How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Maxperson]

Sitting in front of my computer, I cannot tell you the exact number of inches to the screen. Yet I can reach out and touch the screen without my hand either falling short or trying to go through the screen "because I don't know the exact distance." Because I do know the exact distance, in a non-numeric, non-verbal way.

But if I try to describe the distance to you, without giving a number of inches/centimeters/cubits, so that you could reach out and touch my screen (My screen, not your screen, or the necessarily inaccurate visualization of my screen in your head) then I cannot do that. It is impossible. If I do give the numerical distance, then the description is still necessarily inaccurate but less so.

That makes no sense at all. You don't know overtly or instinctively exactly how many inches away the tv screen is. You simply see your hand approaching the screen and know when you will touch it.

Try closing your eyes and reaching out and touching that tv screen. If you move your hand at the same speed you did when your eyes were open, you will hit the screen harder than you did the first time, because you do NOT know instinctively or otherwise, exactly how far away the screen is. You could move significantly slower and just feel when you touch the screen and stop. That will keep you from hitting it harder, but you still are not using distance at that point.

Noting that your hand is getting close to the screen and making sure you don't shove your hand through the screen isn't measuring the distance from you to the screen. It's noting the last bit of distance before you touch the screen so you don't shove your hand through it.

So if a PC has +2 to hit and is swinging at a 19, then the PC won't know the AC number as a number, but he will have a good, non-numerical, non-verbal sense of just how hard the monster is to hit, due to the PC actually being in the game-world and being a direct eyewitness and participant in the action, as well as due to having fighting expertise that the player lacks.

No. Apples don't mean oranges. Even if you could instinctively judge exact inches, and you can't, because that's not how what you use to touching something, that doesn't let you look at someone and instinctively know abstracts like AC. You can't look at someone and assess(instinctively or otherwise) their armor, shield, pelt thickness, dex bonuses and magical defenses on a look. Nor the even more abstract hit points.

My claim is that being told "The monster has AC 19" gives the player a better, closer understanding of what the PC is sensing and experiencing in the game world than "The monster is hard to hit." It certainly does for me, and if being told the number interferes with rather than enhances your understanding of what your PC is sensing and experiencing, then well, different people can be very different.

It certainly gives the player a better understanding, but it doesn't give the player a better understanding of what the PC is experiencing. PCs, despite your claim, can't assess that accurately.

 

[Maxperson]

I think this is possible due to Automaticity.
From Wikipedia: In the field of psychology, automaticity is the ability to do things without occupying the mind with the low-level details required, allowing it to become an automatic response pattern or habit. It is usually the result of learning, repetition, and practice.
Examples of automaticity are common activities such as walking, speaking, bicycle-riding, assembly-line work, and driving a car (the last of these sometimes being termed "highway hypnosis"). After an activity is sufficiently practiced, it is possible to focus the mind on other activities or thoughts while undertaking an automatized activity (for example, holding a conversation or planning a speech while driving a car).

And yet they want automaticity to allow them to see someone in armor and a shield and know instantly on a look that the armor gives +4 protection, the shield is magical and gives +3 protection, the ring on the person's hand is +2 protection and that the person who hasn't even moved yet has a +3 dex bonus and just from that glance, know that the NPC has a 22 AC. Or else be able to tell that information because they can touch a computer screen without putting their hand through it.

 

[Reynard]

You find out how tough the hide is by swing a sharp hunk of metal at it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That makes no sense at all. You don't know overtly or instinctively exactly how many inches away the tv screen is. You simply see your hand approaching the screen and know when you will touch it.

That's because your brain recognizes the distance. You may not know the exact distance in inches, but your brain performs that calculation.

Try closing your eyes and reaching out and touching that tv screen. If you move your hand at the same speed you did when your eyes were open, you will hit the screen harder than you did the first time, because you do NOT know instinctively or otherwise, exactly how far away the screen is. You could move significantly slower and just feel when you touch the screen and stop. That will keep you from hitting it harder, but you still are not using distance at that point.

One of the players in my online game on Monday is blind. He was not always blind, he lost his sight due to a degenerative condition. He has had to learn to not rely on sight. His brain is still doing calculations like ours, but relying on different data.

The idea that he would be less likely to know the physical placement of things than a sighted person is honestly way off.

Noting that your hand is getting close to the screen and making sure you don't shove your hand through the screen isn't measuring the distance from you to the screen. It's noting the last bit of distance before you touch the screen so you don't shove your hand through it.

Your brain is constantly doing these kinds of calculations. Like, all the time. I'm typing this without looking at my keyboard because my brain knows the placement of the keys and the spacing between them.

When we walk or run, when we drive, when we physically engage with others in some way... all these activities rely on our brains making accurate calculations that we use to navigate.

No. Apples don't mean oranges. Even if you could instinctively judge exact inches, and you can't, because that's not how what you use to touching something, that doesn't let you look at someone and instinctively know abstracts like AC. You can't look at someone and assess(instinctively or otherwise) their armor, shield, pelt thickness, dex bonuses and magical defenses on a look. Nor the even more abstract hit points.

What? You can absolutely look at someone and see their armor. What kind is it? Do they have a shield or no? These are very simple.

As for magic... in most fiction that features magic items, they are often clearly magical. You can opt not to do so, I suppose, but why? Just so that for three rounds of combat, no one knows an opponent has a 20 instead of a 18 AC?

Plus, I think a big part of @Edgar Ironpelt 's point, and mine from my previous post, is that no matter how much you share as a GM, you're still going to fall short of sharing all the information to the player that would be available to the character.

It certainly gives the player a better understanding, but it doesn't give the player a better understanding of what the PC is experiencing. PCs, despite your claim, can't assess that accurately.

I think you're way off on this. I don't know if you've ever played sports or have engaged in physical activities where you need to make such assessments, but I think folks with experience with such things would disagree with you.

 

[Lanefan]

But what if the game (say, 5e D&D) doesn't actually have lore rolls by default?

Did 5e do away with "Legend Lore" as a Bardic ability?

Failing that, knowledge checks to recall lore?

 

[Lanefan]

I think folks greatly underestimate how much a trained eye can perceive and how quickly. The idea that a seasoned baseball player (even at novice level) can’t tell the difference between an 85 MPH pitch and a 105 MPH pitch, and that both would just be considered “fast” is a pretty poor assessment.

That’s a huge difference in speed, and quite noticeable to a trained eye. Even someone who’s never stepped into a batter’s box before is going to notice the difference.

If someone blows a 105 heater by me and then comes back with an 85 slow-pitch, sure I'm gonna notice the difference. But only because I've got that 105 heater as an almost-immediate point of comparison to the follow-up 85.

What I still don't know, however, is how many of those 105 pitches the pitcher has in him before his arm starts to tire; or how good he is at disguising the delivery of different pitches, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

So this is the reality you are bringing to the game? I'm not allowed to know bonuses or numbers, and you also are going to refuse to tell me if someone seems like a good fighter?

As a fighter yourself, after you've fought someone for a bit (or watched them fight someone else) you'll very likely have an idea of the fighter's competence relative to your own - she's better than you, she's roughly on a par with you, she's not up to your standard, here's what she does differently than you, etc. - but there's still not going to be any numbers attached.

If you're not yourself a fighter, gauging someone else's fighting capability this way won't be nearly as easy unless the difference is blatant enough for anyone to see.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As a fighter yourself, after you've fought someone for a bit (or watched them fight someone else) you'll very likely have an idea of the fighter's competence relative to your own - she's better than you, she's roughly on a par with you, she's not up to your standard, here's what she does differently than you, etc. - but there's still not going to be any numbers attached.

If you're not yourself a fighter, gauging someone else's fighting capability this way won't be nearly as easy unless the difference is blatant enough for anyone to see.

But of course, in most RPGs, most characters are to some extent fighters. And if I'm watching an opponent and trying to figure out how much more capable than I they are, without the numbers we're right be to playing guessing games whether the GM's definition of "a fair bit" and mine are the same.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Honestly, this looks to me like it comes down to a fundamental split: is it worse to give out numbers or to not give enough information? Is it worse to give too much information or too little? Other than a (to me, naive looking) assessment that GMs are good at conveying information in a useful, non quantitative fashion, there doesn't seem much else to the relative positions to discuss.

 

[Lanefan]

But of course, in most RPGs, most characters are to some extent fighters. And if I'm watching an opponent and trying to figure out how much more capable than I they are, without the numbers we're right be to playing guessing games whether the GM's definition of "a fair bit" and mine are the same.

Which is fine, because in the end it is something of an educated-guessing game. She's better than you, sure, but how much better? Is she barely better than you and just getting lucky with her attacks, or is she stupendously better than you but pulling her blows, or ???

And unless you're just sparring, before you've answered these questions one of you will very likely be down or dead.