Rules Transparency - How much do players need to know?

Ralif Redhammer · Dec 8, 2016

In simpler old and newer OSR games, I think it's perfectly fine for players to get the rules from the DM. A lot of times, it's going to boil down to a rules call anyway (you want to pants the dark knight...hrm, okay, you can try, make a strength check).

But in newer/more complex systems, I think there's equal responsibility for knowing the rules. The game shouldn't grind to a halt repeatedly over information that could've easily been looked up or memorized in advance.

pdzoch · Dec 8, 2016

Celebrim said:
When you are feeding players rules, you need to be careful to open up opportunities and not close them off. You want to say, "These are some common actions you might propose, but they are by no means all the actions you might propose."

Yep. Very true. I think I meant to include that caveat in my post my it eluded me as I was about to post.

There is a tendency for the "cheat sheets" to become limiting to the imagination. (Just had this discussion on another RPG forum). Generally, they are only needed for a few sessions until the players get their rules feet under them. Having other more experienced players who push the envelope (or play traditionally) models to the new players how the DM can accommodate actions beyond the "cheat sheet."

One of my newest players (played first game this past Thanksgiving) was a little annoyed by the ambiguity of "take an action" as a thing to do on her turn. Her playful and snarky retort was "this is like telling me to 'do something'. That is not very helpful, you know." She figured it out just fine.

Sunseeker · Dec 8, 2016

All of them?

I've played games where the players don't know the rules. It's horrible. Will never play or run such a game ever again.

Blue · Dec 8, 2016

I think 5e (and most editions of D&D) may be too rules heavy to get away with this. For instance, in a non-rules constrained environment I'd be much more freeform. I want to stand in front of this opponent until they mage (really a warlock) through that bolt of fire (really a Eldritch Blast) at me then dive out of the way so it hits the ice creature.

"I want a pair of sais because I want to disarm people instead of hurting them".

Sure, a good DM can come up with all sorts of rules on the fly. But it would be easier to pick a system like FATE where it's really easy to model anything.

Another hurdle would be disconnects between in-game narrative and game mechanics: "we just describe me gut punching him and he was a frail old man. How is he not on the floor holding his stomach, much less being able to get enough breath to chant spells at me?!"

Basically, if you want player to restrict actions to those that the game can handle, the players need to understand those restrictions.

Quickleaf · Dec 9, 2016

DMMike said:
How much do players need to know, when it comes to the nuts-and-bolts rules?

I think it truly depends on the player. Both their investment in the rules (plenty of players are story first) & how familiar they are with D&D/RPGs & whether they've been scarred by power-drunk DMs / video game entitlement.

For example, in 4e I noticed several of my players diminish in their creative output (at least according to my perceptions) because of their reaction to the power system - that is, treating it as encapsulating all that their PCs could do. Also, I've seen analysis paralysis happen in large part due to focusing on rules over story.

Similarly, I've seen players who really like improvising by stymied with a lack of transparency on my part as a DM, because they don't feel they have enough information to make the meaningful decision.

I don't think there's any one answer.

It truly is a living element of the game that the DM needs to adapt to individual players. (Or possibly something a game can be designed to appeal to a sub-set of players with.)

aramis erak · Dec 9, 2016

I prefer my players to know the rules for what their characters can do and what dice to roll. Minimum. More is better provided they don't try to browbeat me with rules citations over every little thing.

Sunseeker · Dec 9, 2016

I'll add this too: from a DMing perspective, I prefer my players to know what they can do within the rules and then narrate themselves doing it. Bob knows his spiked chain can let him make a trip attempt on the enemy, so Bob says: "I whip my chain around and try to trip up Orcguy!" *dice rolls* When the players don't know what the rules allow them to do, it often falls on the DM to narrate the players actions, which personally I don't like because character action narration one of the few things they should have complete control over. Sure, a player can still narrate their action, but if they don't know what they are allowed to do they're less likely to make definitive statements and more likely to play "mother may I" with the DM.

Jhaelen · Dec 9, 2016

DMMike said:
How much do players need to know, when it comes to the nuts-and-bolts rules?

Imho, as much as they _want_ to know.
If they want to know about all of the nuts & bolts, they should be able to access that information without restrictions.

If they aren't interested in that kind of details, I would do my best to 'protect' them from it. My prefered approach is actually to ask them to describe what they'd like to do 'in-character'. Then I suggest the best matching action that is supported by the game mechanics (D&D 4e neatly offered a way to support all kinds of stunts, but making things up on the fly works, too, if there's no good match).

I also try to warn them if they attempt something that's very likely to fail or could have dire consequences, though. Usually, asking them "Are you sure you want to do that?" is sufficient.
(Of course, I sometimes also ask that question just to unsettle them, but that's part of the fun of DMing

)

GMMichael · Dec 9, 2016

pdzoch said:
My players new to RPGs struggle with a game that is as wide open as RPGs. "What can I do?" is a common question and responses like "Well, what do you want to do?" sometimes frustrate them.

Quickleaf said:
I think it truly depends on the player. Both their investment in the rules (plenty of players are story first) & how familiar they are with D&D/RPGs & whether they've been scarred by power-drunk DMs / video game entitlement.

For example, in 4e I noticed several of my players diminish in their creative output (at least according to my perceptions) because of their reaction to the power system - that is, treating it as encapsulating all that their PCs could do. Also, I've seen analysis paralysis happen in large part due to focusing on rules over story.

The DM/video game scarring can definitely be an issue. Ask a player "what do you want to do," and if she expects that she has limited choices (powers?), you'll get some good cognitive dissonance by flinging the doors wide open. But does it persist long enough to be a problem?

Michael Silverbane said:
Ideally, the players have enough information... so that they can make meaningful choices.

Right. There's no point in performing a triple-headspin attack if it can't complete its intended purpose, and a player can't transform into Voltron if he doesn't know that's an option.

Celebrim said:
In fact, many players often play better when they don't know the rules. They engage the environment better, are more creative, and spend more time RPing their character rather than looking for 'edges' in the rules.

This would be my end-goal. I want players thinking freely, which allows them to both roleplay better and to solve problems better. I don't want to present a puzzle to my players, just to have them think, "the answer is on my character sheet somewhere..."

But then, some players enjoy a nice, mechanical game. I believe they're called "min-maxers?" Can a game appease both the role-players and the roll-players, when one group knows the rules and the other doesn't?

jasper · Dec 9, 2016

DMMike said:
Remember the good old days, when the Dungeon Master's Guide was for DMs only, and it had a significant amount of rules needed to run the game?

This occurs to me at the same time as I'm thinking about a combat position system, in which players have six main places for their characters to be when fighting. But what if the players don't know this? If a player says, "I want to climb the tree and shoot with my bow" (I know, an entirely different thread), can I put him in one of the six places (which isn't a tree) and tell him, "okay, you start climbing the tree?"

How much do players need to know, when it comes to the nuts-and-bolts rules?

Yea those good ole days lasted 3.5 days then that that person Celebrim bought a copy of the DMG with his lunch money.

The player should know the rules which apply to his character. He should not know the rules. conditional modifiers, exceptions during certain times.
Story time.
In 80s I was invited to play "CHILL" supernatural stuff in today's world. We are the men in black to fight them. ONLY 2 people knew the rules. The GM and GOOBER. The GM was running a module. Player threw a fit when the GM said the Goober's dice result plus mods did not succeed. (I think was an info check). Goober yells and cites the rules and page numbers. GM replies does not work. Goober storms out of the house. At the end of night the GM revealed the module had a new monster which had some exceptions to the rules. This was also the game where I saw the most loaded pointed fingers pointed at the GM. But that is another story.