How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[hawkeyefan]

But your post made it not about GMing practices, but about types of games. It was clear "Or you could stop sucking and play narrative instead." It was not terribly constructive.

I’m reasonably sure it was about how those games function differently, and how familiarizing one’s self with them would likely help with understanding how differently games can function.

Because many folks lack understanding of those games but don’t show any hesitation in asserting things that such understanding might prevent.

That phrasing is why I don't like the phrase "scene framing". It strongly implies that narrative point of view, taking me out if the world and into stage direction.

How do you move from scene to scene in a game?

Some ways are obvious… you move to the next door and open it, and we have a scene dealing with whatever’s inside.

But outside such a structure as a dungeon crawl provides to play, how do you handle it? Let’s say the PCs are back in town after their most recent expedition.

Do you prompt them? “Anyone got anything they want to sell? You know the market is open until sundown.”

Do you ask in an open ended manner. “Does anyone have anything they want to do in town?”

You don’t roleplay every moment of the PCs’ existence, so you must have some means of skipping things. Some way of deciding what to skip and when. What is it?

Whatever it is, once it’s determined, the next thing you do is scene framing.

“You arrive in the outdoor market with just a few minutes of sunlight left. Some of the merchants are already packing up their wares for the evening.”

Or…
“Okay, Finn wants to check with his contact in the thieves’ guild to see if they know anything about the missing magistrate. Holgar says he wants to go carousing at the tavern. Let’s handle Finn first. You’re on the rooftop that serves as a meeting place for the Moon Runners….”

This is just scene framing. It’s present in every RPG. Call it whatever you like, you do it all the time. I’d think having a two word phrase to sum it up would be convenient.

 

[Reynard]

You've literally quoted my clarifying question and then labeled it as accusation.

Maybe you aren't aware of how accusatory your posts came off?

 

[pemerton]

The reason I don't like the term is that it has it origins in theater, and therefore to me implies that we're involved primarily in storytelling when we play RPGs. You all know I don't agree with that philosophy, which is why I don't like that term being universally applied.

The jargon term "campaign" has its origin in wargaming.

I don't do wargaming RPGing very often, but I don't complain about the use of the term every time I see it turn up on these boards.

 

[darkbard]

Maybe you aren't aware of how accusatory your posts came off?

I'll simply note that neither you nor @Crimson Longinus has actually addressed why or why not the dissonance I see between when conflating between player & character knowledge is acceptable in preference for tone-policing deflections like this.

 

[pemerton]

Do the RPGs that you have mentioned several times up thread ever had it where the players had some downtime?

I and my fellow RPGers are all middle-aged, and several of us have kids, and several of us have work that takes up time in the evening and weekends. So our downtime between sessions is often longer than I would like it to be.

During sessions, I like to keep the focus on play as much as possible.

If by "players" you mean "PCs", then yes, time may pass in the fiction in which nothing of great note is happening.

If you are asking, do these RPGs have "downtime mechanics" then the answer is yes for Agon 2e, Burning Wheel and Torchbearer 2e, and no for Prince Valiant and 4e D&D, and sort-of for Classic Traveller and Cortex+ Heroic/MHRP.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'll simply note that neither you nor @Crimson Longinus has actually addressed why or why not the dissonance I see between when conflating between player & character knowledge is acceptable in preference for tone-policing deflections like this.

Because it was not about character and player knowledge at all. It is about the role of the rules. That a rule entity of a check succeeding is the same thing than the fiction element of a character succeeding, merely looked at a different refence frame, thus it makes no sense to talk of them as separate events.

 

[Reynard]

I'll simply note that neither you nor @Crimson Longinus has actually addressed why or why not the dissonance I see between when conflating between player & character knowledge is acceptable in preference for tone-policing deflections like this.

Re-reading your posts, I still think you are being aggressive. But,let's leave that be for the time being.

This quote:

That conflation is perfectly intentional, and I'd argue essential to the sort of play @Lanefan does (and which I prefer.)

Trying to separate the rules from the fictional reality they represent is antithetical to this approach. It is not meaningful to talk about a player succeeding at a test or a character succeeding at task as separate entities, as these are one and the same, merely looked at from different angles.

Makes it perfectly clear that @Crimson Longinus is talking about "physics" and not "player knowledge" about trolls.

Do you think there is space between these things?

 

[pemerton]

Pedantic's "If the GM can't produce content the PCs want to engage with at all, then nothing happens, the game falls apart and everyone does something else with their hobby time," is trivially true, and will apply to narrative games as well. If the GM frames a scene and no one is interested in it then something has obviously gone wrong.

If you frame a scene and no one is interested it, then you reframe.

Or if you game is built around expectations of the scene as the basic unit of play (Burning Wheel is an example), then you build in rules and mechanics that permit the players to reframe the scene themselves. The following instructions to players from the BW rulebook address this directly (it is found on revised, p 269; the same text is also in the Gold rulebook):

Use the mechanics! Players are expected to call for a Duel of Wits or a Circles test or to demand the Range and Cover rules in a shooting match . . . Don't wait for the GM to invoke a rule - invoke the damn thing yourself and get the story moving! . . . If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself.​

So what @Pedantic said is not, in fact, trivially true. The game needn't fall apart if the GM doesn't produce content the players want to engage (via their PCs).

As you said, the issue is a particular one,

for games that require a lot of prep.

But even that is probably too general. It is not just the volume of prep, but it's nature: the design of an adventure that the PCs must "end up in". This is what creates the need to "lure" the players into the GM's prep.

 

[pemerton]

That conflation is perfectly intentional, and I'd argue essential to the sort of play @Lanefan does (and which I prefer.)

Trying to separate the rules from the fictional reality they represent is antithetical to this approach. It is not meaningful to talk about a player succeeding at a test or a character succeeding at task as separate entities, as these are one and the same, merely looked at from different angles.

OK. But upthread you objected to my description of the GM playing the character whereas now you seem to be embracing it: the GM deciding that the PC knows something, or calls for a roll by the player to determine whether or not the PC knows something, is not different from the player of that PC declaring that action. The player hasn't declared anything, and hence at that moment it must be the GM playing the PC.

 

[Reynard]

If you frame a scene and no one is interested it, then you reframe.

Or if you game is built around expectations of the scene as the basic unit of play (Burning Wheel is an example), then you build in rules and mechanics that permit the players to reframe the scene themselves. The following instructions to players from the BW rulebook address this directly (it is found on revised, p 269; the same text is also in the Gold rulebook):

Use the mechanics! Players are expected to call for a Duel of Wits or a Circles test or to demand the Range and Cover rules in a shooting match . . . Don't wait for the GM to invoke a rule - invoke the damn thing yourself and get the story moving! . . . If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself.​

So what @Pedantic said is not, in fact, trivially true. The game needn't fall apart if the GM doesn't produce content the players want to engage (via their PCs).

As you said, the issue is a particular one,
But even that is probably too general. It is not just the volume of prep, but it's nature: the design of an adventure that the PCs must "end up in". This is what creates the need to "lure" the players into the GM's prep.

I have a legitimate question: is Burning Wheel a Play To Find Out Game? If so, how does it do Scene Framing in a satisfying way, since neither the scene nor the framing can be known beforehand. If not, what separates it from other RPGs where the GM tells you (the group) where you are and what's happening.