How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

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.

Click to expand...

Reynard said:

What do you think? How much knowledge of the rules should players have, both going in (creating a character, etc) as well as during actual play? Why? What aspects of players' knoweldge and awareness of the rules and play system impacts your opinion on this?

Click to expand...

Reynard said:

Gameplay revolves around solving mysteries by examining crime scene and interviewing subjects and researching archives and stuff. Sometimes when you declare an action, the GM calls for a roll of 2 six sided dice, which you add together and tell the GM the result and then play continues.

Click to expand...

Reynard said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thomas Shey said:

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.

Click to expand...

aramis erak said:

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.

Click to expand...

MGibster said:

Reynard specifically was talking about a setting where combat was "very rare or non-existant," so I think you're being unnecessarily nitpicky here. You can easily have a campaign revolving around investigation where violence is uncommon. Yes, yes, even if the player characters are American law enforcement officers who carry firearms.

Click to expand...

pemerton said:

My view is that if the system breaks when the players play it ("game" it), then it is a bad system.

More generally, if playing the system doesn't produce the fiction, and the experience of the fiction, that is intended/desired, then it is a bad system.

To put some flesh on the preceding bones: in my experience, the RPG which reliably produces the biggest gap between intended/desired experience, and experience of play; and which is most vulnerable to breaking when players actually try and play it; is AD&D 2nd ed. And I think it's possible to be fairly concrete about what the issue is: the mechanical system as presented sets out chances of success (to hit, damage, non-weapon proficiencies; thief skills) and also gives some players (the players of spell casters) some buttons to push (spells in the per-day spell load out); but the intended/desired play typically involves the GM controlling when the players succeed or fail (in order to manage the unfolding of the prepared story) and hence disregarding or setting aside those chances of success and mitigating the pressing of the buttons.

This won't work if the rules are transparent to the players!

The 1982 Traveller Book has the same issue. This is from p 123:

The choreographed novel [my emphasis] involves a setting already thought out by the referee and presented to the players; it may be any of the above settings [ship, location or world], but contains predetermined elements. As such, the referee has already developed characters and setting which bear on the group's activities, and they are guided gently to the proper locations. Properly done, the players never know that the referee has manipulated them to a fore-ordained goal.​

This sort of thing won't work if the rules are transparent to the players.

Click to expand...

Micah Sweet said:

Who says 2e was about the GM managing the story by managing the success of the players? Where is that written?

Click to expand...

DragonLancer said:

I think it comes down to a shift in the hobby. Over the last... let's say 20 years... there has been a shift from the traditional role-playing structure to newcomers into the hobby pushing what is referred to as Player Agency. The days of a groups sitting down and playing the game has been pushed aside in favour of the players deciding/narrating everything. By modern approaches, I can see where Pemerton is coming from, even if it's not really accurate.

Click to expand...