The Gaming Den

So two questions:

Where did the idea that players shouldn't know the rules to the game come from, and what was the reasoning behind such a stupid idea?

Second. Also, where did the idea that complexity for the sake of complexity some how made the game fun come from?

#1: The old-school. Viking hats had some serious control issues.

#2: For some people, complexity = depth *shrug*.

Wiseman wrote:Second. Also, where did the idea that complexity for the sake of complexity some how made the game fun come from?

My conjecture on this matter:

[img][/img]

This is why you shouldn't extrapolate from a small number of data points.

Wiseman wrote: Second. Also, where did the idea that complexity for the sake of complexity some how made the game fun come from?

You need to sell supplementary books to keep your pre-internet business afloat. Fiddly new subsystems are good for that.

Wiseman wrote:Where did the idea that players shouldn't know the rules to the game come from, and what was the reasoning behind such a stupid idea?

There is something to be said for the idea that discovering things through trial and error can be fun, and sometimes it's the case where the PCs are genuinely discovering things through trial and error. The problem is the same kind of logical fallacy that often pops up: "if having XYZ 5% of the time is good, then having XYZ 100% of the time is 20 times better!" Um, no.

Wiseman wrote:Second. Also, where did the idea that complexity for the sake of complexity some how made the game fun come from?

In my experience, any RPG system that gets played long enough ends up as a complex set of rules (through filling in gaps over time), so I think it's a bit unfair to pick on a mature system (like D&D or HERO) for being complex or for other systems to be inspired by those. There are systems out that that truly have "complexity for the sake of complexity" (e.g. F.A.T.A.L.) but they're in the minority, I think.

Wiseman wrote: Where did the idea that players shouldn't know the rules to the game come from, and what was the reasoning behind such a stupid idea?

Well, there are two main schools of thought that lead to this in my experience. The first says that in the mythical Real World, the average person doesn't exactly know the full workings of how physics work, so why should your character.

The second is that it creates an unfair emphasis on mechanics that makes character creation and progression less organic, makes actions more calculated and less spontaneous and takes emphasis away from roleplaying and moves it to die-rolling.

Wiseman wrote:So two questions:

Where did the idea that players shouldn't know the rules to the game come from, and what was the reasoning behind such a stupid idea?

Second. Also, where did the idea that complexity for the sake of complexity some how made the game fun come from?

Historically speaking, probably the game this started with was -- as is the case with many other ideas in roleplaying -- D&D. Specifically, the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide suggested that players were not supposed to have a copy of that book and should be punished in various in-game ways if they gave evidence of having read it. This was in line with early ideas about it being a game of out-of-character mystery and discovery, as well as in-character.

Now, if that's the kind of game you're playing, I don't have any particular issue with suggesting that players not read, let's say, the magic item lists or the monster stats -- nobody I have ever gamed with has ever suggested that MC is being a dick if he insists that players not read the adventure before playing it, and I'm okay with information about specific magic items and monsters and so on being put in that category. But the DMG also included things like the Saving Throw and To-Hit tables and how initiative and surprise worked and other things that are kind of important to actually playing the game. D&D as a franchise has been backpedaling away from 1st edition's attitude ever since, which is why we got THAC0 in second edition, and base attack bonus in third. In first edition, there was literally a rant by Gary Gygax at the front of the DMG telling you that players had no business knowing what the equivalent of their base attack bonus even was, and if you thought they had found out you should take money and magic items away from their characters.

That's not a joke, it actually happened. I kind of understand the mindset that the mysteries of how the world worked should remain mysterious, but AD&D went way too far overboard with that attitude and the hobby is still recovering from that dumbassery.

Desdan_Mervolam wrote:The second is that it creates an unfair emphasis on mechanics that makes character creation and progression less organic, makes actions more calculated and less spontaneous and takes emphasis away from roleplaying and moves it to die-rolling.

That is only true of poorly designed mechanics.

And I'm not sure how putting points randomly on level up in any way counts as organic.

I mean, if you want organic growth you kind of need to go with the Elder Scrolls route of getting better from doing the thing. Dark Souls, even if you had no idea what every stat did, still wouldn't be organic, just random.

And Elder Scrolls is a great example of a bad design making people think it was inherent in the system, people genuinely thought that organic character progression was bad because you were always better if you planned everything out, but all you have to do is have a non shitty system that makes the order of skill ups not matter.

Do you have an example of good organic development?

talozin wrote:

Wiseman wrote:So two questions:

Where did the idea that players shouldn't know the rules to the game come from, and what was the reasoning behind such a stupid idea?

Second. Also, where did the idea that complexity for the sake of complexity some how made the game fun come from?

Historically speaking, probably the game this started with was -- as is the case with many other ideas in roleplaying -- D&D. Specifically, the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide suggested that players were not supposed to have a copy of that book and should be punished in various in-game ways if they gave evidence of having read it. This was in line with early ideas about it being a game of out-of-character mystery and discovery, as well as in-character.

Now, if that's the kind of game you're playing, I don't have any particular issue with suggesting that players not read, let's say, the magic item lists or the monster stats -- nobody I have ever gamed with has ever suggested that MC is being a dick if he insists that players not read the adventure before playing it, and I'm okay with information about specific magic items and monsters and so on being put in that category. But the DMG also included things like the Saving Throw and To-Hit tables and how initiative and surprise worked and other things that are kind of important to actually playing the game. D&D as a franchise has been backpedaling away from 1st edition's attitude ever since, which is why we got THAC0 in second edition, and base attack bonus in third. In first edition, there was literally a rant by Gary Gygax at the front of the DMG telling you that players had no business knowing what the equivalent of their base attack bonus even was, and if you thought they had found out you should take money and magic items away from their characters.

That's not a joke, it actually happened. I kind of understand the mindset that the mysteries of how the world worked should remain mysterious, but AD&D went way too far overboard with that attitude and the hobby is still recovering from that dumbassery.

Pretty much this. Although over time characters would get familiar with the rules systems and be able to suss out the rules.

Which just implements a n00b penalty to playing the game.

Paranoia poked fun at this by intentionally making 90% of the rules a crime for your character to demonstrate any knowledge of, then gleefully telling the MC to break the rules to see if someone calls you on it so that you can kill their character for demonstrating knowledge that you're screwing them over.

TheFlatline wrote:Paranoia poked fun at this by intentionally making 90% of the rules a crime for your character to demonstrate any knowledge of, then gleefully telling the MC to break the rules to see if someone calls you on it so that you can kill their character for demonstrating knowledge that you're screwing them over.

I think you might not understand the concept of poking fun.

Kaelik wrote: I think you might not understand the concept of poking fun.

Friend troubleshooter, please report to the termination center immediately.

Wiseman wrote:So two questions:

Where did the idea that players shouldn't know the rules to the game come from, and what was the reasoning behind such a stupid idea?

Second. Also, where did the idea that complexity for the sake of complexity some how made the game fun come from?

1. Gary felt that the actual rules come second to being able to play the game. So if the players "knew" all the "rules" then the wargaming rules lawyers would emerge and ruin the game time for everyone. 40 years later, he was right for MANY game tables out there.

2. 3rd edition bloat in regards to D&D, otherwise see GURPs. for D&D it wasn't for the purpose of complexity, but the WotC peons couldn't see the beast they were creating. It was for "more player options" to cary on the idea of the 2.5 books.

it is pretty funny in this day and age actually, since there are SO many different RPGs out there that such would be built to give players "options" and lsits of things so they didnt get bored with one game, when in fact this very forum shows that MOST people seem to play MORE than just one game as there was when it was ONLY D&D.

also consider computer games that are called RPG, have the power to do more and faster, so adding complex things means you get more play time for your money instead of beating the game in a few hours and having no re-playability so you feel that $60 didn't last very long. the game then needs to have challenges that you go back through and try to get next time you play.

Sadly this was brought over to TT games for some dumb reason, when TT games never had the boundaries of a computer game. Pixel Bitching games was a place where it started to get bad because those things like King's Quest, or supreme MTP games where you have to guess the right words to say like Leisure Suit Larry; made their popularity seem to place into the heads of designers that the method of play was what made them popular.

The fact of the matter was King's Quest was about a movie, you got to play through. LSL was pretty much jsut porn, so no need to go into why THAT was/is popular.

Like many designers today, they see things that occurred in the past and draw the wrong conclusions. so in the beginning, complexity was fun because that is what they could steal code and ideas for to make a quick buck or 60 from a couple 10 cent floppy disks.

Wiseman wrote: Where did the idea that players shouldn't know the rules to the game come from, and what was the reasoning behind such a stupid idea?

Why is the idea stupid ? We've got a fair number of players at our table like that, and nobody saw a problem with that. Some people are more interested at what happens on a fictional level than on a mechanical one, it seems.

silva wrote:

Wiseman wrote: Where did the idea that players shouldn't know the rules to the game come from, and what was the reasoning behind such a stupid idea?

Why is the idea stupid ? We've got a fair number of players at our table like that, and nobody saw a problem with that. Some people are more interested at what happens on a fictional level than on a mechanical one, it seems.

The operative word is 'shouldn't. The players at your table haven't learned the game by their own choice, and nobody at the table is being punished for learning the mechanics of the game.

I mean, if you want organic growth you kind of need to go with the Elder Scrolls route of getting better from doing the thing.

Elder Scrolls progression model was taken from Runequest, the original "get better as you do" system. And while its indeed more organic than the average, it tends to promote a certain behavior on the players for trying to use the more different skills as possible and in greater frequency just to maximize the chance for improvement. THIS behavior can be seen as artificial. (only in tables if occurs, of course)

silva wrote:Why is the idea stupid ? We've got a fair number of players at our table like that, and nobody saw a problem with that. Some people are more interested at what happens on a fictional level than on a mechanical one, it seems.

It's not necessarily stupid for the player to be ignorant of rules that the PC might be ignorant of. But it's stupid to have the player be ignorant of rules that the PC knows everything about..

For instance, I know from watching the news that if I fall off a 60' cliff in real life, I'll probably die or be seriously injured. But in an RPG, a player who is ignorant of the rules has no idea how dangerous that act is, even if his PC is an experienced mountain climber. That's bringing the player out of the story, not drawing him into it.

The rules in an RPG are like the laws of physics. I may not know all the laws of physics, but if I didn't know anything about physics -- not even on an intuitive level -- I wouldn't be able to function at all. How can you cross a street safely if you don't know that fast-moving cars are dangerous or if you don't know that gravity remains basically constant over the earth's surface?

Not knowing the monster stats or rules for exotic magical items ahead of time is fair enough.

Not knowing how your own spells work because half the rules are in the DMG...

I've often considered the idea of including a randomization portion of many monster's entry. I would be interested in the idea that my character might not know whether Trolls were prevented from regenerating by fire, holy water, or magic weapons. It would be helpful for monsters like Vampires which may have too many features to fit into one sane monster entry.

Now I don't think it would be good for every monster or even most. But including a genuine mystery element by not allowing your player to know which of the Vampire myth's they've heard are true in your world would be cool. It would be particularly helpful for super rare monsters like the Tarrasque. Not knowing which of the 400 spells in the PHB actually killed it (rather than just knowing to Wish at it) would mean that the actual challenge of the Tarrasque would be to make the DC 80 Knowledge check that told you it's weakness.

I always assumed it was the "No spoilers" rule.

Obviously when D&D became popular people started to know what mind flayers, ghouls and trolls did, but back when you first encountered them, it's nice to experience these things blind than it is to be told about them. Simply knowing all the different properties of magical items makes them feel less magical, because the mystery is gone. There's a thrill to knowing things are out there that you don't know and finding them. It's wonder and excitement. There could be anything in the next cavern.

It's the reason why new monster manuals are popular. People want to encounter new things with different abilities, because experienced players already have the core monsters memorized.

OgreBattle wrote:The operative word is 'shouldn't. The players at your table haven't learned the game by their own choice, and nobody at the table is being punished for learning the mechanics of the game.

so you are trying to claim that not having 100% of the mechanics in the player knowledge (even for brand new players) is some sort of punishment?

hogarth wrote:It's not necessarily stupid for the player to be ignorant of rules that the PC might be ignorant of. But it's stupid to have the player be ignorant of rules that the PC knows everything about..

For instance, I know from watching the news that if I fall off a 60' cliff in real life, I'll probably die or be seriously injured. But in an RPG, a player who is ignorant of the rules has no idea how dangerous that act is, even if his PC is an experienced mountain climber. That's bringing the player out of the story, not drawing him into it.

here again we have people taking for granted common MODERN knowledge of things in a game like D&D set in medieval times of which the characters themselves would not know because THE WORLD has not learned.

you cannot apply current knowledge of things to centuries back. Remember the man imprisonioned for saying the world was round, not flat for blashpemy?

you realize that applying current world knowledge to a world era like D&D is just playing Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court right?

Red_Rob wrote:Not knowing how your own spells work because half the rules are in the DMG...

you do realize the spells are in the PHB in all editions right? are you talking about how certain spells ar suggested to interact? you are basically bitching that the characters, who have never seen a mimic, do not know what a mimic is. because until the spell is tried in various situations, the character and player would NOT know how it will react. just like modern science, you don't know what happens to potassium when placed in water until you do it yourself, or you see someone else do it.

deanruel87 wrote:I've often considered the idea of including a randomization portion of many monster's entry. I would be interested in the idea that my character might not know whether Trolls were prevented from regenerating by fire, holy water, or magic weapons. It would be helpful for monsters like Vampires which may have too many features to fit into one sane monster entry.

1e DMG pg 103 wrote:There is no reason why monsters can not learn from encounters, employ flaming oil, set up ambushes, and so forth according to their capabilities and resources.

you could always change monsters from the default even in the middle of play, not just from the creation of the world. who was it on here said they removed elves and dwarves from the game for the anti0-Tolkeinism of it?

TSR made a book, in part to remove Dave from the game and revenue stream, so it was said in other terms that they [the monsters in the MM] were not IP of Dave Arneson.

1e MM Preface wrote:The various creatures contained herein are for use in ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS. Parameters have been set for that game. Those monsters drawn from my original work have been revised and expanded upon accordingly. Except as noted, all new monsters are strictly of this author's creation - just as all those which appeared in The Strategic Review were - and I take the burden of full responsibility for them. It is necessary to acknowledge the contributions of the following persons: Steve Marsh for devising the creatures for undersea encounters which originally appeared in BLACKMOOR, as I have radically altered them herein;

E Gary Gygax

He even slaps Dave in the face with Blackmoor in the process to claim some of those monsters that Dave himself did not fulyl create and have ownership of.

really, if people learn the history of the game including its dirty laundry, then MANY things become clear.

Cyberzombie wrote:It's the reason why new monster manuals are popular. People want to encounter new things with different abilities, because experienced players already have the core monsters memorized.

THIS is the engine that makes D&D run, because people DO get bored of the same thing and want new vistas for challenges to the PLAYER and new things to explore instead of jsut the same old thing every time. thus by not having the monsters in the PHB for summon monster in 3.5, it allows there to be surprises, even for the caster at the time of casting!

this is always why 2e edition have over 18,000 pages of monsters and variants, so you NEVER run out of tweaks and such like dean proposed. but DMs could have always made their own monsters by basing them on existing ones, or trial and error.

Lack of player knowledge is so that PCs won't have objective fights/challenges. They won't have to win or lose battles by skill alone because the DM can fudge things to save them and they won't know it, thus they have fun because the illusion of objective difficulty remains.

Complexity is just a convergence of the desire to make more playable material and a profound inability to streamline systems.

Lack of player knowledge also leads to players having no agency.
If I don't know what exists, then I can't go there /do anything about it etc.
And some DMs have a hard on for that.