How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Maxperson]

I'd like the ability for some PCs to be rubes. It's interesting; while in many ways what a PC can look like and is capable of has expanded greatly over the years, what a PC actually is or starts out as has in some ways and in some systems contracted IMO. What if I don't want my PC to be (or at the very least start out as) a special forces heroic protagonist with a broad understanding of everything such a person might find useful in their occupation?

That's why I like 1st level PCs to be fairly incompetent. That way if I want to do as you suggest I can, but since I rarely do like to start out as a putz I can start PCs out at 3rd level and make them special forces.

 

[Corinnguard]

Perhaps if they used natural language to teach their game, perhaps these tiny independent RPG creators wouldn't be quite so tiny.

It might be a cost issue. An independent RPG creator might not have the money to a create a RPG core rulebook that uses everyday words. So they use jargon as a cost-cutting tool.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It might be a cost issue. An independent RPG creator might not have the money to a create a RPG core rulebook that uses everyday words. So they use jargon as a cost-cutting tool.

Perhaps, but it seems clear to me that that decision creates an explicit separation from the rest of the community that may eat into their potential customer base. Now if they have no problem with that, then it's all ok.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Basic isn't an edition. It's was a separate, concurrent D&D RPG. The editions start with 1e and go up to 5.5e.

 

[Maxperson]

It might be a cost issue. An independent RPG creator might not have the money to a create a RPG core rulebook that uses everyday words. So they use jargon as a cost-cutting tool.

Maybe, but I'm not going to play a game where I have to learn a bunch of new jargon. Besides, they have to explain the jargon somewhere in the book. Just cut the jargon out and leave that natural language. I don't want to have to know 4 different terms in 4 different RPGs for the same blasted thing.

 

[Campbell]

We have gotten into this before. Stuff like kickers/fronts/GM Moves are conceptually complex enough that you do not want to have to reexplain what they are in everyday language every time you need to talk about them, particularly given the impulse some have treat them like things that have some conceptual similarity but are very different in impact.

Like a kicker in Sorcerer is not just an inciting incident. It's an inciting incident that puts the fundamental trajectory of a player character's life in question that the GM is expected to build scenarios around. Having to call out every element involved in a kicker every time the text wants to talk about it would result in an absolutely unreadable text.

I think the natural conclusion of don't use jargon does not feel fundamentally different from don't structure play differently. At least I have never encountered someone who struggles with the jargon but is like willing and ready to embrace novel play structures.

 

[Campbell]

Maybe, but I'm not going to play a game where I have to learn a bunch of new jargon. Besides, they have to explain the jargon somewhere in the book. Just cut the jargon out and leave that natural language. I don't want to have to know 4 different terms in 4 different RPGs for the same blasted thing.

Would you have interest at all in learning a game that requires you to learn how to run roleplaying games in a different way than you are used to or that are structured differently than you are used to? Do you actually want to learn a new game or just play basically the same game with minor variations?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I am just super sceptical that this happens non-stop in actual play. I don't see it in by BitD play, I don't see it in @hawkeyefan's actual play example of superficially connecting basic ruin exploration to character motivations, I don't even see it consistently in your play examples. Like sure, there are moments of truly challenging character's beliefs and such, but that just won't happen non-stop in every scene except in superficial way like with Mialee and gnolls or whatever it was.

And of course there would be more to the sister and the cult than just saving here like some McGuffin. For example as an obvious complication she has joined the cult and tries now to convince the character that the despite how it may seem, the cult is actually good. Now there is an obvious conflict between defeating the cult and rescuing the sister.



And this is exactly the superficial connection where the motivation is only ties to the end goal you just criticised in the previous post. And sure, but that logic you can do TNG, as every character has motivations of "boldly go" and "solve problems" and you can claim every episode relates to those somehow. But that is superficial and you could probably claim that almost all D&D play is motivated by the characters at that level too, be it via their alignment, greed or lust for adventure.

Blades in the Dark is a little different in that the crew is given a common goal of advancing their criminal enterprise. So most Scores are going to be about that. It's more about the purpose of a given Score... is this about grabbing some cash, or about hurting a rival, or about taking a claim?

Beyond that, though, I don't know how to resolve your skepticism except to tell you to read such a game and then run it. Apocalypse World would probably be the best, but if the setting isn't to taste, then I'd recommend Stonetop.

I find a good rule of thumb for this kind of thing when I am GMing is to imagine different PCs in play. Would the scenario I've set up mean as much to a different group of PCs? Like, to use a very basic example, imagine taking Luke Skywalker out of Star Wars and making Wedge Antilles the main character. Does the story mean as much without the ideas of legacy and the sins of the father and redemption being present?

This is a big part of why I don't care for those systems personally. They seem to me to downplay or worse cut out the main thing I enjoy about GMing: creating a world and fun stuff for the PCs to do in it.

That's perfectly fine. I still enjoy that type of game myself from time to time. I just don't want to do it every time I play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'd like the ability for some PCs to be rubes. It's interesting; while in many ways what a PC can look like and is capable of has expanded greatly over the years, what a PC actually is or starts out as has in some ways and in some systems contracted IMO. What if I don't want my PC to be (or at the very least start out as) a special forces heroic protagonist with a broad understanding of everything such a person might find useful in their occupation?

So then make a rube PC. I don't think the rules stop you. Obviously, depending on the game.

But what if you're a player who doesn't want to play a rube? Why not have options for that player as well?

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.

Assuming you mean 5e here, you can make a character that could be considered a rube, sure. The Backgrounds are what I'd likely lean on here. You could easily also select a Background that would essentially be the opposite of a rube.

But it also really depends on the game. If you're playing Night's Black Agents or Delta Green, then there's a good chance your character begins play as a special forces agent. That's by design. Not all games need to control the power level of the PCs. Not all games are about going from farmboy to planar hero.

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.

But how can you be sure? There's no way to make any decisions without that knowledge. What if you actually pretend not to know longer than you would have not known had you not known? What if you're more capable of figuring something out than you think you would be? What then?!?!?

This kind of concern about "metagaming" is just silly. No matter what you do at that point, the out of character knowledge is influencing you. In fact, it's become the focus of the situation.

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.

Maybe stop assuming that there's any agenda beyond "here's a game that does things differently"? Imagine if we're just talking about different games and how they do things differently, and stop worrying about sides or whatever?

Just an idea.

How many circle spells are there in D&D? I know of only one. Magic Circle.

How many are there in other games?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Would you have interest at all in learning a game that requires you to learn how to run roleplaying games in a different way than you are used to or that are structured differently than you are used to? Do you actually want to learn a new game or just play basically the same game with minor variations?

All editions of D&D, Call of Cthulhu, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, Marvel FASERIP, classic Deadlands, and WEG Star Wars are not the same game with minor variations.