How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[James Gasik]

I've found it useful to cultivate a reputation as more impartial than I probably really am as a GM for precisely this reason.

Another advantage to being more transparent with your players. It's for this reason I dispensed with rolling behind a screen a long time ago- the players get to see every die roll I make.

 

[Corinnguard]

How is any of this "realistic" or "immersive"? Why is it realistic that I notice the hole in the wall, or the sweat, but not the flies? Why is it realistic that I notice the man's sweat, but not his general build, or his likely age?

Likewise, how does any of this pertain to the GM "just assuming" certain actions? @Lanefan's description assumes that the PCs look at and take note of features of the wall, but that they don't look at and take notice of flies in their immediate visual field. I mean, how is it supposed to be the case that I've identified the ceiling is 8' high and yet I haven't noticed the flies my eyes must have passed over in order to take in the ceiling?

I can see bottles on the floor under the window. The window is opposite the door (on the "far wall"). Presumably the man slumped forward in the simple wooden chair (but with no table to lean on? Why isn't he sliding off/down? Has he been nailed to the chair by the people who killed him?) is between me and the window, so how am I even seeing those bottles?

I don't see any realism here. It's all just gameplay: the GM makes a decision to dispense some information and to withhold some other information; the GM takes for granted that the players will infer some things from what is not said (eg will infer that there are no aliens with rayguns in the room because the GM didn't mention any); and the GM likewise takes for granted that the players will know - in general terms - what information might have been withheld, and hence needs to be asked about. (Or, perhaps, gated behind dice rolls.)

The sort of gameplay implicit in @Lanefan's set up - which I've described in some earlier posts, and also just above - is not very interesting to me. If the highlight of a "gumshoe" game is asking twenty questions of the GM to get a description of a sweaty man in a room, so that the play experience is not dissimilar to poking a Gygaxian dungeon room with a 10' pole, then count me out.

What's interesting about the room is the man in it; and what is interesting about the man is whether he's dead or alive, and whether or not he's the person I'm looking for. The GM is able to dispense that information. So why not do so? Either "You open the door, into a poorly furnished office. There's a man sitting, slumped, in the simple wooden chair. Flies are hovering about and above him. You can't see his face. He looks like his dead." Or "You open the door, into a poorly furnished office. There's a man sitting, slumped, in the simple wooden chair. Flies are hovering about and above him. He barely stirs in response to you, but from his breathing and his sweat you can see he's alive."

Now the players can engage with the man, or check out the room, or whatever they want to do, without having that interesting stuff gated behind a bizarre dance of the seven veils as to the basic set-up of the scene.

Are there any RPGs out there that have met your expectations of how a RPG should be run? It doesn't sound like 5e D&D is one of them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've found it useful to cultivate a reputation as more impartial than I probably really am as a GM for precisely this reason.

Its one of a number of things where you end up carrying water for other GMs that you'd rather not.

 

[hawkeyefan]

There's no conflict. DM side "deception" comes in the form of Mimics and the like and is not even true deception. When a party walks into the room, I'm not going to describe the room and announce that there's a mimic in the corner that looks like a chest. I'm going to describe it as a chest. We're not describing a copse of trees in the distance and then snickering behind the screen because there are no trees and no reason why the PCs would see something that isn't there, trying to get one over on the players.

There are also omissions which are not deceptions. When the party walks into the room and sees a desk and I don't tell them about the box that is right behind it, it is because they don't see the box, not because I'm deceiving them about its existence. We describe what the PCs would see and know and omit what they don't see and/or don't know.

The job of the DM is to portray the fictional world as the PCs perceive it, not to portray it in every detail including details that the PCs would be unaware of. Truthfully describing what the PCs perceive is not deception. It's truth.

Yeah, that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about sharing the game details of known factors. The ogre in chainmail who’s charging the party… he’s got an AC of 18. That kind of thing.

I find when GMs withhold that kind of information, it doesn’t enhance play. In fact, I think it harms it. I think it’s indicative of an overall reluctance to share details, and tends to push play towards pixelbitching. To trying to ask the right question so the GM will tell you the info you need to actually get to a point where a decision is necessary.

It very much seems like it’s about control. That every scrap of information must be fought for. Must be “earned”. I like for players to be as informed as the characters. The characters don’t have to ask for every detail. They don’t have to try and intuit the correct question to ask to truly understand a situation.

Illusions or disguised enemies? That’s all fine and it’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about observable elements of the game not being given a rules expression and shared with players “because numbers”.

The numbers represent the things in the fiction.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about sharing the game details of known factors. The ogre in chainmail who’s charging the party… he’s got an AC of 18. That kind of thing.

There is no deception involved with that.

I find when GMs withhold that kind of information, it doesn’t enhance play. In fact, I think it harms it.

Then for YOU it does. For ME it doesn't. There is no objectivity here. Only preference.

I think it’s indicative of an overall reluctance to share details, and tends to push play towards pixelbitching.

No. It has nothing to do with any sort of reluctance to share details and does not push play towards "pixelbitching."

To trying to ask the right question so the GM will tell you the info you need to actually get to a point where a decision is necessary.

The base description will often be enough. When it isn't, the enhanced description that follows, say when the creature begins to move towards the group or away or whatever it does, will usually be sufficient. Questions aren't usually necessary, but are often asked by people who tend to be indecisive and need an overly large amount of detail to make a decision. Often they take 20 minutes to figure out which spell they want to cast as they overanalyze everything.

Sometimes you will get a DM who is poor at describing things and issues will occur, but not often in my experience.

It very much seems like it’s about control.

It's not.

That every scrap of information must be fought for.

Again, no.

Must be “earned”.

Nope.

I like for players to be as informed as the characters.

And in my game they are. Characters do not know the numbers of creatures they encounter, and neither do the players. Both are equally informed.

The characters don’t have to ask for every detail.

Nor do the players.

They don’t have to try and intuit the correct question to ask to truly understand a situation.

Nor do the players.

I’m talking about observable elements of the game not being given a rules expression and shared with players “because numbers”.

There are no numerical elements of the game observable by PCs.

The numbers represent the things in the fiction.

So do valid descriptions that give the players enough information to make an informed decision. Informed =/= numbers.

 

[Corinnguard]

I find when GMs withhold that kind of information, it doesn’t enhance play. In fact, I think it harms it.

And having a GM openly providing what you need in terms of information enhances play. It doesn't take anything away from your role-playing experience?

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's not.

It very much was with many GMs that I’ve played with. And it was when I ran my games this way.

So do valid descriptions that give the players enough information to make an informed decision. Informed =/= numbers.

Generally speaking, I think that virtually all descriptions that a GM can provide will necessarily fall short of what information would be available to the characters. This has been a significant part of my point.

Do you agree with that? Or do you at least understand what I’m saying?

And having a GM openly providing what you need in terms of information enhances play. It doesn't take anything away from your role-playing experience?

No, not at all, really. Could there be some edge case I’m not thinking of where that may happen? Sure, maybe. But overall, no it doesn’t take anything away.

Because having more information makes me feel closer to how the character would. That my understanding is “chainmail plus thick skin equals AC 18” and my character’s is “chainmail and thick skin means difficult to hit” doesn’t bother me. I find them to be mush more alike than not knowing and relying solely on vague natural language.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And having a GM openly providing what you need in terms of information enhances play. It doesn't take anything away from your role-playing experience?

If its things it seems like characters of the sort we're playing should be able derive without going through backflips, no. As Hawkeyefan said, if there's an actual reason for the information to be obscure, then make it obscure, but otherwise its just a particularly uninteresting form of gaminess.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If its things it seems like characters of the sort we're playing should be able derive without going through backflips, no. As Hawkeyefan said, if there's an actual reason for the information to be obscure, then make it obscure, but otherwise its just a particularly uninteresting form of gaminess.

Well, how accessible that information should be without some effort to attain it is very subjective, and it doesn't seem like any consensus is likely.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, how accessible that information should be without some effort to attain it is very subjective, and it doesn't seem like any consensus is likely.

There's room for some differences in opinion here, but I stand by my opinion nothing good is served by erring on the side of being more opaque. Do it if it actually has a purpose; if not, not.