• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

Status
Not open for further replies.

log in or register to remove this ad

The GM has already decided that knowledge of this thing is not common knowledge, as they have decided not to tell the table about it. So why, then, am I not allowed to decide that my PC doesn't recognise or recall this thing? What happened to me being in charge of what my PC thinks and believes?
If the GM is using a homebrewed adventure or a pre-made adventure for their party and they are keeping that knowledge from being common knowledge, it might be because the party is not at the right time and place in the adventure for the GM to reveal it. Then there is the possibility that a piece of knowledge isn't common knowledge. There will be things that are commonly known to everyone in a setting, and there will be things that are known to only a handful of individuals or just one individual.
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
Isn't that just jargon for what GMs do anyway?

For part of what GMs do. Its utility as a term of art is then to enable us to have discussions about how in a given game or style of play a GM should go about setting a scene, what concerns they should have, what constraints they should have, etc.

In part by breaking up "what GMs normally do" into various components we can discuss them in isolation, design different sets of "what GMs normally do" for this specific game or playstyle and try to move away from the idea this is what it means to be a GM always being the same from game to game.
 

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
For part of what GMs do. Its utility as a term of art is then to enable us to have discussions about how in a given game or style of play a GM should go about setting a scene, what concerns they should have, what constraints they should have, etc.

In part by breaking up "what GMs normally do" into various components we can discuss them in isolation, design different sets of "what GMs normally do" for this specific game or playstyle and try to move away from the idea this is what it means to be a GM always being the same from game to game.
I guess, but it also invites arguments from people who feel like jargon immediately means "indie" or "narrative" or other things that suggest you aren't talking about ALL GMing. I know that isn't necessarily the fault of the jargon, but it is a thing that is easily seen (in this very thread, among others) and therefore probably more trouble than it is worth. If we allow people to talk about what they do in a naturalistic way, and actually make an effort to understand it (asking clarifying questions in good faith as necessary) we facilitate those discussion far better than jargon can, IMO.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
This...

...and this, from the same post...

...would seem to be at odds.

Yes, well that was after my call for less loaded language was met with a "whatever you feel is necessary" from someone who complains all the time about how people say things.

So yeah... loaded language seems to be the way!

Claiming that your game is more realistic than someone else's is useless and baseless and dumb and it's bad and people who do it should feel bad.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
I guess, but it also invites arguments from people who feel like jargon immediately means "indie" or "narrative" or other things that suggest you aren't talking about ALL GMing. I know that isn't necessarily the fault of the jargon, but it is a thing that is easily seen (in this very thread, among others) and therefore probably more trouble than it is worth. If we allow people to talk about what they do in a naturalistic way, and actually make an effort to understand it (asking clarifying questions in good faith as necessary) we facilitate those discussion far better than jargon can, IMO.

I don't think anyone should change how they choose to discuss things because there are some people who are going to complain about it.

Scene framing is a useful term for one of the things a GM does. How a scene is framed and why is an important part of play.
 

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
Scene framing is a useful term for one of the things a GM does. How a scene is framed and why is an important part of play.
Maybe, but when you stop saying what you mean and you use jargon, some portion of your intended audience is not going to know what you are talking about. "Scene framing" is not specific, and therefore has less utility than, "setting up the location and things that populate it ina way that is useful to play" or whatever.
 

darkbard

Legend
Maybe, but when you stop saying what you mean and you use jargon, some portion of your intended audience is not going to know what you are talking about. "Scene framing" is not specific, and therefore has less utility than, "setting up the location and things that populate it ina way that is useful to play" or whatever.
Do you really feel scene framing is some arcane term that obfuscates what you define here?
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
Maybe, but when you stop saying what you mean and you use jargon, some portion of your intended audience is not going to know what you are talking about. "Scene framing" is not specific, and therefore has less utility than, "setting up the location and things that populate it ina way that is useful to play" or whatever.

It is more specific than the term you just used. No one tacks a "or whatever" after saying scene framing.

I didn't always know what it meant. Then I asked, and now I do. It's not difficult, and anyone engaged in discussion of the sort we do here should likely be willing to put in that much effort.

But I suppose it's easier to cry elitism for the use of jargon... while simultaneously going on about simulationism and sandboxes and action economy and the like.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I don't think I've said anything in this thread about how you run your game, and I know I've said nothing about how @Reynard runs his.

That said, your accounts of how you GM your games seem to me to be pretty consistent with what I saw going on in the AD&D 2nd ed era. To me it seems to involve a great deal - a very great deal - of GM control over play.
Sounds good! You know how I run my games better than I do!
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top