How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Reynard]

Could you guys disagree about something more interesting, please? Magic circles were more fun than the terminology.

It is axiomatic that old threads get more and more particular until people are just arguing about what "is" is.

 

[Reynard]

Ugh magic circles.

I'm not really disagreeing with what Thomas said. I just don't think that any phrase used thus far in this thread is actually problematic.

No one's parents were killed by scene-framing!

Enter The Critic, a vigilante theater reviewer whose thespian parents died in a horrible scene framing accident. Or was it?!?

 

[Thomas Shey]

And this is something for which others should change? A descriptor of an action taken in a game is emotionally loaded enough that others who don't share the connotation should find a new phrase?

Under some circumstances? Yes. That doesn't mean if you genuinely think its just one or two people in a discussion that you need to do so (among other things, it too potentially leads to the ability for bad actors to derail discussions through semantic arguments) but if there's a significant element of a discussion group that finds a given term offputting, and there's an alternate term, then insisting on the first one is poor communication and probably selfish to boot.

(This isn't always simple when all the terms available for something have significant semantic loading to one group or another, but, surprise, communication can be hard).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I am trying to think whether there has ever been a good treatment of folk magic in D&D. I feel like there might have been a Dragon article at some point (but I don't recall any specifics) but otherwise I am coming up blank.

The relatively rigid borders its traditionally run to haven't been helpful here. Its much easier when its just another skill among a system that doesn't draw hard lines there.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ugh magic circles.

I'm not really disagreeing with what Thomas said. I just don't think that any phrase used thus far in this thread is actually problematic.

A legitimate position to have. Like I said, I'm just prone to viewing dismissal of connotation through a jaundiced eye given how often its weaponized.

No one's parents were killed by scene-framing!

I'm not also terribly fond of hyperbole in discussion.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think it's true that the 5e D&D rulebooks encourage the GM to create problems and challenges that specifically probe and test the Beliefs and Instincts of the PCs. I mean, just to begin with, 5e PCs don't have Beliefs or Instincts as part of their build.

No, but they do have backgrounds and ideals and flaws and so forth, which a 5e DM could focus on and test if that's how she wanted to run the game.

 

[Lanefan]

Nobody really likes their preferences being referred to as an outlier (which I suspect is why @pemerton seems defensive), but sometimes they are, to the best demographic understanding we have anyway. Folks on this forum have certainly informed me that many of my gaming preferences make me an outlier. I'm actually ok with that.

Same here.

 

[Lanefan]

Not really. The debate... such as it is... was based on a sparse example provided by @pemerton of a dragon inside a magic circle.

I missed the "dragon inside" part; all along I thought we were talking about the PCs finding an empty runic circle on a floor somewhere.

Having a dragon inside it, particularly if the dragon is obviously trying and failing to leave the circle, gives a much better and clearer idea as to the circle's purpose.

It's nothing about rubes knowing or anything like that.

Well, no; because player characters aren't allowed to be rubes any more. Didn't you get the memo?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, no; because player characters aren't allowed to be rubes any more. Didn't you get the memo?

I'm not sold they ever really were; too many spellcasters and specialty classes too early on.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

The impression I get is more that GMs in those systems are strongly discouraged from having or using (or at the extreme aren't allowed to have or use) pre-existing ideas; which for me would defeat a large part of the point of GMing on the first place.

I'm never not going to have setting/adventure/NPC/plot ideas, and it's a bit much IMO to ask/expect someone else to run those ideas so I can play through them. And so, where else are my ideas supposed to go except into the games I run?