How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Crimson Longinus]

I always figured that, when making a knowledge check the character is doing exactly what Gandalf was doing - searching their memory and trying to come up with an answer.

Sometimes it might be like that if it is about more obscure knowledge, but many things you just know or don't instantly.

 

[Corinnguard]

A knowledge check isn't something that a character does, in the fiction. Nor does it correspond to the character affirmatively doing something, unless - like Gandalf at the gates of Moria - the character is cudgelling their wits trying to recall something.

But I assumed that the character would recognise the circle of protection just as I recognise (say) a road sign or a word, in virtue of recognising the symbols and knowing their meaning.

How many people within a fantasy setting would recognize a circle of protection for what it was? I can imagine that not people within the setting are familiar with one compared to a road sign, seeing as how they aren't well versed in arcana.

 

[Campbell]

I will pretty much only do checks for active research in most trad games. I don't think there should be in the fiction tension over what a character does and does not know. I have similar feelings about Perception checks where I simply base it on how skilled/talented characters are unless they are actively searching for something in particular.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How many people within a fantasy setting would recognize a circle of protection for what it was? I can imagine that not people within the setting are familiar with one compared to a road sign, seeing as how they aren't well versed in arcana.

Right. And that's why we roll the arcana skill to see whether the character recognises it or not.

 

[Reynard]

Sometimes it might be like that if it is about more obscure knowledge, but many things you just know or don't instantly.

How many people within a fantasy setting would recognize a circle of protection for what it was? I can imagine that not people within the setting are familiar with one compared to a road sign, seeing as how they aren't well versed in arcana.

Right. And that's why we roll the arcana skill to see whether the character recognises it or not.

An interesting consequence of this that you don't see discussed much is the permanence and broader impact of the failed roll.
"Roll Arcana to see if you recognize the sigils."
If the player rolls and fails, we have established something new in the fiction: the PC does not recognize sigils of this sort. Does that mean that from then onward, that PC is not even allowed a roll when coming across sigils of the same sort (for arguments sake, let's say they are protection runes). What does that say about the PC's training and/or expertise? Were they never taught protection runes? Does that limit the available spells they can learn?

 

[Maxperson]

Like, I could tell you the dragon has 100 hp and AC 17 - but wouldn't it be more helpful for me to tell you that it's trapped in a magic circle of imprisonment? That it is flying overhead while you are hidden from it in a rock cleft?

Putting the point independently of Maxperson: no one disputes that the fiction matters to action declarations in a RPG. @hawkeyefan's point has been that (i) resolution mechanics also matter, and (ii) "natural language" descriptions cannot (a) convey the same information to the player as would mechanical information, and (b) cannot convey information to the player that is remotely comparable - in intensity, utility, immersion, etc - as the information that the character in the situation would actually be taking in by dint of their senses and cognition.

It does not refute that point - or to put it more colloquially, is not relevant to it - to provide an example and ensuing discussion of a GM ("DM 1") who does not narrate any fiction to the players, which is to say who is not really GMing a RPG at all.

Right. Natural language in a description conveys MORE information than numbers, which are often worthless or nearly worthless to know.

Oh, and your (b) is a Red Herring. Nothing the DM does(numbers or description) can convey the same information as the PCs would have, but descriptions convey far more than numbers. That argument is a distraction and nothing more.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

An interesting consequence of this that you don't see discussed much is the permanence and broader impact of the failed roll.
"Roll Arcana to see if you recognize the sigils."
If the player rolls and fails, we have established something new in the fiction: the PC does not recognize sigils of this sort. Does that mean that from then onward, that PC is not even allowed a roll when coming across sigils of the same sort (for arguments sake, let's say they are protection runes). What does that say about the PC's training and/or expertise? Were they never taught protection runes? Does that limit the available spells they can learn?

We must assume that the PC can learn new things. But yeah, it is a bit weird and in a sense "passive knowledge" like @Campbell suggests probably produces more coherent results.

 

[Corinnguard]

If the player rolls and fails, we have established something new in the fiction: the PC does not recognize sigils of this sort. Does that mean that from then onward, that PC is not even allowed a roll when coming across sigils of the same sort (for arguments sake, let's say they are protection runes). What does that say about the PC's training and/or expertise? Were they never taught protection runes? Does that limit the available spells they can learn?

True. It's quite possible that the PC might not recognize the sigils that are being used in the circle of protection. The sigils might belong to a runic language they might not be familiar with initially. In the upcoming 5e book Caliya's Chronicle of Runes, there are about 15 runic families (Abyssal, Celestial, Common, Draconic, Druidic, Dwarvish, Elvish, Giant, Gnomish, Goblin, Infernal, Orcish, Sylvan, Thieves' Cant and Undercommon). I haven't come across any new info about how many runic languages the average person in a setting might know. The book is still in development. But while the character might have failed his Arcana check to recognize which runic language they're looking at, they would still know that they are dealing with a runic language.
That said, I don't think they would be forbidden from trying to learn what they are looking at. I could see them sketching out each sigil on paper, and then taking their sketches to someone who might know more about them. This could happen in their downtime between adventures or even during their adventure as a possible side plot. The DM could then award them by having them understand and use this new runic language from that moment on.

 

[Krachek]

To go back to the OP,
The rules should be clear to the players, and even the idea that the DM assign DC, may fudge, may improvise, may alter the plot he previously create. Players should be aware of that.

But the players should also know that only them can choose to play along with the fantasy proposed by the DM. Most of the time rules put you out of the fantasy, and we actively need to fill the gap with our imagination.

 

[Corinnguard]

Note that this is about opinion and preference, so everyone is right. Please respond to others' posts accordingly.

I think everyone needs to reroll their knowledge checks, including me.