Vulpes nothus

Now I don't think the above actually counts as knowing the rules. D&D is a relatively crunchy game that actually rewards system mastery and actually learning how to play D&D well, as in to make mechanically informed tactical decisions and utilizing the mechanics to your advantage, is actually a skill that needs to be learned and cultivated. None of that is to say that you need to be a perfectly tuned CharOp machine to know how to play D&D. But to actually start to make the sorts of decisions D&D as a game rewards you kind of need to know the rules.

And like, a lot of people don't seem to know the rules. They know how to play D&D in the most abstract sense of knowing that they need to say things and sometimes the person scowling at them from behind the screen will ask them to roll a die. But that's hardly engaging with the mechanics of the game, like the actual game part.

When you have people that have actually done some reading on the rules vs. people that just coast and foist the majority of the game onto the GM, it makes it appear like the more knowledgeable players are sweaty power-gamers or rules-laywers.

My point is not to say that people who don't want to learn the rules shouldn't play, only that people who don't actually know the rules aren't necessarily engaging with the game to its fullest, especially in the case of a relatively rules-heavy game like D&D, and that as the previous poster mentioned it can actually result in a bad rules dynamic where the DM needs to do more work due to player unwillingness to learn the rules as well as casting players who actually know the rules and can engage with them in unfavorable light. All of these are negative elements of the culture of play surrounding.

Like, there isn't anything meaningfully gatekeepy about saying "players who don't know the rules of the game aren't as good at playing the game as the people who know the rules of the game." Because playing games is a skill that can be cultivated and knowledge of the rules is an important part of that skill.

I actually want to dial in on the phrasing here, which seems - insidious isn't quite the right word - but really weasely to me. There's this reflexive attempt to position the writer as the victim, from the way things are phrased to the actual sentiment. "I feel gatekept" (note that its not "I have been gatekept") is a pretty transparent attempt to claim victimhood, and gain the reader's sympathies. Likewise "I just wanna" and such. But then you have the sentiment of "I just want to play a silly game" and this carries this, like, baggage that game design is *not worth* taking seriously. Same with 'play it how u want', it's working to undermine the idea that you could *care* about this stuff, and it positions taking the artform seriously as an act of aggression against the poor victim who just wants to *not think about things.* Which is to say its classic anti-intillectualism. "It's just a [song/tv show/book/game] don't take it seriously" is like classic anti-intellectualism, and generally comes from a fairly regressive infantalised place.

They can set up the scenarios and build the maps and run the world. They already know the rest of the rules, so why not? They also know the stats for all the NPCs too, so might as well let them play everyone else

It's kinda their world and their game, too. So they can handle scheduling. My schedule is crazy, but they can figure it out.

The gits of it is - no one EVER knew how to play this fucking game, people had arguments before the official first edition, the white booklets era. Most people played based on their own interpretation, then arguet about it in zines. All the crunch in the AD&D onward was Gary Gygax's attempt to make the rule for everything because he grew greedy and wished to kill the competition that built careers on explaining his crappy rules better than he did (also, he made AD&D to screw Dave Arneson of his due money).

The first complete game - the Greyhawk supplement - is entirely straightforward and easy to pick up, and significantly simpler than modern D&D.

None of the early editions of D&D are hard to learn or obscure like you seem to think, so I assume you either have pudding for brains or are going entirely on hearsay rather than direct experience.

I'd wager nobody in the entire world has ever read the full comprehensive rules of MtG as they exist today.

And nobody expects you to! If you go to a Friday Night Magic with a random deck you bought in a toy store, no idea what the rules are like, I'm sure you'll find people willing to teach you, even explain how to properly play your deck in particular.

If, however, you keep coming to FNM for weeks, if not months, and you keep asking basic questions, like what "Flying" means, or what a "+1/+1 counter" does, or how any of the cards in the deck you've been playing for months does, if you call someone who tells you you can't block with that creature because it's already tapped that they're a "rules lawyer" who's "gatekeeping your fun", if it becomes apparent that you're not making any effort to actually learn the rules of the game... nobody will want to play with you anymore. You'll be labeled annoying at best, an asshole at worst.

And that's the case in any dedicated gaming space. As an avid board gamer, there's nothing more infuriating to me than having to re-explain basic rules because someone doesn't listen, or explaining what certain cards/characters/units/items/whatever do because someone is too lazy to simply read.

And yet, somehow, in D&D, behavior like this is apparently not just accepted, but expected, nay, encouraged(!) by the player base!

It is, rather than a series of discussions and ongoing conversations about a text and its implications and what it does, a massive divide between people who are attempting to have the latter and a second group who look at the text as a suggestion and are, in effect, expecting a sort of Calvinball where the ball is a d20 and it is a social faux pas to have done anything other than swear on the book unless you're the ref.

Even then if we are to talk about those rules as merely the result of waxing nostalgic over a bygone era, then again and again comes up the question of "Why are you playing *this* game then?"

Fuck asshole drivers. I’m glad you’re in one piece though… that’s scary.

Print this game. Attach it to another RPG.

In this game you play scholarly ostriches, or schostriches. You have gathered to play an RPG, as is a schostriches' wont. A schostrich is a most dedicated bird and is nigh physically incapable of making OOC comments or actions during play. Therefore, the players cannot take IC actions as schostriches; they must be OOC as players or IC as their schostrich's character at all times. This applies even to a player playing a schostrich GM (SOGM) in a game that has such a thing; "there is a table by the river where you gather," for instance, can only refer to the schostriches' PCs and not the schostriches themselves. Depending on how you define IC and OOC, it may be possible to describe things OOC (setting the stage for later play and so on) but do have care.

CHALLENGE

The schostriches face five challenges during play: the waters, the malark, the frog, the odliend, and the stork. (In that order.)

The current challenge begins rated 5 and increases by (1d6-1) every fifteen minutes of play. When it reaches 12, it completes.

Each player rolls 7d6 when the game begins and another 1d6 after each full hour of play. Push dice forward; the sum of their faces represents your schostrich's ability to meet the current challenge. Once pushed forward, dice cannot be reclaimed. While the dice pushed forward equal or exceed the challenge rating, your schostrich is doing well. While they equal or exceed half the challenge rating, your schostrich is managing.

When a challenge hits 12+, it's complete. Remove it from play. Remove all pushed-forward dice. Either take on the next challenge or end the session. If you've played at least 40 minutes since your last bonus 1d6, roll another. Record your dice; their state persists between sessions.

Remember that you are allowed to talk about either game OOC; while not even a SOGM can describe the malark or what any of this is like for the schostriches it's perfectly possible to explain or discuss the matter as players. For the sake of symmetry the authority on the waters, the malark, the frog, the odliend, the stork, and the implications of failing to exceed a number or half the number goes to whoever is playing the closest thing to a relevant authority in-game (or, of course, to the group as a whole if authority is unclear or clearly absent.)

Let's simplify RPG play for the moment to in-character and out-of-character play.

In character, you use your speech and actions to directly convey your PC's speech, actions, and more generally identity.

Out of character, you talk about anything from your character to the mechanics of the game.

This is something of a canard in that it's impossible to draw clean lines between the two modes of play. If you hiccup when deeply in character, that's definitely your OOC body doing that, but you'll naturally present that as IC ... unless you're playing a robot or something, in which case you'll naturally shift OOC instead. And so forth. But conceptually, right, there's "here I am in the skin of my character, being my character in the medium of my words because they have no fleshly body of their own" vs. "here I am playing a game with y'all." as two distinct intentionalities towards play.

Because schostriches are devout, devout roleplayers---it's a cultural thing, I assume---they're strictly IC at all times in play. They say only what their character says. They act only in ways intended to convey their PC. It's obviously possible as real-world players to say "I flare my feathers to convey my rogue assuming an aggressive stance," but it felt to me like that was disrespectful, given that the schostrich was explicitly trying to convey not "look at me and my feathers" but "my rogue is assuming an aggressive stance." It felt like it was a way of demeaning scholarly ostriches to allow players to do that. Does that make sense?

But all that really does is say, you're not allowed to step into your character's skin without stepping into their character's skin. You're absolutely still allowed to talk OOC about your schostrich, and you're absolutely allowed to let it impact how you play. How could you do otherwise? If your rogue's an elf, that impacts how you play them even when they're not saying poser things like "as an elf, I flare my ears aggressively." If being an elven rogue didn't affect what they did then you might as well not be IC at all. If being a schostrich affects nothing then you're already playing your character as if a schostrich, which seems an overstatement too.

I do think that in a lot of gaming people go sort of halfway IC. They use inherently OOC techniques to express their character. For instance, giving a voiceover as a character when the implicit idea that they're telling the story to someone in the future is not viable. (There's also the flip side, seeking OOC objectives through IC means, but while that's usually good play it's also logically impossible.) Half-IC play gets tricky because---well, to take the example of a voiceover, it's clear that a schostrich looking back and telling stories of the campaign is probably not playing a session at the time and therefore able to mention things like feathers, but at the same time, that requires them scorning and reinterpreting their past self in the same cruel way the rules of the Schostrich Colocation ask you not to. Is it reasonable to imagine that in the grim future of the schostriches they become bitter and disaffected and no longer love roleplay and so dedicate themselves to ripping the mask from their past self and narrating roleplaying stories in their schostrich identity? Is it reasonable to step out of character and then begin to narrate a voiceover in that embittered schostrich voice? Well, technically, of course it is; you're out of character and as history shows people who are out of character can say literally anything. But perhaps it bends the spirit of the game.

Anyway, I guess all I'm saying is that if you believe playing a schostrich (struggling perhaps with a midrange malark) playing at being an elven rogue, mech pilot, youkai helping small-town humans, or you is the same as just playing an elven rogue, mech pilot, youkai helping small-town humans, or you yourself then the colocation in fact brings nothing to the table for you and perhaps your group. But inevitably one must accept that if this is so you are functionally playing a schostrich playing a dedicated elven rogue roleplaying yourself at all times and Marcie of Dark Dungeons fame was correct to fear Black Leaf's demise.

Print this game. Attach it to another RPG.

In this game you play scholarly ostriches, or schostriches. You have gathered to play an RPG, as is a schostriches' wont. A schostrich is a most dedicated bird and is nigh physically incapable of making OOC comments or actions during play. Therefore, the players cannot take IC actions as schostriches; they must be OOC as players or IC as their schostrich's character at all times. This applies even to a player playing a schostrich GM (SOGM) in a game that has such a thing; "there is a table by the river where you gather," for instance, can only refer to the schostriches' PCs and not the schostriches themselves. Depending on how you define IC and OOC, it may be possible to describe things OOC (setting the stage for later play and so on) but do have care.

CHALLENGE

The schostriches face five challenges during play: the waters, the malark, the frog, the odliend, and the stork. (In that order.)

The current challenge begins rated 5 and increases by (1d6-1) every fifteen minutes of play. When it reaches 12, it completes.

Each player rolls 7d6 when the game begins and another 1d6 after each full hour of play. Push dice forward; the sum of their faces represents your schostrich's ability to meet the current challenge. Once pushed forward, dice cannot be reclaimed. While the dice pushed forward equal or exceed the challenge rating, your schostrich is doing well. While they equal or exceed half the challenge rating, your schostrich is managing.

When a challenge hits 12+, it's complete. Remove it from play. Remove all pushed-forward dice. Either take on the next challenge or end the session. If you've played at least 40 minutes since your last bonus 1d6, roll another. Record your dice; their state persists between sessions.

Remember that you are allowed to talk about either game OOC; while not even a SOGM can describe the malark or what any of this is like for the schostriches it's perfectly possible to explain or discuss the matter as players. For the sake of symmetry the authority on the waters, the malark, the frog, the odliend, the stork, and the implications of failing to exceed a number or half the number goes to whoever is playing the closest thing to a relevant authority in-game (or, of course, to the group as a whole if authority is unclear or clearly absent.)

Let's simplify RPG play for the moment to in-character and out-of-character play.

In character, you use your speech and actions to directly convey your PC's speech, actions, and more generally identity.

Out of character, you talk about anything from your character to the mechanics of the game.

This is something of a canard in that it's impossible to draw clean lines between the two modes of play. If you hiccup when deeply in character, that's definitely your OOC body doing that, but you'll naturally present that as IC ... unless you're playing a robot or something, in which case you'll naturally shift OOC instead. And so forth. But conceptually, right, there's "here I am in the skin of my character, being my character in the medium of my words because they have no fleshly body of their own" vs. "here I am playing a game with y'all." as two distinct intentionalities towards play.

Because schostriches are devout, devout roleplayers---it's a cultural thing, I assume---they're strictly IC at all times in play. They say only what their character says. They act only in ways intended to convey their PC. It's obviously possible as real-world players to say "I flare my feathers to convey my rogue assuming an aggressive stance," but it felt to me like that was disrespectful, given that the schostrich was explicitly trying to convey not "look at me and my feathers" but "my rogue is assuming an aggressive stance." It felt like it was a way of demeaning scholarly ostriches to allow players to do that. Does that make sense?

But all that really does is say, you're not allowed to step into your character's skin without stepping into their character's skin. You're absolutely still allowed to talk OOC about your schostrich, and you're absolutely allowed to let it impact how you play. How could you do otherwise? If your rogue's an elf, that impacts how you play them even when they're not saying poser things like "as an elf, I flare my ears aggressively." If being an elven rogue didn't affect what they did then you might as well not be IC at all. If being a schostrich affects nothing then you're already playing your character as if a schostrich, which seems an overstatement too.

I do think that in a lot of gaming people go sort of halfway IC. They use inherently OOC techniques to express their character. For instance, giving a voiceover as a character when the implicit idea that they're telling the story to someone in the future is not viable. (There's also the flip side, seeking OOC objectives through IC means, but while that's usually good play it's also logically impossible.) Half-IC play gets tricky because---well, to take the example of a voiceover, it's clear that a schostrich looking back and telling stories of the campaign is probably not playing a session at the time and therefore able to mention things like feathers, but at the same time, that requires them scorning and reinterpreting their past self in the same cruel way the rules of the Schostrich Colocation ask you not to. Is it reasonable to imagine that in the grim future of the schostriches they become bitter and disaffected and no longer love roleplay and so dedicate themselves to ripping the mask from their past self and narrating roleplaying stories in their schostrich identity? Is it reasonable to step out of character and then begin to narrate a voiceover in that embittered schostrich voice? Well, technically, of course it is; you're out of character and as history shows people who are out of character can say literally anything. But perhaps it bends the spirit of the game.

Anyway, I guess all I'm saying is that if you believe playing a schostrich (struggling perhaps with a midrange malark) playing at being an elven rogue, mech pilot, youkai helping small-town humans, or you is the same as just playing an elven rogue, mech pilot, youkai helping small-town humans, or you yourself then the colocation in fact brings nothing to the table for you and perhaps your group. But inevitably one must accept that if this is so you are functionally playing a schostrich playing a dedicated elven rogue roleplaying yourself at all times and Marcie of Dark Dungeons fame was correct to fear Black Leaf's demise.

In brief, one of the main ways that stealth aircraft avoid detection is by passively reducing their radar cross-section – or, in plain English, being shaped in a way that reflects radar signals in unexpected ways, thus making them appear “smaller” than they really are to anything that pings them.

The math required to calculate an object’s radar cross-section is impractical to do by hand, and even the computers that were available in the mid 1970s could only do it for relatively simple models with low polygon counts and few or no curved surfaces.

Unfortunately, the results from the simplified computer models were found not to be effective when applied to the complex shapes of real aircraft, so the designers of the F-117 found a workaround: they built it to be the same shape as the low-poly model from the simulation.