How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Micah Sweet]

My experience, in other fields of expertise, is that people who are equally expert tend to be able to assess a relevant situation in similar ways. Or to recognise something they missed when it is pointed out to them.

My fields are more cognitive than physical. But certainly I would assume that a serious fighter could tell, from observing me, that I'm not one!

But could they observe exactly how bad a fighter you are?

 

[aramis erak]

You will know your own character's stats because you have either have a sheet of paper, a fillable PDF or even an online D&D Beyond page containing their stats. Why would you be denied to know your character? Does your GM expect you to have memorized your character sheet and be capable of playing without it? Of course, not. That's not how a RPG works.

• Several authors have suggested it as a way of breaking player rules lawyering.
  • Or even preventing rules knowledge, which some, even now, consider a bad thing
• It's a specific scenario rule for one adventure in CORPS: Down In Flames (13 end of the world scenarios for CORPS). All the PCs wake up with amnesia and a blank character sheet.
• Not a few folks in the story-first side of things prefer to play that way, I've known half a dozen.
• It was a common theme in how to introduce players to D&D/AD&D back in the 80's.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It is funny where our personal lines are. i am not particularly interested in immersion, and I like the G part of RPGs as much or more than the the RP part, but this idea where I, as GM, give the PCs a full statblock to the PCs so they can make informed tactical decisions gets a big fat "No Way" from me. I can't even really say why, other than the fact that it makes no sense in the fiction and it makes the fight less fun by eliminating the discovery phase of the battle.

Well, note I'd rather there be a little wiggle myself; I mentioned earlier that if someone had a piece of consistent terminology that had, say, a 20% range I wouldn't have a big issue with that. The problem is that I'm unconvinced most of the time that people's explanations are even producing that close an approximation, and if they can't, then I'd rather just give the ruddy numbers.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Some will, but others won't, and you'll always have both types.

I recognize some people don't want to. I might even be tolerant of that to a degree. But if they need to for some reason, I still expect it. People who can't even be bothered to try doing things for the overall good of a game can go find somewhere else to play.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Do we? I don't think we do that too much. I think most GMs operate with potentially complete knowledge of the PCs and their capabilities, and uses that knowledge regularly. I think knowing the characters' capabilities (and the players') is a vital part of being a GM in many games.

They may not take full advantage of it at all times, but I don't think they tend to firewall it. Why would they?

Because they're trying to play an opponent who doesn't have perfect knowledge of the PC. Even in the context of what we've discussed, a PC isn't going to know every technique or power an opponent has, and an NPC shouldn't behave like they do with a PC.

I think for me, it's about players being informed to a level that approximates what the characters will have. I'm less concerned with how exact numbers are considered than I am with being able to make a reasonable decision in the game the way my character would in the fiction. If my ability to do so comes from some bit of math, and the character's comes from spatial and temporal awareness in his environment, that's fine. I don't need the factors to be identical so much as I want the level of information to be equal.

Yes. As I've noted, if I thought most GMs were able to to convey these things without the numbers coming into it somewhere, I would be fine with that, but I'm unconvinced the vast majority can. Natural language is just too vague and subjective here in most cases.

 

[Manbearcat]

This whole post comes off as rather elitist to me, like anyone with experiences similar to yours should feel the same way as you, and feeling otherwise is "laughable".

Micah, spare me the (predictable) escalation to offense here. I'm responding to someone (below) who brought in "laughable." You were totally fine with that. Not elitist at all...because it agreed with your position.

I don't know how many fights you have been in versus how many movies you have seen, but in my experience the most dangerous people do not have an "ape index" (whatever that is). People swagger and saunter all the time that have no real skill (more often than not, in fact) and ones that can fight often do not flex until it happens.

In other words: it is pure fantasy to suggest that in the real world people walk around with a hit point bar and level hovering above their heads. Acting like that is a real thing is something people who don't know what they are talking about do.

1) How many fights have I been in? A lot...a lot a lot (and I haven't been in one in about a decade and change thankfully). Violent physical conflicts...where people ended up significantly hurt...sometimes me. More than a few times dealing with multiple people after being jumped on the basketball court (which is where the overwhelming abundance of these things tend to happen).

I was a wrestler from middle school through high school. BJJ from 19 and I stopped being active on a weekly basis only about 5 years ago. The amount of hours sparing/rolling I have under my belt is absolutely absurd. And all of that because it became clear to me early on that violence was going to follow me around and that was a very frightening prospect for a little boy. I come from a seriously violent childhood (household included or even especially) and restrained, repped violence in martial arts helped deal with that physically, mentally, emotionally and prepare me to get out of a lot of bad spots. I know exactly what high stakes, physical altercations entail from every direction. And one of my primary friend cohorts feature people from this exact same background. And there is virtually a complete consensus in the fight community on the concepts I'm talking about above.

And I'm "just a guy." At my peak, I was never close to the tail of the distribution of capability. Not even close to it. Upper end of the middle of the distribution probably. You take world class fighters (the kind that would be our PCs in D&D-world?)? Their processing ability (their ability to measure threat, manage distance control/angles/leverage, proprioception in grappling), their athleticism, their indices, and their ability to muster their neurological systems vastly exceed somebody with "just a guy on Earth (where we don't defeat lions with our bare hands...at low levels...then T-Rexes at high levels...)" status.

2) Ape index is the measure of your wingspan vs your height. If you're +1 (which is the abundance of humans), you have an average ape index. People with an ape index beyond that have advantages in grappling and typically leverage in striking (they can generate more kinetic energy because of where the muscle is attached to the bone).

If "swaggering and sauntering" is what you thought ape index means, then no. Nothing to do with it. And yes, people that typically "swagger and saunter" are signaling and looking to get out of violent altercation rather than enter one or they're very frightened and pantomiming what they think conveys intimidating.

3) I don't know why you're talking about levels or hit point bars above people's heads. No one is talking about such an absurd prospect...its been conveyed several times now that I/we are distinguishing between action resolution mechanics and build stats as an interface or proxy for the perception > processing/decision > action scheme undertaken by martial actors within the imagined space of a TTRPG...which is necessary to even come close for actual meat-space players to experience the processing and physical prowess of even a relatively capable martial combatant (world class would only sharpen each of these components)...not an actual material thing manifesting in the imagined space. This is the immersion piece.

---

I've more than said my piece on this subject. I'm very much exiting stage left

 

[aramis erak]

I don't know how many fights you have been in versus how many movies you have seen, but in my experience the most dangerous people do not have an "ape index" (whatever that is). People swagger and saunter all the time that have no real skill (more often than not, in fact) and ones that can fight often do not flex until it happens.

In other words: it is pure fantasy to suggest that in the real world people walk around with a hit point bar and level hovering above their heads. Acting like that is a real thing is something people who don't know what they are talking about do.

The most effective fencers I've known don't swagger about; the next tier down often do. Then, down a rung further are folks like me who make a good show, but know better than to swagger because it invites actual attention and caution from groups 1 and 2...

But could they observe exactly how bad a fighter you are?

Only if that lack of skill is due to physical limitations. For example, a person with Cerebral Palsey is going to suck at fencing - tho' I'm certain one such person would love to try...

Skilled swordsmen do tend to have a few visible traits... specific callouses, certain muscles not to scale, often some impressive bruises if in tier 2 or 3...

... but most of them aren't readily apparent from a distance. It's not like the English Longbowmen whose handedness can be told from bilateral dimorphism.
Given enough practice, the swordsman's muscles' attachments will become broader on the sword arm. The callouses on the hands tend to be different by style of warfare - thrusting shortswords get face of palm and side of index and palm. Broadsword, when I studied it, I got index and pinky on the palm-side, and index on the inside between the distal and proximal knuckles - from hilt rub.
Fencing, when I practiced a lot and wore thin gloves, had thin callouses — able to be felt but not visible — on all faces but the backside between the distal and proximal interphallangeal knuckles, and on the index-side of the middle finger in the same distances, plus the pinky, between distal and proximal on palm, outside, and back... all from hilt contact causing rubbing. when I switched to thicker gloves, those reduced to nothing, save the right index left side, proximal to distal, since that's also used on the violin and viola on the bow.

The moment the sword comes up, more can be told. The Salute will, if you can see the arm, give away a lot... but it's a funny thing — few fighters fight with bare arms. ANd those who do tend to be DAMNED good. Or not taking safety into account. (I used to practice without armor using fiberglass rapier with a friend, because as long as we didn't aim for the head, no major injuries would ensue... and neither of us were novices with swords.) What it gives away: are they clenching the hilt? Or just gently holding it. Are they maintaining smooth tip movement or not? Are they in trigger-finger on a rapier or cruciform sword?
All of that? If you can see it unaided, you're probably in attack range. (Attack range from en garde with a 42" rapier is almost 3m body to body.)
If they're en garde, and you're undrawn, two steps and a fleché can be 5m (again, Body to body)... probably before you can clear the sheath.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I recognize some people don't want to. I might even be tolerant of that to a degree. But if they need to for some reason, I still expect it. People who can't even be bothered to try doing things for the overall good of a game can go find somewhere else to play.

A reasonable subjective opinion to have. I'd prefer it that way myself. But expecting it is, to some degree at least, against human nature, so I provide all the help I can.

 

[Thomas Shey]

True. I'm assuming here that the GM (or the module, if relying on boxed text) is at least reasonably good at description, and halfway consistent with it.

I'm not. I haven't seen GM and players understanding in this area be routinely worth a darn.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A reasonable subjective opinion to have. I'd prefer it that way myself. But expecting it is, to some degree at least, against human nature, so I provide all the help I can.

I've seen enough people able to do it I don't think its an excessive ask. Among other things, its a trainable skill.