How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[pemerton]

If however the GM wants to have it be (or previous events in play have somehow made it) an open question whether anyone in the party will recognize the statue when they see it, then calling for a roll in mid-narration seems like a good way to do it.

Suppose we think that it is possible that someone will recognise the statute, then - until you tell me why it matters - I don't see the difference between the GM tossing a coin, the GM calling for a die roll, or the GM just deciding.

More generally, there is an assumption sitting behind your example that the players may encounter statues and the like where there is little at stake in the encounter itself. That's not an assumption that I adhere to in my RPGing.

 

[Pedantic]

This seems unrelated to my point, which is not about how difficulties are set nor about how consequences are established but rather who decides that the player-side action resolution processes (including the mechanics, if any) are now applicable.

I started with an explanation of how this could easily be moved to an entirely player invisible system, if so desired. There's no reason this needs to interact with the action resolution mechanics at all, and might be entirely a passive information gathering system. Having the player doing the rolling doesn't require the system interact with action declaration.

 

[pemerton]

That the trope " Reality until proven otherwise" is a viable gaming/worldbuilding principle.

OK. The world contains flying dragons. Hence "reality" as far as it pertains to biodynamics, the density of air, and perhaps universal gravitation more generally, doesn't obtain.

Now we can talk about what actually governs D&D worldbuilding - a bundle of tropes and expectations, some established by genre authors (eg REH, Jack Vance, JRRT) and some developed over time by the game authors.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've always read that as, "I prefer games where the GMs job is mostly to make sure the players get what they want". Quite frankly, I want more out of being a GM than that.

Here's one go at it:

Here's a briefer post that focuses on one particularly salient point:

 

[pemerton]

I started with an explanation of how this could easily be moved to an entirely player invisible system, if so desired.

You mean this?

the passive skill or defensive stat is pretty well understood at this point, and knowledge skills are just another form of that. You can basically conceptualize it as Perception for context.

There's no reason this needs to interact with the action resolution mechanics at all, and might be entirely a passive information gathering system. Having the player doing the rolling doesn't require the system interact with action declaration.

If it's not connected to action declaration, than terms like "auto success" or "auto failure" seem inapplicable, as nothing is succeeding or failing. Which is where this particular discussion started.

As far as your system is concerned - the GM rolling dice against various PC-specific stats to determine what to describe to the players - I don't really see it's point, or at least not yet. Why are we rationing the information about the imaginary world that the GM is describing not by reference to declared actions (ie the play of the game), nor by reference to what the GM thinks is interesting or provocative (another part of the play of the game) but by reference to these PC build elements? What is this contributing to the play of the game?

 

[pemerton]

I've always read that as, "I prefer games where the GMs job is mostly to make sure the players get what they want".

I think then that you need to work on your reading comprehension skills, given that neither of those posts uses that phrase, nor any synonyms for it, nor anything that entails it.

Unless by "what they want" you mean an interesting and engaging few hours of pay, in which case yes - I'm guilty as charged! I do aim to GM sessions that are interesting and engaging.

 

[Campbell]

I have a fairly strong aesthetic preference for dice to be used to resolve fictional uncertainty, things being in doubt in the fictional situation - rather than a tool to resolve our personal uncertainty about the fictional situation. Dice then become a totem for helping us to feel the tension of the situation. The more we use dice in situations where there is no fictional uncertainty the less power they have as a totem.

That may or may not matter to you, but for me personally that tension felt across the whole table is an essential part of what make roleplaying games fun (for me).

 

[Pedantic]

You mean this?
If it's not connected to action declaration, than terms like "auto success" or "auto failure" seem inapplicable, as nothing is succeeding or failing. Which is where this particular discussion started.

No, you've linked that to action declaration unilaterally. Success or failure in this case clearly means the player does or does not get access to some piece of information. If you want the least controversial example, let's use monster identification, and assume success means the player will know the enemy's statistics and weaknesses, and will thus be able to consider their action declarations more carefully. A successful result is better for the player, but no action occurs.

As far as your system is concerned - the GM rolling dice against various PC-specific stats to determine what to describe to the players - I don't really see it's point, or at least not yet. Why are we rationing the information about the imaginary world that the GM is describing not by reference to declared actions (ie the play of the game), nor by reference to what the GM thinks is interesting or provocative (another part of the play of the game) but by reference to these PC build elements? What is this contributing to the play of the game?

The player is communicating a strategy with their build choices. They have opted to trade other potential benefits (in more active skills or whatever other character resource they spent for those abilities) in exchange for more information. Ideally, a game that allows such a trade should provide something of value in that information. I'm not sure why this is controversial, this is exactly the same as a character picking a passive benefit, like a +1 to all rolls of a given kind, to an active benefit, like a 1/day maneuver. In fact, this exact choice is often available in other kinds of games, especially RPGs.

 

[Pedantic]

I have a fairly strong aesthetic preference for dice to be used to resolve fictional uncertainty, things being in doubt in the fictional situation - rather than a tool to resolve our personal uncertainty about the fictional situation. Dice then become a totem for helping us to feel the tension of the situation. The more we use dice in situations where there is no fictional uncertainty the less power they have as a totem.

That may or may not matter to you, but for me personally that tension felt across the whole table is an essential part of what make roleplaying games fun (for me).

I don't care for dice rolling as ritual, and tend to think they're overrated by nearly all camps in TTRPGs. Risk assessment is interesting and fun, but I'd rather interact with it over a larger scale at critically interesting points, than in every moment of play. It simply isn't necessary that resolution only be invoked at points of tension. There's still expression and play going on when a player has made choices that result in a situation without risk, or is demonstrating a capability they spent resources to have.

 

[pemerton]

No, you've linked that to action declaration unilaterally. Success or failure in this case clearly means the player does or does not get access to some piece of information. If you want the least controversial example, let's use monster identification, and assume success means the player will know the enemy's statistics and weaknesses, and will thus be able to consider their action declarations more carefully. A successful result is better for the player, but no action occurs.

I've linked it because success and failure are associated with attempts or things tried.

This jargon-istic use of "success" to mean the GM tells you something and "failure" to mean the GM doesn't tell you something, independent of anyone trying to achieve something, is not one I'm familiar with.

The player is communicating a strategy with their build choices. They have opted to trade other potential benefits (in more active skills or whatever other character resource they spent for those abilities) in exchange for more information. Ideally, a game that allows such a trade should provide something of value in that information. I'm not sure why this is controversial, this is exactly the same as a character picking a passive benefit, like a +1 to all rolls of a given kind, to an active benefit, like a 1/day maneuver. In fact, this exact choice is often available in other kinds of games, especially RPGs.

I don't see these things as "exactly the same" at all. The trade off between (say) a constant +1 and an activated +3 is partly about maths (and strategic decision-making about the tactical application of maths), and partly about what sorts of decisions I want to have to make in the play of my character.

But what is involved in deciding to have the GM give me more or less information? What is the strategy here? How is it tactically significant to know, now, who the statue is of? It seems to me like it could easily be low- or zero-stakes colour.