Rules Transparency - How much do players need to know?

[The Crimson Binome]

That's right. The unspoken part of "you can do anything" is "(that your character could reasonably do.)" If I were going to make my players suffer through weird rules, I'd either make sure they know these rules, or give some in-game examples of them. (Suddenly I have so much appreciation for video game in-game tutorials!)

All rules are weird, unless you know them. The reason why the rules are in the book, instead of entirely in the DM's head, is so that everyone can be on the same page as to what their characters can reasonably do.

In some games, it is reasonable to sneak up on a guard and slit their throat. In some games, it's unreasonable to climb a tree during combat. The only way we can (mostly) agree on what's reasonable or not is to pick a ruleset that everyone is familiar with, and even that's not guaranteed.

 

[pemerton]

Some rules are necessary, since a GM is neither a physics computer nor a telepath.

If you are assuming that game rules are "physics computations", you're already making assumptions about the relationship between rules, fiction and outcomes that you might want to share with your players!

The rules in question are there to help the GM adjudicate outcomes in game terms. Since the player just wanted to climb and shoot, and get a decent outcome from it, I don't see that it's necessary for him to know that his character got moved into Melee Position A Lateral, versus just "I'm in a tree."

If the player doesn't know how many turns the climbing takes, what the effect is on his/her PC's vulnerability (in 3E, for instance, I think a climbing character forfeits some defences), whether or not being in a tree will give a bonus to defence, etc, then how does the player know whether or not a "decent outcome" is realistically possible.

A key issue here, in combat rules, is how the action economy interacts with the "physics computations". In AD&D, the basic rule is one attack per minute - so if the GM thinks the tree can be climbed in about a minute (pretty plausible for some trees) then the action declaration doesn't cost the player much.

In 3E, the basic rule is 10 attacks per minute (one per 6 seconds) - so if the GM thinks climbing the tree will take about a minute, then the action declaration will take the whole combat and the player misses out on having his/her PC shoot.

These differences in action economy are not about "physics computation". They're metagame constructs, and if players don't know what they are or how they work, it's hard to make effective action declarations.

Different games will work different, mechanically, but if the GM is using the premise "my job is to make this fun," instead of "my job is to kill the PCs," then the player will get a fair, or even acceptable, outcome despite the clunkiness of the rules.

At this point, it looks like it is the GM deciding outcomes, not the player by way of action declarations for his/her PCs.

That's one way to run a RPG. It's obviously not the only way, though!

The unspoken part of "you can do anything" is "(that your character could reasonably do.)"

But what is "reasonable" is often a function of mechanics, including action economy.

Can I reasonably climb a tree without being shot by arrows? In AD&D the answer is yes. In 3E the answer might well be no. But that's not because trees, or human archery abilities, are different in each system. It's because the systems use different action economies, different resolution rules for climb checks, etc.

Can I reasonably sneak a look in a spellbook and try and cast a spell? The answer to this is another part of the game rules. There is not inuitive answer to the question - is this reasonable?

 

[MichaelSomething]

If I wanted free form improvising, I wouldn't play D&D.

 

[GMMichael]

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]: there are three other ways to establish reasonability: GM advice, a GM-produced guide for expectations (or what I call a campaign theme), and in-game experience.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: the differences in action economy that you used as examples are very much about physics computations; they're a question of how much time (player turns) is required to make X number of attacks (movement of pointy metal objects) and/or to climb a tree (moving Y pounds off the ground and the friction required to do it). They are -also- metagame constructs, used to simulate the physics.

The significance of this to this thread would go back to reasonability. Will the player expect to be attacked once or ten times while tree-climbing? Which is reasonable? If he doesn't know the rules, one would hope that he has one of the above-mentioned methods for answering that question.

If I wanted free form improvising, I wouldn't play D&D.

Are you saying that playing a game with rules, but having a natural-language interface with those rules instead of technical-language, would feel like improv and dissuade you from playing?

E.g.
"I feel around inside the wardrobe for a secret compartment."
"I rolled 16. Is there a secret compartment?"

 

[The Crimson Binome]

@Saelorn: there are three other ways to establish reasonability: GM advice, a GM-produced guide for expectations (or what I call a campaign theme), and in-game experience.

In order to establish reasonability for everything that the game rules cover, you would need to have as much GM-produced content as is covered by the game itself. Or going by in-game experience, the only way to determine (with confidence) how the GM would rule in every situation is to literally experience every possible situation; and even then, that precludes the possibility of planning for the future - you can't plan to do something tomorrow, or even learn how tomorrow's ideas might play out after the GM explains everything to you, unless you know how today's actions are likely to plan out. You can't even plan what you might do after you slit the guard's throat, until you can make a reasonable approximation of whether you can slit the guard's throat, and what complications might arise while doing so.

@pemerton: the differences in action economy that you used as examples are very much about physics computations; they're a question of how much time (player turns) is required to make X number of attacks (movement of pointy metal objects) and/or to climb a tree (moving Y pounds off the ground and the friction required to do it). They are -also- metagame constructs, used to simulate the physics.

I think someone is confused about the concept of the metagame (not necessarily you). If you assume that the rules of the game reflect the physics of the in-game reality, then the question of climbing a tree is entirely an in-character one; it's simply a fact that characters in some worlds are better climbers than characters in other worlds, and they all understand how well they can climb even though we can't guess until we've read the rule book (or had the GM explain which rules they're using).

If you instead assume that every different ruleset is just a reflection of our own reality, and make decisions as though our real-world physics were applicable, then that would be a textbook case of metagaming. That's why you can't just use natural language and let the GM handle all of the mechanics - because your experiences in the real-world, which form the basis of your natural language understanding, represent information that your character can't possibly know.

 

[pemerton]

the differences in action economy that you used as examples are very much about physics computations; they're a question of how much time (player turns) is required to make X number of attacks (movement of pointy metal objects) and/or to climb a tree (moving Y pounds off the ground and the friction required to do it).

No.

Gygax is quite express that the action economy for AD&D is not a physics computation. The game takes no view on how long it takes to manoeuvre a sword or dodge an arrow. As Gygax puts it (DMG, p 61);

Combat is divided into 1 minute period melee rounds, or simply rounds, in order to have reasonably manageable combat. "Manageable" applies both to the actions of the combatants and to the actual refereeing of such melees. It would be no great task to devise an elaborate set of rules for highly complex individual combats with rounds of but a few seconds length. It is not in the best interests of an adventure game, however, to delve too deeply into cut and thrust, parry and riposte. The location of a hit or wound, the sort of damage done, sprains, breaks, and dislocations are not the stuff of heroic fantasy. . . .

One-minute rounds are devised to offer the maximum of choice with a minimum of complication. This allows the DM and the players the best of both worlds. The system assumes much activity during the course of each round. Envision, if you will, a fencing, boxing, or karate match. During the course of one minute of such competition there are numerous attacks which are unsuccessful, feints, maneuvering, and so forth. During a one minute melee round many attacks are made, but some are mere feints, while some are blocked or parried. One, or possibly several, have the chance to actually score damage. For such chances, the dice are rolled, and if the"to hit" number is equalled or exceeded, the attack was successful, but otherwise it too was avoided, blocked, parried, or whatever. . . . So while a round of combat is not a continuous series of attacks, it is neither just a single blow and counter-blow affair. The opponents spar and move, seeking the opportunity to engage when on opening, in the enemy's guard presents itself.​

The action economy in the modern game is also clearly not a physics computation. This is evident in several respects - first, that only one attack per 6 seconds is permitted (so whatever the attack roll represents, it doesn't represent a single movement of a metal object); second, that the turn is stop motion but we're not meant to envisage the gameworld as being a stop-motion one; third, and following on from the second, that A can only move 60' in 6 seconds, and yet A and B together, if they have the same movement rate, can cover 90' in 6 seconds (A moves up to B, uses his/her action to pass something to B, then B moves + dashes for 60').

I agree that climbing a tree will normally be adjudicated by reference to real-world experience - this is why exactly the same action can be sensible (in AD&D) or foolish (in HARP, with 2 second rounds), even though the "physics" is no different in the different gameworlds.

 

[Shasarak]

Remember the good old days, when the Dungeon Master's Guide was for DMs only, and it had a significant amount of rules needed to run the game?

I always imagined that Gary wrote that there to entice more people to read the DMG.

I had no idea that there was anyone who would read that and actually stop reading. Ah, different times.

 

[GMMichael]

Some rules are necessary, since a GM is neither a physics computer nor a telepath.

I didn't say D&D is about simulating physics - I said that rules were in place to save the GM from having to do physics. Let's note that this latter statement does not equate to the former statement.

I always imagined that Gary wrote that there to entice more people to read the DMG.
I had no idea that there was anyone who would read that and actually stop reading. Ah, different times.

If you're already reading the DMG, it's probably too late. But sure, I'll buy that these are different times, in which players say "I deserve to read all the rules, no matter for whom they're intended, as long as I can buy them," whereas in the '70s someone might have said "my DM and I pitched in for all the books, so he holds the DMG while I hold the PHB, and I really don't understand how TSR will stay in business if they sell only three books per game group!"

Different times indeed.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

Depends on the players and system, but at the very least the players should have some idea of what the consequences of their actions are likely to be. What rules do is help establish expectations.

And even then there's still the potential for misunderstanding, which is why a GM needs to be aware of when a player is acting under a mistaken impression of what their actions will result in and step in to clarify and suggest alternatives. This isn't easy, as it depends on knowing an individual player's experience, but having a clear set of shared understanding like a ruleset helps a lot

My personal philosophy is if the rules to a game are too complicated to expect every player to learn, then it's not a game I'll run or play, and so far my gaming has been better for it.

I have no problem with players obtaining as much system mastery as they desire, but strictly speaking I don't think such mastery is necessary for them to enjoy or play a game. And how important gaining such mastery is to a particular player will depend on playstyle and their particular aesthetics of play.

Thing is the system mastery playstyle not only requires the rules to be known, but often depends on knowing the rules better than your 'opponent', so hiding them becomes a form of cheating. On the other hand none of that matters for gamers who don't want to even bother reading the rules before playing.

Needless to say, these two groups do not get along at the table.

 

[Legatus Legionis]

.