, welcome to it!
If I don't trust the DM to game right, why would I sit at that table?

Anyway:

You are a DM aren't you? Because
As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death.

kyoryu
2017-01-31, 06:32 PM
Sounds great to me, are you kidding?

As a player I prefer the DM handles that mess!

Yeah, there's nothing inherently wrong with that style of play. It's fairly counter to the expectations of 3.x/PF, which are pretty strongly rules-first.

CharonsHelper
2017-01-31, 06:42 PM
Yeah, there's nothing inherently wrong with that style of play. It's fairly counter to the expectations of 3.x/PF, which are pretty strongly rules-first.

In this thread & others 2D8HP has pretty clearly said that he's dismissive of anyone who enjoys different play-styles to his own and considers them to be inferior. So...

Kish
2017-01-31, 06:49 PM
Hello everyone !
Recently I found a GM and recruited some players for a Star Wars rpg (saga edition, a d20 system).
We have not started playing yet, but we habe done the character creation (if you can call it that way), and already all my alarm bells are ringing.
First, he said that the rules were not that important because he preferred a more cinematographic play. Okay, nothing wrong about that. Then, we started making the characters. For the feats and tallents, he pretty much said "take whatever you feel is right for your character, just don't be too OP", so we proceeded to take like 5 feats and 3 talents (a class specific feat if you want) for a lvl 1 character. A lvl 1 char is supposed to have 1 talent and 1 or two feats, depending on the specie.
One of the players took some feats and talents without watching for the prereq, forgot some important things to add on his sheet (like the defenses, in saga you have three differents defenses, which are pretty much a mix between AC and saves from a d&d game). I corrected him (politely), and he began whining. There are so many rules, how can anyone in the world have fun with that, this kind of thing (when the most basic rules, which he clearly didn't read, were all clearly explained on three pages in the introduction of the book).
Then the GM, seeing that, just said "ok, don't worry about the rules, just tell me what your character is like and I will worry about the rules. In game I will just tell you what to roll and whether you succeed or fail, don't worry about anything."
I am definitely not fond of this kind of method but it would be fine if the GM knew just a little about the rules, but many times he called skills what really are feats, he didn't know at all what the abilities (you know, strength, dex and the like) were supposed to do in terms of play, he clearly didn't understand at all what was the meaning of the in-game effects of feats, to be short, he has no idea how does the system work.
Now I don't want to sound elitist but in a RPG I like to build ly character, decide what he can or can't do in playing terms, and simply play the game the way it's intended (not against a few house rules though), especially when it is known to be very good and balanced.
So, my question is, what should I do, aside from just leaving the table ?
Leave the table. This all amounts to, "The GM isn't running the game the way I think he should!" and there's nothing you should do about that, whether he's running the most awesome game anyone has ever run or is actually doing an awful job.

2D8HP
2017-01-31, 08:33 PM
Yeah, there's nothing inherently wrong with that style of play. It's fairly counter to the expectations of 3.x/PF, which are pretty strongly rules-first.


Why is that? DM discretion has always been a part of the game:

Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."

AD&D 2E, DMG, p. 3: "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone, I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question -- what do you feel is right? And the people asking the question discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

(Sorry I don't have 4e)

D&D 5e DMG, p. 263:: "As the Dungeon Master, You aren't limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual



In this thread & others 2D8HP has pretty clearly said that he's dismissive of anyone who enjoys different play-styles to his own and considers them to be inferior. So...


Ouch!

I wouldn't say "dismissive" so much as bewildered.

Page 6 of the 5e PHB, pretty much lays out the essence of the game:

1. The DM describes the environment...

2. The players describe what they want to do...

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventures' action....

The O.P.'s description of his GM's approach sounds like fun to me, and also how I remember games of the 1970's and 80's being like.
You get to play a character and experience an adventure while being spared rules minutiae, and the drudgery of making a "build".

I don't understand the problem.

Please enlighten me.

Thanks!

Koo Rehtorb
2017-01-31, 08:36 PM
D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

Yup, unfortunate quotes like that have done a great deal to damage tabletop roleplaying as a hobby in general by embedding that mindset in a lot of players. Fortunately we've started to get away from that.

2D8HP
2017-01-31, 09:08 PM
...Fortunately we've started to get away from that.


What's the alternative like?

(For reference, the games that I've played and somewhat remember the rules for are:
Oe D&D,
1e AD&D,
'77 & '91 "Basic' D&D,
Runequest,
Call of Cthullu, and
5e D&D.

The game I have never played but remember the rules for is:
Pendragon.

I've played a bunch of games, the rules of which I don't remember, the one I most played was:
Traveller (I still remember the "fluff" though).

And I own a lot that I haven't played, and don't really remember the rules for, most recently:
Dungeon World,
FATE, and
7th Sea (the setting of which looks awesome!)

Thanks!

Koo Rehtorb
2017-01-31, 09:38 PM
What's the alternative like?

There's quite a variety of game types out there, I guess. One example is Apocalypse World/Dungeon World/Anything else PbtA. One of the most notable features about that series of games is the idea that the GM has their own set of rules which they are constrained by. The rules are not "DM advice" like a lot of older games, they are straight up explicit rules and if the GM doesn't follow them then they are cheating. The games tell the GM, in no uncertain terms, how they're supposed to be run.

kyoryu
2017-01-31, 10:38 PM
What's the alternative like?

I consider there to be three primary interaction types in RPGs.

Type 1:
GM: "This is the situation."
Player: "I do the thing!"
GM: "This is now the situation."

Type 2:
Player 1: "I move my pieces in accordance with the rules"
Player 2: "I move my pieces in accordance with the rules"
Player 3: "I move my pieces in accordance with the rules"

Type 3:
Player 1: "A thing happens!"
Player 2: "And then another thing happens!"
Player 3: "And then another thing happens!"

No game is really purely any of these. What you're describing is a pretty strongly "type 1" game. Pathfinder and 3.x are usually played, still on the Type 1 to 2 line (not mixing in much Type 3), but much closer to the Type 2 part.

Jay R
2017-01-31, 10:41 PM
Yup, unfortunate quotes like that have done a great deal to damage tabletop roleplaying as a hobby in general by embedding that mindset in a lot of players. Fortunately we've started to get away from that.

The "damage" done with these rules was to create the hobby of role playing games, make them popular, and help them spread to millions of players who have had decades of delightful games that Koo Rehtorb wishes we hadn't been able to enjoy.

Unlike Koo Rehtorb, I think it's great to have games the way he likes them and the way I like them, and I won't insult the mindset of players who enjoy playing differently than I do.

Koo Rehtorb, play the games the way you want to, and have fun doing so. Please stop being so insulting about us playing the way we want to.

TheCountAlucard
2017-01-31, 10:48 PM
What Jay said.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-01-31, 10:49 PM
The "damage" done with these rules was to create the hobby of role playing games, make them popular, and help them spread to millions of players who have had decades of delightful games that Koo Rehtorb wishes we hadn't been able to enjoy.

Unlike Koo Rehtorb, I think it's great to have games the way he likes them and the way I like them, and I won't insult the mindset of players who enjoy playing differently than I do.

Koo Rehtorb, play the games the way you want to, and have fun doing so. Please stop being so insulting about us playing the way we want to.

As I've said before, you can have a bad time with good rules, and a good time with bad rules. The group is at least as important as the rules for making an enjoyable experience. That doesn't mean bad rules aren't bad rules. Fortunately, many people were able to cover for poor early decisions enough that the hobby developed despite them. And games reversing those poor early decisions are helping to make it better now.

2D8HP
2017-01-31, 11:48 PM
As I've said before, you can have a bad time with good rules, and a good time with bad rules. The group is at least as important as the rules for making an enjoyable experience. That doesn't mean bad rules aren't bad rules.....


Maybe it was the age I was when I mostly played the games, (10 - 13 for OD&D, and '77 "Basic" 12 - 17 for 1e AD&D, 14+ for most everything else), but when I first played Runequest while my initial impression was "why couldn't D&D be like this? It's just more rational.", I soon wondered, "Why isn't this as fun as D&D?".

From 11 to 17, I mostly played with the same circle, while my initial OD&D DM, went away to college and took up other hobbies (Kendo especially), his brother (who became my best friend) was my second GM and they had very similar styles, and the rest of the players were mostly the same (they really seemed to like me GM'ing Call of Cthullu and my version of "Top Secret"), but nothing has matched the fun of those earliest games of D&D.

But yeah, group matters, if I could cast "True Resurrection", and have my old best friend back, I'd even play Villians & Vigilantes, or Cyberpunk with him.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-02-01, 12:10 AM
Maybe it was the age I was when I mostly played the games, (10 - 13 for OD&D, and '77 "Basic" 12 - 17 for 1e AD&D, 14+ for most everything else), but when I first played Runequest while my initial impression was "why couldn't D&D be like this? It's just more rational.", I soon wondered, "Why isn't this as fun as D&D?".

From 11 to 17, I mostly played with the same circle, while my initial OD&D DM, went away to college and took up other hobbies (Kendo especially), his brother (who became my best friend) was my second GM and they had very similar styles, and the rest of the players were mostly the same (they really seemed to like me GM'ing Call of Cthullu and my version of "Top Secret"), but nothing has matched the fun of those earliest games of D&D.

But yeah, group matters, if I could cast "True Resurrection", and have my old best friend back, I'd even play Villians & Vigilantes, or Cyberpunk with him.

One thing I will say, nostalgia is a hell of a drug. I have plenty of fond memories of playing a lot of 2e back in the day. It's a god awful system, completely irredeemable, for oh so many reasons, but I'd still be hard pressed to turn down a chance to play it with some old friends again even now. System matters. But yeah, group matters a whole lot too.

2D8HP
2017-02-01, 12:33 AM
I consider there to be three primary interaction types in RPGs....
....No game is really purely any of these. What you're describing is a pretty strongly "type 1" game. Pathfinder and 3.x are usually played, still on the Type 1 to 2 line (not mixing in much Type 3), but much closer to the Type 2 part.


Yes, Type 1 is definitely what I think of as an RPG (or "Adventure game" as I wish they were called instead).

Type 2 seems more like a game of Risk, which can also be fun, but is not what I crave when I want to role-play (or "Adventure game").

Type 3 seems like a summer camp storytelling game, which while giving some suspense, loses my sense as a player of exploring a fantastic world.

Maybe it's just because it's what I've been used to, but I think.I prefer that the GM, and the players roles remain distinct.

flond
2017-02-01, 01:10 AM
There is an advantage in incorporating 2 into 1 though and that's predictability. It can be nice to know and be able to make plans based on rules because they tend to be more easily known. (Not that GMs are untrustworthy, but GM<->player bandwidth is ALWAYS at a premium. Not having to judge "ok so what does the gm THINK is a difficult jump" can be nice.

(Likewise, mixing 3 into 1+2 is often nice for players who favor a specific type of story. Being able to ask for thieving adventures based on making a thief can be good, even if you don't go into the deep end of full player authorship)

Blu
2017-02-01, 01:13 AM
I think the situation boils down to a very simple question: Does the GM knows what he is doing?
I already run in to a lot of GMs, and for what you told in the thread im guessing he doesn't, wich i think is a serious thing.
Be it for being lazy and not understanding(or not trying to) the rules or simply not knowing/caring for the consequences of his choices is bad news anywhere.
Flavour is a very important point of the game but if the GM doesn't know what he is doing, the flavour can kill the game(and quite litteraly the characters).
One of my worst games was one were the GM disregard certain aspects and "guidelines" of the game, like WBL and other mechanics because they didn’t make sense to him. In the long run the amount of characters that died on that table to silly situations was big and the pressure of the game ruined the fun.
The GM is not a god in the world and too much GM deciding this or that can ruin the fun. There should always be consensus between GM and players.

Cazero
2017-02-01, 05:42 AM
There is an advantage in incorporating 2 into 1 though and that's predictability. It can be nice to know and be able to make plans based on rules because they tend to be more easily known.
You already have common sense and investigation to predict the result of hacking a door with an axe or insulting the king. The only predictability rules bring is the final calculation of results, and it doesn't help you because only the DM has access to all base numbers required.

kyoryu
2017-02-01, 11:17 AM
There is an advantage in incorporating 2 into 1 though and that's predictability. It can be nice to know and be able to make plans based on rules because they tend to be more easily known. (Not that GMs are untrustworthy, but GM<->player bandwidth is ALWAYS at a premium. Not having to judge "ok so what does the gm THINK is a difficult jump" can be nice.

(Likewise, mixing 3 into 1+2 is often nice for players who favor a specific type of story. Being able to ask for thieving adventures based on making a thief can be good, even if you don't go into the deep end of full player authorship)

Any point in the triangle will work for some players. They're all valid models, just some will appeal to some people more than others.

Like, for me, personally, the "how difficult of a jump is that?" thing isn't a big deal, because it takes literally a second to resolve. For others, it's a major problem.

Hawkstar
2017-02-01, 11:24 AM
To the OP - I suggest you take advantage of the opportunity to create a character archetype that normally doesn't do well in Saga edition because of the rules (Sort of like how D&D 3rd edition has a hate-on for any character that wants to be a mobile combatant.)

Jay R
2017-02-01, 11:45 AM
As I've said before, you can have a bad time with good rules, and a good time with bad rules. The group is at least as important as the rules for making an enjoyable experience. That doesn't mean bad rules aren't bad rules. Fortunately, many people were able to cover for poor early decisions enough that the hobby developed despite them. And games reversing those poor early decisions are helping to make it better now.

You can have good games with rules that Koo Rehtorb doesn't like, by using them well the way they are intended to create the great games that they are intended to create. And it doesn't matter how many times Koo Rehtorb blindly states that the rules he doesn't like are bad rules, that doesn't make them bad or the gamers ignorant for not playing Koo Rehtorb’s way. It just shows his unwillingness to recognize that his own taste isn’t the final word on gaming.

Koo, you can keep blindly insulting rules you don't like, and that will continue to not affect people who have played with them well, and used their flexibility to create superior games.

I know how to use such rules correctly and with judgment, to produce great games that my players love. This is not having a "good time with bad rules," no matter how many times you use that misleading phrase to insult gaming sessions you did not attend and have no knowledge about.

I have never seen you play, and therefore I will not try to describe how your games go. Please stop making up falsehoods about other people's games.

There are certain genres of movies and books that don’t appeal to me. Fine – so I don’t watch them, and I don’t critique them. When other people say they enjoyed such a movie, I don’t attack by saying that you can make “good movies with bad genres.” I recognize my inability to have a fair opinion about what I myself do not enjoy.

You don't like that kind of rule, and that kind of game. Fine - then don't play them. You can play the way you like, and talk about the fun you have doing so without insulting playstyles that don't appeal to you.

It's not true that playstyles you don't enjoy are automatically "bad rules." It just isn't.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-02-01, 12:15 PM
You can have good games with rules that Koo Rehtorb doesn't like, by using them well the way they are intended to create the great games that they are intended to create. And it doesn't matter how many times Koo Rehtorb blindly states that the rules he doesn't like are bad rules, that doesn't make them bad or the gamers ignorant for not playing Koo Rehtorb’s way. It just shows his unwillingness to recognize that his own taste isn’t the final word on gaming.

I don't think there's anything particularly controversial about the idea that some products are inherently inferior. For example, to take from your argument further down, I feel comfortable saying that there are bad movies. Not all movies are created equal. Some movies are of an objectively lower quality than other movies. That doesn't mean it's impossible to enjoy bad movies, and enjoying a bad movie doesn't make someone a bad person.

kyoryu
2017-02-01, 12:42 PM
Some movies are of an objectively lower quality than other movies.

Based on what criteria?

"goodness" and "badness" is usually best understood as "fitness to function". The key is to realize that not everybody uses the rules for the same functions, and so they will evaluate "good" or "bad" differently.

daniel_ream
2017-02-01, 01:07 PM
I consider there to be three primary interaction types in RPGs.

FWIW, this isn't a new (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_Model) idea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_theory).


"goodness" and "badness" is usually best understood as "fitness to function". The key is to realize that not everybody uses the rules for the same functions, and so they will evaluate "good" or "bad" differently.

True, but I think if one were striving for a measurable standard of quality, "does this game do what it says it does" is a fair yardstick. For example, there are tons of games that claim to emulate specific genres, and then produce results that are entirely at odds with that genre's conventions and tropes. There are published commercial games for which the rules are incomplete, or contradictory in important ways, or actually incomprehensible as written. (SJG for years had an errata policy that an erratum was only considered errata if it made the rule unplayable as written or contained a typo. Rules that produced clearly silly results were not errata as long as the rule was correctly written).

Koo Rehtorb
2017-02-01, 01:14 PM
Based on what criteria?

"goodness" and "badness" is usually best understood as "fitness to function". The key is to realize that not everybody uses the rules for the same functions, and so they will evaluate "good" or "bad" differently.

I mean, there's a whole lot of things that go into that. Bad acting/wrong actor for the part, inconsistent characterization, poor pacing, to name a few. It's not always completely clear cut, sure. But still, bad movies exist.

Cluedrew
2017-02-01, 01:35 PM
To 2D8HP: Oddly enough, games I have been in seem to get better the more the GM's role gets smeared out. Except in the cases where the role gets shared because the GM has no idea what they are doing.

To Koo Rehtorb: I think the idea of bad rules is not what they are objecting to, rather that the GM have the highest degree of control is a bad rule. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of it myself but I cannot think of an argument for it being bad in and of itself*.

* Unless you want to get into the strange social ideas that lead me to dislike it. Which are independent of game design so rate only a footnote**.

** Although considering the total size of this post, a footnote is not insignificant.

Cazero
2017-02-01, 01:54 PM
I mean, there's a whole lot of things that go into that. Bad acting/wrong actor for the part, inconsistent characterization, poor pacing, to name a few. It's not always completely clear cut, sure. But still, bad movies exist.
Those are criteria to judge of the value of a movie. Progress !

Now let's finish that argument. For a recap, here is your quote people contest (with the quoting quote you were reacting to) :


D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."[/B]
Yup, unfortunate quotes like that have done a great deal to damage tabletop roleplaying as a hobby in general by embedding that mindset in a lot of players. Fortunately we've started to get away from that.
You appear to be of the opinion that the RAW should be known of all and never, under any circumstances, be changed by the DM. A solid and reasonable opinion on first examination. I happen to disagree.
My argument for disagreeing is that the RAW cannot possibly cover everything rigorously, that something stupidly dysfunctional like drown-healing is bound to happen eventualy, and that nobody should contest the DM authority to say "nope, we're not following RAW on that one" when it does. I basicaly stated what the DMG implies.
What are your criteria to claim that my argument is objectively bad?

Koo Rehtorb
2017-02-01, 01:56 PM
To 2D8HP: Oddly enough, games I have been in seem to get better the more the GM's role gets smeared out. Except in the cases where the role gets shared because the GM has no idea what they are doing.

To Koo Rehtorb: I think the idea of bad rules is not what they are objecting to, rather that the GM have the highest degree of control is a bad rule. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of it myself but I cannot think of an argument for it being bad in and of itself*.

* Unless you want to get into the strange social ideas that lead me to dislike it. Which are independent of game design so rate only a footnote**.

** Although considering the total size of this post, a footnote is not insignificant.

It tending towards ****ed up social dynamics is certainly part of why I consider it to be a terrible idea.

It also ties into promoting railroading. If the idea is built in that the GM has absolute control, overriding the rules, then it's a small step to go to "And the GM should use that power to force outcomes that they want". A lot of bad GM advice in a lot of these games links the two together. There was some quote from some (Star Wars?) system that I forget now where it was along the lines of "If the players try to do something you don't want to happen, let them roll, and tell them the difficulty was one higher than what they rolled".

Certainly some groups are capable of not abusing poor rules like that and having enjoyable times despite them, but it's certainly a corrosive influence on the hobby in general.

2D8HP
2017-02-01, 02:05 PM
There is an advantage in incorporating 2 into 1 though and that's predictability. It can be nice to know and be able to make plans based on rules because they tend to be more easily known.


Makes sense, my taste preference is to ask the GM what my PC perceives the odds to be, without worrying about the actual rules mechanics.

Too each their own.



FWIW, this isn't a new (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_Model) idea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_theory).


Those links led to some more interesting (to me) links including:

Breakdown of RPG Players (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html)


Out of the four "types", I see elements of three of them, except for the "Thinker


A*Thinker*is a player who most enjoys the game when it delivers Strategic/Combat Focus. This kind of person is likely to enjoy min-maxing a character, spending hours out of game to find every conceivable advantage available in the system to deliver maximum damage from behind maximum protection, even if the min-maxing produces results that are seemingly illogical/impossible. This kind of person wants to solve puzzles and can keep track of long chains of facts and clues


Which I'm definitely not.



....but I think if one were striving for a measurable standard of quality...


...Some movies are of an objectively lower quality than other movies....


This talk of "Quality" makes me think of:


the theories of Robert Pirsig (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirsig%27s_metaphysics_of_Quality)




To 2D8HP: Oddly enough, games I have been in seem to get better the more the GM's role gets smeared out.


Since the biggest problem I perceive with RPG's is a shortage of willing DM's, I'm very curious about how that works in practice, and what your experience has been.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-02-01, 02:06 PM
You appear to be of the opinion that the RAW should be known of all and never, under any circumstances, be changed by the DM.

Well, you're wrong about this. But imma forgive you for it because this discussion is continued from a previous thread.

There's nothing wrong with changing rules. Some rules are bad, some rules are insufficient, and some rules just don't match what you're trying to do with a game. What I object to is a GM arbitrarily changing rules on the spot by "GM fiat". Rules changes need to be clearly established in advance and agreed on by the players. Or at the very least, agreed on by the players at the time. Also note, rulings on situations that aren't covered by the rules is not the same as changing the rules.

Cazero
2017-02-01, 02:13 PM
I guess the problem comes from the bit you dismissed from a D&D DMG being poorly phrased but reasonable advice. Confusion all around.

2D8HP
2017-02-01, 02:42 PM
....RAW cannot possibly cover everything rigorously, that something stupidly dysfunctional like drown-healing is bound to happen eventualy...


....What I object to is a GM arbitrarily changing rules on the spot by "GM fiat". Rules changes need to be clearly established in advance and agreed on by the players. Or at the very least, agreed on by the players at the time. Also note, rulings on situations that aren't covered by the rules is not the same as changing the rules.

I wrote before that the biggest problem I perceive with RPG's is a shortage of willing DM's.

I "DM'd" using the 48 page 1977 "Holmes bluebook" Basic D&D rules, before I ever played as a "player", and for a time I wished for more rules that could make "rulings" for me. In time I did find more rules, and I wished for better organization and clarity. Later I wished for less rules because it was easier and faster to improvise than to memorize so many rules or to wade through the pages for "edge cases".

I think that the expectation to memorize and follow the great deal of rules in games like AD&D with "Unearthed Arcana",.GURPS or Pathfinder discourages folks from "putting on the GM hat" (it certainly discourages me!). Defaulting to "GM fiat" means more GM's, meaning more tables to actually get to play in!

It's sometimes said that "No RPG'ing is better than bad RPG'ing", and I just don't think that's true.

Really extremely bad games are worse, but I'd much rather get to play some mediocre games than not get to play at all.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-02-01, 02:52 PM
I think that the expectation to memorize and follow the great deal of rules in games like AD&D with "Unearthed Arcana",.GURPS or Pathfinder discourages folks from "putting on the GM hat" (it certainly discourages me!). Defaulting to "GM fiat" means more GM's, meaning more tables to actually get to play in!

I think crunchiness of rules is its own thing. Games exist which are easy to play, and require no GM fiat whatsoever. Personally I enjoy crunchy rules, but only when they're well written, which things like D&D 3.5e absolutely aren't.

I really do suggest giving Dungeon World a shot if you ever get a chance. I think you'd really like it. It's easy to play and works as written.

kyoryu
2017-02-01, 03:13 PM
FWIW, this isn't a new (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_Model) idea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_theory).


Except what I'm talking about has *nothing* to do with either of those categorization schemes, and is almost completely orthogonal.


True, but I think if one were striving for a measurable standard of quality, "does this game do what it says it does" is a fair yardstick. For example, there are tons of games that claim to emulate specific genres, and then produce results that are entirely at odds with that genre's conventions and tropes.

Generally, yes, however a group of players that *wanted* the actual produced results would find it a fine game.

A truly bad game would have to be one that couldn't yield an enjoyable result for *any* set of criteria. And I do believe that such games exist.

There's also objective standards in terms of layout, presentation, and organization.

Kish
2017-02-01, 03:22 PM
Oh god, GNS theory.

For the benefit of anyone who doesn't know the history here: Ron Edwards, the inventor of the "models" at those links, argued that 1) all games ultimately fell in one of three categories, that 2) a game which did not fully embrace one and only one of them was incoherent and thus inherently far worse than a game that did, 3) that Narrative play was superior to Gamist play which was superior to Simulationist play, 4) that the luckless members of his inner circle who were trying to spin #3 as something less overtly horrendous should shut up because he'd meant exactly what he'd said, and 5) that anyone who claimed to prefer incoherent games was brain-damaged (http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/marginalia/3777).

So yeah. It's not a new idea...but "an idea which was pioneered and promoted extremely vigorously and aggressively by a twit with a massive ego and his cult of personality" is, in my opinion, worse, not better, than "a new idea."

kyoryu
2017-02-01, 04:15 PM
a new idea...but "an idea which was pioneered and promoted extremely vigorously and aggressively by a twit with a massive ego and his cult of personality" is, in my opinion, worse, not better, than "a new idea."

And what I'm talking about is not GNS, as I share your opinion. It's talking about very specific things, and usually I don't get any pushback when talking about those definitions, becuase they're fairly well defined and are descriptive rather than pushing an agenda.

2D8HP
2017-02-01, 04:23 PM
Oh god, GNS theory.

For the benefit of anyone who doesn't know the history here: Ron Edwards, the inventor of the "models" at those links....



.

Ah yes, Ron Edwards.
A decade or so ago I picked up the "Sorcerer" game, and the "Sword and Sorcerer" supplement. I loved the sketches of settings, and the bibliography in the supplement, but the core game left me cold, mostly because I just don't want to learn rules that are so unfamiliar (I'm sure you've noticed a theme in my posts).

If I had a young agile mind (and a lot of free time), and I was just getting into RPG's I could see wanting to find "novel", and "ideal" rules, but these days I'm frankly lazy. If I can't learn the rules fast either because they're simple or they're close to rules I already know, I'm probably not going to bother.

The only way I can imagine being motivated to spend a lot of time studying new rules, is if I was really excited by the setting and there is a group of people who I want to game with, who also want to try the game.

Sadly those are pretty high bars these days.

I find that folks want to either play 5e D&D, Pathfinder or a Comic book superhero setting, little else. I'm pleasantly surprised that the OP of this thread found an open table for "Star Wars".

Of the three 5e D&D comes closest to what I want to play, and both D&D and Pathfinder are preferable to Champions, Cyberpunk, and Vampire which were the games with open tables in the early 1990's.


....I really do suggest giving Dungeon World a shot if you ever get a chance. I think you'd really like it....

I suspect I would, but I don't expect to get that chance, it being one of many games that I'd like to try, among which are:


Pendragon,
Castle Falkenstein,
Dungeon World,
FATE,
7th Sea,
Many of the GURPS "Worldbooks" (despite the "core" rules leaving me cold),
and yes -
Pathfinder.

Unlike other games Pathfinder has open tables, but given the heavy "crunch", I wish I could learn it like the last non-D&D RPG I enjoyed playing which was Shadowrun (ironic given my distaste for Cyberpunk), and which I had a great time playing.

The trick?

I never read the rules!

The GM had me play a pre-gen, told me when to roll dice, and all I has to concentrate on was "What do you do?".

It was great!

And it's how I remember RPG's used to be taught,, "roll 3d6 now", OK DEX is your highest stat so you may want to play a Thief because....", that we now have to study the rules like studying the Plumbing Code to prepare for the Journeyman's exam is annoying to me, (I suppose it's because of the GM shortage)n and that the OP actually has an opportunity to play a Space Opera setting and not need to bother cramming, and regards that as a problem is baffling to me.

flond
2017-02-01, 04:40 PM
Ah yes, Ron Edwards.

And it's how I remember RPG's used to be taught,, "roll 3d6 now", OK DEX is your highest stat so you may want to play a Thief because....", that we now have to study the rules like studying the Plumbing Code to prepare for the Journeyman's exam is annoying to me, (I suppose it's because of the GM shortage)n and that the OP actually has an opportunity to play a Space Opera setting and not need to bother cramming, and regards that as a problem is baffling to me.

See, while not the OP that sort of thing feels to me less like "not having to bother cramming" and more like the feeling of when you're playing a video game and someone is over your shoulder saying "now do this!"

Crunch can be fun because it gives consistent results without needing constant PC/GM back and forth. (I can totally see why it wouldn't appeal to someone who's ALL about the exploration though. That's just not everyone's bag as much anymore.)

daniel_ream
2017-02-01, 05:46 PM
Oh god, GNS theory.

I'm not a huge fan myself. I prefer the threefold model modified in a way that never really caught on because it requires you to understand solution phase dynamics.

In brief, if you imagine Gamism, Dramatism and Simulationism as three points on an equilateral triangle, then any game design, play style, or GMing style can be described by a point somewhere in the triangle that is a unique distance from all three points. That is, the dead center would be 33% each, a point would be 100% (say) simulationist, and somewhere in the upper right would be 40% Sim, 40% Game, and 20% Drama.

It's a descriptive model, not a prescriptive one.

Arbane
2017-02-01, 07:32 PM
What's the alternative like?


Rulebooks thick enough to stop small-arms fire.


but nothing has matched the fun of those earliest games of D&D.

But yeah, group matters, if I could cast "True Resurrection", and have my old best friend back, I'd even play Villians & Vigilantes, or Cyberpunk with him.

There's an old saying in science-fiction fandom that 'The Golden Age of Science Fiction is 12.' The first games we get to play make a big impact on us, even if we look back later and realize they're rubbish.

As for who you play with, well, see Trevlac's quote in my sig.

daniel_ream
2017-02-02, 02:26 AM
The first games we get to play make a big impact on us, even if we look back later and realize they're rubbish.

I firmly believe that much of the OSR is less about recapturing a play style that's been forgotten and more about recapturing the sense of wonder one had in junior high when exposed to this weird game with the strange dice that was unlike anything our twelve year old selves had ever seen before. It's why there's a never-ending stream of near identical clones of the same three D&Ds over and over: because you can't go home again.

kyoryu
2017-02-02, 11:48 AM
I firmly believe that much of the OSR is less about recapturing a play style that's been forgotten and more about recapturing the sense of wonder one had in junior high when exposed to this weird game with the strange dice that was unlike anything our twelve year old selves had ever seen before. It's why there's a never-ending stream of near identical clones of the same three D&Ds over and over: because you can't go home again.

Well, the original purpose was to make them generally available since WotC, at the time, wasn't publishing them :)

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-02, 12:27 PM
As I've said before, you can have a bad time with good rules, and a good time with bad rules. The group is at least as important as the rules for making an enjoyable experience. That doesn't mean bad rules aren't bad rules. Fortunately, many people were able to cover for poor early decisions enough that the hobby developed despite them. And games reversing those poor early decisions are helping to make it better now.


You're starting to sound like Ron "BrainDamage" Edwards.




Oh god, GNS theory.

For the benefit of anyone who doesn't know the history here: Ron Edwards, the inventor of the "models" at those links, argued that 1) all games ultimately fell in one of three categories, that 2) a game which did not fully embrace one and only one of them was incoherent and thus inherently far worse than a game that did, 3) that Narrative play was superior to Gamist play which was superior to Simulationist play, 4) that the luckless members of his inner circle who were trying to spin #3 as something less overtly horrendous should shut up because he'd meant exactly what he'd said, and 5) that anyone who claimed to prefer incoherent games was brain-damaged (http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/marginalia/3777).

So yeah. It's not a new idea...but "an idea which was pioneered and promoted extremely vigorously and aggressively by a twit with a massive ego and his cult of personality" is, in my opinion, worse, not better, than "a new idea."


That sums it up nicely, and saves me a lot of typing.

At one point I started calling him Preacher Ron, but I always had to explain who I meant.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-02, 12:41 PM
I consider there to be three primary interaction types in RPGs.

Type 1:
GM: "This is the situation."
Player: "I do the thing!"
GM: "This is now the situation."

Type 2:
Player 1: "I move my pieces in accordance with the rules"
Player 2: "I move my pieces in accordance with the rules"
Player 3: "I move my pieces in accordance with the rules"

Type 3:
Player 1: "A thing happens!"
Player 2: "And then another thing happens!"
Player 3: "And then another thing happens!"

No game is really purely any of these. What you're describing is a pretty strongly "type 1" game. Pathfinder and 3.x are usually played, still on the Type 1 to 2 line (not mixing in much Type 3), but much closer to the Type 2 part.

That's probably far more useful and less judgey than Edwardian GNS.

I'd say what I prefer is Type 1, but using something like Type 2 as a shared framework so understanding and expectations are on the same page.

Type 3... would seem to risk the loss of the "exploring another world" feeling that I like in RPGs. As a player, I don't want control of things that my character wouldn't have control of, or to know secrets that my character wouldn't know. As much as certain commenters disparage it, I LIKE immersion.

Hawkstar
2017-02-02, 01:02 PM
I haven't really seen that be an issue. You can't make Han Solo at level 1 - but you aren't supposed to be able to. They do a pretty good job of this in the fluff, such as explaining that those in the Jedi class are really just padawans until level 7-8ish.

As I said - in order to have basic ability in the game, you need to be able to take a TIE fighter crashing into your face. The game's horizontal progression is very scant compared to the vertical.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-02, 01:04 PM
And, d20 Star Wars Saga is notoriously bad for leaving low-level characters with stupidly few abilities at low levels (Probably a flaw in d20 in general).

Why do you have to be able to survive a TIE fighter crash to the face to be able to qualify for basic proficiency abilities? And god forbid you try to have more than one area of almost-competency.

Sounds like d20 in general, Star Wars or not.

CharonsHelper
2017-02-02, 01:41 PM
Sounds like d20 in general, Star Wars or not.

This. I'd argue that Saga Edition is actually somewhat less this way than 3.x. It's all part & parcel of having a zero to hero system. There are advantages & drawbacks.

Saga Edition would allow you to add a couple Normal Levels to PCs if you really wanted to in order to avoid your issue if you really wanted to. (I wouldn't really recommend it though - as those are intended to keep NPC mooks as a threat. I do like them a lot for that though.)

kyoryu
2017-02-02, 03:07 PM
That's probably far more useful and less judgey than Edwardian GNS.

Thanks!

It actually started with just the Type 1 as the core interaction point in RPGs, and then I realized that that was just true of *some* RPG types, and so I added the others as I observed them.

There's certainly nothing magical about the number 3 in this case.


I'd say what I prefer is Type 1, but using something like Type 2 as a shared framework so understanding and expectations are on the same page.

Few games are truly extreme in either of these. Even in old school D&D, most players have *some* knowledge of the rules, and even in the most boardgamey RPGs, some semblance of the Type 1 loop occurs at some points (most often in the out-of-combat situations).


Type 3... would seem to risk the loss of the "exploring another world" feeling that I like in RPGs. As a player, I don't want control of things that my character wouldn't have control of, or to know secrets that my character wouldn't know. As much as certain commenters disparage it, I LIKE immersion.

I don't disparage it at all, personally. If you read my posts, you'll note that I don't often disparage *anything*, even while I make my own preferences known.

The three core interactions exist because people like different things. And that's fine.

2D8HP
2017-02-02, 03:28 PM
I consider there to be three primary interaction types in RPGs....


That's probably far more useful and less judgey than Edwardian GNS.

I'd say what I prefer is Type 1, but using something like Type 2 as a shared framework so understanding and expectations are on the same page.

Type 3... would seem to risk the loss of the "exploring another world" feeling that I like in RPGs. As a player, I don't want control of things that my character wouldn't have control of, or to know secrets that my character wouldn't know. As much as certain commenters disparage it, I LIKE immersion.


I agree that kyoryu's game typology is much more descriptive and useful.

I find that the more "type 2" a RPG is the more it breaks immersion for me, but it seems I'm an outlier in that. Type 3 breaks immersion for me even more than type two, and I seldom crave a type 3 game.

I do crave type 1 games, and type 2 games, but I don't like them to mix.

When I play a RPG I prefer it to be a much purer type one than most folks seem to like, and when I play a type two game (typically boardgames) I dislike incomplete or unclear rules much more than when I play a RPG.

Most seem to like "chocolate in their peanut butter" more than me.

From peoples description of them 4e sounds like the most type 2 version of D&D with 3.5 in second place. OD&D definitely seemed type 1 to me, and as I recall we learned the rules by folklore and guessing, in fact in a few cases it was years later on seeing the '91 "Basic" that I realized, "Oh that's what they meant", but '77 Basic, OD&D+, and pre UA 1e AD&D, are what cast a spell on me.
I imagine that for most of this Forum it was 3.5 that did likewise.

I have an easy time imagining playing 3e and later editions but using an old D&D style and flavor of play, but a modern play style using the old rules is harder for me to imagine.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-02, 03:33 PM
I don't disparage it at all, personally. If you read my posts, you'll note that I don't often disparage *anything*, even while I make my own preferences known.

The three core interactions exist because people like different things. And that's fine.


I didn't mean you, to be clear.

Perhaps I'm still a bit stung by a couple of posters basically saying (only slightly paraphrasing) "immersion is bullcrap" and "immersion is a fool's goal" in threads I was in right after I started reading and posting here. Considering that without character and setting immersion, I don't really get the unique thing I find that RPGs offer, and that I've experienced a good deal of immersion, it was quite the bucket of cold water at the time.

JenBurdoo
2017-02-04, 01:54 PM
Ever since reading Tracy Hickman's Extreme Dungeon Mastery, I've tended towards Type 1. I still use regular rulebooks -- as guidance. For example, knowing that a Bullette has a higher CR than an orc tells me something about how to challenge the players -- as do the tactics and skills in the monster statblocks. I run a semi-official campaign for total newbies at work, so I can't just call it "Generic Simplistic Roleplaying Game Program;" calling it "Dungeons and Dragons" is simpler. I have the 3rd edition books, and I use them to introduce the concepts. I specifically tell them that we will be playing a highly simplified "beginners'" version of D&D. "Browse through these books to get an idea of what sort of things your character might be, use or do. Roll three ability scores and choose a few skills or spells - you can pick from the ones in the book if you like. Just be aware that we won't be playing strictly by these rules - they're mostly for inspiration."

Then, when we're playing:

He: My elf swings his sword at the orc.
Me: What's your Physical Stat?
He: 12.
Me: The orc has an 11, so you're about on par with him, but elves are more athletic... roll a nine or better on that twenty-sider.
He: Nineteen!
Me: Roll again for damage.
He: Four.
Me: Not great, your blow just dents his helmet. Your hit was still pretty solid - he's uninjured but seeing stars. Next player's turn!

Hickman literally wrote, "Look, just go get a DM. He'll tell you what to roll and when. How do you know you've won or lost? The DM will tell you." It works. I'd be willing to try a full-scale game, but I play for an hour at a time with utter newbies and this is SO easy to run I don't need anything else. And I can still use the books.

The OP's GM should have said, "We're not playing Star Wars Saga, we're just using the books for inspiration." As long as that's clear and set out at the beginning, it's not a problem. But if he said, "Wanna play Star Wars Saga?" OP is fully within his rights to expect just that and quit if things change from his expectations.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-02-04, 02:31 PM
Ever since reading Tracy Hickman's Extreme Dungeon Mastery, I've tended towards Type 1. I still use regular rulebooks -- as guidance. For example, knowing that a Bullette has a higher CR than an orc tells me something about how to challenge the players -- as do the tactics and skills in the monster statblocks. I run a semi-official campaign for total newbies at work, so I can't just call it "Generic Simplistic Roleplaying Game Program;" calling it "Dungeons and Dragons" is simpler. I have the 3rd edition books, and I use them to introduce the concepts. I specifically tell them that we will be playing a highly simplified "beginners'" version of D&D. "Browse through these books to get an idea of what sort of things your character might be, use or do. Roll three ability scores and choose a few skills or spells - you can pick from the ones in the book if you like. Just be aware that we won't be playing strictly by these rules - they're mostly for inspiration."

While I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with doing this, why not just play a game that supports this instead of throwing together your own? Dungeon World, for example, was specifically designed for a group that refused to ever learn the rules. You can play it with the players just describing what they're doing and the GM calling for rolls when appropriate, 100% by the rules.

EvilCookie
2017-02-04, 03:57 PM
The only question is can your GM make it fun.
I run a 17.5 semihex homebrewbrew with alternative magic (mix between 3.5, 5e, with cannibalized HoMM 4 spells, and on a hexagonal grid when battling outdoors)
I have revamped the equipement system completely (every item has shape (vest, greataxe, morningstar, corinthian helmet...), material (iron, copper, leather, adamantium, blood of cheating players...) and enchantments (whatever)). They have completely different classes (eg. mage uses mana, there is a wound system...), and often they dont even have a clue what they will get on the next lvl (i havent finished all the classes :D) or when they will gain a level (didnt like the exp farmey, number chrunchy dnd system)
They dont know what will hit them, how things work, half of their char sheets are empty, i made a whole new inventory, knowledge and skill, and equipment sheets. They have no clue about any of the wierd homebrew or chrunchy mechanics.
All they know is what they perceive, their story, and the world around them. Half of them used to minmax, the other half metagamed. While i was a player i was the most annoying rules lawyer in existence. And now they seem to be having great fun.

So what im trying to say is try it. Come to a session. And then come to another. For the first 3 sessions i fumbled so much in my own rules that half of my talking was "no wait, actually that works that way". Now it's kinda bearable but i still screw up sometimes. And so do my players. But its all a good story later. Come to a session, and come as a friend there to have fun, not as a critic.

JenBurdoo
2017-02-05, 05:09 AM
While I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with doing this, why not just play a game that supports this instead of throwing together your own? Dungeon World, for example, was specifically designed for a group that refused to ever learn the rules. You can play it with the players just describing what they're doing and the GM calling for rolls when appropriate, 100% by the rules.

That IS what I do. That's exactly what XD20 and its variants are - a game that supports this method of play. It's possible to explain the mechanism and build a character in 60 seconds. The only reason to use the sourcebooks is, well, for source material. I can play virtually anything with this system, though so far have just run generic fantasy with a deliberately DnD flavor.

Heck, the new My Little Pony RPG character sheet could almost be direct from XD20 - I could run it from the sheet without buying the books! That doesn't mean I won't, but from rumors and snippets I suspect it's low-complexity enough for easy conversion.

Corsair14
2017-02-07, 05:41 AM
Switch to the d6 system which favors that kind of off the cuff GMing and character building. d6holocron for the rules.

onikataki
2017-02-07, 12:40 PM
I would have to agree with pretty much everything given as advice.
Go in expecting the unexpected. If it is not your cup of tea, find something else.

I remember when I ran a game once. I ran the level one party against zombies. I wanted something different for my zombies so I start looking through the monster manual and see zombies from tiny-Colossus. I wanted something they would remember. I see "Small" and remember that is 3 feet.. a torso is about 3 feet. So my zombies consisted of eviscerated upper torsos clawing their way to get to the party, animated waist and legs with large shards of glass jetting out all around, even hands trying to "thing" their way

Rules just described zombie sizes (assuming one would use a typical biped human or humanoid) I had fun with the rules and the players had nightmares for weeks :)

ShaneMRoth
2017-02-19, 11:09 PM
While I understand the sentiment behind "better no game than a bad game"... try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

There are a number of yellow flags in the OP, but I see no red flags that alone constitute a deal-breaker.

For example, if a player can manipulate the GM into a minor rule-breaking allowance during character creation, then that suggests that the same GM can be manipulated into doing any number of things down the line. Waiving a prerequisite for a PC to gain a feat isn't great form, but it shouldn't break the game all by itself.

This game seems like it stands a chance of being viable.

If this GM can be trusted, and you can temper your expectations, then it is still possible for a good game to be played.

Efrate
2017-02-20, 12:21 AM
I personally would stay away. The few times I've played in systems where I knew little/had little rules not only was I utterly lost on what I could do, but I had no idea how I could RP out or solve any situation. Even using a pregen. Drown healing and the like I at least know of and can say/be told yeah that doesn't work stuff got messed up, but at least I know I can drown. Maybe its been bad Dming but when a challenge comes and I have no way rules while to do anything other than say "My character solves it cause uh....reasons" I cannot get behind that. I need to know what I can and cannot do. Rule of cool and some handwaving is fine but theres comes a point when lack of rules totally stymies me.

I remember the first CoC game I played in, I was a sort of interested in an occult scholar type. I gave a vague outline of what I wanted and my DM made a character appropriate to do it. Some zombies showed up that we couldn't meaningfully damage. We were trapped at the top of a water tower trying to hold them off somehow with no way down but how they were coming. But not knowing how I could do anything, what my options were, or how to interact with things totally ruined it. I asked the GM later and he said I could have used a circle of salt or something, and I would have known that, but I had no relevant knowledge or skills in game that would have done that, nor had I any salt despite being supposedly prepared for weirdness. Research, driving, some firearms proficiency, and assorted other skills told me nothing and weren't super applicable. A case of bad GMing possibly but this has happened in other systems I've tried as well.

I much prefer to know as much about rules and interaction as possible so I have a set of assumptions in game that I can do X and Y happens. If I try X and don't get Y its bad. If I cannot even do X or know X its worse.

To OP: If its minor fiddly bits, edge cases and the like, yeah some handwaving I can get behind, but if you cannot do something or you try to do something and build in a certain way and have no idea if it works or it flat out doesn't, I wouldnt bother playing past session 1. Try it for sure, maybe its not too bad, but if it is just let the DM know and leave I cannot imagine playing a system that is ran that rules lite, when a nice set of rules exist already.

Pugwampy
2017-02-20, 08:58 AM
If you are all having fun rules jump out the window .

Jay R
2017-02-20, 11:34 AM
Back in college, I played a game with no rules. You described the character's action, and the GM considered, rolled a die, and told you what happened.

I thought it was great fun. But he was an excellent GM, we were all creative players, and it all worked together.

I would have no problem in the game the original poster described.

But so what? I'm not there, and he is. So the question is what Yorkblack would decide to do.

My recommendation is to try it for a session or two, trying to get into the unstructured fun of it. And if he can't have fun with it, then thank the GM for his efforts, and leave the game.

It doesn't matter how much fun I would have playing it. The only question is how much fun you would have. And only you can determine that.