How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[soviet]

In the TSR editions, even fighters weren't proficient in every weapon, just more than other classes. Thinking otherwise is assuming WotC's position on the matter.

Incorrect. Mentzer p28 'A fighter may use any kind of weapon'.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Could a 1st-level character be considered to be something a rube in D&D? The character at this level has just left behind their background profession , and has only begun to take on the life of an adventurer. They have only begun their training into their given class and have a ways to go before they become as @Micah Sweet put it, a special forces heroic protagonist.

I'm hard pressed to define what even 1st level D&D characters can usually do as "rubes". They might be called "novices" but that isn't the same thing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In the TSR editions, even fighters weren't proficient in every weapon, just more than other classes. Thinking otherwise is assuming WotC's position on the matter.

As I mentioned before, there is absolutely nothing in OD&D--which is what I've specifically referencing--to suggest the contrary. A Fighting Man can use any and all the weapons on the weapons list, and there are no weapon familiarities.

 

[Corinnguard]

In other words, Corinnguard chose to correct my (imaginary) GMing: that the PCs wouldn't recognise that the dragon is trapped in a magic circle of imprisonment, and would only notice that it was unable to come closer to them.

Not really, I was pointing out how I would role-play my character in D&D. Out-of-character, I would know what you were talking about. The dragon is contained by something magical. I just wouldn't take that bit of knowledge and give it to my in-character self. I would let my in-character self figure it out on his own.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm generally willing to use most terms people want to as long as it doesn't seem to have a baked in unstated agenda.

See, I have a hard time not seeing the use of scene-framing as a baked-in agenda, as it is generally presented directly by proponents of storygame/narrative play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As I mentioned before, there is absolutely nothing in OD&D--which is what I've specifically referencing--to suggest the contrary. A Fighting Man can use any and all the weapons on the weapons list, and there are no weapon familiarities.

Fair enough. I play games based on B/X where that isn't the case, but I haven't looked at the original in a while.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Could a 1st-level character be considered to be something a rube in D&D? The character at this level has just left behind their background profession , and has only begun to take on the life of an adventurer. They have only begun their training into their given class and have a ways to go before they become as @Micah Sweet put it, a special forces heroic protagonist.

I would certainly like that to be true, yes. The assumption in many games seems to be shifting away from me, however.

 

[soviet]

The idea of what a 1st level character is has shifted massively over the editions I think. The kind of apprentice level characters you had in AD&D and before are largely impossible to replicate now. A level 1 character in 4e or 5e is probably closer to at least level 3 in older editions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The problem is that at least as a baseline, you can't easily have characters able to be rubes and able to be something more in the same game, at least with class based systems (and I'd debate you can in others; a starting Fantasy Hero character you could if you really want to actively avoid giving any adventuring-capable skills, but he's built on enough points he's still going to be outstanding at something, or somewhat knowledgeable in a really wide range of skills). You could have power tiers that did that, but they'd be different tiers of campaign setup, like the very old RuneQuest take where if you didn't use the previous experience system all characters were teenagers with nothing but the basic skills everyone in their culture had by that point.

I disagree. Many D&D-adjacent games allow this, particularly those with 0-level rules (DCC comes to mind as a great example), but even those who don't don't necessarily assume the broad base of knowledge people seem to be advocating for here. The same concept could be applied to more modern versions of the game if the assumptions for PCs as Special Forces Heroic Protagonists (henceforth referred to as SFHPs) hadn't been altered.

 

[Thomas Shey]

See, I have a hard time not seeing the use of scene-framing as a baked-in agenda, as it is generally presented directly by proponents of storygame/narrative play.

And it may. But if other people in the thread, including those not in that group don't have that problem, to be pretty blunt its what we call a "you problem".