How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Thomas Shey]

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

Then I'd suggest pulling out "But I'm concerned about realism" when people, some of whom are personally knowledgeable in specific areas that have bearing suggest that being overly conservative in some of these cases here is not realistic, is more than a little off.

 

[pemerton]

How the hell would I know how another DM is going to describe it?

I don't see how this responds to my question. Upthread, you posted:

you proceed to incorrectly say that I said DMs are not allowed to do those things. Go back and look. I never said or implied that the DM couldn't do those things, and said the exact opposite in multiple posts. The DM can in fact declare auto success or failure for reasons.

Your phrase "those things" refers to this posted by me:

I, relatively casually, offered as an example of a GM describing the scene to the players as including a dragon trapped in a circle of imprisonment.

@Corinnguard and @Maxperson have proceeded to tell me that this is not something a D&D (or any?) GM is allowed to do, because player and/or PC knowledge of what the runic circle is must be gated behind some sort of skill/knowledge/ability check.

In other words, you appear to be saying that a GM is allowed to describe a scene to the players as including a dragon trapped in a circle of imprisonment, because a GM can in fact declare auto success or failure for reasons.

And my question, to repeat it, is this: What is the relationship between what a GM can describe and the fact that a GM can declare auto-success? I was talking about the first. You replied with a remark about the second. To me, you remark appears to be a non-sequitur, because a GM in describing a scene is not declaring auto-success on anything. There having been no action declared or move made by the player to whom the scene is being described.

 

[pemerton]

That includes fantasy realism

This seems an oxymoron.

It's not.

Allow me to elaborate, then:

Realism (from Oxford Languages via Google): the quality or fact of representing a person or thing in a way that is accurate and true to life.

Fantasy (same source): the faculty or activity of imagining impossible or improbable things; an idea with no basis in reality; a genre of imaginative fiction involving magic and adventure, especially in a setting other than the real world.​

Something imaginative, perhaps with no basis in reality (eg magic; dragons), and certainly pertaining to magic and adventure in a setting other than the real world, is not going to be accurate and true to life. More-or-less by definition. Hence my remark that "fantasy realism" seems an oxymoron.

 

[Corinnguard]

To me both of those things overlap to such a great degree that they are nearly the same. Realism is what facilitates immersion. That includes fantasy realism, like dragons breathing fire and the existence of dragons and magic. As long as there are rules and consistency to the fantasy setting, fantasy realism also facilitates immersion.

They probably are the same because they facilitate each other. Role-playing requires the player to immerse themselves into a fantasy setting where the real is very different.

 

[Corinnguard]

Hence my remark that "fantasy realism" seems an oxymoron.

It may be an oxymoron, and yet an untold number of people in the real world participate in one or more forms of fantasy realism on a regular basis.

 

[Manbearcat]

It may be an oxymoron, and yet an untold number of people in the real world participate in one or more forms of fantasy realism on a regular basis.

I suspect you mean something rather high impact with this statement, but its not clear to me what it is?

That humans have the novel ability in the animal kingdom to deploy their vast reservoir of creativity to creatively reason themselves into fairly (or totally) untenable positions and maintain them durably despite mounting confounders?...and then build out a culture with large coalitions of people who rely upon the same + "but look at our numbers/market share" to backstop their claim?

I mean for sure. That is one of our biggest assets without a doubt!

Its always weird to me how this is controversial. Fantasy and Realism clash terribly and we all absolutely know we have to spackle over the abundant cracks with post-hoc justification and a heaping helping of "avert thine eyes!" Why can't we just admit that D&D-world is overwhelmingly not internally consistent when indexing the physical laws that undergird our meatspace existence. Its not a big deal. We just deal with incoherencies the best we can and "play on." No worries. All of this multi-decade effort to deny, deny, deny just makes no sense.

Its kindred to the Railroad thing. Some GMs Railroad. A lot in fact. Some players actually like being Railroaded (probably a lot). Its no big deal. Why can't we just admit that some GMs run games where they have preferred outcomes and covert (or overt) ways of ensuring they get mainlined onto play. You'll never get better at Railroading (which you can be WAY better and WAY worse at Railroading whether you're the GM deploying those techniques or you're the player observing the conceits and principles of what a good player in a Railroad game does and doesn't do) if you're not honest about what is going on under the hood and then working on your craft.

 

[James Gasik]

In effect, if the world has fantastic elements, there can be a disconnect when you ask yourself how these would logically apply to a setting. How does X work is one of the fundamental human questions (right after What is X?, Can I eat X?, and Will X eat me?, I suppose).

Many D&D worlds handwave things like how they work, precisely how common monsters and powerful NPC's are, leaving it up to the DM to decide, but in your quest from level 1 to whatever the campaign can handle, you're likely going to encounter a great many creatures, spells, and strange phenomenon that would have a startling impact on the world- but a lot of D&D campaigns somehow manage to maintain an old-timey mashup of technologies and developments and are only minimally impacted by such- articulated plate armor yes, firearms no, printing presses maybe- no matter when such things were created in our world.

You still have castles that are designed to fend off attacks from non-flying dragons, no real defense from drow invaders from the Underdark, and creatures that could easily create more of their kind to become a vast swarm of anti-life (shadows, wights, etc.).

Most attempts to apply logic and reconcile all this can end up with dungeonpunk settings that are far removed from your typical fantasy campaign. Some come to the conclusion that the world is the way it is because the Gods (or a secret cabal of powerful NPC's) want the this way, will use their power and influence to maintain the status quo.

In reality, most people aren't concerned with whether or not their fantasy worlds are truly "realistic"- what they want is the illusion of such, hence the term verisimilitude. Few really want to deep dive into the nuts and bolts as to how fantasy economies really work, or how closely their worlds hew towards Earth- an oft-stated comment is "like our world save where noted", but that "where noted" generally precludes the laws of physics and a modern understanding of science to impact the world unless the DM wants it to be so- I once had to fight an Orange Dragon which had a breath weapon of "liquid sodium" that caused things to burst into flames and exploded if it came into contact with water.

One of the more scientifically-minded players started postulating the uses of this substance, and the DM quickly said "It's not really sodium, it's like sodium in it's effect, but it can't be used in those ways".

In effect, the drive towards making our fantasy worlds seem real as possible has always been very selective, and simulation often must defer to the needs of the game, such as matters of balance and setting integrity.

 

[Corinnguard]

I suspect you mean something rather high impact with this statement, but its not clear to me what it is?

Well consider how often we indulge ourselves in things that have no basis in what we call reality.

Both you and I, for instance, participate in role-playing games where we pretend to be someone else who is living on a world where magic, the divine, and creatures of folklore/myth actually exist.

We read books and watch stuff from genres such as science fiction, science fantasy, urban fantasy, horror, etc.

We participate in forums such as this one and debate the merits of fantasy and realism.

I am not sure if this reply makes things clearer or murkier for you, but I hope it helps in some small way. Also, I think @James Gasik provided a better answer to what I was trying to get at here.

 

[Corinnguard]

Yep, it's pretty much a tradition in my role-playing group. I'll have to ask around to see who came up with it and when. The group came together back in 2018, and had already gone thru three adventures before I joined it. But it does exactly as you said, it increases everyone's effective AC by one.

Last night I asked my DM about my RPG group's tradition of saying 'Defender Defends' whenever an attack roll hits a specific AC exactly. I found out that it was a house rule he came up with for his group during the 3.5 era. This house rule was made to benefit the players. In D&D, an attack roll had two outcomes. You either missed with your attack or your attack hit. I think my DM wanted to add a third outcome. The attack hit the AC, but it failed to penetrate the armor and inflict damage.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And my question, to repeat it, is this: What is the relationship between what a GM can describe and the fact that a GM can declare auto-success? I was talking about the first. You replied with a remark about the second. To me, you remark appears to be a non-sequitur, because a GM in describing a scene is not declaring auto-success on anything. There having been no action declared or move made by the player to whom the scene is being described.

Seems like a semantic quibble.