How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[pemerton]

If you're going to allow players to spec into "knowing stuff" as a character building resource, then making that choice relevant requires locking information behind it.

I've GMed plenty of RPGs with knowledge-type skills: 4e D&D, Burning Wheel, Torchbearer 2e, Agon 2e, Cortex+ Heroic, Prince Valiant.

I've had players play characters in those games whose principle talent is knowing things - eg in 4e D&D, an Invoker/Wizard/Divine Philosopher/Sage of Ages; in Torchbearer 2e, an Elven Dreamwalker whose strongest skill is Loremaster.

This doesn't mean that I, as GM, call for checks independently of the players declaring actions for their PCs.

 

[Pedantic]

I've GMed plenty of RPGs with knowledge-type skills: 4e D&D, Burning Wheel, Torchbearer 2e, Agon 2e, Cortex+ Heroic, Prince Valiant.

I've had players play characters in those games whose principle talent is knowing things - eg in 4e D&D, an Invoker/Wizard/Divine Philosopher/Sage of Ages; in Torchbearer 2e, an Elven Dreamwalker whose strongest skill is Loremaster.

This doesn't mean that I, as GM, call for checks independently of the players declaring actions for their PCs.

And to do otherwise is "deeply unappealing" to you, I gather.

Meanwhile, the passive skill or defensive stat is pretty well understood at this point, and knowledge skills are just another form of that. You can basically conceptualize it as Perception for context.

It's no more or less a wedge for GM control than any other skill. Without rigorous system definition, you end up in the same place all generic skill systems get you, with a GM deciding how high you need to roll, and designing the results of success or failure on the fly.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I generally share this sentiment. It’s why I typically just share the relevant information with the player of the character (or players of characters) that makes the most sense. I keep rolls for more esoteric type stuff, with some kind of specific answer to it rather than “do I know this thing”.

The issue is that this devalues knowledge skills players may have invested in and makes most knowledge rely on a GM fiat.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've GMed plenty of RPGs with knowledge-type skills: 4e D&D, Burning Wheel, Torchbearer 2e, Agon 2e, Cortex+ Heroic, Prince Valiant.

I've had players play characters in those games whose principle talent is knowing things - eg in 4e D&D, an Invoker/Wizard/Divine Philosopher/Sage of Ages; in Torchbearer 2e, an Elven Dreamwalker whose strongest skill is Loremaster.

This doesn't mean that I, as GM, call for checks independently of the players declaring actions for their PCs.

How do you handle perception? Do the players constantly need to declare “alertness actions” in case of there is something to perceive?

 

[soviet]

The issue is that this devalues knowledge skills players may have invested in and makes most knowledge rely on a GM fiat.

It doesn't have to. You can make most knowledge checks an auto succeed for those trained in it and an auto fail for those not. You can make knowledge checks more proactive by having them generate 'aid other' type bonuses, or advantage, to actual rolls to do something. You can give players narrative authority to make things up about the gameworld depending on their knowledge skills - for example, the Knowledge Religion guy can invent some details about local practices etc.

 

[Reynard]

How do you handle perception? Do the players constantly need to declare “alertness actions” in case of there is something to perceive?

That is actually how 5E is intended to work, even with passive perception. The difference with the latter is that passive perception is just meant to cut down on the number of rolls. The PC is still actively looking. There is no roll or perception check for what players see: the GM just tells them what they see. Perception checks are for when a PC wants to LOOK.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The issue is that this devalues knowledge skills players may have invested in and makes most knowledge rely on a GM fiat.

I don't find that to be the case. It helps that many of the games I play don't rely on knowledge skills, and so checks for this kind of situation work differently.

But in games where such skills are applicable, as I said I share the basic information that's needed for the players to make some kind of decision... for play to progress in some way. Any additional information beyond that base requires a roll. This way, they have enough to proceed, but have the option to learn more. I make sure that any additional information from such a roll is actionable.

 

[Lanefan]

I’m one of the GNS faithful, I have a little shrine to Ron Edwards in my room and everything. When I’ve gotten deep into these types of conversations before I’ve found that everyone (almost) who declares they’re into immersion is actually a gamist. Now if you don’t believe in the GNS model then fair enough but allow me to translate some stuff.

In almost all cases where someone says that something is destroying immersion, that exact same thing is destroying the type of challenge based play that the role-playing medium provides.

The reason this is invisible is because of the whole fish doesn’t see water thing. The sense of vividness and reality is based around the challenge game play loop that in actual play would feel like exploration (if the challenge part was a given).

For instance. You’re searching some study in a Cthulhu mystery game and the players and GM just spend hours doing it. The loop is:

Players ask questions about the fiction stuff > GM provides answers. All the while you’re building up both a very vivid scene that adds to the reality and ‘trying to figure something out.’ It’s the two in unison that makes challenge based role-play exciting*. Part of the challenge is asking the correct questions to elicit further information based on the previously established facts.

You’ve spent like half an hour describing a book case on the books on it and the players asks if any of the spines look more worn, one does and that’s the book that has the hidden note revealing the access code to the safe (or the summoning ritual or whatever).

I don't see how this Cthulhu example, as described, is either small-g or big-G gamist.

The gamist solution would be to try and invoke mechanics into this scene ASAP, wouldn't it? Rather than roleplaying through the exploration piece...which as described seems to me to be more player-side simulationist than anything else.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Possibly a side note but I think that 'roll to see if you know what this is' is almost always bad play. IRL people either have knowledge of a subject or they don't. The idea that any random person has a 5% chance of knowing something, or that people who operate in the relevant field and have the relevant expertise still have an X% chance of not knowing something, is preposterous. Even more preposterous is that my character's experience and knowledge is therefore in a quantum state of uncertainty, and I as a player don't know what my character knows or doesn't know. In actual play of 5e I quite often refuse to make these 'recognise statue' rolls when I don't think my fighter/barbarian would have any chance of knowing something.

Eh, even specialists can not know or have forgotten the obscure. But that's just the issue--the obscure, which if it comes up all the time--its not all that obscure.

 

[soviet]

I don't see how this Cthulhu example, as described, is either small-g or big-G gamist.

The gamist solution would be to try and invoke mechanics into this scene ASAP, wouldn't it? Rather than roleplaying through the exploration piece...which as described seems to me to be more player-side simulationist than anything else.

Gamism isn't necessarily about mechanics. In this case it seems to be about the players solving the GM's puzzle. It's a direct challenge of logic.