How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Corinnguard]

While knowing an opponent's AC is nice, the thing to remember here is that D&D like most games is a game of probability. You have a chance at every encounter and in every combat round to hit an opponent with your melee weapon, ranged weapon or a spell. And you have a chance to miss at every encounter or combat round as well. Probability aside, you are role-playing because you are enjoying the experience.

 

[Thomas Shey]

While knowing an opponent's AC is nice, the thing to remember here is that D&D like most games is a game of probability. You have a chance at every encounter and in every combat round to hit an opponent with your melee weapon, ranged weapon or a spell. And you have a chance to miss at every encounter or combat round as well. Probability aside, you are role-playing because you are enjoying the experience.

That's a fairly D&D centric view in one way, though (and note where this thread is): D&D treats armor interaction as all-or-nothing. Many games really, really don't, and its not necessarily uncommon to hit some things where some weapons are simply close to a nonstarter against some armors. As an example, if I'm playing a game in the BRP family, have a D8 weapon with no other damage added, and am fighting something with 6 points of armor, I'm only going to be doing significant damage on a crit. I need to swap targets, change weapons, or otherwise do something different; probability is only going to help me to a limited degree.

You can get a vaguely parallel case in D&D if you're up against something you're only hitting on a 19 or 20, but the BRP case is far more likely to actually come up in play, and there's much more likely to be something you can do about it as a group (let the guy with the greatsword and the damage bonus deal with it, for example).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Would the character not try to gain advantages in the game world?

The character doesn't know the mechanics.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The character doesn't know the mechanics.

In a way they do, or the mechanics are badly designed.

 

[niklinna]

Unless you have experienced players I prefer that players only know the basics. Learn the specific details as and when such situations come up in game. My reasoning for this is that I have had players, often new to the hobby, who read the rules and then try to game the system rather than use it as a storytelling/narrative.

It's cool if you want to just do roleplaying, but I am interested in roleplaying games, which have rules, which should be known to all participants. Otherwise you're playing Fizzbin.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In a way they do, or the mechanics are badly designed.

Sometimes they are, and rules interactions allow for unexpected and unwanted (from a design or a verisimilitude point of view) advantage.

 

[Reynard]

It is interesting that this discussion is mainly centering around combat. that fact says something about the assumptions of what an RPG is, here at least.

Let's presume, though, a game in which combat is very rare or non existent. Let's use X-Files as an example, because it is probably well known to most, had relatively little "action" and was a procedural so it has an understandable play loop.

In this hypothetical X-Files game, you define your character with a few bried statements that kind of serve as Fate aspects: what law enforcement branch you started your career in (National Park Rangers), for example, then something about a relevant interest or hobby (hunting) and then a disadvantage or "trouble" (medical debt from a now deceased spouse). That's the sum total of your character, aside from the presumption that you are a competent investigator.

Gameplay revolves around solving mysteries by examining crime scene and interviewing subjects and researching archives and stuff. Sometimes when you declare an action, the GM calls for a roll of 2 six sided dice, which you add together and tell the GM the result and then play continues.

The question is, do you need to know any more than that to play this game? Do you need to know what the range of Target Numbers are, or how your "aspects" interact with those dice rolls? Do you need to know what stats your sidearm has?

 

[payn]

It is interesting that this discussion is mainly centering around combat. that fact says something about the assumptions of what an RPG is, here at least.

Let's presume, though, a game in which combat is very rare or non existent. Let's use X-Files as an example, because it is probably well known to most, had relatively little "action" and was a procedural so it has an understandable play loop.

In this hypothetical X-Files game, you define your character with a few bried statements that kind of serve as Fate aspects: what law enforcement branch you started your career in (National Park Rangers), for example, then something about a relevant interest or hobby (hunting) and then a disadvantage or "trouble" (medical debt from a now deceased spouse). That's the sum total of your character, aside from the presumption that you are a competent investigator.

Gameplay revolves around solving mysteries by examining crime scene and interviewing subjects and researching archives and stuff. Sometimes when you declare an action, the GM calls for a roll of 2 six sided dice, which you add together and tell the GM the result and then play continues.

The question is, do you need to know any more than that to play this game? Do you need to know what the range of Target Numbers are, or how your "aspects" interact with those dice rolls? Do you need to know what stats your sidearm has?

If its a simple 2D6 with say 8 as target resolution system, not really. Though, I think if there are rules that will effect the player/character decisions that they ought to know about, then keeping them hidden is just gotcha skill play. Some folks do enjoy that.

 

[DragonLancer]

It's cool if you want to just do roleplaying, but I am interested in roleplaying games, which have rules, which should be known to all participants. Otherwise you're playing Fizzbin.

I get what you are saying but I would disagree. If you have a simple system like D&D5 it's fine to explain the mechanics of the game. If you have something like Pathfinder 1, then there is too much. A player can ask what is needed to do a certain action and they can learn during character creation or simply ask when necessary (or just curious). But I wouldn't teach a new player to Pathfinder the grapple rules or holding ones breath/drowning or any special rules to do with flight unless needed. At least not at first. A lot of rules in RPGs can be picked up as the players go along and within a campaign or two they'll have everything down pat.

 

[Reynard]

If its a simple 2D6 with say 8 as target resolution system, not really. Though, I think if there are rules that will effect the player/character decisions that they ought to know about, then keeping them hidden is just gotcha skill play. Some folks do enjoy that.

The assumption in my example is that the rolls are a black box. There is a system and the GM is applying it, but all the feedback the player gets is what the GM describes in the fiction following the roll.