How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Manbearcat]

On "control."

Abstract puzzle solving games or an abstract puzzle solving aesthetic ported into or entailed within a particular game has "control" (where one participant whose role is it to generate content/abstract puzzles, "the controller" lets say, for others whose role is to solve content/abstract puzzles) embedded within the scope of play. It (the paradigm of "control" here) is a necessary means to the end of "having discrete roles (abstract puzzle generator and abstract puzzle solver) and playing those roles with the necessary integrity inherent to that particular brand of puzzle solving (abstract)."

But there are different types of puzzles as well. And further, abstract puzzle solving can become rote if the dynamism and mystery that infuses the abstract puzzle solving with its inherent life undergoes selection pressures which generate the development of S.O.Ps that do the heavy lifting of the puzzle solving. So the abstract puzzle solver and the play-space have to work hard to constantly evolve so the necessary discrete roles of generator and solver endure (which folds in that "means to the end control" for the abstract puzzle generator). And that is difficult. Its all difficult. And that "control reflex" can absolutely degenerate if "the controller" isn't ever-vigilant (particularly being vigilant against being precious about either their content or their content authority).

And circling back to that first sentence in the second paragraph (different types of puzzles). There are a lot of different types of puzzles. Some extremely rewarding puzzle solving involves an intricate board state with transparent parameters/currencies that inform a succession of complex decision-spaces until Win Con/Loss Con is achieved. In those particular types of puzzles, the generator not only need not worry about "control (over information)"...such concerns and protocols around keeping the board state (or parameters that inform the board state) veiled is 100 % anathema...degenerate...full stop.

EDIT: I mentioned climbing above. Route-setter and climber are perfect examples of my directly above paragraph. The route-setter sets the route on the wall. They don't give the climber the script (beta) to top the route, but there is absolutely nothing veiled. Everything is right out there. Now the climber has to navigate that "board state" (series of obstacles/sequences/positions/holds) until the send the climb (or fail to). TTRPGs have plenty of examples that mirror this "transparent obstacle course (board state) requiring intricate solves."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Immersion is pretty much subjective at the best of times. Realism a bit less so, but its not at all clear that your preference on this is the more realistic; so the best you can really say is it fits your perception of what's realistic here.

Basically, someone else can be playing from the same preferences you claim and come to an entirely different set of conclusions how to handle this.

Sure, and that would be their subjective preference just as much as mine is mine.

 

[pemerton]

That includes fantasy realism

This seems an oxymoron.

 

[pemerton]

The DM can in fact declare auto success or failure for reasons.

How is the GM describing the scene - You see a dragon, apparently trapped inside a circle of imprisonment an example of declaring auto-success? Success at what? The player didn't attempt a move!

 

[Maxperson]

This seems an oxymoron.

It's not.

 

[Maxperson]

How is the GM describing the scene - You see a dragon, apparently trapped inside a circle of imprisonment an example of declaring auto-success? Success at what? The player didn't attempt a move!

How the hell would I know how another DM is going to describe it? There are zillions of different ways and not all of them even need a description. Also, the player doesn't have to declare an action. If the DM knows that a PC grew up near the Troll Moors and knows tons about all kinds of trolls, he can offer up information about a special troll without prompting. The PC would know it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Realism and immersion.

The games you favor focus on creating a particular narrative or emulating genre far more than they care for simulation in a physical sense.

Unless I've been utterly wrong about your preferences.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I prefer both as well when I'm not running a Pawn Stance Dungeon Crawl (where I don't give a crap about either!)!

All four of us are different (with Micah and Corinnguard overlapping significantly it seems and pemerton and myself having a fair amount of overlap in the games we like to GM)

Its almost like "the immersion litmus test" is autobiographical...personal...and almost surely indexes your access to/perception of what constitutes "realism!"

So like I said, it's just preference and no one is more right than anyone else.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, and that would be their subjective preference just as much as mine is mine.

So, essentially, the argument from realism is primarily internal.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, essentially, the argument from realism is primarily internal.

I suppose that's true, on both sides. But I stand by my preference regardless.