How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[pemerton]

Which still boils down to "the purpose of prep being to give the GM something to say"; even more so when you include the GM's descriptions of those areas the PCs are exploring.

Here's the text from Moldvay pp B3-B4, B19, B23, B51-B52:

It is the DM's job to prepare the setting for each adventure before the game begins. The setting is called a dungeon since most adventures take place in underground caverns or stone rooms beneath old ruins or castles. The dungeon is carefully mapped on paper (usually graph paper). A dungeon may be designed by the DM, or may be a purchased dungeon . . . (called a dungeon module). Whether creating a new dungeon or carefully studying a module, the DM must be willing to spend more time in preparation than the players. . . .

At the start of the game, the players enter the dungeon and the DM describes what the characters can see. One player should draw a map from the DM's descriptions; that player is called the mapper. As the player characters move further into the dungeon, more and more of the dungeon is mapped. Eventually, the DM's map and the players' map will look more or less alike. . . .

As details of the dungeon are revealed, the player characters will meet "monsters" which they will have to avoid, talk to, or fight. A monster is any animal, person, or supernatural creature that is not a player character. . . .

When the players have rolled up their characters and bought their equipment, the DM will describe the background of the adventure. . . .

The DM will find it useful to make a list of monster encounters before the adventure starts, noting their Number Appearing, Armor Class, hit points, and so forth. Having this information prepared before the adventure will speed play during the game. These monsters will often have a reason for being in the dungeon (such as looking for food or a special magic item, carrying a message, and so forth).

Before players can take their characters on adventures into dungeons, the DM must either create a dungeon or draw its map, or become familiar with one of TSR's dungeon modules. . . .

This section gives a step-by-step guide to creating a dungeon. . . .

A. Choose a scenario . . .
B. Decide on a setting . . .
C. Decide on special monsters to be used . . .
D. Draw the map of the dungeon . . .
E. Stock the dungeon . . .
F. Filling in final details​

Nowhere does this talk about the GM having interesting things to say. It mentions the GM describing things, but that is only part of the purpose of prep. It seems pretty clear that the main goal of prep is to create a mapped and keyed dungeon that the GM then reveals to the players during play, based on the players' play of their PCs as dungeon adventurers. A secondary goal of prep is to have the stats for monsters and NPCs ready-to-hand in case of combat.

Preparing a front in Apocalypse World somewhat resembles steps A and C. It does not have any analogue to D, E or F. And the analogue to step A, in preparing a front, is very different from the Moldvay Basic step. Molday Basic does not require the GM to establish clocks or stakes questions or agendas/dark futures. Because it is a game of exploring a dungeon, not a game of finding out what happens to the characters. Here is the AW text on "Why to play" (pp 17-17):

One: Because the characters are [very] hot.

Two: Because hot as they are, the characters are best and hottest when you put them together. Lovers, rivals, friends, enemies, blood and sex - that’s the good [stuff].

Three: Because the characters are together against a horrific world. They’re carving out their little space of hope and freedom in the filth and violence, and they’re trying to hold onto it. Do they have it in them? What are they going to have to do to hold it together? Are they prepared, tough enough, strong enough and willing?

Four: Because they’re together, sure, but they’re desperate and they’re under a lot of pressure. If there’s not enough to go around (and is there ever?), who’ll stick together and who’ll turn on whom? Who do you trust, and who should you trust, and what if you get it wrong?

Five: Because there’s something really wrong with the world, and I don’t know what it is. The world wasn’t always like this, blasted and brutal. There wasn’t always a psychic maelstrom howling just out of your perception, waiting for you to open your brain so that it can rush in. Who [messed] the world up, and how? Is there a way back? A way forward? If anybody’s going to ever find out, it’s you and your characters.

That’s why.​

Giving the GM interesting things to say within the context of play, in which - as a matter of technical procedure - all the GM does is either call on the players to roll their moves, or else speak GM moves, is the sole purpose of AW prep. There is no analogue of the players' map coming to more and more closely resemble the GM's map, and hence no part of prep that corresponds to that aspect of Basic D&D prep.

And here's another striking point of contrast: in Basic, the players roll up their PCs and choose their equipment, and then the GM describes the initial situation. In AW, the players build their PCs and then the first session is played, and out of that certain relationships, threats, trajectories etc emerge - and then the GM preps their first front, so they have things that are interesting to say in the context that the first session has established.

Saying that these all boil down to the same thing just seems like it is intended to elide all differences in RPGing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Then we all have to accept that different games are different. Doesn't make it any less upsetting when that difference shows up in new iterations of the same game, especially if that game claims nearly all the headspace in the community.

Look, I'm not that fond of D&D-sphere games in general (even if I'm getting ready to run one), but I somehow have managed to live with D&D being the big dog for the last 40 years. At some point you really need to let it go.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I will again point you to DCC and other games of the OSR. 1e/2e, 0-level characters, 3e's NPC classes and 5e's Sidekick system show similar themes.

Even 3e's NPC classes were hardly everyman types outside of one case. Adepts? Nobles? Warriors?

 

[pemerton]

Back in 1e the only real difference between a level 0 guard and a 1st level fighter was hit points. Everyone needed a 20 to hit AC 0.

This is not correct. The to-hit tables are on p 74 of the DMG. A 0-level guard needs an 11 to hit AC 10, and a 20 to hit AC 1. Whether they need an ordinary 20 or a natural 20 to hit AC 0 is a decision the GM has to make about the interpretation of the combat table, as explained on p 82 under the heading "Progression on the Combat Tables".

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.

Actually, there are only two TSR versions of D&D where this is true: AD&D and AD&D 2nd ed.

In the original game, B/X, BECMI and Rules Cyclopedia, fighters can use any weapon. (The latter two do have some version of weapon specialisation.)

 

[pemerton]

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.

Which systems do you have in mind?

The two lifepath games that I have played in recent years are Classic Traveller and Burning Wheel. Both permit a PC to start as young and inexperienced, or an old hand. In Traveller this is in part a function of dice rolls (though player choice also matters). In Burning Wheel this is established by discussion between the player(s) and GM about what sort of game they want to play.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I'm sure they'd rather that the GM simply didn't tell them information their PC wouldn't necessarily know.

If the GM decides that the PC knows the information, on what basis is the player saying that the GM is wrong? Doesn't the GM get to decide these sorts of setting facts, at least in the approach to RPGing that the two of you prefer?

 

[pemerton]

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.

Is this a serious conjecture?

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.

All this complicated jargon, man. "Hit points?" "AC?" "Thac0?" "Dungeonmaster?" Don't get me started on "Level"!

Right. I mean, all that jargon must be why D&D never took off!

 

[pemerton]

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

Which edition?

In AD&D (including UA) there is Protection from Evil, 10' radius; Cacodemon; Aerial Servant; Ensnarement; Torment; Binding. The DMG has pictures of the various diagrams reference in these spells on p 42.

And of course spell research is a thing.

 

[pemerton]

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.

@Campbell is clearly talking about the structure of play. As he says:

My experience is that the core gameplay of many of these games does not significantly vary. Different sorts of fiction, but at the end of the day we are dealing with teams of specialists going on adventures presented to them by the GM. In the grand scheme of things playing Shadowrun, Legend of the Five Rings or sometimes even Vampire often did not feel that different from D&D because the core activity and structure of play was not that different.

To elaborate, there is a structure of RPGing that looks like this:

*The GM creates a scenario, which has a goal to be attained, normally by the characters going to a place that (i) is not easy to get to, and (ii) is not immediately known to them.

*The players create PCs, whose connection to the goal established by the GM is primarily instrumental, but who have the sorts of capabilities, training and gear that make them reasonably well-suited to attaining it.

*The GM presents the players (via their PCs) with a way into the scenario, and when the players resolve this "hook" they learn the possible next steps to be taken.

*The players then work their way through the scenario until (if they don't fail) they resolve the goal.

*Action resolution outside of combat is typically either free-form ("We look around the room." "OK, you find some screwed-up paper in the waste paper basket.") or else based on a fairly simple roll of the dice to determine if an attempt task succeeds or fails. Either way, the GM generally determines the consequences of both success and failure.

*Action resolution in combat is typically via a wargame-style resolution framework. Thus a common way of failing in this sort of scenario is having all the characters die in a fight.​

In my personal experience, a lot of D&D play (especially post-DL) is like this; so is CoC play. My experience of TMNT, Cyberpunk and Shadowrun is more limited, but has been like this. I've never played Marvel Superheroes, but can easily imagine it does not default to the above. Deadlands and Star Wars I can't comment on.

 

[pemerton]

Didn't you folks say that every RPG uses scene-framing? I thought that was the reason why disliking the term was a personal problem I need to get over. If that's true, how can Rolemaster have an issue with a "scene-frame-y" approach?

From upthread:

When we get down into the technical nitty-gritty, BW is different from AW. It is based around the scene as the basic unit of play, and around "intent and task", "say 'yes' or roll the dice" and "let it ride" as the core principles of action resolution. (Whereas AW uses player-side moves together with "if you do it, you do it".)

The family of games that BW belongs to (in rough chronological order) is Prince Valiant, Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, In A Wicked Age, Dogs in the Vineyard and (at least as I read and play it) 4e D&D. (And also BW's own offshoots, like Mouse Guard and Torchbearer.) Some Ron Edwards games (eg Sorcerer) probably belong in there too, but I don't know them well enough to be confident about that.

What these games have in common is the scene as the basic unit of play, and intent and its connection to clear stakes (whether expressly articulated, or implicit in the scene) as the crux for the resolution of action declarations: if the player succeeds, their PC realises their intent; if the player fails, the GM narrates what happens and is expected to do so having primary regard to the PC's failure to realise their intent. This is what escalates the stakes, and thus creates rising action.

there are games which foreground scene-framing as an element of the GMing task - these are the games that I mentioned in my reply to you about Burning Wheel. Because these games rely on intent-based resolution, and because they treat the scene as the basic unit of play, they put a particular requirement on the GM to frame the scene having regard to what is at stake, and how that speaks to the players' priorities for their PCs.