Rules Transparency - How much do players need to know?

[pdzoch]

[MENTION=6685730]DMMike[/MENTION], Interesting thread, but I think the discussion is drifting into group dynamics and compatibility over DM game management (which is how I understood your post initially).

Group dynamics and compatibility (usually with the concepts of gaming styles of the group) is a challenge affecting every group of people who get together for a game, whether it be card game, board game, or RPG game.

Sometimes a group completely falls apart because of the differences within a group. (Someone's play style is just too aggressive, or obnoxious, or too serious or not serious enough for the rest of the group) Some groups might even exclude a member for fear of disrupting group stability. (Poker groups refuse to let a bad poker player join/ Bridge players jealously guard their partners). But many groups know there are differences within the group and they accommodate. (over in the board game circles, many player will play a game they do not prefer or play poorly just to be with the group knowing that they will get to play a game latter they prefer and inevitably someone else in the group might not be a favorite of).

With regards to RPG, the DMs role is central and akin to the host of any gaming party. He has to accommodate the gaming guests as much as to ensure everyone enjoys the game. But the game experience is everyone's responsibility.

So, can role players and roll players enjoy the same game together? Certainly! And they do, more often than not. It is still a challenge for the DM, and he/she will have to establish some rules (and bend on some others) to accommodate the group. Would those players prefer to be in a different group of like minded players. Maybe, but I think they will enjoy the company they keep just fine.

The gaming group is organic -- it evolves, changes and adapts. And if it can't it will most likely break up. Hopefully, they form anew with other groups and remain within the hobby.

 

[Quickleaf]

The DM/video game scarring can definitely be an issue. Ask a player "what do you want to do," and if she expects that she has limited choices (powers?), you'll get some good cognitive dissonance by flinging the doors wide open. But does it persist long enough to be a problem?

My experience is yes, unequivocally. But then, it was a problem for me. Not so much for my players who didn't mind thinking a bit more...hmm...in a more bounded way.

 

[Celebrim]

But then, some players enjoy a nice, mechanical game. I believe they're called "min-maxers?" Can a game appease both the role-players and the roll-players, when one group knows the rules and the other doesn't?

Yes, it can. You'll need to help guide the players without system mastery into characters that meet their RP goals without sacrificing too much mechanical effectiveness. You'll need min-maxers that are happy to share spotlight and aren't power gaming in order to hog that spotlight, or at least aren't too dysfunctional. You'll need RPers that are happy to accept that part of the party goals is success, and as such will steer their RP toward success and create characters that at least somewhat are willing to compromise to achieve success. But those are mostly table dynamics. There is nothing about system that gets in the way of that.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

How much do players need to know, when it comes to the nuts-and-bolts rules?

Players need to know enough of the rules that they can make the same decisions their characters would make, for the same reasons, given that their characters know how their world actually works.

Following the course of this thread, if the player thinks that they might want their character to disarm an opponent, then the player needs to know the rules well enough to determine whether the character would think that's a good idea. If you're playing a 5E game, then the character knows that there's no point, since the enemy can easily retrieve the weapon without missing a beat. If you're playing a 3E game, then the character knows that it's a risky move, since their attempt would leave them open to being struck down before they can get to the weapon. If you're playing AD&D, then the character knows whatever the in-game reality is associated whatever the DM would have you do in order to resolve that action.

You need to know the mechanics of the game, if you're going to role-play the thought processes of your character correctly. Not knowing the rules is a recipe for meta-gaming, by basing your decisions on information that isn't true within the game world. If a player doesn't know the rules, then they're going to make decisions based on incorrect assumptions, and things aren't going to turn out how they expect - even though their character really should know better.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

You need to know the mechanics of the game, if you're going to role-play the thought processes of your character correctly. Not knowing the rules is a recipe for meta-gaming, by basing your decisions on information that isn't true within the game world. If a player doesn't know the rules, then they're going to make decisions based on incorrect assumptions, and things aren't going to turn out how they expect - even though their character really should know better.

That's not metagaming. Making decisions based on the game fiction, even if one is mistaken about the game fiction, is the opposite of metagaming.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's not metagaming. Making decisions based on the game fiction, even if one is mistaken about the game fiction, is the opposite of metagaming.

They're not basing it on the fiction, though; they're basing it on their personal misconception of the fiction, due to contamination from other sources within the genre and from reality. It's still not information that the character could have, unless you're playing something like Shadowrun and your dwarf character is making a mistake about how dragons work based on their having read The Hobbit.

If you don't want to label that as meta-gaming, because there's no ill-intent, then that's fine. The underlying point still stands, that the character should know better than to make the mistake, and the player needs to know the rules of the game in order to get on the same page as the character.

 

[Darkness]

(There needs to be some sort of meme for when multiple posters make XP worthy posts, but all have their XP turned off. Something about wanting to mash a button.)

Sure, although this thread doesn't seem to have posters who have turned off XP.

Until now, I suppose.

 

[Psikerlord#]

All of them?

I've played games where the players don't know the rules. It's horrible. Will never play or run such a game ever again.

Yeah I think players should basically know all the rules - or at least understand the rules that are relevant to their PC. In a rules lite game, that's all the ruels. If it's rules heavy, like shadowrun, then they needn't know decking if playing a street sam.

If as a player I cant assess my chances of success - either by knowing the rules, or asking the GM for rough odds (good, poor, 50/50), I get frustrated/feel like my decisions are random.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yeah I think players should basically know all the rules - or at least understand the rules that are relevant to their PC. In a rules lite game, that's all the ruels. If it's rules heavy, like shadowrun, then they needn't know decking if playing a street sam.

If as a player I cant assess my chances of success - either by knowing the rules, or asking the GM for rough odds (good, poor, 50/50), I get frustrated/feel like my decisions are random.

Right and when you feel like your decisions are simply random chance, you just start making random decisions, since you feel like every decision has an essentially equal chance of success and failure. Which is what my experience was. It didn't feel like I had any control over my choices, but it didn't feel like any choice was any more valid than any other choice.

But yes, "all of them" as in "all of the rules that are relevant to their character and method of play". Some people don't need a lot of rules to function. Some people do. People who like to know the rules should be able to know the rules.

This idea that there was ever a time when the DMG was "only for DMs" is silly. It's Memberberry talk. The DMG was for whomever happened to have the cash to buy it. Sometimes the DM didn't even own the DMG they were using! Joe just happened to have a good job and bought all the books, but never had to time/energy to run the game.

 

[Dualazi]

The players don't need to know the rules at all. If the rules of the game conform sufficiently to reality and game fiction, and the players are conversant with the game fiction, then they could make all of their decisions on this basis. For me, this would be the perfect game. Unfortunately, the difficulty of perfectly modeling reality and fiction and lack of player consensus on them, makes designing such a game very difficult.

Nothing. In fact, many players often play better when they don't know the rules. They engage the environment better, are more creative, and spend more time RPing their character rather than looking for 'edges' in the rules.

Completely false, in my gaming experience. Players that are unfamiliar with the rules, intentionally or otherwise, instead waste time haranguing over the possible choices, because they naturally don’t want to be a detriment to themselves or their team. Once the player has a firm grasp of the rules, they are better able to make informed decisions, which leads to more organic gameplay. It also lowers the chances of ‘gotcha’ moments, where an uninformed player thought a course of action would result in one outcome, but the rules are at odds with this.

I’m with shidaku on this one, players should know functionally all the rules. They should know what common spells do, they should know exactly how combat works, how conditional modifiers are applied, all that jazz. I usually tell my players stuff like enemy AC, since they’re going to reason it out anyway and it saves time being asked “did I hit” 10 times per combat.