How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[pemerton]

That phrasing is why I don't like the phrase "scene framing". It strongly implies that narrative point of view, taking me out if the world and into stage direction.

I find it hard to believe, as a GM, that you require your players to work through every second of their PCs' lives.

Surely you say things like, "OK, is everyone done? Good. Then, the next morning you leave town . . ." or "OK, is everyone done? Good. Then, the next morning when you wake up . . . ".

If someone responds "No, hang on, before we leave town I want to . . . " or "No, hang on, before I go to sleep I want to . . ." that is exactly the player agency I was describing. The player is not ready for the next scene, and lets you know as much.

 

[darkbard]

Because it was not about character and player knowledge at all. It is about the role of the rules. That a rule entity of a check succeeding is the same thing than the fiction element of a character succeeding, merely looked at a different refence frame, thus it makes no sense to talk of them as separate events.

So if a player calls for a knowledge roll to see if their PC knows if fire and acid will affect the troll and the GM says "no, because that's metagaming, your character wouldn't know that," is this a rules issue or is this a conflating of player/character knowledge? Or is a player not allowed to call for such a roll at all because there can be no conflating what a character knows with what a player imagines their character might know?

These are legitimate questions, but undoubtedly I'm trying to suss out where the lines are for who is allowed to have control over a PC's knowledge.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

Though "most" may be doing a little heavy lifting there.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If you frame a scene and no one is interested it, then you reframe.

Or if you game is built around expectations of the scene as the basic unit of play (Burning Wheel is an example), then you build in rules and mechanics that permit the players to reframe the scene themselves. The following instructions to players from the BW rulebook address this directly (it is found on revised, p 269; the same text is also in the Gold rulebook):

Use the mechanics! Players are expected to call for a Duel of Wits or a Circles test or to demand the Range and Cover rules in a shooting match . . . Don't wait for the GM to invoke a rule - invoke the damn thing yourself and get the story moving! . . . If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself.​

So what @Pedantic said is not, in fact, trivially true. The game needn't fall apart if the GM doesn't produce content the players want to engage (via their PCs).

Basically if the GM consistently cannot frame things that interest the players, then the GM is defunct. They're not doing their job. Yes, perhaps the game could limp along in some pathetic manner, but ultimately it has become dysfunctional and is unlikely to last. A GM should frame things that are interesting to the players is obviously good advice.

As you said, the issue is a particular one,
But even that is probably too general. It is not just the volume of prep, but it's nature: the design of an adventure that the PCs must "end up in". This is what creates the need to "lure" the players into the GM's prep.

I think the "luring" could happen towards smaller portions of prepped material as well.

 

[Reynard]

So if a player calls for a knowledge roll to see if their PC knows if fire and acid will affect the troll and the GM says "no, because that's metagaming, your character wouldn't know that," is this a rules issue or is this a conflating of player/character knowledge? Or is a player not allowed to call for such a roll at all because there can be no conflating what a character knows with what a player imagines their character might know?

These are legitimate questions, but undoubtedly I'm trying to suss out where the lines are for who is allowed to have control over a PC's knowledge.

There are a couple things at work here that I think are important.

1. How "common" is this knowledge. Is it folklore? Because if it is folklore, there is just as good a chance the PC learned the wrong thing (stories being what they are). What I would do, because I am a RBDM, is set a DC and have the PC make a check. In any case, they are told "yes, trolls are vulnerable to acid and fire." But, if they fail, I would make that explicitly not true, and if they failed by A LOT, I would have fire and acid benefit the troll.

2. What isvthe point of play, and are you testing characters or players? If the former, never use a troll. Make up your own monster or steal one from a little known resource. The point is to challenge the player, not the PC. Make them work for it. But if they suss out the puzzle, make it really meaningful.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

OK. But upthread you objected to my description of the GM playing the character whereas now you seem to be embracing it: the GM deciding that the PC knows something, or calls for a roll by the player to determine whether or not the PC knows something, is not different from the player of that PC declaring that action. The player hasn't declared anything, and hence at that moment it must be the GM playing the PC.

How you conceptualise things seems to be preoccupied by some sort of contention or struggle for control between the GM and the player.
I just really do not think things in that way.

In 5e we roll when there is uncertainty. A character has seen something, and we are unsure whether they know what it is. The situation in in fiction has reached a point where there is uncertainty of outcome. A roll using appropriate skill is being made to determine the outcome.

That the fiction has ended up in such a situation, is of course due contributions of both the GM and the player. The player has presumably declared that their character goes into certain locations, perhaps suspecting that there might be a thing to perceive there. The GM has determined that there indeed is a thing to perceive at the location, and that the nature of thing is somewhat obscure.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So if a player calls for a knowledge roll to see if their PC knows if fire and acid will affect the troll and the GM says "no, because that's metagaming, your character wouldn't know that," is this a rules issue or is this a conflating of player/character knowledge? Or is a player not allowed to call for such a roll at all because there can be no conflating what a character knows with what a player imagines their character might know?

These are legitimate questions, but undoubtedly I'm trying to suss out where the lines are for who is allowed to have control over a PC's knowledge.

This still has nothing to do with what I was talking about but I'll answer nevertheless. It obviously is possible to roll to ascertain what the character knows of trolls, and it is not metagaming to do so, as we could do this regardless of the player's knowledge of the trolls.

 

[pemerton]

I have a legitimate question: is Burning Wheel a Play To Find Out Game? If so, how does it do Scene Framing in a satisfying way, since neither the scene nor the framing can be known beforehand. If not, what separates it from other RPGs where the GM tells you (the group) where you are and what's happening.

"Play to find out" is something I associate first and foremost with Apocalypse World. But I would say that BW is broadly similar in its aspiration, stated in that abstract way.

When we get down into the technical nitty-gritty, BW is different from AW. It is based around the scene as the basic unit of play, and around "intent and task", "say 'yes' or roll the dice" and "let it ride" as the core principles of action resolution. (Whereas AW uses player-side moves together with "if you do it, you do it".)

The family of games that BW belongs to (in rough chronological order) is Prince Valiant, Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, In A Wicked Age, Dogs in the Vineyard and (at least as I read an play it) 4e D&D. (And also BW's own offshoots, like Mouse Guard and Torchbearer.) Some Ron Edwards games (eg Sorcerer) probably belong in there too, but I don't know them well enough to be confident about that.

What these games have in common is the scene as the basic unit of play, and intent and its connection to clear stakes (whether expressly articulated, or implicit in the scene) as the crux for the resolution of action declarations: if the player succeeds, their PC realises their intent; if the player fails, the GM narrates what happens and is expected to do so having primary regard to the PC's failure to realise their intent. This is what escalates the stakes, and thus creates rising action.

The way that Burning Wheel does scene framing is this (I'm quoting from pp 9-11 of Gold Revised, which has slightly clearer wording than Revised):

In the game, players take on the roles of characters inspired by history and works of fantasy fiction. These characters are a list of abilities rated with numbers and a list of player-determined priorities. . . . Expressing these numbers and priorities within situations presented by the game master (GM) is what the game is all about. . . .

There are consequences to your choices in this game. They range from the very black and white, "If I engage in this duel, my character might die," to the more complex, "If my character undertakes this task, he'll be changed, and I don't know exactly how." Recognizing that the system enforces these choices will help you navigate play. I always encourage players to think before they test their characters. Are you prepared to accept the consequences of your actions?

The in-game consequences of the players' decisions are described in this rulebook. The moral ramifications are left to you. . .

Burning Wheel . . . is inherently a social game. The players interact with one another to come to decisions and have the characters undertake actions.

One of you takes on the role of the game master. The GM is responsible for challenging the players. . . . Everyone else plays a protagonist in the story. . . . The GM present the players with problems based on the players' priorities. The players use their characters' abilities to overcome these obstacles. To do this, dice are rolled and the results are interpreted using the rules presented in this book.​

So the players build their PCs, which include player-authored priorities (these are expressed in a range of ways, including as Beliefs, Instincts, Traits, Relationships, Affiliations and Reputations). The GM, having regard to those priorities, frames scenes (or "presents situations") which pose problems/obstacles in light of those priorities. The players then declare actions. These are resolved via the principles/techniques I mentioned above (intent + task; say 'yes' or roll the dice; let it ride). And the upshot is then worked out, feeding into a new situation. Because of the role of intent in establishing consequences (if the player succeeds, they get their intent; if the player fails, the GM narrates a consequence that includes the player not getting their intent), whatever the upshot is, it will pertain in some fashion to the player priorities.

The difference from some other approaches to RPGing in which the GM tells the players where the PCs are, and what is happening, is that what is happening bears directly upon the player-determined priorities. To support this, the BW rulebooks have extensive discussion on how players and GM can work together, at the outset of a game, to establish an initial situation and background in which those player-determined priorities can be expressed and put under pressure. In functional terms, this is similar to the first session in AW.

 

[pemerton]

This quote:

Makes it perfectly clear that @Crimson Longinus is talking about "physics" and not "player knowledge" about trolls.

Do you think there is space between these things?

What does "physics" mean here. Not what I find when I look up my physics textbook!

Especially as the conversation has been about recognition and knowledge, which seem to belong to the domain of psychology rather than physics.

And I don't see at all what @darkbard is supposed to be conflating. @Crimson Longinus has said (as I understand it) that the GM's narration of a detail is equivalent to the player succeeding on a knowledge check, because of player-PC identity; hence it is of no matter whether the player declares an action that is resolved via a check or the GM just tells the player to roll a check.

darkbard has aid that if the player and PC are identical, then player knowledge is PC knowledge.

I don't see the contrast between the two cases that is supposed to be obvious.

 

[Reynard]

"Play to find out" is something I associate first and foremost with Apocalypse World. But I would say that BW is broadly similar in its aspiration, stated in that abstract way.

When we get down into the technical nitty-gritty, BW is different from AW. It is based around the scene as the basic unit of play, and around "intent and task", "say 'yes' or roll the dice" and "let it ride" as the core principles of action resolution. (Whereas AW uses player-side moves together with "if you do it, you do it".)

The family of games that BW belongs to (in rough chronological order) is Prince Valiant, Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, In A Wicked Age, Dogs in the Vineyard and (at least as I read an play it) 4e D&D. (And also BW's own offshoots, like Mouse Guard and Torchbearer.) Some Ron Edwards games (eg Sorcerer) probably belong in there too, but I don't know them well enough to be confident about that.

What these games have in common is the scene as the basic unit of play, and intent and its connection to clear stakes (whether expressly articulated, or implicit in the scene) as the crux for the resolution of action declarations: if the player succeeds, their PC realises their intent; if the player fails, the GM narrates what happens and is expected to do so having primary regard to the PC's failure to realise their intent. This is what escalates the stakes, and thus creates rising action.

The way that Burning Wheel does scene framing is this (I'm quoting from pp 9-11 of Gold Revised, which has slightly clearer wording than Revised):

In the game, players take on the roles of characters inspired by history and works of fantasy fiction. These characters are a list of abilities rated with numbers and a list of player-determined priorities. . . . Expressing these numbers and priorities within situations presented by the game master (GM) is what the game is all about. . . .​

​

There are consequences to your choices in this game. They range from the very black and white, "If I engage in this duel, my character might die," to the more complex, "If my character undertakes this task, he'll be changed, and I don't know exactly how." Recognizing that the system enforces these choices will help you navigate play. I always encourage players to think before they test their characters. Are you prepared to accept the consequences of your actions?​

​

The in-game consequences of the players' decisions are described in this rulebook. The moral ramifications are left to you. . .​

​

Burning Wheel . . . is inherently a social game. The players interact with one another to come to decisions and have the characters undertake actions.​

​

One of you takes on the role of the game master. The GM is responsible for challenging the players. . . . Everyone else plays a protagonist in the story. . . . The GM present the players with problems based on the players' priorities. The players use their characters' abilities to overcome these obstacles. To do this, dice are rolled and the results are interpreted using the rules presented in this book.​

So the players build their PCs, which include player-authored priorities (these are expressed in a range of ways, including as Beliefs, Instincts, Traits, Relationships, Affiliations and Reputations). The GM, having regard to those priorities, frames scenes (or "presents situations") which pose problems/obstacles in light of those priorities. The players then declare actions. These are resolved via the principles/techniques I mentioned above (intent + task; say 'yes' or roll the dice; let it ride). And the upshot is then worked out, feeding into a new situation. Because of the role of intent in establishing consequences (if the player succeeds, they get their intent; if the player fails, the GM narrates a consequence that includes the player not getting their intent), whatever the upshot is, it will pertain in some fashion to the player priorities.

The difference from some other approaches to RPGing in which the GM tells the players where the PCs are, and what is happening, is that what is happening bears directly upon the player-determined priorities. To support this, the BW rulebooks have extensive discussion on how players and GM can work together, at the outset of a game, to establish an initial situation and background in which those player-determined priorities can be expressed and put under pressure. In functional terms, this is similar to the first session in AW.

Thank you for the detailed response. One of these days I need to pick up a copy of a BW game (probably in the form of Torchbearer).

But I still don't understand how this "scene as a basic unit of play" mechanism removes the kind of GM author stance you seem in your posts to be so opposed to.