How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[overgeeked]

Only if they're the sort of players who can't handle setbacks and frustration, and I'm quite happy to not have those show up in the first place.

There's levels of setbacks and frustrations. "I missed that one roll" is a completely different beast than "We just wasted the entire four-hour session on a red herring the referee intentionally pushed into the game." If someone can't handle rolling poorly, they shouldn't be playing RPGs with random chance. If the referee thinks the players should just shrug off the referee intentionally wasting their entire evening, the referee shouldn't be running RPGs.

 

[overgeeked]

When the DM describes a place or a person to the players, how are the players viewing the information? Subjectively or objectively? More often that not, they are doing it subjectively. This point of view has it's share of prejudicial biases and opinions that can mislead a person into overlooking an important clue and set them down another path than the one they intended.

I take it you don't run many investigative games. I do. The notion of having PCs miss important clues died sometime in the 1980s when Call of Cthulhu referees would stop games when PCs missed the single roll that would reveal the single clue the PCs needed to continue playing the game. Since then it's been common practice for important clues to simply be found. No roll required. Just found. The important thing to remember is a single clue isn't the solution to the mystery. The players can still misinterpret that clue and the PCs still need to correctly interpret most of the clues to solve the mystery, so nothing is lost by simply giving the players the important clues. They still have to solve the mystery themselves. The vast majority of the time the PCs will be trained professionals or skilled amateurs, but, importantly, the players will not be. The players will misinterpret the clues, guaranteed. The players will go in the wrong direction, guaranteed. The players will Pepe Silvia their way into the wildest and most absurd conclusions, guaranteed. You don't need to intentionally introduce false information (aka red herrings) into the mix. You will get the same result by simply playing a game with an investigative element.

 

[Corinnguard]

I take it you don't run many investigative games. I do. The notion of having PCs miss important clues died sometime in the 1980s when Call of Cthulhu referees would stop games when PCs missed the single roll that would reveal the single clue the PCs needed to continue playing the game. Since then it's been common practice for important clues to simply be found. No roll required. Just found. The important thing to remember is a single clue isn't the solution to the mystery. The players can still misinterpret that clue and the PCs still need to correctly interpret most of the clues to solve the mystery, so nothing is lost by simply giving the players the important clues. They still have to solve the mystery themselves. The vast majority of the time the PCs will be trained professionals or skilled amateurs, but, importantly, the players will not be. The players will misinterpret the clues, guaranteed. The players will go in the wrong direction, guaranteed. The players will Pepe Silvia their way into the wildest and most absurd conclusions, guaranteed. You don't need to intentionally introduce false information (aka red herrings) into the mix. You will get the same result by simply playing a game with an investigative element.

I have never run any kind of RPG, investigative or otherwise. I prefer being a role-player.

 

[Maxperson]

It's a great way to get players to stop showing up to games.

That depends on the group.

 

[Maxperson]

I take it you don't run many investigative games. I do. The notion of having PCs miss important clues died sometime in the 1980s when Call of Cthulhu referees would stop games when PCs missed the single roll that would reveal the single clue the PCs needed to continue playing the game. Since then it's been common practice for important clues to simply be found. No roll required. Just found. The important thing to remember is a single clue isn't the solution to the mystery. The players can still misinterpret that clue and the PCs still need to correctly interpret most of the clues to solve the mystery, so nothing is lost by simply giving the players the important clues. They still have to solve the mystery themselves. The vast majority of the time the PCs will be trained professionals or skilled amateurs, but, importantly, the players will not be. The players will misinterpret the clues, guaranteed. The players will go in the wrong direction, guaranteed. The players will Pepe Silvia their way into the wildest and most absurd conclusions, guaranteed. You don't need to intentionally introduce false information (aka red herrings) into the mix. You will get the same result by simply playing a game with an investigative element.

I don't mind gating important clues, but I won't gate one's that are critical to success. I learned that lesson in the mid 80s when I put the item the group absolutely had to have behind a secret door. They didn't find it and left without it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What jargon? Clocks? Sandbox? How basic and widely discussed does something have to be to avoid being labeled as dreaded jargon?

Fronts are a jargon word.

 

[pemerton]

By player action. So again, Chekhov's gun has no relevance.

 

[pemerton]

By player action. So again, Chekhov's gun has no relevance.

Only if we assume a GM-authored railroad. If the player action is driving play, then Chekhov's gun is absolutely relevan.t

A RPG is more like an interactive story with a main plot line, numerous side plots and different outcomes depending on where the DM and the players take it.

Only if we assume a GM-authored railroad. If the player action is driving play, then there is no plot line.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Only if we assume a GM-authored railroad. If the player action is driving play, then Chekhov's gun is absolutely relevan.t

Only if we assume a GM-authored railroad. If the player action is driving play, then there is no plot line.

If there is no plot line, there is no Chekhov's gun. It doesn't count if you decide the gun is relevant as a participant.

 

[Reynard]

Only if we assume a GM-authored railroad. If the player action is driving play, then Chekhov's gun is absolutely relevan.t

Only in retrospect, in which case it is not Chekhov's gun.

I suppose there are game systems and/or styles that allow the player to actually place Checkov's Gun, but those would be pretty rare and weird in actual play.
GM: You guys enter the tavern. go ahead and give me some things you see inside and I'll make note of them.
Player: Above the bar a shining broadsword hangs. Unbeknownst to us or even the bartender, it is Grothmag's Thistle and before the moon is full again, i will use it to slay my old master.
GM: Umm...
Player: Dance monkey. Give me my sword!