How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Manbearcat]

Here is another simple one (outside of the goal-directedness of Info Gathering in Blades):

Say I'm running Dungeon World or Stonetop (or derivative). If I signal a soft move to a player about a monster like a Trample move (or some kind of aggressive attack), and I tell them that the monster (whatever it is) has range-band advantage on them (lets say a big megafauna with tusks - Reach - vs a swordsman - Close), that has huge gameplay decision-point implications that players need to understand, mull, and resolve.

If what the player says next doesn't attend to the intricacies of the above, the impact on play generally and gamestates specifically is significant.

And the expression of the above paradigm within the space of DW or ST is totally different than if a megafauna charges you in AD&D...which is totally different than in 4e D&D! And that is because the technical language and concepts embedded (or not) in each of those rules systems. When players (collectively and individually from player to player) and GMs don't share the technical language and mutual understanding of concepts (particularly core, but better play is enabled as auxiliary concepts are mutually understood) - rules - the gameplay implications are profound!

 

[wicked cool]

Yes the players should know the rules. I can’t understand why you wouldn’t want them to know

The only rules new characters shouldn’t know is an enemy’s weakness unless they have encountered it or it’s obvious (the snow monster might be vulnerable to fire)

If they don’t then as the dm it’s your job to explain

If you don’t make this jump you could take a lot of damage

Hey new player you should pack some water for my desert campaign

Your wizard would know that that’s a verbal spell . The wizard can’t forget that

 

[Corinnguard]

Here is another simple one (outside of the goal-directedness of Info Gathering in Blades):

Say I'm running Dungeon World or Stonetop (or derivative). If I signal a soft move to a player about a monster like a Trample move (or some kind of aggressive attack), and I tell them that the monster (whatever it is) has range-band advantage on them (lets say a big megafauna with tusks - Reach - vs a swordsman - Close), that has huge gameplay decision-point implications that players need to understand, mull, and resolve.

If what the player says next doesn't attend to the intricacies of the above, the impact on play generally and gamestates specifically is significant.

And the expression of the above paradigm within the space of DW or ST is totally different than if a megafauna charges you in AD&D...which is totally different than in 4e D&D! And that is because the technical language and concepts embedded (or not) in each of those rules systems. When players (collectively and individually from player to player) and GMs don't share the technical language and mutual understanding of concepts (particularly core, but better play is enabled as auxiliary concepts are mutually understood) - rules - the gameplay implications are profound!

It's like each edition of D&D is it's own language/dialect. If you can speak the 'language' that is, say 5e, then you will understand what another 5e player or the GM is trying to convey. Ditto if you are dealing with a 5e-adjacent RPG such as Level up.

 

[TwoSix]

It's like each edition of D&D is it's own language/dialect. If you can speak the 'language' that is, say 5e, then you will understand what another 5e player or the GM is trying to convey. Ditto if you are dealing with a 5e-adjacent RPG such as Level up.

"Me fail English? That unpossible!"

 

[Corinnguard]

"Me fail English? That unpossible!"

"You're holding the book upside down."

 

[Micah Sweet]

The priority of the DM's storyline, and getting the players to "follow along" with it, was foundational to most of the popular games of the '90s (primarily the White Wolf family, as well as AD&D 2e).

Most of the development of more narrative styles was an explicit reaction against this paradigm.

Both styles explicitly equate RPGs with collaborative storytelling coupled with a strong focus on the "stories" of individual PCs. That's what I'm referring to.

 

[TwoSix]

Both styles explicitly equate RPGs with collaborative storytelling coupled with a strong focus on the "stories" of individual PCs. That's what I'm referring to.

Yes, that is generally true. The main difference is that the expectation for the 90s game was that the characters were expected to conform with the pre-designed setting and factions there in (see Vampire, etc.), and the DM would author a storyline around the concepts the players had chosen.

The "indie games" generally pushed towards more explicit player direction over the focus of the campaign and setting. (Again, not a straight line, lots of games only pushed some elements forward and left others alone, etc.)

 

[Reynard]

Yes the players should know the rules. I can’t understand why you wouldn’t want them to know

The only rules new characters shouldn’t know is an enemy’s weakness unless they have encountered it or it’s obvious (the snow monster might be vulnerable to fire)

If they don’t then as the dm it’s your job to explain

If you don’t make this jump you could take a lot of damage

Hey new player you should pack some water for my desert campaign

Your wizard would know that that’s a verbal spell . The wizard can’t forget that

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.

 

[Bagpuss]

The best games I have both run and played in have been situations where players didn't know "the rules" and didn't need to.

I put "rules" in inverted commas because to play the game, you still need to understand the structure of the game and "how to play", even if not the rules.

So a dnd player needs to understand how to read their character sheet, and how initiative order works. But they don't need to fully understand how stealth or fall damage works, because the DM can adjudicate that.

Likewise in a pbta game like monster of the week. The player just needs to know how to read their playbook, and understand when moves happen. The rest of the game is a conversation.

I guess what I'm saying is there's a baseline of player facing mechanics and structure the players need to grasp as a baseline. But beyond that in many cases the gm can adjudicate.

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?

So depending on the game, and it's mechanics not knowing the rules can significantly alter the agency and abilities of a character.

I will readily admit I've had great games at conventions with new players that had the most basic understanding of RPGs and some pregen characters, just describing what they wanted to do and me as the DM doing all the heavy lifting with the rules side of things. But they aren't going to get the full experience of a game like Vampire:tM or any game with odd mechancis, without some understanding of the rules, and long term most players want that understanding of the system so they can make characters the way they want.

 

[Reynard]

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?

So depending on the game, and it's mechanics not knowing the rules can significantly alter the agency and abilities of a character.

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