How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[pemerton]

And this is exactly the superficial connection where the motivation is only ties to the end goal you just criticised in the previous post.

How do you figure that?

I would expect that, in this game, play might be focused on dealing with various members of the two forces, tests of faith, etc.

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.

I've never played BitD, and so can't comment on that.

I can speak to my own play. I posted some instances, up thread, involving Aedhros, Alicia and Thoth. I think the connection between the player-determined priorities, and the scenes that are framed, is pretty clear. I spelled it out with some additional commentary in the post.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well it depends on the game, no? Different games handle the starting situation differently. Different games handle advancement differently.

I mean, it’s cool if you want every game you play or run to unfold in the same way and at the same pace with the same progression and so on… cool, nothing’s stopping you from doing that.

But the idea that every game should work that way is just odd.



What’s the agenda you’re so worried about here? What are you afraid the term “scene framing” is going to do?



Sure, preferences will vary and if the GM is doing something that they don’t like, they should discuss it. But I think in the example provided, the response taken only exacerbated the situation. Better to roll with it and then discuss it after the game.



Who cares if it appears in the books? It’s clearly a technical term used to describe a design ethos. It’s jargon. But it’s not typically complained about.

Sometimes someone will ask what it means. Then it’s explained and… this is the key… the person actually onboards that information.



Please. You don’t seem to hesitate at all in being involved in such discussions. You jump right in telling people they have an agenda and complaining that what you like is different.

You talk about the conversation more than about the actual topic of conversation.



That’s perfectly fine. But don't expect others to share that stance. Why should we?

You don't have to understand what bounded accuracy means to play 5e and understand it. The terms in many narrative games are front and center in the rules. Understanding them and how they apply to play is necessary to play the game properly.

And I'm not really a fan of bounded accuracy anyway, but since the books don't go on about it I don't have to think about in play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

From upthread:

Then perhaps the term should be reserved for discussing those games that use the scene as the basic unit of play, like you said.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Some games handle it by not defining all such traditions ahead of play. They involve the players in defining them through play. It works really well without adding a lot of complex rules and subsystems to the game.

Or it can work really badly because the traditions invented in the moment have no firm grounding in the setting. It all depends on what aspects of the game matter to you the most.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Commoners? Experts?

Use the whole list please, not just the one you think support your point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Ok. I haven't player Traveler in 20 years, and I've never played Burning Wheel, so no I not talking about those. I was mostly talking about 4e and 5e D&D, and the PBtA games, all of which really push the special talent aspects of PCs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

I would prefer the GM put some thought into what the PCs would actually know and not just decide for them. Even in my games, players get to make their PCs and make decisions for them.

 

[pemerton]

the PBtA games, all of which really push the special talent aspects of PCs.

I've never played Masks, but I understand that it is about inexperienced Teen Titans/New Mutants-esque superheroes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is this a serious conjecture?


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

D&D has some weird jargon from a non-gamer perspective. It arguably didn't "take off" until less than a decade ago.

 

[pemerton]

I would prefer the GM put some thought into what the PCs would actually know and not just decide for them.

But why would you assume that my hypothetical GM narrating the magic circle of imprisonment hasn't done that?