How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Bagpuss]

More like
Player: can I stop or interrupt enemies casting spells?
GM: yes actually, you just do ____
Player: cool, I do that, when do I roll?

So in this version the DM hasn't learned the rules either?

 

[Bagpuss]

Again, you are assuming people aren't playing in good faith. You are assuming the player or the GM is trying to get one over on the other, rather than working together.

No it is just assuming the position that the player doesn't know the rules, and the DM doesn't share them just adjudicates them, because they believe the best game is when the player doesn't know them. Which was the original point of the thread.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I was being sarcastic!

Mia culpa.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I need a concrete example of your concern.

Ask people, without reference to mechanics, whether they can climb a given wall. Then how long it takes. Then whether it is possible to do so wearing X outfit with such and such a backpack. Then with specific tools. This is entirely possible to be a sequence of events. Then have different levels of understanding of rock climbing.

(Yes, this was a specific exchange on a MUX I was on some years ago, and the answer to every part of it mattered. Now multiply this by a number of other things that came up in the situation. That this didn't end up being extremely painful largely turned on me and the person operating as a gamesmaster largely being on the same page.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

This description of action resolution mechanics seems better-suited to some RPGs than others.

Things like action economy, principles for how a failure or success is narrated (including establishing what is at stake), and the like - basically, the rules that govern how "the conversation" of play unfolds - are pretty important for players to have a handle on. And these are not about likelihoods of success.

Perhaps you don't envisage them as part of "character mechanics"? But they are crucial to knowing what "succeeding at a thing" even means.

What in my statement made you think I didn't include those in such things?

 

[bloodtide]

The problem with this, as always, is it assumes people have no concept of how likely it is for them to succeed at most things. It may not be precise, but I don't find that particularly credible in anything that relates to anything they've done with any frequency. There's a heck of a difference between my character having a 90% chance of jumping over that pit and a 50% and just the GM's description doesn't tell me which one is the case, because his perception of what his description means and mine may be significantly different.

Most people don't. You could fill pages with people not understanding such things. Most players think their character can Alter Reality with a wiggle of their pinky finger. And lot of players don't know or understand game rules. And even fewer understand how numbers and related things work. The 90% and 50% chaces don't really mean what people think they mean. It "sounds" like you would be able to do something 90% easy...and 50% would be "hard". But that is not how it works...

Gm: The evil sorcerer is chanting and waving his arms as a globe of vile miasma from the Pit itself coalesces in front of him.
Player: That's not good! I try and stop him.
GM: You already went this turn. You should have readied an action to trigger an attack when he started casting a spell.
Player: How was I supposed to know that?
GM: Intuition? I don't know... sucks to be you. Who's next?

Or,

GM: Well, you could have read the game rules before we started the game. And know them well enough to have them memorized...or if you can't do that, make yourself some notes. Combat, magic and actions have a lot of rules and you should know them. Maybe try anything else other then just attacking anything that moves by rolling a d20 and saying "Huzza!"

And I'd add:

GM: If you don't understand the rules or some rules....I would be happy to help. We can set up a time, ANYTIME OTHER THEN GAMETIME. For example, if you would be willing to come over a full hour before the start of the game, we could go over all the rules.

 

[hawkeyefan]

GM: Well, you could have read the game rules before we started the game. And know them well enough to have them memorized...or if you can't do that, make yourself some notes. Combat, magic and actions have a lot of rules and you should know them. Maybe try anything else other then just attacking anything that moves by rolling a d20 and saying "Huzza!"

And I'd add:

GM: If you don't understand the rules or some rules....I would be happy to help. We can set up a time, ANYTIME OTHER THEN GAMETIME. For example, if you would be willing to come over a full hour before the start of the game, we could go over all the rules.

Or you could explain the rule. Which would take fewer words and would be less antagonistic.

 

[FrogReaver]

Answer: As visible as they enjoy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If it was 5e, why would there be? Characters don’t have to declare actions until it’s their turn. The GM is free to wait until the sorcerer’s turn to decide what he’s going to do. If he casts a spell, there are only certain ways that action could be disrupted. Otherwise, it all takes place on a single turn… declaration through resolution.

Other editions may handle it differently. And each of those might present its own problems with not sharing rules.

Ok, I still don't see the problem. If the DM chooses to have the sorcerer cast without visible wind up, that's just how casting works in this world, and the player looking to disrupt the magic needs to find out how after learning this.

Just like real life. If there was magic.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Ok, I still don't see the problem. If the DM chooses to have the sorcerer cast without visible wind up, that's just how casting works in this world, and the player looking to disrupt the magic needs to find out how after learning this.

Just like real life. If there was magic.

So you think it’s okay for them to know the rules? But it should be hidden from them the first time?