How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Cadence]

So, attached is the V and Font Scales for bouldering (free climbing on small rock formations or artificial rock walls; no gear/ropes). The Font Scale is higher resolution than the V.


View attachment 355509

I want to just focus on 6b through 8c+ (forget 9a and 6a+ or lower where things get a little tricky for reasons I won't get into for sake of brevity and staying away from too much "inside baseball"). That spread is 16 grades. Now take your average Pro or Elite climber (which would be a D&D combatant otherwise, they would have been selected out of the discipline via Darwinism). Their ability to look at (I didn't say interact with) a boulder problem within this spread of 16 grades and independently land on the same number (or within one grade) as other Pro/Elite climbers is uncanny.

Seems apposite.

That was freaking interesting, thank you.

Do you have a favorite paper/site that talks about the inter-rater reliability of the grading? I'm also curious if the height of climber matters.

As an aside, reddit was about as all over on discussing climbing rating systems as it was on chainsaw safety (iirc).
. (I am not endorsing reddit, but it's kind of like rubber necking a crash and I couldn't help myself).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Realism and immersion are my preference, yes. What's yours?

Immersion is pretty much subjective at the best of times. Realism a bit less so, but its not at all clear that your preference on this is the more realistic; so the best you can really say is it fits your perception of what's realistic here.

Basically, someone else can be playing from the same preferences you claim and come to an entirely different set of conclusions how to handle this.

 

[pemerton]

Realism and immersion are my preference, yes. What's yours?

Realism and immersion.

 

[Corinnguard]

Realism and immersion are my preference, yes. What's yours?

I prefer both as well.

 

[Manbearcat]

That was freaking interesting, thank you. What height of climber are the ratings based on, or doesn't that matter much?

You're welcome. There are no baseline indices that the various scales are based upon. However, the average climber has about a +1 Ape Index (ratio of arm span relative to height) while males and females diverge as they do.

There are advantages and disadvantages to various individual indices (height, weight, size, tibial length, etc) and indices in concert to generate the composite of an individual climber. A few easy for instances is smaller climbers tend to have crazy power to weight ratio (particularly when it comes to fingers) and have no trouble with getting boxed into tight spaces/awkward positions...while taller climbers obviously have more omnidirectional reach/span to skip holds/sequences. Regardless, different beta (sequence of moves/positions that make up the charted course to top the climb) is often deployed at the tails of the climber distribution (for the stray climber with significantly divergent indices from the abundant majority that cluster on a per-sex basis). Having subtly different indices might provide access to subtly different sequences in a climb (oftentimes turning "the crux", the most difficult sequence for one climber into a different "crux" for another).

But given how much the distribution clusters and how tradeoffs tend to generally equilibrate (with some sequences absolutely gated by certain things like dynamic explosivity + coordination or insane finger/pinch strength or absurd core strength to generate body tension or ridiculous hip mobility/spinal flexion to get into and out of various positions and deploy particular techniques for leverage), you end up with top end climbers able to independently triangulate grades with amazing collective precision.

One of the easiest ways to spot climbers who aren't professional/world class/top end but are extremely good (and maybe they think they're better than they are!)? They can't independently evaluate routes/boulders with precision and therefore don't land on the same grades that other world class climbers do (or, like I said, within one grade)...and that definitely means they don't have a future as a route-setter!

 

[Manbearcat]

Realism and immersion are my preference, yes. What's yours?

Realism and immersion.

I prefer both as well.

I prefer both as well when I'm not running a Pawn Stance Dungeon Crawl (where I don't give a crap about either!)!

All four of us are different (with Micah and Corinnguard overlapping significantly it seems and pemerton and myself having a fair amount of overlap in the games we like to GM)

Its almost like "the immersion litmus test" is autobiographical...personal...and almost surely indexes your access to/perception of what constitutes "realism!"

 

[Maxperson]

Not just the numbers. Any and all information. The GM having to be the source of it all. Only parceling out what they think “makes sense” or is “obvious”. But as we’ve seen in this very thread, and in countless other examples, peoples’ ideas of what “makes sense” varies wildly.

That's still not about control. A DM that wants to control the group is one that railroads them, forcing his vision on the others. That's control. You may not like the above playstyle, but that's all it is. A playstyle. It's not at all about control.

It’s not so much about controlling players as it is controlling the game. As I said, I based my assessment on many GMs I played with, the industry advice that was prevalent in that period, and how it influenced me as a GM.

It's not about control of any sort. It's just a playstyle that some like and others don't.

But there’s only one actual answer, right? So I’d describe it accordingly. This isn’t difficult stuff. Why would a GM confuse themselves?

Presumably there's only one right answer. However, I've seen a number of DMs here on the site say that they sometimes go with player musings if those musings are better than what they came up with. So there might not be only one right answer.

 

[Maxperson]

He literally says that not letting the players look up the book makes the game more challenging. He then comments that not letting them look up the book will put their knowledge to the test. What knowledge is he referring to? To me, those most natural reading is their knowledge of the contents of book.

I never said otherwise. Go back and look at all the posts. Each one says some variation(or maybe no variance) of "during the encounter." The wording is pretty clear. No numbers during the encounter should be given. Outside of the encounter or game the players are not forbidden to look at the book.

This advice seems to me to date from a period where memorising the Monster Manual, and more generally remembering monster stats and attributes was part of the environment of skilled play. It's a particular application of a wargame ethos.

There is no implication in what Gygax says that players should be inferring their to hit numbers from the GM's description, or via inference from what rolls by what players for what PCs do and don't miss. There is no implication in what Gygax says that it is unrealistic for the players to know numerical information about AC, hp etc. In fact the game seems to me to take for granted that players will think in such terms: various armour types are rated by class, and then other modifications (for DEX, magic etc) are applied to generate equivalent degrees of protection even when a creature/NPC is not wearing armour of that precise class. Spells like Bless and Shield have their effects expressed in related numerical terms. Players are encouraged to think of the risk posed by monsters in terms of their Hit Dice, which are a numerical marker of both their durability, and the threat they pose, in combat. When it comes to rangers' tracking and thieves' special abilities, these are directly expressed to players in terms of % chances of success.

First, it's iffy for players to remember that much information. There are a LOT of monsters. Second, DMs change things up fairly often. Relying on information you read can make your PC dead.

Applying Gygax's model to @hawkeyefan's examples, the GM would tell the players "You see a troll" or perhaps "You see a nine-and-a-half foot tall, rather gaunt, moss-green humanoid, with long claws and fangs". The players then discuss among themselves: What's its AC? Does anyone remember its immunities? Etc. And the brains trust would put together, via their recall, that it is more than 6 HD, is AC 4, and regenerates unless burned by fire or acid. They might also remembers that it deals rather punishing damage in melee (an average of 20 hp per round, multiplied by the to-hit chance).

Sure. But again, relying on the information to remain the same is going to bite them in the rear sooner or later.

Oh, and I'm not wrong about what he literally said. I am exactly correct. No looking at the book during the encounter in order to make things more challenging.

 

[Maxperson]

I, relatively casually, offered as an example of a GM describing the scene to the players as including a dragon trapped in a circle of imprisonment.

@Corinnguard and @Maxperson have proceeded to tell me that this is not something a D&D (or any?) GM is allowed to do, because player and/or PC knowledge of what the runic circle is must be gated behind some sort of skill/knowledge/ability check.

First you chide me, incorrectly, about getting what Gygax said wrong, and then you proceed to incorrectly say that I said DMs are not allowed to do those things. Go back and look. I never said or implied that the DM couldn't do those things, and said the exact opposite in multiple posts. The DM can in fact declare auto success or failure for reasons.

 

[Maxperson]

Some posters have told me it's all about realism. Others have told me it's about immersion.

I have a vague recollection of you being among those posters, although I've not gone back through the thread to confirm that.

To me both of those things overlap to such a great degree that they are nearly the same. Realism is what facilitates immersion. That includes fantasy realism, like dragons breathing fire and the existence of dragons and magic. As long as there are rules and consistency to the fantasy setting, fantasy realism also facilitates immersion.