Players don't know the rules.... have you ever?

[Ixtellor]

Have you ever DM'ed a campaign where you don't tell the players what rules you are using. I've come to the conclusion that good story telling and player agency are the only things that matter and the rules are more of a handcuff or limitation on player creativity and role playing --- so I was thinking of DM'ing a campaign where the players don't know the rules system --- in reality it will just be a modified AD&D 2nd edition. So the players will have d6 stats, some hit points based on class, and THACO, and all that stuff.

But my goal is to have them not review their character sheet when confronted with an obstacle, enemy, challenge, problem --- its to just ask them "what do you do" and have them think about a way to succeed. This is how real life works --- Mugger pulls out a gun on the street --- what do you do? You don't scan a character sheet.

So this thread is has anyone DM'ed this way in the past and how did it go?

(I have thought long and hard about this, and have a lot of solutions in terms of just DM reaction to their actions, as in: Player "I jump kick the orc in the head" DM "You have never jumped kicked anything in the head, you're not sure you can jump that high, and your muscle memory doesn't include that skill --- but there might be a chance and if you want to proceed role a d20")

[Ionathus]

Have you ever DM'ed a campaign where you don't tell the players what rules you are using. I've come to the conclusion that good story telling and player agency are the only things that matter and the rules are more of a handcuff or limitation on player creativity and role playing --- so I was thinking of DM'ing a campaign where the players don't know the rules system --- in reality it will just be a modified AD&D 2nd edition. So the players will have d6 stats, some hit points based on class, and THACO, and all that stuff.

But my goal is to have them not review their character sheet when confronted with an obstacle, enemy, challenge, problem --- its to just ask them "what do you do" and have them think about a way to succeed. This is how real life works --- Mugger pulls out a gun on the street --- what do you do? You don't scan a character sheet.

So this thread is has anyone DM'ed this way in the past and how did it go?

(I have thought long and hard about this, and have a lot of solutions in terms of just DM reaction to their actions, as in: Player "I jump kick the orc in the head" DM "You have never jumped kicked anything in the head, you're not sure you can jump that high, and your muscle memory doesn't include that skill --- but there might be a chance and if you want to proceed role a d20")

I certainly wouldn't do it in any edition of D&D. The point of D&D is that you have all of these granular abilities, rules, and spells. Telling the player to give you their big-picture goal and then having you translate it into a D&D ruleset interpretation is...kinda weird. I do that as a DM for new players who are overwhelmed by the rules, but I wouldn't set up a campaign like that. What's the point of not letting them see their odds of success, but then doing all the math anyway?

There are incredibly simple systems that could do this way better. Lasers & Feelings is a 1-page RPG where you have a single stat (from 2-5) and you roll 1d6 against the stat, trying to get either under your number or over your number depending on if the thing is closer to Lasers or closer to Feelings. I would do something like that if I was setting my friends up for a totally-blind RPG experience. If they don't know their abilities or chances of success, what's even the point of doing all the math behind the scenes? Really you're just looking for a coin flip before continuing the narration/roleplaying. Simplify as much as possible.

[Old Harry MTX]

The problem here is also that in real life you may not have your character sheet, but you should know if you are able to jump a ditch, to solve an equation, to play an instrument or to fix an engine. Removing the... Let's call it... Self consciousness from the game feels a bit odd to me.

[Ixtellor]

I certainly wouldn't do it in any edition of D&D. The point of D&D is that you have all of these granular abilities, rules, and spells. Telling the player to give you their big-picture goal and then having you translate it into a D&D ruleset interpretation is...kinda weird. I do that as a DM for new players who are overwhelmed by the rules, but I wouldn't set up a campaign like that. What's the point of not letting them see their odds of success, but then doing all the math anyway?

There are incredibly simple systems that could do this way better. Lasers & Feelings is a 1-page RPG where you have a single stat (from 2-5) and you roll 1d6 against the stat, trying to get either under your number or over your number depending on if the thing is closer to Lasers or closer to Feelings. I would do something like that if I was setting my friends up for a totally-blind RPG experience. If they don't know their abilities or chances of success, what's even the point of doing all the math behind the scenes? Really you're just looking for a coin flip before continuing the narration/roleplaying. Simplify as much as possible.


The problem here is also that in real life you may not have your character sheet, but you should know if you are able to jump a ditch, to solve an equation, to play an instrument or to fix an engine. Removing the... Let's call it... Self consciousness from the game feels a bit odd to me.

Thanks to both who responded.
I didn't want to write a novel --- the players all have 40 years of experience and player creation would involve understanding what their skills are. Also, the math isn't hidden anymore than in a regular campaign. If you don't know a monsters AC, you still make an attack roll and add your modifiers and the DM informs you if you hit or not. The players would have character sheets with ability scores, THAC0, AC, and a list of skills. So its not like they are clueless about what actions they can take --- I just don't want players to feel limited by their skills and feel the freedom to be creative in how they handle an encounter.

Back to real life --- you are you, you're in a bar and a guy starts threatening you with bodily harm --- what do you do? You know your fighting ability, you know your size, you have eyeballs and can make educated assumptions about your opponent, etc.
Player "does he have a weapon?".
DM "make an observation check by rolling a d20" (or just roll for them so they can't meta game based on the results of the roll) -- but they do know basically how good they are at observation checks (+3))
DM "You notice the guy is holding something small in his left hand"..... etc etc.

What I don't want is the class 'player is a level 1 mage' they scan their sheet, they decide to cast 'magic missile' at him. I want that mage to feel the freedom to try whatever they want --- a) I cast magic missile at the lantern above his head
b) I act like im scared and then I punch him in the nose.
c) I pray to Thor to strike him dead [based on the fact you have seen this occur in the past and you have been pretty devout the past few months]
d) You said it was crowded, so I duck down and try to disappear in the crowd.

So they player can try to resolve the encounter like a thief, cleric, mage, fighter --- whatever they player (using their own agency) can come up with.

Player chooses C --- DM makes a roll behind the screen --- DM declares that nothing happens divine wise, but they guy threatening you seems generally scared that you might be a devout priest of Thor and says "Hey, I worship Thor too, sorry for being an orc turd, let me buy you a mead".

Hope this helps allievate your concerns, if not its my fault because I wasn't clear or don't want to bombard you with the 1 month character creation process that cements exactly who the character is and what they can and what they can't do.

[Ionathus]

I'm not sure I understand the thing you're going for. You want to play with a regular ruleset and give the players all their information and character sheets and stats, but you don't want them to use their class abilities as if they were the only option?

That doesn't require homebrew necessarily, that just requires a change in DMing style. Have a talk with your players and explain how you want to incentivize creative solutions, how having them say "so anyway I started blasting" to every challenge isn't fun for you to run, and you want them to think outside the box a little more. And then actually reward them when they make clever choices - up to and including just letting them have the win without rolling for the skill check.

My insight comes from 5e, so some of the minutiae might be different, but I think the point still stands. The reason players default to their spells, skills, and abilities is because the odds and consequences of success are clearly defined. Unique stuff often isn't. The second you stray outside of the rules on your character sheet, you're at the DM's mercy. If you don't feel you can trust your DM, why would you routinely choose to take that risk?

I have had my Druid "forget what trees are" because I rolled a 3 for my Nature check. That doesn't feel good, it doesn't make me feel competent, it doesn't make me want to think outside the box in the future - it makes me want to cast "Speak With Plants" to circumvent all Nature checks for the rest of the campaign just to avoid more DM bull****. You want me to think creatively as a player? Show me that you can be trusted as a DM to not pull out some random crap that sounded fun to you but breaks the spirit of the game and my PC's supposed level of competency.

Sorry, you tapped into a rant there. But I hope that helps. I truly don't think this is a homebrew/mechanics thing you're gonna solve by trying to hide the players' options from them. I think it's a group dynamics thing you'll have to solve by sitting down and talking.

And if you really, truly want your players to stop casting magic missile as a combat spell and start using it (and other spells) creatively, you've either gotta make the consequences roughly predictable and equitable to their combat application, or admit that you don't want to play a combat-focused game like D&D.

[Old Harry MTX]

Mmm, I have a doubt about your example: the player knows that it can cast magic missile, or have to discover what can and can't do via try and error?


My insight comes from 5e, so some of the minutiae might be different, but I think the point still stands. The reason players default to their spells, skills, and abilities is because the odds and consequences of success are clearly defined. Unique stuff often isn't. The second you stray outside of the rules on your character sheet, you're at the DM's mercy. If you don't feel you can trust your DM, why would you routinely choose to take that risk?

I have had my Druid "forget what trees are" because I rolled a 3 for my Nature check. That doesn't feel good, it doesn't make me feel competent, it doesn't make me want to think outside the box in the future - it makes me want to cast "Speak With Plants" to circumvent all Nature checks for the rest of the campaign just to avoid more DM bull****. You want me to think creatively as a player? Show me that you can be trusted as a DM to not pull out some random crap that sounded fun to you but breaks the spirit of the game and my PC's supposed level of competency.

I want a tee with this!

[ngilop]

I 100% fail to understand how anybody can play a game, let alone interact with anything in that game and not know the rules.


Not allowing players to know the very rules on what is, is not, and might be possible to do, or how to build a character. To me is something that only a control obsessed narcissist would do.

Example: oh i got yelled at because I rolled a d8 and it was supposed to be a d10 based on the rules that i am forbidden from knowing by the Omnipotent DM.

[MoiMagnus]

Not allowing players to know the very rules on what is, is not, and might be possible to do, or how to build a character. To me is something that only a control obsessed narcissist would do.

Example: oh i got yelled at because I rolled a d8 and it was supposed to be a d10 based on the rules that i am forbidden from knowing by the Omnipotent DM.

Your example presuppose an obsessed narcissist.
Any rational DM would not blame the player for doing something wrong if they don't know it's wrong.
It follows that if you play a RPG where the players don't know the rules, the player are not expected to roll dice unless directly prompted by the GM (often, the GM might be the one doing all the rolls). In fact, the players might not even have any dice, pen and pencil, character sheet, etc.

Well, IME, character sheets are still useful as otherwise some players don't feel confident enough to try actions because they don't know if they have some good chances of succeeding or not. The character sheet is just a list of promises from the GM of "if you try to do those kinds of actions, you have some good chances of success".



I 100% fail to understand how anybody can play a game, let alone interact with anything in that game and not know the rules.


Because when you play a RPG game without knowing the rules, you have to approach it as "collaborative storytelling", not as a "boardgame". You don't interact with the game rules. That's just not something you do.

In fact, you know "AI Dungeon" and whatever other interactive AI that allows you to play through some RPG-like adventure? That's basically what how it works, except that it's multiplayer and you have a human instead of an AI as a GM. The AI/GM describe the situation, you try to immerse yourself in the narration, you answer using natural language what you want to do, and then the AI/GM tells you what happens.

The only reason why you might want rules is to help the GM to maintain a consistent reality interesting for the players, which help the story to not degenerate as quickly as a "Mother my I" would (and by degenerate I mean either toward total chaos, or toward total railroading).


Have you ever DM'ed a campaign where you don't tell the players what rules you are using. I've come to the conclusion that good story telling and player agency are the only things that matter and the rules are more of a handcuff or limitation on player creativity and role playing --- so I was thinking of DM'ing a campaign where the players don't know the rules system --- in reality it will just be a modified AD&D 2nd edition. So the players will have d6 stats, some hit points based on class, and THACO, and all that stuff.

But my goal is to have them not review their character sheet when confronted with an obstacle, enemy, challenge, problem --- its to just ask them "what do you do" and have them think about a way to succeed. This is how real life works --- Mugger pulls out a gun on the street --- what do you do? You don't scan a character sheet.

So this thread is has anyone DM'ed this way in the past and how did it go?

(I have thought long and hard about this, and have a lot of solutions in terms of just DM reaction to their actions, as in: Player "I jump kick the orc in the head" DM "You have never jumped kicked anything in the head, you're not sure you can jump that high, and your muscle memory doesn't include that skill --- but there might be a chance and if you want to proceed role a d20")

I've DMed Paranoia, and it work well enough for one-shots. I would not advise it for a campaign.
Me and my friend also DMed like that in some homebrew games, though it was not that much "forbidding to know the rules" and more "for the most part the players don't need to know the rules to play, so while the rule pdf can be read by the players, most won't read it and the GM handle every technical part". It worked reasonably well, though only because those homebrews didn't have too much details like "small bonuses to attack/damage/HP/AC/...", and only big bonuses (think D&D5e's advantage/disadvantage system).

For D&D, I would expect the players to get to knows the rules more and more as they level up. Mid-high level D&D relies on the player knowing the rules, they're build for that. As a GM, you'll quickly get overwhelmed, while on the other hand the players won't get to actually enjoy the game all that much as they'll get more and more powerful powers but with a lot of restrictions (spell slots, etc). And playing a game with a lot of restrictions but without having access to what they are is very frustrating.

[Anymage]

D&D does small unit tactics and wacky heroism well, but the d20 engine is a case of pick-your-poison. Either the numbers are small and hard to improve in which case RNG is a significant factor in your success, or the numbers are easy to improve and it's not too hard to create situations where someone goes off the dice. Plus, explicit powers as buttons to press is built into the system pretty hardcore, and that's going to be hard to take out as long as you have D&D as your base.

It might be better to think what you want in a system and then look for what systems do that well. Players will still always aim for their PCs strengths because that's the kind of character they want to play and because people generally want to play to their strengths, but you can definitely look for systems that have a stronger core resolution mechanic, are less focused on powers as explicit buttons to press, and/or have a smaller set of buttons that are more tightly tied to character archetypes.

[Oramac]

Back to real life --- you are you, you're in a bar and a guy starts threatening you with bodily harm --- what do you do? You know your fighting ability, you know your size, you have eyeballs and can make educated assumptions about your opponent, etc.
Player "does he have a weapon?".
DM "make an observation check by rolling a d20" (or just roll for them so they can't meta game based on the results of the roll) -- but they do know basically how good they are at observation checks (+3))
DM "You notice the guy is holding something small in his left hand"..... etc etc.

What I don't want is the class 'player is a level 1 mage' they scan their sheet, they decide to cast 'magic missile' at him. I want that mage to feel the freedom to try whatever they want --- a) I cast magic missile at the lantern above his head
b) I act like im scared and then I punch him in the nose.
c) I pray to Thor to strike him dead [based on the fact you have seen this occur in the past and you have been pretty devout the past few months]
d) You said it was crowded, so I duck down and try to disappear in the crowd.

Honestly, this sounds like exactly the game that the FATE system (https://fate-srd.com/) was designed for. Personally I'd recommend that.

Now, having said that, I do get a bit perturbed when my players just say "I roll insight/stealth/deception/whatever" instead of saying "do I trust this guy?" "I'd like to be sneaky" "I want to lie my arse off to the city guard". IMO the DM should call for the roll; the player should declare an action.

Anyway, the simplest way to handle this in D&D would be to keep their character sheets with you behind the screen. It would be a TON more work for you, but it would make it more cinematic for the players.

[Ionathus]

Adding my voice to the chorus I'm (hopefully) hearing here: if you want your players thinking creatively and not fixating on their abilities, I would strongly encourage you to look for another system that does that better. As Anymage said, D&D is full of "buttons" and it's hard for players to think outside of those concrete chances and do something unique hoping for a much more uncertain result.

[sf_yak]

Have you ever DM'ed a campaign where you don't tell the players what rules you are using. I've come to the conclusion that good story telling and player agency are the only things that matter and the rules are more of a handcuff or limitation on player creativity and role playing --- so I was thinking of DM'ing a campaign where the players don't know the rules system --- in reality it will just be a modified AD&D 2nd edition. So the players will have d6 stats, some hit points based on class, and THACO, and all that stuff.

But my goal is to have them not review their character sheet when confronted with an obstacle, enemy, challenge, problem --- its to just ask them "what do you do" and have them think about a way to succeed. This is how real life works --- Mugger pulls out a gun on the street --- what do you do? You don't scan a character sheet.

So this thread is has anyone DM'ed this way in the past and how did it go?

(I have thought long and hard about this, and have a lot of solutions in terms of just DM reaction to their actions, as in: Player "I jump kick the orc in the head" DM "You have never jumped kicked anything in the head, you're not sure you can jump that high, and your muscle memory doesn't include that skill --- but there might be a chance and if you want to proceed role a d20")

I have, to a degree, with the Genesys/SWRPG system. If you're unfamiliar, it's a success-based system with a secondary symbol on the dice that represent a second axis of good or bad plus a crit success and crit fail symbol. So, you succeed or fail at a thing and you know if you succeeded really well or not plus you have a second axis so the result of a check is 'you succeed but something bad' or 'you succeed and something good' or 'you fail but something good' etc.

The players need to know the basic success-fail system and the basic meaning of the other symbols as described in casual speech. They need to know what the difficulty of a check is before they make it. This last part might be counter to what you're talking about but it's important to making the system work well.

What they don't need to know anything about what the half-dozen tables that lay out specific things on which to spend the advantage symbols. The game works best when the player says 'I have three advantage? I want one of my stray shots to hit a steam pipe and blind that big guy coming my way' and as the GM you can say 'Great! he stumbles back in surprise and seems to think twice about walking through the steam.' while choosing the mechanical effect appropriate for the action and the amount of advantage spent and applying it to the appropriate rolls, calling out its source at the time.

Of course, this can only last so long. Once the players are reading through the books and making their own characters, they'll have access to all the mechanics. Hopefully, by that point, they're used to the playcycle of describing what you want to happen and trusting the GM to implement it.

Unlike your circumstance, I've had experience doing this a couple times with groups totally new to TTRPGs or at least to success-based systems.

[MrStabby]

I like the aspiration.

I think that I feel constrained with a lot of RPGs that everything is being puled from a drop-down list. Yes, your actions and movement modes and interactions and whatever but also character creation. I feel there is a list of classes and skills and races and abilities to chose from and if your strengths as acharacter are not on this list or if you envisage abilities not well represented then you are a bit screwed.

D&D, especially 2nd edition might not be to tool for this, as others have noted. On the other hand it might be ideal - it can be a relatively simple blank slate on which you can overlay a much more rich tapestry of abilities that your players themselves will essentially build by their actions. Having a starting set of stats (which would be reasonable for players to know) and a working assumption that the DM is "fair" isn't much for a player to go on, and it will be a tough start to a game but I imagine as players get deeper into it it could develop well.

[Yakk]

So, if you want to be realistic, do you know how trained combatants fight?

They practice the a set of moves and tactics against the simulation of competent dangerous foes. For ages. And ages.

They learn katas - repeated muscle movements and patterns -- so they can execute them without thinking. They learn to read what the enemy is doing. They fight against a large range of foes in these practice fights, and get good at telling how good a foe is from observation and maybe a bit of initial fighting.

Modern soldiers engage in small unit tactics practice to an insane degree. They know how well they can shoot at an immobile, moving, etc target. They know how to advance and cover and surround foes. They have piles and piles of practice long before they shoot a gun in anger, because the result is an insanely more competent soldier than a green horn.

In any area of expertise, if you are competent you'll know to a pretty high degree how good you are at it compared to the people you have trained with, including your instructors.

And this will hold for non combat expertise. I can probably work out if someone knows more or less than I do at a subject I have a degree in in a short conversation with that person, despite those skills taking years or decades to develop.

Someone who practices shooting a gun or an arrow will be able to give you a really, really good idea of how likely they are to hit a target 50' away. It isn't a mystery to them. A swordsman will have a pretty good idea of how they'd stack up against a typical guard.

If anything, I find that D&D players are more surprised by their PC's abilities and lack thereof than people in real life are with their entire character sheet exposed!