How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Reynard]

I think maybe we shouldn't presume any level of superiority of our preferred styles, modes and games, and rather just think of them as what they are: mere preferences. Because the other way is very, very tiresome.

 

[darkbard]

That conflation is perfectly intentional, and I'd argue essential to the sort of play @Lanefan does (and which I prefer.)

Trying to separate the rules from the fictional reality they represent is antithetical to this approach. It is not meaningful to talk about a player succeeding at a test or a character succeeding at task as separate entities, as these are one and the same, merely looked at from different angles.

So, by this logic, you're fully on board with every PC knowing that fire or acid defeats a trolls regeneration ... because conflating character and player knowledge is the desiderstum here? At the very least, I assure you, @Lanefan is not on board with such!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, by this logic, you're fully on board with every PC knowing that fire or acid defeats a trolls regeneration ... because conflating character and player knowledge is the desiderstum here? At the very least, I assure you, @Lanefan is not on board with such!

No, that is a completely separate matter. I was talking about the role of the rules.

 

[darkbard]

No, that is a completely separate matter. I was talking about the role of the rules.

So if the player knows the rules indicate fire and acid defeat a troll, the character should know such via this conflating, yes?

 

[hawkeyefan]

When someone posts a Like (or one of the other reaction emoticons) to you with regards to one of your posts, have you ever wondered if they liked everything you had to say in your post, or which part of your post earned the Like to begin with? I do.

Sure. But when only one point is made in a post, it’s generally pretty easy to see what point is being appreciated.

I would imagine common knowledge of runic circles on most world to be around "This looks like it could be some sort of a magic thing, I guess..."

Sure, that’s a perfectly fine way to look at it.

All I’m saying is that I wouldn’t bother holding that info back. I’d just share the details with a PC with whom it made sense to share.

Beyond this, it would take someone with more in depth knowledge to know what kind of runic circle it happened to be, how it could be activated/deactivated, and what kind of runes it used.

Why do you say “would” here? That implies there’s only one way to handle this.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So if the player knows the rules indicate fire and acid defeat a troll, the character should know such via this conflating, yes?

No. You're really not talking about same thing than I was talking about at all.

 

[Reynard]

So if the player knows the rules indicate fire and acid defeat a troll, the character should know such via this conflating, yes?

There are a couple different discussions happening under the awning of the OP, and it might be better to ask for clarification rather than accusing.

 

[darkbard]

There are a couple different discussions happening under the awning of the OP, and it might be better to ask for clarification rather than accusing.

You've literally quoted my clarifying question and then labeled it as accusation.

 

[pemerton]

Just because it happened outside of conscious thought, doesn't mean it wasn't an action. It was just an unconscious action. You don't think about walking when you cross the room to grab a banana to eat, but you still successfully walked there.

Recognising is not voluntary or intentional. Walking across the room is. That's not the only difference, but it's one place to start.

In any event, as I replied recently to @Lanefan, I am talking about the action the player takes in the play of the game. If the player hasn't taken an action, there is nothing to succeed or fail. Whatever the GM is doing, they are not declaring an "auto success".

And this is not a merely semantic point. It is about the different things that GMs and players do in the play of the game, and how these relate to each other and to the shared fiction that is being created.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah. I'm not sure why @pemerton would think that there wouldn't be peasants building and maintaining castles and other structures just because there aren't set mechanics for it.

My point is that none of this is on display in any D&D pseudo-mediaeval setting that I am aware of. All these settings seem to involve basically market economies. The rulebooks are full of price lists. We have charts for daily/weekly/monthly/yearly income by social class/standing. Etc.

Similarly, these settings use the concepts of nation, border, law, taxation etc all in basically a modern fashion.