Hey everyone,

In most of the RPGs I’ve come across (albeit, this is somewhat limited), at least those which rely heavily on mechanics (D&D especially), the players have almost perfect knowledge about most tactical situations.  The players often know their probability of hitting, or if not they can figure it out within 5 rounds of combat (oh, I got a 17 and that hit, while your 16 missed...).  They know how much damage each weapon and spell will do in every particular situation.  They know how many hit points they have left, and know exactly how much damage both they and their enemy are dealing.  They know exactly how good their character is at picking locks or hacking computers, and (depending on the GM) will sometimes know their chance of success or failure from the onset.  If nothing else, at least they’ll know, “Well, I rolled a 9 on a d10 and that failed, that must mean this is pretty darn tough.” 

Are there games where clear mechanics exist, but are kept secret from the players (like, even to the level of the players not knowing the dice rolls)?  I think I’ve heard Paranoia is like that (I’ve never played it, and have only read the Infa-Red section of the rulebook, please don’t spoil too much of it for me though).  Are there others?  (Normally I’d do more research on this myself, but as of right now my internet capabilities are extremely limited, although they will probably become a lot for about a week, if not it will be an every 2-3 week thing).  Can this be done successfully, and what are the pitfalls to watch out for?  Is it only possible to do this with an extremely simple system (from what I remember, in Paranoia everyone only has 2 attributes), or can a medium-complexity game be run without the GM being overwhelmed?  Also, if the aim of the game is to keep the gears and cogs hidden, does this automatically limit character creation, and if so, how severely? 

In a system like this, is it difficult to give some information without revealing too much or too little?  For example, is it possible to explain that hitting a skeleton with a holy sword hurts it significantly more than with a normal sword, without effectively telling players that holy swords deal x2 damage?  Or is it really as easy as it sounds like it could be, and is just left to good GMing? 

Also, if there are games like this out there, what effects does this create?  I imagine it kills min-maxing.  I imagine it creates an interesting experience, which feels more mysterious, requires more role-playing, and hopefully in some ways is more true to life.  I feel like in some ways it would be easier for first-timers.  Are there other effects that I’m not aware of (good or bad)?  Is it frustrating to the players to not know what their magic sword does (only that it seems to make it easier to cut up monsters)? 

Finally, is a game like this doomed to not work, because everyone inevitably reads the rulebook (or, figures out the mechanics after 2 or 3 sessions)? 

Simon

PS If all of these questions are two abstract (since after I wrote this I realized that's probably what you all will say), I’m thinking of using them for a 1-shot fantasy (or maybe even generally adaptable) adventure system.  The rules will be probably medium or medium-simple.  My idea is that the players with pick up characters, play for a single session with a single goal (hopefully something that would take a day, certaintly less than a week of game time.  For example, I have ideas for an assasination mission, a puzzle dungeon, and sneaking into a werewolf layer disguised as one of them), and then be done.  No leveling required, no classes, although hopefully the characters will be able to make themselves distinct in some ways (namely, I’m thinking they can set 5-ish stats, which secretly affect what they can do).  Hopefully it will be easy to pick up, and accessible to players who have not had much experience role-playing.  I have also considered the possibility of using this idea for simple computer rpgs (in which case bogging down the GM is less of an issue, although revealing the right amount of information is more of an issue). 

Simons wrote:
Also, if there are games like this out there, what effects does this create?  I imagine it kills min-maxing.  I imagine it creates an interesting experience, which feels more mysterious, requires more role-playing, and hopefully in some ways is more true to life.  I feel like in some ways it would be easier for first-timers.  Are there other effects that I’m not aware of (good or bad)?  Is it frustrating to the players to not know what their magic sword does (only that it seems to make it easier to cut up monsters)? 

I'm a fan of the concept where the active character's action is derived from a constant plus a randomiser, and the defensive target also has a result derived from a constant plus a randomiser.

At least with this method, a 4 might prove successful in one round, while a 7 might prove unsuccessful in the next.

If the players are just told the final result after the randomiser is added, they have an idea of what to aim for, but still don't have a specific knowledge of their opponent's constant value. Sure a few more rounds might lead them to a general idea of their opponents capacity, but it will keep changing from round to round so nothing can be guaranteed.

V

Simons,

I've experienced much of what Contracycle describes, but I've also had some success with a version that goes like this:

1) The character creation and improvement rules make the players aware of how good their characters are at things, relative to easily-understood real-world "skill levels" -- "novice", "trained", "professional", "expert", "master", "supreme uber grandmaster", etc.  (Numbers optional.)

2) The resolution mechanics make the players aware of how well their characters perform at a specific attempt.  This means roll dice -- if you roll high, your character performed realtively (to his own skill) well -- if you roll low, your character performed relatively poorly.

3) The GM makes the players aware or ignorant of how difficult a task is depending on info that their characters have.  If they can see the pit they're trying to jump, tell them, "An expert jumper could clear it easily; a novice, probably, but not guaranteed."  If they're facing a new monster, tell them, "You have no idea if your sword will penetrate its armor."

4) GM does all the number crunching of skill + die roll vs difficulty.

The result of tackling unknown obstacles has, in my experience, ranged from extreme player caution to high character fatality rate.  I've found that extreme player caution can be either immense fun or an absolute fun-killer, depending on other play priorities.  For my own preference for suspenseful mood and thrill of exploration, it works quite well.  For my buddy's emphasis on optimizing tactical position above all else, it also works quite well.  But the two of us can't play this way together; we bore each other to tears.

Old school D&D had elements of this - the svaing throw tables for example were kind of ambiguous so it was the DM's call what the players had to roll, also the use of to hit tables meant that unless players had them memorised (and many players did) the exact to hit numbers were uncertain. Furthermore the DMG had a clear "Don't read this if you're a player" message and this meant that while players knew some of the rules, they never knew all of them. This is what Paranoia parodies pretty well - and the game actually encourages the GM to change rules that the players have figured out (so the player gets used to the plasma thrower being highly reliable, then one day rolling a 1 causes it to explode or whatever) and denounce players that demonstrate rules knowledge as traitors (so the other players usually kill their character for kicks and the praise of the Computer). Something as exreme as Paranoia works though because it's meant as a joke and that's clear from the outset.

In D&D 3E of course players even know stuff like how many encounters they're supposed to face and call "cheat" on the DM if a 5th band of orcs turns up after they've had their 4 encounters for the day. Most D20 players see the "sometimes need to roll high, sometimes low" as a fault, while old-school players see it as a good thing - the DM can say  "roll a D20 and it could be a save versus a hidden trap (roll high) or a Wisdom check (roll low).

Things that are mundane should be fairly predictable - a sword will kil a guy with no armour but have trouble killing someone in full plate unless they can hit a weak -point (this should eb predictable to warrior charactes, but when a non swordsman attacks the roll could be much more random, a kind of "beginners luck" table), whereas what a sword might do to demon might be a total mystery (and there is no reason all demons should be the same). This mirrors many horror movies where the first encounter is doubly dangerous because the characters have no idea how to harm the monster (say the zombie needs to be hit in the head and gnores anything else). You have to play on description and build up clues - the less rules dependent the players are the more likely they are to accept this stuff (rules lawyer type players may complain that their sword +4 vs undead should kill a zombie in one blow).

So I think the best choice for this kind of game is a clear division of rules- characters should know the rules for simple things their characters know, but many things might be a mystery (for example you might keep the magic rules secret, letting wizard players know how their wizard's school of thought uses magic but giving them no information on how others use it).

Non numerical values can be good too: Typical, Above-Average, Good, Excellent etc... rather than +0, +1, +2 etc... as they show relative ability but keep the maths in the background.

There is some reason to the GM behind a screen approach.

Another factor to consider is how explicitly your game deals with "intent" (by the IIEE definition).

A lot of "Forge/Indie" games deal with resolution in a very intent-relevant fashion--players state what they want, and the dice determine whether they get what they want or not.

In a "traditional" RPG where resolution tends to be closer to task resolution, there is less clarity about what the dice actually decide. Often, it means that a) the players are not clearly stating what they want to achieve, and b) the mechanics do not actually tell you whether they get what they wanted. The GM ends up deciding what happens, often based on nothing more than a guess of what the player wanted.

For example, a character watching a crowd gathered outside the Palace might say, "I throw a rock into the crowd!" The GM, having no idea why the player is doing this, might ask for some kind of roll and narrate an outcome. From the player's perspective, the outcome is very unpredictable and "mysterious". From the GM's, not so much.

However, there are other ways to get unpredictable outcomes. Including the input of several players is one way. Mechanics that produce an unpredictable combination of results is another. For instance, imagine a system where every player names a possible outcome of an action or scene, then rolls a die. Anyone rolling 5 or higher has their outcome take place. This would lead to very unpredictable scenes, quite possibly giving you very much the effect you're going for.

Other methods exist as well, like the scripted combat in Burning Wheel or the way conflict resolution includes initiative/ordering in Sorcerer.

Hope that helps,

Paul