PDA

View Full Version : Knowing the Numbers



obryn
2014-05-16, 03:52 PM
Alright, so a recent thread had this statement:

"In general, most of the game information is secret during a game. As a DM I won't say 'the guard has an AC of 12, 8 hit points, and likes apple pie'."

I've seen all varieties of this. Heck, I've played and run the game with several varieties of this. I even had a DM in 2e who wouldn't let us know how many hit points we had. But right now, in 2014, I've dramatically moved away from it and have started being very open with my numbers. Not completely open, but here's where I generally go. None of these are rules, houserules, etc. It's just what I've comfortably settled into.

(1) After anywhere from zero to three attacks, but usually after 1 or 2, I'll straight up tell my players, "This monster's lowest defense is 14 and its highest is 18. If you roll below 14 or above 18, that's that." After a few more, it might move to, "This guy's AC is 18." It doesn't have to, but it usually goes there to cut down on the ask-and-answer bits; they can tell me if it's a hit. (And I can correct it if they're wrong.)

(2) In 4e, there's an obvious "bloodied" condition on both sides of the table, and I use that of course. I also taunt my players when there's 1-2 hit points left on an enemy. (good-naturedly!) This keeps them from wasting valuable stuff on a pushover, changes their tactics a little, and makes all of us laugh. Especially me. And especially when the enemy survives to the next round anyway.

(3) If it's not immediately obvious from the layout on the table (say, I'm using a detailed mini for the scary guy with the spear, counters with numbers for a few big dogs, and everyone else is just a plain glass bead), I'll straight-up answer questions about minions if I'm asked.

(4) Vulnerability and resistance can be determined ahead of time with lore checks, but they're public knowledge once it makes a difference.

(5) If I'm using a laptop for tracking and rolling (I <3 Masterplan), things are kind of secret by default. If not, I tend to run screen-less. All my rolls are public, so if the players want to figure out that a certain enemy has +12 on their attack and does 3d8+3 damage, well, that info is all out there for them to calculate. It makes crits and ghetto crits1

I'm going to guess there are more "open" DMs than I, but I think I'm diametrically opposite to a lot of positions in that thread. This has been a very slow and gradual evolution over 30 years of running games. When I started, I didn't let my players know what "+" their new magic sword had, because the rules told me not to. I quickly realized how much work that was on my side of the screen, so dropped it. And ... well, this is where that path has led me.

The things I keep close to my vest are mostly plot- and fiction-related things, new enemies' capabilities, and of course various secrets. This is mostly about openness and transparency about numbers, rather than anything else.

So where are you folks on open rolls, open defenses, and the like?


1 Ha ha, I got max damage anyway, neener-neener.

Gildedragon
2014-05-16, 04:14 PM
I am fond of the "players roll everything" variant.
Make them all roll a couple saves every now and then, and just take the ones I actually mean.
As for knowing ACs
They can figure it out pretty fast with a couple attacks.
HP I have 5 states: mostly unhurt, wounded, bloodied, in bad shape, close to death
Corresponding roughly to hp >3/4, 3/4-2/3, 2-3-1/3, 1/3-1/4, and <1/4
Vulnerabilities/Resistances: Kn check or if they come into play in such a way the damage move (or should have moved) a creature between damage categories

NichG
2014-05-16, 05:12 PM
Most of the time, its a lot of extra work to conceal the numbers from the players and there's very little actual gain. However, that does bring up a fun thing you can do - if you're usually very open about things, then you can make one-off gimmick enemies or effects which work specifically by concealing numbers from the players. The impact of something like that is a lot more potent when the players are used to having certain information and are suddenly deprived of it.

For example, you could have a creature that deals 'subtle' internal damage such that the player is not told how much damage they take or how hurt their character is. After spending a lot of time knowing exactly how many hitpoints they have left, a creature that prevents them from having access to that information is really scary since it means that at any point the next hit could drop them and they have no way of knowing.

If on the other hand you always ran game that way, you'd probably have to at least use descriptors to indicate how the characters are doing 'you feel like you're on your last legs', 'that blow felt like a mosquito bite to you', etc, which means that the players will be more used to dealing with imprecise information and the gimmick will have less impact.

Similarly, if the players are used to knowing how hard they hit the enemy, you can use a mechanic for e.g. zombies such that the players don't get to roll damage or evaluate how effective their attacks are (because every attack looks like it should've killed it, but it keeps on coming anyhow). If that particular gimmick is unique to zombies, it makes them a lot more interesting than 'generic common undead #3'. However if every undead/amorphous/etc thing used that mechanic, then it again becomes a bit less interesting.

So basically, my take is 'be open 95% of the time in order to be able to make the other 5% of the time really feel suspenseful'

The Grue
2014-05-16, 05:42 PM
On the occasions I've DM'd, I have players roll most things. I'll sometimes roll things for them in secret if their characters aren't consciously aware of it, but not as a general rule.

NPC rolls I'll make out of sight or behind a screen if I have the option, for two reasons.

1) Because if I roll a nat 20, I can get some cheap drama by lifting the GM screen to reveal the die.
2) Because, if I absolutely positively need to I can fudge without the players knowing. I know that's frowned upon and I don't think I've ever actually done it, but I haven't ruled out the possibility that I might need to for whatever reason. If I did, it certainly wouldn't be to penalize the players; it'd be something like fudging the confirmed vorpal crit against the guy who's having an unlucky streak.

As for outright concealing the numbers I don't go to any great lengths. Initiative order I make public from the start of combat because that makes sense, and because it'll become quite obvious after the first round who's going when. ACs and such, if the players want to keep track of what values hit and what values miss I have no problem with that - again, narratively, it makes sense that as you fought an opponent you'd get a sense of how well they can defend themselves against your attacks.

Rhynn
2014-05-16, 05:44 PM
Players know what goes on their sheet - all the info about their character (unless there's a reason not to, like amnesia, etc.) - and that's about it. They can figure out a bunch more, but I'm not going to give it to them.

They can figure out ACs easy enough in D&D, but that's about it. (Pretty much in no other RPG can they actually know their real chance of hitting something, because it's very rarely a straight-up "die + modifiers vs. target number" thing.) I mostly won't tell them, but that depends - if it's a rat, I'm pretty fine with giving them the AC, but if it's the evil high priest, nope.

Their characters can tell if they just inflicted a big wound or a small wound, but I'm not telling them how many hit points enemies have.

Targets numbers - that depends. If it's, say, a D&D 3E Jump check, yeah, they know it. Opposed tests in just about anything, nope.

I also make a lot of rolls without telling the players what they're for (mostly noticing things; I keep track of certain key skills for this purpose). I make the rolls for finding secret doors, traps, etc. A lot of the time, the players shouldn't know if the roll was a success or a failure - they just know the result. (Also, fake rolls are a handy suspension-building thing, because obviously the players are going to think something is up.)

jedipotter
2014-05-16, 09:57 PM
Most of the time, its a lot of extra work to conceal the numbers from the players and there's very little actual gain.

I'm one of the ''I don't tell players close to 100% of the numbers''. And this is based off of years of gaming. Sure, I'd love to do ''less'' work as a DM, and do the buddy thing and just say ''the goblins have an AC of 14'' and just let everyone roll and attack.....but I have found that it does not work so well in the long run. Too many players forget things, do things wrong, don't know about things, or even worse just out right cheat.

A player generaly knows everything in their sheet...they know they have a sword +1, they just don't know the effects they have on the game world.

The great gain is, getting more fun out of the players. The number players get very boring, when all they do is set up to make the needed number each time. The DC is 14, they have a +5, so they add another +5, so they only need to roll a 4 or more the make it. But when they don't know the DC, they can only guess at the needed plus.

I also get annoyed with the players that won't try unles they have like a 80% chance to make it. It they know the DC is 20, and they only have a +2, they won't even try.

Eisenheim
2014-05-16, 10:33 PM
When I ran D&D I didn't usually disclose any most numbers, but I didn't make an effort to conceal them either. I mostly run FATE now, which, imo handles the whole issue much better: all roles are assumed to be in the open. The player always knows what the target number is, at least after the initial role, so that they can choose whether or not to spend fate points or invoke aspects to improve their role, and discovering parts of an NPC's character sheet is one of the main uses of a core social skill.

Thrudd
2014-05-16, 10:54 PM
I tend toward the camp of keeping anything not on the character sheet a secret. The players tell me what they want to do, roll the dice, I tell them what happens.
Most target numbers/difficulty numbers are kept secret. If they guess an enemies' AC based on their attack rolls, I don't deny it. I usually do tell them the bonuses on magic equipment after they have used it for a fight or two, keeping track of all that for them is difficult.
I roll most perception related tests, keeping a list of their relevant stats or skills behind the screen. It breaks immersion too much for players to know that their characters have missed seeing or finding something.
Enemy HP is kept secret, an enemies' status is described as "healthy" or "strong" or "worn down" or "battered" "injured", etc. They can guess an enemy is too strong for them if they make some great attack rolls and don't hit, or hit and roll good damage but the enemy does not seem too hurt.

I also use the trick of rolling dice randomly behind the screen, to keep the players jumpy.

Jay R
2014-05-17, 09:46 AM
I don't tell them what the AC is, but my method helps them figure it out.

We're playing 2E:

Wil: I roll a 17.
Me: What does that hit?
Wil: AC 5.
Me: It does no damage.
Diane: I hit AC 3.
Me: It hits. Roll for damage.

Among other things, this gives people a reason to pat attention to the other players' actions in melee.

Eisenheim
2014-05-17, 10:13 AM
A player generaly knows everything in their sheet...they know they have a sword +1, they just don't know the effects they have on the game world.

The great gain is, getting more fun out of the players. The number players get very boring, when all they do is set up to make the needed number each time. The DC is 14, they have a +5, so they add another +5, so they only need to roll a 4 or more the make it. But when they don't know the DC, they can only guess at the needed plus.

I also get annoyed with the players that won't try unles they have like a 80% chance to make it. It they know the DC is 20, and they only have a +2, they won't even try.

I feel like all of these things would actually ham my ability to role-play as a competent, or especially an exceptional individual, which is usually what I'm trying to do in games. Knowing the limits of your own capabilities and not trying to do things that you are almost certain to fail at seems like a pretty basic level of competence in a given field, and I would be frustrated in a game that prevented me from having that level of even self-awareness for a character.

As far as not knowing the effects your items or rolls have on the game world, isn't that the entire point of the game: if you don't see the effect of the numbers, what is the connection between your roles and the game you're playing?

I would also like to hear more about how you feel not knowing the required DC for actions adds to fun for the group. I don't entirely understand how that helps the players and GM to build a better story or feel more immersed in character, which are my go-to yardsticks for fun. What do you find this uncertainty adds to your games?

Slipperychicken
2014-05-17, 10:27 AM
It they know the DC is 20, and they only have a +2, they won't even try.

That's actually sensible. They only have a 15% chance to make that DC. The expected outcome is (Success outcome * 0.15) - (failure outcome * 0.85). The success outcome would need to be ~5.67 times as good as the failure outcome is bad to even break even.

It's typically not worthwhile to attempt things which such a low success chance, unless the costs of failure are relatively low and/or the benefits of success are relatively high. Doubly so when significant opportunity costs are involved.

Thrudd
2014-05-17, 12:49 PM
I feel like all of these things would actually ham my ability to role-play as a competent, or especially an exceptional individual, which is usually what I'm trying to do in games. Knowing the limits of your own capabilities and not trying to do things that you are almost certain to fail at seems like a pretty basic level of competence in a given field, and I would be frustrated in a game that prevented me from having that level of even self-awareness for a character.

As far as not knowing the effects your items or rolls have on the game world, isn't that the entire point of the game: if you don't see the effect of the numbers, what is the connection between your roles and the game you're playing?

I would also like to hear more about how you feel not knowing the required DC for actions adds to fun for the group. I don't entirely understand how that helps the players and GM to build a better story or feel more immersed in character, which are my go-to yardsticks for fun. What do you find this uncertainty adds to your games?

On the DC thing: Being immersed in the character means you react and make decisions as if you were the character. In real life, you never know for sure when you will succeed or fail at something, you don't have a number that says you are 75% sure to be able to make that jump, or there's only 5% chance of getting through that guy's defenses. You look at the chasm, think "it looks only a few feet across, I can probably make it", and make a decision based on this. You attack a guy a couple times with your best effort, and he easily avoids every attack without breaking a sweat, you think "uh oh, this guy is a lot better than me."
This is what the DM does, gives you the sensory input of the character so you can make reasonable decisions. Having the numbers I consider meta-game data, which is the DM's realm to translate into sensory data for the players.

Of course, this is mainly pre 4e D&D I'm talking about. Other games vary on this, since their goals are different.

Pex
2014-05-17, 01:30 PM
It is not a crime for players to know the numbers. That is not the same thing as just giving it to them. A monster's AC is the easiest to figure out. Bob says he hits AC 22, miss. Jack says he hits AC 23, hit. It is proper and not cheating for Dan to then figure out how much he wants to put into his Power Attack. His character just saw his party members attack the monster. He knows the nuances of the combat. The math involved is just the extrapolation. Mike decides his cleric casts Bless to help everyone instead of Bull's Strength on Bob.

The math part of the game is part of the game. That's what this is, a game. The DM loses nothing just because the players know stuff. Every monster and bad guy knows all the numbers of everyone and everything because the DM knows all the numbers of everyone and everything. A good and fair DM tries to separate what he knows from what the monster or bad guy should know, but he can err and use out of character knowledge anyway. Sometimes he purposely uses that knowledge with the excuse of the monster or bad guy being very intelligent, such as a dragon or lich. A DM is not being fair if he denies or forbids the players from learning the numbers and using that information for their benefit.

jaydubs
2014-05-17, 01:36 PM
On the DC thing: Being immersed in the character means you react and make decisions as if you were the character. In real life, you never know for sure when you will succeed or fail at something, you don't have a number that says you are 75% sure to be able to make that jump, or there's only 5% chance of getting through that guy's defenses. You look at the chasm, think "it looks only a few feet across, I can probably make it", and make a decision based on this. You attack a guy a couple times with your best effort, and he easily avoids every attack without breaking a sweat, you think "uh oh, this guy is a lot better than me."
This is what the DM does, gives you the sensory input of the character so you can make reasonable decisions. Having the numbers I consider meta-game data, which is the DM's realm to translate into sensory data for the players.

Of course, this is mainly pre 4e D&D I'm talking about. Other games vary on this, since their goals are different.

In real life, while you might not know "I have a 75% chance of walking across that beam," you do have a general idea what your chances are. "I've walked beams like that before, I can do it again without much trouble." Or "I have terrible balance, I'll probably fall." The world is right there in front of you, and you have a good idea of your own limits.

In RP games, that doesn't translate. Ask 10 different people the DC on a task, and they won't all give you the same answer. What a player thinks is easy, a DM might think is really hard. A player thinks a +10 bonus is equivalent to a professional gymnast. A DM thinks it's just someone who's coordinated.

The other issue is, unless you go into extremely high detail or the players ask about every situation, things get left out. How smooth is the stone? How many legs are on that table? How wide is that ledge? Is there wind blowing? How many crates are there to hide behind? Is this alley lighted? Is it a moonless night? Has the rain dried yet?

Now, that doesn't mean you have to give out exact DCs, but you should give the player an idea on their chances. "You can probably make the jump." "It looks difficult." "Nearly impossible." Or give a range of DCs. "Somewhere between 10-15." "Probably over 30." "Just don't roll a 1." (If the game uses critical fails on skills.) Etc. It gives the player enough information to make well informed decisions, without worrying about mistranslations between what the DM is envisioning, and what the player hears.

jedipotter
2014-05-17, 03:01 PM
I feel like all of these things would actually ham my ability to role-play as a competent, or especially an exceptional individual, which is usually what I'm trying to do in games. Knowing the limits of your own capabilities and not trying to do things that you are almost certain to fail at seems like a pretty basic level of competence in a given field, and I would be frustrated in a game that prevented me from having that level of even self-awareness for a character.

There is a big gap between role-playing and roll-playing. It role-playing your told how hard the task looks by description. Roll-playing your just given the number. And how do you ''role-play'' being competent? Sounds a like like ''to role-play a competent individual, I must make all my rolls''. If you see ''a common lock'' you'd know it has a ''average'' DC, when you see ''a well made lock'', you'd know it had an ''above average'' DC, and when you see ''the lock is made of glowing blue energy with tiny bolts of lightining flashing around it'' that it would be high.



As far as not knowing the effects your items or rolls have on the game world, isn't that the entire point of the game: if you don't see the effect of the numbers, what is the connection between your roles and the game you're playing?

You'd know the effects, by role playing description, but not by the numbers. If you think the entire point of the game is to roll the 1d20 a couple of dozen times and make the set DC each time....then...well...have fun.




I would also like to hear more about how you feel not knowing the required DC for actions adds to fun for the group. I don't entirely understand how that helps the players and GM to build a better story or feel more immersed in character, which are my go-to yardsticks for fun. What do you find this uncertainty adds to your games?

The game rolls on nice and smooth while everyone is role-playing...but when the rolling starts, way too many players get side tracked into roll playing. They go from ''we move along the row of bushes, keeping our heads down'' to the robotic ''We-roll-22-to-make-the DC-of-20-and-sneak''.


The group is just about to approch foes castle, on a 'secret' trail they found out about that takes them to a back door.

DM: ''Roll Spot and Listen checks'' (does not tell them why or the needed DC)
Players: Roll, and tell the DM.
DM: checks the rolls and sees everyone made both checks, so just says ''you all hear the clank of armor ahead, and see a couple of guards''
Players: "Quick, everyone hide" Each player picks a spot to hide, up a tree or in a bush or in the low riverbed. rolls a hide check, not knowing the DC. Each player would describe thier action-''I lay flat down in the mud next to the stream and spread out my green cloak over my armor so it does not shine in the sun.''
DM: Rolls spot for the guards, and describes the ''guards walk over and look around, they move about the area. At this point, none of he players know if thier character is hidden or not. Two of the guards in leather armor look along the ground and move over to the stream.''
Players: All get quiet, the player with the character in the mud asks ''do they see me?" to the DM.
DM: The guards move over to the muddy stream, about ten feet from where you are hiding. They don't seem to look right at you, and speek to each other in a strange language. Then they move back to the guard group and move off. The players have no idea if they were seen, or what happened.

Eisenheim
2014-05-17, 03:17 PM
I mostly like to Role-play in a collaborative storytelling model. As I said, I play FATE for the most part now, and in that model I haven't found that numbers in the open are a problem. Generally the way my tables run is that players or DM gives a description of the actions they want to take and the outcome they're trying for, and then they work out the best mechanical model. At that point, it's either an opposed role or a static difficulty, roles get made, and the player gets to see how they match against the opposition and both sides can spend resources to modify their roles. I don't see place where my role-playing would be improved by keeping more numbers secret, but I appreciate you (jedipotter) taking the time to help me understand where you're coming from.

NichG
2014-05-17, 03:37 PM
It is not a crime for players to know the numbers. That is not the same thing as just giving it to them. A monster's AC is the easiest to figure out. Bob says he hits AC 22, miss. Jack says he hits AC 23, hit. It is proper and not cheating for Dan to then figure out how much he wants to put into his Power Attack. His character just saw his party members attack the monster. He knows the nuances of the combat. The math involved is just the extrapolation. Mike decides his cleric casts Bless to help everyone instead of Bull's Strength on Bob.

The math part of the game is part of the game. That's what this is, a game. The DM loses nothing just because the players know stuff. Every monster and bad guy knows all the numbers of everyone and everything because the DM knows all the numbers of everyone and everything. A good and fair DM tries to separate what he knows from what the monster or bad guy should know, but he can err and use out of character knowledge anyway. Sometimes he purposely uses that knowledge with the excuse of the monster or bad guy being very intelligent, such as a dragon or lich. A DM is not being fair if he denies or forbids the players from learning the numbers and using that information for their benefit.

Although as I said earlier, I tend to be open about the numbers because of various factors, I strongly disagree with this particular argument. First of all, this presumes a highly player-vs-DM play environment in which the DM is out to get the players and is keeping things secret in order to 'win'. But really, except for things like tournament modules, that sort of play dynamic has far deeper problems in something like D&D where a DM can always TPK the party completely within the rules and guidelines given to DMs by the book if they really wanted to. Competitive DM-vs-player play needs further guidelines than D&D by default presents in order to be functional (which is why it can work in tournament modules where the content is fixed). So its basically irrelevant to considerations of revealing or hiding the numbers.

If you rule out competitive play, then the DM 'having an advantage' is moot because the DM is dynamically adjusting their advantage over the players anyhow in order to provide good gaming. The DM always has an advantage in that they can define the entirety of the world, but that advantage doesn't matter because they exploit it only to the degree necessary to make the game interesting. That is to say, they could throw great wyrm dragons at a Lv1 party at any time if they wanted to, but they don't because ostensibly they want everyone to have fun. So if the DM knows the numbers and the players don't, that doesn't matter at all in terms of 'fairness'. The game is not designed to be 'fair' in the sense of both sides of the screen being equal in all things; its designed to be 'fair' in the sense that the DM is supposed to use their advantage to improve the play experience for everyone at the table - they have more power, but their purpose in using it is more constrained.

There are types of challenges and games and desired outcomes which can benefit from hiding or revealing selective subsets of the information, etc. It just happens that in most cases, things like AC have such a short time window of significance that making discovering them a part of the gameplay is kind of wasteful. That is to say, its a piece of information that will become meaningless in a round or two, so the strategic choice between spending an extra round to uncover it versus just doing standard operating procedure is sort of a no-brainer. Its not that you couldn't have a game where finding out such information had long-term relevance and made for an important part of gameplay, its just that D&D doesn't lend itself by default towards being such a game.

To contrast, compare it to something like Amber Diceless, where a large portion of the gameplay is actually figuring out your enemy's stats over the course of a long storyline. In Amber Diceless, everyone has basically fixed values of four stats, and higher stat values always win in a conflict surrounding that stat. The trick is, if you reveal what your stat values are, the enemy side can tell whether or not they'd win in certain kinds of conflicts against you, and can just avoid those conflicts and only contest you in things they know they can beat you in. So there, a large part of the gameplay is in fact 'figuring out the numbers on your own', and if the DM said 'this guy has a War of 3' then it completely screws up the game.

So no, 'players know the numbers' shouldn't be a given across all gaming. But at the same time, 'players not knowing the numbers' doesn't really accomplish much in D&D unless you really make an effort to milk it.

What is interesting however is how different players react to having imperfect knowledge. There are certain player types that handle it better than others. I'm curious actually, lets say you had a game where by default you didn't know the numbers but there was a rule 'you can learn the exact DC of any check, but you must spend a swift action/move action/standard action/full round action studying the situation in order to do so' in a time-limited scenario such as combat. Would you ever take advantage of such a rule, and if so then how severe of a cost would you be willing to pay (in terms of actions) in order to determine DCs?

SiuiS
2014-05-17, 03:43 PM
I make all these decisions in service to the game, honestly. I'll pull this out on vets to keep things fresh when they get too jaded, but it really depends. I've even gone so far as to make a character for the player, after figuring out what kind of person they wanted to tell a story about and matchig mechanics, and just wrote down their options in a bulleted list so they could choose, say, "attack", "defend", "do something cool" or "shoot lightning" or whatever.

Sometimes it's also completely transparent. As a play group we tend to get these numbers anyway; after both myself and my usual partner in crime get our attacks in we already know the attack bonus and such from basic math (barring swingy rolls) so there's no point hiding it. Worse, when DMs or GMs move into 'do weird things just to finally win over that smart player's tactics" territory, well that's bad. I've had a ninth level fighter/warlock trashed by three epic stone collosi because the DM just couldn't handle my Adamantine armor and using quickened hideous blow (...:smallsigh:) and needed a victory over the player. That's. Bad sign. It means there is competition but no trust.

I play clear and concise to earn player trust. I then wean them from details when I feel it enhances things. It's a cycle, and changes by the player and the group and the system.

Jay R
2014-05-17, 05:06 PM
In the real world, I see my opponents eyes, I can see what his armor looks like, I can feel my sword against his armor, and I can tell how well I'm doing at getting past his defense. In SCA combat, I can tell the rough ability level of an opponent after a few "rounds" of combat. I can tell how fatigued I'm getting, as well as how fatigued he's getting. And I know how well I am controlling his actions in the fight.

Obviously, since there is no real opponent in front of me, I can't see all of that. In fact, it doesn't even exist. We have abstracted it into die rolls - I need a 13 or better to do damage, which will then cause 1d8 hit points of damage.

But since we are using the numbers to simulate the action, we also have to use the numbers to simulate the PC's understanding of how the fight is going. Yes, I have to think in numeric terms, but it's still doing what a fighter does during a fight.

I'd rather have this: "I've tried most of my moves, and he's blocking them well. He's also pretty good at controlling my shield. I'm not likely to win this fight."

In fact I have this, instead: "I'm hitting on a 13+, and he's hitting on a 9+. I'm doing 1d8 damage, and he's doing 2d8 damage. I'm not likely to win this fight."

But if I didn't have that, I'd be less immersed in what a fight really feels like.


I would also like to hear more about how you feel not knowing the required DC for actions adds to fun for the group. I don't entirely understand how that helps the players and GM to build a better story or feel more immersed in character, which are my go-to yardsticks for fun. What do you find this uncertainty adds to your games?

Depends on the level of uncertainty. I can look at a wall, and say one of the following:
"I can't climb that."
"I don't know if I have any chance to climb that. The handholds and footholds are awfully narrow."
"That would be hard. I might succeed in climbing it, but it isn't likely. There's a five foot section that looks pretty smooth."
"If nothing goes funny, I can climb that, but it might. Those rocks look awfully loose."
"I can probably climb that wall, although there are a couple of places that look slick.
"I can climb that wall with no difficulty."

Therefore, proper simulation requires the DM to give that much incomplete information. My general rule is to take the DC, add one, and subtract a d6, to provide the bottom of a range. Assume the DC is 13.
If I roll a 1, I say, "It looks like the DC is in the 13-18 range."
If I roll a 2, I say, "It looks like the DC is in the 12-17 range."
If I roll a 3, I say, "It looks like the DC is in the 11-16 range."
If I roll a 4, I say, "It looks like the DC is in the 10-15 range."
If I roll a 5, I say, "It looks like the DC is in the 9-14 range."
If I roll a 6, I say, "It looks like the DC is in the 8-13 range."
That way, they have the rough, incomplete information that the character would actually have.

This assumes that they can see what will make the challenge difficult. If the wall is completely dark, or has a section they can't see, then they cannot know, of course.

Also, the requires you to not always use multiples of 5. You need to have a DC of 21, 22, 23, or 24 as often as 20 or 25.

NichG
2014-05-17, 06:16 PM
Therefore, proper simulation requires the DM to give that much incomplete information. My general rule is to take the DC, add one, and subtract a d6, to provide the bottom of a range. Assume the DC is 13.
If I roll a 1, I say, "It looks like the DC is in the 13-18 range."
If I roll a 2, I say, "It looks like the DC is in the 12-17 range."
If I roll a 3, I say, "It looks like the DC is in the 11-16 range."
If I roll a 4, I say, "It looks like the DC is in the 10-15 range."
If I roll a 5, I say, "It looks like the DC is in the 9-14 range."
If I roll a 6, I say, "It looks like the DC is in the 8-13 range."
That way, they have the rough, incomplete information that the character would actually have.

This assumes that they can see what will make the challenge difficult. If the wall is completely dark, or has a section they can't see, then they cannot know, of course.

Also, the requires you to not always use multiples of 5. You need to have a DC of 21, 22, 23, or 24 as often as 20 or 25.

This is sort of what I mean about it being too much work...

Thrudd
2014-05-17, 06:53 PM
In real life, while you might not know "I have a 75% chance of walking across that beam," you do have a general idea what your chances are. "I've walked beams like that before, I can do it again without much trouble." Or "I have terrible balance, I'll probably fall." The world is right there in front of you, and you have a good idea of your own limits.

In RP games, that doesn't translate. Ask 10 different people the DC on a task, and they won't all give you the same answer. What a player thinks is easy, a DM might think is really hard. A player thinks a +10 bonus is equivalent to a professional gymnast. A DM thinks it's just someone who's coordinated.

The other issue is, unless you go into extremely high detail or the players ask about every situation, things get left out. How smooth is the stone? How many legs are on that table? How wide is that ledge? Is there wind blowing? How many crates are there to hide behind? Is this alley lighted? Is it a moonless night? Has the rain dried yet?

Now, that doesn't mean you have to give out exact DCs, but you should give the player an idea on their chances. "You can probably make the jump." "It looks difficult." "Nearly impossible." Or give a range of DCs. "Somewhere between 10-15." "Probably over 30." "Just don't roll a 1." (If the game uses critical fails on skills.) Etc. It gives the player enough information to make well informed decisions, without worrying about mistranslations between what the DM is envisioning, and what the player hears.

Yes, exactly, it is the DM's responsibility to give them an idea of what their characters should know, and provide enough information for them to make good decisions. If it is an easy jump, I say "it looks like an easy jump." I wouldn't say "it is DC 5" or "it is a low DC". The term "DC" is a meta-game construct which takes the players out of their character a little bit.

It's not a crime to give the players numbers, and it is sometimes easy for them to figure out what numbers they need to reach, and that's fine. It is just my intent to minimize the amount of time players need to spend with meta-game data, in such a game. More sensory description, less numbers and math. There is enough number crunching with HP, hit and AC bonuses.

I like my players to talk and think as though they are their characters as much as possible. As the DM, I attempt to keep the game immersive with sensory descriptions of varying levels of detail rather than meta-game descriptions. That applies to most RPG's I can think of. I know players will try to figure out what the numbers are, that's ok. But I'm not answering questions about numbers, usually, I'm answering questions about what their characters see and hear and feel, and trying to be as clear as I can so they aren't misled.

In Feng Shui, for example, I don't tell everyone what numbers they need. I describe the environment, act out the bad guys, players tell me what they want to do and roll the dice. Keep the excitement going with description of actions, sound effects, visuals. There's no talk of "you need to get 16 to knock that guy out". Describe what you're trying to do, roll, tell me what you got. I tell you what happens "Pow! You kick him across the room and he collapses against the wall!" or "Pow! You kick him across the room but he flips in mid-air and land on his feet!" or "You throw a badass kick, but he ducks it and sweeps your leg!"
Yes, the players can tell when they roll high they do well, and if they roll low they know it won't be good, and they'll figure out that these mooks must have around 11 AV's based on what they need to take them out. But I'm trying to create an exciting action movie sequence, not a carefully planned strategy game scenario.

Ravens_cry
2014-05-17, 08:26 PM
In my limited time as DM, I've always loved describing things. Players and monsters don't just do X amount of damage, I describe in raw, visceral detail, really putting the viscera in visceral. A critical hit or death blow will get that extra punch all the more. Sure, they can work out the AC and such easily enough, but if I am doing my job right, they aren't paying overmuch attention to the numbers.

TuggyNE
2014-05-17, 09:28 PM
This is sort of what I mean about it being too much work...

I suspect Jay R would agree, which is why earlier in the post he noted that a simple "DC 13" is just easier to deal with and pretty nearly as immersive. A game system that, as Thrudd posted, could work around this by simply not using numbers so much for its mechanics, or by some other clever ideas, might not need this, but if you're using the numbers heavily to determine performance, it's not terrible to use numbers also for the player's interface with the world.

Knaight
2014-05-17, 09:46 PM
In the real world, I see my opponents eyes, I can see what his armor looks like, I can feel my sword against his armor, and I can tell how well I'm doing at getting past his defense. In SCA combat, I can tell the rough ability level of an opponent after a few "rounds" of combat. I can tell how fatigued I'm getting, as well as how fatigued he's getting. And I know how well I am controlling his actions in the fight.

Precisely this. I generally have the numbers accessible when it makes sense for them to be - though I also play a lot of Fudge, where something like "Great swordsman" is an actual game-mechanics term, so it's less obtrusive than it would otherwise be. The "when it makes sense for them to be" bit is important. If you're talking with some courtier, you're not going to be able to easily tell how good they are at fighting. Similarly, if you're in a gunfight with somebody the ability to suss out their skills that aren't gunfight relevant is questionable at best.

Ravens_cry
2014-05-17, 10:07 PM
I suspect Jay R would agree, which is why earlier in the post he noted that a simple "DC 13" is just easier to deal with and pretty nearly as immersive. A game system that, as Thrudd posted, could work around this by simply not using numbers so much for its mechanics, or by some other clever ideas, might not need this, but if you're using the numbers heavily to determine performance, it's not terrible to use numbers also for the player's interface with the world.
Eh, computer games generally (generally) hide the numbers, at least to a degree, with flashy graphics and sound effects, so I don't see why we can't use narrative description to do the same thing. It's a little more work, though some mental mad libbing can help, but it can be rewarding for immersion. Sure, give them the numbers to a degree, I'd personally hate it if a DM didn't tell me how much damage I took in raw number form and I, as a player, would prefer to roll my own damage, but add the description as well, and keep what numbers you can to yourself. Besides, it gives you an extra emotional leverage for the player. Numbers for most of us just don't have the impact a good description can.

Knaight
2014-05-17, 10:41 PM
Sure, give them the numbers to a degree, I'd personally hate it if a DM didn't tell me how much damage I took in raw number form and I, as a player, would prefer to roll my own damage, but add the description as well, and keep what numbers you can to yourself. Besides, it gives you an extra emotional leverage for the player. Numbers for most of us just don't have the impact a good description can.

The description and the number are hardly mutually exclusive.

Ravens_cry
2014-05-17, 11:09 PM
The description and the number are hardly mutually exclusive.
Never said they were. In fact, I said just the opposite. but the idea that a descriptive play by play is too much work rather implies that combat and other active description should be kept to a minimum.

Knaight
2014-05-17, 11:15 PM
Never said they were. In fact, I said just the opposite. but the idea that a descriptive play by play is too much work rather implies that description should be kept to a minimum.

It's more that specifically tailoring the description to convey difficulties (rather than any of the numerous other things that they can do) is kind of superfluous when you can just give the number. Any description will still likely suggest some sort of range, but that's hardly necessary.

Ravens_cry
2014-05-17, 11:28 PM
It's more that specifically tailoring the description to convey difficulties (rather than any of the numerous other things that they can do) is kind of superfluous when you can just give the number. Any description will still likely suggest some sort of range, but that's hardly necessary.
If we only did what was 'necessary', we'd be reduced to rolling strange (or not) dice and getting to roll different dice (maybe) if we got more (or less) than a certain number. I know you don't mean to quite that extent, but even then it's a less rich experience all around in my opinion.

lunar2
2014-05-17, 11:56 PM
@Jedipotter. obviously, you and i have different styles, and i get on to you sometimes about the degree of information you claim to hide from your players. but i honestly think that maybe you should just be using a more rules light system. a system designed to be used with most of the numbers kept under the hood, or one with fewer numbers to begin with. i honestly just don't think D&D, with its countless abilities that rely on having a pretty good idea of what you need to roll to succeed to be used effectively (power attack and the luck domain granted power, as examples), is the right system to run with hidden numbers. it wasn't designed to be used that way, at least for 3rd and 4th editions, which are the two i have any experience with.

i don't think there is anything inherently wrong with hiding the crunch to focus on the fluff, i just don't think D&D works well that way. after all, this is the system where the DCs for most skill checks are spelled out right in the PHB, so obviously players are supposed to, in general, know how hard it's going to be to do a certain task. creature ACs are a little more obscure, but even those can usually be narrowed down after two or 3 full attacks, at most. the system is simply designed under the assumption that these numbers are out in the open, and works best when played that way.

Pex
2014-05-18, 12:17 AM
If the game is not supposed to be an adversarial one between the DM and players, which I agree it shouldn't, then the DM should not be upset the players know the numbers. He should not be upset the players have 100% sure thing knowledge of something will succeed, not succeed, or the exact percentage chance of it succeeding. If a player doesn't want his character to try something because he knows he has to roll an 18 or higher, that's his prerogative. It's not for the DM to decide a PC must try something. Other players actually will give it a try even if only a Natural 20 would succeed. Having the numbers does not take away having descriptive flavor text. The DM can say "This task is easy. That task is hard." The player can know this task is DC 5, that task is DC 25. They are not mutually exclusive.

NichG
2014-05-18, 12:58 AM
the system is simply designed under the assumption that these numbers are out in the open, and works best when played that way.

It doesn't really make a difference if the game isn't being run close to the redline. Most games aren't, especially in the case of DMs who are worried about the immersion effects. In such a game, sometimes an enemy will laugh savagely for a round rather than making an attack, or will attack the fighter because it wants a test of strength rather than bee-lining for the caster. There's a lot of room for inefficiency so long as its happening on both sides of the screen.

The game itself doesn't really 'work best' or 'work poorly' based on whether the players have the numbers or not. But what can happen is that the psychological impact of it can be a bad fit for certain groups of players. It can sometimes lead to things like decision paralysis, waffling, etc.


If the game is not supposed to be an adversarial one between the DM and players, which I agree it shouldn't, then the DM should not be upset the players know the numbers. He should not be upset the players have 100% sure thing knowledge of something will succeed, not succeed, or the exact percentage chance of it succeeding. If a player doesn't want his character to try something because he knows he has to roll an 18 or higher, that's his prerogative. It's not for the DM to decide a PC must try something. Other players actually will give it a try even if only a Natural 20 would succeed. Having the numbers does not take away having descriptive flavor text. The DM can say "This task is easy. That task is hard." The player can know this task is DC 5, that task is DC 25. They are not mutually exclusive.

You're couching this in emotional terms, which is disingenuous. The DM shouldn't be 'upset' of course, because that's taking it personally - adversarial again. But the DM could certainly have a problem with it from the point of view of maintaining the game as a whole without making it be about resenting the players.

But if the DM has a specific feel or experience they're trying to evoke, then it can be counterproductive towards that goal for the players to full access to the numbers. If you want to create a feeling of uncertainty and doubt, witholding the numbers all of a sudden is a valid way to create that experience. If you want to minimize the amount of meta-game thinking and de-emphasize some of the game aspects then it can also be counterproductive.

Not giving the player specific numbers is not 'deciding that they must try something' - the player could just as well say 'I don't know how dangerous this is so I won't do it'. What it is doing is making the decision about information rather than about statistics - instead of asking the player 'what loss rate are you willing to chance?' the DM is asking the player 'how confident in your ability are you?'. They're related, but subtly different questions, and so each has its particular role in the DM's toolkit.

Alex12
2014-05-18, 03:24 AM
I figure if I'm playing, and I come to a situation that I have to use, say, the Climb skill, and can see what I'm going to be trying to climb, if you don't give me a DC, I should be able to say something along the lines of "My Climb modifier is +6. How hard does it look like it would be for me to climb this thing?" and get an approximate answer. I may not know the exact numbers, but I know my own skill level, and compare what I see to my prior experiences (which I presumably gained offscreen when I was actually gaining those skill points)

Amphetryon
2014-05-18, 06:46 AM
I figure if I'm playing, and I come to a situation that I have to use, say, the Climb skill, and can see what I'm going to be trying to climb, if you don't give me a DC, I should be able to say something along the lines of "My Climb modifier is +6. How hard does it look like it would be for me to climb this thing?" and get an approximate answer. I may not know the exact numbers, but I know my own skill level, and compare what I see to my prior experiences (which I presumably gained offscreen when I was actually gaining those skill points)

The thing I try to remember - and remind my Players of - with examples like the above is that "My Climb modifier is +6" is the Player making an out-of-Character comment regarding the Character's abilities; it is not the Character speaking in some immersion-spoiling metaknowledge voice. For me, personally, worrying that commentary such as the above would ruin the immersion for the Players is akin to forbidding asking for another slice of pizza during the game, because the Characters themselves aren't huddled around the table over plates of pepperoni pie, Funyons, and Mountain Dew.

Alex12
2014-05-18, 07:33 AM
The thing I try to remember - and remind my Players of - with examples like the above is that "My Climb modifier is +6" is the Player making an out-of-Character comment regarding the Character's abilities; it is not the Character speaking in some immersion-spoiling metaknowledge voice. For me, personally, worrying that commentary such as the above would ruin the immersion for the Players is akin to forbidding asking for another slice of pizza during the game, because the Characters themselves aren't huddled around the table over plates of pepperoni pie, Funyons, and Mountain Dew.

Exactly and precisely. Much the same way that announcing the result of a roll doesn't mean the character yells out "I GOT A FOUR!"

Unless you're playing a specific sort of insanity who actually does believe the world is a game- I've found that very occasionally appending "And I said that in-character, by the way" to that sort of statement can be really hilarious and hammer home that yes, this guy actually isn't sane.

NichG
2014-05-18, 07:57 AM
The thing I try to remember - and remind my Players of - with examples like the above is that "My Climb modifier is +6" is the Player making an out-of-Character comment regarding the Character's abilities; it is not the Character speaking in some immersion-spoiling metaknowledge voice. For me, personally, worrying that commentary such as the above would ruin the immersion for the Players is akin to forbidding asking for another slice of pizza during the game, because the Characters themselves aren't huddled around the table over plates of pepperoni pie, Funyons, and Mountain Dew.

Devil's advocate, if it were in the middle of a tense hostage negotiation scene or something like that, then someone breaking in with 'hey, can I have another slice of pizza!' would in fact be pretty disruptive to the immersion.

Jay R
2014-05-18, 08:46 AM
I suspect that there are two differences in how I think that are causing us to not quite connect.

1. I never believed in staying immersed in the story. Every time I roll a die, consult my character sheet, or mark off lost hit points, I'm conducting a mathematical simulation. My goal is to get past the mechanic quickly and then re-immersed in the story, not try to pretend I was immersed in the story when I rolled a die.

2. One of the reasons I don't feel the need to hide the numbers is that I work with numeric simulation and statistics. I have patents for an algebraic system for making connections on a large telecommunications switch. Understanding a system better by expressing it in numbers is what I do.

But that doesn't mean that my point doesn't apply to everyone; merely that it's easier for me to see it.

The number isn't the non-immersive part; processing the situation as a simulation is the non-immersive part. Taking the number and running with it lets me get that part over with quickly, and back to scaling the wall.

When my character climbs the wall, the action starts as a number in the DM's head. I'm going to think of it as a number, and roll a die, once it's transferred to my head. The simplest, most direct, least distracting transfer is that number.

Similarly, if I'm trying to find my place in a book I've been reading, the fastest way to get back into the story is to think of my place as page 88, not as the place where the hero is about to climb the wall. The more efficient the mechanic for finding my place, the sooner I can get re-immersed in the story.

The distraction is that I've been reminded that it's a simulation. If you try to translate the number back into English, and then I try to process what that English phrase meant, then I'm spending more time focused on the mechanic, not less. Let's get past the mechanical part by referring to it as directly as possible, so we can get back to the immersive part, which is the DM describing whether or not I fell off the wall.

I can't stay immersed in any case, Anytime I take a drink, eat a snack, roll a die, read my character sheet, move my miniature, or take notes on the game, I am dealing with the mechanics of sitting around a table playing a game. The least possible disruption is to do the action as quickly as possible. When I'm done, I re-immerse in the story.

When I'm thinking about the story, I should think about the story. But when I have to make a decision about the mechanic, the fastest, most efficient way to do so and get back into the story is to go ahead and think about the mechanic as quickly and efficiently as possible.

NichG
2014-05-18, 05:49 PM
Well then the absolute least disruptive thing seems like it'd be to declare your actions and have the DM handle everything secretly behind the screen - picking what skill applies, rolling the check, and describing the result.

In a computer RPG like Skyrim you generally don't get distracted by the calculations the engine is doing beneath the hood to tell whether your arrow hit and how much damage it did, because its completely invisible - you don't need to know how the math is done to determine the result, you just need to have the visceral feel that if you point your bow in the direction of a target, adjust the aim a little bit, and loose an arrow then it will probably hit; the responsibility of the person designing the math is to make it so that your physical intuition about the action you're pretending to do maps closely enough on to what the engine does under the hood that you can use your physical intuition instead of your mathematical ability.

For a tabletop RPG, thats impractical, because you don't have the trappings of a computer game in the sense of displaying a realistically rendered world and allowing smooth, continuous interaction with it. But what one can in principle do is have a game where a person's genre-savvy and storytelling intuition is sufficient, and one doesn't need to directly connect with the numbers. Of course, D&D is not such a game by default. The main issue is that getting D&D to that point puts a huge workload on the DM, who is already running every NPC and all the other stuff - plus, its hard to do well since it requires the DM and Players all being exactly on the same page about what things 'make sense' (a notorious source of friction in tabletop games).

It seems like this is a good place for some of those AngryDM suggestions though. For example, if the player can just state their action without rolling at all, then that will be less disruptive than having a back and forth about mechanics and DCs (I want to Climb the wall, what's the DC? Okay, I roll a Climb check... etc). That means that the idea that 'you only roll when failure is interesting' and 'you only roll when failure is possible' allows one to have a lot of situations in which there is no need to have that break in immersion at all.

obryn
2014-05-18, 07:43 PM
The thing I try to remember - and remind my Players of - with examples like the above is that "My Climb modifier is +6" is the Player making an out-of-Character comment regarding the Character's abilities; it is not the Character speaking in some immersion-spoiling metaknowledge voice. For me, personally, worrying that commentary such as the above would ruin the immersion for the Players is akin to forbidding asking for another slice of pizza during the game, because the Characters themselves aren't huddled around the table over plates of pepperoni pie, Funyons, and Mountain Dew.
Yep, precisely. Players are privy to all sorts of knowledge that their characters aren't, and I want my players to be able to calculate the odds. The drama isn't in concealing the chances of success; it's in whether or not your character actually succeeds.

Kol Korran
2014-05-19, 05:27 AM
Hmmmm....
In my group, when I started DMing I wanted to expidate my turn, and not be bogged down by lots of rolling, so I decided on the following:
1. Numbers are known once you test them. You attacked someone? You know their AC. You cast a spell on someone? You know that their relevant save. You try some skill check? You usually know the DC before hand, but if not then after it. The only exception is when someone is actively trying to hide the DC (such as in an opposed bluff roll).
2. Players roll all the dice. (There's an easy calculation for it if you're interested).

This doesn't much differ from what some described. Now, I first started it for reasons of expediency, but I was surprised at the effect it had on the game in terms of roleplay and tactics:
- Suddenly vague meanings like "it was hard to hit". "You affected it easily" had actual MEANING to the players! What is "hard" for me may feel different for each player. And now that they had a much stronger sense of how hard it is to hit/ avoid/ do/ and such- it gave them a more tangible, a more "real" understanding of their world.
- Oddly enough, it made players much more immersive than before. Making the world more real to them made them engage it more, since they understood it more, and could "feel" what is happening more, in terms that were understood by all of us. it drew them more in instead of trying to relate and hang only on my descriptions. Now they understood the odds, and would formulate their own understandings, their own reactions upon that. The main thing is that we increased communication, and by that made them more part of their game, more aware of their world and thus far more participating.
- As a side effect of the above, battles suddenly became far more tactful. People understood the odds, and thus understood the possible impact of their actions and effects, and so different tactics sometime came into view and more. When acting blindingly you limit what you do, working in a very uncertain situation. This made things much more... engaging, and arousing to the mind and participation. Some would argue that knowing the numbers takes out the uncertainty in a fight, but there is plenty of uncertainty left- different powers, different tactics, different combinations, and of course the dice themselves- you can help tip the odds somewhat, but not all the way (usually).

A few other side effects of knowing the numbers, and players rolling all the dice
- While we all trusted the DM, we also knew that DMs... fudge things on occasion. They either want to save a character, or make a battle last longer. And knowing this takes out some of the trust, and some of the fun of the game... But with this sort of a setting you can't fudge ANYTHING. And this has shifted quite a bit of the responsibility of the game to the players' hands, and as such more empowered them. This has fostered great trust, and also made the players far more engaged in the game, since... it was up to them now- they now the numbers, they have the dice, it's up to them.
- Part of the thing about not fudging anything (I was sure I fudged only a little btw, till i made an experiment to document how much I did in a 7 hours session. About 12 times. Most were small "Just to enhance drama", but 1-2 were bigger) is tht you get unexpected things. To players and to DMs. A battle that was a push over turns out to be big, A serious threats get creamed, the scheme gets revealed early, or alternatively- not at all! (DMs, myself included, tend to fudge at crucial "move the plot" points). And all of these are AWESOME! They take you and the players into unknown territory, and develop the story in unexpected ways, often leading to some of the best experiences in my gaming "career"! This is letting go... and letting go is hard, especially for some DMs. and the best way to let go is to take it out of your hands.
(I know some DMs don't fudge, but they are relatively few in number compared to the rest).

I would say that the changes above at the start of my post are the single most benefactory changes my group has made in it's 7 years or so of playing. It has improved our game dramatically (Though not as we expected) and I whole heartily recommend it. I haven't yet seen any downside to our game cause of it.

Oh, and it does lessen the DM's rolling load considerably too. :smallwink::smalltongue:

prufock
2014-05-20, 06:58 AM
(1) After anywhere from zero to three attacks, but usually after 1 or 2, I'll straight up tell my players, "This monster's lowest defense is 14 and its highest is 18. If you roll below 14 or above 18, that's that." After a few more, it might move to, "This guy's AC is 18." It doesn't have to, but it usually goes there to cut down on the ask-and-answer bits; they can tell me if it's a hit. (And I can correct it if they're wrong.)
...
(4) Vulnerability and resistance can be determined ahead of time with lore checks, but they're public knowledge once it makes a difference.
...
The things I keep close to my vest are mostly plot- and fiction-related things, new enemies' capabilities, and of course various secrets. This is mostly about openness and transparency about numbers, rather than anything else.

Players are savvy enough to figure out AC after a couple rounds. "Well, Leon hit with an 18 and Maleera missed with a 17, so its an 18 to hit." Sometimes I tell them the AC, but usually I still ask for their attack rolls, because my NPCs can use various ways to increase or decrease their AC through tactics. AC can vary throughout a battle, so telling them one number doesn't do much. After all, taking some cover, casting spells, using feats, fighting defensively, etc all change the AC of the target.

I don't tell the players any NPC's save bonuses, attack bonuses, skill bonuses, or the like, since those are things I roll and success/failure depends on the dice. Vulnerabilities and specialties are revealed with an appropriate knowledge check, gather information, or experience.

I like some degree of secrecy, because knowledge of AC, save bonuses, etc will impact the tactics of the party in how they buff, what special abilities they use, and so on. I have no hard and fast rule, and sometimes it depends simply on how important this combat is to the campaign. Random encounter? I'll probably state the creature's basic statistics. Boss battle? No way.

obryn
2014-05-20, 08:02 AM
AC can vary throughout a battle, so telling them one number doesn't do much. After all, taking some cover, casting spells, using feats, fighting defensively, etc all change the AC of the target.
Oh, it can, but I always make sure to be clear with my players (often in a narrative sense) that their enemy is taking extraordinary measures to avoid attacks. And when it's supposed to be a surprise - an interrupt in 4e terms - then it deserves to be a surprise. :smallsmile:

erikun
2014-05-20, 08:20 AM
I have found that AD&D (or a system with similar opaque-DM principles) to be one of the best ways to introduce someone to RPGs.

I can understand how somebody mathematically minded, who has played D&D games for 10 years and dealt with the mechanics of such systems for that time, would be interested in knowing the numbers and the math involved. They've probably played a similar character before and want to distinctly know what the difference between a rapier and a longsword is. However, a new player who isn't even sure if they want to play RPGs is not in the same situation. Handing most people a sheet of paper and asking them to calculate the most optimal option is a specific situation is probably not very enjoyable for them. A lot of times, I see that they want to just imagine their character and make an attempt at what they suppose would work best.

Being able to give a plain english respose to such a situation is preferable to just producing a number. Yes, a "25 difficulty" might be accurate, but it doesn't really tell the player the difficulty unless they are already familiar with the system and what the numbers mean.


Note that there is no problem with players knowing (or determining) the numbers in AD&D. The difference is in not presenting everything as numbers, and in the DM being the one to interpret the numbers - rather than relying on the players doing so.

Knaight
2014-05-20, 02:05 PM
I have found that AD&D (or a system with similar opaque-DM principles) to be one of the best ways to introduce someone to RPGs.

Being able to give a plain english respose to such a situation is preferable to just producing a number. Yes, a "25 difficulty" might be accurate, but it doesn't really tell the player the difficulty unless they are already familiar with the system and what the numbers mean.

This right here is why I like Fudge. You don't need to know the system at all to understand the character sheet (if you can't figure out what Mediocre Strength means, that's on you), the mechanics are simple enough that the GM can handle all the math if it comes to it, and when the numbers do come up they're easy to explain.

icefractal
2014-05-22, 07:03 PM
The problem with trying to use descriptive terms only, no numbers, is that the GM and player can easily have a different idea of what those terms mean.

Player: *looking at a deep chasm* How hard would that be to leap across?
GM: It's somewhat wide, and the gravel is poor footing, so that would be an expert-level jump.
Player Thinks: We're talking about "expert level" for a normal person, I'm a swashbuckling master of acrobatics, it should be no problem.
GM Thinks: We're talking about "expert level" for someone skilled enough to be climbing the Mountains of Pain in the first place, and expert level means even experts fail half the time.
PC falls in chasm, player feels his swashbuckler concept is being crapped on, DM not sure what the complaint is about, general discontent.

Thrudd
2014-05-22, 07:29 PM
The problem with trying to use descriptive terms only, no numbers, is that the GM and player can easily have a different idea of what those terms mean.

Player: *looking at a deep chasm* How hard would that be to leap across?
GM: It's somewhat wide, and the gravel is poor footing, so that would be an expert-level jump.
Player Thinks: We're talking about "expert level" for a normal person, I'm a swashbuckling master of acrobatics, it should be no problem.
GM Thinks: We're talking about "expert level" for someone skilled enough to be climbing the Mountains of Pain in the first place, and expert level means even experts fail half the time.
PC falls in chasm, player feels his swashbuckler concept is being crapped on, DM not sure what the complaint is about, general discontent.

This is solved easily by describing things in relation to the characters themselves. "It looks like it would be a difficult jump, you think you could possibly make it but it would be very chancey."

Knaight
2014-05-22, 07:37 PM
This is solved easily by describing things in relation to the characters themselves. "It looks like it would be a difficult jump, you think you could possibly make it but it would be very chancey."

It can be mitigated, but not solved. "It looks like it would be a difficult jump, but Roderigo Iglesia* might just be able do do it" could imply that you need an 18-20. It could also imply that it needs a 5-20, but that the failure condition is so bad that there's high risk. So on and so forth. Does this mean that you should say the numbers every time? No. Does it mean that if it is specifically asked for, you should at least give a range (with uncertainty to take into account what the character knows, with it possibly outright wrong if you know something they don't, like the landing ledge having an illusory edge).

*Or whatever the character's name is.

SiuiS
2014-05-24, 07:01 AM
The problem with trying to use descriptive terms only, no numbers, is that the GM and player can easily have a different idea of what those terms mean.

Player: *looking at a deep chasm* How hard would that be to leap across?
GM: It's somewhat wide, and the gravel is poor footing, so that would be an expert-level jump.
Player Thinks: We're talking about "expert level" for a normal person, I'm a swashbuckling master of acrobatics, it should be no problem.
GM Thinks: We're talking about "expert level" for someone skilled enough to be climbing the Mountains of Pain in the first place, and expert level means even experts fail half the time.
PC falls in chasm, player feels his swashbuckler concept is being crapped on, DM not sure what the complaint is about, general discontent.

This isn't a problem at all. 'Mediocre' is the same for everyone. Mediocre, or whatever, is a number. If you've got a scale of seven words, and each word always correlates to the same mathematical benefit, then the word is that number. There is no point where expert level in a skill becomes relative.

Slipperychicken
2014-05-24, 08:56 AM
The problem with trying to use descriptive terms only, no numbers, is that the GM and player can easily have a different idea of what those terms mean.


You'd need to put it in context of the character's ability. Say something like "This jump would be quite difficult for your character: It's doubtful he could make it, even with a running start".

jedipotter
2014-05-24, 10:38 AM
The problem with trying to use descriptive terms only, no numbers, is that the GM and player can easily have a different idea of what those terms mean.

Player: *looking at a deep chasm* How hard would that be to leap across?
GM: It's somewhat wide, and the gravel is poor footing, so that would be an expert-level jump.
Player Thinks: We're talking about "expert level" for a normal person, I'm a swashbuckling master of acrobatics, it should be no problem.
GM Thinks: We're talking about "expert level" for someone skilled enough to be climbing the Mountains of Pain in the first place, and expert level means even experts fail half the time.
PC falls in chasm, player feels his swashbuckler concept is being crapped on, DM not sure what the complaint is about, general discontent.

Player: *looking at a wide, deep chasm* How hard would that be to leap across?
GM: It's somewhat wide, about twenty feet across and the gravel is poor footing
Player Thinks: I know the DC for 20 feet is 20, but the loose gravel might give me a penalty(maybe 3, 4 or 5?), but my jump ranks are 10, plus my other modifiers of 5, so assuming the penalty and modifiers cancel each other out, it will be a DC 20, with my 1d20+10. I could drink a potion of bulls strength, humm.

Note the DM does not describe anything like ''expert level'' and does not tailor it to the character. Jump is an easy one as distance= DC. So a player will always know how hard the basic jump is by the numbers.

The point is, the DM does not say ''The DC is 23'', and then the player uses whatever they have to make that DC.

Amphetryon
2014-05-24, 01:07 PM
Player: *looking at a wide, deep chasm* How hard would that be to leap across?
GM: It's somewhat wide, about twenty feet across and the gravel is poor footing
Player Thinks: I know the DC for 20 feet is 20, but the loose gravel might give me a penalty(maybe 3, 4 or 5?), but my jump ranks are 10, plus my other modifiers of 5, so assuming the penalty and modifiers cancel each other out, it will be a DC 20, with my 1d20+10. I could drink a potion of bulls strength, humm.

Note the DM does not describe anything like ''expert level'' and does not tailor it to the character. Jump is an easy one as distance= DC. So a player will always know how hard the basic jump is by the numbers.

The point is, the DM does not say ''The DC is 23'', and then the player uses whatever they have to make that DC.

As soon as you give an answer in feet or other real-world measurements, you're going beyond what purely 'descriptive terms' reads as to many here, and into the realm of 'providing numbers that can be metagamed.' When you give them the distance in feet, you're telling them the DC (unless you're obfuscating additional circumstances like illusionary ledges or slick surfaces); you're just doing so in a way that requires the Player to do an extra step in the math.

jedipotter
2014-05-24, 01:23 PM
As soon as you give an answer in feet or other real-world measurements, you're going beyond what purely 'descriptive terms' reads as to many here, and into the realm of 'providing numbers that can be metagamed.' When you give them the distance in feet, you're telling them the DC (unless you're obfuscating additional circumstances like illusionary ledges or slick surfaces); you're just doing so in a way that requires the Player to do an extra step in the math.

Jump is one of the few cases where distance=DC, most skills don't have that type of DC. Telling a player ''the lock is about one foot across'', tells you nothing about the DC.

And feet and inches are descriptive terms. You can say a wall is ten feet high or a pit is fifteen feet across.

Slipperychicken
2014-05-24, 01:34 PM
And feet and inches are descriptive terms. You can say a wall is ten feet high or a pit is fifteen feet across.

Yeah, but you know how the "roleplayer-not-rollplayer" crowd gets about mentioning precise numbers in their games.

NichG
2014-05-24, 05:48 PM
I'd be inclined to just tell someone 'yeah, you can jump it' if they can take 10 and succeed, versus 'no, looks like you probably can't make it' if they would fail if they were to take 10. Generally speaking, for a normal person evaluating something like a jump where missing the jump = death then any chance of failure corresponds to 'can't be done'. Trying to figure out the math based on distance is as immersion-breaking as comparing their skill modifier to a DC given by the DM, after all (and things like the realism of what sort of jumps can be made/what sort of falls can be survived/etc are notoriously variable across systems, so its an example of a case where players cannot use their real-world intuition to make decisions, unfortunately)

For a completely new player to the group, they'll miss that subtext for a few games, but the error will be made in a way that will generally prevent them from getting themselves killed so its the right direction to make an error in. Once they catch on, they'd be able to read the subtext and the situation and figure out whether they want to chance it.

valadil
2014-05-24, 09:59 PM
I've run games both ways. It's honestly something I don't have a strong opinion about and will tailor to each table. Some players already know the stats for everything. I'm not going to fight them on details that might let them infer a bonus. It's just not worth it and those players really enjoy getting to use their knowledge to get a tiny advantage on a single roll. But for players who are more into the description than that stats, I'll try to give them what they want too.

The one thing that does make me tend towards handing out numbers is when the players are trying to evaluate how difficult something will be. To continue the jump example, I think it's reasonable for someone who has deliberately trained their long jump to know if they've ever made a sixteen foot long jump or not. I wouldn't necessarily offer the length of the jump immediately, but if the players make some attempt to measure it I want to give them an answer they can make use of. A number is a very quick and useful bit of info.

Amphetryon
2014-05-25, 05:35 AM
Jump is one of the few cases where distance=DC, most skills don't have that type of DC. Telling a player ''the lock is about one foot across'', tells you nothing about the DC.

And feet and inches are descriptive terms. You can say a wall is ten feet high or a pit is fifteen feet across.

They're more than mere 'descriptive terms.' They're terms with a quantifiable mechanical and numerical effect in the game. Your earlier statement was that you never give your Players the numbers to know the DC; if you give them the distance in real-world measurements, that's exactly what you're doing. Even if the first one to jump is off by a digit or two, the rest will be very likely to be able to recalibrate to get the DC right, unless you're randomizing the effect of the scree on every attempt. At that point, the reason your Players can't get the numbers right from the information you've provided is because you're actively messing with your Players.

SiuiS
2014-05-25, 11:13 AM
They're more than mere 'descriptive terms.' They're terms with a quantifiable mechanical and numerical effect in the game. Your earlier statement was that you never give your Players the numbers to know the DC; if you give them the distance in real-world measurements, that's exactly what you're doing. Even if the first one to jump is off by a digit or two, the rest will be very likely to be able to recalibrate to get the DC right, unless you're randomizing the effect of the scree on every attempt. At that point, the reason your Players can't get the numbers right from the information you've provided is because you're actively messing with your Players.

I give my players eyeball estimates based on the character; perceptive, deductive characters with a high rational focus and spatial awareness get more accurate results. The monk who always voluntarily failed initiative and carried a specifically five foot staff was the single best mapmaker they had because whenever he couldn't eyeball a distance based on his scrutiny, habit of perfectionism and measuring stick, he would actually measure things. Conversely, the barbarian runs into a room and gets told the general gist of its shape and size.

Some distances are innate; people who focus on, say, twenty foot spans for some reason have a good feel for them... But can also see a 15' span and a 25' span and be told "it's 20'", depending.

The DM using exact numbers does not mean the DM is giving system math to the players.

Alex12
2014-05-25, 02:44 PM
Some distances are innate; people who focus on, say, twenty foot spans for some reason have a good feel for them... But can also see a 15' span and a 25' span and be told "it's 20'", depending.

I kind of want to focus on this just a little bit.
Normal range for Darkvision is 60'. I'm currently playing a character with Darkvision, and I figure that, because I know exactly how far it extends, I can accurately judge 60 feet, through a combination of experience and how the lighting looks. It might be only 59 feet instead of 60 feet, since it measures from my eyes, rather than the edge of the square or whatever, but it ought to be accurate to within 5 or so feet.

valadil
2014-05-25, 09:19 PM
I kind of want to focus on this just a little bit.
Normal range for Darkvision is 60'. I'm currently playing a character with Darkvision, and I figure that, because I know exactly how far it extends, I can accurately judge 60 feet, through a combination of experience and how the lighting looks. It might be only 59 feet instead of 60 feet, since it measures from my eyes, rather than the edge of the square or whatever, but it ought to be accurate to within 5 or so feet.

Does a character with Darkvision know the ability extends to exactly 60 feet? If you said yes, do you know how far away from a text with three inch letters you have to stand before the letters become unreadable? I feel like that sort of measurement is something a character could have made, but why would he?

Slipperychicken
2014-05-25, 09:29 PM
Does a character with Darkvision know the ability extends to exactly 60 feet? If you said yes, do you know how far away from a text with three inch letters you have to stand before the letters become unreadable? I feel like that sort of measurement is something a character could have made, but why would he?

If every member of a race has darkvision to the same distance, they're going to have it very well-measured and documented.

erikun
2014-05-25, 09:31 PM
Does a character with Darkvision know the ability extends to exactly 60 feet?
It wouldn't be unreasonable.

I mean, the arm length of most people is around half their height, which is around one meter. I know pretty well when something is within my reach or not - I can guess fairly certainly if something is within one meter of me or not. It's not something I actively think about but there is this large body of experience telling me when something is close enough to grab or is not. And I'm pretty bad at eyeballing measurements.

When we're talking about something like darkvision, it's something that a character would (presumably) use on a daily basis for most of their lives, they would probably be good at determining if something is roughly within 60' of them.

Comparing it to written text isn't quite the same thing. I don't read text that is exactly three inches high all the time, and I frequently read text that is different sizes. Also, eyesight varies throughout a person's life, and writing that was clear to me at a certain distance as a kid may not be clear until closer as an adult. For most creatures, though, darkvision works at exactly 60' for their entire life, regardless of eyesight.

Alex12
2014-05-25, 09:40 PM
Does a character with Darkvision know the ability extends to exactly 60 feet? If you said yes, do you know how far away from a text with three inch letters you have to stand before the letters become unreadable? I feel like that sort of measurement is something a character could have made, but why would he?


If every member of a race has darkvision to the same distance, they're going to have it very well-measured and documented.

This. Plus, it's not just a single-race thing. A huge number of races have darkvision (pretty much everything that lives underground, for instance), and for pretty much all of them, it's out to 60 feet. I understand goblins aren't much for that sort of thing in general, but do you really think the more scientifically-minded creatures, like Illithids for example, won't analyze it to figure out how it works?

Also, I'm playing a loremaster/walking encyclopedia-type character. Measurements and analysis are pretty important for that sort of thing.

SiuiS
2014-05-26, 02:05 AM
Does a character with Darkvision know the ability extends to exactly 60 feet? If you said yes, do you know how far away from a text with three inch letters you have to stand before the letters become unreadable? I feel like that sort of measurement is something a character could have made, but why would he?

Proprioception. You know how when you pick up an object of a certain weight, and want to throw it a certain distance, your body just adapts? Think about it. You're calculating force needed and best angle you can generate to achieve a distance with a lopsided object whose weight is determined by resistance when you pick it up. Your body just does that. It's natural.

Americans can usually tell you exact measurements in feet and inches within operational bounds - that is, an American who works with 30' on a regular basis could tell you 28', 30', and 32' with accuracy, but someone who works with inches regularly could not tell you feet very well. People who use metric regularly can tell you close and accurate approximations in meters, but not yards, even though a yard and a meter are pretty darn identical (within 3 inches I believe). I can tell you the number of bills in a stack to within 3, if it's less than 60 bills. I know a bill weighs one gram, a nickel weighs five grams, a quarter is identical in weight. I can tell a drop or increase in temperature of one half degree Fahrenheit if I think about it. These are all just because of association.


A caster usually has spells which hit 30', and 15'. A fighter knows his knife can go about five yards with lethal accuracy and his javelin can go ten yards without needing to be arched upward. A thief likely makes calculated leaps all the time, in addition to taking visual measures when casing a joint. A seamstress knows that 45" is the size of an American man's waist and also how long that is when you stretch out the ribbon, and bolts of cloth are measured in yards.


Yes, these things just happen.

jedipotter
2014-05-27, 09:42 AM
They're more than mere 'descriptive terms.' They're terms with a quantifiable mechanical and numerical effect in the game. Your earlier statement was that you never give your Players the numbers to know the DC; if you give them the distance in real-world measurements, that's exactly what you're doing. Even if the first one to jump is off by a digit or two, the rest will be very likely to be able to recalibrate to get the DC right, unless you're randomizing the effect of the scree on every attempt. At that point, the reason your Players can't get the numbers right from the information you've provided is because you're actively messing with your Players.

Jump is a special case as distance equals DC. Most other skills don't give such things biased on measurements. Knowing a lock is two inches across tells you nothing about the DC to open it. And knowing that the water is twenty feet deep tells you nothing about the DC to swim across it.

valadil
2014-05-27, 10:38 AM
I had a sneaking suspicion I'd have some backlash for that opinion. Here goes...


If every member of a race has darkvision to the same distance, they're going to have it very well-measured and documented.

I don't buy your if. This is my own interpretation mind you, but I stand by it.

D&D simulates adventurers on an adventure. Some of the rules are just approximations for minor details that can be glossed over. The game plays better if you can call Darkvision 60 feet and move on with your life.

But, I don't think the game world actually works that way. If you're playing a game that focuses on these details, it's time to add rules that support them.

The example that made me think of this came up on these boards a few years ago. Someone was suggesting cutting through pieces of wood to measure or discover that damage occurs in discreet units. All boards of a like size and wood have the same HP, so that should work, right?

In the average D&D game they do. In a lumberjack simulator in a D&D world, they don't.

As I said before, that's just my interpretation of how the game world works. I wouldn't make the assumption that Darkvision is always 60' for everyone in a game I ran, but I'm not going to tell someone they're wrong if they do run things that way.


It wouldn't be unreasonable.

I mean, the arm length of most people is around half their height, which is around one meter. I know pretty well when something is within my reach or not - I can guess fairly certainly if something is within one meter of me or not. It's not something I actively think about but there is this large body of experience telling me when something is close enough to grab or is not. And I'm pretty bad at eyeballing measurements.

When we're talking about something like darkvision, it's something that a character would (presumably) use on a daily basis for most of their lives, they would probably be good at determining if something is roughly within 60' of them.

Comparing it to written text isn't quite the same thing. I don't read text that is exactly three inches high all the time, and I frequently read text that is different sizes. Also, eyesight varies throughout a person's life, and writing that was clear to me at a certain distance as a kid may not be clear until closer as an adult. For most creatures, though, darkvision works at exactly 60' for their entire life, regardless of eyesight.

My wingspan is 76 inches, so one from the middle of my chest to my fingertips is 38 inches. That works when I'm spreading my arms out, but not forward. I couldn't tell you that particular measurement, although I agree that I could eyeball whether or not something is within reach.

That said, I can touch a basketball net without leaving my toes. The rim looks grabbable if I jump. I've only actually made contact with it once. Maybe I'm particularly unathletic, but this strikes me as a relatively easier thing to guesstimate.


Also, I'm playing a loremaster/walking encyclopedia-type character. Measurements and analysis are pretty important for that sort of thing.

When I asked why, this is exactly the kind of answer I'm looking for. I have no trouble believing that a loremaster would have previously studied and documented the limitations of his own perception.

I'm not looking to shut down players with cool ideas. I'm just looking for an excuse for why the idea works for that character. To back track to my first point, I might even let you know that your character actually has 62' of Darkvision, which is a half a standard deviation above the average for your race, or something.


Proprioception. You know how when you pick up an object of a certain weight, and want to throw it a certain distance, your body just adapts? Think about it. You're calculating force needed and best angle you can generate to achieve a distance with a lopsided object whose weight is determined by resistance when you pick it up. Your body just does that. It's natural.


I don't disagree. And I particularly like your 60 bills example. Back when I played M:tG I could feel if my deck had gained or lost a card.

However I think there are limits to it. I spent most of high school doing and teaching target archery, sometimes competitively. I knew what 18 meters/20 yards looked like because that's where the wall was at my favorite range. I could generally tell whether a target was 30, 40, 50, or 60 yards out. Anything above that required a few test shots, but to be fair I didn't spend a ton of time doing long range shooting. Too much walking when you run out of arrows.

That said, I couldn't tell you if a target was 57 or 63 yards away. Obviously if they were side by side I'd know which was closer, but even with some training in this sort of thing I never had more granularity than knowing the 10s digit for how many yards away something was.

Regarding some of your other examples, I'll skip past the part about not believing that 15' in the rulebook translates to precisely 15' in the game world. I think there are a few measurements that a caster could gauge pretty easily. Which those are depends on what the caster uses regularly. I don't think that knowing how far 15' away is translates to 15, 30, 45, 60, etc foot increments. But if the caster said that his favorite spell works up to that range, so he's learned what it is and could hit someone on the far side of the cliff with it, I'd buy that.

obryn
2014-05-27, 02:07 PM
D&D simulates adventurers on an adventure. Some of the rules are just approximations for minor details that can be glossed over. The game plays better if you can call Darkvision 60 feet and move on with your life.
Agreed 100%. This is how I read it, too.


The example that made me think of this came up on these boards a few years ago. Someone was suggesting cutting through pieces of wood to measure or discover that damage occurs in discreet units. All boards of a like size and wood have the same HP, so that should work, right?
Ahahaha, that was probably my fault (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?263062-What-insights-into-the-rules-of-D-amp-D-could-a-character-gain-through-experimentation), and I was not being at all serious. I was trying to poke fun at the Rules = Physics mindset with a thought experiment about how many of D&D's game rules would be knowable by people living in a D&D world assuming rules-as-physics, starting with the an understanding of spell levels, and moving on to wizard class levels, intelligence bonuses, cleric levels, wisdom bonuses, and outwards from there. :smallbiggrin:

Turns out the answer is "pretty much all of them" if you go down the rabbit hole enough and stick to this philosophy.

I tend to think D&D measurements are just game conveniences, myself.

Amphetryon
2014-05-27, 02:37 PM
Jump is a special case as distance equals DC. Most other skills don't give such things biased on measurements. Knowing a lock is two inches across tells you nothing about the DC to open it. And knowing that the water is twenty feet deep tells you nothing about the DC to swim across it.

So you're saying your earlier blanket statement of "never" giving the numbers was inaccurate. Okay.

valadil
2014-05-27, 03:28 PM
Ahahaha, that was probably my fault (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?263062-What-insights-into-the-rules-of-D-amp-D-could-a-character-gain-through-experimentation), and I was not being at all serious.

Ha! TY for digging that up. My bad for taking it seriously.

jedipotter
2014-05-27, 05:45 PM
So you're saying your earlier blanket statement of "never" giving the numbers was inaccurate. Okay.

I said I never give the DC, AC or other game related number information. Not that I never use numbers. I will say ''the spear is three feet long'', for example.

Knaight
2014-05-29, 06:37 PM
And knowing that the water is twenty feet deep tells you nothing about the DC to swim across it.
That said, there is obvious behavior, particularly if you have a floating object to watch. If you throw a stick in a river the velocity and angular velocity of said stick say quite a bit about how hard to swim the river will be.

jedipotter
2014-05-30, 12:35 PM
That said, there is obvious behavior, particularly if you have a floating object to watch. If you throw a stick in a river the velocity and angular velocity of said stick say quite a bit about how hard to swim the river will be.

Er, I doubt most people understand ''velocity and angular velocity ''.........................

Knaight
2014-05-30, 01:11 PM
Er, I doubt most people understand ''velocity and angular velocity ''.........................

I suspect most people do. Moreover, you don't need to recognize the technical terms to notice something like the stick in the water spinning quickly, and it doesn't take a genius to extrapolate that the current will make swimming difficult if you throw a stick in and it immediately starts spinning erratically. Similarly, if the stick is thrown in and you immediately see it float down the river at high speed, swimming is going to be more difficult.

Slipperychicken
2014-05-30, 04:37 PM
Er, I doubt most people understand ''velocity and angular velocity ''.........................

If I throw a twig into some water and it's quickly whisked away by the current, I know the river's moving quickly. That combined with other factors (such as width and depth of the body of water) may mean it'll be hard to swim across.

Jay R
2014-06-01, 09:51 AM
Er, I doubt most people understand ''velocity and angular velocity ''.........................

Of course not. And I don't think in those terms when looking at a stream either. But the character is looking at the stream. The numbers are the simulation to allow the player to make the same kinds of decisions that the character would make.

In the real world, I look at a moving stream and have a pretty good idea if I could swim across it or not. But the only way for me to be able to make the same decision as a PC, when I'm looking at a table, not a stream, is to be given the numbers. Because the numbers are in fact the simulation.

jedipotter
2014-06-01, 10:36 AM
Of course not. And I don't think in those terms when looking at a stream either. But the character is looking at the stream. The numbers are the simulation to allow the player to make the same kinds of decisions that the character would make.

In the real world, I look at a moving stream and have a pretty good idea if I could swim across it or not. But the only way for me to be able to make the same decision as a PC, when I'm looking at a table, not a stream, is to be given the numbers. Because the numbers are in fact the simulation.

I would direct you to You Tube and type in ''epic fail'' and watch some videos. Then try some TV shows like America's funniest home videos, Ridiculousness, Caught on Tape, and anything that starts with ''worlds dumbest....''

And you can even check the news.

So sure, ''everyone'' has common sense....except all the people that don't.......

Jay R
2014-06-01, 10:48 AM
I would direct you to You Tube and type in ''epic fail'' and watch some videos. Then try some TV shows like America's funniest home videos, Ridiculousness, Caught on Tape, and anything that starts with ''worlds dumbest....''

And you can even check the news.

So sure, ''everyone'' has common sense....except all the people that don't.......

I assume that the people on those shows are not the sort to become adventurer PCs.

Not successful ones anyway.

valadil
2014-06-01, 06:55 PM
I would direct you to You Tube and type in ''epic fail'' and watch some videos. Then try some TV shows like America's funniest home videos, Ridiculousness, Caught on Tape, and anything that starts with ''worlds dumbest....''


I think in D&D terms, those videos are called "Faerun's Most Ill-Timed Natural Ones." Or something.

jedipotter
2014-06-01, 06:56 PM
I assume that the people on those shows are not the sort to become adventurer PCs.

Not successful ones anyway.

If only that were true....but they are everywhere.

Alberic Strein
2014-06-01, 07:48 PM
Well, we ARE seven billion doing one thousand rolls every day. That's a huge number of potential ones.

Pex
2014-06-01, 08:28 PM
I would direct you to You Tube and type in ''epic fail'' and watch some videos. Then try some TV shows like America's funniest home videos, Ridiculousness, Caught on Tape, and anything that starts with ''worlds dumbest....''

And you can even check the news.

So sure, ''everyone'' has common sense....except all the people that don't.......

The rejection that this should be the norm is for the same reason why critical failures are dumb.

SiuiS
2014-06-03, 03:12 AM
I would direct you to You Tube and type in ''epic fail'' and watch some videos. Then try some TV shows like America's funniest home videos, Ridiculousness, Caught on Tape, and anything that starts with ''worlds dumbest....''

And you can even check the news.

So sure, ''everyone'' has common sense....except all the people that don't.......

The phrase 'common sense' doesn't actually show up in the post you quoted.

Yes, there are enough stupid people to make you think they are everywhere. Of course there are. The odds of rolling a 8 or lower on any stat are about 1:4, and the odds of that stat being intelligence or wisdom is 1:3, so one out of every twelve people is an idiot. That's 1/12 of seven billion, meaning there are five hundred and eighty three million people with sub-par mental attributes in the world. Or this is bad math, whichever.

The point being that it's there if you look for it, especially in a society that seeks out and glorified both celebrity and idiocy. There's also that any given individual will make hundreds of thousands of 'rolls', they're going to fail some. Having that one moment caught on tape doesn't make them an idiot.

Seriously, think about the mechanics necessary to make a trebuchet fire accurately. Now think about how easy that is for you to do with your arm without even thinking. People can and do internalize a lot.

Knaight
2014-06-03, 11:19 AM
I would direct you to You Tube and type in ''epic fail'' and watch some videos. Then try some TV shows like America's funniest home videos, Ridiculousness, Caught on Tape, and anything that starts with ''worlds dumbest....''

And you can even check the news.

So sure, ''everyone'' has common sense....except all the people that don't.......

So, we can look at a bunch of things selected precisely because they weren't the norm? If we were trying to maximize selection bias it would be hard to do better than this.