How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Thomas Shey]

And I disagree. That's all this is.

And nothing more is to be said, as I find your position on this unreasonable.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Also: immersion exists only as an internal sensation with no defined definition. It is impossible for a game rule, or anything at all, to inherently encourage or discourage immersion. You either experience it or you don't, and you may engage with certain rules in a way that promotes it within yourself, but the rules are not doing anything at all to the immersion. I read a very silly reddit post yesterday where someone was complaining that the turn-based combat in Baldur's Gate 3 was "less immersive" than the real time with pause of BG1 and 2. For many people it seems that immersion only exists as a shorthand by which to say "I don't like [x]".

That's probably just an issue of some things getting in the way of immersion for them that doesn't for others. A very stark illustration of this came up when the discussion of immersion and various metagame tools comes into play, where some people draw the line in vastly different spots than others.

 

[pemerton]

I'm contemplating how long it would take to describe everything in the room I'm in.

Right.

I live in an inner suburb of a city with 4-5 million people. This suburb was first built around 170 years ago. There are houses dating to the 1850s, and blocks of flats that are a year or two old. There are old night soil lanes, some gated, some driveways, some still in use.

Trying to describe what I can see right now through my window in a way that conveys everything that might "matter" in a RPG would be an impossible task. I mean, does it matter that there are trees? That there are autumn leaves in the gutter? That there is a gutter at all? That the gutter has a drain, and that that drain is partially blocked by leaves? How many bluestones are in the foundation of the house across the street? Does the concrete in between them matter? The blue-paint graffiti tag? The fact that the house number (3 digit) sits on the arc of a circle rather than a straight horizontal line?

In a setting where flies are fairly commonplace and the window is open, mentioning that there's a few in the room seems superfluous. More noteworthy would be if there weren't any flies, in a room like this.

But you choose not to tell me that the window is open. But wouldn't the flies prompt me to look to see where/how they came in?

And why are the flies not worth mentioning, but the colour of the wall is? I mean, white plaster walls in an office are also very commonplace.

there is one clue, where something is both mentioned in one way and not in another: there's a smell of stale cigarette smoke (noted in the description) but no ashtrays or butts or other signs of smoking are mentioned as being in the room. Why's that?

Because the GM didn't bother mentioning them, just like the GM didn't mention the flies? Maybe there are butts and ashes on, or under, the table. I mean the description hardly connotes this room is spick and span.

The possibilities are endless. Give the players room to engage with them at their pace and choice

The players asking "Are there flies?" isn't engaging with the room. It's just an audience prompting a narrator for more description.

The real action in this situation is moving the man, or walking up to the wall or window to look through. If the GM doesn't tell me the window is open until I ask, though, then how is it at all realistic when I declare that I walk up to it, assuming it to be shut? More generally, how am I as a player supposed to know when I have enough information about the scene to make an informed action declaration? In real life, a person at a door can see the open windows and the flies and understand the position of the table and chair and man and bottles in relation to them. Do I, as a player, need to ask you the GM whether a gun shot from the door at the man might have put a hole in the wall? In real life, I'd be able to see what that trajectory looks like without needing to ask anyone. In the game, I risk being a target for a shot (through the wall) or even a ninja's dart (through the open window) without even knowing that I'm taking that risk, if I haven't asked you the right question.

How is that any different than any other description in any RPG, though?

Are there any RPGs out there that have met your expectations of how a RPG should be run? It doesn't sound like 5e D&D is one of them.

I haven't said much about how a RPG should be run. There are different approaches, and I've noted various ones upthread. But however a RPG is being run, I think those principles should be clear to the players - eg if, when I'm playing a forensic entomologist, the GM will not tell me about what insects are around unless I ask, even if that would be a striking feature of the situation for my character, then I think the GM should make that clear.

As for what I prefer, generally I think what the players have their PCs do in a scene is more interesting than what the GM tells them about a scene. So when I'm GMing, I tend to say enough to make it clear - if it wasn't already - what is at stake in a scene. Then the players can have their PCs act. This action might be their PCs undertaking more investigation - but noticing the flies buzzing in front of your eyes isn't investigation!

 

[overgeeked]

Also: immersion exists only as an internal sensation with no defined definition.

The dictionary disagrees with you. It means to be completely absorbed in the thing. It’s typically used to mean feeling like you are really in the fiction of the thing you’re engaged with and/or so absorbed by it you don’t pay attention to the real world around you. So immersed in a horror movie you get scared, so immersed in a book you don’t hear someone talking to you, so immersed in a game…etc.

It is impossible for a game rule, or anything at all, to inherently encourage or discourage immersion.

That’s not true at all. Certain mechanics are inherently more immersive than others. Fully realized and fully explorable 3D worlds are more immersive than side scrollers, as an example. First person is more immersive than third person. Anything that encourages you to focus on the fiction helps immersion; anything that pulls your focus away from the fiction hurts immersion.

I read a very silly reddit post yesterday where someone was complaining that the turn-based combat in Baldur's Gate 3 was "less immersive" than the real time with pause of BG1 and 2. For many people it seems that immersion only exists as a shorthand by which to say "I don't like [x]".

Yep. Real-time games are more immersive because you as the player are using your reflexes to control your character, so you feel…in a very literal way…more connected to the character and more connected to what’s happening in the game, i.e. you’re more immersed in the game. Read up on immersion in video games. It’s one of dozens of topics video game companies spend real money researching. It’s fascinating. And no, it’s not shorthand for “I don’t like it.”

 

[Lanefan]

Right.

I live in an inner suburb of a city with 4-5 million people. This suburb was first built around 170 years ago. There are houses dating to the 1850s, and blocks of flats that are a year or two old. There are old night soil lanes, some gated, some driveways, some still in use.

Trying to describe what I can see right now through my window in a way that conveys everything that might "matter" in a RPG would be an impossible task. I mean, does it matter that there are trees? That there are autumn leaves in the gutter? That there is a gutter at all? That the gutter has a drain, and that that drain is partially blocked by leaves? How many bluestones are in the foundation of the house across the street? Does the concrete in between them matter? The blue-paint graffiti tag? The fact that the house number (3 digit) sits on the arc of a circle rather than a straight horizontal line?

The room I used for the example was (somewhat intentionally) a fairly simple space, and all within just a few steps of the PCs.

For your street, you can set the fall-like atmosphere with a few lines and then focus on what the PCs can potentially interact with based on where they're standing and-or why they are there.

And note that I very intentionally say "potentially interact with", because I don't want to lead them by the nose by only mentioning the things they're supposed to interact with.

Your short-form descriptions of the room with the passed-out man pretty much directed the players that the only thing worth interacting with in there was that man; as he (and the flies) were the only things you specifically called out as being present. I'd far rather give them a bunch of elements they could perhaps interact with (the man, the hole in the wall, the window, the missing ashtray, the bottles, etc.) and let them decide which one(s) they have their PCs look at or investigate. Of course, odds are they'll go for the man first anyway, but I don't want to assume that by describing only him.

But you choose not to tell me that the window is open. But wouldn't the flies prompt me to look to see where/how they came in?

And why are the flies not worth mentioning, but the colour of the wall is? I mean, white plaster walls in an office are also very commonplace.

The discolouration of the walls is noted as part of a description that tries to be a bit more eloquent than just saying it's a dingy old room.

I should note that if anyone asks about specific positioning of things I could (and would) quickly draw out a map of the room.

Because the GM didn't bother mentioning them, just like the GM didn't mention the flies? Maybe there are butts and ashes on, or under, the table. I mean the description hardly connotes this room is spick and span.

The players asking "Are there flies?" isn't engaging with the room. It's just an audience prompting a narrator for more description.

I highly doubt they'd ask "Are there flies?", but asking "What else do we see?" (and by so doing, implicitly declaring that their next action will be to take a longer look from where they are) is just fine; and allows me to give the even deeper description they'd get on taking a longer look.

The real action in this situation is moving the man, or walking up to the wall or window to look through. If the GM doesn't tell me the window is open until I ask, though, then how is it at all realistic when I declare that I walk up to it, assuming it to be shut? More generally, how am I as a player supposed to know when I have enough information about the scene to make an informed action declaration? In real life, a person at a door can see the open windows and the flies and understand the position of the table and chair and man and bottles in relation to them. Do I, as a player, need to ask you the GM whether a gun shot from the door at the man might have put a hole in the wall? In real life, I'd be able to see what that trajectory looks like without needing to ask anyone. In the game, I risk being a target for a shot (through the wall) or even a ninja's dart (through the open window) without even knowing that I'm taking that risk, if I haven't asked you the right question.

That the hole might be a place for a shot to come through is something I'd expect someone to actually declare they're looking for and-or taking precautions against. I'm certainly not going to assume that's what they're doing, as for all I know they might completely ignore the hole and instead focus on the drunk man, or the window, or whatever.

I haven't said much about how a RPG should be run. There are different approaches, and I've noted various ones upthread. But however a RPG is being run, I think those principles should be clear to the players - eg if, when I'm playing a forensic entomologist, the GM will not tell me about what insects are around unless I ask, even if that would be a striking feature of the situation for my character, then I think the GM should make that clear.

Indeed, were one of our intrepid PCs an entomologist by trade or background I-as-GM would have to pay much more attention to the insect life in any given description (though I'd be floundering if-when it came to describing any sort of abnormal behavior by said insects as I personally know nothing about such things).

As for what I prefer, generally I think what the players have their PCs do in a scene is more interesting than what the GM tells them about a scene. So when I'm GMing, I tend to say enough to make it clear - if it wasn't already - what is at stake in a scene. Then the players can have their PCs act. This action might be their PCs undertaking more investigation - but noticing the flies buzzing in front of your eyes isn't investigation!

A few flies in a room like that would be so commonplace they'd be ignored unless they were in fact swarming over the drunk man (and were that the case it would have been mentioned loud and clear in the initial description).

And yes, what the PCs do is what makes it interesting; but there's no reason for them not to have an interesting stage on which to act, hm?

 

[pemerton]

Your short-form descriptions of the room with the passed-out man pretty much directed the players that the only thing worth interacting with in there was that man; as he (and the flies) were the only things you specifically called out as being present.a

What's interesting about the room is the man in it; and what is interesting about the man is whether he's dead or alive, and whether or not he's the person I'm looking for. The GM is able to dispense that information. So why not do so? Either "You open the door, into a poorly furnished office. There's a man sitting, slumped, in the simple wooden chair. Flies are hovering about and above him. You can't see his face. He looks like his dead." Or "You open the door, into a poorly furnished office. There's a man sitting, slumped, in the simple wooden chair. Flies are hovering about and above him. He barely stirs in response to you, but from his breathing and his sweat you can see he's alive."

Now the players can engage with the man, or check out the room, or whatever they want to do, without having that interesting stuff gated behind a bizarre dance of the seven veils as to the basic set-up of the scene.

We've already established that the PCs are looking for someone, and that's why they are here:

Without a better look at his face, you can't tell if this is the man you seek.

So let's make the scene about that.

 

[Corinnguard]

You forgot to mention the thread on the towel that is coming loose, the faded corner. The armoire's drawers. The scratches on the armoire. And a million other details that would take the entire session and still not get all the detail described. So it's a good thing that realism and being realistic doesn't require anywhere remotely close to all of that detail.

As I mentioned to @pemerton, realistic/realism is not a dichotomy. It's a scale. The DM needs to balance that scale based on what the players want. Some want more description, and some less.

Then there is the question of how relevant you want some or all of the details you just described to the players to be. Some of the details are just there to help the players immerse themselves into the narration, and don't further lend themselves to the overall plot of the narration. Then there are the details, which depending on their significance, will lead to other important clues that the players will need to find out and know. That will help further the plot of the narration. And it's up to the players to figure out which details should receive their most attention as they are participants within the narration. Not mere observers.

As for the DM, it shouldn't be completely up to them to provide all of the details at once. It's up to the players to ask the right questions to unlock even more details. And then when the players are satisfied with the amount of details they received, they can move on to the next room, the next street, etc.

 

[Bagpuss]

Then there is the question of how relevant you want some or all of the details you just described to the players to be. Some of the details are just there to help the players immerse themselves into the narration, and don't further lend themselves to the overall plot of the narration. Then there are the details, which depending on their significance, will lead to other important clues that the players will need to find out and know. That will help further the plot of the narration. And it's up to the players to figure out which details should receive their most attention as they are participants within the narration. Not mere observers.

As for the DM, it shouldn't be completely up to them to provide all of the details at once. It's up to the players to ask the right questions to unlock even more details. And then when the players are satisfied with the amount of details they received, they can move on to the next room, the next street, etc.

Counter to that there is the principle of Chekhov's gun, that states that every element in a story must be necessary, and irrelevant elements should be removed. For example, if a writer features a gun in a story, there must be a reason for it, such as it being fired some time later in the plot.

While mundane ordinary stuff should get mentioned (because in a play or film you still have set dressing, still if a gun hangs over the mantle it is there for a reason), if you call out something like the room smells of cigarette smoke, but there are no ashtrays or cigarettes in the room, you had better have the players meet a cigarette smoking man later in the story.

Of course RPGs have an advantage over plays, books and movies with regards to Chekhov's gun. In that if the players attach undue importance to a mundane bit of set dressing in your description, you can change the plot to give it relevance that it might not originally have had in your plot.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Counter to that there is the principle of Chekhov's gun, that states that every element in a story must be necessary, and irrelevant elements should be removed. For example, if a writer features a gun in a story, there must be a reason for it, such as it being fired some time later in the plot.

While mundane ordinary stuff should get mentioned, if you call out something like the room smells of cigarette smoke, but there are no ashtrays or cigarettes in the room, you had better have the players meet a cigar smoking man later in the story.

I don't think it is good idea to directly import that principle to RPGs though. Whilst other stories tend to have one narrator, RPGs are group activity. Players should have the agency to engage with things they want, which means the GM cannot conclusively predetermine which elements they introduce will matter later. Or if they can, then that sounds rather railroady to me.

 

[Bagpuss]

I don't think it is good idea to directly import that principle to RPGs though. Whilst other stories tend to have one narrator, RPGs are group activity. Players should have the agency to engage with things they want, which means the GM cannot conclusively predetermine which elements they introduce will matter later. Or if they can, then that sounds rather railroady to me.

I think the GM certainly can pre-determine some elements that will matter, it the villain used a particular type of poison to kill the victim, then either the players discover traces of it via their investigations or not. It will matter to their later investigations if they do or do not find identify that poison. That isn't railroading. The players still have the agency on how they investigate.

Also were you in before the edit?

"Of course RPGs have an advantage over plays, books and movies with regards to Chekhov's gun. In that if the players attach undue importance to a mundane bit of set dressing in your description, you can change the plot to give it relevance that it might not originally have had in your plot."

Although to be fair some GM's will see this as cheating (why would the villain have used the spoon the players seem so interested in, when he had a perfectly good dagger?1) or just not be flexible enough to make changes on the fly, or observant enough to spot their fixation. Sometimes these odd player fixations can end up just being red herrings, but generally as a player I find them frustrating the longer they are dragged out.


1 - "Because it hurts more"