How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[pemerton]

Coming from someone who has in the past strongly supported the idea of jumping from one in-game scene to the next while skipping the intervening time and-or travel (and thus denying the players any agency over those between-scenes times in the fiction), this seems a bit rich.

There is no between-scene play time. By definition.

The relevant player agency is Are we all ready for this next scene?

 

[Corinnguard]

There is no between-scene play time. By definition.

The relevant player agency is Are we all ready for this next scene?

Do the RPGs that you have mentioned several times up thread ever had it where the players had some downtime?

 

[hawkeyefan]

You're not imagining that there are plenty of GMs out there who withhold information that may be considered common knowledge, you're assuming that there are a number of GMs who are like this based off of your own personal experience. You don't know if this true anymore than I do.

I have experienced play of that sort. I have had GMs who have withheld what could be considered common knowledge. I have seen plenty of examples here on these boards of people doing and advocating for exactly that. I have heard the stories of others that support this. I have been the GM that did it myself.

Yet still I chose to use the word “imagine” rather than “know” because I really don’t want to speak for anyone but myself. Please stop trying to change what I am saying. You did it earlier regarding players and characters, and you’re doing it now.

And then, after saying the above to me, you go ahead and like the following post from @Maxperson?

Seems a bit… inconsistent, no?

While I have encountered DMs who have gated common knowledge behind rolls, the vast majority have not done that. And all of the ones that did that were back during 1e and 2e.

I didn’t notice a radical difference in the approach to play from 2e to 3e, except perhaps that the abundance of codified rules gave players a lot of material to argue against GM judgment. But other than that, the play paradigm was largely the same.

For the nature of a runic circle to be considered common knowledge is if said knowledge was spread far and wide, and was a part of daily life for everyone. Like within a High Magic setting where everyone was trained in the ways of magic. But what if the setting the players are in is a Low Magic setting where casters are few and far between? Then it's a different story because in such a setting the nature of a runic circle would most certainly not be considered common knowledge.

Sure, the setting matters in how I handle this stuff. But as I said… we live in a world where such runic circles aren’t used and yet we’re aware of them. Folklore and myth are powerful sources of information. Especially in worlds without other means of communication.

Well I, for one, like the challenge and the pleasure of solving a mystery. I want my in-character self to figure things out.

Me too! I just come up with more challenging and mysterious things!

Is there any information that you won't provide to the characters?

Yes!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This was also a reply to a post defending the 3E DMG advice against @hawkeyefan's criticisms. Obviously the RPGs listed are illustrative.

But your post made it not about GMing practices, but about types of games. It was clear "Or you could stop sucking and play narrative instead." It was not terribly constructive.

My post is a manifestation of a degree of frustration at the repeated assertion, or implication, that if one does not GM in the manner set out in the 3E DMG than no RPGing is possible. Here is the particular post I replied to that contained that assertion/implication:
The "issue" is that the advice in the 3E DMG rests on notions like adventures the GM has designed, which they have to "lure" the players (via their PCs) into playing. This advice is a recipe for the GM preparing content which the PCs (and, via them the player) then "end up in".

If you - @Crimson Longinus - agree that that is poor advice, then we have no disagreement on this particular topic.

I don't think it is poor advice. It is perfectly sensible advice for games that require a lot of prep. And of course if we interpret it more broadly, then obviously the GM should prep and frame things the players will find interesting.

Pedantic's "If the GM can't produce content the PCs want to engage with at all, then nothing happens, the game falls apart and everyone does something else with their hobby time," is trivially true, and will apply to narrative games as well. If the GM frames a scene and no one is interested in it then something has obviously gone wrong.

 

[Corinnguard]

And then, after saying the above to me, you go ahead and like the following post from @Maxperson?

When someone posts a Like (or one of the other reaction emoticons) to you with regards to one of your posts, have you ever wondered if they liked everything you had to say in your post, or which part of your post earned the Like to begin with? I do.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, the setting matters in how I handle this stuff. But as I said… we live in a world where such runic circles aren’t used and yet we’re aware of them. Folklore and myth are powerful sources of information. Especially in worlds without other means of communication.

I would imagine common knowledge of runic circles on most worlds to be around "This looks like it could be some sort of a magic thing, I guess..."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

When someone posts a Like (or one of the other reaction emoticons) to you with regards to one of your posts, have you ever wondered if they liked everything you had to say in your post, or which part of your post earned the Like to begin with? I do.

I liked some of what you said here.

 

[Corinnguard]

I would imagine common knowledge of runic circles on most world to be around "This looks like it could be some sort of a magic thing, I guess..."

Beyond this, it would take someone with more in depth knowledge to know what kind of runic circle it happened to be, how it could be activated/deactivated, and what kind of runes it used.

"For safety purposes, leave this runic circle to a trained professional..."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You seem to be conflating stuff in the fiction - does the PC recognise a bird or a banana - with stuff at the table - does the player succeed in their action.

That conflation is perfectly intentional, and I'd argue essential to the sort of play @Lanefan does (and which I prefer.)

Trying to separate the rules from the fictional reality they represent is antithetical to this approach. It is not meaningful to talk about a player succeeding at a test or a character succeeding at task as separate entities, as these are one and the same, merely looked at from different angles.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is no between-scene play time. By definition.

The relevant player agency is Are we all ready for this next scene?

That phrasing is why I don't like the phrase "scene framing". It strongly implies that narrative point of view, taking me out if the world and into stage direction.