How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[DrunkonDuty]

As a few other posters have pointed out up thread, there's a difference between the rules of the game and specific, in-game knowledge.

All players should have access to the all the rules that they want. Everyone should have the opportunity to know, for example, what fire resistance 30 means. Or what AC 20 means. Or what a twilight roll is (Ars Magica.) Or how to make a breakout roll (HERO.)

When it comes to in-game knowledge a player should be told anything that their character can reasonably know or observe. Including the game mechanical values for such. Both @Thomas Shey and @hawkeyefan give good examples of things characters can know just by observing. "That's a DC15 climb." "That ogre has AC18." Knowing this sort of thing is good. It speeds up play. Most importantly it lets all the players know what the hell they're doing.

Occasionally there are times when a "gotcha" can be good. When what the character observes/knows is in fact false. A gotcha can add a sudden twist to the drama. But twists MUST be occasional. And they can't be too out there. If the game is an endless series of gotchas with no connection between what the character can observe and what's actually happening... Well I've played in games like that and felt like I was hanging out in the GM's nervous breakdown. Not fun.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree. I do "reverse metagaming" : I let the players know whatever they want to read in the rulebooks and let their characters know all it too. Of course, it does not matter as I do run a "by the book" sort of game. So when a player shoots fire at a troll they get all shocked when the troll absorbs the fire and splits into three trolls. They player will whine and cry saying "but page 111" says whatever endlessly.

I don’t think that kind of blatantly antagonistic GMing is the best suggestion. But it’s in line with your views about players… so I suppose if’s to be expected.

If they only have to jump through hoops some of the time, the very fact they're jumping through hoops will meta-alert them that this time something fishy's going on.

It won’t “meta-alert” them. It will just alert them. Something here’s not what it seems. Seems perfectly fine to me.

I mean… who cares? This whole “meta” division just seems like a waste of time. It doesn’t really enhance play, unless you enjoy poling and prodding for the GM to slowly reveal basic information. We’re not talking about which of the town’s citizens is secretly the Orcus cultist or anything like that… we’re talking about an AC.

They can see the Ogre's wearing chainmail and might assume it has a thick hide thus are free to guess at an AC of 18 if they like; and such educated guessing is perfectly realistic: the PCs are simply going by what they see.

Still doesn't mean I-as-DM have any immediate reason to say anything about that guess. The players might be bang-on right. Or, the Ogre might have a Dex modifier (for better or worse!) that doesn't become obvious for a few moments, or its armour might be in worse condition than it looks and not be giving full protection, or it might have learned how to parry with its club...there's any number of reasons why the book-standard AC might not apply to this particular Ogre. And therefore, I'm going to leave them guessing until they've figured it out through actually fighting the thing and seeing what it has going for/against it (by which time it'll almost certainly be dead anyway).

But why aren’t these abilities obvious in some way? It’s a choice to keep them hidden. If you wanted to, you could describe the ogre’s surprising speed, or the way he wields his club defensively. You can share that information or you can not. Again, it’s a choice.

 

[hawkeyefan]

As a few other posters have pointed out up thread, there's a difference between the rules of the game and specific, in-game knowledge.

All players should have access to the all the rules that they want. Everyone should have the opportunity to know, for example, what fire resistance 30 means. Or what AC 20 means. Or what a twilight roll is (Ars Magica.) Or how to make a breakout roll (HERO.)

When it comes to in-game knowledge a player should be told anything that their character can reasonably know or observe. Including the game mechanical values for such. Both @Thomas Shey and @hawkeyefan give good examples of things characters can know just by observing. "That's a DC15 climb." "That ogre has AC18." Knowing this sort of thing is good. It speeds up play. Most importantly it lets all the players know what the hell they're doing.

Occasionally there are times when a "gotcha" can be good. When what the character observes/knows is in fact false. A gotcha can add a sudden twist to the drama. But twists MUST be occasional. And they can't be too out there. If the game is an endless series of gotchas with no connection between what the character can observe and what's actually happening... Well I've played in games like that and felt like I was hanging out in the GM's nervous breakdown. Not fun.

Yes, excellent post. Well said.

 

[pawsplay]

Immersion is very valuable to me. However, I think the players should be "in on" the rules; there is nothing more jarring to the play experience than a mismatch in expectations, because the GM isn't showing the players what they can do in the game.

 

[Lanefan]

It won’t “meta-alert” them. It will just alert them. Something here’s not what it seems. Seems perfectly fine to me.

Except even though the characters don't (yet) know something here isn't what it seems, you've just alerted the players; and while I've known some players who could ignore this and play on without using this ill-gotten knowledge, I've known far too many who are utterly incapable of doing so. And so, I long ago learned it's best to just not give out information their characters don't have.

I mean… who cares? This whole “meta” division just seems like a waste of time. It doesn’t really enhance play, unless you enjoy poling and prodding for the GM to slowly reveal basic information. We’re not talking about which of the town’s citizens is secretly the Orcus cultist or anything like that… we’re talking about an AC.

We're talking about a principle; that being player knowledge should match character knowledge such that the players can think freely as their characters using all the information at their disposal without having to ask "does my character really know that?".

But why aren’t these abilities obvious in some way? It’s a choice to keep them hidden. If you wanted to, you could describe the ogre’s surprising speed, or the way he wields his club defensively. You can share that information or you can not. Again, it’s a choice.

And once those things become apparent (probably after a round or two of combat) then sure, I'll describe them. But I won't use numbers in those descriptions, just words such as "It seems he's unusually good at blocking your attacks with his club" or "For an Ogre, this guy's a ballerina when it comes to dodging!" or "As you circle around him you notice his armour's in rough shape and might not be giving much protection."

 

[Aldarc]

Over the last few years, I've become a fan of diegetic progression for characters, which pretty much means the rules of leveling and progression are invisible to the players. They know they level, and they know they'll get something when they'll level, but the actual choices they'll be presented with aren't known to them until they get there. And the choices they do get are all based on what they encounter and their actions within the story.

I would at least like to know that before going into the game, because that will affect how I play the game and my character choices therein. But just because leveling and progression may be more opaque with players that doesn't mean that the rest of the rules should be.

Again, that's the traditional argument being made: removing rules from the players focus more fully allows them to inhabit their characters and immerse themselves in the world. I don't know if that is true, but I can attest to the idea that players turning consistently to their character sheets and the rulebooks interrupts immersive moments. Not all the time and not universally, but enough for me to accept that it is broadly true.

And just to be clear: I am not advocating for a "the players don't know the rules" style. At least when running traditional RPGS like modern D&D, I am a "players should definitely know the rules of their character" style GM. However, I do also keep DCs secret and use descriptions as above. Usually. Consistency is hard.

What I do take issue with, though, is people adamantly proclaiming hidden rules games as badwrongfun or untenable, because we know that some people at least do enjoy that style and it works for them

I'm not sure if I entirely agree. One problem that I personally have with a number of FKR's marketing slogans that get thrown around is that they don't necessarily represent what I often find is actually transpiring at the table. For example, "play worlds, not rules" sounds great, but I have found in personal experience that over time it increasingly means "play the GMs, not rules." And things like "invisible rules" often lead to a similar point. So I am not necessarily getting character immersion either because my focus is not necessarily on the fiction but on the GM. And likewise I know from discussions here in this forum that having that that "conversation" that you alluded to earlier takes them out of character. But moreover, there is a point where it stops feeling like I'm actually playing a game and more like I'm just engaging in Fluffy BS Time. That's not what I want out of a roleplaying game.

This is not to say that FKR and its associated principles are badwrongfun. However, (1) I know that it personally doesn't work for me; (2) I think that its marketing slogans obfuscate the play processes; and (3) there can be a disconnect between the ideal presented in the slogan and the play process in praxis.

Now if you believe that the problem for immersion is that players are constantly looking at character sheets, then I would say that this is the actual issue that needs addressed more so than the visibility of rules: i.e., the players need a better game UI.

Even if players are looking on their character sheets, the vast majority of game rules won't be on the character sheet either. I often find that players are looking for things that their character may have on their person or notes: e.g., spells, items (e.g., adventuring gear, magic items, quest items, etc.), NPC names and info, and the like. I'm not sure how invisible rules somehow solve the problem of players forgetting those sorts of details and/or looking at their character sheet. Would having invisible rules somehow stop players from writing down details and stopping for a glance to reference them?

Speaking personally the right sorts of character sheets enhance my immersion because they point me back to the things that matter to my character.

In Blades this includes Vice, Trauma, Relationships, Heritage and Belief.
In L5R (5e) this includes Duty/Desire, Honor, Glory, Passions, Anxieties, Relationships.
In Vampire it features Nature, Demeanor, Concept, Virtue and Vice.
In Masks it includes labels that reflect how my character sees themselves, what emotional state they are in and who has influence over them.

I would not expect this to be universally true, but cues that remind me of who my character is as a person absolutely help get me back into the right mindset.

Same. I would also add Pendragon, Fate, and Cortex to this list as they are games that focus on who your character is and what matters to them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As for "invisible rules" where the players just focus on the fiction, I think it works best if it is not so much invisible rules rather than non-existent rules. The GM just adjudicates the action declarations by what they think is sensible and cool, perhaps assisted by some occasional dice rolls in vein of "roll high and this goes well for you." I think actual rules systems, let alone relatively crunchy ones like D&D, have too many mechanical quirks that they produce weirdness if you try to hide them.

I also think it works best in a game where it really isn't about capabilities of the characters. I have run some investigation and horror games this way and it works fine, as most of the gameplay is just about talking to people, gathering information, and being horrified by weird stuff.

 

[Corinnguard]

Again, that's the traditional argument being made: removing rules from the players focus more fully allows them to inhabit their characters and immerse themselves in the world. I don't know if that is true, but I can attest to the idea that players turning consistently to their character sheets and the rulebooks interrupts immersive moments.

If the players are turning consistently to their rulebooks when they are together in person, then it probably would be a good idea for them to place bookmarks throughout their rulebooks so that they won't waste time flipping through them to find whatever it is they are looking for.

PDFs of the rulebooks with bookmarked links can also reduce the amount of time that is wasted trying to find a particular rule.

Lastly, this problem IMO is probably common with players who are relatively new to the game and the rulebooks. If you have been playing in a RPG for years, you already have a good idea on what's in the rules. And you probably already have a good imagination to boot.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

As I said above, it’s not based on info their characters don’t have. It’s based on what they can observe of their opponent and what they know of them and their world.

So the Ogre in chainmail… they know he’s wearing chainmail and they know he has a thick hide… so it’s AC 18. This reflects what they know. It’s not really about out of game knowledge.

I'd quibble and say that often it's player knowledge that the characters don't have - acting as a substitute for character knowledge that the players don't (and can't) have. And that this is a good thing. The characters are there, in the game world. The players have only a description, with a limited-bandwidth problem in how much can be described to them.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Except even though the characters don't (yet) know something here isn't what it seems, you've just alerted the players; and while I've known some players who could ignore this and play on without using this ill-gotten knowledge, I've known far too many who are utterly incapable of doing so. And so, I long ago learned it's best to just not give out information their characters don't have.

It's not ill-gotten. I am saying I literally want to provide them with this information so that they can act on it. I don't want them to pretend to not know.

We're talking about a principle; that being player knowledge should match character knowledge such that the players can think freely as their characters using all the information at their disposal without having to ask "does my character really know that?".

Why would anyone ask that? If I've provided the information to them, then I want them to use it. Their characters know it because they're observing the situation and they have their past experiences to draw upon for comparison.

And once those things become apparent (probably after a round or two of combat) then sure, I'll describe them. But I won't use numbers in those descriptions, just words such as "It seems he's unusually good at blocking your attacks with his club" or "For an Ogre, this guy's a ballerina when it comes to dodging!" or "As you circle around him you notice his armour's in rough shape and might not be giving much protection."

I don't see any reason to hold back the numbers if you're basically trying to convey this information anyway. Describe what the characters see, then tell the players what it means.

I'd quibble and say that often it's player knowledge that the characters don't have - acting as a substitute for character knowledge that the players don't (and can't) have. And that this is a good thing. The characters are there, in the game world. The players have only a description, with a limited-bandwidth problem in how much can be described to them.

Absolutely, this is part of what I mean. There are all kinds of things that the characters would be observing that simply cannot be included in a GM's description.