I've been toying with the idea of running a black box RPG - a game where all the mechanical details are hidden from the players.

Since such a game increase the burden on the GM I'd like advice on several topics:

1. What are the benefits of running black box?
2. Is it worth the trouble?
3. What RPG system would you recommend to run such a game?
4. What steps can be made to streamline the process for the gm?
5. How would you handle chargen?

Im running something simular using call of cthulhu 7e in the background. I wouldn't reccommend using that system but something rules light like the window would work well.

Advantages:

1. Better immersion for players. No need to do chargen

2. The ability for you to pick stats rather than go through a more complex chargen process.

3. The ability to bend or break rules to keep game flow without the rules lawyers shoutong at you.

Disadvantages:

1. Much more work up front.

2. Harder to maintain fairness if you do bend / break rules

3. You may end up in situations where you are arguing with players over a particular scene or event's outcome.


In order for this to work well you need rtjs with as much detail as possible to match the text to a character sheet.

You could, for example ask for 4 skills a charcter is great at, 3 that they are good at, 2 that they are average at and 2 that they have passing knowledge of.

In a d100 system that might equate to 4 skills at 90, 3 at 75, 2 at 50 and 2 at 25.

I've heard "immersion" tossed about before in regards to these games, but... the ones I've plyed in, they kinda do the opposite to me.  I tend to obsess over any little bit of system detail*, and that becomes my focus rather than the game.

* The ones I've been in were more "reveal the game as we go" rather than "totally sealed black box forevers".  And they were more of a "GM is keeping a lid on the power-gaming by keeping the more problematic powers/abilities out of play", rather then "I need total immersion!"


That's really on your end to answer.  It wouldn't be for me.  I've done ye olde "Amnesia" games before, but those are "Players know the system, just not their Characters abilities" games.  I've enjoyed running them and playing in them.


Something a bit more "Chargen options slim", like OSR D&D, or some sort of 'rules lite" system.

Something that lends itself more to GM Fiat, than Player-Rules Interaction.

So definitely not FATE.  FATE is like right out.


A good set of Character Background Questions.  Ones that focus on what the Player wants teh PC to have been as well as what they want them to be.


Like I said above, lots of questions.

• What are the benefits of running black box?
  If I had to play Devil's Advocate, I'd say that the added mystery is the benefit.  A lot about a setting can be inferred by the system you're using, and by concealing the gears from the players, you also engage different types of problem solving.
• Is it worth the trouble?
  I, personally, don't think so.  The problem with running "black box" is that without any sort of mechanical context, players don't have any sense of scale or proportion.  If you were playing Black Box Exalted, the players would have absolutely no idea they could jump over buildings.  If you were playing black box Call of Cthulhu, the players would have no idea that busting in on a group of Deep Ones with guns blazing has about a zero percent chance of success.
• What RPG system would you recommend to run such a game?
  If you had to do it, I might go far afield and recommend a system like Risus, Cypher, or Wushu.  Something light, with minimal resource management and a focus on narrative powers.  If the players can't see their own resources (Spell slots, daily/encounter style powers, healing, hit points, etc...), there is no way they can manage them, so a system like D&D is right out.
  You might also get away with a system like Fate, but it'd be hard to dole out things like Compels.
• What steps can be made to streamline the process for the gm?
  The GM is going to have to be in it, in the thick of it.  Without the shorthand of the system to fall back on, the GM is going to have to give constant feedback.  If a character has a fair assessment of his own abilities, but the player has no way to gauge things, the GM is going to have to provide every bit of narrative context.  Does the goblin look like an easy fight?  Is that guy stronger than normal?  Can the player jump that gap?  Can he make that sniper shot?  Since the players only have an abstract sense for the competence and abilities of their characters, and have no feedback from the system other than the GM's narrative.
  That lack of fictional kinesthetics, the shorthand that the dice and their results provide you in the moment ("Oh crap, I rolled an 18 and still missed, we might be in over our heads...") means that there are absolutely no shortcuts for the GM.
• How would you handle chargen?
  I would probably handle it purely based on narrative and concept.  Ask some basic questions about backstory, training, and relationships, and bake some mechanics out of that.  You could also do a Morrowind style interrogation, asking Facebook style quiz questions to get stats and class.

If you hadn't inferred, I think running a black box system is not a really good idea.  It's one thing to run a system where some of the mechanics are occult or even opaque, but the system provides really important feedback to players, which allows them to shape their playstyle, and give them a fuller sense of the world their characters inhabit.
This message was last edited by the user at 07:54, Wed 15 Nov 2017.

I totally get your point here, but in the example of a Call of Cthulhu game, if the players were roleplaying properly and their characters had never met a deep one before they would still use guns. Yes, it would get them killed, but the point of roleplaying in COC isn't to survive - its to tell an interesting story.

I would think the game setting should be able to dictate the characters limits. Most likely the closer the setting models the real world, the easier it will be for players to guess how likely the outcome of an action will be.

Thank you for all the thought provoking replies :)

For my part I see the uncertainty as part of the game. In an open system you know how good you are, you know how much more you can take before you drop out of a fight and how much more resources you can expend.

I was thinking of a human PCs in a post apocalyptic setting where nothing is certain and known for sure. I think that in such a setting and game not knowing for sure what are your stats would provoke a more feel of the survival. You'd need to assess every situation carefully.

I always recall an Amber Dicless game I ran, where even the PCs with the highest ranks in Warfare felt it was not worth the risk and charge an unknown NPC and first probe him out carefully not to get surprised. That was the kind of feeling I want.

I do agree, that the burden falls on the GM and in the end it might miss the point. I tried a Conspiracy X game that was so black box that the players didn't even know they were playing Conspiracy X. Translating PC background into Conspiracy X stats was very very challenging.

I urge you to examine this statement more closely.

Imagine you, as a person, trying to leap over a gap.  You, as a person, have a sense of your own athletic abilities.  You know how fast you can run, how far you can jump, how confident you are in your stride.  Your brain naturally takes all of that self-knowledge into account when eyeing a gap, and gives you a good "gut check" of whether you can feel confident in jumping that gap.

A character's statistics, in a game, provide the same function.  They give a player a feel for him- or herself, and let him do the eyeing and estimation.  They tell the player how fast the character runs, how far they can jump, and how confident they should feel in their athletic abilities.

Furthermore, a person getting pummeled about the head and face has a pretty good idea if he's winning or losing a fight, and can feel the effects of fatigue, injury, and blood loss.  Functions like health levels, conditions, and hit points provide that same feedback to the player.  They know the difference between taking 3 HP and 30 HP, and how it relates to their character's feeling.

Without that feedback, without that degree of self-knowledge, a black box game can induce a feeling of extraordinary blindness and uncertainty, and not necessarily the good, horror/mystery inducing kind.

You can't assess a situation without a baseline.  You can't determine if something is a risk without knowing what constitutes a risk.  Making a decision based on virtually zero information - about your character, about the environment, or about the thematic or narrative underpinnings of the story you're trying to tell - can be a truly infuriating experience.

I think I may not explained myself clearly, when I say black box I mean the system is hidden however your PC get qualitative descriptive (Not STR 15 but strong or something of the kind).

That said, I think that most of our perception of the world is very subjective and most of us are not fully aware what we are capable off from various reasons.

Damage is the easiest, our scale for damage is pain, however there is only correlation between pain and damage. Many people report gunshot wounds as a slap followed by a burning sensation. Head wounds have a notoriety to bleed profoundly and appear far more severe than they are and as any male of our species can attest. Getting hit in our sensitive bits is very painful although the life risk is very minimal. Adrenaline, lack of pain receptors (for internal injuries) and such can cause havoc in our perception of how hurt we are.

Add to that that most HP reflect even more nebulous thing like dodging and minor injuries. It is very logical that you would not know how much HP you have.

Even assessment of our own abilities and skills is colored by our psyche. I am sure everyone knows people that act and think they are <insert ability> than they really are and the opposite as well.

Most of challenges in real life are categorize into three broad groups, I can do easily, no way I can do it and maybe.

No one knows if he has 67& or 58% chance to cross the gap. I do agree that the information the GM gives (and hence the increase burden) should include more information about what your PC is feeling regarding a task.

One thing I've always worried about this kind of approach: why would anyone ever try anything exciting or adventurous in this kind of game, unless they were crazy or stupid?

All I feel as a prospective player in something like that is specifically and strongly mistrusted.

In reply to Aidhogan (msg # 10):

Same here, but in the course of trying to run games in which I implicitly trust the players with mechanical and other information that their characters "wouldn't" know, is that some players don't want to be trusted with that information.

This is very interesting, could you please elaborate why would you feel that way?



Some would argue that in a world that a rodent of unusual size rodent can kill a grown man, adventuring is the realm of the insane :) but seriously, why in your opinion such a world would be different from the PC perspective than a world where you the player have full access to their stats?

In reply to csroy (msg # 12):

Because you're telling me it'll help my immersion, not asking me (hypothetically) whether that's the case, for starters. It has been presented here as though I can't be relied on to behave believably with any differences between player and character knowledge, on top of that. So it feels both presumptuousand accusatory. And honestly, the idea of doing it as just a fun novelty challenge just gamifies the experience for me. That could be a fine, entertaining goal, but it's actually going to undermine any immersion, not enhance it. As engine said, ours is not a universal position. But perhaps take this as a reminder that you'll be polarizing your potential player base. And I think you'll find quite a few really good improvisational writers in the group it pressures out.

Caveat the second: there are almost certainly ways to degranularize stats that don't come across this way. I don't see the advantage of doing so except as a descriptive aid, but it needn't necessarily be as off-putting as I'm describing. And caveat the third:I don't tend to delineate the player/gm divide very strongly. I think of the hobby as a particularly collaborative venture, and while some information mismatch is good for fun surprises, and while the referee is tasked with extra labor that means they should very rarely be the ones with less information, I don't assign them some greater right to it. We're all equal here.

I think there's a saying that fits well here:-

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

There are going to be some players that like freeform and hate systems.

There are going to be some players that like systems and will only play in system based games.

Some will be offended by having rules hidden, some will like it.

Its purely a matter of taste. So I guess you need to know your audience.

Me, for example - I prefer free form but don't mind a system based games so long as it doesn't restrict my creativity or play style. Generally, that means character generation where I can have as much freedom as I like in terms of stats and skills and aren't limited to a certain skill set or at the mercy of random die rolls.

I agree with Starchaser assessment.

My initial inquiry more how can one maintain a black box game and keep the GM burden to minimal.

I respect peoples views that such a game would not be fun for them. Frankly I am not convinced that it would be fun for me and I fear the sheer book keeping would be overwhelming unless I'll be using very simple system.

Because there's no set definition of "the PC perspective" and because metagaming isn't inherently detrimental to the game when the game is about anything more than the players figuring out what is worth trying to do.

If I indicate to the players that there is an evil wizard in a tower and they set out to face him immediately rather than spending hours figuring out whether doing so would be even remotely feasible, then I get to engage in a game about taking on an evil wizard in a tower, instead of a game about discussing whether taking on an evil wizard in a tower is a good idea or not.

If for some reason I happened to want the latter, I can probably still have it without having to hide the rules from anyone, if I just ask nicely for it.

I'm not really addressing your initial question. To address that, I'd say that the easiest way would be to run a game based entirely in reality, rather than, say, a game in which people are intended to react to fantastic or even unusual situations in a "realistic" way. If anyone tries to do something other than the kinds of things normal people do on a daily basis, then they fail, because that's usually what would happen.

I could not put to words before, how repulsive the idea was, but this almost sums it up. I pointedly didn't include the caveat in his next post, because I feel stronger about it than he does. For me, a black box game is a freeform game because it feels like one, and a freeform game is an instant deal breaker. I don't care if you have the best story in the world. I don't care if you actually want to run my Discworld sentient ferret idea that's actually on my bucket list. If you run it in freeform, or anything that feels like freeform, I'm out.
This message had punctuation tweaked by the user at 15:30, Thu 16 Nov 2017.

So hey, I'm sorry for the derail. My actual interaction with the starting question is that running both sides of any system detailed enough to make obfuscating it have real consequences is always going to be a really big GM burden, because it involves doing all the expected work, plus taking on considerable amounts that are usually the other players'^* responsibility. It'd make an interesting project if I had a lot of spare time and the right group, but I can't see any way it doesn't outright multiply the workload.

^*-the GM is a player also

I don't think you derailed anything, I just think that using a system, and then hiding it defeats the purpose (to me) of using a system which is (to me) that all the players should get to feel the crunch of the system. Not getting to feel the crunch of a system (to me) is another immersion breaker.

The issue that I see isn't that a black box game is freeform.  Your actions are governed and referee'd according to rules that you're not supposed to infer or understand.

This leads to two types of undesirable behavior.

• Hypercaution
  In the absence of understanding their limits and capabilities (and their varying degrees of plot armor/hit points), players will waffle and prevaricate, tiptoeing around danger and avoiding risk.  Since they can't meaningfully read the risk of a given situation, they will avoid danger.
  This differs significantly from freeform, since a freeform player has much more freedom to write himself out of danger.
• Probing
  In the absence of context, players will seek context.  They will probe their limits, trying to feel out the system.  They will engage in experimental behavior to try and discern the limits of the system.  They will see how fast they can run, how far they can jump, and how many times they can bludgeon themselves in the head before they pass out.
  This will be sometimes ridiculous.  Empirical tests on jumping distance is only the beginning.  Imagine someone trying to discover how hit points work....

Not wishing to play Devil's Advocate here, folks, but if I'm understanding correctly, I do this sort of thing all the time, and it's as easy as pie.

As a couple of people have already said, there is little difference between 'Black Box' and Freeform. All of my games are 'freeformish'. I use a very simple set of rules that are only invoked for combat or high risk situations, and a very simple character generation system on a 5-point scale.

The combat rules are there to prevent any 'bang you're dead, no I'm not, you missed' arguments that might arise in pure freeform, and the chargen rules weed out the Mary Sue Polymaths, whose characters are fluent in fifteen languages and experts in the entire armoury of weapons.

Usually, I don't keep the rules (such as they are) secret from the players, but I could easily do so - and in one game I am doing so. If they're rolling their own dice (you haven't said whether they are or not), they can see how 'lucky' they were, and that can deflect a lot of arguments.

Don't try to use a 500 page rule book for something like this, you'll kill yourself with workload (To put it in perspective, my rules cover two of sides of A4), and don't try it as a novice GM. If you need complex rules as a crutch for your imagination, don't even attempt this.

Simple rules, fly by the seat of your pants. You can have as just as much fun in a Tiger Moth as you can in a Typhoon. :)


IMO, the art of making Black Box or Freeform work is good storytelling:

Fred has told you he's preparing to jump the chasm.

GM: "As Fred eyes the chasm, he's pretty confident that he can make it."
Or: "As Fred eyes the chasm, he feels it's at the edge of his ability. If his footing is just right, he can make it, but one false step..."

If, with or without a set of rules, you're telling a believable story, decent players will go with you. If the story isn't believable, that's when the arguments arise.

If Fred gets killed facing an army of ninjas, he'll probably go quietly. If he's killed by being bitten on the toe by a sewer rat he kicked, his player will throw his toys out of the pram.


Steelsmiter, Freeformy stuff isn't that bad, with the right GM and players. Never say never, mate. :)

If death and/or PVP is impossible, maybe you have an argument. maybe. If it's unlikely but possible, you don't. Period. I will play any game where death/PVP is not going to happen under any circumstances. But if it can, nevermind will, if it can, I'm gone.* I must vehemently go against your suggestion about vocabulary in all instances where death is a possibility. And that Freeform PVP is ever fair under any circumstances, with any GM, or subset of players.

And that's because everything in freeform is subjective. Or at least that's what I've been told by every freeformer I know. With a system, you can at least objectively say how many points/levels/other power discerning mechanic a character was built on. Whether those points were objectively fairly used depends on a combination of the robustness of the system to experimentation, and the intent on the player's part to break it. Still it's better than no objectivity.

And if a system takes that away from me by being black box, then I objectively can't determine its level of subjectivity, and/or the approximate fairness of any character involved, and it isn't worth my time. To the point where if a GM wants me in their game, it isn't worth their time to bother with black boxing it. If anyone doesn't, that's fair enough.

---

^{*Exception: I have played games where the death of a character is a pre-decided plot point the sole purpose of the game. Those don't bother me... but then again, the object of those games is to play a specified story. Not entirely sure I count that a game, but it's a convenient label.}
This message was last edited by the user at 05:55, Fri 17 Nov 2017.

Isocahedron152 - You are not going to convince steelsmiter. He obviously dislikes freform and that's fine. That's up to him

Steelsmiter: I respect your opinion but there a lot of people who prefer freeform and that's ok too. Some players dislike systems and that's fine.

Don't try to stongly convert others to your way of thinking. It only leads to unnecessary conflict.

In answer to the original question the conclusion is that a black box game works best with a rules lite system and where everyone knows there are hidden rules and are happy with that.

It seem people feel very strongly about black box game, I think it is all about control. How much you have control. In most game the GM has almost absolute control, I mean let's face it. Knowing that I play a 6rd level Fighter with Str 15 while may give me illusion of knowing my capabilities since they are always measured against an unknown outside they are pretty meaningless (I have no idea if I am fighting a 1st level or a 20th level opponent). So my conclusions so far are:

1. Black box, like any kind of RP is not universal, some are OK with it some are not (the same could be said for D&D, Sci fi and freeform game). However, if I'll run such a game it would be part of the social contract I'll set with the player so there would be no surprises.

2. System - my initial thought was using Twlight 2013, it has many elements I am interest in. However, I agree with the feedback I got that such a heavy crunch system would not fit in such a game as the GM burden would be enormous. So something lite or simple maybe like Omni.

3. Chargen - Concern were made about players not aware how good their characters are. To mitigate this I think I'll adopt the advice of making a very detailed chargen with lots of questions. I also think adding realistic descriptor (You can bench press 200kg) would also help to mitigate any obfuscate players may feel.

4. Player immersion - frankly I think it depends on the player, some would say it boost their immersion not being tied to a set of moves that are system limited other would feel the opposite. Personally after experience PC jumping from a 200' cliff because they had 121 HP I tend to favor the black box approach (or at least the common sense one).

5. Dice rolls - perhaps if players would roll their own actions, I think I am in favor because a)it would lower GM burden and b)it may give the illusion of control and help some players perception of causality. However, the system need to be very simple (roll 1d20, roll 2d6 pick the lowest etc) for this to work.

Starchaser, don’t worry, I’ve gamed with Steelsmiter, we’re OK, him and me, we’re not going to have a flame war here, just a bit of mutual joshing. :)


Steelsmiter, I agree, if the rules are hidden or non-existent, then PvP is probably best avoided. I generally avoid it anyway, it’s often a strain on the game, even with comprehensive rules in plain sight.

Character death is less of an issue, I think - depending how it is done. As I said above, you can expect to go out in a blaze of glory fighting a ninja army, but not facing a sewer rat. I think if a reasonable player has built up a relationship with a reasonable GM, it can work.


In many rule-based games, there is an adversarial arrangement between the players and the GM, and the players' object is to win against the system. In most freeform games it's about mutual storytelling, and telling a good story with your fellow players is more important than your character winning, or even surviving. (I’ve even seen PvP situations in freeform, where two players will decide which kills the other for the betterment of the story, but you need some real stage-troopers to do that).

It's a different mindset, suiting different players, and this is what makes a Black Box game potentially dangerous, because it's neither one thing nor the other, and you have a polarized audience.

If you get a group of competitors who feel disadvantaged and cheated by 'playing blind', you'll have trouble on your hands. If you get a group of storytellers who see the hidden rules as 'additional structure', it may be a breeze. However, the 'hardline' storytellers won't want a set of rules, hidden or not, interfering with their freedom to tell their story.

Let your players know up front exactly what the game is about and whether their characters may die. Most of the hardliners in either camp will exclude themselves from your game, and the ones who RTJ will probably accept all the ramifications of the package you are offering.


Looks like you summed it up pretty well in #25. :)

Well, I know you're in my discussion groups but I've started and lost so many actual games since like '05 I don't know which you're/were in. For me, death is more of an issue, unless it is the game's objective. If it's the point of the game, I'm fine telling that story. But again, game/story, tomatoh/tomahto. And discussing my own character's death is a very uncomfortable thing for me because I had an 11 year old cousin who didn't get any such discussion. So even that is touchy, and I have to be the one who has the idea.

Short of that, I won't be in a freeform with people I've known my entire 18 years of gaming. That last 6 words feels weird to say.


I don't care about winning, or even surviving, I just care about losing being (to a particular level of granularity) objectively fair-ish. For me I solve the rat problem by only giving you diseases if it actively attacks you, not if you attack it.



The notion of negotiating how fights go down is the worst part for me. In real fights, the chips fall where they may, unless you're a boxer who just got paid to throw the fight or something.


I'd do something like that, with a caveat along the lines of +x for any detail demarking obvious superiority that would apply to the task (or in the case of your 2d6 example, keeping the higher one where a detail indicates superiority). Someone earlier cautioned against Fate, but I think Fate actually works out really well because players roll 4df against a descriptive statement about the complexity of the situation "Dude's a Legendary Swordsman" or "That cliff's gonna be a Great climb". Even if you don't use Fate outright, it might be worth looking into putting descriptive words on what numbers players need to tally even if just for behind the scenes.
This message was last edited by the user at 18:02, Fri 17 Nov 2017.

It's not the fighters negotiating the fight, though, it's the players. From the perspective of the fighters, the chips do fall where they may - unless the players negotiate that one of them cheats or something.

It amounts to the same thing, since the outside factor is conscious choice. The perspective of the fighters is inextricably linked at least in part to my own if I'm one of the fighters. Which is to say that while I don't play fighters who are entirely me, I can't play a fighter who is entirely not me either.


No, the chips don't fall where "they may" they fall where "the players decide" and that's unequivocally different to me.

Okay. Unless it's a real fight, though, they'll never fall "where they may." Either the GM is deciding or rules are deciding, and neither of those are the same as "the chips" deciding, but of someone else deciding what makes sense or would be fair or interesting. It's a model of a fight, and the players deciding to agree to abide by that model.

Of course I concede that there's a difference to you, I just find the distinctions players make interesting.

Sure they are. The rules indicate that the random number generators and the character builds are in some combination, "the chips". The same way chips fall off rock being chiseled at, dice fall on different numbers, cards in a deck come up a number of different ways that exceeds the speculated possible duration of this universe under inflationary cosmology, and so on. Things that are a designated stand in for chips fall (often literally) in a way that is not in players control that is literally "where they may".


Yeah, and I find them objectively unfair due to their subjectivity. At least with systems, everyone is subject to a level of similarity in interpretation with regards to what dice rolls mean, and what is fair to spend points or other power determinant resources on. In freeform, all interpretations are entirely subjective. Even when players team up and declare another being a Mary Sue/Marty Stu. There's no accounting for fairness to a given granularity outside opinion, and let's just say that I have the opinion I should never have paid taxes.

The range of ways that they "may" are proscribed, though, by human decision makers. In a real fight, an undiagnosed medical condition or an unfortunate fall could result in death. A particular rule set might include that sort of eventuality, or it might not. An in-game model of a poker game might involve real cards and so involve all of those myriad possibilities, or they might have a much smaller range of outcomes. Chips are still falling, but into an artificial funnel.

A negotiation can also involve chips falling. One doesn't know what the other will propose or agree to. The agreement may precede the outcome, but it still involved uncertainty - quite a lot, in fact if we go deeper into the neurology of decision making, and consider that many of the choices we make are set inexorably in motion before we experience making them.

Most systems don't require dice rolls for everything, and often not even for things that dice rolls are required for in other situations. For example, an attack might require a roll in one circumstance and be deemed automatic in another circumstance, without the rules weighing in specifically on when which is appropriate. Most systems leave it up to the GM's interpretation of when it is appropriate to roll, and even to ignore the outcome of rolls.

Is an acceptable level of fairness possible for you, given such an arrangement?


There's really no accounting for fairness in a given ruleset, either, at least not outside of perfectly symmetric games like chess. Designers have illogical preferences for certain outcomes and they might miscalculate things. It's common for groups to negotiate and decide how to reform the rules to what they decide is fair, and then to play out games based on those decisions. I'm interested to know how that sits with you. If you don't like it, I would understand: I myself prefer to stick to rules as much as possible, even when designers agree that they're unfair or broken. But if I advocate for that as a player or GM, I'm going to have to negotiate it.

Folks. I think a gamist-narrativist-simularionist discussion would be a great topic for a different thread.

Thinking about it, I suppose a rules designer doesn't have a specific intent to advantage or disadvantage a particular person at a particular table, the way an actual player (who is not-very-well-trusted, apparently) might. That seems to be the primary concern.

and that's still not "where they may". That's "to one's whims"


Usually, but where it's not, it isn't the system's fault.


The accounting for fairness is that everyone is subject to most of the same rules, and that most of the rules are codified statements with statistical relevance rather than being outright whim. I don't join games that are "heavily houseruled" if I can avoid it, because I may not know how the math works out. Depends how clearly delineated and how unambiguous the rules changes are. With a freeform game, I always see the "no godmodding" which is as ambiguous or at least subjective as you can get. And says nothing about statistical relevance of characters.

That can occur, yeah. I don't play the 3 games that are most famous for it.


I'm playtesting 3 systems right now actually. I have to like it, or at least accept that some tweaking will need to be made to fix my games in a way that makes them fair to the level of granularity expected by system players. One of my games has 154 posts in the thread designated for system tweaks. About 2/3 of them are dedicated to actual system tweak discussion that have fruitfully lead to system changes.


I aim for a combination of rules and verisimilitude, with rules winning out slightly if only because some rules are specifically required to break verisimilitude to fit the source material. A rule that's good for a criminal sandbox won't necessarily be good for a visual novel or a horror game after all, and several won't fit hyper realistic. Not without already incorporating some level of ambiguity anyway.


No, I'd trust 1shinigami with my actual life. But I won't be in a freeform game if he ever decides to run one :D
Jokes aside, yes it's a relevant distinction. "Is not", and "may not" be are also factors, but the two are different things with regards to trust.


It's the core of my problem with the idea of a black box game if it isn't done right, will ruin it for me. So it is very much not for a different thread. I'm actually somewhere in the simulation assisting narrative camp, and only care about gameism inasmuch as it aids the simulation I need for a fair(ish) narrative.
This message was last edited by the user at 22:50, Fri 17 Nov 2017.

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 35):

Thanks for your responses.

If any game is going to be successful, it needs to accommodate as many people as possible. No game will ever be acceptable to everyone, people are just too different, but it is interesting to discuss how people feel about a particular type of game, and to check out whether certain modifications might make it more or less acceptable, so I think we're still on topic here.

There's no saying that Steelsmiter will ever join one of csroy's games (or one of mine) but it is constructive to discuss whether certain adaptations may make that possible. Not least because I'm sure he is not alone in his views, and there is fresh blood out there for the taking. :)

Steelsmiter, I'm still not sure of your thoughts regarding engine's observation:


You claim to hold dice and rules in high esteem because of their objectivity, yet any game that is not fully automated is subject to the whim of the GM to some extent.

In fact, Rpol (and all RPGs for that matter) has a degree of Black Box-ism already built in. Even with the crunchyest system imaginable, the GM still has the option to roll or not roll, or to fudge the outcome of a roll, on his or her whim.

You seem to be willing to trust the GM, any GM, with making those decisions, yet you don't trust them to put all the rules/decisions out of sight, or to ride bareback without rules at all.

I'm curious to know where you draw the line, and why. :)

Your statement:

is completely alien to me. You would trust this person to make decisions affecting your own life, but you don't trust him to make decisions affecting the outcome of a game? Why is that?



Likewise. I like to keep some chargen numbers and some dice rolls to assist with objectivity, I'm not a hardcore freeformer, but I keep them to support me in my job as a GM, not because I think they're essential for a good game.

IMO, what you have in a Black Box game is effectively a Turing Test.

The players are challenged to determine whether the GM is using a set of mechanical rules that are hidden, or whether the GM is actually running a freeform game using pure human imagination.

With a good set of rules, or a good freeform GM, the players shouldn’t be able to tell what is behind the screen. Both methods should lead to a strong, coherent, believable, pseudo-reality, and the immersive reality of the narrative is what’s important, surely? Rules are simply a convenient means to that end.

As you say, Steelsmiter,


But of course, life itself is seldom fair. Sometimes, the whim of the GM can be fairer than the dice.

More to the point, I don't want any game to be fully automated. There are some games that will be ruined by bad dice rolls, and there are a number of systems that make a point of telling you to ignore rolls in the circumstances where it'll be a bad game. Fail forward systems are nice in that they make a point of saying that you should have the failure mean something, but leave you to decide what. And I've caught lots of inspiration from a fail-forward mentality over the years. Inspiration that would never have struck if everything were automated.


I can't stop other people from using them, and I don't intend to try. But I won't roll on behalf of a character I didn't create unless their player explicitly asks me to. In a game where I use precision as Perception, I had my players make a roll because I said I had a list of things and wanted to divvy bits they individually noticed base on their individual rolls. I could have made them roll passively, or yes, rolled for them. I just didn't want to.

I have baked in "passive rolls" into the systems I wrote explicitly to point to a rule and say "this is what we use if you don't want to/can't make a roll". Sure, if I need something to happen, it just happens, but that's really rare, and more often than not only used to prevent game stalls. The narrative system I play says to do that without bothering with rolls.


If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say I would need more than 85% of the core mechanics of the game, and maybe a change up on how things work once every few weeks if it's obvious a core rule isn't working "because I want to actually play the game".

Some games are all about story, and that's fine. Sometimes I want that, but the circumstances are more narrow. In violent stories I have an explicitly narrativist system preference but the system still has a 400 page core book and a 500 page supplement on a different way to build classes. I mostly stick to the supplement, but keep the book around for all the moves and stuff.


I trust more in his understanding of how responsibility works than I trust in anyone's ability to keep anything fair. In a setup with everything subjective I can't guarantee he won't favor people he lives with over me. The thing is, he can't trust himself with the second one either. He uses one of the systems I'm not fond of because he thinks it's easier for his friends to make a pile of fair(ish) characters.


Having system transparency helps me inasmuch as it removes a doubt I'd rather not have. I would rather have a game that admits it's freeform, or one that admits it's a system game, and is system transparent so I can pick and choose. I don't want to be told "Ok, make this (system) character at this value" and never roll for anything.


Right. Sometimes the GM can be fairer than the dice, but sometimes the opposite is true. I like having the system so there's a mix that results in a fair-er(ish) game. And I come at it from the hurtful place of knowing how life isn't fair, and how very specific events in the context of freeform reflect that on an exponential level. I have an aunt that didn't get to have a negotiation with how a car accident went down (she got to navigate how she went into it, but not negotiate what actually happened). I had a cousin that didn't get to have that same negotiation (or any choice in the matter). Lucky for the aunt, she's still around to get weepy every November.

If I'm telling a story with a pre-defined end point, or there are no such negotiations, I don't need any system.

If I am doing anything with an element of risk, I want system to help with the checks and balances, which is not entirely possible to do completely objectively, but it's far and away more possible to do with a system that keeps the GM in check (hopefully) and vice versa. And when a game goes bad, it's not always the GM's fault, or it's not always the players' fault, but it's never the increased subjectivity of the game's fault. At least not so much as anyone's aware who goes into a game expecting to deal with a particular stat breakdown and a particular set of dice rolls.

And given the choice between having death that sometimes just happens over one you have to negotiate because you have decided everything needs to be subjective, and everything should be talked out in PMs, I vastly prefer the one where death just happens sometimes, because that's how reality works.

And it's just not familial experiences changing how I perceive life, it's also about freeform experiences changing the appreciation I (er... don't) have for subjectivity. Like how if you're a god in a game that will become a system game, and other people aren't supposed to touch your domains, and you get heavily chastised for it, but then someone gets to rape yours because they've been in the group for longer, and now you can't play the actual system portion because someone's subjectivity ruined the race you wanted to play. Or how if you wanted to play 1989 Martin Riggs in an alternate timeline but weren't allowed to propose an alternate course of history because "Someone might want to play Renee Russo's character".

Say what you want about freeforms. Other than the ones that run on rails and/or Slice of Life--which are very pointedly not about high risk (usually)--you won't find me in a place to agree. And that last bit is relevant, because if I don't feel any sort of system crunch, there may as well not be one.

I guess in a way, rolls make random flukes and death a thing I don't have to think about, and occasionally ignoring a roll, or not calling for one keeps it from being cheapened. Also to me, if a player has an opportunity to roll at the right time, even though they planned for a death, they have a hope they can cling to that the dice turn up nice rather than some boring conversation about it.

Dice being chancy adds emotional investment for me (or at least changes it in a relevant way) because when the stakes are high I can put the feels on 'em, but then release them when I find out what happened, whereas when the stakes are high in freeform I'm stuck having to make a negotiation in a situation where I have an emotional stake in it and I don't argue well when I am in a particularly emotional place. I argue with the intent on causing others emotional pain.
This message was last edited by the user at 08:38, Sat 18 Nov 2017.

If all rolls are in the open, then one needs no "trust".  They have affirmed knowledge.

Thanks for that, Steelsmiter. Sounds like you've had some bad experiences both in RL and in RPGs with bad GMs.

I'm not sure that any GM could convince you that his invisible rules game was worth trying, and even if you decided to try a Black Box or Freeform game, and found it to be a good experience, the next one you try could be a bad one again.


Evileeyore, there is no option for making all rolls open on Rpol, but that's not the whole trust problem anyway.

A bad GM can wreck a game by fudging rolls, by not fudging rolls, by calling for unnecessary rolls, by not calling for necessary rolls, or by any number of ways completely dissociated from the dice. Putting dice in a game, and/or putting them in full view is no guarantee of a good game, just as removing dice is no guarantee of a bad game.

Everybody just plays what they feel comfortable in playing.

So you're saying that if someone doesn't click "Secret Roll" the roll is still some how secret?  Odd, I see my GM's rolls all the time... even the "GM makes roll for Player X" comments, and all the other Player's rolls, unless they hit the Secret Button.

The GM can also fudge rolls, and there is nothing to indicate to his players that he has done so - it just looks like a normal roll to everybody else, which is exactly how it's supposed to work.

He can also remove a roll (or rolls) from the log, and again there is no indication that he has done that.

Neither of these options require that he click the "Secret Roll" box, though they are hidden.  Which raises an interesting point - as a player, you would not necessarily be aware if all of these options were being used every day.

Precisely. Rpol's own Black Box. Trust in the GM to unfold the game fairly is endemic within the Rpol system, regardless of what subordinate system may or may not be used within a game.

Some GMs are worthy of that trust, some are not, but visible and crunchy game systems are no guarantee of it. Depending on the GM, they may help to keep the GM on track, or they may simply offer a false sense of security to the players.

Blackbox maybe. If I see that a system is being used and have some hand in making my character, or if I/get to make my own rolls. I have to know my contributions mean something quantifiable rather than subjective. I have to know that I can make a contribution and not have it be objected to outright for arbitrary reasons (although some contributions aren't really contributions and in some cases, they should be objected to, like making a cyborg in a horror game where you're not the killer).


There are even some freeforms I feel comfortable playing, just none where risk is involved unless the story is already on rails, and the risk to my character is the whole of the plot. Those are best done in pairs though, because it would otherwise sound like my character is the "main character".


Yeah, that's why I make a point of requiring my players to make their own rolls, and I only roll where a player has explicitly asked me to, and use passive numbers I rig into my systems where they don't, but they're not hurrying up and rolling. Although there are events in my game that don't themselves engender trust, how I run games at a meta-level is intended to do just that. The characters should not trust the situation ideally in some cases, but the players can trust me if they want to and it's something that I actively encourage (although I've found that expecting anything out of anyone is a waste of my psychological resources, so I haven't done it in ages).


I use it mostly for a reference point of what's been done, and how I need to interact with it, because I'm a reactive GM so my entire job is reacting to the player's interaction with the system... at least after I've done all the front loading. I have been known to do a month or two of frontloading ahead of actual gameplay.


Personally, I prefer the other route of offering a false sense of dread.

That's disturbing and disagreeable to me.

Not enough that I'll quit RPoll forever... but it does mean that one has to really trust the GM.

Ennnhhhhh....

In reply to evileeyore (msg # 45):

Well, you really need to trust the GM anyway.  After all, if he wanted to screw you over, his options (without even rolling the dice) are fairly extensive.

For example, he can create characters for himself, and make them look as if they were being run by another player.  Until one day that other PC that you've been getting along with so well is revealed to be a treacherous slime ball who goes all PvP on your character, stabs him in the back, and leaves him bleeding out in the path of an advancing enemy army.

I only wish I were able to do that. Skill-wise I mean, not rpol function-wise.

hehe the whole black box discussion took a turn I did not anticipated :)

For me the issue of trusting a GM is more complex than seeing the dice rolls and knowing if or not the GM fidget the rolls.

I mean let us be honest, we are online, we have no idea who is on the other side the whole point of trust should be altered. I think GM has so many ways he can mess with players there is no need to cheat on dice rolls.

For me it is more important if there is a good story, if there is no feeling of rail roading, if the GM is attentive to the needs of his players and that he treat everyone fairly (although this one is hard to spot). I played in games where everything was open but the way the GM handled thing (mostly to have his players feel like losers and stomping them into walls while telling us we are not smart enough) was so destructive it did not matter all rolls were in the open and done fairly. On the other hand some of my better experiences are in a so called black box, where the GM agreed to handle the mechanics for my PC because I had no idea how the system worked. I just focused on what my PC does and he translated it into the system.

Back to the issue of black box, I feel that a system can be a crutch at times, sure it give a framework of what can and can't be done but many times it also create an artificial limits where people ignore common sense because a rules said otherwise. I think it is a delicate balance of using the system just enough to be helpful before it becomes a hindrance.

If you don't feel capable yourself, you could always hire an assass... Co-GM to do that sort of thing for you. :)

But yes, that is an extremely difficult role-playing skill - not only to play a role with a new character voice, but to play it with a new narrative voice that disguises who is playing the role - avoiding your usual mannerisms, stock vocabulary, etc, effectively playing a role within a role. And to do that for several fake PCs... Not something I'd care to attempt very often.

Yes, evileeyore, on Rpol you have to trust the GM, and not all of them are worthy of it. Which is why some players have bad experiences.

All you can do is accept that sometimes a game is going to be ruined, and go start a new game. If you carry a chip on your shoulder every time a GM screws you over, you're going to get crippled by the sheer weight of chips before long.
Shrug em off, and have fun with someone else instead.


Which is what I always try to do, and why I use a simple rule set that rarely surfaces.
This message was last edited by the user at 09:50, Sun 19 Nov 2017.

Great, can you recommend on a system that would work well when the players are oblivious for it?

The system you need is whatever works for you.

The one I use is called 1PG from Deep 7 Games, but it may not keep you happy. It costs about four dollars. If you take a look at it and want to know more, Rmail me. :)

Nah, I can use a new character's voice, and a new narrative voice. Mostly. My problem is that I have a habit of using "Game Preferences" to post as Default Character (which is GM) and not thinking to change it. So I just have a GMPC and don't (usually) bother trying to hide anything.


Yeah, and I often find that GMs who do mess with players for its own sake don't do it with the dice rolls, but then I blame the GM, not the system.


I also think sometimes it's good to ignore common sense if the tone of the game doesn't allow for it. Like being able to come back from the dead for 5 thousand dollars for a game that's literally written on GTA V's online stat breakdown. Sometimes it's not. Also sometimes it's good for players to have rules crutches to inform them of constraints their characters legitimately have. I think a system done right is one that allows the players to decide what constraints they put on themselves.

Back when I played GURPS, most of my audience was my 10-16 year old cousin (he's 7 years behind me and I'm 33 now) and there were times when he picked a full load of disadvantages, and times he didn't pick not one. He knew the system was gritty, but his characters had high odds of not being directly subjected to it if he played his points right. He was mostly smart enough to play his points right-ish and mostly brave enough to not care about the -ish.

'Course GURPS is one of those hindrance systems, and that used to not be the case, which is why I quit it.


It would be really easy to strip everything away from PBtA but 3 step dice roll, let players have something they get +2 at, something they get +1 at, and something they get -1 at. Everything else, they get +0. You can even drop all the moves, and advances and just let story events dictate other things they do well enough. So if a player buys a tavern, they start at +0 with rolls regarding it. You then decide when they can add +1 to something (that either you or they decide, based on your preference).

Player is a guard? they get +0 at restraining people until they become captain!
it's a little bit roll and shout, but it sounds like what you need.

You also had that idea of rolling 2d6 and taking the lower, and I really like that so long as a player can describe things they know they're good at and take the better roll instead (with limits of course, like 2 goods, one bad. Haven't thought of what could be worse than taking the lower roll)

You know, as far as I'm concerned, a good system is one that can pass the black box test, which means that players can state their actions in terms of the narrative with no knowledge or understanding of the system and the gm should be able to take that declaration of action and easily put it through the system and get a reasonable (for the fictional milieu) and consistant range of results.

If it can't do that, it fails the black box test.

For me I think all this talk of rules vs simulation vs storytelling is moot.

I role play because I want to have fun. If a game is fun I don't care if the GM is being 'fair'. I don't care if there are rules or not or if they are being followed. I roleplay when I'm having fun. I stop when I'm not. Simple.

A GM's job is hard. The hardest part is making sure EVERYONE in your game is enjoying the game. Forget anything else. The old adage you can't please everyone rears its head again here because as a GM you are trying to do the impossible and please everyone, and all this at the same time keeping it enjoyable for yourself as well.

I think a lot of this rules vs no rules argument stems from the fact that no matter how much we all know that role playing is supposed to be collaborative we are all bred into societies that teach us that we need to win over others so we all still have a winning vs losing mindset, even when we are trying to create a co-operative story.
This message had punctuation tweaked by the user at 12:55, Mon 20 Nov 2017.

In reply to Starchaser (msg # 54):

Fun is importance but also the sense of fairness. For me (and I am guessing for others) it is important to know that everything is fair, no player get a better (or worse) treatment from the GM. I don't care if the GM fidget the results as long as it does so for everyone, I don't mind if the GM give extra spot light to one player to shine if I know my time in the spot light would come as well.

On a deeper philosophic level we need rules to give as a sense of control, if I know the rules I can understand what is happening, causality is important to us. Perhaps this is why black box draw so much heat, it robs people from the sense of control and make it appear closer to reality but if in reality we have god/dess fate or <insert name of higher power> to blame for what is happening, here the demigod who control our fate is another fallible human being.

Anyway, it was just a thought.





This is all too often forgotten by players. Many want a perfect system, perfectly adjudicated, in a perfect setting, and all run at their ideal pace.

Some poor soul is trying to hang all that lot together in his or her spare time!

Occasionally, they may fall slightly short of perfection.

Some of it, sure. Like I said though, I don't care about winning or losing, I just want to be confident (for lack of ability to know) in the fairness of the process. I actively prefer a fair(ish) loss over a subjective win I don't really feel like I had a part in. Or a negotiation that doesn't really feel like a win so much as a compromise.

I want to roll for the thing because I said I wanted to, not because the other players allow me to. And if I don't roll well enough, fine. Just so long as the other player who also decides to do something equally stupid down the road is both allowed the same roll, and subjected to the same adjudication.

Having a blackbox system goes a step toward being indicative of an impartial medium through which to filter the supposed equal treatment of players where possible. If I can make my own rolls I can at least feel that the subjectiveness of not being able to do so is at least partially mitigated.



I myself have come to settle on "right enough" because of all that. It seems to be working for the games I wrote. And for me, if a system is really simple and I get to do some RNG'ing, I feel like it could probably count as "right enough". I certainly don't want system blind. I want some of the bells and whistles to peek out.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:44, Tue 21 Nov 2017.

It is not moot, for two reasons,

First, different people enjoy different things. For example, one player I know made a character from a place with neither light nor darkness, which given that darkness is defined by the absense of light, is quite impossible. Didn't matter to him as he could enjoy it despite the contradiction, yet it always broke immersion for me.

Knowing what you enjoy and what you are getting into is important for finding others with similar ideas, and for getting everyone on the same page kn terms of expectations.

Second, being abld to know the type of game the players like, helps the focus kn those points that are most enjoyed by the players.

So that's where you get your username from?

Im sorry. That statement I made was badly worded. Let me rephrase:

FOR ME all this talk of rules vs simulation vs storytelling is moot, though I understand others may have different opinions.

My enjoyment doesn't come from fairness or rules. But if it does for someone else then obviously only a fair rule based system will do.


System for me is only a deal breaker if chargen is overtly random in nature. Which is why I use point based chargen rules in call of cthulhu games. I prefer creativity over stats. To give an example. On the rare occasion I play fantasy games I favour charisnatic diplomats over muscle bound warriors. If I was playing D&D and was forced into rolling exact stats without any swspping / reallocation I could end up with a character with 9 INT, 6 CHA and 17 STR. This would be great for a warrior but like I said I don't like playing warriors.
This message was last edited by the user at 07:26, Tue 21 Nov 2017.

That's actually I never played older editions unless GMs explicitly stated "arrange attributes how you want" I used to play 3.X+, but grew increasingly more disillusioned with it over the years as I began to find more generic and more indie games that had different foci. I usually play nonmagical melee based characters who aren't always warriors, and often have some unique aspect other than meat shielding that makes them worth playing outside combat.

So if you never talk about rules, how do you avoid issues with the above? If rules are so moot in terms of having fun, then how do the rules you mentioned matter if they aren't material to your fun?

You clearly have limits in terms of what is or is not fun rules-wise, so despite your comment to the contrary, rules are obviously not moot.