How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Maxperson]

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

The game. The way it has been played since day 1. An RPG is a story where the DM and players basically cowrite it via game play.

"The game has no real end; when one story or quest wraps up, another one can begin, creating an ongoing story called a campaign. Many people who play the game keep their campaigns going for months or years, meeting with their friends every week or so to pick up the story where they left off. The adventurers grow in might as the campaign continues. Each monster defeated, each adventure completed, and each treasure recovered not only adds to the continuing story, but also earns the adventurers new capabilities. This increase in power is reflected by an adventurer's level.
There's no winning and losing in the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game-at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win."

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No. "as long as possible" isn't a thought or concern of mine. The players/PCs receive information when appropriate.

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".

It's objectively true. I can describe dozens details very quickly that convey information. You only have AC, HP, and a few others. Your numbers actually convey LESS information for players to make an informed decision than a DM's description.

The numbers are specific.

And few. Descriptions are better.

Consider.

DM 1: You see a troll with an AC of 15, 55 hit points and a speed of 30. What do you want to do?

And...

DM 2: You see a massive troll standing at the far end of the room. In the middle of the room is a large pit. In the corner stands a barrel that appears to be leaking oil. Every few feet along the walls a lit torch burns, adding a haze of smoke to the room. Near the troll the ground is broken and covered with rubble. What do you want to do?

Which one gives you more to go on, the numbers or the description? Now you can say that you can do both numbers and description, but doing so admits that description is what is needed more.

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?

Which is a false idea. PCs can't see such exacting detail in a creature. It's simply not possible for an adventurer to look at that troll and determine either AC, hit points or speed. It hasn't moved.

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?

If you understood realism, it would make sense.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

It can be, yes. My preference is sandbox play, which presents a setting and doesn't assume story at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The game. The way it has been played since day 1. An RPG is a story where the DM and players basically cowrite it via game play.

"The game has no real end; when one story or quest wraps up, another one can begin, creating an ongoing story called a campaign. Many people who play the game keep their campaigns going for months or years, meeting with their friends every week or so to pick up the story where they left off. The adventurers grow in might as the campaign continues. Each monster defeated, each adventure completed, and each treasure recovered not only adds to the continuing story, but also earns the adventurers new capabilities. This increase in power is reflected by an adventurer's level.
There's no winning and losing in the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game-at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win."

Emergent story has no use for Chekhov's Gun either.

 

[Reynard]

Chekov's Gun is only relevant when you're telling a story. 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.

The game. The way it has been played since day 1. An RPG is a story where the DM and players basically cowrite it via game play.

Stories invariably emerge from play, but that doesn't mean it is necessary for play to be about telling a story. Lots of people do that, sure, but lots of people also "play to find out" (even with D&D) and have no interest in plot.

 

[Bagpuss]

It can be, yes. My preference is sandbox play, which presents a setting and doesn't assume story at all.

Even if it doesn't assume one it will create one.

 

[Reynard]

Even if it doesn't assume one it will create one.

No one is disputing that. But you don't need anything going in. You can do the entire thing with random rolls and still come out with a story -- because we make stories out of events.

 

[Corinnguard]

DM 2: You see a massive troll standing at the far end of the room. In the middle of the room is a large pit. In the corner stands a barrel that appears to be leaking oil. Every few feet along the walls a lit torch burns, adding a haze of smoke to the room. Near the troll the ground is broken and covered with rubble. What do you want to do?

Which one gives you more to go on, the numbers or the description?

The description. At this point in the encounter, I have just started noticing the details. Then my attention would begin to focus on the troll as I might see it as a potential threat or even weirdly yet, a potential ally. This would depend on what the Troll and I do next.

Players can't see such exacting detail in a creature. It's simply not possible for an adventurer to look at that troll and determine either AC, hit points or speed. It hasn't moved.

Plus the player might be choosing what to pay attention to and what to ignore. They aren't focusing on every detail before them. Instead they are selectively shifting their attention about the room. They'll notice some details right away, and some details several minutes later after they enter the room.

 

[Campbell]

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.

That's one way to do it. Not the only way. GM provided plot is not a given.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Even if it doesn't assume one it will create one.

By player action. So again, Chekhov's gun has no relevance.