How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Bagpuss]

True. It's also possible that if the players attach undue importance to a mundane bit of set dressing, that item could be something of a red herring left behind by a potential adversary of the party's. This could lead to some interesting role-playing as the party tries to figure out which part of the set dressing deserves their attention. Is it this item or that item? Where do we go from here?

While I agree you can have red herrings, I think often in RPGs they tend to fall flat, unless they can discover it is an actual deliberate misdirect by the villain. If it just is a misleading clue that leads to a dead end, players can feel like they have just wasted time.

 

[Xamnam]

Chekhov's Gun is a relevant piece of advice, not a rule, in most creative endeavors. You can apply it to paintings.

(but also it was written for theatre and taking it out of that context does fundamentally change the nature of it)

 

[Bagpuss]

By player action. So again, Chekhov's gun has no relevance.

So you don't think things are put in that sandbox because they have relevance?

 

[Reynard]

So you don't think things are put in that sandbox because they have relevance?

Chekhov's gun doesn't "have relevance" it is a promise that the thing is fundamental to the plot. Sandboxes can't have that because you don't know what the players are going to decide is important.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Chekhov's Gun is a relevant piece of advice, not a rule, in most creative endeavors. You can apply it to paintings.

(but also it was written for theatre and taking it out of that context does fundamentally change the nature of it)

It tends to be relevant to TV shows too, because anything with any real focus probably has some significance, as a red herring if nothing else, because the screen time is precious. Its why 90% of the time I'll go "Okay, that's probably significant because they spent too much time/focus on it otherwise"

 

[Thomas Shey]

So you don't think things are put in that sandbox because they have relevance?

The problem is that with a sandbox they're often there for color or just because the GM thinks they should be without them serving a purpose. As such they actual significant items will get drowning in background clutter in a way things in theater or TV can't afford to be.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you don't think things are put in that sandbox because they have relevance?

Not in a plot sense, no.

 

[billd91]

Chekhov's gun doesn't "have relevance" it is a promise that the thing is fundamental to the plot. Sandboxes can't have that because you don't know what the players are going to decide is important.

Just because a setting is a sandbox with respect to the PCs and thus have no overall plot for them, doesn't mean there isn't a collection of mysteries, conundrums, situations, and mini-plots scattered about, any of which might have a Chekhov's Gun relevant to the situation.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Just because a setting is a sandbox with respect to the PCs and thus have no overall plot for them, doesn't mean there isn't a collection of mysteries, conundrums, situations, and mini-plots scattered about, any of which might have a Chekhov's Gun relevant to the situation.

I rather feel this is no longer using the term appropriately. It is not Chekhov's Toybox.

 

[Reynard]

Just because a setting is a sandbox with respect to the PCs and thus have no overall plot for them, doesn't mean there isn't a collection of mysteries, conundrums, situations, and mini-plots scattered about, any of which might have a Chekhov's Gun relevant to the situation.

It is only a Chekhov's Gun if the PCs follow up and make that thing the focus of the game. In other words: the analogy doesn't hold up in the sandbox situation. It is a specifically literary device. Why are we arguing about it in relation to play?