How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Thomas Shey]

Sometimes it might be like that if it is about more obscure knowledge, but many things you just know or don't instantly.

Knowledges are always weird. Sometimes they're used to see if you can remember something obscure, sometimes to see if you know it at all. Probably even more than physical or technical skills, they probably should more commonly be set up such that once your actual rank in the skill (whatever than means in a given game) reaches are certain point, some things are simply automatic.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Anyone remember the days of old where if you failed certain checks (like opening a lock), you couldn't try again until you leveled up (or in the case of learning spells, raised your Intelligence)?

I always wondered what it was like being a locksmith in a world like that. "Well, I tried to unlock your door, so I guess there's no choice but to break the window."

Some games split the difference here, by not letting you try again until you improve your roll--but there can be a lot of transient ways to do that, get help, get better tools, take longer on it...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Let's be honest: Its Lanefan. Its his personal taste presented as a quasi-universal virtue.

To be fair, I'm on @Lanefan 's side on this one. Not a fan of those kinds of mechanics.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To be fair, I'm on @Lanefan 's side on this one. Not a fan of those kinds of mechanics.

That fine, but even you make pretty clear its what you want; LF is prone to acting like it should go without saying that his preferences are proper a lot of the time. I'm not averse to suggesting many, even most people want something some way, but at least I make some attempt to support that rather than just take it as a given.

And this is all true even though I sometimes share Lanefan's preferences.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sometimes it might be like that if it is about more obscure knowledge, but many things you just know or don't instantly.

This is why, in the example of the runic circle, I’d just tell the players what it is. I mean, it’s observable… the players will likely figure it’s magical, so why put that in doubt?

There are two approaches to this. First, you expect the players to not act on the knowledge. That’s just annoying, and makes play focused on trying to find the “key” to simply understand what they already know is going on.

The second is to allow them to proceed how they like. In this case, they’d likely treat the circle like they “suspect” what it is rather than “know”. Which is pretty much the same thing.

So I just share the information and then see what they want to do about it. Can they disrupt the runes? Or are the runes in danger of failing? Those are the kinds of things that I use rolls for.

Just the basic situation? I share it with them. I want them to figure out a solution not get bogged down in simply understanding what’s going on.

Oh, and your (b) is a Red Herring. Nothing the DM does(numbers or description) can convey the same information as the PCs would have, but descriptions convey far more than numbers. That argument is a distraction and nothing more.

It’s not a distraction. It’s the reason I share information with my players. It’s related to what I’ve just said above.

I can prove it… your claim that it’s a red herring does not mention flies, and so is not realistic.

 

[Maxperson]

It’s not a distraction. It’s the reason I share information with my players. It’s related to what I’ve just said above.

I can prove it… your claim that it’s a red herring does not mention flies, and so is not realistic.

Flies are Baalze.... @pemerton's thing.

 

[pemerton]

Right. Natural language in a description conveys MORE information than numbers, which are often worthless or nearly worthless to know.

<snip>

descriptions convey far more than numbers

In resolving a D&D combat, it is rarely worthless to have knowledge of the statblock of the participants.

And @hawkeyefan has already given examples where descriptions contain far less than numbers. "The dragon's scales shine like metal" gives less information than 'The dragon's metallic scales give it AC 23". Etc.

I mean, if numbers conveyed nothing useful than D&D modules would be full of natural language descriptors for all the NPCs, traps, creatures etc. But they're not. They're full of numbers!

 

[pemerton]

How many people within a fantasy setting would recognize a circle of protection for what it was?

I have no idea.

But I was imagining that this person - the PC to whose player certain information is being conveyed by the GM - does recognise the circle for what it is.

 

[Maxperson]

In resolving a D&D combat, it is rarely worthless to have knowledge of the statblock of the participants.

And @hawkeyefan has already given examples where descriptions contain far less than numbers. "The dragon's scales shine like metal" gives less information than 'The dragon's metallic scales give it AC 23". Etc.

Sure, but so what. Descriptions aren't that bland. The DM isn't going to say, "There's a dragon with AC 23, 222 HP, 10d8 fire breath and metallic scales. What do you do?" The description is going to have that PLUS a bunch more. Descriptions will almost never give as little as numbers do.

I mean, if numbers conveyed nothing useful than D&D modules would be full of natural language descriptors for all the NPCs, traps, creatures etc. But they're not. They're full of numbers!

Well that's simply untrue on its face. Module numbers are for the DM to run the game, not for players and their PCs. The information numbers convey to the DM isn't for the same purpose as numbers conveyed to the players. The DM needs to know the numbers to know if a hit happens, how much before the dragon dies, and so on. The players don't track that stuff as part of the player role in the game.

 

[pemerton]

Module numbers are for the DM to run the game, not for players and their PCs. The information numbers convey to the DM isn't for the same purpose as numbers conveyed to the players. The DM needs to know the numbers to know if a hit happens, how much before the dragon dies, and so on. The players don't track that stuff as part of the player role in the game.

Nothing stops players tracking that stuff. In fact, if they really want to play the fight-y part of the game well, they will try and track a good chunk of that stuff!

In any event, my point remains: if description made numbers redundant, modules wouldn't need numbers.