How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Crimson Longinus]

@Maxperson

Just for clarity - are you trying to say players should not be given numbers or that they should not try to intuit them (so is to make better decisions about which abilities to use)? Like if a player remarks "16 hits but a 14 does not" is that player in the wrong or thinking about the wrong things?

Yes! This is exactly what happens is you hide the AC. Now the players' thoughts and communication are preoccupied with it. I get wanting to keep the game mainly about the fiction rather than the rules, I truly do. But as this example illustrates, sometimes just announcing a number can help in achieving that result. We get the number thing sorted in one brief sentence and then we don't need to waste our time with it any longer.

 

[Reynard]

Yes! This is exactly what happens is you hide the AC. Now the players' thoughts and communication are preoccupied with it. I get wanting to keep the game mainly about the fiction rather than the rules, I truly do. But as this example illustrates, sometimes just announcing a number can help in achieving that result. We get the number thing sorted in one brief sentence and then we don't need to waste our time with it any longer.

I think there is fun in figuring out that AC 15 in play, and in realizing the thing is fire resistant, and getting hit with an unexpected special ability.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think there is fun in figuring out that AC 15 in play, and in realizing the thing is fire resistant, and getting hit with an unexpected special ability.

I think only the latter two are fun. First isn't as it really is just the player trying to figure a number instead of the character learning about the enemy.

But I do recognise figuring out the AC might be fun to some people, but what doesn't make sense if those people also claim that numbers should be kept out of the way and we should focus on the fiction, as this is the exact opposite of that.

 

[Corinnguard]

I think only the latter two are fun. First isn't as it really is just the player trying to figure a number instead of the character learning about the enemy.

But I do recognise figuring out the AC might be fun to some people, but what doesn't make sense if those people also claim that numbers should be kept out of the way and we should focus on the fiction, as this is the exact opposite of that.

Figuring out the AC usually happens in the first round of combat as soon as the players make their rolls to hit an opponent, and the DM says one of three things- miss, defender defends or hit. Once the players hear defender defends from the DM, you know what the opponent's AC is.

As for the numbers, it kind of depends on which pillar (combat, exploration and social interaction) is most dependent on them. I think it's that you are more likely to see them in combat, and less when it comes to exploration and social interaction.

 

[pemerton]

Sure you can tell the players that it is a runic circle. But the players can't then turn right around and have it where their characters just know that it is a runic circle. That's metagaming. Something that ought to be avoided in a role-playing session.

There is no meta-gaming.

Consider: The GM can tell the players, "As you walk outside, you see the sun bright in the sky. It's a lovely day!" It's not metagaming for the players to act on that information - eg to choose to leave their rain cloaks behind, so as to avoid encumbrance from them.

Likewise, if the fiction is apposite - eg a character educated in runic matters looking at a runic circle - then the GM can tell the player of that character, "You see a runic circle. It looks to you like a symbol of protection." Or even, "You see a runic circle. You recognise it as a runic circle."

When it might be appropriate for the GM to say such a thing depends upon various considerations, including some that vary from system to system. I take up some of these matters below.

Runic circles certainly could be something straight out of folklore within the setting.

Why not?

a player can imagine what a runic circle could look like based on whatever you description you happen to give them, and from whatever the genre says about them. And if they are really lucky, they might have seen pics of one in one of their role-playing books. But unless their characters happen to be adventuring in a high magic setting where runic circles might be a daily thing they come across, the sight of a runic circle on the floor is going to be something of a mystery because they don't know what the players know. They shouldn't know what it is right away. The characters will need to work at it via skill checks and by talking about it amongst themselves. Once they do that, then they could confirm it with you.

In my Torchbearer 2e game, two of the PCs started with significant Lore Master skill. In my Burning Wheel game, it's pretty common for wizardly PCs to start with Aura Reading and/or Symbology. In 4e D&D it is mandatory for wizards to start with Arcana skill.

There is no reason to think that a runic circle would be especially mysterious to these PCs.

In each of these games, a runic circle is something the GM might introduce into a scene, and mention to the players. The principles by which the GM might then dispense information about it is varied. Suppose a player asks "What do the runes say?" the GM can simply reply (in 4e D&D and BW, this is "saying 'yes'"; in Torchbearer this would be rewarding a "good idea", of reading the runes). Or can call for a check, if something is at stake in whether or not the PC recognises the symbols.

But this is all about game play. There is no premise that PCs educated in the magical arts will, in general, be ignorant of runes.

And what a skill check represents can vary across and within these games. BW can be particularly subtle in this respect, because of the way its rules for combining skills into a single check work. There is no reason in general to think that a check represents a character acquiring new knowledge, or cudgelling their wits. On the other hand, in 4e D&D an Arcana check may well represent the acquiring of new knowledge (by "identifying" the magic), and the same is true of Aura Reading in BW.

You don't find it engaging when the players have to pretend to be their characters and not know what a runic circle is. The players otoh might find it engaging to figure out the mystery all on their own.

Whether or not there is a mystery here is entirely in the control of the GM. There are any number of other possible mysteries in the neighbourhood, too, such as - Who inscribed the runic circle? Why here? What were they seeking protection from? Or what were they seeking to protect? Etc, etc.

There is nothing inherently more exciting about learning the nature of the circle than learning any of these other things, and for my part I incline to agree with @hawkeyefan that learning the nature of the circle is towards the bottom in this respect, because in itself it does not tend to propel play forward as these other things might tend to.

The knowledge about the runic circle is something that the DM should only know at first. They are the ones who have spent the time and effort reading the pre-made adventure before they have the players role-play it in-game as their characters. The way the players have their characters figure it out is through skill checks when the characters are feeling uncertain. Your job as DM is to dole out the information only when the characters perform a successful skill check or asks you the right question.

<snip>

Eventually the party will know what the DM knows. Be Patient.

This is a very prescriptive account of how to GM a RPG, even for D&D. It's not one that appeals to me either as GM or as player. There are many reasons why this is so, but one of them is the suggestion that all interesting information should be gated behind low-stakes skill checks.

 

[Reynard]

I think only the latter two are fun. First isn't as it really is just the player trying to figure a number instead of the character learning about the enemy.

But I do recognise figuring out the AC might be fun to some people, but what doesn't make sense if those people also claim that numbers should be kept out of the way and we should focus on the fiction, as this is the exact opposite of that.

To be clear, the fun part about figuring out AC is specifically not knowing it (among other things) going in and having to make a call with incomplete information. The PCs are taking a risk -- just like they are if they are trying to avoid a trap or talk the baron out of hanging them. I don't generally tell the players those DCs either.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's unrealistic and for a lot of us that's the tipping point.

No it's not. I don't give a rats ass about control. It's 0% about control for me. You don't get to make it about control for people. They do.

Ditto. You keep trying to make this about control when it's not.

I'm speaking from the experiences I've had. And from the tradition of the hobby. It's about control.

Maybe you're the exception. Cool. Or maybe you're just denying what's going on and attributing it to something else.

I've also said it's not realistic as the PCs can't get that information.

True. I think we disagree about what people can generally know, and how much more precise that may be with experts, but it doesn't seem like we'll come to agreement on this.

First, you want this to be about control, which probably has a lot to do with why you don't understand it. Second, I've said multiple times that which way you go, sharing or not sharing, is pure subjective preference. Telling me that I want up when I say down isn't kosher.

Maybe you're not being as clear as you think you are? I mean, I asked you to clarify one of your posts three times and each time all you did was tell me I wasn't understanding rather than actually clarifying.

Also, to make a point about how numbers don't help make things more specific, you used numbers to make things clearer.

You're all over the place.

He also says keeping that information private is what the game is about, since it keeps players on their toes and makes it more about player's person knowledge and mettle. i.e. skilled play.

I read that last bit about being what the game is all about to be about challenge. Not about specifically keeping information hidden being the point of the game. That's a pretty idiosyncratic interpretation.

I also don't really care what Gygax says. Happily, the hobby has progressed beyond him.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think you meant that there is no mystery for the characters.

No, I meant the players. In the example, the purpose of the circle was pretty clear. My players, and I would be willing to bet many others, are familiar enough with the genre and its tropes to have a good idea what such a circle is likely to be. Given that the players are going to have a strong idea about it, I'm uninterested in keeping that from the characters, and then demand that the players awkwardly roleplay as if they don't know what they know.

I'm utterly uninterested in that kind of play. I've been through it on both sides, and it is the pits.

Players refer to those individuals who are participating in a role-playing session. Now a player can imagine what a runic circle could look like based on whatever you description you happen to give them, and from whatever the genre says about them. And if they are really lucky, they might have seen pics of one in one of their role-playing books. But unless their characters happen to be adventuring in a high magic setting where runic circles might be a daily thing they come across, the sight of a runic circle on the floor is going to be something of a mystery because they don't know what the players know. They shouldn't know what it is right away. The characters will need to work at it via skill checks and by talking about it amongst themselves. Once they do that, then they could confirm it with you.
Sure you can tell the players that it is a runic circle. But the players can't then turn right around and have it where their characters just know that it is a runic circle. That's metagaming. Something that ought to be avoided in a role-playing session.

It's not metagaming. I'm telling them that they are able to intuit what it is. I likely would pick a specific PC to share this with, one that would seem most likely to know... a wizard, bard, or cleric, most likely, but absent one of those, anyone who has some kind of background or history with this kind of thing.

You and your fellow DMs, you mean. You don't find it engaging when the players have to pretend to be their characters and not know what a runic circle is. The players otoh might find it engaging to figure out the mystery all on their own.

Two things on this. First, I know my players' opinions on this largely align with mine. I GM for players who I've mostly been playing with for decades. Our newest player has been playing with us for about five years. I'm pretty tuned in on what they like, and we have regular discussions about this stuff.

Second... I honestly don't really care if they did want to play out "not knowing" something. It's one of the least engaging things I can imagine about RPGs, and I don't want to spend any time on it. Even with a group who may find such a thing interesting, there will be other areas of the game they also like, so I'd move on to something else.

The knowledge about the runic circle is something that the DM should only know at first. They are the ones who have spent the time and effort reading the pre-made adventure before they have the players role-play it in-game as their characters. The way the players have their characters figure it out is through skill checks when the characters are feeling uncertain. Your job as DM is to dole out the information only when the characters perform a successful skill check or asks you the right question.

I generally don't run pre-made adventures. I also tend to run and play games that don't rely as heavily on prep as D&D tends to do.

There are many games for which your comments here simply don't apply.

Runic circles certainly could be something straight out of folklore within the setting. But which pieces of folklore are the most commonly know, and which aren't? Wizards, bards and clerics might have heard of such folklore. As would Sages and Acolytes. But they might have heard about lots and lots of folklore over time. They might have trouble remembering them specifically, hence a skill check in Arcana, Religion or Nature.

Eventually the party will know what the DM knows. Be Patient.

I put up with this kind of stuff for many years... trust me, I've been patient about it.

What's common knowledge in a D&D type game is largely up to the GM in many cases, no? So if the GM chooses to say it's common knowledge to most folks, or common knowledge to anyone who's studied magic, or to anyone who's done any kind of studying... that's the GM's decision, and that's what becomes true in the setting. No?

 

[Maxperson]

I'm speaking from the experiences I've had. And from the tradition of the hobby. It's about control.

Maybe you're the exception. Cool. Or maybe you're just denying what's going on and attributing it to something else.

Nope. I'm speaking from the experiences I have had and with virtually every DM that does it, it's about realism and not control. With maybe one single exception, and I'm not even sure about him, none of them have said or even implied, "I need a way to control the players, so part of my diabolical plan of control is not to hand out the numbers." I did hear a ton of how it wasn't realistic. It ruins the challenge. And so on. They had valid reasons, not control issues.

In fact, it seems so preposterous that DMs would want to control players and do so by not sharing numbers, that it makes me wonder if you have completely misread the DMs you've played with that don't just hand all the numbers over to the players.

Maybe you're not being as clear as you think you are? I mean, I asked you to clarify one of your posts three times and each time all you did was tell me I wasn't understanding rather than actually clarifying.

You mean except for the last time in which I also clarified.

Also, to make a point about how numbers don't help make things more specific, you used numbers to make things clearer.

Apples and Oranges. As I explained to @pemerton, numbers have different uses for different roles. I also love how in one breath you say I didn't clarify and in the next you say that I used numbers to make it clearer.

I also never said it didn't make things more specific. I 1) said that it gave very little help, which means it does make it minimally clearer, and 2) it doesn't always do that, and then gave an example of how AC of 15 isn't actually clearer than "A thick hide making it moderately hard to hit," because the number doesn't tell you how among the myriad of ways, the AC of 15 is arrived at, which can be important when choosing actions.

You're all over the place.

No. It would only seem that way if you think numbers have only one purpose and that purpose applies to everyone. They don't.

I read that last bit about being what the game is all about to be about challenge. Not about specifically keeping information hidden being the point of the game. That's a pretty idiosyncratic interpretation.

It's flat out what he says. He says wise DMs don't let players keep the MM open in order for it to be a challenge.

Context is your friend. Here it is again for you.

"One final note: as valuable as this volume is with its wealth of information, some DMs may wisely wish to forbid their players from referring to the MANUAL in the midst of an encounter, since it will be considerably more challenging to confront a monster without an instant rundown of its strengths and weaknesses - and besides, a D & D player’s true mettle (and knowledge) will be put to the test. And as even the most casual D & D player knows, that’s what this fascinating game is all about. . ."

I mean, he is literally saying that keeping the numbers from the players during the encounter makes the game more challenging right before he says that the game is about challenge. Your interpretation requires ignoring the first portion of what he says. MY "interpretation" is, well, what he literally said.

I also don't really care what Gygax says. Happily, the hobby has progressed beyond him.

I wasn't talking to you about it, though. I was talking to @pemerton who tried to use the game's wargaming roots as the reason to hand out the numbers. The wargaming author who created the game with those wargaming roots said handing out those numbers shouldn't be done during the encounter, because it's more challenging to the players and challenge/skill is what the game is all about.

 

[Maxperson]

No, I meant the players. In the example, the purpose of the circle was pretty clear. My players, and I would be willing to bet many others, are familiar enough with the genre and its tropes to have a good idea what such a circle is likely to be. Given that the players are going to have a strong idea about it, I'm uninterested in keeping that from the characters, and then demand that the players awkwardly roleplay as if they don't know what they know.

I'm utterly uninterested in that kind of play. I've been through it on both sides, and it is the pits.

It's not metagaming. I'm telling them that they are able to intuit what it is. I likely would pick a specific PC to share this with, one that would seem most likely to know... a wizard, bard, or cleric, most likely, but absent one of those, anyone who has some kind of background or history with this kind of thing.

DM: Because you the players clearly understand the purpose of the runic circle, the wizard understands that it's a summoning circle.
DM: No, wait. It's a teleportation circle.
DM: No, wait. It's a circle used for ritual sacrifice.
DM: No, wait. It's a circle used for protection.
DM: No, wait. It's a circle used by giant clerics to stand in when communing with their gods.
DM: Crap! Which of those ways was the one that you all clearly understood it to be? I'm going to need to know in order to make the circle do that instead of one of the other various ways it could be used.