How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Maxperson]

Only if we assume a GM-authored railroad. If the player action is driving play, then Chekhov's gun is absolutely relevan.t

Only if we assume a GM-authored railroad. If the player action is driving play, then there is no plot line.

Plot lines don't inherently constitute a railroad. If the players don't have to participate in the plot, a railroad doesn't exist. A railroad only exists if the players are forced down a single line of play no matter what they do. Those are rare.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

I’m failing to see the difference.

“When appropriate” seems to mean “when the GM decides to share it”. Which is largely what I’m talking about.

I’m talking about sharing all the relevant information prior to the players acting on it.

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.

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.

Well, you seem to have missed the part in my example and in many of my comments where I clearly describe AND give the relevant numbers.

So how about that?

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.

It’s just standing there like a statue? Nothing can be determined about it by observation?

It’s just silly.

If you understood realism, it would make sense.

I understand realism. Your phrasing is just poor. That’s why I asked for clarification.

I think you’re saying that adding details helps make a description seem more complete, and you consider more complete as more realistic. But the absence of a given detail… the flies… you describe as both making the scene more realistic and not making it so.

If you’d rather clarify than try and insult me, that’d probably be a better way to go.

 

[Corinnguard]

Only if we assume a GM-authored railroad. If the player action is driving play, then there is no plot line.

If a RPG is a GM-authored railroad, then there is only one outcome. The one that the GM wants regardless of what the players say or do within the RPG. Such RPGs aren't interactive.

If the players are the only ones driving play, there still is going to be a plot. If there wasn't a plot to follow, why would you be role-playing such a RPG?

 

[Maxperson]

I’m failing to see the difference.

“When appropriate” seems to mean “when the GM decides to share it”. Which is largely what I’m talking about.

I’m talking about sharing all the relevant information prior to the players acting on it.

That's not up to me. The appropriate time could come in 1 second or never. It's entirely up to what the players do. I don't have a "decide to share it" moment.

Well, you seem to have missed the part in my example and in many of my comments where I clearly describe AND give the relevant numbers.

Then you are acknowledging the preeminence of description. In order for numbers to be equal or better than description, the first example of mine which was numbers only has to be equal to or better than the description.

It’s just standing there like a statue? Nothing can be determined about it by observation?

Sure. At the very least you can determine that it is big, strong and ugly. What can't be determined by PC observation are numbers. PCs can't determine that level of precision without some sort of house ruled super power.

I understand realism. Your phrasing is just poor. That’s why I asked for clarification.

I think you’re saying that adding details helps make a description seem more complete, and you consider more complete as more realistic. But the absence of a given detail… the flies… you describe as both making the scene more realistic and not making it so.

No. That isn't what I said at all. Nothing made it both more and less realistic. That's why it's important to understand that realism is a scale and not a dichotomy.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I suppose I'd just rather deal with casually discussed concepts than jargon.

I think when you have something used frequently, jargon develops as a natural consequence of a desire for speech efficiency. You don't have to like that, but its universal enough its kind of a silly thing to develop much hostility to.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm as hardcore sim as my players let me be.

Edit: Okay, that was more antagonistic on my part than it needed to be. Suffice it that your choice of preferred game systems suggests problems with this statement.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I take it you don't run many investigative games. I do. The notion of having PCs miss important clues died sometime in the 1980s when Call of Cthulhu referees would stop games when PCs missed the single roll that would reveal the single clue the PCs needed to continue playing the game.

Though that's a single-point-of-failure, which has problems well beyond investigative failure (though that's certainly a place it can happen).

Since then it's been common practice for important clues to simply be found. No roll required. Just found. The important thing to remember is a single clue isn't the solution to the mystery. The players can still misinterpret that clue and the PCs still need to correctly interpret most of the clues to solve the mystery, so nothing is lost by simply giving the players the important clues. They still have to solve the mystery themselves. The vast majority of the time the PCs will be trained professionals or skilled amateurs, but, importantly, the players will not be. The players will misinterpret the clues, guaranteed. The players will go in the wrong direction, guaranteed. The players will Pepe Silvia their way into the wildest and most absurd conclusions, guaranteed. You don't need to intentionally introduce false information (aka red herrings) into the mix. You will get the same result by simply playing a game with an investigative element.

Though there are problems with its authorship, the third edition of Chill had what seemed like a good approach here; an investigative roll always gave you something to move the situation forward; even a fumble gave you a good clue and a bad clue (so the latter could lead you down a red herring, but once you figured that out you could back up and the other one would start you forward again).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think when you have something used frequently, jargon develops as a natural consequence of a desire for speech efficiency. You don't have to like that, but its universal enough its kind of a silly thing to develop much hostility to.

I have never heard fronts used in any context other than a reference to PBtA and similar narrative games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Though that's a single-point-of-failure, which has problems well beyond investigative failure (though that's certainly a place it can happen).



Though there are problems with its authorship, the third edition of Chill had what seemed like a good approach here; an investigative roll always gave you something to move the situation forward; even a fumble gave you a good clue and a bad clue (so the latter could lead you down a red herring, but once you figured that out you could back up and the other one would start you forward again).

What do you mean problems with authorship?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have never heard fronts used in any context other than a reference to PBtA and similar narrative games.

Yes, but you were referring to clocks too, and I've absolutely seen that used elsewhere with fundamentally the same meaning.