How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Micah Sweet]

But until you know the rules exist you might not even know there is a conversation to be had.

You don't think a PC, seeing an enemy magic-user being described as beginning or in the process of casting a spell, might decide to attempt to do something about it?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Interesting because I’m largely viewing this with gameplay in mind. The participants knowing the rules and processes of play seems to fundamentally be about the game rather than about roleplay.

I don't know what to tell you then, other than "insufficient information" can be a valuable gameplay element under some circumstances from where I sit.

You mean you wouldn’t just instinctively know that a spell could be interrupted?!?

Why would you, short of something that disables the caster in general? There's nothing intrinsically which tells someone a spell is any easier to interrupt than a sword strike.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You don't think a PC, seeing an enemy magic-user being described as beginning or in the process of casting a spell, might decide to attempt to do something about it?

Given that it works differently from edition to edition in D&D, let alone other games, I think this is an example that shows exactly why the rules need to be known.

Comparative initiatives along with related casting times and weapon speed factors of AD&D makes for a very different play experience compared to readying an action to attack a spellcaster in 5e.

Why would you, short of something that disables the caster in general? There's nothing intrinsically which tells someone a spell is any easier to interrupt than a sword strike.

I was being sarcastic!

 

[Reynard]

That in no way stops people from having radically different ideas of how various things play out. That can require a considerable amount of back and forth. I'm speaking from experience.

I need a concrete example of your concern.

 

[Reynard]

Given that it works differently from edition to edition in D&D, let alone other games, I think this is an example that shows exactly why the rules need to be known.

Why? Play would go something like this:

GM: The evil sorcerer is chanting and waving his arms as a globe of vile miasma from the Pit itself coalesces in front of him.
Player: That's not good! I try and stop him.
GM: How?
Player: I throw my dagger at him!
GM: Okay. (dice clatter) The dagger tumbles through the air and then THUNKS into the sorcerer's thigh. He snarls and spits and continues his spell.
Player: That's even more not good!

Next time, the player tries something else. What's the problem?

 

[lolsworth]

More like
Player: can I stop or interrupt enemies casting spells?
GM: yes actually, you just do ____
Player: cool, I do that, when do I roll?

 

[Reynard]

More like
Player: can I stop or interrupt enemies casting spells?
GM: yes actually, you just do ____
Player: cool, I do that, when do I roll?

From the perspective of the "no rules" theory, the idea is to maintain immersion by leaving the rules out of it from the player's perspective.

 

[aramis erak]

Absolutely none of this changes what I said or adds to this conversation.

When one makes erroneous claims... some of us feel compelled to point out the truth against the propaganda.
I've never had a case where a Traveller player was completely unable to affect a battledress trooper in any of the editions I've played. Your claim was erroneous on its face.

Okay, point made. What it added to the conversation other than a seemingly contrarian point of view I shall leave other posters to ponder.

Simply put, it ties into Reynard's wonder why almost all RPGs include combat systems, as it is the second reason (the first being they grew out of minis wargaming).

 

[Reynard]

Simply put, it ties into Reynard's wonder why almost all RPGs include combat systems, as it is the second reason (the first being they grew out of minis wargaming).

But the explicit supposition in the example was that combat would not be a thing in that game. it is at best a non sequitur.

 

[payn]

When one makes erroneous claims... some of us feel compelled to point out the truth against the propaganda.
I've never had a case where a Traveller player was completely unable to affect a battledress trooper in any of the editions I've played. Your claim was erroneous on its face.

You must be joking.

Simply put, it ties into Reynard's wonder why almost all RPGs include combat systems, as it is the second reason (the first being they grew out of minis wargaming).

You really are joking.