How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[hawkeyefan]

Eh. I don't really think there is much of a difference in practice. If a chracter is looking for their missing sister and it is then revealed that she was kidnapped by a mysterious cult, it doesn't much matter whetherThe GM came up with the idea of the cult before and then it occurred to them that the sister thing could be related to that, or whether the GM came up with the cult whilst thinking about the missing sister. If you integrate it well it will feel just as compelling regardless of which thought occurred in the GM's head first. I care much more about the end results than whether the GM arrived to those results by following the orthodox dogma.

As I said in a prior post, I think that the distinction, though significant, can be subtle to notice, especially when limited to discussion. It really becomes more obvious when you play in such a game, and even more when you need to GM one.

It's not about integrating your pre-existing ideas with those of the players. It's more about everything you do being a response to some indication of one sort or another from the players.

I prefer if the game doesn't have the one way this must always be done. If we look that the best TV show ever, Star Trek TNG, then we see that some episodes are very character driven and revolve around the characters' backstories and their personal growth, whilst others are more about just solving a problem. And that is fine! More than fine, it is preferable. I am not saying that all games need to be as wishy-washy about their premises than D&D, but I also feel that some of these indie darling games (and their fans) are so narrow and dogmatic about the correct way to play them that to me it feels uncomfortably constraining. A lot of popular media allows much more variety in its storytelling within a single show.

Again, this is hard to say based solely on discussion. I understand your point about a game allowing for many different approaches. But there are two ways to look at that... is it the content of the game, or the process of the game? Because those are different things. And most folks, even with a game like D&D 5e, find their way to play and then that's the way they play. This "multiple ways to play" is something about the game itself, rather than any group's actual play of the game. Each GM or group creates their own dogmatic way to play.

Look at any thread about "how to do X in 5e" and this is obvious. Look at some of the strong reactions to my suggestions in the past that background features be honored as written, or that I share all DCs with the players, or in this very thread that I don't hide details that I consider would be obvious to the characters. Strong reactions to all that stuff, and suggestions about why other ways are better.

So, having said that... I think the content of play is the more meaningful lens to view variety. And when it comes to that, I don't think there are limits with most games that you're imagining here. I certainly don't feel like D&D offers me more variety than most of the other games I play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As I said in a prior post, I think that the distinction, though significant, can be subtle to notice, especially when limited to discussion. It really becomes more obvious when you play in such a game, and even more when you need to GM one.

It's not about integrating your pre-existing ideas with those of the players. It's more about everything you do being a response to some indication of one sort or another from the players.

I just don't think thought processed are that clean and organised. Or at least mine aren't. You muse about things that might be cool and then you remember a thing about a character and realise that these concepts might make sense with that. Like you can say in text that there are these two clearly different things to do stuff, but in reality it is most of the time just some messy mix of both. Which is perfectly fine.

So, having said that... I think the content of play is the more meaningful lens to view variety. And when it comes to that, I don't think there are limits with most games that you're imagining here. I certainly don't feel like D&D offers me more variety than most of the other games I play.

Talking more about content here yes. And I think that can be more narrow in some games. I made my Star Trek example for a reason. If the game dictates that everything must stem from the desires and beliefs of the characters, then we are only allowed to do the character focus episodes.

 

[Maxperson]

Really, it boils down to people not liking that I would share that information without gating it behind a check of some sort. That's really it.

That's completely wrong. Nobody here dislikes what you do in your game. Doesn't matter to us one way or the other(I know the others posting here well enough from their posts to know that). We object to your mischaracterizations of what it is that we do and why we do it.

 

[Campbell]

What was said is that the sort of fiction where characters immediately recognize the purpose of the runic circle is not inherently more realistic than one where they do not. That the choice between these sorts of fictions is one of personal aesthetics rather than one built on realism or consistency.

Then mountains of shame were thrown on those who prefer fictions where characters are more apt to knowledgeable about the settings that they find themselves within, particularly by you @Maxperson (calling the idea that a character might immediately recognize the purpose of the runes ridiculous).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What was said is that the sort of fiction where characters immediately recognize the purpose of the runic circle is not inherently more realistic than one where they do not. That the choice between these sorts of fictions is one of personal aesthetics rather than one built on realism or consistency.

Then mountains of shame were thrown on those who prefer fictions where characters are more apt to knowledgeable about the settings that they find themselves within.

I don't really mind characters automatically identifying the functioning of rune circle per se. But like I said earlier, if the game has some sort of rule that measures arcane understanding the players can invest character building resources towards, then I feel in general that should play some part in the chances of characters knowing such things. And if it doesn't, then it should be removed from the game as an unnecessary trap option.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's completely wrong. Nobody here dislikes what you do in your game. Doesn't matter to us one way or the other(I know the others posting here well enough from their posts to know that). We object to your mischaracterizations of what it is that we do and why we do it.

The whole tangent about magic circles had nothing to do with me categorizing anything you do in your game in any way. It was about my preference, and then comments I made in defense of my preference.

 

[Umbran]

You know, @Reynard had a pretty spot on assessment of you upthread.

Mod Note:
I should start counting how often I have to remind folks not to make these discussions personal.

Please don't do this - saying unflattering things about a person so as to dismiss their points is rude, and weak rhetoric to boot.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If like me you enjoy "digging deep into the meta, mechanics, and rules" you're going to want games like Pathfinder2E and GURPS 4E, and you might enjoy reading a game like Hero System but also see that it's too weighty to be useable by the very style of player it's made for.

Though (and understand I don't really use Hero myself any more) this tends to be overstated; the vast majority of Hero's weight is front loaded in character generation, and varies even there. There's certainly some meaningful tactical choices you won't necessarily find in most games, but I'd claim its not any worse than the other two you reference here, and perhaps better.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Double post.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mean they’re the same in that they serve the same function. Meaning you can now proceed with full understanding of what others mean when they use the term, even if you never actually use it yourself.

I have a leg on both sides of this.

On one hand, you're correct that the terms are describing the same function.

On the other hand, semantic loading matters, and people who don't think it does are to at least some extent, failing at communication.