How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Lanefan]

If I was GMing 5e, though, what I’d strive to do is have different options available to the players. Either different goals or different paths to a given goal.

With this I agree; and would even go a step further and try to let them know that a) the options are close to limitless if that's what they want (in other words, if they throw curveballs at me I'll try my best to hit them) while at the same time b) if they're happy following the rails I have a story in mind which I hope will be engaging enough to pass muster.

And even within the same campaign, different groups of players (and sometimes even different groups of PCs run by the same players) take very different approaches.

So I’d say I would give the players options. I’d readily share details and information so that we could keep the game moving, so that things remained interesting. I’d not have only one goal of play, or if I did, there’d be several different ways to get there.

What I try to have are two or three or four long-term storylines percolating in the background such that if the PCs engage with one for a while and resolve it, the campaign doesn't come to an end; instead (in the event the players/PCs haven't developed their own goals and pursuits by then) there's still other story lines out there the can pick up on.

 

[Lanefan]

This denial of authorial agency is implausible.

You mentioned the hole in the wall. You didn't mention the flies. You expect the players to take the flies for granted.

Man, what is it with you and these flies?

You don't expect the players to take cigarette butts in one of the empty bottles for granted.

I don't "expect" anything; but in the example I very intentionally inserted the smell of stale cigarette smoke as a potential sub-mystery. There'd be no butts in the bottles if they looked, no ash, nothing. But that smoke smell came (or is coming) from somewhere......

And if they don't engage with that little sub-mystery, or don't even notice it, that's fine too.

You didn't mention bottle caps. Are the players meant to take for granted that there are some lying around, with/near/in the bottles? Or is this another clue, to the mystery of the missing bottle caps?

That was Volume 37 of the Hardy Boys, wasn't it?

More seriously, the presence of empty bottles is relevant to the scene-set around a man who (whether for real or for fake) is passed out in a warm-to-hot room having had far too much to drink. The presence of the caps (or corks) to said bottles isn't nearly as relevant, but if someone thinks to ask then yes, there'll be caps (or corks) here as well; the bottles will also have labels on them saying what was in them and what company made the contents, as in "Jim Beam Bourbon" or "Appleton Vineyards' Finest Red Port", should anyone care to look.

Your description makes the scene about some things and not others. You just do it without reference to what is interesting in the trajectory of play, from the players' perspective. I personally do not see the virtue in that.

Uhhh.....you're saying I didn't give enough detail and yet upthread your versions of the same description were stripped to the bone; lacking in any detail except for the presence of the man and (for some reason) the flies. So which do you want?

 

[Lanefan]

Sorry, just to be clear - you've never GMed a RPG?

But you have very strong view on GMing technique.

I've neither played nor coached hockey but just like any other fan I've some pretty strong views on how it should be played by those who - at the highest levels - do play it.

 

[Lanefan]

If the GM bring something onto the stage, and the player's take it to matter, then - everything else being equal - in player-driven play, it will matter.

I take this to be an instance of what @Bagpuss had in mind in mentioning Chekhov's gun.

I don't.

The Chekhov's gun principle says that if there's a gun on stage it HAS to, at some point, be used.

In an RPG, anything the GM brings on stage merely has the potential of being used, and can just as easily be ignored. It's there as part of the scene; if players want to interact with it they can, but there's nothing anywhere saying they have to.

I'm not going to merely describe the parts of a scene that I expect/want the players to interact with, as that's just leading them by the nose. I'm going to - at least in overview - describe the whole scene, and let them choose what elements of it they want to explore or interact with further. And if this leads to them going off-track or chasing red herrings then so be it.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not going to merely describe the parts of a scene that I expect/want the players to interact with, as that's just leading them by the nose. I'm going to - at least in overview - describe the whole scene, and let them choose what elements of it they want to explore or interact with further.

I don't "expect" anything; but in the example I very intentionally inserted the smell of stale cigarette smoke as a potential sub-mystery. There'd be no butts in the bottles if they looked, no ash, nothing. But that smoke smell came (or is coming) from somewhere......

I see quite a degree of tension between these two quotes.

 

[Corinnguard]

Sorry, just to be clear - you've never GMed a RPG?

But you have very strong view on GMing technique.

I have never GMed a RPG before. I prefer to be a role-player. I have never really developed a desire to be one. As for having a strong view on GMing technique, I just happen to find myself agreeing more with the posters on this thread who I suspect (but cannot confirm) are GMs and who have had years of experience being GMs. I read their posts and try to do some Insight checks to see if I can understand them.

I also happen to be friends with a GM in RL. I have been friends with him for almost 20 years, but it's only been in the last three years since I got to role-play 5e D&D with him. He invited me and another friend of mine to role-play 5e with some of his other friends. So maybe I picked off some of the technique from him. Osmosis?

Have you ever GMed a RPG? curious

If the players are driving play, any plot will be emergent/post-hoc.

I'm not sure I fully understand your second sentence - as in, I'm not sure what you mean by "such a RPG".

Here's an extract from play of a RPG session that was player-driven, did not have a plot to follow, and was a lot of fun at the time: https://www.enworld.org/threads/played-some-wuthering-heights-today.672161/

To be honest, I prefer a RPG to be one where the GM and the players are taking turns in the driver's seat. Role-playing is a cooperative act where the GM and the players take turns at developing the story as it unfolds for both of them. Both are creating it as they go. I find this to be true even when the GM is using a pre-made adventure because they get to role-play as the NPCs and the Monsters. And every GM gets to role-play them as they please.

I guess I also prefer RPG adventures where there is a introduction, a connected sequence of cause and effects (otherwise known as the plot), a climax and a conclusion. I don't think I would want to role-play in a RPG where I didn't get the sense that it was headed somewhere definite.

 

[Lanefan]

I see quite a degree of tension between these two quotes.

How so?

I threw in the cigarette smell as something they could look into further if they wanted to. There's no expectation that they will; indeed it's quite possible the smoke-smell piece will get overlooked or unheard in the rest of the description, and that's fine too. But if they do want to do anything with that element, it's there and they've been made aware of it.

You earlier indicated I should only describe the man (and the flies) as he's what the players/PCs are most likely to want to interact with and could well be the reason they are there at all. What that does is point them directly at the man and in effect makes everything else in or about the room irrelevant.

What I want to do instead is give them multiple elements - the man, the window, the hole in the wall, the smoke, the bottles, etc. - and let them choose which to interact with; and even though it's still highly likely they'll beeline to the man and mostly ignore everything else, they have other options. Also, if it turns out that any of those other elements happens to be relevant now or later e.g. there's someone listening on the other side of the hole or beneath the open window, they can't later say I never mentioned that element.

 

[Corinnguard]

It really depends on the game, to be honest. I believe I saw that you’re a player and not a GM, and from yOur posts it seems like you’re primarily familiar with D&D 5e.

There are many different ways to go about GMing a game. You should look into other games that do things differently than D&D. Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, Spire… there are lots of games that just function differently than D&D. They allow for more player proactivity.

If I was GMing 5e, though, what I’d strive to do is have different options available to the players. Either different goals or different paths to a given goal. I could go further and try and really make for a different experience, but at this point I just don’t think D&D is all that suitable for that.

So I’d say I would give the players options. I’d readily share details and information so that we could keep the game moving, so that things remained interesting. I’d not have only one goal of play, or if I did, there’d be several different ways to get there. But I’d also accept that it’s D&D and is largely a GM-led experience.

I have been an active player of 5e for almost three years now, and I am currently role-playing in my second 5e adventure. I also have something of a strong interest in EN World's Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition.

Because of RL, I only have the opportunity to role-play 5e with two of my closest friends (one of whom is a GM). We try to role-play 5e every Monday for 2-4 hours.

It sounds like you would make a good GM.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If the GM is railroading you, you can't, by definition, opt out.

Well, I don't think it is quite that simple. Sometimes there are tracks, and that's then the only place where anything interesting happens, but you're free to wander aimlessly outside of the tracks until you get bored and return to the tracks. And the worst version of this where the tracks are hidden and you meander around pixel hunting things in hopes of finding the tracks. I may not be a fan of railroads, but I still take clearly marked tracks over this any day!

 

[Reynard]

Well, I don't think it is quite as simple. Sometimes there are tracks, and that's then only place where anything interesting happens, but you're free to wander aimlessly outside the tracks until you get bored and return to the tracks. And the worst version of this where the tracks are hidden and you meander around pixel hunting things in hopes of finding the tracks. I may not be a fan of railroads, but I still take clearly marked tracks over this any day!

Yeah, that is much worse. That's why I like to use the term "rollercoaster" when it is a railroad but the GM is making a good faith effort to make it fun for everyone, and the players opt in.