PDA

View Full Version : [Generic] Rules as Shared Language



Matthew
2008-09-01, 02:28 PM
Just thought it was worth starting another thread on this subject, rather than further derailing the Purpose of Class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89517) thread.



This same discussion plays out time and time again. For those of you arguing that the DM should be bound by all the same rules as the PCs (specifically when making NPCs for this thread), you enjoy tactics-first gameplay. You like to metagame as an exercise. Its ok, its a playstyle.

You enjoy meeting an enemy, trying to guess what class/powers they have, and then have your character react in what you think is the most optimal response. That's ok, its a playstyle.

That's how you have fun. You crunch the numbers on your side, crunch the numbers using your best guess of what the DM has put forward, then compare them, and go ahead making your battle plan. That's ok, its a playstyle.

For those of us who don't play that way, it has nothing to do with cheating, or the DM trying to screw the players over, or anything remotely like that. Some of us don't play D&D in a tactics-first gamestyle. That's ok, its a playstyle.




I think there is some merit to the idea of "maths/rules as a shared language" between players and game master, and I am not sure if it is entirely a product of a "game first" philosophy. It is definitely a concept worth exploring in more detail. Perhaps another thread offshoot is called for.


Is it really preferable to communicate with one another via the rules and math of the game rather than by ordinary communication? Is it still roleplaying when you use knowledge of the game rules as the foundation for the decisions your character makes, or is that rather the game part of roleplaying? Is it a separate part, or are they mutually supportive?

Related Threads:

[D&D] How would you react if the DM asked all of the players to hand in their DMGs (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88981)
[Generic] Consistent Rulings (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89204)
[D&D] The Purpose of Class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89517)

Morty
2008-09-01, 02:33 PM
I'd just like to say that associating the preference to have NPCs and PCs work by the same rules with putting tactics first is false. Belive me or not, but there are people who want PCs and NPCs to work by the same rules because it makes the game more immersive -I have troubles finding an exact word, actually- rather than because it makes metagame planning easier.

Saph
2008-09-01, 02:36 PM
I agree with Matthew on this; the 'rules as shared language' idea is a good one. As a player, the more that the NPCs and monsters tend to follow the game rules that I know, the more I can understand the 'physics' of the gameworld, which in turn means I tend to be more involved in the game.

Of course, every DM sooner or later just makes stuff up, and I'm not going to hold it against him when he does . . . but all in all, I have more fun when he makes it up and also goes to the trouble to fit it into the existing game rules.

- Saph

kamikasei
2008-09-01, 02:46 PM
My character in a game has a good idea of how the world around him works, which is described by the rules; he has a fair understanding of his own skills and what he can accomplish with them and probably a decent capacity for judging the difficulty of anything he might attempt. For me, knowing the rules well and being able to rely on the world behaving in a consistent way according to those rules makes it easier for me to put myself in the character's shoes; otherwise I'm dealing with a layer of obscuration where my perception is much more imperfect than the character's. I don't like to have a character take an action that, in character, wouldn't have made sense because my understanding was flawed.

This applies more to matters that touch directly on PCs - skill DCs, how rules work, etc. - and much less to matters that are guidelines for DMs in world construction, such as how to put NPCs together or modify monsters.

Zen Master
2008-09-01, 02:59 PM
I have the most fun when the GM is able to somehow surprise me. What ever form of task-specific, overpowered build he may come up with will never achieve that - and him being able to dissect his NPC/monster and explain every detail of his inner workings is going to entirely fail to impress me after he wiped the floor with our group.

On the other hand, if and when he manages to come up with an idea that's totally unexpected, I will gleefully go to my death (or rather my characters) without needing to know his inspiration or whether it complies with the rules or not.

The two are not mutually exclusive. It's just that they are mutually completely independent, and the stuff I care about (creativeness) doesn't need even a nodding acquaintance with the stuff I don't care about (rules micro management).

If you can achieve both, by all means do .... but really, I'd much rather a GM invests time in making up his own ideas, rather than reading the entire array of thick (and more often than not mind numbingly stupid) splatbooks and appendixes.

Personal flavour note: I really dislike anything non-core. I mean - really.

Thrud
2008-09-01, 03:00 PM
Just thought it was worth starting another thread on this subject, rather than further derailing the Purpose of Class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89517) thread.

I think there is some merit to the idea of "maths/rules as a shared language" between players and game master, and I am not sure if it is entirely a product of a "game first" philosophy. It is definitely a concept worth exploring in more detail. Perhaps another thread offshoot is called for.

DANGER, WALL OF TEXT APPROACHING!

Well, the rules may be a shared language, but I still don't see what that has to do with the differences in playstyle here. I have had a lot of fun playing in game with few or even no rules. I have had fun playing in games with a fair number of rules but no mathmatics (no numbers ever come into play, no dice are ever rolled). Those are game where you completely put your trust in the GM, and let him tell a story in which your characters are a part.

The problem with gamers in general is that, on the whole, gamers are at the high end of average intelligence, and also often social misfits. We are used to being combative and belligerant when it comes to the thing we excell at (using our brains) because we aren't so good at other things. Yes, I realize this is a SWEEPING generalization here, please don't flame me for it. But I have been gaming for over 30 years at this point, having lived in 5 different countries whilst doing it, and played in about 15 different gaming groups, not to mention about 30 or so gaming conventions which have given me an even broader base to draw from. If nothing else simple life experience has taught me that humans as a whole have a desire to prove that they are the best at something.

With most people who play RPGs, the desire to prove that they are the best possible gamers takes the form of encyclopedic memorization of the rules in the desire to prove themselves the best. And why not? Everyone likes to have something that they are very good at. The problem comes when this encyclopedic knowledge is in the possession of a player to a greater degree than the DM. Then the player wishes to prove their knowledge over and over by correcting 'mistakes' that the DM makes.

The trouble is, sometimes the percieved lack in the DM is not actually there, and the player just wishes to prove themselves, and the game is disrupted. Sometimes the lack is there, but the DM tells a very good story, even though he makes minor mistakes in the rules from time to time. Once again the player is disruptive.

So this is the difference in the attitudes that you are talking about. I have no problem playing a game under a DM who makes mistakes with the rules and even bends them from time to time intentionally, as long as I am having fun because the DM tells a good story. And I have come to a realization that I actually enjoy these games more than the ones run by someone who has total encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. And I'll tell you why.

Unpredictability.

Many people I have talked to who are great proponents of the total math/rules gaming experience put forward the theory that they have to know the minutest details of the rules in order to play their characters correctly. And yet, the most fun I usually have playing a game is when the rules are brand new and I DON'T know exactly what is going to happen. And I can get that experience back by having a DM who tweaks things whenever he wants. Life is unpredictable, and a good game duplicates that unpredictability. That is why I prefer not to know the math involved if I don't have to, because if you think about it all the rules in dice based game are created simply to try to duplicate to one degree or another the randomness of the real world. Otherwise why have any random elements at all? Other games that don't have dice or similar random elements put that randomness in the hands of the DM. I have played enough of those other games, that if the DM wishes to add a little more unpredictability to the game it doesn't cause me to scrabble for my books to tell him he is wrong. I enjoy it and go with the flow. This leads to a fundamental difference in play styles.

Sorry about the wall of text but this is something that has been brewing in the back of my head for some time. I think I'll stop here for now and try to gather my thoughts. Perhaps I'll post more later.

nagora
2008-09-01, 03:28 PM
The concept is useful up to a point.

Player characters are in various classes and, although rare, members of those classes are a larger set than just the PCs. An NPC druid is just like a PC druid, and so on. Unless you are going down the "Player characters are unique" road, this is all a useful shorthand.

But, for example, when it comes to monsters I don't see any great need for ability score generation systems for every humanoid monster like kobolds or titans. The characters would have little in the way of means to find that information out anyway, so there's simply no use or advantage in having a unified language that describes them in the way that a PC is.

If I say "He's a half-elven illusionist" then that tells the players something and cuts out a bunch of things I might otherwise have to explain; if I say "He's a ur-vile loremaster" then, chances are, I am going to have to explain myself. And, if I'm going to explain what that means, I'd far rather explain it in terms the character would understand than try to fit it into some class or template:

"It's black, eyeless, and carries an iron rod which seems to emit a metallic smell, like air after lightning. He seems cross." Is MUCH better than "He's a basic goblin with the breeding construct template with 'darksight' and 'blind' plus <list of feats that explain the magic use etc.>".

So, sometimes the practical answer is that the players know a fair amount about how characters and simple things work and if the equivilent NPCs are talked about in those terms then everyone can get on with the game, but the alien things in the world need not, and maybe even should not, be forced into that limited way of speaking.

But, if the DM says that the opposing MU is casting dozens of lightning bolts, then either there should be a reason that the characters were deceived into thinking it was a magic user, or there should be a reason why that magic user could do that rather than the DM just saying "When I say 'magic user', I am of course not suggesting that he was a PHB magic user! Is that what you thought I meant?". At that point the players are entitled to string the DM up.

[Will this do? N.]

Matthew
2008-09-01, 03:37 PM
I agree with Matthew on this; the 'rules as shared language' idea is a good one. As a player, the more that the NPCs and monsters tend to follow the game rules that I know, the more I can understand the 'physics' of the gameworld, which in turn means I tend to be more involved in the game.

This point just came up in the Purpose of Class thread as well. I think there are principally two 'extreme ways' of perceiving the game that are related to the "crunch and fluff" dichotomy.

1) The imagined world informs (or takes precedence over) the rules
2) The rules inform (or take precedence over) the imagined world

They seem similar, but are in fact radically different perceptions of the function of game rules. I much prefer the former to the latter. That said, I suspect many people stand somewhere between, giving precedence to one or the other in different situations.



But, if the DM says that the opposing MU is casting dozens of lightning bolts, then either there should be a reason that the characters were deceived into thinking it was a magic user, or there should be a reason why that magic user could do that rather than the DM just saying "When I say 'magic user', I am of course not suggesting that he was a PHB magic user! Is that what you thought I meant?". At that point the players are entitled to string the DM up.

Excellent point. When game terms interfere with "real terms". Characters who are not knights but have taken the knight base class strike me as another example of something that needs to be explained outside of the rules language.

Raum
2008-09-01, 03:48 PM
Is it really preferable to communicate with one another via the rules and math of the game rather than by ordinary communication? Does it need to be mutually exclusive? Communicating in ordinary language shouldn't be a straitjacket nor should using meta game terms. It's simpler to use jargon to get specific concepts across at times.

From a purely RP point of view, there needs to be a separation between the player speaking as a character and the player describing the character's actions. The first should avoid meta game jargon while the second should use any specific game terms necessary to avoid confusion. Often this means following descriptive prose with game mechanics. As the players learn each others' game and communication styles the mechanics often need less elucidation. But try playing a new game without mentioning mechanics...confusion will abound.


Is it still roleplaying when you use knowledge of the game rules as the foundation for the decisions your character makes, or is that rather the game part of roleplaying? This is why I compare mechanics to the 'physics of the game world'. You and I understand Newtonian physics at a basic level. We may not know why or be able to predict all of the variables, but we have a fair idea how far we can throw a baseball. Shouldn't characters in a game world have a similar basic knowledge?

And no, Newtonian physics don't truly describe the world. They do describe how we interact with it more often than not...just as game mechanics describe how characters interact with the game world.


Is it a separate part, or are they mutually supportive? I think they can be supportive. They can also be opposed. Much depends on how well the rules are written. When the mechanics directly describe a character's actions, they're supportive. The Jump skill is one possible example of this.
When the mechanics have little or nothing to do with character actions there's no interaction between the two. Think of the attack roll. Does an attack mean I'm swinging a sword, bashing with the pommel, or kicking him while he's distracted by the sword? You don't know until it's described.
Poorly written mechanics sometimes oppose role playing. Consider Diplomacy...do we really believe a diplomat could turn the BBEG into his best friend with a few moments of conversation? Or that a poorly worded demand should succeed due to a high skill?

nagora
2008-09-01, 03:59 PM
This point just came up in the Purpose of Class thread as well. I think there are principally two 'extreme ways' of perceiving the game that are related to the "crunch and fluff" dichotomy.

1) The imagined world informs (or takes precedence over) the rules
2) The rules inform (or take precedence over) the imagined world

They seem similar, but are in fact radically different perceptions of the function of game rules. I much prefer the former to the latter. That said, I suspect many people stand somewhere between, giving precedence to one or the other in different situations.

Well, it'll be no surprise that I pick #1 too. Skill-based systems usually have a big dollop of #2, which is why I dislike them. As an example, Jump skills are almost always so totally out of whack with players' real world knowledge of how far people can jump that the skill is counter productive. I find that the more I know about any real-world skill, the more I find RPG skill systems embarrassingly bad.

As such, I normally pick #1, throw out the skill system and tell the player what really happens in the gameworld.

Rules should support, and obviously one should probably pick the rules that support your vision of the gameworld best, but you'll never, as a DM, find one that is an exact fit so DMs should always feel free to discard rules that are getting in the way (shall I mention "fluff" and "crunch"? Best not to...:smallsmile:)

Raum
2008-09-01, 04:12 PM
This point just came up in the Purpose of Class thread as well. I think there are principally two 'extreme ways' of perceiving the game that are related to the "crunch and fluff" dichotomy.

1) The imagined world informs (or takes precedence over) the rules
2) The rules inform (or take precedence over) the imagined worldAs you say, those are extreme points of view. I prefer a game where rules describe how characters interact with the world. Neither trumps the other, they work together. If I must have a trump, I'd choose "fun". :smallamused: Perhaps overly optimistic.

Ulzgoroth
2008-09-01, 04:17 PM
This point just came up in the Purpose of Class thread as well. I think there are principally two 'extreme ways' of perceiving the game that are related to the "crunch and fluff" dichotomy.

1) The imagined world informs (or takes precedence over) the rules
2) The rules inform (or take precedence over) the imagined world

They seem similar, but are in fact radically different perceptions of the function of game rules. I much prefer the former to the latter. That said, I suspect many people stand somewhere between, giving precedence to one or the other in different situations.
I disagree with your division to a degree.

To some degree, I'm with 2, straight out. Because I don't consider an RPG where I can't make rules-based predictions to be playable, so the rules-based predictions have to inform the game world.

But on the other hand, this doesn't mean that every individual game should be pinned into the same physics by the rules. If the imagined world calls for rules changes to support it, those changes should be made.

Overall: The game world informs the rules, ideally but not necessarily prior to play. If this is done effectively, the rules never need to take precedence over the imagined world because they should be producing results that agree with it.

Saph
2008-09-01, 05:10 PM
This point just came up in the Purpose of Class thread as well. I think there are principally two 'extreme ways' of perceiving the game that are related to the "crunch and fluff" dichotomy.

1) The imagined world informs (or takes precedence over) the rules
2) The rules inform (or take precedence over) the imagined world

They seem similar, but are in fact radically different perceptions of the function of game rules. I much prefer the former to the latter. That said, I suspect many people stand somewhere between, giving precedence to one or the other in different situations.

Well, it depends. In some cases it's imagination all the way. However, once the rules have been brought in, I like to be able to depend on them.

To take a simple example, the Glitterdust spell. If my wizard character gets hit with it, I'll be calculating how many rounds it'll last, and working out the enemy's rough caster level from that (okay, I probably won't get the count exactly right, but I can get a general idea). Now, it's possible that this won't work out - maybe the enemy's got Sudden Extend, maybe he's got something that boosts his CL - but it matters quite a lot to me that the NPCs "play by the same rules". If the Glitterdust spell lasts as long as the DM wants it do, and does whatever the DM feels like at the time, then I'm going to be annoyed, because the DM's basically saying to me "You have to follow the rules, I don't." Which is obviously true, but rubbing my face in it is just bad manners.

I like feeling that I'm playing in a real, consistent world, and rules as a shared language is one of the ways to reinforce that.

- Saph

nagora
2008-09-01, 05:16 PM
To take a simple example, the Glitterdust spell. If my wizard character gets hit with it, I'll be calculating how many rounds it'll last, and working out the enemy's rough caster level from that (okay, I probably won't get the count exactly right, but I can get a general idea). Now, it's possible that this won't work out - maybe the enemy's got Sudden Extend, maybe he's got something that boosts his CL - but it matters quite a lot to me that the NPCs "play by the same rules". If the Glitterdust spell lasts as long as the DM wants it do, and does whatever the DM feels like at the time, then I'm going to be annoyed, because the DM's basically saying to me "You have to follow the rules, I don't." Which is obviously true, but rubbing my face in it is just bad manners.
Well, that's what I was saying about the magic user with lightning bolt incontenance: the problem arises if the DM said that you were looking at a Glitterdust spell - that's a defined term and the DM's being a prat if s/he doesn't mean it.

If the DM at least says "It looks like a glitterdust spell," or simply describes the effect then they've at least covered their modesty and left it up to you to assume. After all, you can research a spell which looks like glitterdust but has the effect of cloudkill if you want and watch the NPCs reaction :smallamused:

Saph
2008-09-01, 05:24 PM
Well, that's what I was saying about the magic user with lightning bolt incontenance: the problem arises if the DM said that you were looking at a Glitterdust spell - that's a defined term and the DM's being a prat if s/he doesn't mean it.

If the DM at least says "It looks like a glitterdust spell," or simply describes the effect then they've at least covered their modesty and left it up to you to assume.

Sure, but if they keep on doing this over and over again, it starts straining credulity after a while. Okay, my wizard's got a +20 Spellcraft and +20 Knowledge (arcana), and she still can't figure out anything about these spells she keeps getting hit with? It's cool when rare or unusual enemies have unidentifiable effects, but not when everyone does.

I'm fine with the never-before-encountered Unknowable Aberration from Beyond being able to break the rules up, down, and sideways (it makes it more fun, in fact), but I'm not fine with every random NPC I meet on the road being able to do the same thing.

- Saph

Matthew
2008-09-01, 06:46 PM
Does it need to be mutually exclusive? Communicating in ordinary language shouldn't be a straitjacket nor should using meta game terms. It's simpler to use jargon to get specific concepts across at times.

Heh, heh. No it does not, the questions were not intended to define all the possible permutations. Game jargon is an excellent way of describing things that describe game rules, though problems arise when "game jargon" becomes confused with "real language" [e.g. the "strong wind" discussion].



From a purely RP point of view, there needs to be a separation between the player speaking as a character and the player describing the character's actions. The first should avoid meta game jargon while the second should use any specific game terms necessary to avoid confusion. Often this means following descriptive prose with game mechanics. As the players learn each others' game and communication styles the mechanics often need less elucidation. But try playing a new game without mentioning mechanics...confusion will abound.

I don't know about that. When everybody is new it might be an issue, but only one person really needs to know the rules in an RPG.



This is why I compare mechanics to the 'physics of the game world'. You and I understand Newtonian physics at a basic level. We may not know why or be able to predict all of the variables, but we have a fair idea how far we can throw a baseball. Shouldn't characters in a game world have a similar basic knowledge?

I wish. Whilst I may understand the theory, people continue to surprise in real life, even as to the distance they can throw an object. I might have a ballpark idea, but I couldn't guess what the chance is of somebody accurately throwing a baseball 300 feet and hitting a person sized target might be (let alone the probability of knocking a person out at that distance).



And no, Newtonian physics don't truly describe the world. They do describe how we interact with it more often than not...just as game mechanics describe how characters interact with the game world.

I don't think game mechanics describe how characters interact with fictional worlds. I think they abstractly describe how players interact with the game world. Some stuff is very precise [i.e how many arrows can Talric shoot in a six second combat round (note, not how many arrows can Talric shoot in six seconds, which is a slightly different issue)] and some stuff is very ambiguous [i.e. how many times does Talric attempt to strike his enemy in a six second combat round]



I think they can be supportive. They can also be opposed. Much depends on how well the rules are written. When the mechanics directly describe a character's actions, they're supportive. The Jump skill is one possible example of this.
When the mechanics have little or nothing to do with character actions there's no interaction between the two. Think of the attack roll. Does an attack mean I'm swinging a sword, bashing with the pommel, or kicking him while he's distracted by the sword? You don't know until it's described.
Poorly written mechanics sometimes oppose role playing. Consider Diplomacy...do we really believe a diplomat could turn the BBEG into his best friend with a few moments of conversation? Or that a poorly worded demand should succeed due to a high skill?

Well, apart from disagreeing with whether jump is a good example, yes a rule can describe something specifically or something very abstractly.



As you say, those are extreme points of view. I prefer a game where rules describe how characters interact with the world. Neither trumps the other, they work together. If I must have a trump, I'd choose "fun". :smallamused: Perhaps overly optimistic.

Fun is definitely the key. I consider the rules to be a mechanism that allows the players to interact with the game world. There would be no probability in an imaginary world left to its own devices, things would just occur as the person imagining it decided.



I disagree with your division to a degree.



Well, it depends. In some cases it's imagination all the way. However, once the rules have been brought in, I like to be able to depend on them.

As I said, people are more likely to be somewhere on the spectrum, giving the rules precedence in some situations, and the imagined game world precedence in others. How they decide which has precedence in which situation is I think a potential source of dispute, as it basically comes down to "what feels right" (which is to say, it's preferential).



I like feeling that I'm playing in a real, consistent world, and rules as a shared language is one of the ways to reinforce that.

It can be.

This has been very interesting so far, thanks to everyone for their input. The distinction and crossover between "game jargon" and "descriptive language" (probably a better term for that) is a particularly valuable insight. The number of "descriptive terms" invested with specific and fixed "game meaning" is probably one of the core differences between "rules light" and "rules heavy" systems.

Being clear when you are using game jargon and when you are using descriptive language (assuming they are not one in the same) seems very important to communicating between participants.

Interesting Examples:

"A strong wind blows across the vale."

"The mercenary draws a long sword from his scabbard."

"Heldras is a sorcerer."

Tormsskull
2008-09-01, 07:54 PM
To take a simple example, the Glitterdust spell. If my wizard character gets hit with it, I'll be calculating how many rounds it'll last, and working out the enemy's rough caster level from that (okay, I probably won't get the count exactly right, but I can get a general idea).

Here's the thing. A DM cannot control what a player thinks, it is impossible. A DM should not be trying to control what a character thinks, except in specific circumstances. So, if you're doing these calcuations in your head, and you have determined that an NPC is a level 5 wizard by it, fine. If the DM has all the NPCs by the book, you have just determined his level.

But what do you do with that information? At this stage, have you metagamed? I would say yes, but again, its in your head, DM can't do anything about it, and doesn't even know about it.

The question is, once you have figured that out, can you say to the other players "Hey guys, that guy that hit me with glitterdust is a level 5 wizard."

To me that is a HUGE no no. There is nothing more breaking to an atmosphere than constantly quoting rules and formulas in game play.

Now, if you turn that knowledge into "Hmm, I've seen this spell before. It is a relatively easy spell for a novice wizard to use. But by its strength, the fact that it lasted so long, I'm guessing he is a bit more capable then a novice. We had best be careful." Then I'd say you could pull it off.

Raum
2008-09-01, 08:31 PM
I wish. Whilst I may understand the theory, people continue to surprise in real life, even as to the distance they can throw an object. I might have a ballpark idea, but I couldn't guess what the chance is of somebody accurately throwing a baseball 300 feet and hitting a person sized target might be (let alone the probability of knocking a person out at that distance).I don't need to know the exact chance in real life. I know I'd have such a low chance of succeeding I wouldn't try if I had other options.

Why get hung up on whether or not we can calculate values IRL as we can with game mechanics? Just because game mechanics are more limiting doesn't mean it's particularly useful to throw them out altogether. Mechanics are part of a player's decision making process. Just as inertia is part of yours and mine.


I don't think game mechanics describe how characters interact with fictional worlds. I think they abstractly describe how players interact with the game world. Some stuff is very precise [i.e how many arrows can Talric shoot in a six second combat round (note, not how many arrows can Talric shoot in six seconds, which is a slightly different issue)] and some stuff is very ambiguous [i.e. how many times does Talric attempt to strike his enemy in a six second combat round]Semantics. Mechanics describe how characters interact with the game world to players.


Well, apart from disagreeing with whether jump is a good example, yes a rule can describe something specifically or something very abstractly. How poorly Jump simulates RL jumping is a separate issue. The Jump skill directly describes the character's action. He jumps X feet. It directly supports the action's description - "I run forward and leap 20' to grab hold of the ship!" The mechanic supports, even drives the role playing.


This has been very interesting so far, thanks to everyone for their input. The distinction and crossover between "game jargon" and "descriptive language" (probably a better term for that) is a particularly valuable insight. The number of "descriptive terms" invested with specific and fixed "game meaning" is probably one of the core differences between "rules light" and "rules heavy" systems.

Being clear when you are using game jargon and when you are using descriptive language (assuming they are not one in the same) seems very important to communicating between participants.Agreed!

Colmarr
2008-09-01, 08:42 PM
it matters quite a lot to me that the NPCs "play by the same rules".

I wanted to poke my head in here and seek a clarification on this point, both from Saph and others.

Obviously, playing by the rules is of some importance to D&D players. After all, the game is definitely "rules-heavy". My question is (and I use 4e terminology only for reasons of being specific):

If the monsters play by internally consistent rules (eg. all monsters operate under parameters outlined by their role, type and level) and PCs play by internally consistent rules (eg. all PCs operate under parameters outlined by their role, type and level), how important is it that the "rules" for monsters are the same as the "rules" for PCs?

To answer my own question, for me "not very". As long as I am reasonably able to anticipate what sort of abilities might be available to enemies and allies, behind-the-scenes consistency is of quite low importance.

Matthew
2008-09-01, 09:27 PM
I don't need to know the exact chance in real life. I know I'd have such a low chance of succeeding I wouldn't try if I had other options.

Why get hung up on whether or not we can calculate values IRL as we can with game mechanics? Just because game mechanics are more limiting doesn't mean it's particularly useful to throw them out altogether. Mechanics are part of a player's decision making process. Just as inertia is part of yours and mine.

Well, indeed, that's rather the point. Whether you have very explicit visible game mechanics that calculate probabilities of success to within 5% or you have a general idea as to your chances of success or failure, makes little difference in the decision making process. That is to say, both are equally valid approaches.



Semantics. Mechanics describe how characters interact with the game world to players.

I could be by myself on this, but I think this semantic difference is an important one. The mechanics exist only for the game, not to simulate the imaginary world. They are a separate layer from the characters and imagined reality, only used to determine outcomes when players are involved.



How poorly Jump simulates RL jumping is a separate issue. The Jump skill directly describes the character's action. He jumps X feet. It directly supports the action's description - "I run forward and leap 20' to grab hold of the ship!" The mechanic supports, even drives the role playing.

Well, I take your point, but it seems to me to contrast with the believability distinction you drew for diplomacy. I suppose it's not an exclusive list though, and that something can both support and oppose roleplaying.



If the monsters play by internally consistent rules (eg. all monsters operate under parameters outlined by their role, type and level) and PCs play by internally consistent rules (eg. all PCs operate under parameters outlined by their role, type and level), how important is it that the "rules" for monsters are the same as the "rules" for PCs?

To answer my own question, for me "not very". As long as I am reasonably able to anticipate what sort of abilities might be available to enemies and allies, behind-the-scenes consistency is of quite low importance.

Yes, the consistency issue is an interesting one. Few complex rule sets can truly be completely consistent. D20 especially is an exception based rule set. We just have to compare the movement speed of Goblins to Dwarves to see that arbitrary decisions get made at the design level all the time. Once they are enshrined as part of the rule set they may appear consistent, especially when explicit mechanisms for introducing exceptions exist, such as classes and feats. D20 isn't really very consistent in and of itself, but it is very structured.

Deepblue706
2008-09-01, 10:08 PM
Is it really preferable to communicate with one another via the rules and math of the game rather than by ordinary communication? Is it still roleplaying when you use knowledge of the game rules as the foundation for the decisions your character makes, or is that rather the game part of roleplaying? Is it a separate part, or are they mutually supportive?


I pretty much always use ordinary communication to convey any ideas about what's going on in-game. I do not believe players should inherently be allowed to access the explicit knowledge of anything just because they happen to be familiar with the idea (ie, knowing that the DC for swimming through rough water is 15). Instead, I take a look at the PC's sheets, check their probability of success (sometimes factoring in their Wisdom, for an individual character's judgment) and then explain the situation in vague terms (I might say "You think swimming across looks a bit risky"). To me, that seems like the only "right" way to play.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-09-01, 10:35 PM
But, if the DM says that the opposing MU is casting dozens of lightning bolts, then either there should be a reason that the characters were deceived into thinking it was a magic user, or there should be a reason why that magic user could do that rather than the DM just saying "When I say 'magic user', I am of course not suggesting that he was a PHB magic user! Is that what you thought I meant?". At that point the players are entitled to string the DM up.

Yes. Even as someone who is all for monsters operating under different rules, I still know I need to make sure that PCs don't feel cheated. When a monster breaks the rules dramatically, it should be a rare occurance and, in my opinion, an important story point, which probably reveals that something about the current quest or adventure that the players believed is also untrue. Otherwise, the monsters should be restricted in their powers and abilities to things which are similar to, and able to be dealt with by, the PCs.

@OP: I agree with Matthew on this, and have said something very similar in the "Taking away the DMG" thread he links above. I think the key to good roleplaying is not having a good backstory or acting well. It is being able to ensure that your in-character actions move the game forward, keep the party together, and facilitate the fun of the game. THAT is the real challenge of roleplaying games. I think even the Giant has a bit about that in his Gaming articles.

So, in that sense, a knowledge of the rules is beneficial to the PCs, because it helps them keep their characters doing what they want to be able to do (moving the game forward and facilitating fun), but good roleplaying will turn that metagaming into something their characters actually would know or do.

The Key:
So the guy with swimming ranks, for example, not the DM, should be the one who explains how hard it would be to swim across a given pool or river!

bosssmiley
2008-09-02, 05:03 AM
Rules as a shared language - interesting.
Arguing over the rules of that language and their application - uh oh!

You do realise that having this argument turns people into the gaming equivalent of Lynne Truss and the other smugly punctilious wannabe sub-editors on "Never Mind the Full Stops". :smallannoyed:

I'm not criticising, I'm just saying... :smalltongue:

Matthew
2008-09-02, 06:03 AM
You do realise that having this argument turns people into the gaming equivalent of Lynne Truss and the other smugly punctilious wannabe sub-editors on "Never Mind the Full Stops". :smallannoyed:

Ha. Better than endlessly arguing over the nature of RPGs without ever understanding what the other person is saying or why. :smallbiggrin:

Saph
2008-09-02, 07:38 AM
But what do you do with that information? At this stage, have you metagamed? I would say yes, but again, its in your head, DM can't do anything about it, and doesn't even know about it.

But you see, I don't think this is metagaming. This is my character using her in-character knowledge of the laws of reality for the universe she lives in, which state that a more powerful caster can make a spell last longer. This actually makes the game more immersive for me, not less. In-character, it would be something like "Mordenkainen's Second Law states that, all things being equal, the duration of a spell is directly proportional to the power of the caster." If my character can count on these in-game laws being true, then I find that the world feels more real.


I wanted to poke my head in here and seek a clarification on this point, both from Saph and others.

Obviously, playing by the rules is of some importance to D&D players. After all, the game is definitely "rules-heavy". My question is (and I use 4e terminology only for reasons of being specific):

If the monsters play by internally consistent rules (eg. all monsters operate under parameters outlined by their role, type and level) and PCs play by internally consistent rules (eg. all PCs operate under parameters outlined by their role, type and level), how important is it that the "rules" for monsters are the same as the "rules" for PCs?

To answer my own question, for me "not very". As long as I am reasonably able to anticipate what sort of abilities might be available to enemies and allies, behind-the-scenes consistency is of quite low importance.

I don't agree here, and the reason I don't agree can be framed as a simple question: what's the in-character difference between a PC and a monster?

If my PC has to come up with something like, "Well, we're special, and the laws of reality are completely different for us," then I can't help losing interest a bit - it breaks suspension of disbelief. That said, I'll still play, as long as the physics (game rules) are basically the same for PCs and NPCs - in other words, as long as there's some level of consistency.

- Saph

Matthew
2008-09-02, 07:54 AM
But you see, I don't think this is metagaming. This is my character using her in-character knowledge of the laws of reality for the universe she lives in, which state that a more powerful caster can make a spell last longer. This actually makes the game more immersive for me, not less. In-character, it would be something like "Mordenkainen's Second Law states that, all things being equal, the duration of a spell is directly proportional to the power of the caster." If my character can count on these in-game laws being true, then I find that the world feels more real.

One of the definitions of meta gaming is apparently somebody using "knowledge of the mathematical nature of character statistics" to "change the way they play their character." I culled that off wikipedia, though, so it's anybody's guess how true it is. The definition is problematic, as it implies that if the mathematical conclusions are in accordance to how you would have played the character anyway, then it's not metagaming (since it didn't change the outcome), and determining whether it did or did not change the outcome once done seems difficult to me. It is more obvious when a player chooses to do something, then someone informs them of some maths that changes their decision, but if the process is occuring in the person's head, it is much more difficult to perceive.

I should say, I don't consider meta gaming to be intrinsically bad, it's just something that you do in play.



I don't agree here, and the reason I don't agree can be framed as a simple question: what's the in-character difference between a PC and a monster?

If my PC has to come up with something like, "Well, we're special, and the laws of reality are completely different for us," then I can't help losing interest a bit - it breaks suspension of disbelief. That said, I'll still play, as long as the physics (game rules) are basically the same for PCs and NPCs - in other words, as long as there's some level of consistency.

What is the mechanical difference between a player character and a monster, though? The players aren't actually using different rules from the monsters in play, they're using different rules than the monsters for advancement/construction, and that has always been the primary disconnect in D&D.

Charity
2008-09-02, 08:13 AM
When the orc raiding party cuts a swaith of destruction through the local villiages, they don't advance in level as they do so, fundimentally there is always going to be a seperate reality for monsters, and we as players conspire to keep this knowledge from our characters... it stops them from getting too up themselves.

hamlet
2008-09-02, 08:30 AM
Ha. Better than endlessly arguing over the nature of RPGs without ever understanding what the other person is saying or why. :smallbiggrin:

Would this be a sly way of referring to that other thread?



Forgive me for not reading the entirety of this thread, but I'm just going to throw my two cents in here.

The rules are a common language between the DM and the Players in the way that they are a common understanding of how actions are resolved in relation to the players and in their general vicinity. Without the content of the PHB largely intact as a common ground, players and DM's often are incapable of effectively communicating to a degree.

However, that does not mean that the rules are primary, or even especially important in the long run.

Of course, the rule do inform, often, what happens and how it happens in the game world. So when the DM uses the language of the rules, it's a common understanding: i.e., if the DM informs you that the evil wizard casts fireball at you, you understand the basic function of the spell based on your knowledge of a player.* However, the rules do not govern the game world in any larger sense, but merely facilitate task resolution as related to the PC's. Outside of the realm of the PC's, events, tasks, and anything else is governed entirely by the DM and the world itself.

*You as a player will most likely know the full effects of the fireball spell, but whether or not your character does is an entirely different story.

This post is basically a rambling way of saying . . . I'm not entirely sure what.

Matthew
2008-09-02, 09:10 AM
When the orc raiding party cuts a swaith of destruction through the local villiages, they don't advance in level as they do so, fundimentally there is always going to be a seperate reality for monsters, and we as players conspire to keep this knowledge from our characters... it stops them from getting too up themselves.

Technically, because the DMG states that NPCs gain experience just as PCs do, then an Orc raiding party in D20 would advance in precisely that manner. In practice, it's a nonesense, and D20 is the only version of Dungeons & Dragons to suggest it.



Would this be a sly way of referring to that other thread?

Just a general observation.

Thrawn183
2008-09-02, 10:01 AM
I'm not actually entirely certain what this thread is about, but I agree with Saph. People become more powerful as they gain levels. If I see somebody casting a maximized fireball without a scroll or something, I know they are a powerful, powerful mage. That's not metagaming, that's using in character knowledge that your intern wizard isn't going to be able to do something like that.

Characters probably don't know the 5 ft. step mechanic. They do, on the other hand, know that they can move a little bit without opening themselves up for attack but that at a certain point they're going to get hurt. They also probably have a decent idea of how far this "little bit" is.

Tormsskull
2008-09-02, 10:10 AM
If I see somebody casting a maximized fireball without a scroll or something, I know they are a powerful, powerful mage.

Again, all preference, but how would you know that a fireball was maximized?

Take, for instance, a mage casts a Maximized fireball. Does that feel a certain way to your character?

Now, take, for instance, the same mage casts a fireball and rolls max damage on his d6s. Does that feel a certain way to your character? Is your character able to determine the difference between a maximized fireball and a fireball that dealt max damage?

I would argue that no, a character would not.

Matthew
2008-09-02, 10:23 AM
I'm not actually entirely certain what this thread is about...

As I see it, the thread is about communication at the game table, and the way in which our perception of "what is appropriate" and "jargon versus description" informs how we discuss the game with the wider world [i.e. the root of otherwise irreconcilable disagreements about what constitutes "good"].

AKA_Bait
2008-09-02, 11:15 AM
I'd just like to say that associating the preference to have NPCs and PCs work by the same rules with putting tactics first is false. Belive me or not, but there are people who want PCs and NPCs to work by the same rules because it makes the game more immersive -I have troubles finding an exact word, actually- rather than because it makes metagame planning easier.

I agree. To me, shared language is pretty much a spot on term for what is going on when the DM says 'the sword is +1' or some such. It allows communication of specifics about the quality of an item etc. that, since neither the players nor the DM live in the created world or have the same internal jump from sensory stimulus to value judgment, isn't fully possible (at least not without lots and lots of work) with pure fluff description. A fighter, whose entire life is carried in a scabbard at his hip, is going to know much more and have a more detailed understanding of the quality of a blade than either DM can impart or the Player can translate in the other direction.


Personal flavour note: I really dislike anything non-core. I mean - really.

I find this odd, considering what you said above. Surely, homebrew isn't core...


Many people I have talked to who are great proponents of the total math/rules gaming experience put forward the theory that they have to know the minutest details of the rules in order to play their characters correctly.

I feel like that's an overstatement. Perhaps it is true of the specific many you are referring to, but most 'total math/rules' players I know (I'll include myself here) don't expect to know everything mathematically. They do expect to know those things they would expect their PC to know well, like the AC bonus of chainmail if a fighter and the level of spell if a caster. Yes, the character won't know the AC as a numeric value, but IMO it's possibly the best way to effectivley bridge the PC knowledge character knowledge.


Life is unpredictable, and a good game duplicates that unpredictability. That is why I prefer not to know the math involved if I don't have to, because if you think about it all the rules in dice based game are created simply to try to duplicate to one degree or another the randomness of the real world. Otherwise why have any random elements at all? Other games that don't have dice or similar random elements put that randomness in the hands of the DM. I have played enough of those other games, that if the DM wishes to add a little more unpredictability to the game it doesn't cause me to scrabble for my books to tell him he is wrong. I enjoy it and go with the flow. This leads to a fundamental difference in play styles.

And I suspect, worldviews. I suspect that I don't view life as being as unpredictable as you do. For mostly everything I do, I have a pretty solid idea of what the result will be. Msot of the time, I'm also right.


If I must have a trump, I'd choose "fun". :smallamused: Perhaps overly optimistic.

And of course.... what "fun" means will vary with group.


Now, take, for instance, the same mage casts a fireball and rolls max damage on his d6s. Does that feel a certain way to your character? Is your character able to determine the difference between a maximized fireball and a fireball that dealt max damage?

I would argue that no, a character would not.

A matter of fluff as well. If the act of casting a maximized fireball is slightly different than casting one that is not maximized, someone with some ranks in spell craft should be able to notice difference.

Tormsskull
2008-09-02, 11:48 AM
A matter of fluff as well. If the act of casting a maximized fireball is slightly different than casting one that is not maximized, someone with some ranks in spell craft should be able to notice difference.

Is it? Does it say in the books somewhere that when you cast a spell maximized you shout out "Maximized!"

Where do you draw the line? Does a character who has the feat Combat Reflexes stand just a little more at the ready, allowing other knowledgable fighters to determine that even though that guy made a quick jab as someone ran by them 1-6 seconds ago, he'll be able to do it again within the next 1-6 seconds?

And, regardless to your answer to this question, the root question is "Why do you choose to interpret the mechanics this way?"

I honestly believe that people who interpret it this way do so because they enjoy the metagame. They like challenges that they can solve using their mastery of the rules system. They don't want something like the separation between character/player knowledge getting in their way. Therefore they define 'character knowledge' as anything they as a player can extrapolate from the mechanics.

That could be a lot of fun, and I would think it is the default assumption in one-shot adventures or modules. I don't think it lends to an immersive roleplaying atmosphere, however.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-02, 12:04 PM
Is it?

Yes. In the case of a cast spell, since there is no information either way, it's the DM's discretion. Personally, I would let someone with a sucessful spell craft check know the difference. Not all DM's do, have to, or should.


Does it say in the books somewhere that when you cast a spell maximized you shout out "Maximized!"

No, but it does say you use a higher level spell slot. That might, depending upon the DM, mean that the spell looks or sounds different when it is cast. The act of 'maximizing' might mean some small part of the verbal or somatic component of a spell is different. I would certianly rule that way. Again, not all DMs do, have to, or should, depending on the playstyle of their group and how they want magic in their world to feel.


Where do you draw the line?

At what the group prefers.


Does a character who has the feat Combat Reflexes stand just a little more at the ready, allowing other knowledgable fighters to determine that even though that guy made a quick jab as someone ran by them 1-6 seconds ago, he'll be able to do it again within the next 1-6 seconds?

Possibly. Never thought about it, but I might. The problem is that unlike spellcraft, there isn't a specific skill that correlates to combat knowledge. Certianly an expert fencer can recognize by stance and the beginnings of a line of attack what 'school' of fencing their opponent is using, and what that means for how they should proceed in the combat. It'd be easy to fluff up, I think. I might create something...


And, regardless to your answer to this question, the root question is "Why do you choose to interpret the mechanics this way?"

Because, as I said, it helps me play my character more the way I feel they would react to things given their non-overlapping knowledge base.


I honestly believe that people who interpret it this way do so because they enjoy the metagame. They like challenges that they can solve using their mastery of the rules system.

You are incorrect. I like solving challenges that my PC should be able to solve. Period. If my PC doesn't know squat, or wouldn't know squat, about a subject or area of the mechanics that I do, I play out their ignorance even if it hurts the character. That assertion is an unfair and untrue generalization.


They don't want something like the separation between character/player knowledge getting in their way.

This is correct, although not the way you mean it. I don't want the separation between what I know as a player, and what my PC would know as, say, a Ranger to be a problem because my PC would know something that I as a player do not. Not vice versa.


Therefore they define 'character knowledge' as anything they as a player can extrapolate from the mechanics.

No, no we don't.


I don't think it lends to an immersive roleplaying atmosphere, however.

And for you, perhaps it doesn't. For me, it does.

Tormsskull
2008-09-02, 12:30 PM
Yes. In the case of a cast spell, since there is no information either way, it's the DM's discretion. Personally, I would let someone with a sucessful spell craft check know the difference. Not all DM's do, have to, or should.


I agree it is DM discretion.



No, but it does say you use a higher level spell slot. That might, depending upon the DM, mean that the spell looks or sounds different when it is cast.


This is all supposition. It isn't really convincing to me, but I already agree with you that it is up to the DM, so you don't need to convince me.



Possibly. Never thought about it, but I might. The problem is that unlike spellcraft, there isn't a specific skill that correlates to combat knowledge.


So since there is no specific mechanic for the PCs to learn this information, that is where you draw the line (unless you draft a mechanic of course)?



You are incorrect. ... That assertion is an unfair and untrue generalization.


We each draw from our own experience, mine tells me otherwise.



This is correct, although not the way you mean it. I don't want the separation between what I know as a player, and what my PC would know as, say, a Ranger to be a problem because my PC would know something that I as a player do not. Not vice versa.


Ok, so our disagreements aside, who gets to determine this? And how?



And for you, perhaps it doesn't. For me, it does.


I'd wager dollars to donuts we have different ideas of what an immersive roleplaying atmosphere is.

Charity
2008-09-02, 12:39 PM
What sort of donuts?

Ulzgoroth
2008-09-02, 01:17 PM
We each draw from our own experience, mine tells me otherwise.
Is there some valid reading of this other than your flatly telling AKA_Bait that he isn't playing the way he says he is, and is lying or deceived about what he likes?
...
...

Akimbo
2008-09-02, 01:21 PM
I honestly believe that people who interpret it this way do so because they enjoy the metagame. They like challenges that they can solve using their mastery of the rules system. They don't want something like the separation between character/player knowledge getting in their way. Therefore they define 'character knowledge' as anything they as a player can extrapolate from the mechanics.

We all know you believe that. You've told us all a hundred times that you know what we think better then we do despite us constantly explaining that you are wrong.

My Character knows certain things. I know certain things. Given a choice between having the first be a subset of the second and the second be a subset of the first, I prefer the former.

This is because me being unable to tell what spell is cast, despite my character with the +40 Spellcraft modifier knowing exactly what spell was cast is more immersion breaking then me knowing a billion things my character doesn't know.

Because I can choose to have my character act only on what he knows, but I the first time I have him make an action he would not make because I didn't konw something he would have, immersion is dead.

Akimbo
2008-09-02, 01:22 PM
Is there some valid reading of this other than your flatly telling AKA_Bait that he isn't playing the way he says he is, and is lying or deceived about what he likes?
...
...

{Scrubbed}

Tormsskull
2008-09-02, 01:34 PM
Is there some valid reading of this other than your flatly telling AKA_Bait that he isn't playing the way he says he is, and is lying or deceived about what he likes?
...
...

It depends on your perception.

Here's how it went:

Me: I believe this is why people play this way.
AKA_Bait: You are wrong.
Me: My experience tells me otherwise.

If you think that that means I am calling him a liar than so be it. I believe one way, he believes another. Obviously me telling him why I believe what I believe didn't change his mind. And him telling me that I am wrong didn't change my mind.

Sounds like the same old same old to me.

Deepblue706
2008-09-02, 01:36 PM
{Scrubbed}

Maybe it has to do with a misunderstanding.

valadil
2008-09-02, 01:38 PM
The rules are a language for representing a character.

Which rules the characters are aware of depends on the game. I prefer games where players are not aware of their own stats, but do know about certain magic spells and effects. I draw the line somewhere around magic items. A flaming sword makes sense to my characters. A +1 sword does not. I'm still trying to reconcile where an Amulet of Health +4 fits in.

Matthew
2008-09-02, 01:43 PM
Maybe it has to do with a misunderstanding.

I would bet dollars to chocolate covered donuts that such is the case. :smallbiggrin:



The rules are a language for representing a character.

That is certainly a major part of what they do.



Which rules the characters are aware of depends on the game. I prefer games where players are not aware of their own stats, but do know about certain magic spells and effects. I draw the line somewhere around magic items. A flaming sword makes sense to my characters. A +1 sword does not. I'm still trying to reconcile where an Amulet of Health +4 fits in.

An interesting point; a lot of "game terms" or "jargon" are difficult to reconcile with the imagined reality, doing so may well be an ongoing process, rather than something that can be definitively achieved.

arguskos
2008-09-02, 01:44 PM
I would bet dollars to chocolate covered donuts that such is the case.
What about chocolate covered manhole covers? /obscure sci-fi reference

-argus

Ulzgoroth
2008-09-02, 01:44 PM
Here's how it went:

Me: I believe this is why people play this way.
AKA_Bait: You are wrong.
Me: My experience tells me otherwise.
AKA_Bait said that you were wrong because his personal take on the two issues provided a counter-example to your belief. You proceed to say that his example has no impact on your belief.

...Unless you don't consider your belief to be subject to little things like facts, I don't know how to understand this other than you saying that he is clearly providing false information about himself.

Matthew
2008-09-02, 01:49 PM
What about chocolate covered manhole covers? /obscure sci-fi reference

Well, what can you say about chocolate covered manhole covers?

Akimbo
2008-09-02, 01:51 PM
It depends on your perception.

Here's how it went:

Me: I believe this is why people play this way.
AKA_Bait: You are wrong.
Me: My experience tells me otherwise.

If you think that that means I am calling him a liar than so be it. I believe one way, he believes another. Obviously me telling him why I believe what I believe didn't change his mind. And him telling me that I am wrong didn't change my mind.

Sounds like the same old same old to me.

Perhaps if you were willing to accept that other people know what they think better then you know what they think this might be resolved.

It actually went something like this:

Lots of posters, myself and AKA included: I think X.
You: You think X because of Y.
Us: No we think X because of Z.
You: Nuh-uh. You think X because of Y. My "experience" allows me to read your mind!

arguskos
2008-09-02, 01:56 PM
I'd put money that Tormsskull is saying this (even if not articulated perfectly):

AKA and others: I think X.
Torm: You think X because of Y, in my experience.
AKA and others: No, we think X due to Z
Torm: Hmm, in my experience, X is typically derived from Y not Z.

Everyone else seems to have missed the words "in my experience." It's folly to assume that because he has had a different time of things than AKA, he is being a **** for no reason. I won't deny that the convo was getting a little heated, and it's easy to lose our heads on the internet, but let's give people the benefit of the doubt, hmm? Just sayin'. :smallwink:

-argus

Thrawn183
2008-09-02, 02:05 PM
Well, my group has always played that if you make your spellcraft check, you know what spell the person cast, including the description of the spell. (Ie. your character knows things like the mechanical effect and duration, rounds/lvl vs. hr/lvl) Certainly, if you have the skill trick that makes it look like you are casting a different spell than you actually are, that would influence the information given to you by the DM. Though because that one makes it look like you are casting something different, in 3.5 (it came up yesterday) I would ask my DM to allow me to make a second spellcraft check to identify a spell already in effect to see if I can still figure it out. The skill trick mentions something along these lines; I think it was that even if it looks like you cast charm person, its pretty obvious when a fireball goes off.

So, yeah. As far as I'm concerned, if you make your spellcraft check, you do know whether or not that was a maximized fireball. And you can therefore learn something about your opponent.

Matthew
2008-09-02, 02:08 PM
A lot of generalisations taking place here. This isn't a thread for grinding personal axes (and if it were, the moderators would probably lock it up tight). Let's try and promote reasonable discussion instead of throwing out thinly disguised (even if unintentional) flame baits.

Kalirren
2008-09-02, 02:12 PM
{Scrubbed} I'd just like to pitch in my first two cents with a response to this comment:



I think there are principally two 'extreme ways' of perceiving the game that are related to the "crunch and fluff" dichotomy.

1) The imagined world informs (or takes precedence over) the rules
2) The rules inform (or take precedence over) the imagined world

They seem similar, but are in fact radically different perceptions of the function of game rules. I much prefer the former to the latter. That said, I suspect many people stand somewhere between, giving precedence to one or the other in different situations.


To summarize the following wall of text in advance, I think that both of those above statements are true, and the manner of resolution when they come into conflict is dependent upon the social contract of the game.

I happen to have initially come from a free-form RP background before having arrived at D&D, WW, etc., and if you look at a free-form game, you have a system that strongly collapses onto pattern 1): The imagined world informs the rules (or the rulings, I should say,) since there are no rules ab initio.

What ends up happening when you play free-form with the same group for long enough, though, is that you arrive at some understanding of what characters are capable of doing, established through precedent, much of which is uncodified and unwritten, which informs future RP decisions. These eventually become rules. Hence, pattern 2) emerges: the rules inform the posssibilities of the imagined world.

It usually happens, in my experience, that when out of freeform emerges a system due to (and thus tailored to) the particulars of a given group's OOC social dynamic, the players who were involved in creating that system are generally happy with it. To me, this forms the basis for the adjudication of other rules that are introduced to our system.

Whenever we take the rules out of a rulebook and use them in one of our own games, we have already decontextualized the rules that had been developed in someone else's (possibly hypothetical) game, for someone else's group (also possibly hypothetical) and recontextualized them in our own group for our own use. The other group probably had a different social dynamic, exhibited a different style of play, and consequently held different expectations about the appropriate distribution of narrative power.

So when we look at a rule and say, "That's stupid," (and we've all done that before,) what do we really mean? I think we mean that it breaks some provision of our group's social contract.

For me it may mean that it's inappropriately strong or weak - what do I mean by that? It violates the (unwritten) principle that any of a player's actions, in combat or not, is an opportunity to exert a certain measure of narrative control that demands a measure of response from either the opposition or the environment. It's too strong if it does not allow an action as a response and it's too weak if it does not warrant an action in response. And this principle exists in our group because its violation leaves players feeling left out of the game.

Or it may mean that it breaks the verisimilitude of the world that has been taken for granted up until that point in play - what do I mean by that? Well, our imagined world wasn't their imagined world. E.g., hypothetical: Tome of Battle. In their world, qi is indistinguishable from magic. In mine, qi is a property of the body that can be manipulated by magic in some ways but not others. So when the cleric tries to cast lesser restoration on the man who's taken Con damage from some (homebrewed) maneuver, no effect, because it -doesn't work-, and that's the way this world has worked all along. And as long as it has indeed worked this way all along, and the social contract supports this, well, the rule will fly and people will have fun. But if that hasn't bee cleared up beforehand, well, that's indistinguishable from DM tyranny, etc. and is a breach of the social contract.

Point is, both "the imagined world" and "the rules" are just language in the end, and a proper interpretation of that language will be influenced (if not determined) by the OOC social dynamic of the gaming group.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-02, 02:43 PM
A lot of generalisations taking place here. This isn't a thread for grinding personal axes (and if it were, the moderators would probably lock it up tight). Let's try and promote reasonable discussion instead of throwing out thinly disguised (even if unintentional) flame baits.

Indeed. Let's do that, much as I'd like a chocolate covered manhole cover.

Basically, as I think I've said, I fall into the middle of the two extremes that Matthew identifies. There is an interplay between the rules and the imagined world and I find that talking in terms of rules or numbers can sometimes be helpful to immersion as it allows quick transfer of specific knowledge that a character wouldn't need explanation of but that a player would have a hard time reducing to the mechanics of the game if explained in terms of fluff.

Akimbo
2008-09-02, 02:48 PM
I would ask my DM to allow me to make a second spellcraft check to identify a spell already in effect to see if I can still figure it out.

You don't have to ask your DM, there's already a rule for that, it's DC 20+Spell level to determine the spell when analyzing/interacting with it's effects, even if you didn't see it cast.

hamlet
2008-09-02, 02:48 PM
Indeed. Let's do that, much as I'd like a chocolate covered manhole cover.

Basically, as I think I've said, I fall into the middle of the two extremes that Matthew identifies. There is an interplay between the rules and the imagined world and I find that talking in terms of rules or numbers can sometimes be helpful to immersion as it allows quick transfer of specific knowledge that a character wouldn't need explanation of but that a player would have a hard time reducing to the mechanics of the game if explained in terms of fluff.

I think that there may be a way of rephrasing this question. What's we're essentially discussing here, I think, is attempting to discern what the founding cornerstone of our repsective games are and what the common language of communication between players and DM should be.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-02, 03:14 PM
I think that there may be a way of rephrasing this question. What's we're essentially discussing here, I think, is attempting to discern what the founding cornerstone of our repsective games are and what the common language of communication between players and DM should be.

I suppose. Those are two separate questions though. Basically I see them as:

1. How important is enforcement of the game mechanical rules to you/your group?

2. What is your/your group's prefered method of transfering information about the world, purley descriptivley, numerically, or someplace in between?

I've phrased them as subjective questions because neither one has an objective answer. Each player and group has their own answers and so long as the end result is everyone enjoying themselves, everyone is right.

Roland St. Jude
2008-09-02, 03:18 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: As mentioned several posts above, we don't ken to axe grinding and cross-thread bickering here. We also don't appreciate people insulting and characterizing others' comments in an insulting or inflammatory way. Keep it cool in here like a bunch of Fonzies, okay? Please?

Akimbo
2008-09-02, 05:02 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: As mentioned several posts above, we don't ken to axe grinding and cross-thread bickering here. We also don't appreciate people insulting and characterizing others' comments in an insulting or inflammatory way. Keep it cool in here like a bunch of Fonzies, okay? Please?

I'm just going to bow out of all these threads since apparently lieing is allowed but calling people on it is not.

But before I go, I'll go ahead and take advantage of this just once to say:

Tormsskull, in my experience you prefer a game in which PCs are not allowed to have the books because you don't actually own any books and have never played any version of D&D in your entire life.

Keep in mind you can't say that I'm wrong about what you think without it being infraction.

Tormsskull
2008-09-02, 05:22 PM
You proceed to say that his example has no impact on your belief.


That sounds about right. I can't share in his experiences. I have my experiences, he has his. If I believe something because of my first-hand experience, and someone else says its wrong because of their first-hand experience, I'm going to go with mine.

I'm not sure why such a statement causes a stir. Did I insult someone by implying that I don't agree with their assessment of an issue?

Ulzgoroth
2008-09-02, 06:15 PM
That sounds about right. I can't share in his experiences. I have my experiences, he has his. If I believe something because of my first-hand experience, and someone else says its wrong because of their first-hand experience, I'm going to go with mine.

I'm not sure why such a statement causes a stir. Did I insult someone by implying that I don't agree with their assessment of an issue?
I will, warily, approach this with a 10" pole.

My problem is that someone isn't telling you that their experience conflicts with yours. They are telling you that they, personally, are a counter-example to your rule. To re-assert your rule at that point says that, in your opinion, they are not what they say they are.

I can't speak for AKA_Bait, but as I agree entirely with his 'I am a counter-example' (which you reduced to an ellipsis). My reaction to this was much the same as Akimbo's, if more moderately written.

If you meant, for example, what arguskos suggested, well, I've got no problem with that. But the stark lack of qualifiers didn't lead me to read your posts that way.

Thrud
2008-09-02, 11:30 PM
Lots of interesting stuff, and this in particular:

What ends up happening when you play free-form with the same group for long enough, though, is that you arrive at some understanding of what characters are capable of doing, established through precedent, much of which is uncodified and unwritten, which informs future RP decisions. These eventually become rules. Hence, pattern 2) emerges: the rules inform the posssibilities of the imagined world.

Wow, that may be the most inciteful comment I have yet heard on this thread.

Now I want to ask this in a way that doesn't get me flamed. Hopefully I will succeed. I don't mean any sort of value judgement here, especially since some of the games I have had the most fun in have been 1 off 'beer and pretzels' 'games, but here goes.

I am just wondering if those who are adamant about how the PC must have access to the rules at all times, and that react badly to the idea of the books not being used at the table have played in a game that has run for more than, lets say, 1 year, with mostly the same people. Because that may be the problem here. When you play with the same group for a long time and as a DM the players trust you, or as a player you trust the DM, the specifics of the rules just aren't as important to you any more because you have played together long enough.

Perhaps those of us who are saying that the books shouldn't be brought out at the table have just been gaming with the same group for so long that the numbers are no longer needed. And with newer players and newer groups that is just not the case.

turkishproverb
2008-09-03, 01:20 AM
Perhaps those of us who are saying that the books shouldn't be brought out at the table have just been gaming with the same group for so long that the numbers are no longer needed. And with newer players and newer groups that is just not the case.

Bingo. I think you hit the nail on the head. Although even wiht some venerable groups it worked.

hamlet
2008-09-03, 07:31 AM
Wow, that may be the most inciteful comment I have yet heard on this thread.

Now I want to ask this in a way that doesn't get me flamed. Hopefully I will succeed. I don't mean any sort of value judgement here, especially since some of the games I have had the most fun in have been 1 off 'beer and pretzels' 'games, but here goes.

I am just wondering if those who are adamant about how the PC must have access to the rules at all times, and that react badly to the idea of the books not being used at the table have played in a game that has run for more than, lets say, 1 year, with mostly the same people. Because that may be the problem here. When you play with the same group for a long time and as a DM the players trust you, or as a player you trust the DM, the specifics of the rules just aren't as important to you any more because you have played together long enough.

Perhaps those of us who are saying that the books shouldn't be brought out at the table have just been gaming with the same group for so long that the numbers are no longer needed. And with newer players and newer groups that is just not the case.

It is a distinct possibility. After a certain amount of time, groups either get very comfortable playing together, or they fall apart.

I suppose that this may be a casualty of a newer phenomenon, the concept of the 12 month 1-20 campaign. It is expected, I believe, that in a group that plays, say, once a week for about 4 hours a week for a whole year will progress from first level all the way to 20th and "complete" the game.

This concept is wholly new and, for many, myself included, entirely strange. Campaigns, in my experience, used to last not one year, but many years, or even decades.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the heavier focus on the rules than previously.

nagora
2008-09-03, 08:17 AM
I suppose that this may be a casualty of a newer phenomenon, the concept of the 12 month 1-20 campaign. It is expected, I believe, that in a group that plays, say, once a week for about 4 hours a week for a whole year will progress from first level all the way to 20th and "complete" the game.
Yes, I've noticed that. Getting to level 20 that quick basically means the character has no time to develop a personality, so that might be one reason there is such a fixation on finding mechanical differences between PCs - or the fixation on mechanics may be one reason for these blitzkrieg mini-campaigns, I don't know.


This concept is wholly new and, for many, myself included, entirely strange. Campaigns, in my experience, used to last not one year, but many years, or even decades.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the heavier focus on the rules than previously.

As I suggested above, this is a chicken and egg question. The big break seems to have been with 3e and the huge increase in the number of ways to customise a character with numbers instead of personality. Perhaps this concentration on the numbers game simply encouraged players to regard taking a year to go from 10th to 11th level as a failure, if they were measuring their success by the number of feats and other crap they were accumulating rather than by in-charater things like fame, money, family, strongholds, etc.

Matthew
2008-09-03, 08:33 AM
Perhaps those of us who are saying that the books shouldn't be brought out at the table have just been gaming with the same group for so long that the numbers are no longer needed. And with newer players and newer groups that is just not the case.

I am going to say no, based on my experience of getting a new group together from scratch. I recruited three players previously unknown to me, and my girlfriend (Player 1). Their familiarity with D&D was as follows:

Player 1: Had played some Baldur's Gate
Player 2: Started with AD&D in the 90s
Player 3: Started with D20 post 2000
Player 4: Totally new to RPGs

I ran the game just as I usually do, no problems. Later we added some other new players, and occasionally some of my mates (and theirs) were in town and joined for a "pick up" game. Never any problems with access to the rule books. In fact, it was one of the best campaigns I ever ran, lasting three years, and only ending because I had to move back up north.

nagora
2008-09-03, 08:41 AM
In fact, it was one of the best campaigns I ever ran, lasting three years, and only ending because I had to move back up north.
Matthew's migratory, you know.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-03, 09:31 AM
I will, warily, approach this with a 10" pole.


Let's just drop it. My sense of self worth and confidence in my ideas is wholly independent of any possible implications made by Tormsskull. Really, regardless of if he intended to besmirch my honesty or not, it doesn't do any of us any good to harp on it.


I am just wondering if those who are adamant about how the PC must have access to the rules at all times, and that react badly to the idea of the books not being used at the table have played in a game that has run for more than, lets say, 1 year, with mostly the same people. Because that may be the problem here.

I've played with essentially the same 8 or so people since 3.5 came out. One or two of the individual games ran over a year. I've played games that could loosley be described as RP (or just make believe at the start) with Jaxgaret since we were both around six.


When you play with the same group for a long time and as a DM the players trust you, or as a player you trust the DM, the specifics of the rules just aren't as important to you any more because you have played together long enough.

We hardly ever argue about rules, I don't allow it for more than 30 seconds at a stretch as DM, but the books are allowed at the table. If people want to look something up, they can. I think it's precisley because of that trust, mine of them not to be jerks, that I've never felt any need or desire to limit access to books at the table.


Perhaps those of us who are saying that the books shouldn't be brought out at the table have just been gaming with the same group for so long that the numbers are no longer needed. And with newer players and newer groups that is just not the case.

Numbers, other than where the PC really would know the exact number involved, are hardly ever exchanged in my game. The PC's don't get to know the exact DC of whatever it is, although over the course of a fight they may figure out what the AC of the thing they are attacking is. But if you mean that older groups tend to have a jargon established that essentialy tells the number to the player without literally telling the number to the player, no we don't really have that. When it's appropriate for the PC to know with that level of exactitude, I tell them the actual number.


I wonder if that has anything to do with the heavier focus on the rules than previously.

Honestly I doubt it. From discussion here, it seems we are a pretty rules focused group but our games that survive past a few sessions either don't go the full twenty purposefully (I tend to end mine before spellcasters reach the pinnacle of their power in 3.x), take more than a year, or both.

Matthew
2008-09-03, 02:16 PM
Matthew's migratory, you know.

Is it winter yet?

Kalirren
2008-09-04, 12:46 AM
I am just wondering if those who are adamant about how the PC must have access to the rules at all times, and that react badly to the idea of the books not being used at the table have played in a game that has run for more than, lets say, 1 year, with mostly the same people. Because that may be the problem here. When you play with the same group for a long time and as a DM the players trust you, or as a player you trust the DM, the specifics of the rules just aren't as important to you any more because you have played together long enough.

Perhaps those of us who are saying that the books shouldn't be brought out at the table have just been gaming with the same group for so long that the numbers are no longer needed. And with newer players and newer groups that is just not the case.



I'm actually not sure what I think of the effect that group age has on group dynamic. I'm pretty sure it has one. Sometimes it helps offset the ruleslawyerish tendencies. But sometimes it just doesn't. I've played with someone whose gaming style never really meshed with the rest of the group's, and it was sad, because over three years he got progressively less and less involved with the rest of us. Group age didn't help there. Arguably it hurt. Then again, he was never very reasonable, or considerate, or broad-minded either, so go figure...

In my experience it's always been more important that the group -start off- with the right focus. It's much harder to change the focus once it's been set unless you perturb the group itself. In particular, the tendency for gaming groups to start off talking about rules and playing the rules instead of playing the greater game at large is something I've mostly seen associated with D&D, which really does have a high learning curve to making a character that can be remotely considered system-wise effective. (Almost anyone can play a character effectively if they are so inclined, but to make an effective character is a skill.)

Based on my experience, I would hazard to guess that the predominant pattern is for groups to tend to focus on and perpetuate their strongest and most enjoyable interactions. So if their focus is typically to world-build, then they'll end up really good at that within a few months. If their focus is narrative-dramatic, then that will start showing through as their play develops. And if what they enjoy doing is tactical combat, that will end up dominating session time.

This is why in all honesty I could not possibly recommend D&D 3.5 as an introductory system to any new player. Nor would I choose to switch to it if one of my existing group was already playing something else. One invariably spends upwards of an hour creating character sheets whose form visually emphasizes combat over any other form of interaction. And when after their first character creation, one player in a group is obviously pulling out twice as much damage as everyone else, everyone else notes this, even if only unconsciously. This sets the group up for a rules-centered gaming style, straight out of the novelty of it, which over the long term only distracts from the rest of roleplaying.

It also explains why the cure for a group that has stuck itself in this rut often materializes in the form of a newer player who doesn't care about the same things that the existing group does, and drags the other members of the group out of that rut with the novelty of actual roleplaying.

To return to point, I'd speculate that the prevalence of a ruleslawyering gaming style correlates with high group turnover. It makes sense that someone who is used joining many groups and having to redefine the social contract with a new DM for every group he joins would get good at demanding "consistency" from the rules, even if said "consistency" is really just him wanting consistency from DM to DM as opposed to a single DM interpreting conistently. Heck, this even explains the more widespread prevalence of ruleslawyers on the Internet compared to groups that are organized in person.

Charity
2008-09-04, 05:45 AM
Is it winter yet?

Was it ever not?

hamlet
2008-09-04, 07:35 AM
Is it winter yet?

Winter is coming . . .



Kalirren: I don't think we're talking about the age of the group so much as the age of the campaign itself.

For instance, I'm currently in a campaign as a player that started in 2003 and has run continuously since then. We're only 6th level.

If this were a D20 game, I'm pretty sure that many of the players would have left in utter frustration by this point. On top of that, we simply do not have access to any books during play unless we're casting a spell.

Knaight
2008-09-04, 07:42 AM
Is that supposed to be a Song of Ice and Fire reference?

hamlet
2008-09-04, 07:46 AM
Is that supposed to be a Song of Ice and Fire reference?

Yes.

Does that bother you?

Charity
2008-09-04, 07:47 AM
Nah we've been playing a D20 game for... heck is it really over 5 years?

Wheres Dorisfrog when you need him... holiday thats where ... skiving git.
Anyhow they are just about 8th level... they do did die a lot (they haven't had too much trouble of late... apart from that dragon incident... and those crocodiles... )
You can't characterize players by the system they use, age is a better marker, but even then not wholely adequate. Truth be told all our groups are very different and dynamically change their emphisis over time.

Knaight
2008-09-04, 07:49 AM
Yes.

Does that bother you?
Nah, I was just curious. Winter is coming is one of the things that could be pure coincidence.

hamlet
2008-09-04, 07:51 AM
Nah we've been playing a D20 game for... heck is it really over 5 years?

Wheres Dorisfrog when you need him... holiday thats where ... skiving git.
Anyhow they are just about 8th level... they do did die a lot (they haven't had too much trouble of late... apart from that dragon incident... and those crocodiles... )
You can't characterize players by the system they use, age is a better marker, but even then not wholely adequate. Truth be told all our groups are very different and dynamically change their emphisis over time.

Maybe you're right, but I can't help but wonder why the game was explicitly designed to "run to completion" with a single year's worth of game time. It seems that they did it for a reason, and the only one that I can imagine is to cater to those who felt that leveling was too slow in AD&D.

Saph
2008-09-04, 08:09 AM
I suppose that this may be a casualty of a newer phenomenon, the concept of the 12 month 1-20 campaign. It is expected, I believe, that in a group that plays, say, once a week for about 4 hours a week for a whole year will progress from first level all the way to 20th and "complete" the game.

This concept is wholly new and, for many, myself included, entirely strange. Campaigns, in my experience, used to last not one year, but many years, or even decades.

I think both of the concepts you're talking about are so weird they might as well be from outer space. You have campaigns that go for many years? I count myself lucky if I find a new player who'll come regularly to the same group for one year. When I'm DMing, I have to use all my organisational skills just to keep a coherent group together for six months. A realistic campaign length for me is about three months - that's long enough for everyone to get to know each other, but short enough that no-one in the group is going to drop out of playing D&D / have a baby / get a new job and have no spare time / move house / move city / move country.

If someone said that they were planning a level 1-20 game over the course of the year, my reaction wouldn't be "Wow, that's fast advancement", but "You think you can keep together a group every week for a year? Either you're very good or very new, we'll soon find out which."

- Saph

AKA_Bait
2008-09-04, 08:50 AM
To return to point, I'd speculate that the prevalence of a ruleslawyering gaming style correlates with high group turnover.

Humm... I'm not so sure. This depends, I think, on a number of things, not least of which what is actually meant by 'ruleslawyering.' If it's being a jerk and arguing with the DM, I could see that. If it's just discussing the rules and the DM occasionally being challenged in a polite manner about a ruling I'm not so sure.


Heck, this even explains the more widespread prevalence of ruleslawyers on the Internet compared to groups that are organized in person.

I think this is probably more true. The tendency to revert to the RAW in discussions online is certianly at least in part an outgrowth of the RAW really being the only consistant arbirter of the rules among a bunch of people who have never even met.

Also though, I think there are additional reasons there is more 'ruleslawyering' on the internet. One is that arguing/discussing the rules at legnth on the net doesn't actually disrupt the play or flow of an ongoing game. The second, is the simple psychological reason that although one might not want to challenge and potentially embarass my friend about rules, one might feel it's ok to do so with a stranger when sitting anonomyously behind their firewall.


Maybe you're right, but I can't help but wonder why the game was explicitly designed to "run to completion" with a single year's worth of game time. It seems that they did it for a reason, and the only one that I can imagine is to cater to those who felt that leveling was too slow in AD&D.

I think it could also be a consequence of attempting to reach a broader market. Many players don't have the time to realistically commit to play any given game, or even stay with any given signifigant other, for a year or more. Heck, even a year is a lot.


You have campaigns that go for many years? I count myself lucky if I find a new player who'll come regularly to the same group for one year. When I'm DMing, I have to use all my organisational skills just to keep a coherent group together for six months. A realistic campaign length for me is about three months - that's long enough for everyone to get to know each other, but short enough that no-one in the group is going to drop out of playing D&D / have a baby / get a new job and have no spare time / move house / move city / move country.


This is exactly what I was getting at.

Charity
2008-09-04, 08:54 AM
You need to move to a small town Saph, Ikkie is a relative newcommer to our group, but he's been playing for more than a year now.

hamlet
2008-09-04, 09:10 AM
I think both of the concepts you're talking about are so weird they might as well be from outer space. You have campaigns that go for many years? I count myself lucky if I find a new player who'll come regularly to the same group for one year. When I'm DMing, I have to use all my organisational skills just to keep a coherent group together for six months. A realistic campaign length for me is about three months - that's long enough for everyone to get to know each other, but short enough that no-one in the group is going to drop out of playing D&D / have a baby / get a new job and have no spare time / move house / move city / move country.

If someone said that they were planning a level 1-20 game over the course of the year, my reaction wouldn't be "Wow, that's fast advancement", but "You think you can keep together a group every week for a year? Either you're very good or very new, we'll soon find out which."

- Saph

Yes, I understand that getting people to sit still nowadays is difficult (I view this as a reflection of the people, not the game), but I think that the new game is designed to cater to this, for ill or for good.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-04, 09:46 AM
Yes, I understand that getting people to sit still nowadays is difficult (I view this as a reflection of the people, not the game), but I think that the new game is designed to cater to this, for ill or for good.

I agree. It's the ill or good where I suspect we part ways. :smallbiggrin:

hamlet
2008-09-04, 09:51 AM
I agree. It's the ill or good where I suspect we part ways. :smallbiggrin:

I don't think we even part ways, we're just quibbling over minor details in a way.

Personally, I think expecting to level every 13.3 encounters (I think that was the figure at one point) is kind of silly. Before you've even gotten used to being a certain level, all of the sudden you've gained another one. I can almost hear the "Ding!" in the background.

This came to a culmination of dislike during one of Paizo's adventure paths (a setup which I dislike) and it was suggested that during one of them the DM should, when the numbers tallied properly, stop the adventure entierly and allow the PC's to gain a level in the midst of everything. This was in the Shackled City thing if I recall, so at the point this was mentioned, it was literally right in the middle of combat.

Of course, at the same time, I recognize that the increased speed of the new stuff has its advantages too.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-04, 10:40 AM
I don't think we even part ways, we're just quibbling over minor details in a way.

Personally, I think expecting to level every 13.3 encounters (I think that was the figure at one point) is kind of silly. Before you've even gotten used to being a certain level, all of the sudden you've gained another one. I can almost hear the "Ding!" in the background.

I suppose that's true. I thought that number was reverse engineered from the already generated xp tables and xp awards though. I've never had a group keep track of how many encounters it has been since they leveled or give me grief because it had been 15 or whatever.


This came to a culmination of dislike during one of Paizo's adventure paths (a setup which I dislike) and it was suggested that during one of them the DM should, when the numbers tallied properly, stop the adventure entierly and allow the PC's to gain a level in the midst of everything. This was in the Shackled City thing if I recall, so at the point this was mentioned, it was literally right in the middle of combat.

I can see that. That would bring a grimace to my face too. I generally don't even award xp until the end of any given session, let alone mid-combat. I just ignore any advice about xp awarding prepublished stuff regardless though. Of course, I tend to ignore everything but the maps and NPC statistics bloks I'm ripping off for my own plot anyway...

hamlet
2008-09-04, 10:54 AM
I can see that. That would bring a grimace to my face too. I generally don't even award xp until the end of any given session, let alone mid-combat. I just ignore any advice about xp awarding prepublished stuff regardless though. Of course, I tend to ignore everything but the maps and NPC statistics bloks I'm ripping off for my own plot anyway...

Hallmark of a true DM. Take what's there, tear it apart, throw it against the wall, and keep whatever survives the splatter.

Kalirren
2008-09-04, 12:27 PM
AKA_Bait:

Ah. Yeah, I use ruleslawyering almost exclusively in the negative sense. The more civilized form of it I call tweaking or haggling (this angle of mine probably comes from the freeform, come to think, where there aren't so many rules to be lawyered but still plenty of haggling to be done.) I think you would agree that it all lies in a continuum, and past a certain point which is different for every group, it gets annoying. One could view "ruleslawyering" as just another way of haggling, one that in particular tries to impose a contextual shift from the primacy of the way the group dynamic relates to the individual characters at hand to the primacy of the RAW.

hamlet:

I apologize for not addressing your point about the RL-temporal scope of campaigns. In my previous comment I was responding more to Thrud directly, posing an alternative/broader model to his thesis that the players who demand rules on the spot are more accustomed to shorter, more transient games. Hence why I talked about ruleslawyering, and its relation to the evolution of group dynamic. But I'll offer my thoughts on the point you bring up, though I don't think I'll be able to make any thesis out of it at the moment.

My first experience with serious RP'ing was playing free-form on one of the largest and most consistent PbP sites out on the Internet, where the very notion of a "campaign" is ill-defined. GMs there were in charge of locales and the events concerning those locales, as opposed to being directly concerned with characters and the relationships of plotlines to individual characters, which was more the players' responsibility. We also had this thing called Fluid Time, essentially a loose map from RL-time to IC-time. So you got this atmosphere where players advanced at a rate that was comfortable to them, in ways that were useful to their character concept. And the whole thing was still reasonably fair.

So in this type of environment, we had a lot of community dynamic but very little "campaign". Campaigns just weren't the best way to do things. Adventures in the usual sense, with a constant group, were very painful to organize. Most threads that ended up finishing involved no more than 3 people at a time. And just because the community was so large it was also very unwieldy, and it was almost impossible to get all 30-to-100-odd moderators' intuitions on the same page regarding -anything-. Still, since the community itself was so old, it's been running since I think 1986, one still had the rudiments of a system going, and the social contract was definitely well in place. As for rules, well, we bickered over those a lot - one of the more unfortunate parts of that game was that its rules were a relic of a time when the player base was so much smaller. They really needed to move out of completely systemless freeform into at least a traits-based system.

My other roleplaying experience comes from university, where it was relatively easy to keep the group together for a year; I still play with that DM, even though we've both since graduated; everyone would just set aside a Saturday afternoon, and the DM would walk around and knock on everyone's door, and we'd all be in the empty dining hall at 2PM (except for the guy who was always late, but whatever.) And there again it really was the group, not the campaign, because we started so many campaigns that went for 3-4 levels (we played D&D 3.5, and always had the rulebooks, and constantly consulted them). All the same, over time the rules just became unimportant, since they dealt with things that weren't the real meat of the roleplay.

So I guess, what I really meant to say before was that when you play with the same group for long enough, the group develops an intuition about the capabilities of characters (not the characters, but characters in general.) This intuition often carries across campaigns, and is built in addition to and ultimately becomes largely (though not completely) independent of any imposed ruleset, rendering the question of whether or not to allow the rulebooks at the table largely irrelevant.

To touch on Matthew's point, this experience rubs off on the players, so that when experienced players go off and form new groups, they're also less likely to become rules-obsessed. I don't think Matthew's experience of having formed a new group and not had many problems with rules really contradicts the thesis.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-04, 12:47 PM
One could view "ruleslawyering" as just another way of haggling, one that in particular tries to impose a contextual shift from the primacy of the way the group dynamic relates to the individual characters at hand to the primacy of the RAW.

My only objection here is that this seems to presume that one of those two cases (primacy of the group dynamic or primacy of the RAW) is going to be the default for any group and that they are mutually exclusive. Many groups hold the RAW as very important for the functioning of the game according to their tastes. In such a case, neither one is really held over the other, they signifigantly overlap (very common) or totally overlap (hardly ever). I suspect that the continum between haggling and rules lawyering is largely determined by the level of overlap. In a group with lots of overlap the same questioning of the DM's decision might be viewed as haggling as a group with little overlap where it is ruleslawyering.

Kalirren
2008-09-04, 01:32 PM
AKA_Bait:

I'm actually in total agreement with what you said above. The more ruleslawyerish your haggling style, the more you think that the RAW should inform the final decision algorithm. The danger objectively lies in when, if ever, this comes at the expense of other peoples' gaming sense (i.e. their ability to predict the outcomes and possibilities associated with any given RP situation.) At that point adherence to the RAW is in violation of that part of the social contract whch accords other RPers their agency.

But if the other players are accustomed to the same degree of overlap as you are, and are accustomed to the same degree of dependence on the RAW for their gaming sense, then there's very little problem, because your adherence to the RAW is less likely to be disruptive to their effective agency.

So what's the next question?

Thrud
2008-09-04, 08:18 PM
Is it winter yet?

Oh god, please. I can't take any more of this high 90's low 100's weather. God I've got to get AC. Stupid Bay area and its hottest part of summer in September.

FEH!

Oh, umm, and good points everyone. I did read it all, it's just too damn hot for coherent thought right now.

I can't say anyone has really said anything I disagree with all that much, which is interesting considering the differing positions held.