The Hidden Rules

[ExploderWizard]

This is a good topic worthy of it's own thread. I thought it would be best to get it out of the edition war thread.

howandwhy99 wrote
"My own preference is for a more traditional D&D type game, meaning it is an elaborate pattern finding game engaging the players logical reasoning abilities as the foremost activity of play. In this game all the rules fit on a single page or so for every player to know, but the rules hidden behind the screen to be guessed, those created by the referee, are as complex, elegant, mystifying, and pleasurable as he or she can create."



Lostsoul wrote
"I find this fascinating - maybe better forked to another thread.

What do you think the effect on player choice is in this scenario? In order to make meaningful decisions you need to have some information... could you go so far as to say that the game is about getting to know the DM's worldview?"

This is an interesting topic because player choice as it relates to the feel of the game largely depends on what those choices are based on.

A heavy codified ruleset known to all participants provides a huge common ground of basic assumptions which are shared. A great deal of this knowledge can be considered metagame knowledge for the benefit of the player. Player decisions can then be largely driven by this knowledge. Depending on the rules used, such knowledge may conflict greatly with logic and/or the decision that would be chosen by a character in a given situation in which the metagame knowledge was unknown.

This type of rules structure can lead to a very binary and unimaginative game. With the rules clearly laid out and optimal choices readily apparent, the trap of optimal decision making patterns is easy to fall into making one game so very much like another that the differences are immaterial. The DM unless he/she alters the shared known rules openly is bound to reward those same optimal decisions again and again if running a fair game.

A rules light system provides much less in the way of common assumptions for all. The mechanics cover only the most basic aspects of play with the remainder to be filled in by the DM depending on the feel of game that he/she is going for.

The effect of this style of game on player decision making is huge. Without a huge repository of metagame knowledge to draw upon, player choices are more likely to be made from the perspective of the character. This makes player choice more meaningful IMHO rather than less. More meaningful as I see it translates to choosing the most reasonable option in a given situation based on known quantities at the time. If all the metagame mechanical consequences are known before a decision is made then the only decision to be made is to choose the route of optimal success, the route of failure, and possibly some branching paths of limited success or failure. In any event, not choosing the route of optimal success is choosing to fail to a greater or lesser degree for whatever reason. With all options and their respective success chances laid out beforehand most decisions can be made on autopilot. How is this somehow meaningful?

A lot of the conflict I have seen in games between DM's and players has come from DM's running a heavy complex rules set and expecting players to make decisions as if the rules (and thus the optimal choices) were invisible. If the decisions made by the players are to be based in common sense and logic then the rules (hidden or not) need to based on such principles.

 

[Nagol]

Hidden rulesets can be fun in the right circumstance, but they can also be problematic. It can lead to large disconnects -- particularly early in the campaign as the player perceived version of common sense and appropriate actions are at odds with the GM or the rules creator. This can be especially problematic when the player feels his knowledge is equal to or exceeds the GM/rules creator in the field of expertise and that his action is justified and appropriate. Game mechanic artefacts/compromises also act to stymie the use of "common sense" inside a game universe.

A couple of examples from my play experience follow:

The characters are modern detectves and are chasing a villain. The meanie slams and locks a door blocking their path. Player A says "I shoot the lock with my pistol!" and the ricochet hits player B and disables him.

The players thought the cinematic move was appropriate and likely to work based on the feel of the game and "common sense" derived primarily from movies and TV shows. The GM thought the move was silly based upon his understanding of ballistics. The characters were supposed to be trained semi-professionals. How much knowledge should the characters have had?


A grease fire breaks out in the kitchen of a seventh floor apartment in a game of Hero Games (3rd or 4th edition). Is it more sensible for a normal human character to (A) jump out of the window and fall to the parking lot below or (B) try to put it out? If you said (B), you're likely rolling up a new character if the fire is played straight from the book. If you said (A), the character is very likely to dust himself off and carry on as if he'd been punched hard once. Common sense rarely informs a player about the relative appropriateness of actions compared to one another inside the game universe. How is the player to reach the point where he even thinks of (A) as an option? "Common sense" would suggest grease fires, while dangerous, are better than falling six storeys.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Hidden rulesets can be fun in the right circumstance, but they can also be problematic. It can lead to large disconnects -- particularly early in the campaign as the player perceived version of common sense and appropriate actions are at odds with the GM or the rules creator. This can be especially problematic when the player feels his knowledge is equal to or exceeds the GM/rules creator in the field of expertise and that his action is justified and appropriate. Game mechanic artefacts/compromises also act to stymie the use of "common sense" inside a game universe.

A couple of examples from my play experience follow:

The characters are modern detectves and are chasing a villain. The meanie slams and locks a door blocking their path. Player A says "I shoot the lock with my pistol!" and the ricochet hits player B and disables him.

The players thought the cinematic move was appropriate and likely to work based on the feel of the game and "common sense" derived primarily from movies and TV shows. The GM thought the move was silly based upon his understanding of ballistics. The characters were supposed to be trained semi-professionals. How much knowledge should the characters have had?

It would be a fine lesson in assumptions for the player if this action was taken without any inquiry. Common sense from movies and TV, really?

If the player had inquired if (in his character's professional opinion) shooting the lock had much of chance to work the DM might have informed him that such an action was very risky.

The big question here is what in the game had happened before to make the player believe that movie common sense held such sway in the game?

A grease fire breaks out in the kitchen of a seventh floor apartment in a game of Hero Games (3rd or 4th edition). Is it more sensible for a normal human character to (A) jump out of the window and fall to the parking lot below or (B) try to put it out? If you said (B), you're likely rolling up a new character if the fire is played straight from the book. If you said (A), the character is very likely to dust himself off and carry on as if he'd been punched hard once. Common sense rarely informs a player about the relative appropriateness of actions compared to one another inside the game universe. How is the player to reach the point where he even thinks of (A) as an option? "Common sense" would suggest grease fires, while dangerous, are better than falling six storeys.

It would depend largely on the severity of the fire and the liklihood of putting it out. People might not believe that they will walk away from or even survive option A and still consider it a valid alternative to burning up in a fire.

 

[GnomeWorks]

How is this somehow meaningful?

You're painting your opposition in an unfair light.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You're painting your opposition in an unfair light.

Please explain. It is simply an opinion and it would be helpful to understand why you find it unfair.

 

[Nagol]

It would be a fine lesson in assumptions for the player if this action was taken without any inquiry. Common sense from movies and TV, really?

If the player had inquired if (in his character's professional opinion) shooting the lock had much of chance to work the DM might have informed him that such an action was very risky.

The big question here is what in the game had happened before to make the player believe that movie common sense held such sway in the game?

The campaign was set up as a private detective game a la Simon & Simon or Magnum P.I. The player thought shooting the lock was a in-genre move. The player didn""t know that the ruleset and GM didn"t agree.

It would depend largely on the severity of the fire and the liklihood of putting it out. People might not believe that they will walk away from or even survive option A and still consider it a valid alternative to burning up in a fire.

The point is really in that ruleset jumping out of the 7th storey window is the blatantly better option. The fall will deal 7d6 normal damage to the character once. That damage can't kill an average untrained human and probably won't even stun a player character. The fire will do (if run as presented in the rulebook) 0.5 d6 killing damage plus a ~1d6 NND (not breathing) from smoke every second. The character may act no more frequently than once per 3 seconds and is very lilkely stunned or unconscious before being able to react once the fire is approached. The average human is killed before being allowed a second action.

The ruleset assumptions deviate so heavily from player experience that not presenting the rules offers a huge disconnect for the player.

 

[FireLance]

I believe that no matter how simple or complex the ruleset, the DM can always create a hidden rule. Hidden rules could range from a new rule which the players are expected to discover, or changing the way an existing rule works. While the former may be more common in a simple ruleset while the latter may be more common in a complex ruleset, any of them could happen in either ruleset. In addition, a rule may effectively be "hidden" from the players simply because they do not know about it!

Given that hidden rules may be encountered in any system, one important role for the DM is to lead the players through the process of discovering the rule, usually through trial and error. The way I see it, there are two potential pitfalls here.

First is the problem of incompatible worldviews, as mentioned earlier. Ideally, what the players attempt should result in reasonable consequences (barring complications such as incomplete or incorrect information - see below). Of course, the key problem is that different people can sometimes have very different ideas of what is reasonable. One person's clever solution that should succeed can be another person's abhorrent scheme that ought to fail. When this happens to people on different sides of the DM screen, the DM may find himself either wondering why the players don't take the obvious approach, or aghast that the players are prepared to do something that he never thought they would. The consequences of a choice can sometimes seem overly harsh to the players, and can be a source of player-DM conflict. Because of this ambiguity, a DM should be particularly careful when using game-ending consequences such as character death.

The second problem is that of incomplete information. In the case of a hidden rule, the DM may deliberately leave out important information because finding it is supposed to be part of the challenge of interacting with and discovering the rule. In such situations, a DM who doesn't want the game to end abruptly should avoid using game-ending consequences, or ensure that the players get sufficient feedback before the consequence happens. This is for pretty much the same reason that a game of Hangman doesn't end after just one letter is guessed incorrectly, and why the game of Twenty Questions is not called One Guess. As a side issue of this potential problem, the DM should take care to give the players any information that he is not deliberately hiding, and which the PCs ought to reasonably know (and remember not to fall into the incompatible worldviews trap above and assume that the players should know anything).

So, to sum up, when navigating your players through a hidden rule:

1. Don't assume they know anything
2. Make sure you tell them everything they should know
3. Provide constant feedback on what's happening and how they're doing
4. Use game-ending consequences sparingly

 

[Bullgrit]

It would be a fine lesson in assumptions for the player if this action was taken without any inquiry. Common sense from movies and TV, really?

I'd rather not have to play twenty-questions to determine the DM's idea of "sense" (or his mood) before taking an action in a game.

And is common sense from a fantasy/action RPG any more logical than from movies and TV?

I prefer to have the standard rules for how the world works open to the Players. When the PCs come to a locked chest, I prefer they know the standard rules so they can make a decision on whether it's better to pick the lock or bash in the top. I don't want to spend five minutes describing the details of the chest and lock so they can make their decision. There are plenty of unknowable variables left that can make the results a surprise.

Bullgrit

 

[ExploderWizard]

The campaign was set up as a private detective game a la Simon & Simon or Magnum P.I. The player thought shooting the lock was a in-genre move. The player didn""t know that the ruleset and GM didn"t agree.

So were cinematic activities pulled off with regularity prior to this event?

The point is really in that ruleset jumping out of the 7th storey window is the blatantly better option. The fall will deal 7d6 normal damage to the character once. That damage can't kill an average untrained human and probably won't even stun a player character. The fire will do (if run as presented in the rulebook) 0.5 d6 killing damage plus a ~1d6 NND (not breathing) from smoke every second. The character may act no more frequently than once per 3 seconds and is very lilkely stunned or unconscious before being able to react once the fire is approached. The average human is killed before being allowed a second action.

The ruleset assumptions deviate so heavily from player experience that not presenting the rules offers a huge disconnect for the player.

If people in the world generally have tops made out of rubber and bottoms made out of spring then I would think the character as well as the player would be aware of the fact that gravity isn't a major concern.

 

[Nagol]

So were cinematic activities pulled off with regularity prior to this event?

It was early in the campign life, probably 2nd/3rd session. There was fistfight and a car chase with a lot of squealing rubber et al. From memory, this was the first bit of gun-play.

If people in the world generally have tops made out of rubber and bottoms made out of spring then I would think the character as well as the player would be aware of the fact that gravity isn't a major concern.

I agree -- and the best way to emulate that is for the rule to be published and not hidden from the players.

The majority of the ruleset that deals with events and sitautions that are common to the character experiences and common knowledge should be published for the players to understand.

Attempting to hide more general rules provides traps for players who try to react to a situation in a way that seems reasonable to the player but shouldn't be reasonable to the character based on the rules that describe action in the universe. The player ends up playing the game of "Do I think the game designer likes X more than Y?"

There should be purpose to a hidden rule. Why is it on only one side of the screen? I find it is best reserved for secret lore, Things Man Was Not Meant To Know, alien technology, lost artefacts, and other exceptional situations beyond the ken of society.

I often use hidden rules for these things. Some of the more memorable are from an Ars Magica campaign -- divine/infernal favour tracking, fey interaction (a ruleset of faerie etiquette and society that drives fey NPCs -- the fey were very rule-bound in behaviour, but learning the rules was hard as there were a lot of factors that could influence the fey response), alternate magical traditions with different focus than Hermetic Lore (the troupe encountered crystalmancy, Cabalists, Persian wizards, and a different Greek tradition; each had their own system to magic with corresponding strengths and weaknesses).