PDA

View Full Version : Hidden dificulties, NPC stats and metagaming



Takewo
2015-08-24, 08:52 AM
I don't remember having read it anywhere, so what I am going to say may just be a bunch of nonsense, but I am pretty sure that somewhere in the D&D rules it states that the players are not supposed to know things like an enemy's Armour Class, Hit Points, Ability Scores or certain Skill check DCs (as when using Spot, Appraise, Knowledge or something like that), because knowing them wound make them go down the ugly, nasty way of metagaming and we do not want that.

At least, if not stated anywhere in the rules, it is assumed when certain uses of certain skills or spells allow you to know things like someone's AC, level, current HP, and stuff.

Also, this has been my experience in playing D&D with several game masters: players are not supposed to know this stuff. Of course you can know the DC of a Jump check, but the DC to find a hidden object? Impossible, that would allow you to know whether there is, in fact, any hidden object at all and start metagaming.

But I am just wondering, is that so? Would knowing a NPC's AC, current HP or the DC to find a hidden object tempt the players beyond the limits of what is bearable to use that information to affect their character's behaviour responding to a knowledge that the character does not posses?

Or, is keeping that information from the player a good way to avoid metagaming? or does it create the exact opposite effect?

Here's what I think: DCs, ACs, and other statistics are mechanical concepts to help both the game master and the players decide on how to develop the narrative part of the game. Therefore, they should be kept more or less separate in the sense that someone's current HP should not appear in the narration, but they should help everyone make good use of the circumstances to come up with a good narration.

But what I have found in my experience is that not knowing those mechanical numbers leads the players into trying to find them out in the narrative process. A quick example, let's say that our rogue is trying to find a specific object in a room, so he rolls Perception. Then the game master answers "You can't seem to find anything." But, why, the rogue's roll was rather low, and he expects that finding this object would have a rather high DC. Therefore, his chain of thought is I haven't looked properly for it, must keep trying, and he says "I am sure it has to be there, so I try again."

So, in fact, our player is using an information from outside the game (namely, his own belief that the object must be in that room) to affect his character's actions; whereas, if his character had been sure from the beginning that the object was there, the logical action course would have been to search thoroughly and take 20.

Another example are those abilities that allow you to affect your roll somehow but you have to do it before knowing the result of the roll. Thus, the inspiration of a bard would grant our rogue an extra 1d6 to his search roll, but, alas, he can't know whether using the effect of his inspiration would grant him even any chance of success. Suppose he rolled a 6 and still failed his attempt. Not, even worse, he can't even be completely sure that he's failed.

So, my question here is, would knowing their chances before rolling change anything? Let's say that when the player declares that our rogue is going to search for the object in the room, the game master says that the DC of the check is 18. Too bad our rogue gets a 14. The difference is that now, he knows whether it's worth it or not to use his inspiration and what are the chances. Also, knowing the fact that the object is there, but his character has failed to find it, could give the player the ease of mind to say "yeah, alright, my rogue is convinced that it's not there, let's move on." (or maybe not, we all know players who would want to keep trying until they find it.

Or maybe there's another way. Maybe the DC 18 is not really the DC to find the object, but the DC to either find the object if it's there, or search in the room thoroughly enough to know that it is not there. And then, the player wanting to keep trying would be in his right to do so.


And that's more or less what's been going on in my head. Any thoughts? Do you think that knowing certain statistics like DCs, ACs, HPs, etc. would bring in more metagaming? less metagaming? a different kind of metagaming? depends on the person/party?

Winter_Wolf
2015-08-24, 09:11 AM
Sounds like 1e/2e stuff to me. In practice, eventually the players figure out the numbers anyway I'd they're paying attention and the encounter lasts a little while. Also it's a lot more burden for the GM, and the way the rules keep changing and piling up over the years and editions of games, eventually it's just only practical to share the load a bit.

obryn
2015-08-24, 09:31 AM
I'm extremely transparent with the mechanics in my own game. I'll say upfront after a few attacks, "His AC is 30" or "His highest defense is a 30, so if you beat that you don't need to ask." Or even, "Highest defense is 30, lowest is 26." It speeds up gameplay; that way if their roll is at least 30 or below 26, there's no real question - they can just declare a quick Hit or Miss.

I'm all about easy and smooth gameplay.

goto124
2015-08-24, 09:59 AM
I think the intention was more for unintentional metagaming. I can see the value in hiding the values for a while (such as the hidden object DC), but there's only so far before it hinders the game and drags the pace down.

Yora
2015-08-24, 11:07 AM
It's very common practice, and recommended by many rulebooks, to make any roll in which the character would not know if he failed in secret. Maybe ask the player to tell you his bonus to Searching or Hearing and then roll a die where the players can't see the result, or write down those skill modifiers in advance and don't even tell the players that you just made a roll for them but the result was so low that they don't detect anything.


I'm extremely transparent with the mechanics in my own game. I'll say upfront after a few attacks, "His AC is 30" or "His highest defense is a 30, so if you beat that you don't need to ask." Or even, "Highest defense is 30, lowest is 26." It speeds up gameplay; that way if their roll is at least 30 or below 26, there's no real question - they can just declare a quick Hit or Miss.

I'm all about easy and smooth gameplay.
Which I can see working, but in that case I would reveal that information only after the players have already commited to a course of action and there's no knowing back. That is, the player gets told the AC he needs to hit only once he has actually started attacking an enemy. He can't ask "what is his AC" before deciding if he wants to attack or talk.

obryn
2015-08-24, 12:29 PM
Which I can see working, but in that case I would reveal that information only after the players have already commited to a course of action and there's no knowing back. That is, the player gets told the AC he needs to hit only once he has actually started attacking an enemy. He can't ask "what is his AC" before deciding if he wants to attack or talk.
Oh yeah, for certain. I wait until combat is already underway and already at least part of a round into it.

Thrudd
2015-08-24, 12:45 PM
It absolutely makes a difference for things like searching and hearing noises. My position on those things is to keep the players minds off of the numbers as much as possible. It is not really more work for me to know my players' hear noises and find traps chances and roll them when appropriate. I tell them if/when they hear something or spot something, there should be little or no chance that the players are aware of something but have to pretend that their characters aren't and be expected to take sub-optimal actions on purpose. I want the narrative to emerge from their choices, not their choices to be made based on narrative considerations.

For AC, its not as big a deal after a combat is under way because they'll figure it out, but there is no way they know the numbers beforehand, other than through guesses they can make based on visuals, like a guy in chainmail with a shield, or a monster that appears to have a hard shell. HP numbers are never given, again except through descriptive cues, like "it looks fatigued and desperate" or "so far your attacks don't seem to be wearing it down".

TheThan
2015-08-24, 12:59 PM
You could easily replace his hit points numbers with something like “he looks like he’s on his last leg, bleeding profusely from the powerful blow the barbarian delivered unto him moments ago”.

Instead of something like “after bob’s attack, he’s down to a measly ten hit points, another solid strike or two would finish him for sure.”

the information is the same, but it's delivered differently.

Keltest
2015-08-24, 01:11 PM
You could easily replace his hit points numbers with something like “he looks like he’s on his last leg, bleeding profusely from the powerful blow the barbarian delivered unto him moments ago”.

Instead of something like “after bob’s attack, he’s down to a measly ten hit points, another solid strike or two would finish him for sure.”

the information is the same, but it's delivered differently.

This is how I handle it. Players will reasonably be able to tell whether or not a monster is significantly injured, as well as whether or not it is recovering at a noticeable rate and similar effects, but im not going to tell them the exact numbers unless its relevant to their actions, like needing to know the exact AC to know how high they need to roll to hit them.

Jormengand
2015-08-24, 01:14 PM
Use dynamic defences: AC is D20+armour+shield+etc. rather than 10+armour+shield etc. It means that if you hit on a 21, all that you know is that his AC bonus is less than 21 (giving him an AC minimum roll of less than 22), whereas normally if you hit on a 21 you would know it was less than 12 (giving him an AC total of less than 22). You will eventually work it out, but it's a lot harder.

Of course, this works a lot better with systems which are built for it: in a fistful-of-d6s system, if you hit on a 9, all you know for sure is that he's not got more than 8 dice to dodge with (and possibly some skill dice, too, if you're using a "Roll stat+skill, take best stat" system), which is a piece of information you could usually have guessed anyway.

Roderick_BR
2015-08-24, 01:16 PM
When any base information is available to players, there's no much to do to hide stuff, you just don't outright say "this guy has n HP and n AC". Like Than said, describle how well off a character is, and that's enough.
As for AC, since it's a dificulty class by any other name, I let players know as soon as they do the first attack, you can argue that they can gauge how well defended a target is.
More secret things like Spot and Listen, in my group the DM writes down everyone's Listen and Spot, so he can roll it in secret (except when players are actively searching stuff).
Then again my group does meta a lot, and it doesnt get in the way of the fun.

Thrudd
2015-08-24, 01:39 PM
This is how I handle it. Players will reasonably be able to tell whether or not a monster is significantly injured, as well as whether or not it is recovering at a noticeable rate and similar effects, but im not going to tell them the exact numbers unless its relevant to their actions, like needing to know the exact AC to know how high they need to roll to hit them.

In D&D, Knowing the exact number should never be relevant to their action. The actions should be based on the character's perception of things, not the player's. Those two things (player's and character's perception) should ideally be identical as much as possible.

In a strategy war game, all numbers and probabilities can be known to players. In a cinematic or plot driven story game, numbers generally shouldn't matter that much, things happen based on what makes a good story.

Keltest
2015-08-24, 01:43 PM
In D&D, Knowing the exact number should never be relevant to their action. The actions should be based on the character's perception of things, not the player's. Those two things (player's and character's perception) should ideally be identical as much as possible.

In a strategy war game, all numbers and probabilities can be known to players. In a cinematic or plot driven story game, numbers generally shouldn't matter that much, things happen based on what makes a good story.

So, in most later editions, at the very least they need to know the enemy's armor class in order to know whether they hit or not. I suppose they could just tell me their roll with bonuses and wait for me to confirm if it hits or not, but besides giving them a fairly good indication of the number over time anyway, it significantly extends the duration of combat doing it that way.

Takewo
2015-08-24, 01:56 PM
It absolutely makes a difference for things like searching and hearing noises. My position on those things is to keep the players minds off of the numbers as much as possible. It is not really more work for me to know my players' hear noises and find traps chances and roll them when appropriate. I tell them if/when they hear something or spot something, there should be little or no chance that the players are aware of something but have to pretend that their characters aren't and be expected to take sub-optimal actions on purpose. I want the narrative to emerge from their choices, not their choices to be made based on narrative considerations.

That is true, but what about when they are actively trying to hear/spot something?

Thrudd
2015-08-24, 02:05 PM
So, in most later editions, at the very least they need to know the enemy's armor class in order to know whether they hit or not. I suppose they could just tell me their roll with bonuses and wait for me to confirm if it hits or not, but besides giving them a fairly good indication of the number over time anyway, it significantly extends the duration of combat doing it that way.

It doesn't bother me to do that, I don't notice it taking more time. They tell me the total of their roll, and I tell them the results. To save time they can roll damage at the same time, and it will be applied if they scored a hit.

What extends combat time in my experience is players incessantly trying to calculate their chances on every action against every enemy and counting and recounting distances and areas and discussing every possibility before they decide what to do. Without knowing the exact numbers, they can't do a lot of that. This is also why I don't use grids anymore, I went back to open table using a measuring tape and allow only one measurement pre-action. Declare what you're doing, we measure whatever needs to be measured once, roll once, I tell you what happens. Turn completed.

Thrudd
2015-08-24, 02:26 PM
That is true, but what about when they are actively trying to hear/spot something?

If they listen at a door, for instance: they say they are doing that, i roll behind the screen and tell them if they hear anything or not. If they are searching a room for treasure or traps, same thing. They declare their actions, I tell them the results. Before anyone says: "thats too much work for me, I have enough to worry about", I feel that this is one of the DMs main responsibilities. Most of the rest of my work has happened in pregame prep, during play my job is rolling dice and interpretting the results for the players. I have tables and lists of characters' relevant scores handy, so all I need to do is roll.

Keltest
2015-08-24, 02:50 PM
If they listen at a door, for instance: they say they are doing that, i roll behind the screen and tell them if they hear anything or not. If they are searching a room for treasure or traps, same thing. They declare their actions, I tell them the results. Before anyone says: "thats too much work for me, I have enough to worry about", I feel that this is one of the DMs main responsibilities. Most of the rest of my work has happened in pregame prep, during play my job is rolling dice and interpretting the results for the players. I have tables and lists of characters' relevant scores handy, so all I need to do is roll.

I dislike doing things like that because I feel it removes the players from the game a fair amount. Certainly if its critical that I keep the DC of the action a secret (or the fact that it happened at all), I will do it, but in general I feel the players should be rolling for their own actions whenever possible.

Thrudd
2015-08-24, 03:11 PM
I dislike doing things like that because I feel it removes the players from the game a fair amount. Certainly if its critical that I keep the DC of the action a secret (or the fact that it happened at all), I will do it, but in general I feel the players should be rolling for their own actions whenever possible.

I think it's a separate problem, when players feel disengaged unless they are rolling dice. The fact that they are asking about what their characters see and hear means they are "in the game", regardless of who does the rolling. The problem comes when they don't know what's going on unless you tell them to roll dice for something. I try to use colorful descriptions and a setting which engages the players, rather than increasing the frequency of their dice rolling, to get them into the game.

Keltest
2015-08-24, 03:17 PM
I think it's a separate problem, when players feel disengaged unless they are rolling dice. The fact that they are asking about what their characters see and hear means they are "in the game", regardless of who does the rolling. The problem comes when they don't know what's going on unless you tell them to roll dice for something. I try to use colorful descriptions and a setting which engages the players, rather than increasing the frequency of their dice rolling, to get them into the game.

Its not necessarily engagement, but agency. If im the one rolling the dice, it can feel rather arbitrary as to whether or not they succeed at something. And quite frankly, if the players don't trust their DM one hundred and twelve percent, there is going to be some resentment every time they fail a roll they couldn't see. Now maybe your group does trust you that much and don't mind listening to a "Choose your own adventure" book whenever they aren't in combat, but I would suggest that is atypical of most parties.

Thrudd
2015-08-24, 04:03 PM
Its not necessarily engagement, but agency. If im the one rolling the dice, it can feel rather arbitrary as to whether or not they succeed at something. And quite frankly, if the players don't trust their DM one hundred and twelve percent, there is going to be some resentment every time they fail a roll they couldn't see. Now maybe your group does trust you that much and don't mind listening to a "Choose your own adventure" book whenever they aren't in combat, but I would suggest that is atypical of most parties.

The difference is completely an illusion. The DM decides whether the roll succeeds or fails by choosing the difficulty, and whether or not there is even anything to find, regardless of who touches the dice. The difference is, a player that rolls high and still doesn't find anything will know for sure nothing is there to find (or it is really hard or impossible to find by ordinary means), if they roll low they will be suspicious that they missed something, which are both things a character shouldn't know. The character only knows they searched and didn't find anything. It does make a difference to the decision making and roleplaying of the players.

It is true, 90% of the game outside of combat for the players is just talking and listening, that is what it means to be an RPG vs a tactical combat simulator. It's a feature not a bug. For the DM, 90% of the game is rolling dice to see what happens and interpretting the results into narrative.

If the group doesn't trust the DM, that is a whole different problem. If you expect the game's outcome to be decided by the dice, but you suspect the DM of "cheating" to get their own way, that is probably an issue of miscommunicated assumptions about how the game works. The DM might think it is their job to fudge the dice and alter difficulties on the fly in order to fit their narrative, and a player that has a problem with that doesn't realize the type of game they are in. A DM that actually lies about how they conduct the game is not worthy of trust anyway, and discovering that about them should lead to a "regime change".

As a player, I can accept if a DM says they will fudge the dice whenever they feel it is appropriate for their game. I accept if they say the dice decide all and will not be fudged. I have no real choice but to take them at their word, if I want to play the game. It is pointless to go in being suspicious and insisting on the DM making concessions to appease me in my assumptions of how the game should be conducted.

obryn
2015-08-24, 04:21 PM
In D&D, Knowing the exact number should never be relevant to their action. The actions should be based on the character's perception of things, not the player's. Those two things (player's and character's perception) should ideally be identical as much as possible.

In a strategy war game, all numbers and probabilities can be known to players. In a cinematic or plot driven story game, numbers generally shouldn't matter that much, things happen based on what makes a good story.
The disconnect is that a competent, highly-trained individual like a character in an RPG should have some kind of sense about their ability to perform a task before actually doing it.

In rules terms, this translates to the numbers.

I can acknowledge that rolls based on 'hidden knowledge' (like whether or not there's any treasure to find in a room) are a different case, but for something like climbing a wall, sneaking past a goblin camp, etc., the easiest way to align the player and character knowledge is to give the difficulty and let the player decide whether or not to take the risk.

Thrudd
2015-08-24, 04:57 PM
The disconnect is that a competent, highly-trained individual like a character in an RPG should have some kind of sense about their ability to perform a task before actually doing it.

In rules terms, this translates to the numbers.

I can acknowledge that rolls based on 'hidden knowledge' (like whether or not there's any treasure to find in a room) are a different case, but for something like climbing a wall, sneaking past a goblin camp, etc., the easiest way to align the player and character knowledge is to give the difficulty and let the player decide whether or not to take the risk.

Even in those cases the exact numbers don't need to be given to give the players a good idea of their chances. The players know their skill bonuses and ability scores. If you tell them that it looks like it would be very difficult to sneak past the camp unnoticed, or very hard to climb that smooth wall, they know it probably won't be successful unless they have high scores. What their characters and therefore they shouldn't know, is how successful they were once the task is undertaken if there is any room for doubt or a range of outcomes. Stealth is one such case, where success or failure at hiding should only be known by the reactions of the observer. Knowing the die result gives it away immediately and will alter their actions. Diplomacy is another, where the perception and decisions of the other party should not be known to the player regardless of the roll. A person may act very friendly to your face, but really not have been swayed by your arguments at all, the player shouldn't know what is in their head. Sense motive results also should not be seen, a character would have no way to know if their hunches are correct right away.

Of course, this is why I don't use that skill system anymore. Personal interaction is mostly narrative, with single reaction rolls determining npc's attitude.

Fizban
2015-08-25, 11:40 AM
Basicaly just a rehash of everyone above:

Depends on what information it is. Unless the players are expected to roll in secret and pass notes to the DM for every result, all the players will know what the other players are rolling. Thus it makes very little sense to hide enemy AC for anything past the first few rounds of combat, since if they're paying any attention they should know it by now. It's a heck of a lot easier to tell them the AC at that point and let the players just tell you how many hits rather than going back and forth (kinda the opposite of "players roll all the dice," instead "players have the required info.")

Spell DCs can work out in a similar fashion. Everyone knows what the save results were and there's likely someone identifying all the spells, so the players should quickly figure out the expected DC of any spell their foe casts. After they've made the first couple saves I'll just tell them the DCs and let them announce success or failure to save work.

Regarding hidden objects, this is where I never understand what people are doing. Is it not incredibly obvious that spot checks and search rolls should be rolled by the DM in secret, not counting that I'm pretty sure it's outright stated in the rules? The only way the assumption makes sense is from a history of player vs. DM thinking that says the players can't be subjected to dice they don't roll, which doesn't make any sense for a number of reasons. The default is that the DM rolls for hidden stuff, and only with a group that has a good ability to separate player/character knowledge (usually by reflexively getting dumb whenever they roll low) should ever roll their own checks for that.

Hit points, again the players will know those of the rest of the party unless you deliberately force them to hide it. For enemies we use the "bloodied" descriptor from what was it, 4e? That's just greater than or less than 1/2 maximum hp. Basically every time an enemy gets hit I ask if it's bloodied yet, and if I was paying more attention I'd be getting a read on their max hit points, but in practice if they've hit 1/2 we just race them to dead and their max hp doesn't matter. On the DM side I try to remind players to notify their own party what the state of their hit points are because some don't even pay attention to themselves.


In D&D, Knowing the exact number should never be relevant to their action. The actions should be based on the character's perception of things, not the player's. Those two things (player's and character's perception) should ideally be identical as much as possible.

In a strategy war game, all numbers and probabilities can be known to players. In a cinematic or plot driven story game, numbers generally shouldn't matter that much, things happen based on what makes a good story.
I strongly disagree. Players have every right to know exactly how the game works mechanically and how their characters interact with it, and how much their characters know about that can vary. Since most people are playing competent adventurers, their characters can be expected to know things like the standard skill DCs for anything in their line of work, and if the player doesn't know I'll gladly give them an estimate based on what they know and can see. If you're playing a game with numbers then the numbers always matter, and making a good story means knowing how to set the scene so the numbers come out right.
It makes me furious when DMs just BS what happens because they can't be bothered to know how the rules work, when I can sit there and tell them exactly what they should have done to have it make sense. There's no point in having a skill point system if the DM can't be bothered to use environments with appropriate DCs and just arbitrarily assigns them. It's not a good story if you can't show why people succeed or fail. This is a common fallback of lazy DMing in 3.x, just saying that "oh the story is more important" and refusing to run the game. It's not as bad in 5e or other editions where the game refuses to give standard DCs and you're supposed to make things up, but in 3.5 you can look up right there in the books how masonry wall+slippery+corner perch will result. 3.5 is simulationist: not using that DC means you've invalidated anyone who took the climb skill and might as well have just gone straight to the fighting if that's the only thing that will make sense.

Even in those cases the exact numbers don't need to be given to give the players a good idea of their chances. The players know their skill bonuses and ability scores. If you tell them that it looks like it would be very difficult to sneak past the camp unnoticed, or very hard to climb that smooth wall, they know it probably won't be successful unless they have high scores.
See, this just doesn't work. If you tell the players something vague like "easy" or "hard," they have no context. Yeah they know the numbers on their sheet, but you haven't given them any real reference. Is hard a 25% chance or a 50% chance? For who's bonus, and does the DM even know my bonus? Is it hard because it takes multiple rolls and single failure is death or because the DC is just impossibly high? This is what makes people think skills are useless. If you'd said it looks Very Difficult in capital letters referring to some standard benchmark like DC25, well that's still disconnected by multiple stages. Or you could just tell them the expected DC and remind them how the skill works, then let them decide if it's easy or hard based on each character's individual modifiers. And with a few repititions they'll learn for themselves and not have to ask anymore.

"Well it's a masonry wall in good condition so that's DC15, but if you don't roll at least 11 you'll fall and at your speed that's one check per five feet," "Well you said you think the guards are the same 1st level goblins you've been fighting, and they're clearly not paying much attention so they have -4 on their checks: as a professional sneak you know that a roll of 16 will beat even the luckiest nobody if they're distracted-but that number goes way up if they're not what they seem or way down if they don't roll high." Now the players actually know something that relates to the numbers on their sheet and can play their characters rather than the DM's vague hints. And if they aren't playing professional characters or want to fly by the seats of their pants, then you can give them one-word guesses so they can just roll and run.

Flickerdart
2015-08-25, 02:09 PM
Metagaming is not a dirty word. Metagaming is not bad. If your PCs know what the monster's AC is, Fred Fighter can go "whoa, that's super high, I'm going to ask Wanda Wizard to memorize some buff spells" while Danny Duskblade can go "that's all? I should really scale back on boosting my attack bonuses then, maybe I'll buy some fluff items I've been meaning to get." The result - a more balanced game.

GungHo
2015-08-25, 03:40 PM
This used to be implied in earlier editions of D&D where the DM book would have a line at the beginning that said something to the effect that if you're a player, you should put the book down. Similarly, the White Wolf books would say that certain sections were for Storytellers and that players should consider skipping it. In all actuality, you can't keep people out of published books. There's an implied social contract that people don't read ahead, metagame, or otherwise "cheat" with the excess information they know, but it ends up slipping into obvious expectations that you need to keep a backup warhammer in case you run into skeletons and a backup silver dagger in case there are werewolves around. And that's okay... that's why we drown you and force you to drop the warhammer or set you on fire to melt the silver dagger before you run into Warewulf McSklelton.

Thrudd
2015-08-25, 05:12 PM
Metagaming is not a dirty word. Metagaming is not bad. If your PCs know what the monster's AC is, Fred Fighter can go "whoa, that's super high, I'm going to ask Wanda Wizard to memorize some buff spells" while Danny Duskblade can go "that's all? I should really scale back on boosting my attack bonuses then, maybe I'll buy some fluff items I've been meaning to get." The result - a more balanced game.

That's not a more balanced game necessarily. It is a game which applies more meta-game strategy, which is ok if that's what you want. I don't want players making decisions like that. I do my best to make sure they are seeing the world through their characters' eyes, and encourage making decisions as if they were those characters. That's what I think role playing is. Fighter does not know how tough a monster is for sure until he fights it for a little while, but visual cues like a tough looking hide or a scaly shell will give a hint. Then, he might say "im having a hard time with this, maybe the wizard can give some assistance." Next time they run into one of those monsters, they'll know the fighter needs a boost to deal with it. That's how the game works. Trial and error and best guesses based on what you perceive.

As for needing specific skill DCs, it should be common sense that something described as difficult means needing a higher score to succeed. If you have high bonuses, you are more likely to succeed at that. If I say it looks like it would be impossible, that applies the same to anyone and you ought to take me at my word, it isn't a relative "impossible". As the DM I'm not trying to trick you into making poor decisions, I'm giving you as much information as your character would have. I will describe as much relevant information as you need, in terms the character knows. DCs and AC and HP are not things your character is aware of.

If I say that there is a slippery smooth surface to walk across and it will be hard to keep your balance, the player is responsible for knowing the abilities of their character enough to know if they have a good shot at succeeding at that. They can ask if I think their abilities are up to the task and I'll probably answer, but that's not info I should need to include most of the time. If I say the guards look like they are not paying attention, the player is responsible for interpretting what that means to their character vis a vis their skills.

bulbaquil
2015-08-25, 06:33 PM
This used to be implied in earlier editions of D&D where the DM book would have a line at the beginning that said something to the effect that if you're a player, you should put the book down. Similarly, the White Wolf books would say that certain sections were for Storytellers and that players should consider skipping it. In all actuality, you can't keep people out of published books. There's an implied social contract that people don't read ahead, metagame, or otherwise "cheat" with the excess information they know, but it ends up slipping into obvious expectations that you need to keep a backup warhammer in case you run into skeletons and a backup silver dagger in case there are werewolves around. And that's okay... that's why we drown you and force you to drop the warhammer or set you on fire to melt the silver dagger before you run into Warewulf McSklelton.

More or less this. Early editions of D&D tended to assume one DM who was always the DM for the group and was the only person in the group who actually had and read the MM and DMG (hence the name "Dungeon Master's Guide") - the players had the PHB and that was all they technically were supposed to need. The problem with that is that if your group cycles DMs, as many do, or if you have players in your group who are DMs in other groups, as many also do, they are also going to either have a DMG of their own, share one for the group, or use online resources like the SRD.

Not to mention it's very hard to purposely forget information once learned, and the fact that WotC is certainly not going to complain about more people buying the DMG (and thus putting money in the company's coffers) than is strictly necessary...

goto124
2015-08-25, 08:38 PM
If you tell the players something vague like "easy" or "hard," they have no context. Yeah they know the numbers on their sheet, but you haven't given them any real reference. Is hard a 25% chance or a 50% chance? For who's bonus, and does the DM even know my bonus? Is it hard because it takes multiple rolls and single failure is death or because the DC is just impossibly high? This is what makes people think skills are useless. If you'd said it looks Very Difficult in capital letters referring to some standard benchmark like DC25, well that's still disconnected by multiple stages. Or you could just tell them the expected DC and remind them how the skill works, then let them decide if it's easy or hard based on each character's individual modifiers. And with a few repititions they'll learn for themselves and not have to ask anymore.

"Well it's a masonry wall in good condition so that's DC15, but if you don't roll at least 11 you'll fall and at your speed that's one check per five feet," "Well you said you think the guards are the same 1st level goblins you've been fighting, and they're clearly not paying much attention so they have -4 on their checks: as a professional sneak you know that a roll of 16 will beat even the luckiest nobody if they're distracted-but that number goes way up if they're not what they seem or way down if they don't roll high." Now the players actually know something that relates to the numbers on their sheet and can play their characters rather than the DM's vague hints. And if they aren't playing professional characters or want to fly by the seats of their pants, then you can give them one-word guesses so they can just roll and run.

May I sig this? Plus the rest of the post.


in terms the character knows. DCs and AC and HP are not things your character is aware of.

The character has more nuanced knowledge than the player does, and she gets to see and feel the situation much better than the player. She is much more aware of the difficulties of a situation and how her skills apply to it. DCs, AC and HP are used to communciate such nuances to the player.

The rest is pretty much explained in the top quote.

One situation I (personally) would avoid giving numbers: when the players spent too much time worrying about and nitpicking at the numbers for the most optimal strategy. I would also inform the players beforehand, that I'm going to abstract things.

I've never had an otherwise good game ruined by metagaming. Probably because I don't really care if metagame knowledge was applied, as long as it's not out of purposeful spite. I may be rather tolerant of unintentional metagaming, and then there's 'good metagaming meant to keep the game going smoothly', such as the kind used to introduce new PCs.

Thrudd
2015-08-25, 09:58 PM
One situation I (personally) would avoid giving numbers: when the players spent too much time worrying about and nitpicking at the numbers for the most optimal strategy. I would also inform the players beforehand, that I'm going to abstract things.


I have found this is almost always the case, especially in 3e/PF (which is why I've given those up to go back to AD&D/retro clones).

Hence: keep it in-game, use games with more simplified mechanics for fast moving action with quick decisions, so the game is more about players interacting directly with the world rather than calculating odds and seeing everything in terms of DCs and skill bonuses.

I would not go so far as to say numbers and meta game knowledge "ruins" a good game. But I strive for a different sort of immersion so would avoid them.

I don't accept the argument that you need to know the enemy's exact stats in order to simulate being a good fighter. Having a good attack bonus simulates being a good fighter. The rest is up to the player, in terms of gauging an enemy's strength and testing their weaknesses and using good tactics.

The DM's job is to give good descriptive cues that relay important information and also help immerse the players in the world. Giving stats and numbers up front I would feel like I was being lazy, phoning it in as a DM. I feel like part of my job is to keep the "man behind the curtain" behind the curtain, that means keeping mechanics and calculations as much out of view as possible.

Just like in a video game, as a player you don't see all the algorithms and calculations that go into resolving every action you take. You try stuff, and the program shows you what happens. Think of the RPG the same way, the DM is the game engine which runs all the algorithms, the player should not need to interact with that or even be aware how it happens. You try stuff, the DM tells you what happens.

Pex
2015-08-25, 10:14 PM
The character is right there fighting the monster. The party is right there fighting with him. They all see how easy or hard it is to hit the thing. It becomes in character knowledge. That extrapolates to metagame by the players figuring out the AC when two characters with +5 to hit, one rolls a 10 and misses, another rolls an 11 and hits.

It is not a crime against humanity for players to know things.

Knaight
2015-08-25, 10:17 PM
I generally don't reveal the numbers, but that's less a matter of active secrecy and more a matter of fluid description. Even then, I tend to favor systems with some sort of unified scale where there's a reasonable guess, and if flat out asked I'll generally reveal that information if it is something that a character would know (e.g. the difficulty to swim across a river that is completely visible). In a game like D&D that also includes things like AC, in plenty of others that's a matter of the skill of the opposition and not necessarily something known.

Thrudd
2015-08-25, 11:11 PM
The character is right there fighting the monster. The party is right there fighting with him. They all see how easy or hard it is to hit the thing. It becomes in character knowledge. That extrapolates to metagame by the players figuring out the AC when two characters with +5 to hit, one rolls a 10 and misses, another rolls an 11 and hits.

It is not a crime against humanity for players to know things.

That's fine when they figure out a number, but they have to be the ones that figure it out. They see how hard it is to hit when I tell them whether their attacks hit or miss, not before. I will never describe a monster as having "AC 5". It has a thick leathery hide and pointy bone protrusions. If you calculate that you need a 15 to hit it, good for you.

Fizban
2015-08-26, 02:35 AM
May I sig this? Plus the rest of the post.
Pretty sure that's the first time anyone's asked me that, I'm flattered :smallsmile: Go ahead of course, though you'll need to cut it down or spoiler it to fit within the sig guidelines.

That's fine when they figure out a number, but they have to be the ones that figure it out. They see how hard it is to hit when I tell them whether their attacks hit or miss, not before. I will never describe a monster as having "AC 5". It has a thick leathery hide and pointy bone protrusions. If you calculate that you need a 15 to hit it, good for you.
I think we're actually all in agreement here, no one's been advocating giving out enemy AC beforehand. Just different degrees of effort before streamlining. It's the skill checks and other aspects where we're disagreeing.

As for needing specific skill DCs, it should be common sense that something described as difficult means needing a higher score to succeed. . . If I say it looks like it would be impossible, that applies the same to anyone and you ought to take me at my word, it isn't a relative "impossible". As the DM I'm not trying to trick you into making poor decisions, I'm giving you as much information as your character would have. . . . If I say that there is a slippery smooth surface to walk across and it will be hard to keep your balance, the player is responsible for knowing the abilities of their character enough to know if they have a good shot at succeeding at that.
Difficulty is relative by definition. Unless you assign a number to "easy" and "hard" and "impossible" they only mean anything with regards to an individual. You expect the player to know if they have a chance of success, but unless you tell them a number (or range) then there is literally nothing to compare their own numbers against. Your "information" is meaningless and they are forced to pull out their own DMGs to try and calculate what they're doing, while hoping you didn't leave something out because they didn't ask. If you're referring to the Difficulty Class Examples chart at the start of the skills section then fine, but since you're advocating against players knowing DCs I assume that you are not, which means you're not telling them anything.

(which is why I've given those up to go back to AD&D/retro clones)
I assume the players were also interested, because doing this in response to the players wanting to use their numbers doesn't sound good.*

The DM's job is to give good descriptive cues that relay important information and also help immerse the players in the world. Giving stats and numbers up front I would feel like I was being lazy, phoning it in as a DM. I feel like part of my job is to keep the "man behind the curtain" behind the curtain, that means keeping mechanics and calculations as much out of view as possible.

Just like in a video game, as a player you don't see all the algorithms and calculations that go into resolving every action you take. You try stuff, and the program shows you what happens. Think of the RPG the same way, the DM is the game engine which runs all the algorithms, the player should not need to interact with that or even be aware how it happens. You try stuff, the DM tells you what happens.
I just don't understand this. Keeping the man behind the curtain and only speaking in descriptions and vague difficulties is far lazier to me than having the mechanics ready and putting them into the proper player friendly terms for the situation. Anyone can compare a DC to a bonus and say maybe, it takes preparation to give an actual answer. The DM's job includes making sure everyone can play on the same level, and sometimes that means having information ready for people that don't know every facet of the game.

Video games don't show you all the mechanics, but they also tend to involve dozens of combats per hour where you control all the characters, against opponents that always use the same stats, with no risk of failure since you can just reset. DnD 3.5 has maybe a couple fights per week, where you don't control all the characters, each foe could be using a completely different set of stats, and getting your character killed usually has consequences. It's not reasonable to expect the same learning curve, or to rely on trial and error when your life is on the line and either your character or DM should know better.

*While it's good that you're now running a system that's more suited to your style, I still say it's fundamentally flawed. Black-box gaming rewards those who already know all the rules and punishes those who don't, that's why it's the DM's job to put everyone on the same field, and it's extremely unlikely that every player in the group has the exact same knowledge level. Removing most of the potential knowledge doesn't end the problem, just covers it up.

goto124
2015-08-26, 04:35 AM
It seems that Thrudd plays with more experienced players who are quite number- and optimal-strategy-obsessed. His method of DMing also seems to work better with close friends, who have a better idea of what he means by easy, hard, etc.

I am, of course, only making a guess. Feel free to correct me.

Off-topic note to Fizban: There is an extended signature thread. People post there, and then link to that post in their sigs. I'll be using my extended sig to quote you, especially since I prefer to keep my sig as short as possible.

Thrudd
2015-08-26, 09:00 AM
Difficulty is relative by definition. Unless you assign a number to "easy" and "hard" and "impossible" they only mean anything with regards to an individual. You expect the player to know if they have a chance of success, but unless you tell them a number (or range) then there is literally nothing to compare their own numbers against. Your "information" is meaningless and they are forced to pull out their own DMGs to try and calculate what they're doing, while hoping you didn't leave something out because they didn't ask. If you're referring to the Difficulty Class Examples chart at the start of the skills section then fine, but since you're advocating against players knowing DCs I assume that you are not, which means you're not telling them anything.

I assume the players were also interested, because doing this in response to the players wanting to use their numbers doesn't sound good.*

I just don't understand this. Keeping the man behind the curtain and only speaking in descplayerse and vague difficulties is far lazier to me than having the mechanics ready and putting them into the proper player friendly terms for the situation. Anyone can compare a DC to a bonus and say maybe, it takes preparation to give an actual answer. The DM's job includes making sure everyone can play on the same level, and sometimes that means having information ready for people that don't know every facet of the game.

Video games don't show you all the mechanics, but they also tend to involve dozens of combats per hour where you control all the characters, against opponents that always use the same stats, with no risk of failure since you can just reset. DnD 3.5 has maybe a couple fights per week, where you don't control all the characters, each foe could be using a completely different set of stats, and getting your character killed usually has consequences. It's not reasonable to expect the same learning curve, or to rely on trial and error when your life is on the line and either your character or DM should know better.

*While it's good that you're now running a system that's more suited to your style, I still say it's fundamentally flawed. Black-box gaming rewards those who already know all the rules and punishes those who don't, that's why it's the DM's job to put everyone on the same field, and it's extremely unlikely that every player in the group has the exact same knowledge level. Removing most of the potential knowledge doesn't end the problem, just covers it up.

In 3.5, it would in fact refer to the difficulty categories from the books. I am not saying players should not know the rules of the game or be aware that there is such a thing as a DC. I am saying that I don't want calculations and numbers to rule the game.

For me, 3.5e became basically a tactical battle game, like fantasy battletech. Which was great for a while, I love battletech. But combats take hours, as you've pounted out, with all the modifiers, and a high level of system mastery for players was required if they expected to perform optimally. It was not very accessible to new players, high learning curve.

My decision to change system was not based on specific players behavior, but a gradual desire to have a different sort of game, and the ability to include brand new rpg players along with veterans.

Your arguments may be valid for d&d 3.5, the learning curve being so high I would want to point out to players all the different sources of bonuses and penalties to their attempted actions.

What I mean be "lazy" would be just telling the players what they need to roll, rather than actually describing anything. Like "ok, these guys all have AC 5, roll your attacks and tell me if you hit." instead of paying attention to each roll and describing what happens.

The system I'm using basically puts everyone on the same field by removing all the fiddly bits. There is no potential knowledge that an experienced player might have that would help them in any meaningful way or give advantage over a new player. That is my goal, along with making sure the focus is on immersion in the game world vs immersion in the rules.

Keltest
2015-08-26, 09:39 AM
In 3.5, it would in fact refer to the difficulty categories from the books. I am not saying players should not know the rules of the game or be aware that there is such a thing as a DC. I am saying that I don't want calculations and numbers to rule the game.

For me, 3.5e became basically a tactical battle game, like fantasy battletech. Which was great for a while, I love battletech. But combats take hours, as you've pounted out, with all the modifiers, and a high level of system mastery for players was required if they expected to perform optimally. It was not very accessible to new players, high learning curve.

My decision to change system was not based on specific players behavior, but a gradual desire to have a different sort of game, and the ability to include brand new rpg players along with veterans.

Your arguments may be valid for d&d 3.5, the learning curve being so high I would want to point out to players all the different sources of bonuses and penalties to their attempted actions.

What I mean be "lazy" would be just telling the players what they need to roll, rather than actually describing anything. Like "ok, these guys all have AC 5, roll your attacks and tell me if you hit." instead of paying attention to each roll and describing what happens.

The system I'm using basically puts everyone on the same field by removing all the fiddly bits. There is no potential knowledge that an experienced player might have that would help them in any meaningful way or give advantage over a new player. That is my goal, along with making sure the focus is on immersion in the game world vs immersion in the rules.

The solution here is simple. Tell them that if they spend too much time quibbling about numbers instead of actually doing something, you will assume their character is having a stroke or something and their turn is skipped.

They will be displeased, but they will spend significantly less time worrying about the minutiae.

goto124
2015-08-26, 10:06 AM
The solution to what problem?

Keltest
2015-08-26, 10:17 AM
The solution to what problem?

to the problem of people quibbling so much about stats and numbers that it bogs down the game.

goto124
2015-08-26, 10:25 AM
Ah. As suggested in other threads about how to deal with large numbers of players, you could use a stopwatch, egg timer, or hourglass to give every player limited time. 6 seconds for the player to say something, 60 seconds to finish making their decisions, for example,

Milodiah
2015-08-26, 10:44 AM
Honestly, I tend to begin giving the players DCs and things like that if they're taking repetitive actions such as hitting the same monster for the third time in a row, etc, to allow them to take over some of the number-crunchingm or if they ask (out of character) about the difficulty of task X I give them a ballpark of what the DC might be, i.e. in the 20s, or 30s, or 40s, etc. I believe they have a right to have a rough estimate of their chances based on penalties or bonuses, assistance, magic items, etc.

My logic there is that, for example, someone with several ranks in Craft (Blacksmith) could, in-character, sit down and say, "You know, you're asking me to make a masterwork high-quality breastplate, but you're also telling me it needs to be done in four days, and I don't have a full forge...do you have any idea of how steep those penalties are I simply don't think that's all that likely to happen, buddy." Sometimes it's even more obvious. Someone who has climbed things before should know that yes, it is probably beyond their abilities to climb the side of a vertical marble slab that's slick with water from being part of a fountain, but not beyond their abilities to scale a natural rock face.

Fizban
2015-08-27, 03:49 AM
In 3.5, it would in fact refer to the difficulty categories from the books. I am not saying players should not know the rules of the game or be aware that there is such a thing as a DC. I am saying that I don't want calculations and numbers to rule the game.
Ah, I assumed wrong then.

It was not very accessible to new players, high learning curve.

My decision to change system was not based on specific players behavior, but a gradual desire to have a different sort of game, and the ability to include brand new rpg players along with veterans.

Your arguments may be valid for d&d 3.5, the learning curve being so high I would want to point out to players all the different sources of bonuses and penalties to their attempted actions.
Fair enough. I'm a little. . . biased? I guess. I see a high learning curve, and my response to that is to help people learn it so we can all enjoy the game at the top. I can understand intellectually that some people just don't like learning, and there are plenty of things I don't bother learning myself, but in all honesty I expect people to be interested in learning to play games. That's half the fun. I'm interested in roleplaying but I'm mostly there for the game: learning it, playing it, and adapting it. Roleplaying is nice but it's more of a next step adaptation, I've spent most of my time without any game groups so I wouldn't have learned any systems if my focus was heavy RP.

What I mean be "lazy" would be just telling the players what they need to roll, rather than actually describing anything. Like "ok, these guys all have AC 5, roll your attacks and tell me if you hit." instead of paying attention to each roll and describing what happens.
Clarified, gotcha. On the flipside of what I said above, I don't find giving a baseline of description difficult at all and assume everyone should be able to do so, though in reality some people do get stuck in that rut you've described.

The system I'm using basically puts everyone on the same field by removing all the fiddly bits. There is no potential knowledge that an experienced player might have that would help them in any meaningful way or give advantage over a new player. That is my goal, along with making sure the focus is on immersion in the game world vs immersion in the rules.
Are you using a homebrew system? I only know a few systems (Mutants and Masterminds, New World of Darkness, and DnD 3.5/5e, with a bit of DnD 1e/4e and I read some FATE once), but none of those systems had few enough rules I would say it's possible to truly level the playing field all the way down to new player tier. Obviously I'm there for the rules (which can facilitiate connection to the world mind you), so I don't like them being pushed to the side. Clearly you want some amount of rules or you'd just freeform, I'm just wondering how much rules you are/need to hide to feel you've accomplished your goal. Not that it's a question that can be answered in a general objective sense, as the goal is met depending on the players and you've only got so many of those.

I'm also wondering if there's a Stormwind Fallacy corollary or something, like "Game mechanics do no automatically break roleplaying immersion." I know it's the opposite for me in any case: knowing the rules have suddenly been broken means the world is not coherent, it doesn't make sense and I can't take it seriously. It's like when you lose a fight in a cutscene when you know for a fact you could beat the boss otherwise. All the fancy description in the world from either side of the DM screen doesn't matter if I know perfectly well something doesn't work that way (I can make exceptions for stuff that was planned in advance, particularly if the DM has mentioned there will be some alterations or fiat coming and I can wave it away as divine influence).

Ah. As suggested in other threads about how to deal with large numbers of players, you could use a stopwatch, egg timer, or hourglass to give every player limited time. 6 seconds for the player to say something, 60 seconds to finish making their decisions, for example,
I actually was trying to use an egg timer to speed up combat, and motivate people to pay attention when it's not their turn and learn how to play their characters. Unfortunately between my own forgetfullness and the tendencies of those less motivated players, it basically fell by the wayside and in the next game I suggested it and all refused. I'll admit I was pretty disappointed. As often as it's suggested I get the feeling that a lot of groups would actually point-blank refuse.

Nightcanon
2015-08-29, 04:12 AM
How about this for a rule of thumb:
Pre-combat: you get a description of your opponent before combat starts (unless surprised)- "a squad of guards comes round the corner. They wear shiny silver breastplates and carry halberds."
First round or so of combat: roll and tell me what AC you hit.
Once everyone has more or less worked it out: roll to hit vs AC 16
Players can ask what the situation looks like, and get an answer like "the guy you just hit has blood streaming from his thigh, and two others are down with arrows in them. The older guy with the beard who just hit Friar Baltus twice in succession barely seems to have a scratch on him".

Skills: when you as a player know your 'opponent' is there, and have a good idea of your own ability, you get to make the roll. I know roughly what grade I climb at, and can tell whether I failed because I clumsily stood on a slipperly bit of moss on the wall, or because the whole thing is too smooth.
If you don't know if you have a success chance, because there may or may not be a secret door, the DM rolls. If you strongly suspect one, take 20 and a have a painstaking search.

Darth Ultron
2015-08-29, 06:35 AM
"Game mechanics do no automatically break roleplaying immersion."

They do.

But it depends on the role playing level of the game:


Low RP a lot of games play here. They only role play a little bit, sometimes. The players mostly know all the numbers. The game play is very mechanical.

The Vague Middle This type of game role plays about half the time, maybe, if they want to and think it is important. They will randomly switch from role play to hard core mechanical play based on some unknown random formula.

Pure Role Play This type of game only uses mechanics a little bit, sometimes. The players never know the numbers. The game is mostly all role playing.

goto124
2015-08-29, 07:22 AM
They do.

But it depends on the role playing level of the game:

I think the keyword is 'automatically'.

Jay R
2015-08-29, 09:53 AM
I don't have a problem with ACs becoming obvious after a couple of melee rounds. That's in-game information. In SCA fighting, I learn pretty quickly who I can hit easily.

But skill checks can be a problem. And the problem isn't the hidden difficulty, but the public roll. Even if I don't know the DC, I know how well I rolled, and therefore know how likely it is that he can do better.

If my character is searching a room, and I roll a 19, I have every reason to think there's nothing there my character can reasonably find. But if I roll a 2, I have every reason to think continued searching will improve my chances.

Remember that a 2 doesn't mean he knows he didn't search well, but that he didn't consider looking for the right kind of hiding place - a hidden wall, under the bookshelf, etc.

I would prefer not to have that information, so that I can make a decision without it. If I know, based on the roll I see, that it's a good idea for my character to continue searching, then it's impossible for me to actually decide the way he would, and it's all too easy to come up with a rationalization why he should decide the way I know is best.

As a DM, I try to take some meta-knowledge away from players, by re-writing. Dragons are not color-coded for the benefit of the PCs. Of elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, goblins, and orcs, at least one does not exist, at least one is slightly different from the books, and at least one is wildly different. Several monsters have different alignments from the books. The name of an Undead will not tell the players what will or won’t hurt it. The first time they see a member of a humanoid race, I describe it as a “vaguely man-shaped creature.” This could be a goblin, an elf, or an Umber Hulk until they learn what they are. After a round or two, I start giving them more details.

This means that after a round or two, when they notice that the humanoids are hyena-faced, they start calling them, "Those things we don't know are gnolls". OK, I didn't prevent the meta-knowledge, but at least I slowed it down. The next time they see them, I'll call them "gnolls".

In short, yes, meta-gaming can cause difficulties. The DM's job is to eliminate those difficulties when feasible, reduce them when possible, and endure them when necessary.

Darth Ultron
2015-08-29, 10:25 AM
If my character is searching a room, and I roll a 19, I have every reason to think there's nothing there my character can reasonably find. But if I roll a 2, I have every reason to think continued searching will improve my chances.


Actually you have no reason to think that way.

There is something hidden in the room. The player rolls a 2 and is told they find nothing with a search. They immediately think that they ''missed something'' and there is ''something to find''. And they might waste a ton of game time trying to find something in the room. And the other side is just as bad. The player rolls a 19 and is told they find nothing with a search. They immediately think there is ''nothing to find''. But what if the search DC was 20?

And what if nothing was in the room? Rolling a 2 or a 19 don't matter when there is nothing to find.




I would prefer not to have that information, so that I can make a decision without it. If I know, based on the roll I see, that it's a good idea for my character to continue searching, then it's impossible for me to actually decide the way he would, and it's all too easy to come up with a rationalization why he should decide the way I know is best.


In my more deep role play games, I roll most skill checks for players. That might work for you.

goto124
2015-08-29, 10:39 AM
Haven't we already established that Search checks, Spot checks, etc are rolled by the DM and the exact numbers hidden?

Thrudd
2015-09-01, 11:57 AM
Ah, I assumed wrong then.

Fair enough. I'm a little. . . biased? I guess. I see a high learning curve, and my response to that is to help people learn it so we can all enjoy the game at the top. I can understand intellectually that some people just don't like learning, and there are plenty of things I don't bother learning myself, but in all honesty I expect people to be interested in learning to play games. That's half the fun. I'm interested in roleplaying but I'm mostly there for the game: learning it, playing it, and adapting it. Roleplaying is nice but it's more of a next step adaptation, I've spent most of my time without any game groups so I wouldn't have learned any systems if my focus was heavy RP.

Clarified, gotcha. On the flipside of what I said above, I don't find giving a baseline of description difficult at all and assume everyone should be able to do so, though in reality some people do get stuck in that rut you've described.

Are you using a homebrew system? I only know a few systems (Mutants and Masterminds, New World of Darkness, and DnD 3.5/5e, with a bit of DnD 1e/4e and I read some FATE once), but none of those systems had few enough rules I would say it's possible to truly level the playing field all the way down to new player tier. Obviously I'm there for the rules (which can facilitiate connection to the world mind you), so I don't like them being pushed to the side. Clearly you want some amount of rules or you'd just freeform, I'm just wondering how much rules you are/need to hide to feel you've accomplished your goal. Not that it's a question that can be answered in a general objective sense, as the goal is met depending on the players and you've only got so many of those.

I'm also wondering if there's a Stormwind Fallacy corollary or something, like "Game mechanics do no automatically break roleplaying immersion." I know it's the opposite for me in any case: knowing the rules have suddenly been broken means the world is not coherent, it doesn't make sense and I can't take it seriously. It's like when you lose a fight in a cutscene when you know for a fact you could beat the boss otherwise. All the fancy description in the world from either side of the DM screen doesn't matter if I know perfectly well something doesn't work that way (I can make exceptions for stuff that was planned in advance, particularly if the DM has mentioned there will be some alterations or fiat coming and I can wave it away as divine influence).

I actually was trying to use an egg timer to speed up combat, and motivate people to pay attention when it's not their turn and learn how to play their characters. Unfortunately between my own forgetfullness and the tendencies of those less motivated players, it basically fell by the wayside and in the next game I suggested it and all refused. I'll admit I was pretty disappointed. As often as it's suggested I get the feeling that a lot of groups would actually point-blank refuse.

I am with you on wanting to teach a game you like to others, and I used to feel the same. But married life changes things a lot. Spouses want to play games, but most people are not into learning a complex system. There are games I like which are rather inaccessible to casual gamers, and I just had to accept that. I choose different games for those people.

My preference now for D&D is a homebrew which is built mostly on Basic D&D and 1e AD&D, the systems I first taught myself 25 years ago. I take elements from different OSR retroclones, too, and I think 5e has some useful stuff. It's quite far from free-form, at least on my side of the screen, I heavily use tables and dice for random generation and deciding events and outcomes.

Yes, experienced players often will have a bit of an edge, just because they tend to be better players, they have better tactics, they are used to reading the cues that a DM gives. But there is no really mechanical advantage that a player with more knowledge of the game gets, there is no way to build their character differently or spend points differently or choosing feats that gives an advantage which new players might not be aware of. The benefits gained through good tactics in combat are obvious and common sense, there aren't tricks you can use which give you a better bonus that would not be obvious to anyone. Get behind cover if someone is shooting arrows at you. Don't charge into someone with a planted pike. If you turn your back on someone that you're fighting, you will be vulnerable and probably get hit. If you attack someone from behind, they can't use their shield to defend themselves. That is how I want combat to go, people assessing the battlefield based on the perception of the characters and making decisions as though they were there.
It's never that the rules are broken, I wouldn't do that. But the rules have a level of abstraction that does not require keeping track of lots of minutiae. For example, you don't have five different categories of AC that can each be negated or added to by different factors. Just one AC that is an abstraction of all those things. Same with attack bonuses and saving throws, there are very lmited things that can add or subtract from them, there is no keeping track of multiple sources of modifiers applying to different characters and regions under specific circumstances.

Fizban
2015-09-02, 09:00 AM
Good answer. We play some very different DnD but I can agree with your moving in that direction for those reasons.

Deified Data
2015-09-02, 03:59 PM
I'm not going to tell a player the AC of an enemy or the DC of a challenge. If they figure it out themselves through trial and error, so be it. I prefer not to enable metagaming as much as humanly possible, but I appreciate that going into an encounter with zero consideration for the numbers behind the scenes never happens.