How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Pedantic]

In almost all cases where someone says that something is destroying immersion, that exact same thing is destroying the type of challenge based play that the role-playing medium provides.

The reason this is invisible is because of the whole fish doesn’t see water thing. The sense of vividness and reality is based around the challenge game play loop that in actual play would feel like exploration (if the challenge part was a given).

For instance. You’re searching some study in a Cthulhu mystery game and the players and GM just spend hours doing it. The loop is:

Players ask questions about the fiction stuff > GM provides answers. All the while you’re building up both a very vivid scene that adds to the reality and ‘trying to figure something out.’ It’s the two in unison that makes challenge based role-play exciting*. Part of the challenge is asking the correct questions to elicit further information based on the previously established facts.

I prefer a mechanical understanding of "immersion" to describe what you're talking about here. Mechanics become more immersive the less space they create between player/character decision making. Thus, a character trying to succeed and a player trying to play well can she to the same choice of action, which requires among other things a tight relationship between causality and action declaration/resolution. That's my preferred goal for play, with all the theatre kid stuff consigned to determining what goals the PC is trying to succeed at in the first place.

That, unfortunately, does not seem to precisely mirror the "immersion" described by low rules visible proponents. There's overlap, but the goal there can't be understood as a design goal for the game system, because they reject a ludic mindset as immersive at all. To acknowledge you're playing a game in the first place misses the point, and is at best a means to an end. This is where you occasional get players wistful for completely obscured rules or dipping into FKR.

The earlier point about just how subjective "realism" ends up being in this context is part of the reason this kind of play doesn't yield a mechanically resolvable design goal. Precisely because it's so unclear what will or will not shake any individual player's connection, concentrating power in the hands of a real time designer is the only solution that can allow for the desired play.

 

[thefutilist]

I prefer a mechanical understanding of "immersion" to describe what you're talking about here. Mechanics become more immersive the less space they create between player/character decision making. Thus, a character trying to succeed and a player trying to play well can she to the same choice of action, which requires among other things a tight relationship between causality and action declaration/resolution. That's my preferred goal for play, with all the theatre kid stuff consigned to determining what goals the PC is trying to succeed at in the first place.

That, unfortunately, does not seem to precisely mirror the "immersion" described by low rules visible proponents. There's overlap, but the goal there can't be understood as a design goal for the game system, because they reject a ludic mindset as immersive at all. To acknowledge you're playing a game in the first place misses the point, and is at best a means to an end. This is where you occasional get players wistful for completely obscured rules or dipping into FKR.

The earlier point about just how subjective "realism" ends up being in this context is part of the reason this kind of play doesn't yield a mechanically resolvable design goal. Precisely because it's so unclear what will or will not shake any individual player's connection, concentrating power in the hands of a real time designer is the only solution that can allow for the desired play.

So I might over categorize things and with the usual caveats that these are fuzzy. I’ve noticed three kinds of loop amongst Gamists.

A) Connected mechanics type risk assessment. When there is a mechanical overlay which aligns the player choice and character choice, then the knowledge you have and are acting on is transparent. A whole lot of trad gameplay is in this category. You can see the numbers and usually (although not always) there more of a combat focus. This style does combat particularly well.

B) A certain strand of OSR/FKR style play. The fictional stuff is used in problem solving as adjudicated by the GM. I’ve seen this called ‘escape room’ style play.

C) Investigation style play which I talked about in my previous post.

Now any given group might use a mix of all three. So where does that put us in relation to the mechanics being visible. I’d say that in B and C you just don’t need them to be visible, they’re superfluous to the whole experience. They may claim it’s about immersion but it’s also coincidently about manipulating fictional stuff to effect other fictional stuff (in a challenge based way). The overlay of mechanics such as in case A, kind of defeats the point of the game-play loop. Not having mechanics doesn’t mean there aren’t rules and the rule is, the GM decides. The criteria for how the GM makes decisions might include mechanics heavy stuff.

Now I'll admit that this is just saying what people like Micah are saying but framing it differently. This framing might help my fellow Narrative players understand what's going on. The issue with realism or immersion as the criteria is, as Pemberton noted, we all want that. When someone talks about realism or immersion they're exhibiting a kind of myopia brought about by their specific framing. Although it's kind of understandable, I mean I can claim that Narrative games are better at immersion and realism and be correct. So what is immersion in this context? I'm just trying to gesture at that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That, unfortunately, does not seem to precisely mirror the "immersion" described by low rules visible proponents. There's overlap, but the goal there can't be understood as a design goal for the game system, because they reject a ludic mindset as immersive at all. To acknowledge you're playing a game in the first place misses the point, and is at best a means to an end. This is where you occasional get players wistful for completely obscured rules or dipping into FKR.

It should be noted that I'm generally pretty gamist, but my most immersive experience was with entirely narrated game environments; I think that had more to do with the fact it was online and text based (and thus did not require me to deal with the dissonance of voices and faces that were not congruent with the characters involved) but I can't say that the lack of mechanical engagement was not a factor (though I found it fairly frequently annoying, so I think not).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Now I'll admit that this is just saying what people like Micah are saying but framing it differently. This framing might help my fellow Narrative players understand what's going on. The issue with realism or immersion as the criteria is, as Pemberton noted, we all want that. When someone talks about realism or immersion they're exhibiting a kind of myopia brought about by their specific framing. Although it's kind of understandable, I mean I can claim that Narrative games are better at immersion and realism and be correct. So what is immersion in this context? I'm just trying to gesture at that.

I should just note that among the GDS predecessors of GNS, the largest number of self-proclaimed immersives were simulationists, not gamists.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I should just note that among the GDS predecessors of GNS, the largest number of self-proclaimed immersives were simulationists, not gamists.

Yes, and this is the reason:

I prefer a mechanical understanding of "immersion" to describe what you're talking about here. Mechanics become more immersive the less space they create between player/character decision making. Thus, a character trying to succeed and a player trying to play well can she to the same choice of action, which requires among other things a tight relationship between causality and action declaration/resolution. That's my preferred goal for play, with all the theatre kid stuff consigned to determining what goals the PC is trying to succeed at in the first place.

 

[soviet]

In some sense all Gamist characters are hyper rational and all Narrativist characters are emotional wrecks.

Great way of putting it!

I appreciate the whole post but that sentence needed to be highlighted

 

[hawkeyefan]

Dude. Nothing in that post talked about or even referred to your personal game. You spoke about how the game editions spoke to DMs of that era and still impact things. That's playstyle.

The style establishes roles and while each role(player and DM) has control over different aspects of the game, the playtime doesn't focus on control as a goal. It's not about control.

I said that when I ran games that way, it absolutely was about control. When I played in many games run that way, it absolutely was about control. A plethora of material from that era points out how the GM needs to control the game, and that one of the many methods of doing that is through controlling what information is available to the players.

It was about control.

You then responded to essentially speak for everyone who's ever played that way and said it's not about control.

As I said, I can't comment on your game. Maybe for you, that's not what it's about. But you cannot speak for me or the other GMs I played with, or the many on these boards who make it clear they need to control the game, or the tons and tons of gaming material that advised GMs to do exactly that.

So if a player came to you at the beginning of your current adventure and asked you to hand over all information on the BBEG, you would give it to them without any strings?

Three things on this. First, where did anything I say give you this idea? I realize you're a newer gamer and have minimal experience compared to many in this discussion, so I've been sure to take that into consideration with everything you've said. This however, has nothing to do with gaming experience and seems like a deliberate misinterpretation to try and make some rhetorical point.

Second, most of the games I run don't tend to have BBEGs. Not that I've never done so... plenty of my earlier games included that, and there still may be something close to that now and again. It really depends on the game. It seems to be very prevalent in D&D because D&D is mostly about fighting, so it makes sense that the climax would be a big fight. But I don't think we should assume that will be the case for all games.

Third, just to run with your absurd example... sure. Why not? Just give the players all the details they need to be able to actually defeat the big monster. I mean, plenty of inspirational fiction works this way... known weaknesses and so on. You'll need the head of medusa to beat the kracken, and the like. The characters may know what they need to defeat the enemy... but now they have to be able to actually do it. Which is likely a journey in itself. If a GM can't make a game compelling beyond trying to limit the players' knowledge of the enemy, then I'd say they're not much of a GM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I said that when I ran games that way, it absolutely was about control. When I played in many games run that way, it absolutely was about control. A plethora of material from that era points out how the GM needs to control the game, and that one of the many methods of doing that is through controlling what information is available to the players.

It was about control.

You then responded to essentially speak for everyone who's ever played that way and said it's not about control.

As I said, I can't comment on your game. Maybe for you, that's not what it's about. But you cannot speak for me or the other GMs I played with, or the many on these boards who make it clear they need to control the game, or the tons and tons of gaming material that advised GMs to do exactly that.



Three things on this. First, where did anything I say give you this idea? I realize you're a newer gamer and have minimal experience compared to many in this discussion, so I've been sure to take that into consideration with everything you've said. This however, has nothing to do with gaming experience and seems like a deliberate misinterpretation to try and make some rhetorical point.

Second, most of the games I run don't tend to have BBEGs. Not that I've never done so... plenty of my earlier games included that, and there still may be something close to that now and again. It really depends on the game. It seems to be very prevalent in D&D because D&D is mostly about fighting, so it makes sense that the climax would be a big fight. But I don't think we should assume that will be the case for all games.

Third, just to run with your absurd example... sure. Why not? Just give the players all the details they need to be able to actually defeat the big monster. I mean, plenty of inspirational fiction works this way... known weaknesses and so on. You'll need the head of medusa to beat the kracken, and the like. The characters may know what they need to defeat the enemy... but now they have to be able to actually do it. Which is likely a journey in itself. If a GM can't make a game compelling beyond trying to limit the players' knowledge of the enemy, then I'd say they're not much of a GM.

Way to claim that your style is just better than other people's. Keeping information a secret from players if in your judgement there is no reason their PCs would know is just as legitimate a playstyle as leaving everything in the open all the time. Neither style makes you as worse GM like you're saying here.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Way to claim that your style is just better than other people's. Keeping information a secret from players if in your judgement there is no reason their PCs would know is just as legitimate a playstyle as leaving everything in the open all the time. Neither style makes you as worse GM like you're saying here.

That's not what I said, but of course you've misinterpreted it to take offense.

I said "If a GM can't make a game compelling beyond trying to limit the players' knowledge of the enemy, they're not much of a GM."

I expect that you know how to make a game compelling beyond that, Micah. I expect many are. This is largely my point... these NPC details being secret is a pretty small thing compared to the actual content of play. What the PCs are doing and why. Perseus was on a quest to save Cassiopeia from the Kracken... that's far more meaningful than the Kracken has an AC of 42.

This has nothing to do with "my style" being better. I don't even have a style, Micah. I play and run a variety of games, and they all work differently from one another.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's not what I said, but of course you've misinterpreted it to take offense.

I said "If a GM can't make a game compelling beyond trying to limit the players' knowledge of the enemy, they're not much of a GM."

I expect that you know how to make a game compelling beyond that, Micah. I expect many are. This is largely my point... these NPC details being secret is a pretty small thing compared to the actual content of play. What the PCs are doing and why. Perseus was on a quest to save Cassiopeia from the Kracken... that's far more meaningful than the Kracken has an AC of 42.

This has nothing to do with "my style" being better. I don't even have a style, Micah. I play and run a variety of games, and they all work differently from one another.

Fair enough. But if folks didn't think the question about what information the players should have was more than a "pretty small thing", we wouldn't have a thread this long about it.