How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Micah Sweet]

So how come the description isn't accurate enough to rate this enemy on a scale of 1 to 20, with 1 being your neighbor that grunts when he picks up the newspaper, and 20 being maybe Batman? If the game is PbtA, do you really think someone's skill can't be guesstimated with that granularity?

I don't play PBtA.

 

[aramis erak]

Even most tactical CRPGs don't give you that detailed stat information as default. The more I think about, the less I would want to play with people that just see a collection of numbers and not an ogre or whatever. Magic is even more fun if you lean into the themes and story of the cards.

THe last several CRPGs, except Tears of the Kingdom, I've gotten have all given numbers comparable to those on a TT character sheet; they don't tell you the mechanics by which they operate. But those all are JRPGs - two final fantasy titles and two that emulate the style closely. Plus a pokemon game.
I've no idea what a FFX score of 150 attack means percentage wise, but I do have a detailed list of attack value modifiers that sum up to that...
Even Tears of the Kingdom gives numerics for attack & defense.

 

[Corinnguard]

I figured as much. You might want to seek help for your vision problems. Hopefully it's just your vision.

Maybe they think D&D is like the Sword Art Online anime where everyone in the virtual setting of the anime has health bars floating above their heads?

 

[pemerton]

Especially when the fight is happening very quickly in the span of mere seconds. A combat round in the game world is only about 6 seconds. Do you have the time to think about your opponent's stats in that span of game time? Probably not. You are more likely to be relying on your rote behavior at this point.

Huh? I'm not a skilled fighter. But I would assume that a skilled fighter can sum up their opponent very quickly. I'm a reasonably experienced commuter cyclist, and I can judge a road surface pretty quickly, and make adjustments in response to my judgement.

 

[pemerton]

Not really. If you watch someone throw a fastball, you aren't going to know whether the pitch was going 85 or 105. You're just going to know that it was fast.

Who is "you" in your sentence? I mean, I can't judge how fast a ball has been thrown. But I would expect that a professional would be able to.

 

[pemerton]

The more I think about, the less I would want to play with people that just see a collection of numbers and not an ogre or whatever.

If you don't want people's idea of an ogre to be mediated through numbers, why use them to resolve actions in your game? I mean, it's not like there aren't other RPG design options available.

 

[Reynard]

If you don't want people's idea of an ogre to be mediated through numbers, why use them to resolve actions in your game? I mean, it's not like there aren't other RPG design options available.

That is a skilled misreading of what I wrote. Extra points for decontextualizing it.

 

[pemerton]

Well, for some people and some games it can be both:

* They "see" (imagine) an Ogre. This is the clouds that Vincent Baker is referring to here.

* They "see" (actually interact with) a collection of numbers, keywords, currencies, resolution procedures, incentive structures, clocks/timers, inventory/loadout schemes, relationship values, and moves (or powers or knacks or whatever they're called in a given game) that collectively serve as the game layer language which represents said Ogre so that actual people in meat space can (a) correctly orient to said "clouds" (elements of the imagined space), (b) play the game in front of them which entails composing (if you're a GM) and managing (if you're a player) a compelling, game layer-related decision-space. This is the boxes that Vincent Baker is referring to here.

When I run Dogs in the Vineyard, I don't "see" dice pools and "raises" and "sees" (etc). I compose situations that provoke the judgement or mercy of young priests who are trying to manage the stewardship role of their faith and all the imaginings that entails. Same goes for Blades in the Dark or Torchbearer or Stonetop or The Between or D&D 4e or Mouse Guard or whatever. No one at the table is just "seeing" a collection of numbers or throws of dice or keywords or Resistance Rolls rather than Ogres, the faithful falling to Sin and Sorcery, corrupt Bluecoats shaking down a corner store, and the stink of soot, machine shavings, dense smoke, and showers of sparks in Coalridge, or x, y, z imaginings.

There might be a contrast between systems to be drawn here.

The systems you mention are ones where the relationship between numbers/boxes and fiction/clouds is rather robust - for instance, a "raise" in DitV corresponds to the character doing something that has been specifically narrated. A hit in D&D 4e means that something concrete happens - someone is pushed, or falls back (forced movement), or falls over (knocked prone) or whatever.

But in some versions of D&D, the numbers - being hit, taking hp loss, etc - don't really correlate to or signal anything very robust at all. It's all just a black box until someone is reduced to zero hp.

 

[Corinnguard]

Huh? I'm not a skilled fighter. But I would assume that a skilled fighter can sum up their opponent very quickly. I'm a reasonably experienced commuter cyclist, and I can judge a road surface pretty quickly, and make adjustments in response to my judgement.

I think this is possible due to Automaticity.
From Wikipedia: In the field of psychology, automaticity is the ability to do things without occupying the mind with the low-level details required, allowing it to become an automatic response pattern or habit. It is usually the result of learning, repetition, and practice.
Examples of automaticity are common activities such as walking, speaking, bicycle-riding, assembly-line work, and driving a car (the last of these sometimes being termed "highway hypnosis"). After an activity is sufficiently practiced, it is possible to focus the mind on other activities or thoughts while undertaking an automatized activity (for example, holding a conversation or planning a speech while driving a car).

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

Not really. If you watch someone throw a fastball, you aren't going to know whether the pitch was going 85 or 105. You're just going to know that it was fast. If a PC has +2 to hit and is swinging at an 18, 19 or 20 AC, he's not going to know a number. He's just going to know that the creature is hard to hit.

Sitting in front of my computer, I cannot tell you the exact number of inches to the screen. Yet I can reach out and touch the screen without my hand either falling short or trying to go through the screen "because I don't know the exact distance." Because I do know the exact distance, in a non-numeric, non-verbal way.

But if I try to describe the distance to you, without giving a number of inches/centimeters/cubits, so that you could reach out and touch my screen (My screen, not your screen, or the necessarily inaccurate visualization of my screen in your head) then I cannot do that. It is impossible. If I do give the numerical distance, then the description is still necessarily inaccurate but less so.

So if a PC has +2 to hit and is swinging at a 19, then the PC won't know the AC number as a number, but he will have a good, non-numerical, non-verbal sense of just how hard the monster is to hit, due to the PC actually being in the game-world and being a direct eyewitness and participant in the action, as well as due to having fighting expertise that the player lacks.

My claim is that being told "The monster has AC 19" gives the player a better, closer understanding of what the PC is sensing and experiencing in the game world than "The monster is hard to hit." It certainly does for me, and if being told the number interferes with rather than enhances your understanding of what your PC is sensing and experiencing, then well, different people can be very different.