How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[hawkeyefan]

Holy conflation Batman! We aren't talking about numbers vs. descriptions dude. We're talking about using natural language to describe the rules. Those aren't even close to being the same.

So what? You said that you couldn’t think of an example where natural language cause an issue. I provided an example.

5e is actually a pretty poor example. It was deliberately written vaguely and with holes in the rules in order to push rulings over rules.

I mean… that’s what makes it a great example. It uses natural language… and the result is vague and leaves holes in the rules.

In any case, your argument holds no water, because "Hard Move" is meaningless without the natural language you say people interpret differently, so your jargon filled games are just as likely to be interpreted differently by different people.

This makes no sense. You’re basically condemning use of any and all jargon, any and all descriptors that can be used to convey a complex idea more quickly.

I never saw them do it, but I may have missed it. They can speak for themselves. As for me, not once did I do so. And in fact said the opposite at least once.
You can disagree that the sun is a star, too. You just can't be right about this. Disagreeing with the principal in general isn't the same as telling you that you are doing it wrong or being upset, or hell even caring, that you do it that way.

I’m talking about you saying you’d do it differently than me and why. How it shouldn’t be common knowledge and so on.

This is a Strawman of what I said. I didn't argue that other games shouldn't be expected. I said that if you're talking about a minor RPG, a lot of people aren't going to remember.

And you cut out the opening of this section.

When do folks not explain the term when asked?

And at what point does it become the responsibility of individuals to learn this stuff instead of the responsibility of others to explain it to them?

Right. That piece of jargon doesn't appear in the 5e rules.

So what? It’s still jargon. And it’s not like there’s no shortage of jargon in the 5e rules.

Probably because in the example that @hawkeyefan gave, the DM didn't. In his example he said he would just give that knowledge to the players and come up with the justification later. That's not the DM giving thought to who would or would not know it and then deciding.

My example was based on @pemerton’s (and I’m sure at this point he’s glad I did that…) where the purpose of the circle seemed obvious.

When challenged on this, I said I often default to that kind of GMing because I’m generally uninterested in keeping a situation like that mysterious. I’m more interested in what the PCs will try and do about it rather than them trying to even figure out what’s going on. Depending on the situation and the details, I might address all the players, or I might select the player of the character most familiar with such things and tell them.

Regardless of exactly how I handled it, I can assure you that plenty of consideration would go into it.

 

[pemerton]

It's the type of response my Stats Professors (during BA and MA programs) labeled as deceptive statistics.
It's not wrong, technically, but it leads the statistically unaware to make erroneous judgements.

Well here's my response: if someone tells me that the fighter is only 5% better against the armoured knight than the guard, that will likewise lead some (many?) to make erroneous judgements. Because, in fact, the fighter is twice as good, and the normal way to convey "twice as good" using percentages is 100% better, not 5% better.

The fact that the increments of ability are units on a 20-sided die, and so in that sense are 5% increments, is not relevant to understanding which of the two warriors is better able to confront the knight, and how much better one is than the other.

I mean, suppose that the numbers were 99-00, vs 00 only, on a d%. The first is still twice as good as the second, and it does nothing but spread fog to say that they are only 1% better, which would imply being trivially better rather than twice as good.

5% is 5%. Quadruple your chances of a heart attack and it's still a very long shot for you to have one. That "double" you mention above is trivial in the same way, and requires a corner case to even happen. You had to conjure up the one armor class where that trivial doubling is true. One higher or one lower and ceases to be.

Is it a corner case? And as I noted, the chance against AC 5 is 20% better.

Even against AC 10, the fighter is 10% better than the 0-level guard (11 chances in 20, compared to 10 chances in 20). That is not trivial if - for instance - the characters are assaulted by half-a-dozen patrons in a bar. Suppose that the fighter has AC 4, and so the 0-level patrons have a 1 in 5 chance to hit (4 chances in 20, or 17+ required). The fighter can expect 1 to 2 hits in the first round, which he may well withstand, and with a win of initiative can get in the first attack in the second round. The chance of hitting at least one AC 10 labourer, over two attacks, is 319/400 for the fighter. The chance of hitting two is 121 in 400. For the guard, the chance is 3/4 for at least one hit, and 1 in 4 for two hits.

Those are not trivial changes in the expected outcome.

This also shows that the comparison to a heart attack is irrelevant. The roll to hit in AD&D is not once-and-done. It is rolled, each round, until the combat ends. Having a double chance to hit the armoured knight is far from nothing. Suppose that the knight is trying to break through a gate, and the other warrior is able to shoot from above: so each round, we test the knight's strength and roll for the warrior to hit. Who would you rather have holding that position - the guard, or the fighter who has twice the chance to hit?

 

[Corinnguard]

What is the principle that forbids the GM from narrating "You see the dragon is trapped inside a circle of imprisonment"?

I am not sure what or if there is a principle that forbids the GM from narrating this scene. I don't own the 5e DMG. What I can say is that this scene needs more work.

 

[Corinnguard]

Doesn't the GM get to decide what is common, uncommon or rare knowledge?

So how do you see the circle of imprisonment into a piece of common knowledge? Stating it so isn't enough. If they are common knowledge in a setting, the designers of that setting need to explain how it became so.

 

[aramis erak]

So how do you see the circle of imprisonment into a piece of common knowledge? Stating it so isn't enough. If they are common knowledge in a setting, the designers of that setting need to explain how it became so.

Under the D&D rules for the editions I've run, everything, including the rest of the rules, is subject to change by the DM.

So there is nothing in them to prevent the DM deciding they are common knowledge, but then, nothing to prevent the DM from saying they're esoterica so old no one alive but the victim knows they exist with efficacy.

Save, of course, the (usually unwritten) social contract of the group.

 

[Corinnguard]

If the GM says what something is, why would your character not know it?

Saying something exists within a setting isn't an automatic guarantee that a person is going to know about it. If my character came across a circle etched into the ground and finds themselves wondering about it, my GM will ask me to roll for an Intelligence check to see if they might know anything about it. My character at that point will either fail his Intelligence check, and either not recall or remember ever coming across such a circle in their past. If they succeed at the Intelligence check, then the character will know they came across a circle of some kind. If they further decided to study the circle, the GM will ask me for an Arcana check. Probably more than one.

But my GM isn't going to come right out and say that the circle is a circle of imprisonment. Instead they'll let the party figure it out. If they don't figure it out, then they don't figure it out.

In my halfassed example, based on @pemerton ’s slightly more sketched out example, I said that I would share the information with the players because I considered it obvious. And, more importantly, I was unconcerned with that knowledge as far as the encounter itself went.

The circle would be obvious to the GM and players out-of-character. When the players are in-character, they would need to figure it out because it might not be obvious. The GM is not suppose to do their work for them.

Also, this conversation isn’t limited to 5e.

True. But outside of 3e, 5e, Level Up, PF1 and Mutants and Masterminds 2e, my knowledge of RPGs is pretty limited. So I am working with what I know.

Stop jumping to extremes.

To you, I might be jumping to something you consider extreme. I don't really know if what I said upthread is extreme.

 

[James Gasik]

A blacksmith is an expert. Hardly the SFHP I was describing. Heck, the other NPC classes aren't exactly special snowflakes either.

And if you don't like having this discussion with me, just don't respond. No need to be rude.

There's a large difference between being an Expert (Blacksmith) who can potentially rise in level than, say, a 2e 0-level character with:

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's a large difference between being an Expert (Blacksmith) who can potentially rise in level than, say, a 2e 0-level character with:
View attachment 356463

There sure is, which is why I prefer 1e/2e's take on the concept over 3e's.

Of course, there are different games that I feel handle the idea even better, but this isn't terrible by any means.

 

[James Gasik]

Even if a 1st level Fighter is only 5% better at fighting than a 0-level guard, that's still better. It's the exact same for a 2nd-level Fighter vs. a 1st-level one. But we shouldn't look at just hit points or attack rolls. How about saving throws?

Here we can see the gulf between a 0-level guard is far greater than that of a 1st-level Fighter vs. a 3rd-level. Surely, a greater ability to survive various threats has to include greater skill, training, and experience?

EDIT: for those unfamiliar with AD&D saving throws, the categories, in order, are Paralyze/Poison/Death Magic, Rod/Staff/Wand, Petrification/Polymorph, Breath Weapon, and Spell/Magic. If you were subject to an effect that required a saving throw to take lesser/no effect, the DM goes down the line, stopping at the one that is most appropriate (with Spell/Magic being the catch-all for all sorts of "weird stuff"). You then roll a d20 and if you get that number on the table or higher, you save! Bonuses were rare- typically only the Defense adjustment from Dexterity (against effects you could theoretically dodge, like rays or breath weapons), the Magical Defense adjustment from Wisdom against "mind-affecting" effects, and things like magic armor, cloaks or protection, or the like increased your odds. Some races gave bonuses (Dwarves, Gnomes, and Halflings enjoyed large bonuses to certain effects), and a few classes, like Druids or Paladins would grant bonuses to certain saving throws. Because of this, an increase of 5% on a saving throw is a pretty big deal until you get to higher levels where magical swag can accumulate (rings of protection, cloaks, stones of good luck, scarabs of protection, etc. etc.).

 

[James Gasik]

There sure is, which is why I prefer 1e/2e's take on the concept over 3e's.

Of course, there are different games that I feel handle the idea even better, but this isn't terrible by any means.

I'll preface this with: "I'm sure you know all this, but in case someone following this discussion doesn't":

Well the difference is, if you wanted to have an NPC of a "master smith, the greatest swordmaker in the world", the proficiencies, skill points, and so on to be assigned are completely arbitrary. 3e gives you a benchmark for what a 19th level swordsmith would be like without saying "well, I guess he has 10 NPW slots devoted to Weaponsmithing" in a system where players get new proficiency slots every 1-4 levels based on class.

Now you might feel that a swordmaker having 19d6 hit dice is extreme and unrealistic, and that's a fair point, but then again, anyone having 19d6 hit dice is kind of unrealistic- it's simply a D&D-ism.

3e was designed with the idea that PC's and NPC's should be based on similar rules. It's not a concept without pitfalls, I mean, it's great to know the Strength score of an Orc warrior, but the stat block for a 12th level Orc Barbarian gets pretty darned bloated.

Despite that, while I prefer 5e's monster stat blocks over 3e's (if I had to choose), the way 5e handles NPC's is ridiculous. If I wanted to actually give a master blacksmith the kind of tool proficiency check he should have, I'm once again reduced to giving him arbitrary abilities (like the ones the Rogue has). Not to mention how previously 0-level NPC's are generally statted up in official products as being way tougher and more survivable than those of previous editions of the game.

Simply put, some people are going to like "make it up" better than "here's some instructions" and other people are going to like it the other way. And how tough you want your NPC's will also vary (even the 2e DMG states the DM, could various reasons, give an NPC gobs of hit points, like "the peasant who would not die!" who has 100!). It's all a matter of preference, as you stated, and I'm guessing you prefer the "make it up" and "NPC's should be realistically dispatched with a single sword blow" school of thought in your campaigns.

That doesn't make other ways wrong, just different.