How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Crimson Longinus]

I think the GM certainly can pre-determine some elements that will matter, it the villain used a particular type of poison to kill the victim, then either the players discover traces of it via their investigations or not. It will matter to their later investigations if they do or do not find identify that poison. That isn't railroading. The players still have the agency on how they investigate.

Yes, some. It just is that sometimes elements the GM though would matter end up not mattering as the players come up with another solution or go to completely different direction, and sometimes what were meant to be inconsequential flavour bits end up mattering.

Also were you in before the edit?

Yes, I was!

"Of course RPGs have an advantage over plays, books and movies with regards to Chekhov's gun. In that if the players attach undue importance to a mundane bit of set dressing in your description, you can change the plot to give it relevance that it might not originally have had in your plot."

Sure. Good point.

 

[Corinnguard]

Whilst other stories tend to have one narrator, RPGs are group activity.

Exactly. RPGs are interactive stories with multiple outcomes created by the DM and the Players working together.

 

[Maxperson]

Then there is the question of how relevant you want some or all of the details you just described to the players to be. Some of the details are just there to help the players immerse themselves into the narration, and don't further lend themselves to the overall plot of the narration. Then there are the details, which depending on their significance, will lead to other important clues that the players will need to find out and know. That will help further the plot of the narration. And it's up to the players to figure out which details should receive their most attention as they are participants within the narration. Not mere observers.

As for the DM, it shouldn't be completely up to them to provide all of the details at once. It's up to the players to ask the right questions to unlock even more details. And then when the players are satisfied with the amount of details they received, they can move on to the next room, the next street, etc.

Right. The scratches on the armoire might not be immediately apparent. The rogue goes over to look at it and the DM narrates the drawers and scratches, which run in 4 parallel lines. After the player of the rogue announces he is looking at the scratches closer, the DM reveals after a successful investigation check that they are claw marks, and fairly recent.

 

[Maxperson]

"Of course RPGs have an advantage over plays, books and movies with regards to Chekhov's gun. In that if the players attach undue importance to a mundane bit of set dressing in your description, you can change the plot to give it relevance that it might not originally have had in your plot."

It's Chekhov's phaser.

 

[Corinnguard]

Of course RPGs have an advantage over plays, books and movies with regards to Chekhov's gun. In that if the players attach undue importance to a mundane bit of set dressing in your description, you can change the plot to give it relevance that it might not originally have had in your plot

True. It's also possible that if the players attach undue importance to a mundane bit of set dressing, that item could be something of a red herring left behind by a potential adversary of the party's. This could lead to some interesting role-playing as the party tries to figure out which part of the set dressing deserves their attention. Is it this item or that item? Where do we go from here?

 

[Corinnguard]

It's Chekhov's phaser.

When I heard of the term Chekhov's Gun, I found myself tweaking the line of a particular song. "Chekhov's got a gun...."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Counter to that there is the principle of Chekhov's gun, that states that every element in a story must be necessary, and irrelevant elements should be removed. For example, if a writer features a gun in a story, there must be a reason for it, such as it being fired some time later in the plot.

While mundane ordinary stuff should get mentioned (because in a play or film you still have set dressing, still if a gun hangs over the mantle it is there for a reason), if you call out something like the room smells of cigarette smoke, but there are no ashtrays or cigarettes in the room, you had better have the players meet a cigarette smoking man later in the story.

Of course RPGs have an advantage over plays, books and movies with regards to Chekhov's gun. In that if the players attach undue importance to a mundane bit of set dressing in your description, you can change the plot to give it relevance that it might not originally have had in your plot.

Chekov's Gun is only relevant when you're telling a story. Who says playing a RPG is telling a story?

 

[Maxperson]

When I heard of the term Chekhov's Gun, I found myself tweaking the line of a particular song. "Chekhov's got a gun...."

In this day and age, it could very well be Chekhov's man bun.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I believe you. It has nothing to do with the playstyle. It was 100% the DMs you played with. The style isn't inherently that way.

I don't know what styles you're comparing here. I'm talking about the tendency to withhold information from the players for as long as possible. That was absolutely a quality of the GMs I'm thinking of, and it appears to be one you're advocating for as well.

All numbers will similarly fall short. The descriptions are every bit as good as numbers. Better if you don't like having the numbers.

This is obviously false. "He looks heavily armored and like he knows how to use that sword of his" does not give me the same certainty of what I need to roll to hit as "He's heavily armored, and looks like he knows how to use that sword of his; he's got AC 18 and a parry reaction".

The numbers are specific.

I absolutely agree that the DM cannot convey all the information a PC would have. I don't agree that numbers are better at it than descriptions. As I said above, numbers also fall short.

The idea of them being better or not aside, do you understand what I was saying about providing the numbers to help bring the player's level of understanding in line with the character's?

Because "realistic" is not a dichotomy. It's not an all or nothing thing. "Realistic" = a measure of realism. "Realism" =/= mirrors reality.

If I have a wall, that's realistic because walls exist in reality. If I make it brick, it is even more realistic because both bricks and walls exist in reality. If I have flies on the wall, it's even MORE realistic, because all three are in reality. Failing to have flies, however, does not remove the realism that bricks and walls add.

I'm not even sure what this means. A brick wall with flies nearby is more realistic than a brick wall without flies? Except it's not?

What?

 

[Corinnguard]

Who says playing a RPG is telling a story?

A RPG is more like an interactive story with a main plot line, numerous side plots and different outcomes depending on where the DM and the players take it.