How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Micah Sweet]

Speaking personally the right sorts of character sheets enhance my immersion because they point me back to the things that matter to my character.

In Blades this includes Vice, Trauma, Relationships, Heritage and Belief.
In L5R (5e) this includes Duty/Desire, Honor, Glory, Passions, Anxieties, Relationships.
In Vampire it features Nature, Demeanor, Concept, Virtue and Vice.
In Masks it includes labels that reflect how my character sees themselves, what emotional state they are in and who has influence over them.

I would not expect this to be universally true, but cues that remind me of who my character is as a person absolutely help get me back into the right mindset.

All of those things represent the character as a person, with a focus on personality. They have little to do with how the PC interacts with the setting physically, which is what most of the numbers on a character sheet are for.

 

[pemerton]

Ok, I still don't see the problem. If the DM chooses to have the sorcerer cast without visible wind up, that's just how casting works in this world, and the player looking to disrupt the magic needs to find out how after learning this.

Just like real life. If there was magic.

Unless they have reason to know how fast casting is beforehand. Of they do, then sure, they should know those rules.

Ideally, the player should at least play their PC using only information the PC has reason to know. IMO of course.

Again, just like real life. If there was magic.

Because there's a lot more to combat than who goes first.

Stop motion initiative is a necessary abstraction for the system to work (at least to my liking; I find simultaneous initiative extremely annoying). Like hit points. It's not perfect, but I like most alternatives less.

So is stop-motion resolution a "necessary abstraction"? Or is it a model of how fast casting is in the imaginary world?

In the imaginary world, the sorcerer begins speaking the vile words and making the arcane gestures, and the doughty barbarian, standing on the other side of the room, rushes across and interrupts the casting.

At the table, is this resolved via declarations that unfold in the same time sequence as the fiction? Let's say, the GM chooses a spell, declares the sorcerer NPC starts casting, and then the player declares that their warrior PC rushes across the room to interrupt, and we resolve via opposed Speed checks. If the NPC wins, the GM's chosen spell comes to pass.

Maybe the approach to some part of the time sequence is the same, but not all: the GM declares that the sorcerer NPC starts casting a spell (but has no particular spell chosen - maybe the system doesn't even have "particular spells"), and the player declares that their warrior PC rushes across the room to interrupt, and we resolve via a check (let's call it Defy Danger) on the PC's Speed - if the check fails, then the GM is at liberty to bring home the spell effect, maybe by reference to some general principles of play and some particular details about the goals and inclinations of the NPC.

Or maybe this little scene is resolved via a system of prepared interrupt actions that unfold in a sequence different from the time sequence of the fiction: let's say, at the top of the initiative order the player declares that their warrior PC is ready to interrupt any spell casting, and then the GM makes a complete action declaration for their NPC, declaring that the sorcerer is casting a particular spell, and then the player resolves their readied action, getting a roll to interrupt the casting and thus negate the GM's action declaration for the NPC. If they fail, the GM's action declaration stands.

These might all be the same fictional world - let's say, the world of Conan and Thugra Khotan - but what the player needs to know about the rules of play, in order to bring it about that their doughty barbarian PC interrupts the sorcerer's attempted spell, and what the player is risking by attempting to do so, is different in each case. In the first case, the GM is bound early as to what happens if the spell is successfully cast, and the player can respond in real time. In the second case, the player can respond in real time, but the GM is not bound as to the consequence of the spell-casting until the player's response is resolved. In the third case, the player has to choose to attempt interruption, becoming bound in that respect, before the GM says anything at all about what their NPC is doing.

These differences have nothing to do with things being like, or unlike, the real world. The differences are entirely about how the rules of the game manage the unfolding of the fiction in response to the participant's contributions.

 

[pemerton]

All of those things represent the character as a person, with a focus on personality. They have little to do with how the PC interacts with the setting physically, which is what most of the numbers on a character sheet are for.

What RPGs are you talking about?

I mean, how does the INT or WIS stat on a D&D PC sheet, or the saving throw vs Magic - things which have been there since 1974 - have anything to do with how a character interacts with the world physical?

I've GMed RM games where most of the numbers on a character sheet are bonuses for various knowledge, social, perception, and magic-using skills. What do these have to do with how the PC interacts with the world physically?

 

[pemerton]

The PC outside a secure manor and wants to scale a wall to get inside. The GM describes the difficulty of scaling in the fiction. "The wall is well constructed to prevent infiltration, with a smooth surface and few handholds" or "The wall is old and much of the palster has crumbled, as well as ivy growing up it that might provide handholds." In either case, the player has a in fiction piece of information that they con combine with their foundational information about their competence, and can thus make an informed decision about whether to attempt the climb in the fiction.

Qualitative values are just as good as quantitative values when pretending to be an elf.

So suppose your PC is described as a "doughty barbarian", and we have agreed that our game is one of REH-esque S&S, and I tell you that you are standing outside the villa (or the wizard's tower, or the baron's castle, or whatever else) and that "The wall is well constructed to prevent infiltration, with a smooth surface and few handholds." If you now declare that your PC tries to climb over the wall, what sort of outcome is on the table? Is it likely you will get over the wall? Is it likely you'll still be stuck on the ground, outside, with a bit of skin taken off your knees and knuckles? Is there a real chance that you fall from somewhere above head height and sprain or even break an ankle, or worse break your neck?

From the qualitative descriptions I think you have no idea at all of the answers to those questions. You need to know something about what the spread of consequences is, in this game, and how the participants go about choosing between them. That knowledge might be recorded in a book (that's how Apocalypse World does it) or it might be part of an unwritten set of approaches to and expectations about play (that's how D&D did, it, c 1975). But until you have that knowledge, the descriptions get you almost nowhere.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So is stop-motion resolution a "necessary abstraction"? Or is it a model of how fast casting is in the imaginary world?

In the imaginary world, the sorcerer begins speaking the vile words and making the arcane gestures, and the doughty barbarian, standing on the other side of the room, rushes across and interrupts the casting.

At the table, is this resolved via declarations that unfold in the same time sequence as the fiction? Let's say, the GM chooses a spell, declares the sorcerer NPC starts casting, and then the player declares that their warrior PC rushes across the room to interrupt, and we resolve via opposed Speed checks. If the NPC wins, the GM's chosen spell comes to pass.

Maybe the approach to some part of the time sequence is the same, but not all: the GM declares that the sorcerer NPC starts casting a spell (but has no particular spell chosen - maybe the system doesn't even have "particular spells"), and the player declares that their warrior PC rushes across the room to interrupt, and we resolve via a check (let's call it Defy Danger) on the PC's Speed - if the check fails, then the GM is at liberty to bring home the spell effect, maybe by reference to some general principles of play and some particular details about the goals and inclinations of the NPC.

Or maybe this little scene is resolved via a system of prepared interrupt actions that unfold in a sequence different from the time sequence of the fiction: let's say, at the top of the initiative order the player declares that their warrior PC is ready to interrupt any spell casting, and then the GM makes a complete action declaration for their NPC, declaring that the sorcerer is casting a particular spell, and then the player resolves their readied action, getting a roll to interrupt the casting and thus negate the GM's action declaration for the NPC. If they fail, the GM's action declaration stands.

These might all be the same fictional world - let's say, the world of Conan and Thugra Khotan - but what the player needs to know about the rules of play, in order to bring it about that their doughty barbarian PC interrupts the sorcerer's attempted spell, and what the player is risking by attempting to do so, is different in each case. In the first case, the GM is bound early as to what happens if the spell is successfully cast, and the player can respond in real time. In the second case, the player can respond in real time, but the GM is not bound as to the consequence of the spell-casting until the player's response is resolved. In the third case, the player has to choose to attempt interruption, becoming bound in that respect, before the GM says anything at all about what their NPC is doing.

These differences have nothing to do with things being like, or unlike, the real world. The differences are entirely about how the rules of the game manage the unfolding of the fiction in response to the participant's contributions.

My preference is that you declare spellcasting at the beginning of the round, and it goes off on your initiative. Any time before then others have the opportunity to try and disrupt your concentration and force a fizzle or a miscast.

Easy to remember, and roughly in line with how something like that would work in real life IMO, if magic was a thing. Certainly its similar to how casting is often depicted in fiction.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What RPGs are you talking about?

I mean, how does the INT or WIS stat on a D&D PC sheet, or the saving throw vs Magic - things which have been there since 1974 - have anything to do with how a character interacts with the world physical?

I've GMed RM games where most of the numbers on a character sheet are bonuses for various knowledge, social, perception, and magic-using skills. What do these have to do with how the PC interacts with the world physically?

Mentally too, I suppose. The point is, they aren't about the PCs personality, or how they are roleplayed. They're about what they can do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So suppose your PC is described as a "doughty barbarian", and we have agreed that our game is one of REH-esque S&S, and I tell you that you are standing outside the villa (or the wizard's tower, or the baron's castle, or whatever else) and that "The wall is well constructed to prevent infiltration, with a smooth surface and few handholds." If you now declare that your PC tries to climb over the wall, what sort of outcome is on the table? Is it likely you will get over the wall? Is it likely you'll still be stuck on the ground, outside, with a bit of skin taken off your knees and knuckles? Is there a real chance that you fall from somewhere above head height and sprain or even break an ankle, or worse break your neck?

From the qualitative descriptions I think you have no idea at all of the answers to those questions. You need to know something about what the spread of consequences is, in this game, and how the participants go about choosing between them. That knowledge might be recorded in a book (that's how Apocalypse World does it) or it might be part of an unwritten set of approaches to and expectations about play (that's how D&D did, it, c 1975). But until you have that knowledge, the descriptions get you almost nowhere.

What does the PC know about the spread of consequences? That would determine how those questions are answered.

 

[Pedantic]

I'll still defend that there are cases where some information is simply not available on a character level, and thus there's some opaqueness to the decision that's entirely appropriate, but otherwise I agree with you, and thing the former is not-infrequently argued for situations it should not apply to.

I agree, but I think that should all be in-situ hidden information, not system level mechanics. You may not know something about the wall that will have a meaningful impact on the DC, but the process that will be used to climb it and the relationship between the DC and that information should be reverse engineerable.

 

[MacDhomnuill]

Maybe people "preach" at you because you make obviously wrong statements with such confidence?

One try before I block you, name more game designers that push the “players shouldn’t know the rules” beyond early TSR allums ready go…

 

[Lanefan]

Late to the party on this one, and haven't read past the post (#35) I'm quoting here, but my take is that while players need to know the rules required to run their characters they don't need to know much if anything about the underlying game engine; it's the GM's job to keep that engine running smoothly.

A D&D example: the players need to know what a to-hit roll is, what die to roll when making one, what their character-side bonuses are and how they get there, and how many times they can do this in a round or turn.

They don't need to know anything about the opponent that isn't obvious to the characters (e.g. I'll describe a foe as wearing shiny chain armour and moving gracefully, but I'll never tell them the foe's Dex is 17 and the armour has a +2 enchantment), nor do they need to know the combat matrix. Just give me your character-side data and the roll as input, I'll act as CPU and return a "hit" or "miss" result.

I;ve adopted the bloodied term to let the players know south of 50% but that typically all they get during a fight.

I'll give them a bit more description than this - for example a solid hit that does 20 points damage to someone who has 110 I'll describe as being pretty much shrugged off; once that total gets down to maybe 50 I'll say the foe is feeling the effects, around 20-ish I'll say it's having a rough day if someone asks, and in the low single digits or below 0 (death's at -10 here) I'll say it's starting to gush red.

This assumes, of course, that the PCs can tell what if anything they're doing to the foe. With things like incorporeal undead or oozes you ain't gonna get much narration of damage effects.