How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Thomas Shey]

The thinking is that you tell the GM what you want to do and the GM tells you what happens. In the context of Braunstein and its descendants, the world and the characters are pretty realistic so there isn't a lot of confusion about what's possible or reasonable. That doesn't need to be true, of course. You could do that style with something fantastical but well established and shared among the participants, like Hogwarts or Star Wars.

I had to resist laughing at "what's possible or reasonable". I've seen too many cases in modern games of people thinking they understood how things worked vastly more than they did (including in a couple of cases, me). This can be about something as simple as climbing things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think that is nearly at one extreme of the spectrum (the very extreme is the player's don't even need to know their character sheets beyond a few words to describe them).

However to use your stealth example, while the GM can adjudicate, (and to some extent common sense plays a part, someone in leather is likely to be quieter than someone in platemail) without some understanding of the rules, would someone know that a rogue in a breastplate, and boots would still likely be quieter than a wizard in his robes and slippers? And that's a simple skill that most people have everyday knowledge of and can apply some common sense.

While a DM can adjudicate a warrior interrupting a wizard casting a spell, without knowledge of the rules would the warriors player know he can even do that, and the likelihood of success, would it be a worthwhile tactic?

He would after he tried it, or if his training indicated that it was a worthwhile tactic.

 

[Reynard]

I had to resist laughing at "what's possible or reasonable". I've seen too many cases in modern games of people thinking they understood how things worked vastly more than they did (including in a couple of cases, me). This can be about something as simple as climbing things.

Do you think rules solve this?

 

[Thomas Shey]

This seems to imply some sort of antagonism between the player and the GM. Remember that the game is still a conversation.

Yeah, but the time taken to literally have that conversation during play is not a zero-cost element, especially if it happens frequently.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Do you think rules solve this?

In a way; they at least mean people are, at worst, operating on the same incorrect assumptions. Better to have people on the wrong page but the same page than different ones.

 

[Bagpuss]

He would after he tried it, or if his training indicated that it was a worthwhile tactic.

He might not even know he could try it, if wizards have been casting single action spells, without knowing they can take a ready action they wouldn't have an opportunity. Even if they cast a full round spell, would they even recognise it? Not without some understanding of the rules for actions and timing of actions.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, but the time taken to literally have that conversation during play is not a zero-cost element, especially if it happens frequently.

I guess I am not sure what you are imagining would be a showstopper. Ostensibly everyone involved is still aiming to play the game in good faith.

 

[Reynard]

He might not even know he could try it, if wizards have been casting single action spells, without knowing they can take a ready action they wouldn't have an opportunity. Even if they cast a full round spell, would they even recognise it? Not without some understanding of the rules for actions and timing of actions.

This is a very silly example that, again, presumes some sort of antagonistic gotcha GM as a rhetorical tool. I'm not sure what the purpose of that is.

 

[Bagpuss]

This seems to imply some sort of antagonism between the player and the GM. Remember that the game is still a conversation.

No antagonism, just if the player isn't aware they can do something (because they don't know the rules), they might not even try it.

There is the inverse effect, that players that don't know the rules seem more likely to try stuff the rules don't address as they don't feel bound by them (which is a trap players with a lot of rules knowledge tend to fall into).

 

[Corinnguard]

He might not even know he could try it, if wizards have been casting single action spells, without knowing they can take a ready action they wouldn't have an opportunity. Even if they cast a full round spell, would they even recognise it? Not without some understanding of the rules for actions and timing of actions.

True, but that's not going stop some players from simply trying and hoping that they'll succeed at a particular action.