How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Thomas Shey]

The question is not whether the players should know any rules at all, it's whether they should know (or be able to know) rules they don't need to know e.g. monster stats, enemy ship capabiities, wandering-monster or interruption frequency rules, etc.

I'd argue the question also turns one what the ones they "need to know" are.

 

[Thomas Shey]

All games work better when the players and GM know each other.

Yes, but plenty of people aren't playing with GMs they know well enough to be able to assess what a term like "small chance" means for them. I'd strongly suspect that's the significant majority.

 

[Corinnguard]

The question is not whether the players should know any rules at all, it's whether they should know (or be able to know) rules they don't need to know e.g. monster stats, enemy ship capabiities, wandering-monster or interruption frequency rules, etc.

Maybe the initial question ought to be how visible to the players should the rules be when they are in-character. Everyone here has been talking in in-character vs. out-of-character terms.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, but plenty of people aren't playing with GMs they know well enough to be able to assess what a term like "small chance" means for them. I'd strongly suspect that's the significant majority.

You think so? I thought the majority of games were casual home stuff, where it's pretty likely you do know your GM.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Maybe the initial question ought to be how visible to the players should the rules be when they are in-character. Everyone here has been talking in in-character vs. out-of-character terms.

It would help if everyone agreed what things are out of character. Very commonly, they don't. And of course some people don't agree that's even relevant (if you come a heavily narrative-focused game where making decisions from an Author style posture is at least part of the point, its meaningless--and before someone breaks in and says "but D&D--", again, notice where this thread is).

 

[Thomas Shey]

You think so? I thought the majority of games were casual home stuff, where it's pretty likely you do know your GM.

Knowing them and knowing them well enough to know what they mean by a general language term like "easy" are not in any way the same thing. It can take years to internalize that kind of thing to a useful level, and that's assuming they're altogether consistent about it.

 

[Corinnguard]

It would help if everyone agreed what things are out of character.

That would probably require a spreadsheet given the number of rules currently found in 5e

 

[Micah Sweet]

Knowing them and knowing them well enough to know what they mean by a general language term like "easy" are not in any way the same thing. It can take years to internalize that kind of thing to a useful level, and that's assuming they're altogether consistent about it.

Then perhaps you clarify when there's a disconnect? As I said, I don't mind time consuming.

 

[Lanefan]

The DCs of skill checks should be determined knowably and mechanically from the situation. A player should be well within bounds to say "but you said a rough stone wall, which puts it at a DC 15, unless it's wet or there's an extenuating circumstance."

And whether or not the DC is in fact 15, the best GM's response here goes something like "You just go on thinking that, old chum" followed by a gentle chortle and a secretive smile...

 

[Umbran]

Then perhaps you clarify when there's a disconnect? As I said, I don't mind time consuming.

But, if you aren't communicating numbers, you don't know when there's a disconnect.