PDA

View Full Version : Why not tell your players the DC of an action?



Talakeal
2011-04-06, 03:44 PM
When I learned the game I was always taught that you never tell the player's what number they need to roll for a task. Merely have them roll and describe their success or failure. For years I played like this, and it always seemed to annoy my players, who wanted a clear number. Eventually, I realized, there was no good reason for my secrecy and started simply telling the player's the DC before the roll (I also started making almost all rolls in the open about the same time) and I found my game was better for it. The game played faster, smoother, and everyone seemed to be having more fun.

However, during the discussion of http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191678
I realized that most other GMs still don't tell the players the exact difficulty before, or even after, the roll. I didn't feel like further hijacking that thread, but I am curious why people feel this is necessary, and was hoping some people could give me some good reasons for it so I can reevaluate my stance on it.

Reasons I Have For Announcing DCs:
The game goes faster. It is only an extra couple of sentences per roll, but over the evening it adds up.

I am never tempted to fudge the result.

Even though I am not fudging the result, my player's still suspect me of it if I don't.

Player's with limited use bonuses to abilities or floating bonuses to die rolls / rerolls (from, for example action points), have a better idea of when to use them, and won't be frustrated when they waste them on a roll which was so easy / difficult they couldn't have made a difference.

Telling a player to roll when they have no realistic way of succeeding feels sadistic and leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

It is unrealistic for players to not have an how hard idea what they are attempitng is, especially once they commit to the action. Although the "exact" diffiiculty shouldn't be known IC, the approximate difficulty should be, and the dice provide more than enough randomness to simulate this mystery imo.

Players with abilities like power attack get more use out of them (anything that buffs melee is A-ok in my book)

Players can analyze the situation more logically and tactically rather than prodding about blindly (some DM's might see this as a bad thing, and I see where they are coming from, although I don't agree).


The only up sides I can think of off the top of my head are:

Makes the game more challenging for the players (although I feel it is a cheap and artificial one, and many player's / GMs don't like challenge to begin with).

Makes tension last longer, as instead of just being in suspense while the die is in motion you are also in suspense of the GM's response to the die. Again, some people don't like suspense, and while it can make success more rewarding it can also make failure more painful.

(added) Makes player cheating more difficulty.

And, the best argument I have seen, is that it breaks immersion. Rather than let the DM give a long narrative describing success or failure, the player instead rolls the dice and then declares their own success or failure. This is a good argument, but:
a: The GM can still break in and describe the effect (although without as much draw)
b: Most GMs don't do this any way (I certainly don't have the energy to keep it up all night except during epic scenes)
c: I think this one upside is far outweighed by all the negatives.

So, what do you all think? Care to add to my list one way or another?

Vladislav
2011-04-06, 03:47 PM
For most groups, this could work. Some groups, and DMs, will consider it to "take out the mystery out of the game", when the player knows in advance how much he needs to roll. Also, some abilities, like 3.5 Action Points don't work if the player knows immediately whether he succeeded or failed. But if it works for you and your players, why not. Go for it.

LibraryOgre
2011-04-06, 03:51 PM
There are two main reasons not to tell DCs:

1) Players who find "magical bonuses" or always seem to roll the "right" number.

2) Factors that the PCs have no way of knowing, where giving away the DC can lead to easy metagaming.

For example, in Castles and Crusades, the base DC of EVERYTHING is 18+level of the creature causing it. 19th level wizard casts 1st level spell? DC is 37. 19th level casts 9th level spell? DC 37. Knowing the DC set can tell the players what level they're dealing with, which opens up a lot of additional knowledge.

The problem becomes, if you withhold the DC in the instances when there are factors beyond their knowledge, but tell them most of the time, you tell them there are factors beyond their knowledge. Which is a red flag for "something funny going on."

Talakeal
2011-04-06, 03:58 PM
Ah, player cheating. I hadn't considered that, although I prefer to roll in the open anyway. Generally I don't consider player cheating to be an issue as I am a trusting sort and my player's are all far more paranoid so as to put me on the defensive about such things.
Still, I do have one player who never announces what exactly he is doing until after he rolls, and never seems to fail an important roll unless he is being watched...

As for action points, it has been a while since I have used them as written up and don't have my books with me, so I could well be wrong, but isn't one of their abilities to add +1d6 to a d20 either immediately before or after it is rolled (I can't remember which?) We use a homebrew rule where player's simply get a pool of them at the start of the adventure and each can be used to add +1 to any die roll after rolling, and it was extremely frustrating for players who wasted them because they didn't know the DC they were shooting for.

GeekGirl
2011-04-06, 04:01 PM
The only DC I'll ever tell players are static things that don't really change. Like tumble through a threatened square. They all know it anyway, so no reason not to. I will never tell them something AC, or save against and NPC's spells. Though my players never really ask, so I guess I can't comment to much

Vladislav
2011-04-06, 04:03 PM
As for action points, it has been a while since I have used them as written up and don't have my books with me, so I could well be wrong, but isn't one of their abilities to add +1d6 to a d20 either immediately before or after it is rolled (I can't remember which?) After it's rolled, but before the DM announces success or failure. Obviously doesn't work under "open DC".


The only DC I'll ever tell players are static things that don't really change. Like tumble through a threatened square. They all know it anyway, so no reason not to. I will never tell them something AC, or save against and NPC's spells. Though my players never really ask, so I guess I can't comment to muchThis is a big one. This one, I always tell. Because it would really really suck for a player to roll 21 on his save only to have the DM tell them, "uhm, it's DC 22". Especially if it's a save-or-die, or save-or-something-horrible. This really could lead to a "he's out to get me!" moment and ruin the trust between player and DM. So to be on the safe side, I always say the save DC.

dsmiles
2011-04-06, 04:05 PM
The only DC I'll ever tell players are static things that don't really change. Like tumble through a threatened square. They all know it anyway, so no reason not to. I will never tell them something AC, or save against and NPC's spells. Though my players never really ask, so I guess I can't comment to muchI still think this forum needs a "Like" button.

I don't even tell them static DCs, but I never have to. Climbing a knotted rope braced against a wall? Yeah, do I really need to tell you? None of my players are that inexperienced. Of course, if they were, I would tell them static DCs.

TheThan
2011-04-06, 04:11 PM
The only times I don’t tell the players what they need to succeed are the following:

I don’t know myself and am totally ad-libbing it as I go.

The players are engaged in an opposed roll. They have no way of knowing if bluffing that guard is going to work until they try it. then it should be fairly obvious whether they were successful or not

onthetown
2011-04-06, 04:15 PM
Because if you know how much you need to roll, a less honest player can roll it.

It's the same as knowing what all of your players' ACs are. Say you rolled horribly low on something that would send the campaign crashing into the ground and ensure premature victory for the players, thus ruining months and months of sessions you had planned; you can either try to go with it, end the campaign, or fudge the roll. Let's also say that fudging the roll would make the game more fun than the other two options, since having fun is (arguably) the target for (most) games.

So, you need to fudge the roll. It needs to be believable (because if it's really obvious, then it's less fun for the players). If you know what the PC's AC is, then you can make this fun and believable. If you don't know what it is... "Uh... I got a... 24 against your AC?" "Hah! Off by one!" And the scenario in the lengthy paragraph happens.

If you tell your players the DC of an action, and they think that it could be life or death for their characters and they really don't want to screw up, they can make a believable fudge.

Some DMs and players don't mind this, but it just bugs me when a DM tells me what I need to succeed. I almost always see the person next to me fudging, and even I'll do it from time to time. What bothers me more, though, is when the DM is surprised about everybody miraculously succeeding...

Edit: With AC it's a bit of a different story, because you don't really need to tell people what it is to figure it out. If I miss with an 18 but my friend hits with a 22, I automatically have a threshold of numbers to aim for. If it's a long battle, you'll know it before it's halfway over.

bloodtide
2011-04-06, 04:16 PM
I never tell the DCs. It makes for a poor game. There are lots of down sides.


The Plus Count--Once you tell a player that they need a DC of 20 to do something, they stop role playing and start roll playing. They will just look over their sheet, and use whatever items, spells, abilities, and such they have to get exactly the number they need.

No Chance of Faliure--As the players know exactly what they need to do the task, they will always succeed. They can just 'take 10' and then add in 'plus 10' and get the Dc of 20, every time.

Repeat to Infinity--Once a player knows the DC of an action, they can prepare and then automatically succeed at that action.

Loss of Trying(playing)--This is the big other side. When you tell the player the DC is 20, and they only have a +7 total bonus, they very, very, very, often give up. They won't even try the activity. They will fear that unless they can guarantee they will make the roll, that they might not, and they might fail. This player would need to roll at least a 13 on the d20 to make a Dc20. That is not a good chance/odds. So the player does not even try.

Talakeal
2011-04-06, 04:29 PM
I went into this with the assumption that both sides were being honest and that GM fudging was always a bad thing. Honestly I think if player (or DM) cheating is so rampant in your games you have much bigger problems than announcing the DCs.

In the thread that inspired this one most people said that they would not play in a game where people fudged the numbers (regardless of who did it or which side it favored) and would also never tell DCs for actions.

Also, Bloodtide, does taking a 10 stop future retries? Why don't they try this anyway whether they know the DC or not?
Also, its funny you talk about player's giving up when given high DCs (although the example you listed still had a 35% chance of success, hardly hopeless in my book), I seemed to have the opposite problem. I was told to simply tell them it was impossible rather than getting their hopes up making them work for a DC they couldn't realistically accomplish.
I remember one time when I rolled a nat 18 on my will save, which was the highest in the group, and being told I still failed (the DC was something in the neighborhood of 90, which no one in the group could make save on a nat 20), and I was left pissed off at the situation, I don't think I would have if he had been more upfront about it and simply said no one makes this save.

dsmiles
2011-04-06, 04:32 PM
I went into this with the assumption that both sides were being honest and that GM fudging was always a bad thing. Honestly I think if player (or DM) cheating is so rampant in your games you have much bigger problems than announcing the DCs.

In the thread that inspired this one most people said that they would not play in a game where people fudged the numbers (regardless of who did it or which side it favored) and would also never tell DCs for actions.I don't tell DCs, and I'll fudge when necessary. I'm a bad, bad DM...:smalltongue:

I have an extreme dislike for playing in a game where the DM doesn't use a screen. I dislike playing in a game where the DM won't fudge to keep an exciting plot going. I'm a bad, bad player...:smalltongue:

Talakeal
2011-04-06, 04:39 PM
I don't tell DCs, and I'll fudge when necessary. I'm a bad, bad DM...:smalltongue:

I have an extreme dislike for playing in a game where the DM doesn't use a screen. I dislike playing in a game where the DM won't fudge to keep an exciting plot going. I'm a bad, bad player...:smalltongue:

This is fine, as long as you are honest about it. Like many tools fudging is a particularly difficult thing to do right, and in many cases it does presume that you know what the player's like better than they do which, while often correct, is rather insulting.
Most player's will, I think, not want to play in such a game, but many will.


I remember my very first serious game of AD&D the DM asked us right at the start if we minded him fudging numbers to keep us alive, none of us did, but I wouldn't have the same reaction now that I am older and more mature. Not calling you immature, I am just saying how it went for me. Likewise I used to fudge numbers as a GM, now I just adapt and roll with it. If a dice roll is really going to ruin the fun for everyone, I tell the players that I am over ruling it. In my last game I had a PC die to a random damage roll, and I flat out told them "I am not letting you die over something so trivial. Just consider yourself disabled until the party can get you to a healer".

On the other hand if you aren't honest about it, well that's pretty low.

Doug Lampert
2011-04-06, 04:40 PM
So, what do you all think? Care to add to my list one way or another?

I've been roleplaying since 1975. I don't give out all DCs, and almost never give out AC and the like till several rounds into a combat, but I've NEVER been in a game that I thought was improved by the GM hiding die rolls. AFAICT secrecy about purely mechanical stuff like die rolls is VASTLY overrated and is often a tool of very clumsy fudging and/or railroading.

Whether or not you think the GM SHOULD fudge, at least have the decency to admit that if the only way you can think of to fudge is by cheating at the die rolls then you're really not very good at it at all.

Information is good. The CHARACTERS are immersed in the game world, they can see, hear, smell, and feel it. They have VASTLY more information than you can POSSIBLY give the players. The characters have years of training in judging what they're doing, and they're often superhumanly intelligent and/or perceptive.

The idea that I can POSSIBLY give them "too much information" unless something is being deliberately concealed by a character of comparable ability is almost absurd. The game mechanical description of what's happening is a nice shorthand which gives the players all the information that their CHARACTER has which is actually relevant. The CHARACTER probably has all that information anyway, just not in a nice neat form like a single number, but he does know, "Wow, I gave it my best shot and missed anyway" (rolled a 19 and missed), or "****, that was my clumsiest swing all week and I still hit" (rolled a 2 and hit).

And since combat isn't just one swing every 6 seconds, it's not unreasonable to give the PLAYERS a bit more information than just "hit or miss". It doesn't break immersion to know that sort of thing, it breaks immersion to have no idea how good someone is or how hard you're hitting him when you've been fighting for 30 seconds!

bloodtide
2011-04-06, 04:48 PM
Also, Bloodtide, does taking a 10 stop future retries? Why don't they try this anyway whether they know the DC or not?
Also, its funny you talk about player's giving up when given high DCs (although the example you listed still had a 35% chance of success, hardly hopeless in my book), I seemed to have the opposite problem. I was told to simply tell them it was impossible rather than getting their hopes up making them work for a DC they couldn't realistically accomplish.

I speak from game experience. Tell a great number of players they might fail, and they don't even bother to try. This is even more so for combat type actions, like to tumble past the troll. If they think they will 'never make it' they just sit back with a frown and say 'I roll my attack again'.

The Other Way--when you don't tell the player the DC, they just have to guess what it might be(using what they know of the rules). They might guess close or not. But in the end, they just don't know and they quite literally have to roll the dice.

Almost no player will try something if they needed a DC of 20 and they only had a +2 to the roll. Anyone would say 'don't even bother'. But that is only if they know the DC. Otherwise they just try, blind. Some times they make it, and some times they don't. But it will never happen unless you try. (and it does happen:That little halfling rolls a 19 and amazing tumbles by the DC 20 troll..)

dsmiles
2011-04-06, 04:58 PM
This is fine, as long as you are honest about it. Like many tools fudging is a particularly difficult thing to do right, and in many cases it does presume that you know what the player's like better than they do which, while often correct, is rather insulting.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I know that my players know what they want, and I don't. However, having known them for many years, I am pretty competent in judging their body language. I can see when they're really getting into the story, and I like to keep that level of excitement. The longer I can keep them on the edge of their seats (or better yet, jumping out of them) the happier they'll be with the campaign. If that means a character has to die to keep the excitement going, I'll let them die. If it means that a character needs to live to keep it going, I'll keep them alive.

It's a razor thin line, to be sure, but my players wear their excitement like a big sign on their chests, so they help me stay on the line.

EDIT: I've even had them so into the story that when their hired NPC cleric sacrificed himself so that the party could live to fight the BBEG they were all like :smalleek:! Then they found the BBEG and were all like :smallfurious:. After they killed the BBEG, they went back for the cleric's body, and were all like :smallfrown:. I'm not saying, "I'm a good DM." I'm saying, "I have awesome players."

Goober4473
2011-04-06, 05:01 PM
I'll give out the DCs of things that are obvious (climbing a rope, jumping a specific distance, etc.) before the action, and the DC of anything that isn't going to come up again, where success and failure are obvious, after the action has been chosen, to speed things up.

For things like knowledge rolls, Spellcraft checks to identify spells, saves versus spells, the AC of a monster, etc., I usually don't give out any DCs.

One thing I have started doing though, as of 4e, but carried into my Pathfinder game as well, is announcing what enemies got on their attack rolls, because it was faster to say "22 vs. AC" and ask if that hits than ask for the AC, then compare it myself, and I didn't feel like writing everyone's defenses down. But what was motivated by laziness and impatience has actually worked out quite well.

Doug Lampert
2011-04-06, 05:02 PM
I speak from game experience. Tell a great number of players they might fail, and they don't even bother to try. This is even more so for combat type actions, like to tumble past the troll. If they think they will 'never make it' they just sit back with a frown and say 'I roll my attack again'.

The Other Way--when you don't tell the player the DC, they just have to guess what it might be(using what they know of the rules). They might guess close or not. But in the end, they just don't know and they quite literally have to roll the dice.

Almost no player will try something if they needed a DC of 20 and they only had a +2 to the roll. Anyone would say 'don't even bother'. But that is only if they know the DC. Otherwise they just try, blind. Some times they make it, and some times they don't. But it will never happen unless you try. (and it does happen:That little halfling rolls a 19 and amazing tumbles by the DC 20 troll..)

I don't recall EVER playing with ANYONE whose characters would refuse to try something just because they MIGHT fail.

ASF in 3.x is about the worst I've seen, and even there I had at least two players in early 3.0 with a caster wandering arround in armor because "it fit the concept" and just eating the failure chance on EVERY spell.

Seriously, who has their character not try just because they might fail? Your characters are voluntarily walking into the lairs of dragons. If you are NOT playing an insane adrenaline junkie then WtF is your character's motivation?! If they won't try climbing a rope because the DC is 15 and their skill is +2 then WtF were they thinking when they walked into the dungeon in the first place?

And who can't make a reasonable judgement about their own ability to jump a chasm or climb a rope?

Take ten is THERE because some things aren't worth turning into a drama, you try, it's routine, you succeed.

Kyouhen
2011-04-06, 05:08 PM
Personally I don't see why you'd need to tell the players what the DC of an action is. If I want to go swim in a still pool, I'm going to assume that even without ranks in swim odds of me drowning are low. If you tell me it's a massive whirlpool and I don't have ranks in swim, I'm going to assume that I won't survive it and either start buffing my check or find something else to do.

TheThan
2011-04-06, 05:15 PM
Usually I get the "what do i need to make X?" question. so since they are clearly not in character anyway, i see nothing wrong in telling them.

If i get more along the lines of "does it look like i could make the jump?" then i'm likey to give them an answer without numbers involved. something like "it looks like its a hard jump, but you could probably make it".

Talakeal
2011-04-06, 05:16 PM
For clarification, I don't tell them the exact DC until they have actually committed to the action. If they are just looking at it I will give an approximate DC. Although generally I give DCs in increments of 5 and rarely go above 30, so an approximation is still pretty good, especially when a there is a 20 point variable.

navar100
2011-04-06, 07:09 PM
If you don't tell the players the DC because they'll cheat, the problem is not the telling of the DC.

What stops a DM from cheating his players? Suppose a player rolls the die and achieves the DC. The DM wants him to autofail so says he missed. It's not about making the game better, and I don't even accept that "excuse"; the DM just doesn't want the character to succeed no matter what just because he's the DM and has all the power.

Not saying the DC does add to the mystery. However, especially for a monster's AC, the players will figure it out eventually. If Bob's total of 23 hits the monster but Ralph's total of 22 misses, when Frank rolls he knows the monster's AC is 23 and hits if he rolls 7 or higher. That's not a crime against RPGdom. It's even in character. Frank's character saw Bob's character hit and Ralph's character miss. He saw how the monster fought, defended, and parried. He uses the information to make his strike, such as calculating for Power Attack. Frank decides he can afford some risk and Power Attacks for 4 to hit the monster on a minimum roll of 11, a 50/50 chance. When Bob and Ralph's characters go again, their experience of fighting the monster the previous round gave them the knowledge of his defensive capability, i.e. know his AC is 23. Ralph may decide that it's worth not full attacking and moves to flank because he needs the +2 to hit. He tumbles, has Mobility, or otherwise just takes the AoO because he can take the hit if he is hit.

My DM sometimes gives the DC and sometimes not. When he does, it's either because it's not that important to keep the knowledge and it's just convenient real world time and/or laziness-wise to let the player say if he made it or not or to make that particular saving throw very important as a matter of life or character death, literally and figuratively.

dsmiles
2011-04-06, 07:18 PM
What stops a DM from cheating his players? Suppose a player rolls the die and achieves the DC. The DM wants him to autofail so says he missed. It's not about making the game better, and I don't even accept that "excuse"; the DM just doesn't want the character to succeed no matter what just because he's the DM and has all the power.
So, we're back on the whole "all DM's that fudge are bad DM's" thing again? :smallsigh:

some guy
2011-04-06, 07:31 PM
Like most of the posters I tell some of the DC's, usually skill DC's. The players will know the AC of enemies after a few attacks by simple observation, and I like that. It's kinda natural.
I withhold some of the DC's for the sake of mystery. Besides DnD I also run CoC, both d20 and BRP. What I like about the d20 version is that players don't automatically know if their character's actions succeed or fail. You can use that to create an extra layer of suspense.

Pigkappa
2011-04-06, 07:33 PM
Although the "exact" diffiiculty shouldn't be known IC, the approximate difficulty should be, and the dice provide more than enough randomness to simulate this mystery imo.

The approximate difficulty can be known IC only sometimes, and the DM should describe what's happening so that they can understand it if it's possible.

A wizard the party attacked who is casting Deep Slumber on the party might be a level 5 wizard they can easily beat or an high-level wizard who doesn't want to harm them. If the save DC is 16 it's likely the first, if it's 19 it's much more likely the second. This information would be really useful to them and that's something they couldn't find out IC.

dsmiles
2011-04-06, 07:36 PM
The approximate difficulty can be known IC only sometimes, and the DM should describe what's happening so that they can understand it if it's possible.

A wizard the party attacked who is casting Deep Slumber on the party might be a level 5 wizard they can easily beat or an high-level wizard who doesn't want to harm them. If the save DC is 16 it's likely the first, if it's 19 it's much more likely the second. This information would be really useful to them and that's something they couldn't find out IC.That's also metagaming at it's finest, however, and metagaming distinctly ruins my immersion. Don't tell me DC's. I'll tell you what I got on my roll + mods, and you describe my success or failure.

valadil
2011-04-06, 11:01 PM
Sometimes I don't decide quickly enough. I might figure they need to roll between a 20 and 25. Instead of figuring out where in the difficulty is, I'll have the player roll. If they're outside of that range I give them a result. If they're in the range, then I'll go back for further analysis. And figure out if it's really a 22 or 23. I don't usually do this when pulling a number out of thin air, but if I can't remember if the penalty for a climbing a concrete wall in the rain I don't want to have to look it up if there's an obvious success or failure.

tl;dr

I'm too lazy.

NichG
2011-04-06, 11:21 PM
I could go either way on this. Generally I'll tell players the DC of saves they need to make or ACs they need to hit. However, if something is really out of their paygrade and I don't want to reveal just how much out of their paygrade it is yet, I could see hiding it - at that point I might say 'What's your saving throw mod? Well, roll for the 20...' instead of 'you need to hit a 40'.

Knaight
2011-04-06, 11:22 PM
A brief disclaimer: I mostly play Fudge, which uses an adjective scale, meaning that if I describe something as needing a "great leap" then I've given the exact requirement for jumping it. As such its very easy to deliver information on the equivalent of DC without the sudden break to the metagame, its more a low level skew, and that I consider acceptable. When not playing Fudge, I mostly play Titled, which has a grand total of 5 different difficulties (1-5, specifically), and a break to mechanics is necessary. Moving on.

I see absolutely no reason to withhold information the characters would have, and some approximation of difficulty for something they have ability at is reasonable. The second part is key, someone who's computer knowledge consists of "use Google" and "send email" isn't going to have any idea how difficult any hacking task would be, likewise someone who has never held a sword in his life who witnesses two people fighting (and has never done so before) is going to have trouble getting an analysis of their ability anywhere near objective. Furthermore, if something is deliberately disguised to look easy when it isn't, its the appearance that gets described, mostly as a time saver.

Most of the concerns I've seen aired are non issues. Cheating players isn't something I worry about in the slightest, I don't see the appeal personally, but if someone absolutely has to succeed at everything then so be it. Odds are they have other issues that lead us to appreciate different games and part ways in any case. As far as immersion breaking, the extra step in outlining a numerical DC is less than ideal, but a word based short hand makes everything work just fine.

John Campbell
2011-04-07, 01:50 AM
I provide TNs at the point that I think the character would be reasonably capable of assessing the difficulty of something. Depending on the test, that might be right up front, or immediately after the roll, or after several tries, or never at all.

If someone's looking at a simple climb or jump, I'll tell them the DC right there, and let them decide on that basis whether to attempt it or not.

Perception checks, at the other extreme, I practically never reveal the DC for. I frequently obfuscate whether they even succeeded or failed, in fact. If I ask for Perception checks, the characters will perceive something. Whether it's correct, or important, or the reason that I asked for the check (assuming there was a reason, beyond me thinking the players were getting too complacent and wanting to stir up paranoia), well, that depends on what they rolled.

In between... I typically reveal ACs gradually over the course of several rounds of combat, and often include hints as to where the AC's coming from, starting with things like, "Your blow glances off its thick scales," or, "It nimbly flits out of the way and sneers at your clumsy flailing," and ending with things like, "21? He barely manages to block with his shield. You needed a 22," or, "21? You hit him squarely in the face. You only needed a 15." By that point the players probably have a pretty good idea of what the AC is, by trial and error, so just telling them frees up attention for the fight rather than remembering the numbers others rolled from round to round.

Save DCs I'll reveal after the dice hit the table. I figure that there's no way to really tell in advance, but after the fact, they could assess how hard it was to dodge or resist a spell or effect.

A Shadowrun PC casting a spell that targets an NPC's unknown stat, similarly, I don't reveal the TN until the dice hit the table. That prevents them from metagaming things like dice pool allocation using information that the character has no way of knowing before they've made the attempt. After they've made the attempt, well, I figure they can sense to at least some degree how well their spell worked (or didn't). I'd probably be cagier about the exact TN, like I am with ACs, but it's a lot easier to just tell the TN and have the player count up successes on their thirty-eleven dice than to do it for them. Especially when they're on the other side of my living room and I can't actually see what they rolled.

Jerthanis
2011-04-07, 02:44 AM
I tell the players DCs of non-opposed actions pretty freely, I tell people the AC they need to hit and in 4e the non-AC defenses. I would tell people the save bonuses of a monster in 3.5 if they asked, but wouldn't think to volunteer it on my own.

I might consider concealing the skill bonuses of a character in an opposed roll, depending on circumstance, but it'd have to be like... If an NPC were lying and a Player wanted to know how much Bluff they had, to see if their "sense motive" roll worked or not, or something like that.

The reason I do this is simple: I am generally aware of what I am capable of based on a whole life of living in my skin. I can guess how far I can jump, the things I can and can't climb, how hard it is for me to keep my head above water when I swim, how much noise wood makes when I move around on it compared to stone. When I decide IRL what I'm going to do, I can compare my abilities to my situation and make a judgement call. I don't have that experience living in my character's skin... but he has. So since I have to make all the judgement calls he should be making, I need some insight into how he evaluates risks, and that's measured in the DC. This extends to fighting as well, and I see no reason why it shouldn't extend to things like magic and the like.

Also, AC is something that players will quickly discover without me telling them, "Oh, a 27 hit, but a 25 didn't, it's AC 26 or 27." so why try to conceal it?

pasko77
2011-04-07, 05:49 AM
If the CHARACTERS (mind you, not the players) aren't completely incompetent, they should know the approximate DC of their actions.
If my rogue tries to climb a wall, I'd expect a correct evaluation for the difficulty of the task.
So, all in all, it's better to give some metagame info to your players, it makes the game faster and players can react accordingly to the perceived difficulty of the task.

dsmiles
2011-04-07, 06:11 AM
If the CHARACTERS (mind you, not the players) aren't completely incompetent, they should know the approximate DC of their actions.
If my rogue tries to climb a wall, I'd expect a correct evaluation for the difficulty of the task.
So, all in all, it's better to give some metagame info to your players, it makes the game faster and players can react accordingly to the perceived difficulty of the task.I'm still not seeing it. I'd rather have a description, not numbers. Numbers bore me. I hate metagaming. I like to keep as far away from that as possible.

Earthwalker
2011-04-07, 07:03 AM
Personally I do both depending on what I am trying to achieve with the campaign I am playing.
Currently in Pathfinder I am allowing players to roll all the dice.

They know the AC of oppoenents. Oppenents saves and to hit (well the number they need to get over for spells to effect them or to avoid blows). They know the DC of skill tests. I will even tell them the opposed number they need to beat to succeed at opposed skill tests (most of the time, some rolls like perception and sealth where you might not know if you passed or failed are still secret)

In other systems I have handled most of the numbers myself, this was usualy to give more a sense of mystery and unknown and is usful for creating a horror feel, in fact I find I need to do this to create the atmosphere I am after.

Lesingnon
2011-04-07, 07:39 AM
Well I kind of look at it like this.

Say you're out at night having fun. At some point you do something that catches the attention of some guy sitting in his house so he comes up to try to look for you. You, of course, don't want to be found. Time to get sneaky. But...can you tell me your chance of sneaking past him unnoticed, rounded to the nearest 5 percent?

Probably not, and there are a lot of times a PC won't have any clue what there chances are either. And that's how I, personally, think it should be determined. Do the PCs have some reasonable IC way to get a good estimation of there chances? Then let them know. Otherwise, let them guess.

obliged_salmon
2011-04-07, 07:49 AM
In my experience, it's better for everyone to give out DC's or ob's or whatever you're working with in advance. Two reasons.

1: Increases tension. Player picks up his dice, counts his numbers, and KNOWS what he needs to roll on the dice to succeed. All the pressure is on the dice, wrapped in his hand. Shaking, blowing, etc. It's his moment, and the dice will carry him to victory or failure. If, on the other hand, you keep the DC a secret, the pressure's on you. The dice are just another number to add. When he figures out his total, he'll turn to you with the expectation that SHOULD be placed on the dice, instead.

2: Player agency. Like was mentioned in the first post, the player knows, once the dice hit the table, if he succeeds or not. He can get first crack at describing the result. Is this bad? Heck no! It's great! Player gets excited about his result, usually either way. Give him the opportunity to describe a thrilling success, or a dismal failure. He'll surprise you, and frequently come up with something more creative and poweful than you could, just because you've already got so much on your mind.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-07, 08:10 AM
There are two main reasons not to tell DCs:

1) Players who find "magical bonuses" or always seem to roll the "right" number.

If I understand you right, this implies that you have a problem player, not a problem with the DCs.


2) Factors that the PCs have no way of knowing, where giving away the DC can lead to easy metagaming.

Eh, this possibility exists pretty much everywhere. I've DMed enough that monster statblocks tend to end up stuck in my head. A recent example is a GM describing greenish characters attacking us. He was trying to keep it nice and vague so we didn't know if it was orcs, goblins, or something else(our characters having fairly little knowledge of such things). However, the instant he described them as having morningstars and javelins, I knew what they were. Now, I didn't blurt this out to my teammates or anything, but there are all kinds of ways in most games already to determine things your character doesn't know. Meh.

Personally, my main group doesn't really care one way or the other. DCs are sometimes given for speed of play. Or when it's amusing because someone missed by one. There's no guarantee or expectation that you'll always have it, though. I don't think either way is inherently a hindrance to play.

Edit: If someone really cared about knowing DCs, it would probably end up becoming some kind of knowledge check, as appropriate for the task, for many things. For instance, a knowledge(local) would probably tell you about how hard it would be to gather information in an area.

Gnoman
2011-04-07, 08:23 AM
I only tell players in descriptive terms (such as, it looks tricky to the wizard, but the rouge is likely to find it easy.) In fact, in most of my games, an up-front house rule is that directly asking for AC/DC/HP/etc costs the character d100% of current HP.

MickJay
2011-04-07, 09:23 AM
I generally expect to get at least some information about the difficulty of a task, based on what my character would know. If I want to open a locked door, a master thief would be told "the lock is large, but should be fairly easy to pick for you"; a warrior would be told "this door looks particularly sturdy, but you might be able to break it", and a mage would simply cast Knock without even waiting for description.

Likewise, if a PC is a character anywhere above 3rd level, he or she should be able to determine, from previous experiences if nothing else, how difficult an action they want to attempt would be.

Now, whether I'm given a numeric value, or just a description, I have something to hold on to, and I can actually try to determine what my character feels about the situation at hand. In some cases, the reply might simply be "you have no idea", and this is fair enough, as long as the character wouldn't know what's going on, either.

Cyrion
2011-04-07, 09:47 AM
Like many others here, it depends on whether my players would reasonably be able to gauge the difficulty. If it's something they're familiar with or is within the "it should be pretty easy for you" range, I'll tell them the DC. For other things they can observe before having to decide, I'll tell them whether they think it's difficult or not. For spell saves, AC, etc. I generally don't tell them until they've done it a few times.

Sipex
2011-04-07, 10:54 AM
I'll outright tell my players the DCs of actions they'd be able to approximate. Like climbing something or jumping a gap. I find this better increases the tension of the situation as everyone watches a player's die roll, mouth agape.

Of course, I'm not going to tell players the DC to figure out the mayor is lying or the DC of the hidden door in the hall they're in.

I'll reveal defenses if my players make a high enough knowledge check on the monster.

awa
2011-04-07, 11:13 AM
personaly i feel you should tell the dc in general. But i only tell them what theythink the dc is if the the floor is actually superslick but they can see thats its superslick they will be told the nonslick dc until they interact with it enough to determin that.

In a game i was in my charecter whanted to jump onto a rope in the middle of a lake and wouldent tell me the dc wich i felt was frusterating becuase the problem wasent me decidng if i thought my charecter could do it but whearther i though the dm thought i could do it. In this case the dm came to roughtly the same dc determination that idid but are alternitve dm felt the task was completlyimpossible and if he had been the one running it i would never have been able to suceed the check.

thats the problem of not saying dc is you are like a blind man trying to jump a ravine whos only idea of how wide it is is based only on extremly vauge advice from a man who could care less if you fall to your death.

jguy
2011-04-07, 11:36 AM
Wow, I didn't know you all spoke so passionately on both sides. It never really occurred to me to not tell my players the DCs of spells or that my DM wouldn't tell us what we needed to save.

My group is actually a very honest one when it comes to saves, it never crossed my mind to lie about making a save or not. Out of habit, it usually goes like this:

DM: Okay, you need to save vs this [insert spell name here]. The DC is 16
Me: Hmm, well that is going to be a tough one, but I have +X to save, so I will need a Y to roll. Wish me luck. [I roll in front of everyone with everyone knowing my bonus]

If I pass, everyone knows it, if I fail, the same thing happens.

The only time I have never told someone the DC, and honestly it was a big pain in my butt to not to, was when we first played in Eberron and got action points. Since action points were optional to roll I didn't want them to know if they succeeded or failed on a save before they chose to use one.

For the "fudging of the rolls" kind of thing, it is harder to do for the DM to do with us since he rolls out in the open just like we all do. Not saying this is for better or worse, just how we do it. DM typically tries to avoid using Save or Dies against us. Finger of Death, Circle of Death, ect ect, since losing your character on one bad dice roll is annoying to both player and DM. Now if it is a BBEG who wishes us dead, then we understand if he wants to kill us as soon as possible.

John Campbell
2011-04-07, 12:52 PM
I'm still not seeing it. I'd rather have a description, not numbers. Numbers bore me. I hate metagaming. I like to keep as far away from that as possible.

Thing is, in a lot of RPGs - D&D in particular - the capabilities of the characters vary widely and well beyond normal human bounds, and the player is not intimately and instinctively familiar with his character's capabilities. You tell me I'm facing a yawning chasm, well, I've got no clue whether my character might reasonably be able to attempt to jump it. You tell me it's thirty feet wide - that's not a DC, precisely, but it translates directly - and I can check my character sheet for how good my character is at jumping and come up with a reasonable estimation.

In this case, that the dwarf cannot make the check, but with my boots of springing and striding and decent Acrobatics bonus, I could make it on a 14... which is riskier than I'd want to attempt except in extremis, given the consequences of failure are plummeting hundreds of feet onto jagged rocks and being mildly inconvenienced by falling damage. My dire wolf, on the other hand, with his base 80' move and Run feat, can make it on a 4, and will not in any case fall short enough that he can't catch the edge.

Which tells us, as players, things that our characters should just know... that the dwarf has no prayer of leaping the chasm, but I might be able to, and I'm pretty sure my wolf can do it. And it does it without specific GM intervention in every case, so the GM doesn't have to have copies of every PC's every stat in front of him at all times and do all the math for everyone himself.

You remembered the boots of springing and striding I picked up a few sessions back, right? You remember what the bonus from those is? Not just the direct bonus, but the extra +4 from the increased movement? That +9 is the difference between "no way in hell" and "yeah, maybe" for me. You remembered that the dire wolf has Run, right, and that that provides a +4 bonus on jump checks, and that he's getting a +20 from his ridiculous base move? You know all of my animal companion's skill modifiers too, right? Those two ranks in Acrobatics that he's got make the difference between him definitely being able to catch the far edge and us possibly having a half-ton of dire wolf down a hole on the end of a rope, and, okay, I am strong enough to haul him back out, assuming the rope is even strong enough to hold him, but it's not going to be a lot of fun in any case...

bloodtide
2011-04-07, 01:16 PM
I only tell players in descriptive terms (such as, it looks tricky to the wizard, but the rouge is likely to find it easy.)

This is the way I've always done it.

I'll say how a task looks, by description. So 'the lock on the door looks very well made and new' or 'the bugbear guard is carefully watching the area around him'. Never 'yawn the lock DC is 15' or the 'bugbear has ten ranks in spot and rolled a 10, so that is a DC of 20 to sneak by'.

It also makes skills important. A character with some ranks in locksmithing, is able to tell more about a lock. Yes this 'forces' characters to 'waste' skill points on skills that are not pure kill, loot and repeat combat skills.


It's always much more fun for ''The koblold leaps over the pit and just lands on the other side'' , then ''Player 4 get a 22 on his check and accomplishes the task''


And again, I'll point out that while some players cheat(''oh I need a 20, well I'll just add this and that and automatically get 20'') many more do the 'subconscious cheating': when they know what they need to do exactly, they will simply do that without thinking. Like-"Oh my character does not know the DC, wink wink, but..um...he randomly just because..um...drinks his potion of bull's strength first''.

Knowing the Dc can make for a boring game with skittish or careful players. But if no one knows..then no one knows.

Good example-Hob the halfling was a character once upon a time. He only had a +3 for his tumble/balance/jump such skills, he was always..always doing crazy dexterity maneuvers. He was jumpping off walls, swinging on ropes, tumbling everywhere and so forth. And never knowing the DC. He just did everything. And the fun part was, is that he made his rolls more then half the time...he was quite lucky to roll 19-20s. If he had been told 'you need to roll a 20 to do your tumble(DC23), do you think he would have risked it?

Tyndmyr
2011-04-07, 01:33 PM
Wow, I didn't know you all spoke so passionately on both sides. It never really occurred to me to not tell my players the DCs of spells or that my DM wouldn't tell us what we needed to save.

My group is actually a very honest one when it comes to saves, it never crossed my mind to lie about making a save or not. Out of habit, it usually goes like this:

Yeah. And that's how it should be. Telling the player the DC should not result in the player cheating. And if it does, the fault lies not with the GM for telling, but on the cheater.

Talakeal
2011-04-07, 01:38 PM
I find that a d20 is more than enough randomness to represent the unknown. That is a huge variable, and telling someone the exact DC still leaves a huge % chance of the unexpected happening. Typically at low-mid levels the dice roll is a larger number than the player's modifier or even the DC of the action, so I don't think knowing the difficult takes away all the mystery.

In my homebrew system I use code words for difficulties rather than numbers.
Easy is DC 5, Routine for DC 10, Challenging for DC 15, Hard for DC 20, Very Hard for 25, Extremely Hard for DC 30, and Legendary for DC 40 (which is as high as skill tests go under normal circumstances, I don't go into epic levels).

Also, I don't freely reveal an enemies stats accept for those they need to meet, like AC. However, if asked I will almost always tell them. This is because when they ask it is usually because they suspect I am fudging, setting up an unwinnable encounter, or just making a mistake calculating the numbers (which happens sometimes). I have rather paranoid players, and if they are asking and I don't tell them it only makes them more suspicious.

One time my PCs were fighting a guy who was, secretly, a disguised outsider. They hit him and I marked down the damage they did in the open, including his DR. The players, of course, didn't know how he had damage reduction, and they almost hit the roof crying and screaming that I wrote down less damage than I did. I tried to explain to them that there was a reason for it, but they wouldn't hear it, insisting I was just trying to save my precious NPC to keep them from killing him and getting the campaign off the rails.

awa
2011-04-07, 01:53 PM
in regular dnd you are supposed to tell players when a monster has dr you dont have to say dr 5/magic but you do have to say your attack did not do as much damge as you thought it would

Knaight
2011-04-07, 01:59 PM
in regular dnd you are supposed to tell players when a monster has dr you dont have to say dr 5/magic but you do have to say your attack did not do as much damge as you thought it would

You might have posted in the wrong thread by accident, the discussion here concerns DC - though much of the same philosophies behind the decisions regarding DC would apply to DR or equivalents in other games.

Talakeal
2011-04-07, 02:03 PM
He was responding to my anecdote about player trust.

I wrote down how much damage he took in the open, so they saw he had DR, I just didn't tell them WHY he had DR, which they freaked out about.

Pigkappa
2011-04-07, 02:03 PM
I find that a d20 is more than enough randomness to represent the unknown. That is a huge variable, and telling someone the exact DC still leaves a huge % chance of the unexpected happening.

This is not about randomness. This is about giving them information they can't have.

Again: a wizard who is casting Deep Slumber on the party might be a level 5 wizard who has no offensive spell prepared or an high-level wizard who doesn't want to harm them. If the save DC is 16 it's likely the first, if it's 19 it's much more likely the second. This information would be really useful to them and that's something they couldn't find out IC.

Talakeal
2011-04-07, 02:07 PM
But wouldn't the player's characters realistically know how difficult it was once they have been subjected to the spell?

Even without any numerical given, I would still describe an easy save as something along the lines of: "A mild effect that you can easily shrug off, this wizard is obviously not very skilled, or at least wants to appear that way". Vs "The spell hits you with incredible force, and it takes everything you have to keep standing. This caster is obviously incredibly potent."

It sounds to me like keeping such information totally hidden is actually some sort of reverse metagaming on the GMs part.

Pigkappa
2011-04-07, 02:14 PM
But wouldn't the player's characters realistically know how difficult it was once they have been subjected to the spell?


No, I don't think so. In both cases you feel an incredible need of sleeping; maybe an experienced spellcaster who can cast that spell can recognize (Spellcraft) if it is particurarly strong, given a little time to think about it. A character who has likely never been affected by that spell, or maybe has been affected by that just once a lot of time ago, can hardly understand this.

bloodtide
2011-04-07, 02:16 PM
It sounds to me like keeping such information totally hidden is actually some sort of reverse metagaming on the GMs part.

That sounds good, reverse metagaming.

More importantly, no numbers keeps the players immersed in the role-playing game world, not the roll-playing game world. After all 'a powerful wizard' is much more dramatic then 'oh, that wizard is 12th level'.


Also, giving no information just stops the nitpickers cold. If they know the wizard is X level, then they know what level spells that wizard can cast. Then if the see something 'wrong', they can throw up their hands and say ''Cheat, cheat..the DM is cheating!'' But if they know nothing, then they can't say anything. (But they still have fun trying to peace together the wizards level from the in game clues).

Jerthanis
2011-04-07, 05:16 PM
I'm still not seeing it. I'd rather have a description, not numbers. Numbers bore me. I hate metagaming. I like to keep as far away from that as possible.

Yeah, I hate numbers too, which is why I have, "Pretty damn good at it" for my bonus to stealth rolls and "Could shave the hairs of a fly without needing aftershave" for my attack rolls with swords.

Wait...

The problem I've always found is estimating how good I am relative to a merely described task by looking at numbers, or vice versa. If the resolution is purely numbers driven, then I shouldn't have to guess based on my +9 modifier if I really have much of a chance of a, "Well, it looks pretty hard to you." task.

If I were using a system that used purely narrative, descriptive phrases as its stats as I mention before, telling me that something has a Difficulty Class of 18 is exactly as meaningless.

navar100
2011-04-07, 06:03 PM
So, we're back on the whole "all DM's that fudge are bad DM's" thing again? :smallsigh:

When the DM purposely screws over the player character by DM fiat or the day ends in a "Y", yes.

dsmiles
2011-04-07, 06:08 PM
When the DM purposely screws over the player character by DM fiat or the day ends in a "Y", yes.So, if DM fiat goes the other way, and helps the player then...?

Optimator
2011-04-07, 06:22 PM
I think it makes a lot of sense for many skill checks to know the DC. Jump DCs, Climb DCs, Disable Device DCs, etc.

Talakeal
2011-04-07, 06:25 PM
So, if DM fiat goes the other way, and helps the player then...?

In my experience they either get bored with the lack of risk / challenge or get entitlement issues when future events don't go their way, depending on their personality.

Saph
2011-04-07, 06:25 PM
I'd say it depends on the action.

Will tell players exact number: Routine stuff that's spelled out clearly in the rules. It's DC 10 to do a 10-foot running jump, it's DC 15 to Tumble through a threatened square.

Will tell players whether their characters think they could succeed: Basic stuff like climbing or picking a lock. In these cases the characters can easily take a guess at how tricky it is, but they don't know all the potential details, so they don't get absolutely precise information. (That tree might have some dead branches further up; the poor-quality lock might be stuck, making it harder to pick.)

Will tell players their character's general guess/perception: More difficult stuff like "can we beat this monster in a battle?" There's no right or wrong answer, so it's a hunch.

Will tell players very little until after they try it: Situations where the characters don't have enough information to judge the difficulty of the action. E.g. an attempted Bluff against a total stranger when the PCs have no way of knowing what his Sense Motive modifier is.

Will tell players nothing at all: Situations where both the players and the characters know absolutely nothing whatsoever. E.g. "what's the DC to hit that shadowy thing in the darkness?" when they don't know what the creature's defences are, whether it can be hit by their weapons, or even whether it's a creature at all.

In all cases, the more times the PCs try, the more information they get. After falling out of the tree for the first time, they probably know the DC with the rotten branches, and after matching wits with the stranger once or twice they can make a guess as to whether he's got a good Sense Motive or not.

Jarawara
2011-04-07, 07:29 PM
Personally I don't see why you'd need to tell the players what the DC of an action is. If I want to go swim in a still pool, I'm going to assume that even without ranks in swim odds of me drowning are low. If you tell me it's a massive whirlpool and I don't have ranks in swim, I'm going to assume that I won't survive it and either start buffing my check or find something else to do.

But what if the water is 'rough'? Is that dangerous? Or does that just mean I might get a mouthful of tepid water from time to time? How does the player determine the DM's intent there? And more importantly, what if the DM has a different definition of what a 'massive whirlpool' is, or how dangerous 'still water' can be.

I contemplate climbing a wall. DM describes the wall as having several 'nubs and bumps' in the surface. I don't know anything about climbing, and have never tried one of those climbing walls you can find at amusement parks and malls. However, my character has a good bonus at climbing, having learned it as an appropriate method of assisting his chosen profession (Ok, ok, he's a thief, I admit it!!). So bumps and nubs probably means this wall is an easy task for an experienced climber as myself (my character), i.e., lots of handholds and places to brace my feet.

DM shakes his head in wonderment as I try my +8 skillcheck at his DC 50 wall. Doesn't the player 'get' that bumps and nubs means 'freaking nearly impossible'?

And on the opposite extreme, I have the sad tale of Ajax the Dwarf, long before the modern skillsystems, he simply had to roll 'ability checks'. My players knew from the description of Dwarven culture that Dwarves and water do not mix. Their dense flesh, coupled with heavy armor, means they're not going to last long in deep water. They even had a joke about Dwarves making good anchors.

It wasn't that bad, of course. A dwarf would have to struggle mightily to stay afloat, and would surely tire from the effort. Being in armor... would speed the process.

So the fight with the pirates breaks out, and Ajax grapples with a particularly nasty looking dude. They tumble to the side... and over the edge. I figure that with all the penalties against his swim chance, he's got a round or two before he submerges. Maybe an additional round because he can try to hold himself up atop the brute that went in with him. The party has to attempt a rescue quick, throw his a rope, a rowboat, cast a spell or something, for god's sake!

The party... mourns his loss, and continues with the fight.

They never even bother to check on him

They simply "knew" that once he hit the water, he wouldn't stand a chance and sink to the bottom like a rock. If I had stated an outrageous DC check of 20 to stay afloat, with maybe 3 checks needed before he drowns, the players would have at least known there was a chance and that he was fighting to stay afloat, and they could have intervened.

Allowing the players to judge the percentage chances, good or bad, can be a useful tool in making the players understand the actual situation, rather than the unreliable and misinterpretable 'fluff'.

*~*

Opposed skillchecks, of course, remain an unknown quantity. You try to hide in the bushes from the approaching figure? Well, if you're experienced, you probably know where to hide and how to make yourself unnoticable. You can probably pick the best location of where to stand. But if the approaching guy is similarly experienced, he knows where an experienced person would hide and pay particular attention to those spots. I'm not going to roll his spot check and tell you the adjusted DC for you. You're gonna have to decide first, and hope that this guy is just some untrained mook.

Gah, that brings up another rant about the 'good old days' before DC checks. Guards are approaching, we scatter into the woods and shrubs and try to hide. The only person who actually had a 'hide in darkness' check was the theif, so the rest of us simply chose to stand behind treetrunks.

Guards spot us immediately and the alarm is raised. Why? Because torchlight reflects off of armor, and the tree trunks were only a half a foot wide. We had absolutely ZERO chance of success. In fact, since the undergrowth was thin, that meant the thief was effectively standing in open terrain. A 35% chance of 'hiding in darkness' was worthless if he was 'standing in the open'.

This of course was bad DMing, which is why I rant about it. (Edit, so was the example with Ajax above. The players should be ranting about me!)

Our characters should have known instantly that there was no chance of our hiding. We should have took one look at the tree trunk and understood it was impossible to hide behind them. We should have looked right through the thin underbrush and known it did not provide cover. But all we had to go on was little drawn dots where the trees stood, and some scribbled lines where the undergrowth was, and we had to make an assumption as to what kind of cover that was.

If the DM could have said "DC 50" to hide... we wouldn't have hide, we would have run. By telling the actual DC, it tells the players more detail the 'fluff' might have missed, and allows the players to better judge the actual situation (that their characters can actually see and judge for themselves.)

NichG
2011-04-07, 07:58 PM
If you're doing to do hidden DCs, I think the best way to model character self-knowledge of abilities goes something like this:

1. Player says 'Hey, how hard is it to jump from the top of this building into a nearby tree safely?'

2. DM checks notes or ad-hocs the DC in his head (lets say he decides its a 25) and says 'What's your skill modifier?'

3. Player says 'It's blah (say +10)'

4. DM says:

- If a 1 succeeds: "Absolutely trivial, no problem."
- If a 5 or higher is needed: "Looks pretty easy."
- If a 6-10 is needed. "You could do it if you took your time (e.g. you can take 10), but you might mess up if you're rushed."
- If a 11-14 is needed. "It looks kinda difficult."
- If a 15+ is needed. "It looks pretty rough, but might be possible"
- If a Nat 20 is needed, or success is impossible. "Looks impossible."
- If the DC is obscured because of the nature of the check, e.g. a Sense Motive check: "You have no way of knowing."

Basically, this gives the player rough information about whether or not to try it without giving specific numbers.

Provengreil
2011-04-08, 11:15 AM
I don't tell DCs, and I'll fudge when necessary. I'm a bad, bad DM...:smalltongue:

I have an extreme dislike for playing in a game where the DM doesn't use a screen. I dislike playing in a game where the DM won't fudge to keep an exciting plot going. I'm a bad, bad player...:smalltongue:

I've seen a few of your posts around the playground, i'd play with ya.

On topic, when I DM I only tell DCs that are listed and static, or something the players will clearly find out. if they go ten rounds with a monster, they're gonna know it's AC by round 4 in a ll likelihood, at which point i'll just tell them so they can roll, hit, damage, and just give me a number to take from the HP. it goes faster that way. i keep it secret until they're clearly gonna know, at which point just telling them speeds things up.

navar100
2011-04-08, 07:33 PM
So, if DM fiat goes the other way, and helps the player then...?

More acceptable, to a point. If a PC just can't die no matter what, that leads to ennui. However, if the DM really overestimated the bad guys/monsters such that what was supposed to be merely challenging is devastating even though the party is doing everything right and their d20s do know numbers higher than 12 exist, perhaps the monster missed when the DM rolled a 20 behind the screen. If/when the party decides to retreat, they manage to do it. The bad guy's back-up plan suddenly never existed.

But oh noes! The party out-smarted me and can kill the monster in 2 rounds instead of at least the 7 I was expecting with one PC dropping so let me make the AC higher and with more hit points, no. The party is supposed to be that good.

dsmiles
2011-04-08, 07:37 PM
More acceptable, to a point. If a PC just can't die no matter what, that leads to ennui. However, if the DM really overestimated the bad guys/monsters such that what was supposed to be merely challenging is devastating even though the party is doing everything right and their d20s do know numbers higher than 12 exist, perhaps the monster missed when the DM rolled a 20 behind the screen. If/when the party decides to retreat, they manage to do it. The bad guy's back-up plan suddenly never existed.In my group, it's not so much about overestimating the monsters, it's about the players' enjoyment of the story that they're telling. If they are genuinely into the story, I'm not about to let a random number end it for them.
But oh noes! The party out-smarted me and can kill the monster in 2 rounds instead of at least the 7 I was expecting with one PC dropping so let me make the AC higher and with more hit points, no. The party is supposed to be that good.This is bad. I've never made the bad guys harder by fiat. There's no reason to.