How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[hawkeyefan]

The question is whether he'd genuinely have enough information to do so. Depending on the game world and how things work, this can go either way.

Example in point: RQ 3 character with cuirboilli torso armor and a Protection spell up. You can probably tell the Protection spell is up and know enough to have an idea how your weapon will do at penetrating the armor--but the spell doesn't have a gauge visible that will tell you how many points it is, and there's a lot of difference as to whether its 1 point of 5 points.

As you say, these are observable things. I think it would be strange then, not to provide the player with a corresponding amount of information.

In a case like this, where they should have at least an idea of how well defended an opponent is, I think it's best to share the details.

The character doesn't know the mechanics.

As Thomas provided in his above example, the mechanics are representative of things the characters do know. If we think of this as a translation... we take the information available to the characters and then we translate it into information available to players... then I don't see the issue.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?

Need to? No, you dont "need to". You can get by without knowing it. But I think there are strong arguments to be made about preferring to. And weak arguments for not providing information.

I mean, at the very most basic, if the GM tells someone what they need to roll, when they roll the dice they'll know if they made the roll or not. If you don't tell them, then they roll the dice, and still don't know if it went well or not until the GM tells them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

That's a critique of the system then, and bluntly, the answer is not "don't engage with the mechanics" its "fix the mechanics." If you dislike mechanics enough you resent the players interacting with but can't or won't fix it, that's pretty big dysfunction.

 

[payn]

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.

My answer has always been not a definitive yes or no, but a depends. If a system is designed to hide the rules as part of its execution, then its fine I guess.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As you say, these are observable things. I think it would be strange then, not to provide the player with a corresponding amount of information.

In a case like this, where they should have at least an idea of how well defended an opponent is, I think it's best to share the details.

I agree, but I'll note the appropriate answer in that case would be "the opponent has cuirboilli on his torso and you can see a Protection spell, so he has at least 4 points of armor". Note he could have as much as 8, and the difference between 4 and 8 in the system is not trivial. There's a difference between some information, and enough to actually make useful decisions.

As Thomas provided in his above example, the mechanics are representative of things the characters do know. If we think of this as a translation... we take the information available to the characters and then we translate it into information available to players... then I don't see the issue.

I don't either, but I'm just compelled to note there's some pretty muddy ground between the "keep everyone in the dark" approach and full information, and a number of cases land in that muddy ground.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree, but I'll note the appropriate answer in that case would be "the opponent has cuirboilli on his torso and you can see a Protection spell, so he has at least 4 points of armor". Note he could have as much as 8, and the difference between 4 and 8 in the system is not trivial. There's a difference between some information, and enough to actually make useful decisions.



I don't either, but I'm just compelled to note there's some pretty muddy ground between the "keep everyone in the dark" approach and full information, and a number of cases land in that muddy ground.

Sure. But the topic is how visible the rules should be. If your answer is “muddy”, that’s your preference, of course.

My point is I think it’s difficult to justify that approach, so I prefer to be fully open with the rules.

 

[pemerton]

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.

the more most players IME know about the system, the more that knowledge encourages them to game the system for advantage.

My view is that if the system breaks when the players play it ("game" it), then it is a bad system.

More generally, if playing the system doesn't produce the fiction, and the experience of the fiction, that is intended/desired, then it is a bad system.

To put some flesh on the preceding bones: in my experience, the RPG which reliably produces the biggest gap between intended/desired experience, and experience of play; and which is most vulnerable to breaking when players actually try and play it; is AD&D 2nd ed. And I think it's possible to be fairly concrete about what the issue is: the mechanical system as presented sets out chances of success (to hit, damage, non-weapon proficiencies; thief skills) and also gives some players (the players of spell casters) some buttons to push (spells in the per-day spell load out); but the intended/desired play typically involves the GM controlling when the players succeed or fail (in order to manage the unfolding of the prepared story) and hence disregarding or setting aside those chances of success and mitigating the pressing of the buttons.

This won't work if the rules are transparent to the players!

The 1982 Traveller Book has the same issue. This is from p 123:

The choreographed novel [my emphasis] involves a setting already thought out by the referee and presented to the players; it may be any of the above settings [ship, location or world], but contains predetermined elements. As such, the referee has already developed characters and setting which bear on the group's activities, and they are guided gently to the proper locations. Properly done, the players never know that the referee has manipulated them to a fore-ordained goal.​

This sort of thing won't work if the rules are transparent to the players.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure. But the topic is how visible the rules should be. If your answer is “muddy”, that’s your preference, of course.

I believe my position is that they should usually (I qualify that because I'm using 13th Age right now which is very clear about its view of transparency, but there are elements of its system that virtually demand it) be as transparent as the situation seems to supply, and its entirely possible for that to be "muddy". I think that's a bit different from saying my preference is for "muddy" as it confuses cause for effect..

My point is I think it’s difficult to justify that approach, so I prefer to be fully open with the rules.

What part of what I just said didn't justify it?

 

[hawkeyefan]

What part of what I just said didn't justify it?

I don’t think any of what you said justified it. I think you explained your view and why you hold it. But I still don’t see the value add for withholding rules from players.

 

[bloodtide]

I'm on the side that players should know the bare minimum to mechanically play their character in a game world. But to have a Role Playing game, you need the players to not obsess over every number in the rules.

An easy example is knowing the number needed to do a task...hit a foe, jump over a pit, whatever. Just describe the foe and the player will role play what their character would do in the fiction. When you tell the player they need a set number, and they know...or "think" they can't do it, then they will react based on that.