How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[pemerton]

Developing a bit on my previous post, consider two different sorts of hidden information.

In a single-character-per-figure wargame, we might draw a river or a muddy area on the map. It is quite reasonable for the referee to posit that the depth of the water/mud is not ascertainable merely by visual inspection: the player who doesn't just want to chance wading/driving through has to declare some action whereby their character can learn the depth, and this creates a risk (eg of being grabbed by a crocodile lurking in the water, or triggering a booby trap sitting on the river bed, or whatever).

Contrast: the GM describes the scene, but deliberately omits something from the description (eg the presence of a diagram drawn in the dust on the desk; the absence of ashtrays from a room that smells of cigarette smoke) with the expectation that the players will intuit that there is more relevant stuff that their PCs might be seeing, and then ask the GM to fill in those further details.

The former fits within the paradigm of Gygaxian skilled play. The latter has in my view little or nothing to do with skilled play, and again is a development that is distinctive to RPGing, and is about how the GM maintains control over the dispensing of fictional details, based on particular, enculturated expectations about how players will approach the game. (Including by asking the GM to fill in more details that *don't require their PCs to actually perform actions besides continuing to look at what is in front of them.)

 

[Maxperson]

The very fact that we are told players shouldn't read it during an encounter strongly implies that they may read it outside of an encounter. And then, during an encounter, rely upon their memory - this is how their knowledge is put to the test!

Sure. Hit points are often rolled and armor classes often change due to other factors. If they want to rely on dubious information, have at it! I'm not going to be providing exact numbers, though.

 

[Maxperson]

Who is arguing for players to see the entire stat block or look up a monster in the monster manual? This is a little different from a preference for sharing DC numbers, a feature which is quite common in other games (whereas stat block sharing is not). Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition for instance requires the GM to give player characters a Void point if they are keeping the roll's difficulty a secret and Chronicles of Darkness uses dice penalties which a player must be aware of because they are literally rolling less dice.

There's nothing in that quote that says entire stat block. Gygax says the game is about keeping it all from the players during the encounter.

 

[pemerton]

There's nothing in that quote that says entire stat block. Gygax says the game is about keeping it all from the players during the encounter.

No he doesn't.

He says that players are not allowed to read the MM during an encounter.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, handing out the numbers gives more information. My argument is that the increase is minimally effective. You will occasionally skip a smite or the like. The description gives far more information and far more useful information.

If it’s minimally effective, then what’s the big deal?

No one in this thread has asserted that any numbers (however attenuated) convey more information and options than any and all description.

@hawkeyefan has asserted that numerical stats for a creature/NPC (in a D&D-esque RPG) conveys more information than descriptions of the attributes that those stats model/express - eg that AC 15 conveys more information than tough hide.

Actually, I didn’t even go that far. I was more saying that “the thing has a really tough hide, it’s AC is 15”.

Somehow, according to Max, description plus number is less than just description.

The idea that the whole resolution side of the game should be opaque to players is a post-wargame thing, where the game keeps the trappings of wargame resolution but turns it into a series of devices for the GM to use to maintain control over the shape and trajectory of play.

Yes, it’s absolutely about control. Doling out information only at the pace desired.

It’s a valid way to play, I just wish we could all recognize it for what it is.

The former fits within the paradigm of Gygaxian skilled play. The latter has in my view little or nothing to do with skilled play, and again is a development that is distinctive to RPGing, and is about how the GM maintains control over the dispensing of fictional details, based on particular, enculturated expectations about how players will approach the game. (Including by asking the GM to fill in more details that *don't require their PCs to actually perform actions besides continuing to look at what is in front of them.)

This is really well stated. “Encultured” is a key piece here. I was led to believe that this is the way RPGs must be played. This was prior to the internet and widespread discourse about the topic, but the resources of the day largely put this idea forward. There were alternate methods and voices, but I remained unaware of them for some time.

I long ago found that method dissatisfying for a number of reasons, and was trying to change my approach even before I realized there were established ways of doing just that.

Sure. Hit points are often rolled and armor classes often change due to other factors. If they want to rely on dubious information, have at it! I'm not going to be providing exact numbers, though.

Why not? You said they don’t even provide much of an advantage.

I mean, if you said you didn’t want players to have an advantage and so you kept information from them, I would still disagree from a preference standpoint, but I’d understand your point.

But in your desire to make this not a subjective matter but rather an objective one, you’re basically arguing that you don’t share the numbers because they are less helpful.

And that just makes no sense.

No he doesn't.

He says that players are not allowed to read the MM during an encounter.

I don’t even think he went quite that far. He said “some DMs would be wise to keep players from referencing the MM during combat.” He still leaves it up to the individual DM, though he seems to have a preference himself.

But also, who cares what Gygax said? 5e is pretty far removed from Gygax, and this isn’t even a D&D specific thread.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I thought I explained in the post you quoted. It’s because there is no mystery. Perhaps I should clarify… there’s no mystery for the players.

Anyone except perhaps a truly novice player will know what a runic circle is likely to be. And even a novice player who’s even passing familiar with genre fiction will recognize it.

Having the players pretend to not know is, to me and many others, not an engaging way to spend time at the table. What’s interesting about such a thing is what can or should be done about it… the danger it represents or the obstacle it poses.

That’s what I’m interested in finding out. What do they do about this? Not just “do they recognize what’s going on here?”



Why would only the DM know this? Why wouldn’t a wizard, bard, or cleric know it? Why wouldn’t any other character with the Sage or Acolyte background? Or any other one with some suitable reason?

Hell, we know about these things in a world where they’re not even real. Surely there would be folklore in the characters’ world that just about any character may know.

So why dick around? Get to the good stuff.

Because your definition of "the good stuff" is not the only one there is.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because your definition of "the good stuff" is not the only one there is.

Determining ACs is the good stuff?

 

[Maxperson]

If it’s minimally effective, then what’s the big deal?

It's unrealistic and for a lot of us that's the tipping point.

Yes, it’s absolutely about control. Doling out information only at the pace desired.

No it's not. I don't give a rats ass about control. It's 0% about control for me. You don't get to make it about control for people. They do.

It’s a valid way to play, I just wish we could all recognize it for what it is.

Ditto. You keep trying to make this about control when it's not.

Why not? You said they don’t even provide much of an advantage.

I've also said it's not realistic as the PCs can't get that information.

I mean, if you said you didn’t want players to have an advantage and so you kept information from them, I would still disagree from a preference standpoint, but I’d understand your point.

But in your desire to make this not a subjective matter but rather an objective one, you’re basically arguing that you don’t share the numbers because they are less helpful.

And that just makes no sense.

First, you want this to be about control, which probably has a lot to do with why you don't understand it. Second, I've said multiple times that which way you go, sharing or not sharing, is pure subjective preference. Telling me that I want up when I say down isn't kosher.

I don’t even think he went quite that far. He said “some DMs would be wise to keep players from referencing the MM during combat.” He still leaves it up to the individual DM, though he seems to have a preference himself.

He also says keeping that information private is what the game is about, since it keeps players on their toes and makes it more about player's person knowledge and mettle. i.e. skilled play.

 

[Lanefan]

I thought I explained in the post you quoted. It’s because there is no mystery. Perhaps I should clarify… there’s no mystery for the players.

Anyone except perhaps a truly novice player will know what a runic circle is likely to be. And even a novice player who’s even passing familiar with genre fiction will recognize it.

Having the players pretend to not know is, to me and many others, not an engaging way to spend time at the table.

So, better to make it that they really don't know.

In the game I play in, we hit what we thought was some sort of runic circle several sessions ago, passed it by, and kept going. Events led us back to the area last session, and so we gave it a closer look. Had we-as-players just assumed it to be a runic circle made for trapping demons etc. we'd have ignored it, but we've long since learned all isn't as it seems.

What we in fact had, as a mosaic on the floor, was an inner circle with three symbols in it (a tree, a skull, and a wheel), and an outer circle resembling a seven-"sign" zodiac, each represented by a specific animal.

My character got down and had a closer look, and after some experimenting he realized the outer circle was in fact a smoothly-spinnable ring. Manually spinning it to line up some outer-ring symbols with inner-ring symbols got no result. He messed with it further, and by trial and error learned the inner circle was also smoothly spinnable.

Then he tried spinning both at once; on which the circles took over and spun themselves to a point where a random pair of symbols lined up.

The 21 possible combinations of [inner symbol+outer animal] equated to a Deck of Many Things, and now I'm up by a henchman.

What’s interesting about such a thing is what can or should be done about it… the danger it represents or the obstacle it poses.

That’s what I’m interested in finding out. What do they do about this? Not just “do they recognize what’s going on here?”

I'm interested in the "do we recognize it" piece for one simple reason: the first time they meet something in a campaign, I want there to be the potential for them to get it wrong.

 

[Corinnguard]

I thought I explained in the post you quoted. It’s because there is no mystery. Perhaps I should clarify… there’s no mystery for the players.

Anyone except perhaps a truly novice player will know what a runic circle is likely to be. And even a novice player who’s even passing familiar with genre fiction will recognize it.

Having the players pretend to not know is, to me and many others, not an engaging way to spend time at the table. What’s interesting about such a thing is what can or should be done about it… the danger it represents or the obstacle it poses.

That’s what I’m interested in finding out. What do they do about this? Not just “do they recognize what’s going on here?”



Why would only the DM know this? Why wouldn’t a wizard, bard, or cleric know it? Why wouldn’t any other character with the Sage or Acolyte background? Or any other one with some suitable reason?

Hell, we know about these things in a world where they’re not even real. Surely there would be folklore in the characters’ world that just about any character may know.

So why dick around? Get to the good stuff.

I think you meant that there is no mystery for the characters. Players refer to those individuals who are participating in a role-playing session. Now a player can imagine what a runic circle could look like based on whatever you description you happen to give them, and from whatever the genre says about them. And if they are really lucky, they might have seen pics of one in one of their role-playing books. But unless their characters happen to be adventuring in a high magic setting where runic circles might be a daily thing they come across, the sight of a runic circle on the floor is going to be something of a mystery because they don't know what the players know. They shouldn't know what it is right away. The characters will need to work at it via skill checks and by talking about it amongst themselves. Once they do that, then they could confirm it with you.
Sure you can tell the players that it is a runic circle. But the players can't then turn right around and have it where their characters just know that it is a runic circle. That's metagaming. Something that ought to be avoided in a role-playing session.

You and your fellow DMs, you mean. You don't find it engaging when the players have to pretend to be their characters and not know what a runic circle is. The players otoh might find it engaging to figure out the mystery all on their own.

The knowledge about the runic circle is something that the DM should only know at first. They are the ones who have spent the time and effort reading the pre-made adventure before they have the players role-play it in-game as their characters. The way the players have their characters figure it out is through skill checks when the characters are feeling uncertain. Your job as DM is to dole out the information only when the characters perform a successful skill check or asks you the right question.

Runic circles certainly could be something straight out of folklore within the setting. But which pieces of folklore are the most commonly know, and which aren't? Wizards, bards and clerics might have heard of such folklore. As would Sages and Acolytes. But they might have heard about lots and lots of folklore over time. They might have trouble remembering them specifically, hence a skill check in Arcana, Religion or Nature.

Eventually the party will know what the DM knows. Be Patient.