Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Rules Transparency - How much do players need to know?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6968150" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Rules for combat positioning look to me like they are imposing some sort of abstract metagame constraint onto the fiction. If those rules matter to outcomes, and the players don't know them - and so the GM is imposing/applying them "in the background", as it were - then (i) what are the rules for? and (ii) who is really making the key decisions, players or GM?</p><p></p><p>Think a bit more about your example of climbing a tree to shoot with a bow.</p><p></p><p>In 1st ed AD&D, with 1 minute rounds, this is a pretty innocuous action declaration: provided the tree has some low-hanging branches and the PC has at least average STR and/or DEX, the character gets into the tree, gains a cover bonus to AC, and starts shooting. (A bow in AD&D has a RoF of two per round. A GM who docks one attack for the round in which the tree is climbed is unlikely to produce too much push-back. The logic of that in the fiction is fairly clear.)</p><p></p><p>In a game with 10-second rounds (Rolemaster) or 6-second rounds (WotC D&D) or 2-second rounds (HARP), the action declaration is instead a potential nightmare. Depending on how movement etc are handled, the player is potentially taking his/her PC out of the action for multiple turns, and for some of that time - in systems where climbing characters suffer a penalty to defence - making his/her PC <em>more</em> vulnerable in the meantime, rather than getting the benefits of cover.</p><p></p><p>And what about a game with more abstract action economy and turn sequences, like (say) Marvel Heroic RP? In that game, climbing a tree is essentially an attempt to gain an advantage/augment. It therefore requires its own action in the turn sequence, which - if successful - gives an extra die for subsequent dice pools where being in a tree would help. To make a meaningful decision to climb a tree a player needs to have some sense of what sort of augments are possible and what difference it makes to a dice pool to have a bonus die in it.</p><p></p><p>And finally - notice that all these different possible outcomes, at the table, of that simple action declaration aren't the result of a player being confused about, or having different perspectives on, the ingame fiction. In each case, all the player wanted was for his/her PC to climb a tree and shoot a bow. The differences are consequences of different mechanical resolution systems being imposed upon a common shared fiction.</p><p></p><p>The idea that in an RPG "you can do anything" is something of a myth.</p><p></p><p>For instance, in D&D - as standardly run, and putting to one side the 1st ed AD&D assassination table - the action declaration "I sneak up on the guard and slit his throat" will probably fail if the guard has more than single-digit hit points. (There are lots of other examples - eg the fighter player who declares "I sneak a look in the mage's spellbook and try to cast on of the spells" will typically have no chance of success either - but the hit point one is the most obvious.)</p><p></p><p>There are three main ways of dealing with this issue that I know of. One is [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s preferred approach - treat the rules, including hit points, as modelling the ingame reality, and so if players are to be able to make sense of the reality in which their PCs are living they need to know the rules, including the hit point and damage rules.</p><p></p><p>The second is to acknowledge that hit points are a type of metagame mechanic, used to modulate pacing, survivability etc in the game - and so, to play well, the players need to know what these mechanics are and how they work. (Which might include mechanics that permit bypassing hit points in certain circumstances.)</p><p></p><p>The third is for the GM to sometimes apply the mechanics and sometimes waive them. But this either (i) tends to bleed into the second approach, or else (ii) leaves the GM in almost total control of the game.</p><p></p><p>In my experience (which covers a number of systems, but obviously very far from all of them!) the sort of game where it is easiest for players to get by without knowing the rules is one in which either everything is done via fictional positioning (much of OSR-style D&D works this way - the risk here is what critics of this approach call "mother may I?" RPGing), or in which the character sheet is basically a list of natural-language abilities with numbers next to them that translate straight into success chances - ie there are basically no augments, no decisions about allocation of effort, and an extremely simple action economy (eg nothing like Power Attack, or splitting a combat bonus between attack and parry, or trading off movement and attacks, etc) - and so all the player has to do is read his/her PC sheet to know what his/her PC can and can't do.</p><p></p><p>Runequest and its offshoots are great examples of this; and Traveller can come fairly close. Some approaches to Rolemaster and its offshoots (MERP, HARP etc) are also similar, though it breaks down a bit in combat.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6968150, member: 42582"] Rules for combat positioning look to me like they are imposing some sort of abstract metagame constraint onto the fiction. If those rules matter to outcomes, and the players don't know them - and so the GM is imposing/applying them "in the background", as it were - then (i) what are the rules for? and (ii) who is really making the key decisions, players or GM? Think a bit more about your example of climbing a tree to shoot with a bow. In 1st ed AD&D, with 1 minute rounds, this is a pretty innocuous action declaration: provided the tree has some low-hanging branches and the PC has at least average STR and/or DEX, the character gets into the tree, gains a cover bonus to AC, and starts shooting. (A bow in AD&D has a RoF of two per round. A GM who docks one attack for the round in which the tree is climbed is unlikely to produce too much push-back. The logic of that in the fiction is fairly clear.) In a game with 10-second rounds (Rolemaster) or 6-second rounds (WotC D&D) or 2-second rounds (HARP), the action declaration is instead a potential nightmare. Depending on how movement etc are handled, the player is potentially taking his/her PC out of the action for multiple turns, and for some of that time - in systems where climbing characters suffer a penalty to defence - making his/her PC [I]more[/I] vulnerable in the meantime, rather than getting the benefits of cover. And what about a game with more abstract action economy and turn sequences, like (say) Marvel Heroic RP? In that game, climbing a tree is essentially an attempt to gain an advantage/augment. It therefore requires its own action in the turn sequence, which - if successful - gives an extra die for subsequent dice pools where being in a tree would help. To make a meaningful decision to climb a tree a player needs to have some sense of what sort of augments are possible and what difference it makes to a dice pool to have a bonus die in it. And finally - notice that all these different possible outcomes, at the table, of that simple action declaration aren't the result of a player being confused about, or having different perspectives on, the ingame fiction. In each case, all the player wanted was for his/her PC to climb a tree and shoot a bow. The differences are consequences of different mechanical resolution systems being imposed upon a common shared fiction. The idea that in an RPG "you can do anything" is something of a myth. For instance, in D&D - as standardly run, and putting to one side the 1st ed AD&D assassination table - the action declaration "I sneak up on the guard and slit his throat" will probably fail if the guard has more than single-digit hit points. (There are lots of other examples - eg the fighter player who declares "I sneak a look in the mage's spellbook and try to cast on of the spells" will typically have no chance of success either - but the hit point one is the most obvious.) There are three main ways of dealing with this issue that I know of. One is [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s preferred approach - treat the rules, including hit points, as modelling the ingame reality, and so if players are to be able to make sense of the reality in which their PCs are living they need to know the rules, including the hit point and damage rules. The second is to acknowledge that hit points are a type of metagame mechanic, used to modulate pacing, survivability etc in the game - and so, to play well, the players need to know what these mechanics are and how they work. (Which might include mechanics that permit bypassing hit points in certain circumstances.) The third is for the GM to sometimes apply the mechanics and sometimes waive them. But this either (i) tends to bleed into the second approach, or else (ii) leaves the GM in almost total control of the game. In my experience (which covers a number of systems, but obviously very far from all of them!) the sort of game where it is easiest for players to get by without knowing the rules is one in which either everything is done via fictional positioning (much of OSR-style D&D works this way - the risk here is what critics of this approach call "mother may I?" RPGing), or in which the character sheet is basically a list of natural-language abilities with numbers next to them that translate straight into success chances - ie there are basically no augments, no decisions about allocation of effort, and an extremely simple action economy (eg nothing like Power Attack, or splitting a combat bonus between attack and parry, or trading off movement and attacks, etc) - and so all the player has to do is read his/her PC sheet to know what his/her PC can and can't do. Runequest and its offshoots are great examples of this; and Traveller can come fairly close. Some approaches to Rolemaster and its offshoots (MERP, HARP etc) are also similar, though it breaks down a bit in combat. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Rules Transparency - How much do players need to know?
Top