How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Micah Sweet]

So then make a rube PC. I don't think the rules stop you. Obviously, depending on the game.

But what if you're a player who doesn't want to play a rube? Why not have options for that player as well?



Assuming you mean 5e here, you can make a character that could be considered a rube, sure. The Backgrounds are what I'd likely lean on here. You could easily also select a Background that would essentially be the opposite of a rube.

But it also really depends on the game. If you're playing Night's Black Agents or Delta Green, then there's a good chance your character begins play as a special forces agent. That's by design. Not all games need to control the power level of the PCs. Not all games are about going from farmboy to planar hero.



But how can you be sure? There's no way to make any decisions without that knowledge. What if you actually pretend not to know longer than you would have not known had you not known? What if you're more capable of figuring something out than you think you would be? What then?!?!?

This kind of concern about "metagaming" is just silly. No matter what you do at that point, the out of character knowledge is influencing you. In fact, it's become the focus of the situation.



Maybe stop assuming that there's any agenda beyond "here's a game that does things differently"? Imagine if we're just talking about different games and how they do things differently, and stop worrying about sides or whatever?

Just an idea.



How many are there in other games?

First if all, if the game pushes PCs as SFHPs, then that's just as constricting in a way you favor as forcing Bob the Farmer would be in a way I favor, so let's try to be fair to all parties here.

Second if all, if you insist that all games use scene-framing you are using that term as a general RPG piece of jargon, which has nothing to do with accepting other kinds of games, so I don't think your point above is particularly relevant here.

 

[Corinnguard]

No matter what you do at that point, the out of character knowledge is influencing you. In fact, it's become the focus of the situation.

When I am role-playing a character in a fantasy setting, I am not trying to be my self in RL. Now if I was role-playing a character in an Urban Fantasy RPG, it would be a different story as an Urban Fantasy setting is one to two steps away from RL.

 

[Corinnguard]

This kind of concern about "metagaming" is just silly.

Does this mean that your fantasy character knows everything you do in RL?

 

[hawkeyefan]

See, that's the single largest reason I generally don't expand beyond D&D and play other systems. The jargon.

Don't tell me about landscapes and then give me locations that aren't landscapes. Just tell me to bring in a location. Don't tell me about impulses. Tell me that locations have a purpose such as to deny access or egress or betray people. I don't want moves. Instead tell me that at a location these are some things a DM can do and then list the possibilities.

When I see a bunch of jargon in a system, I shut it and walk away. I have no interest in trying to remember and use new jargon. If they used natural language to explain things, I'd be a lot more interested. And from the comments I've seen in many threads here, I'm not alone in disliking the use of jargon.

Perhaps if they used natural language to teach their game, perhaps these tiny independent RPG creators wouldn't be quite so tiny.

Oh stop it.

Imagine you had this idea when learning D&D. Why are they making up all these terms for elements of the game? I refuse to learn a game that requires that I learn jargon!

I know this applies to sports as well! I much rather hear an announcer say "the player ran beyond the defense before the ball was put into play in that area" rather than "he's offsides". Natural language for the win!

It might be a cost issue. An independent RPG creator might not have the money to a create a RPG core rulebook that uses everyday words. So they use jargon as a cost-cutting tool.

Or perhaps the makers of the game actually want to convey an idea to the reader?

I mean, did you read the description of Landscapes and Fronts from Apocalypse World that @pemerton quoted? Does that seem in any way like a writer taking a shortcut?

Perhaps, but it seems clear to me that that decision creates an explicit separation from the rest of the community that may eat into their potential customer base. Now if they have no problem with that, then it's all ok.

I don't think as many people have this aversion to jargon that you guys are expressing such that someone producing a game needs to give it that much consideration.

Maybe, but I'm not going to play a game where I have to learn a bunch of new jargon. Besides, they have to explain the jargon somewhere in the book. Just cut the jargon out and leave that natural language. I don't want to have to know 4 different terms in 4 different RPGs for the same blasted thing.

What's the jargon in 5e D&D for the equivalent of Fronts from Apocalypse World? Like what term is used in D&D for that?

 

[James Gasik]

Could a 1st-level character be considered to be something a rube in D&D? The character at this level has just left behind their background profession , and has only begun to take on the life of an adventurer. They have only begun their training into their given class and have a ways to go before they become as @Micah Sweet put it, a special forces heroic protagonist.

At the same time, a 1st level character has historically been set head and shoulders above most NPC's, who have been treated as 0-level or even have special NPC classes.

I realize that D&D today is a game where a humble town guard has 2d8 Hit Dice, but it wasn't always like this.

 

[hawkeyefan]

First if all, if the game pushes PCs as SFHPs, then that's just as constricting in a way you favor as forcing Bob the Farmer would be in a way I favor, so let's try to be fair to all parties here.

I said there was a good chance your character would be a special forces agent. I didn't say it was required. In both games, you can be something other than that. But whatever you are is going to be something where you're considered among the top of your field.

Second if all, if you insist that all games use scene-framing you are using that term as a general RPG piece of jargon, which has nothing to do with accepting other kinds of games, so I don't think your point above is particularly relevant here.

Except you don't accept the term simply because it comes from other games. So yeah... seems relevant.

 

[James Gasik]

Perhaps, but that's not the logic I would use. For example, magic circles aren't necessarily a part of every magical tradition.

That's fair. So just, say, Cleric, Paladin, Warlock, Wizard, who can all cast Magic Circle, or maybe also Artificer and Bard who have Glyph of Warding. So that leaves out Druids and Rangers.

EDIT: Oh and the poor Sorcerer, who has less access to magic than the Warlock for reasons.

 

[hawkeyefan]

When I am role-playing a character in a fantasy setting, I am not trying to be my self in RL. Now if I was role-playing a character in an Urban Fantasy RPG, it would be a different story as an Urban Fantasy setting is one to two steps away from RL.

This doesn't really address my point.

When a GM introduces a scenario and tells you what's going on in it, and you as a player decide "my character doesn't understand this part of the situation" you have chosen to create the conditions for metagaming. If metagaming is a concern for you, then you can just accept that your character understands the situation as it was explained.

You're opting into the situation where what you're calling metagaming occurs.

Does this mean that your fantasy character knows everything you do in RL?

No!

 

[soviet]

And stop it with this 'bounded accuracy' stuff! I don't have time to learn newfounded jargon. Why can't we just say 'the deliberate limiting of cumulative bonuses and penalties on any given dice roll so as to limit both the cognitive load of repeated mathematical calculations and to ensure that no enemy or obstacle renders itself outside of the parameters of enjoyable interaction with the player characters by means of either exceeding the practical reach of their own abilities, such that interactions are frustrating or impossible, or being so far below them that those same interactions have a foregone conclusion and lack all suspense'.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think as many people have this aversion to jargon that you guys are expressing such that someone producing a game needs to give it that much consideration.

I'm not convinced this opinion is any less subjective than mine is.