How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Umbran]

The snarky hyperbole is what made it funny, silly!

Snarky hyperbole is only funny to people who already agree with you. That's a feature of snark, in general.

 

[James Gasik]

This can be an important distinction in games that are not class-based and thus have no hard line between spellcasters and not, especially when the latter bleeds into the community commonly. As a notable example, the vast majority of RuneQuest characters know some magic, albeit not high end; in an equivalent setting, I'd expect most characters to at least recognize a protective circle, if perhaps not all the details about it.

Like say, Earthdawn.

 

[Lanefan]

Whoever wanted the PCs to be rubes?

I want the possiblity to exist; and some players (including me sometimes) like the idea of the 'zero' in zero-to-hero actually meaning zero rather than zero-plus-a-bunch-of-not-zero-stuff.

I don't think of it as being discouraged from using their own ideas so much as how they come up with the ideas. What is the impetus for the GM's new idea? Is it related to the PCs in some way? This can be specific (a relative or an enemy or similar) or can be broad (a danger to X when one of the PCs is sworn to defend X).

The root difference being the GM's creativity has to engage on the fly as opportunity presents, rather than ahead of time.

It's just a different way to channel your creativity. We've talked about this kind of stuff before. You actively don't want the game to be "about" the PCs. They're all interchangeable in your eyes (or very close to that). These games are inherently about the PCs. So everything the GM does is meant to be in service to that idea.

Which is tangential to the idea of creativity in the moment vs creativity ahead of time, and which of those is more likely to provide a better game.

And it's not all or nothing. I mean, even the traddest of trad GMs still has to wing it sometimes when things don't go as planned; and even the storiest of story-now GMs will still have some pre-planning in there (e.g. pre-determining the setting and-or genre). There's a big long spectrum in between those.

My take is that GM-side creativity ahead of time, where one has a chance to think it over, refine it, augment it, write it down, or even chuck it if it ain't gonna work, is more likely to provide a better and more consistent game experience than if everything is made up on the fly.

And note that I say "more likely" there; it's not guaranteed. Some GMs are amazing at making things up on the fly and having it all fit together seamlessly, but I'd posit those people are fairly rare*. I'd also posit those same GMs are probably the best players anywhere, because player-side creativity is generally much more on-the-fly as new information becomes known.

* - similar to those truly amazing (and, really, very few) rap musicians who make up all their words and rhymes as they go along and thus never perform the same song twice.

I think that shift happened much earlier than 4e. I'd say mid-90s, although I think there was plenty of that stuff sooner. At most, that was a phase that you were meant to endure and move past as quickly as possible. And there's a reason... it stinks.

The "it stinks" there is pure preference.

 

[soviet]

The root difference being the GM's creativity has to engage on the fly as opportunity presents, rather than ahead of time.

Which is tangential to the idea of creativity in the moment vs creativity ahead of time, and which of those is more likely to provide a better game.

And it's not all or nothing. I mean, even the traddest of trad GMs still has to wing it sometimes when things don't go as planned; and even the storiest of story-now GMs will still have some pre-planning in there (e.g. pre-determining the setting and-or genre). There's a big long spectrum in between those.

My take is that GM-side creativity ahead of time, where one has a chance to think it over, refine it, augment it, write it down, or even chuck it if it ain't gonna work, is more likely to provide a better and more consistent game experience than if everything is made up on the fly.

If I may be so bold I'm not sure the idea presented was that GMs shouldn't necessarily prep ahead of time. I took it to be more that such prep ought to focus on and build around the drives and qualities of the characters, to the extent of being intended to challenge and/or highlight those things. As opposed to prep being more in isolation of the characters - here's a cool tower to explore, or an exciting mystery to solve - where the connections to the characters is more tangential or even non-existent.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I want the possiblity to exist; and some players (including me sometimes) like the idea of the 'zero' in zero-to-hero actually meaning zero rather than zero-plus-a-bunch-of-not-zero-stuff.

I suppose I see a difference between the average person and a rube.

But either way… not every game is about the zero-to-hero arc of D&D.

The root difference being the GM's creativity has to engage on the fly as opportunity presents, rather than ahead of time.

No, not really. As @soviet already said, you can still prep ahead of time. It’s just that you should be doing so with a mind toward the PCs and what’s relevant to them.

Having said that, I would say that adaptability and the ability to improv will likely be more central to GMing such a game compared to a trad game.

Which is tangential to the idea of creativity in the moment vs creativity ahead of time, and which of those is more likely to provide a better game.

This depends on many factors, not the least of which is what one thinks makes a game “better”.

And it's not all or nothing. I mean, even the traddest of trad GMs still has to wing it sometimes when things don't go as planned; and even the storiest of story-now GMs will still have some pre-planning in there (e.g. pre-determining the setting and-or genre). There's a big long spectrum in between those.

My take is that GM-side creativity ahead of time, where one has a chance to think it over, refine it, augment it, write it down, or even chuck it if it ain't gonna work, is more likely to provide a better and more consistent game experience than if everything is made up on the fly.

I would once again encourage you to actually try such a game. Having played and run both kinds myself, my impression is that your take is inaccurate and born of comfort and familiarity with and preference for only one of the two.

And note that I say "more likely" there; it's not guaranteed. Some GMs are amazing at making things up on the fly and having it all fit together seamlessly, but I'd posit those people are fairly rare*. I'd also posit those same GMs are probably the best players anywhere, because player-side creativity is generally much more on-the-fly as new information becomes known.

* - similar to those truly amazing (and, really, very few) rap musicians who make up all their words and rhymes as they go along and thus never perform the same song twice.

I think that it’s a skill that can be learned and improved. I run such games all the time and I don’t think I’m any more capable than most GMs. I think there are other factors that matter here… how well the game enables and empowers the GM to perform the role and the contributions of the players. You absolutely cannot have passive players in such a game.

The "it stinks" there is pure preference.

Of course. But so is the “it’s cool”.

Like I said, I’ve played zero level characters and the like many, many times. There’s nothing wrong with it. I just care for other types if play now.

 

[pemerton]

That seems contradictory regarding what you have said about it. That is has GMing principles that demand it to be run in certain way, whilst 5e really doesn't. Whether this is a good or bad thing is matter of opinion, but that it is really isn't.

In the same way that people can "play 5e" by using just the class rules, but making up their own rules for action resolution; or may use the action resolution rules but write up their own classes; may use Gygax-style dungeon build and framing rues; or Hickman-esque DL-ish approaches to establishing setting and situation; etc.

So just like 5e D&D, BW has PC build rules, a skill list, a spell list, a gear list, rules for setting difficulties, etc. So someone could take BW but ignore the Belief and Instinct rules, and ignore intent-and-task, and just run it as a RQ variant. (I think that would work as well as RQ does.) Or as a classic D&D variant.

I don't think the above is especially likely, because anyone who has heard of BW has probably also heard of RQ, and of Moldvay Basic, and so if they wanted to run that sort of game would use that system. But that's not a fact about the possible breadth of BW, but rather about the nature of its player-base.

(For completeness: this sort of claim about breadth can't be made for Apocalypse World, which doesn't use a system of "lists" for PC build, and doesn't have any generic rules for setting difficulties, and so can't be turned into an all-purpose task-resolution game.)

 

[Reynard]

Like say, Earthdawn.

Well, Earthdawn is a class based game, and very high dark fantasy one at that.

That said, some folks in this thread have very strange ideas of how folklore works and what people in an actual magical world would be aware of. People aren't oblivious, even if they aren't formally educated. If magic is real, they will know something about it (but are probably partially wrong). If they see a circle filled with weird runes, they are going to understand its something magical.

 

[pemerton]

Eh. I don't really think there is much of a difference in practice. If a chracter is looking for their missing sister and it is then revealed that she was kidnapped by a mysterious cult, it doesn't much matter whether The GM came up with the idea of the cult before and then it occurred to them that the sister thing could be related to that, or whether the GM came up with the cult whilst thinking about the missing sister. If you integrate it well it will feel just as compelling regardless of which thought occurred in the GM's head first. I care much more about the end results than whether the GM arrived to those results by following the orthodox dogma.

I know that this is part of a parallel conversation. But I thought I would take this opportunity to say that, as described, this does not seem to me to be very player-driven. It seems more like the example from the 3E DMG of the GM using the desire to have Mialee raised as the "lure" for the wererat quest.

Now, if the mysterious cult is something that comes out of or responds or plays upon a player-authored priority, that's a different matter. But at that point, it obviously does matter when and how the GM is coming up with the idea of linking the cult to the sister.

How? What would make it not so? Also note that a half sentence example I came up in a second probably doesn't accurately reflect the full complexity and nuance it would have in play.

Why?

@Campbell gave a brief response. As is my wont, I will give a fuller one.

I'll start with the 3E DMG one. The players, playing their PCs, wish to have Mialee raised from the dead. Knowing this, the GM present a NPC who can provide this service, if only the PCs deal with the wererats. So what does most of the play actually involve? Presumably, dealing with the wererats? What are most of the action declarations and other player decisions going to pertain to? Presumably, dealing with the wererats. Where is the thematic element or personal stakes in most of those decisions? Well as best I can tell, given my familiarity with D&D-esque wererat quests, there won't be any.

Now turn to the cult one. The player, playing their PC, wishes to find/rescue their sister. The GM presents the information about the cult. Then the PC goes to deal with the cult. What is most of the play about? Just as in the previous paragraph, it seems to be mostly about dealing with the cult. Obviously details can vary, but ultimately this could be run using (say) the A2 Slavers' Stockade module, only reflavouring the Slavers as a cult.

In the player-driven play that I enjoy, the idea is that each scene puts the players to some sort of choice or decision that carries thematic weight for them. This isn't achieved just by having a dungeon, or other adventure, where the "prize" at the end is rescuing their sister (as opposed to some other less significant NPC) or having the cleric raise Mialee (as opposed to pay some other less specific reward).

Hence my comment that it matters where the cult comes from. If the cult itself is something that matters - so, eg, the interaction with the cult puts the player to some sort of choice about their PC's loyalties (sister vs cult); and this is actually present, as express or implicit stakes that are underpinning action declarations and informing the narration of consequences - then we are getting closer to player-driven RPGing.

 

[pemerton]

Nobody really likes their preferences being referred to as an outlier (which I suspect is why @pemerton seems defensive), but sometimes they are, to the best demographic understanding we have anyway. Folks on this forum have certainly informed me that many of my gaming preferences make me an outlier. I'm actually ok with that.

Obviously Burning Wheel is not as widely played as 5e D&D.

That is a numerical fact. That doesn't make it a normative fact.

 

[pemerton]

If the game dictates that everything must stem from the desires and beliefs of the characters, then we are only allowed to do the character focus episodes.

See, this is an oddly dogmatic assertion from someone who professes to renounce dogmatism!

And it's false.

Suppose that a PC has the following two beliefs: I will be ruler of this land and I will see the divine will realised among mortals.

And suppose the situation, in the fiction, is a power struggle between a stronger army, and the clerical army. The PC's best chance of becoming ruler is by joining, and leading, the stronger army. But this would - at least at first blush - seem to require turning on the clerical army and as a result laying waste to the church.

Now we have ample scope for player-driven RPGing, and the focus will be on these political and military struggles. Of course the engagement with them will be mediated via the PC, but that is a feature of all RPGing.