How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Maxperson]

The situation doesn’t determine it. Someone has to actually decide when to share information. That person may base it on what they believe the situation demands… but that doesn’t mean there’s not a person deciding.

And as this thread has shown, there’s clearly a pretty significant gap in opinion about when something would become apparent.

Hence, my tendency to not withhold relevant details without a strong reason.

So a professor should give his students the answers to the test because they have gaps in opinion about the subject? A company should reveal its trade secrets because there are gaps in opinion about them?

You have yet to show that the gaps warrant the revelation of those details.

I said that were more precise.

Useless precision is worthless.

It’s really not. It’s description… plus numbers. It’s literally more information.

That is virtually useless or often entirely useless. When I walk into a shop to buy stuff, knowing the shopkeeper's AC is 12 and he has 2 hit points does zero to add to what is going on. More information doesn't equal greater usefulness or even greater options.

I think that the number of people for whom the numbers are a problem would pale in comparison to the number of people for whom a phrase like “pretty difficult” would be a problem.

And I don't. 40 years of playing and I've yet to meet someone who had trouble with a phrase like "Pretty difficult." That's hundreds of people by the way. There can't be a lot of people for whom understanding "pretty difficult" is a problem.

Let me ask you this… if you have two fighters and they both use longswords, and one has a +8 to hit with it, and the other has a +10 to hit… do the characters know which of them is a better swordsman?

No. Not unless they spar constantly and for a long time. The variable d20 and variable longsword damage would make +2 nearly impossible to spot in the fiction. Even if they do spar constantly, they would have to record each match over a long, long period of time to get the law of averages to kick in to the point where they could figure it out.

Special abilities like that are a little different, I’d say. But I would also say that you are arbitrarily choosing to keep them hidden.

You'd be objectively wrong about that. There's nothing arbitrary about my playstyle. It's based in reason, which precludes it being arbitrary.

Now, I’m not saying you have to share everything about an opponent. My approach is if it’s generally observable, I don’t quibble about it and just share it.

Mine too. Numbers are not generally observable.

This means that a brick wall with flies on it is more realistic than a brick wall with no flies on it.

Which is just not true. There are plenty of brick walls without flies on them in the real world. Neither of these two things is more realistic than the other.

One includes more realism than the other. That's a fact.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So a professor should give his students the answers to the test because they have gaps in opinion about the subject? A company should reveal its trade secrets because there are gaps in opinion about them?

You have yet to show that the gaps warrant the revelation of those details.

None of this has anything to do with what we’re talking about.

Useless precision is worthless.

I have no idea how you can claim that you don’t share the numbers because the characters wouldn’t have that level of precise information and simultaneously claim that precision is worthless.

That is virtually useless or often entirely useless. When I walk into a shop to buy stuff, knowing the shopkeeper's AC is 12 and he has 2 hit points does zero to add to what is going on. More information doesn't equal greater usefulness or even greater options.

Who cares about shopkeepers? You’re bringing up ridiculous examples.

And I don't. 40 years of playing and I've yet to meet someone who had trouble with a phrase like "Pretty difficult." That's hundreds of people by the way. There can't be a lot of people for whom understanding "pretty difficult" is a problem.

So in 40 years of playing, you think that everyone you gamed with considers “pretty difficult” to mean exactly the same thing? No one ever misinterpreted such a phrase to be more or less difficult than someone else did?

What precision!

No. Not unless they spar constantly and for a long time. The variable d20 and variable longsword damage would make +2 nearly impossible to spot in the fiction. Even if they do spar constantly, they would have to record each match over a long, long period of time to get the law of averages to kick in to the point where they could figure it out.

Wow, that’s amazing. So the numbers don’t actually represent anything?

You'd be objectively wrong about that. There's nothing arbitrary about my playstyle. It's based in reason, which precludes it being arbitrary.

It’s based on your reason.

Mine too. Numbers are not generally observable.

No, but they’re representative.

One includes more realism than the other. That's a fact.

I’m beginning to wonder if you’re confused about what fact means.

 

[Maxperson]

None of this has anything to do with what we’re talking about.

You are claiming that the numbers should be shared due to varying opinions. My examples were the same difference.

I have no idea how you can claim that you don’t share the numbers because the characters wouldn’t have that level of precise information and simultaneously claim that precision is worthless.

What part of I don't do it because of the exact numbers aren't you getting? AC 1 or 111 doesn't matter to me. 5 hit points or 5000 is all the same to me.

Who cares about shopkeepers? You’re bringing up ridiculous examples.

No. You don't get to evade like that. If you can see numbers on a glance to get precision, then it applies equally to shopkeepers and Tarrasques.

So in 40 years of playing, you think that everyone you gamed with considers “pretty difficult” to mean exactly the same thing?

Who cares!? They all, every last one of them, understood it enough to make informed decisions. I don't give a rat's behind whether they all understood it exactly the same.

No one ever misinterpreted such a phrase to be more or less difficult than someone else did?

Not relevant. Informed = informed.

Wow, that’s amazing. So the numbers don’t actually represent anything?

Not enough to be perceivable at +2 difference like that.

It’s based on your reason.

Reason =/= arbitrary.

I’m beginning to wonder if you’re confused about what fact means.

Nope. Perhaps you are confused about what a scale is, because that's where you keep tripping up on the realism thing.

 

[Corinnguard]

Miss Lippy’s car… is green.

To you, her car is green, and that is what matters to you. I am cool with it.

 

[pemerton]

What is considered relevant varies from person to person. You and Hawkeyefan might not consider what Maxperson said as relevant, but he sure seems to think it's relevant.

Yet thinking does not always make it so!

I mean, consider this:

the little bit of description I provided upthread doesn't zone folks out and provides FAR more information to go on than numbers. Numbers will almost always fall behind description in importance to decision making.

I agree that technically adding in the numbers gives some more options

And here is the description from upthread:

I can describe dozens details very quickly that convey information. You only have AC, HP, and a few others. Your numbers actually convey LESS information for players to make an informed decision than a DM's description.

<snip>

Consider.

DM 1: You see a troll with an AC of 15, 55 hit points and a speed of 30. What do you want to do?

And...

DM 2: You see a massive troll standing at the far end of the room. In the middle of the room is a large pit. In the corner stands a barrel that appears to be leaking oil. Every few feet along the walls a lit torch burns, adding a haze of smoke to the room. Near the troll the ground is broken and covered with rubble. What do you want to do?

Which one gives you more to go on, the numbers or the description? Now you can say that you can do both numbers and description, but doing so admits that description is what is needed more.

I mean, that's not even an argument!

Like, I could tell you the dragon has 100 hp and AC 17 - but wouldn't it be more helpful for me to tell you that it's trapped in a magic circle of imprisonment? That it is flying overhead while you are hidden from it in a rock cleft?

And Maxperson concedes as much when he says that, "technically", even more information is conveyed by adding the stats to DM 2's narration of the situation.

Putting the point independently of Maxperson: no one disputes that the fiction matters to action declarations in a RPG. @hawkeyefan's point has been that (i) resolution mechanics also matter, and (ii) "natural language" descriptions cannot (a) convey the same information to the player as would mechanical information, and (b) cannot convey information to the player that is remotely comparable - in intensity, utility, immersion, etc - as the information that the character in the situation would actually be taking in by dint of their senses and cognition.

It does not refute that point - or to put it more colloquially, is not relevant to it - to provide an example and ensuing discussion of a GM ("DM 1") who does not narrate any fiction to the players, which is to say who is not really GMing a RPG at all.

 

[pemerton]

Nothing should be allowed to modify a die roll after the results of that roll are known.

5e D&D has a number of such abilities - the Shield spell is one of them; the battle master's Precision Strike is another.

So when you say "nothing should be allowed to do this thing that is pretty standard in 5e", what do you take the normative force of your pronouncement to be? Aren't you the person who's always telling us that D&D is the lingua franca and the starting point.

(That's before we get to the fact that this is a RPG General thread, and so the relevance of the billion other RPGs that resemble 5e in this respect at least cannot be ruled out.)

 

[pemerton]

This means that a brick wall with flies on it is more realistic than a brick wall with no flies on it.

Which is just not true. There are plenty of brick walls without flies on them in the real world. Neither of these two things is more realistic than the other.

Which is why your point is unclear.

Having said that, though, I won’t request that you clarify any further. My head hurts.

Earlier today I saw a brick wall, but there were no flies on it. And so I thought to myself, "That's not very realistic." And so, thinking it must be an illusion, tried to walk right through it!

My head hurts too.

 

[Corinnguard]

Like, I could tell you the dragon has 100 hp and AC 17 - but wouldn't it be more helpful for me to tell you that it's trapped in a magic circle of imprisonment? That it is flying overhead while you are hidden from it in a rock cleft?

If you told me out-of-character that the dragon was trapped in a magic circle of imprisonment, it wouldn't be helpful because I would be trying to play in-character and my in-character self would not know about the latter. They would just notice that the dragon was unable to come closer to them and the rest of their party. What would they do, you might ask. They would try to find out by making the appropriate skill checks. If they were a spellcaster, they might use some divination magic like Detect Magic. And once they learned all they could, then they and the rest of the party would try to figure what to do next.

In essence, we would be role-playing out the whole encounter as our characters, not as ourselves.

Now if you and I were in the same role-playing group, and your in-character self performed a successful Knowledge check, and then told everyone in the party that it was trapped behind a magic circle of imprisonment, my character would find that information useful. They would find it useful because your in-character self did something.

 

[pemerton]

Now if you and I were in the same role-playing group, and your in-character self performed a successful Knowledge check, and then told everyone in the party that it was trapped behind a magic circle of imprisonment, my character would find that information useful. They would find it useful because your in-character self did something.

A knowledge check isn't something that a character does, in the fiction. Nor does it correspond to the character affirmatively doing something, unless - like Gandalf at the gates of Moria - the character is cudgelling their wits trying to recall something.

But I assumed that the character would recognise the circle of protection just as I recognise (say) a road sign or a word, in virtue of recognising the symbols and knowing their meaning.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A knowledge check isn't something that a character does, in the fiction. Nor does it correspond to the character affirmatively doing something, unless - like Gandalf at the gates of Moria - the character is cudgelling their wits trying to recall something.

But I assumed that the character would recognise the circle of protection just as I recognise (say) a road sign or a word, in virtue of recognising the symbols and knowing their meaning.

I always figured that, when making a knowledge check the character is doing exactly what Gandalf was doing - searching their memory and trying to come up with an answer.