How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Maxperson]

One of the reasons that i do not care much about immersion in RPGs is because it is essentially impossible -- there will inevitably be a moment in any given session (probably many moments) where you have to stop thinking like an elf and start thinking like someone playing a game. That's a good thing, IMO. I like games. But it is inherently immersion breaking.

Sure. It's not 100%. That doesn't make immersion a bad goal. The fewer rolls you have, the longer immersion can be maintained. It's not impossible to have immersion. It's just impossible outside of just telling a story for immersion to happen for the entire session. Why I care about immersion is that when you are drawn into the game like that, it vastly enhances the play experience. Even if you can only achieve it for 50%, 30% or even 20% of a session, gaining that enhanced play experience even for a small part of the session is something to strive for in my opinion.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not talking about not sharing the numbers... that's just one element of it. I'm talking about the idea that all information must flow from the DM, and should be doled out only when "appropriate". This is a pretty common take on more trad minded games, and is a sentiment that has been expressed often in this very thread, and countless others.

Sure, but that's just a playstyle. It's not about control. Control is not the purpose of how that playstyle works. Some will prefer that playstyle and others won't.

 

[Maxperson]

My preference is for those moments to be relatively few and brief.

That's kinda hard when combats happen as often as they do, last as long as they do, and involve as many rolls as they do. It's far easier in a session with no combat, but players like to fight!!!

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's kinda hard when combats happen as often as they do, last as long as they do, and involve as many rolls as they do. It's far easier in a session with no combat, but players like to fight!!!

It is hard, but I'll take what I can get.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Stop. The jargon schtick is totally about shutting things down. Or blocking specific views or ideas from being contributed or considered.

And no one actually used the "elfgame" crack in this thread. What's being said is the idea that when it comes to D&D, one person's idea of what's "realistic" is no greater than another's, even when they differ.

For example, the idea that a person can't intuit how well defended someone is from attack by observing them is "unrealistic" is just as personal as "no way can this group of human warriors actually stand toe to toe with this dragon, let alone slay it" and similar sentiments.

We all pick and choose what "makes sense" or "seems realistic" and we absolutely turn a blind eye to plenty of things that are totally unrealistic. So "it's more realistic" isn't really an argument anyone should be making to support their preferences about D&D.

No one is saying this to hurt your feelings anymore than you intend to hurt anyone's feelings when you state your opinion on the matter.

I have always seen inserting jargon into a discussion, particularly if said jargon to me looks unnecessary to get the point across, as a form of elitism. That's why I react against it. I'm far from perfect, so I could be misreading the intentions of others here, and if I am I'm sorry.

 

[Reynard]

My preference is for those moments to be relatively few and brief.

Good luck.

 

[Reynard]

Sure. It's not 100%. That doesn't make immersion a bad goal. The fewer rolls you have, the longer immersion can be maintained. It's not impossible to have immersion. It's just impossible outside of just telling a story for immersion to happen for the entire session. Why I care about immersion is that when you are drawn into the game like that, it vastly enhances the play experience. Even if you can only achieve it for 50%, 30% or even 20% of a session, gaining that enhanced play experience even for a small part of the session is something to strive for in my opinion.

I am not saying I have never been immersed and deeply enjoyed that sense of immersion. But there are certainly far more times when a clutch roll or huge fumble or specific use of a mechanical ability created elation, horror, or surprise at the table. Mechanics are, for me, more reliable in providing fun than other aspects of play.

 

[TwoSix]

I have always seen inserting jargon into a discussion, particularly if said jargon to me looks unnecessary to get the point across, as a form of elitism. That's why I react against it. I'm far from perfect, so I could be misreading the intentions of others here, and if I am I'm sorry.

Yea, but I don't come here to post thoughts so that they're palatable to the broadest possible audience. I come here so I can post my (mostly) unvarnished thoughts, albeit with a quick run through the "Eric's Grandma" filter, and be pretty certain that there's an audience here with enough deep TTRPG experience to get what I'm thinking about.

I don't know where the line is to filter my speech enough so that pretty much everyone gets it, so I'm basically just going to post what I'm thinking. If that's jargon-heavy, well, that's a lot easier for me than translating all that jargon into easily digestible explanations. If that makes me elitist, I'll accept the title.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure, but that's just a playstyle. It's not about control. Control is not the purpose of how that playstyle works. Some will prefer that playstyle and others won't.

Max, I don’t know how many times I need to say to you that I ran games that way out of a perceived need to control the game for you to accept it. Please speak only for your game and stop telling me that what I know about my game… what I’ve spent a lot of time considering… is wrong.

As for that style not being about control, I don’t know. As described… where all information must flow from one source and there may be strict processes about how it’s shared… if you want to say that’s not about control, okay. It seems pretty obvious to me, but at this point we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Maxperson]

Max, I don’t know how many times I need to say to you that I ran games that way out of a perceived need to control the game for you to accept it. Please speak only for your game and stop telling me that what I know about my game… what I’ve spent a lot of time considering… is wrong.

As for that style not being about control, I don’t know. As described… where all information must flow from one source and there may be strict processes about how it’s shared… if you want to say that’s not about control, okay. It seems pretty obvious to me, but at this point we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Dude. Nothing in that post talked about or even referred to your personal game. You spoke about how the game editions spoke to DMs of that era and still impact things. That's playstyle.

The style establishes roles and while each role(player and DM) has control over different aspects of the game, the playtime doesn't focus on control as a goal. It's not about control.