How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

Thomas Shey · Mar 20, 2024

hawkeyefan said:
I don’t think any of what you said justified it. I think you explained your view and why you hold it. But I still don’t see the value add for withholding rules from players.

Then you don't. But I quite see value and reason to do so under some circumstances. That suggests there's simply a conflict of values here.

Thomas Shey · Mar 20, 2024

bloodtide said:
I'm on the side that players should know the bare minimum to mechanically play their character in a game world. But to have a Role Playing game, you need the players to not obsess over every number in the rules.

An easy example is knowing the number needed to do a task...hit a foe, jump over a pit, whatever. Just describe the foe and the player will role play what their character would do in the fiction. When you tell the player they need a set number, and they know...or "think" they can't do it, then they will react based on that.

The problem with this, as always, is it assumes people have no concept of how likely it is for them to succeed at most things. It may not be precise, but I don't find that particularly credible in anything that relates to anything they've done with any frequency. There's a heck of a difference between my character having a 90% chance of jumping over that pit and a 50% and just the GM's description doesn't tell me which one is the case, because his perception of what his description means and mine may be significantly different.

aramis erak · Mar 20, 2024

I firmly believe players should know the task resolution and character gen. I personally find hiding mechanics both unfun for me as a player and unfun and needless extra work when I'm GMing.

I'm ok if a player only learns the core task mechanics, but I don't want to have to keep telling them which dice after session 3.

aramis erak · Mar 20, 2024

Reynard said:
I don't either, but that style seems to be having a renaissance of its own (if the internet is to be believed).

Keep in mind that the internet magnifies the voice of the minorities.

payn said:
In some instances, yes. In Traveller, a PC might encounter an enemy in battledress which they may have no ability to damage. I know some folks think thats fine and dandy, but I dont enjoy watching the players get infant punched and TPK'd when their characters ought to have that info. In 3E/PF1 on the other hand, you have certain attacks and tactics that will be useful depending on the AC, yet the fight isn't out of reach. So, in those RPGs there is value in the hidden AC aspect. 5E has BA so its not a focus of the tactics of that game and thus isnt important to keep hidden. So, the answer is still depends, and not universal.

That doesn't happen in most editions...
In CT, it is possible to be unable to hit without insane skill levels - the highest legit level of skill I've seen was 7... but that was a merchant with Trader via advanced gen. (Yeah, 3 weeks prediction). But if you can get the hit... CT armor is reduced to hit.
MT, a sufficiently good roll will get damage through.
T4, damage dice stopped by armor still do 1 point of damage per die.
T20: armor doesn't reduce the stamina damage, only the HP damage.
GT: Crits can get most weapons damage up enough to get through the DR.

TNE, MGT1, and MGT2, it's plausible.
HT, it's dependent upon a number of factors.
I don't grasp the T5 damage/armor mechanics.

Cadence · Mar 20, 2024

Thomas Shey said:
The problem with this, as always, is it assumes people have no concept of how likely it is for them to succeed at most things. It may not be precise, but I don't find that particularly credible in anything that relates to anything they've done with any frequency. There's a heck of a difference between my character having a 90% chance of jumping over that pit and a 50% and just the GM's description doesn't tell me which one is the case, because his perception of what his description means and mine may be significantly different.

I am happy to give players an idea of roughly how likely an experienced character would have of succeeding at something like that. That doesn't feel like mechanics to me. Like you said, it feels like being experienced and competent.

aramis erak · Mar 20, 2024

niklinna said:
It's cool if you want to just do roleplaying, but I am interested in roleplaying games, which have rules, which should be known to all participants. Otherwise you're playing Fizzbin.

Nice trek Reference

Reynard said:
It is interesting that this discussion is mainly centering around combat. that fact says something about the assumptions of what an RPG is, here at least.

Yep, it does. They emerged from Conflict Simulations. Most are essentially miniatures combat systems with non-combat skills added, and if one is lucky, rules for those skills to matter.

Reynard said:
Let's presume, though, a game in which combat is very rare or non existent. Let's use X-Files as an example, because it is probably well known to most, had relatively little "action" and was a procedural so it has an understandable play loop.

Funny, the one episode I remember of X-Files had the female lead being kidnapped.
I wasn't a fan, and hadn't intended to watch it; it was on at a place I was at.

Picking a show where the protagonists are expected to carry firearms as part of their uniform kit and are trained in both firearms and unarmed combat isn't exactly a sterling choice for a pure investigation setting.

The thing is, that aside, if the GM is making all the rolls and hiding all the mechanics, from my POV as a player, I'm not playing the game, I'm playing the GM. Any expectation of fairness is then unfounded unless I know the GM really well - and in the real world, most of those I can rule it out outright because I KNOW they are incapable of being fair without open rolls; several have admitted to that.

Reynard · Mar 20, 2024

aramis erak said:
Nice trek Reference

Yep, it does. They emerged from Conflict Simulations. Most are essentially miniatures combat systems with non-combat skills added, and if one is lucky, rules for those skills to matter.

Funny, the one episode I remember of X-Files had the female lead being kidnapped.
I wasn't a fan, and hadn't intended to watch it; it was on at a place I was at.

Picking a show where the protagonists are expected to carry firearms as part of their uniform kit and are trained in both firearms and unarmed combat isn't exactly a sterling choice for a pure investigation setting.

It's obvious that you haven't seen the show or have much working knowledge about how law enforcement works. I remember being 17 and meeting an FBI agent in his 40s and he told me he had NEVER fired his service weapon, and neither had most of the people he worked with.

MGibster · Mar 20, 2024

Reynard said:
For my part, I mostly lean toward the "players should know the rules" part. I am not particularly interested in immersion, at least compared to gameplay, so I think that players who understand the rules (both in their character and in the game at the moment) have more agency and more agency by players makes the game more fun. That said, I have experimented once or twice with "hidden rules" and it has turned out interesting, at least. But those were definitely very rules light games.

I'm in this camp. For the players to have fun, I think they need to understand the fundamental rules that govern the game. This includes effective character generation, how basic tasks are accomplished in game, and how combat works. This doesn't mean a player needs to have a comprehensive understanding of every rule, but they're going to need enough to be able to get things done. (Effective character generation means being able to create a character that is both useful to the campaign and has the abilities the player was aiming for.)

Reynard said:
Note that this is about opinion and preference, so everyone is right. Please respond to others' posts accordingly.

Speaking of understanding the rules, you should know that my opinion is tantamount to law. People would enjoy the thread far more if they understood that.

MacDhomnuill · Mar 20, 2024

Everyone at the table should have at least a basic understanding of the rules. Period. This whole players shouldn’t know the rules thing comes from modern gamer bros reading Gygax waxing philosophical about how his mega death dungeons that were being played as competitive wargames at conventions were cheapened because players might exploit the rules and by exploit, he meant know the rules and They might know some of the stats or potential weaknesses of monsters in the game, and that was a great sin as far as he was concerned. As an almost 40 year GM nothing makes my life harder than players not knowing the rules.

Reynard · Mar 20, 2024

MacDhomnuill said:
Everyone at the table should have at least a basic understanding of the rules. Period. This whole players shouldn’t know the rules thing comes from modern gamer bros reading Gygax waxing philosophical about how his mega death dungeons that were being played as competitive wargames at conventions were cheapened because players might exploit the rules and by exploit, he meant know the rules and They might know some of the stats or potential weaknesses of monsters in the game, and that was a great sin as far as he was concerned. As an almost 40 year GM nothing makes my life harder than players not knowing the rules.

This displays an absolute ignorance of the hobby and its formative years. Read "The Elusive Shift." Please.

How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

Thomas Shey

Legend

Thomas Shey

Legend

aramis erak

Legend

aramis erak

Legend

Cadence

Legend

aramis erak

Legend

Reynard

Legend

MGibster

Legend

MacDhomnuill

Explorer

Reynard

Legend

Similar Threads