How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Thomas Shey]

What do you mean problems with authorship?

I mean the authors of the game had some pretty bad accusations directed at them with reasonable support, all the more disappointing since the game itself is pretty inclusive.

 

[Reynard]

If the players are the only ones driving play, there still is going to be a plot. If there wasn't a plot to follow, why would you be role-playing such a RPG?

it may be important to note that people may be using "plot" differently and that's where some confusion and disagreement comes from.

Those of us saying RPG play does not require a plot are using the literary defi ition of a prescribed sequence of events. We are saying that you don't need that in advance for enjoyable play.

I think some others are using "plot" as a synonym for "sitation." There is a dragon terrorizing the local ranchers, eating all the best cattle is a situation. Writing an adventure where the PCs are forced to go through a series of steps that lead to a climactic confrontation with the dragon is a plot.

In a sandbox you can include the situation and the PCs can decide if, when and how to deal with the dragon. They are driving the game. If they do decide to see if the locals will pay them to drive off the dragon, what happens next is still player driven.

The best sandboxes are, IMO, full of such situations.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I suppose I'd just rather deal with casually discussed concepts than jargon.

Please stop with this anti-jargon schtick. You’ve said in just the past page or two that you are as simulationist as your players let you be, and that you prefer sandbox play.

Those are jargon. You’re perfectly comfortable with all kinds of jargon.

All of that sounds unbearably mechanical to me, like you are reducing the game to, "check these boxes for success however you can"!

Clocks as described work exactly like hit points. They’re a countdown to resolution. If you can handle hit points, or tracking of ammo or other resources, then you can handle clocks.

Actually, clocks are simpler as the numbers tend to stay very small.

Plot lines don't inherently constitute a railroad. If the players don't have to participate in the plot, a railroad doesn't exist. A railroad only exists if the players are forced down a single line of play no matter what they do. Those are rare.

Meh, it sounds pretty railroady to me. The option to get on the train or not doesn’t change that the “story” as we’re discussing it is a railroad.

I have never heard fronts used in any context other than a reference to PBtA and similar narrative games.

Never heard of a weather front? Or a military front? The term is similar to those. It really isn’t that complex.

Certainly as clear as words like “campaign” or phrases like “action economy”.

This whole anti-jargon thing that Lowkey started is old. At least just have the chutzpa to say “I refuse to acknowledge phrases used in games that I don’t like”.

 

[Corinnguard]

Meh, it sounds pretty railroady to me. The option to get on the train or not doesn’t change that the “story” as we’re discussing it is a railroad.

And how would you run an adventure if you were the GM?

 

[Reynard]

Meh, it sounds pretty railroady to me. The option to get on the train or not doesn’t change that the “story” as we’re discussing it is a railroad.

A railraod isn't the same as a linear adventure. In fact railroads aren't things, really, so much as how GMs do tings. In a railroad, the GM only accepts answers and actions that in line with their predetermined sequence of events (the plot). Sometimes this is subtle (quantum ogres) and sometimes it is decidedly not. But that is still different than a linear adventure (although linear adventures lend themselves more easily to railroading).

Also: if a railroad is fun, it isn't a railroad, it is a roller coaster.

 

[Corinnguard]

Those of us saying RPG play does not require a plot are using the literary defi ition of a prescribed sequence of events.

I have been looking at the plot within the pre-made D&D adventures as a prescribed sequence of events. But they aren't GM-authored railroads because the GM and the players interact with one another to such a degree that every time it is played, it's not going to be the same in each iteration. Player Group A might reach a different ending than Player Group B did.

 

[Reynard]

I have been looking at the plot within the pre-made D&D adventures as a prescribed sequence of events. But they aren't GM-authored railroads because the GM and the players interact with one another to such a degree that every time it is played, it's not going to be the same in each iteration. Player Group A might reach a different ending than Player Group B did.

If it has potentially different endings, it isn't a railroad, that's for sure.

"Plot" can be a fuzzy word with adventures. I think most of 5Es adventures and almost all of Pathfinder's AP are plotted, linear adventures. It is a very popular way to write and adventure. Not everyone runs them that way, though. GMs can turn a plot into a sandbox with a little work and I think a lot do.

 

[Lanefan]

There's levels of setbacks and frustrations. "I missed that one roll" is a completely different beast than "We just wasted the entire four-hour session on a red herring the referee intentionally pushed into the game." If someone can't handle rolling poorly, they shouldn't be playing RPGs with random chance. If the referee thinks the players should just shrug off the referee intentionally wasting their entire evening, the referee shouldn't be running RPGs.

Just a session?

Pshaw.

I've seen situations where the players (I was one) went so deep after a red herring we ended up spending half a dozen or more sessions in the "wrong" adventure! Thus, that red herring in effect became an unintended adventure hook, causing a big left turn the DM didn't see coming. We-as-players didn't know any of this, though, and just kept on keepin' on.

And it's never a waste of time if people are having fun in the moment.

 

[Corinnguard]

I've seen situations where the players (I was one) went so deep after a red herring we ended up spending half a dozen or more sessions in the "wrong" adventure! Thus, that red herring in effect became an unintended adventure hook, causing a big left turn the DM didn't see coming. We-as-players didn't know any of this, though, and just kept on keepin' on.

When did your party realize that they were chasing a red herring? And were they able to get back on track?

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's not up to me. The appropriate time could come in 1 second or never. It's entirely up to what the players do. I don't have a "decide to share it" moment.

This is kind of paradoxical. Who determines what it is that triggers the sharing of additional information? The players?

Then you are acknowledging the preeminence of description. In order for numbers to be equal or better than description, the first example of mine which was numbers only has to be equal to or better than the description.

No, I’m not. I’ve been saying all along I’d do both. I’m acknowledging that providing both a description and the relevant numbers is providing more than just the description.

I’m not trying to prove anything other than what’s obvious.

Sure. At the very least you can determine that it is big, strong and ugly. What can't be determined by PC observation are numbers. PCs can't determine that level of precision without some sort of house ruled super power.

The PCs don’t see the numbers anymore than they know exactly how many hit points they have. Like, their level if HP is probably expected to give them an idea of how close they are to being killed or taken out of a fight. And the players know the numbers. But we don’t think of it as the characters knowing the numbers.

Also, you’re choosing to not have any of the creature’s abilities be obvious or on display in some way. You can just as easily describe it in a way that portrays what you want to share with the players.

You can give the players information so they can make informed decisions about the game. We don’t have to worry about the characters knowing the numbers or any of that.

No. That isn't what I said at all. Nothing made it both more and less realistic. That's why it's important to understand that realism is a scale and not a dichotomy.

Below is what you said. It’s not remotely clear to me. So I’ll ask for a third time what you meant by it.

If I have a wall, that's realistic because walls exist in reality. If I make it brick, it is even more realistic because both bricks and walls exist in reality. If I have flies on the wall, it's even MORE realistic, because all three are in reality. Failing to have flies, however, does not remove the realism that bricks and walls add.