How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Maxperson]

True. My Wizard character here would have been taught by his master about the nature of magic circles. So he would know a number of things about them, and thus be able to explain to the rest of his party about them. Hopefully without putting the rest of the party to sleep as he enthusiastically describes them at length.

And in the process discovering how to cast sleep without using up a spell slot.

 

[Cadence]

How many fights of 5 rounds would it take to get close to 100%?

How many fights of five rounds would it take to get close to about 100% of getting a 19 in at least one of them? Or would you rather know what percent chance you have of at least one 19 in fights of different lengths?

For the later question, 20 rounds give you a 64% chance of at least one 19 (average 1 of them), 90 rounds gives you a 99% chance (average 4.5 of them).

 

[Campbell]

If that's what @Campbell meant, then that's what they should have said. As it was, they basically painted every non-narrative game with the same brush, saying they're the same with minor variations. This is of course disrespectful to all of them.

If you are talking about a category, name the category.

You are attributing malice to what was an expression of an opinion here. My personal experience is that games like Deadlands, Shadowrun, D&D and even sometimes L5R/Exalted/Vampire are pretty much run and played in almost the same way. Just like games like Brindlewood Bay, The Between and Apocalypse Keys pretty much have the same core play loop. The same could be said for Blades in the Dark, Scum and Villainy and Court of Blades all fundamentally being mostly the same game under the hood in terms of how players and GMs are meant to approach them.

I personally do not view this as the same black mark that you do. I have played, run and enjoyed many of these games. I would personally jump at a chance to play Cyberpunk, Vampire, L5R or Classic Deadlands with any GM I consider a good scenario designer and storyteller (and have done so within the last 3 years). I simply see games that you see as very different as very similar. Feel free to disagree and engage with me (if you want).

 

[Maxperson]

How many fights of five rounds would it take to get close to about 100% of getting a 19 in at least one of them? Or would you rather know what percent chance you have of at least one 19 in fights of different lengths?

For the later question, 20 rounds give you a 64% chance of at least one 19 (average 1 of them), 90 rounds gives you a 99% chance (average 4.5 of them).

And if it's simply 5% and not exactly a 19. How many 5 round fights would it take to get to close to 100%? I'm trying to understand exactly how useful that 5% is. It doesn't seem very much better right now. And I'm using 5 round fights, because most fights tend to last 3-5 rounds on average. Longer fights happen, but aren't that common. Same with shorter fights.

And thanks for taking the time to do the math!

 

[Corinnguard]

I'm going to push back against this a bit. Suppose you are playing a wizard whose master was a great conjurer. You'd know instantly what that circle is as you'd be intimately familiar with those sorts of things from your apprenticeship. I would not make you roll and would just tell you what it meant. Auto successes are often appropriate due to in-fiction circumstances.

It doesn't have to go to a roll.

What about another character who is in the same party as the conjurer wizard? Roll with advantage?

 

[Cadence]

And if it's simply 5% and not exactly a 19. How many 5 round fights would it take to get to close to 100%? I'm trying to understand exactly how useful that 5% is. It doesn't seem very much better right now. And I'm using 5 round fights, because most fights tend to last 3-5 rounds on average. Longer fights happen, but aren't that common. Same with shorter fights.

And thanks for taking the time to do the math!

Need to run an errand, will do calculation later if no one beats me to it.

 

[Maxperson]

What about another character who is in the same party as the conjurer wizard? Roll with advantage?

I doubt it. It doesn't seem like a common topic of conversation and wizard is there to tell the party if he wants to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm going to push back against this a bit. Suppose you are playing a wizard whose master was a great conjurer. You'd know instantly what that circle is as you'd be intimately familiar with those sorts of things from your apprenticeship. I would not make you roll and would just tell you what it meant. Auto successes are often appropriate due to in-fiction circumstances.

It doesn't have to go to a roll.

Yes. It depends on the circumstances at the time and the background and knowledge of the characters involved. And the character stuff should IMO be determined beforehand.

 

[Cadence]

Need to run an errand, will do calculation later if no one beats me to it.

@Maxperson

Nine 5-round combats will give just over a 90% chance of at least one of the nine combats having at least one of the 5% events happening over its five rounds. Eighteen combats will give a 99% chance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You are attributing malice to what was an expression of an opinion here. My personal experience is that games like Deadlands, Shadowrun, D&D and even sometimes L5R/Exalted/Vampire are pretty much run and played in almost the same way. Just like games like Brindlewood Bay, The Between and Apocalypse Keys pretty much have the same core play loop. The same could be said for Blades in the Dark, Scum and Villainy and Court of Blades all fundamentally being mostly the same game under the hood in terms of how players and GMs are meant to approach them.

I personally do not view this as the same black mark that you do. I have played, run and enjoyed many of these games. I would personally jump at a chance to play Cyberpunk, Vampire, L5R or Classic Deadlands with any GM I consider a good scenario designer and storyteller (and have done so within the last 3 years). I simply see games that you see as very different as very similar. Feel free to disagree and engage with me (if you want).

I simply feel that mechanics and genre matter more (or at least as much) in making different games different than play process or who has what amount of control over play. Until fairly recently, I wasn't even really aware of a substancially different play process being even a thing, as narrative mechanics, storygames, and player-driven process only really took a prominent place in the hobby in the last decade or so to my perception (though IME they are being pushed like a freight train nowadays). And when I did become aware of them and learned more about them, I didn't (and still don't) like them. So when you say a bunch of games I really enjoy are basically the same with minor variations, it feels like an insult. I get that you didn't mean it that way, and I apologize for misrepresenting your post.