BG3 and the fun of transparency

[Cikomyr2]

I havent tried the Honor difficulty mode, so please forgive me if it completely wrecks my arguments.

I was just thinking of the degree of transparency in Baldur's Gate 3 actually making the game more fun. You know how many HP enemies have. You know their saves, you know their AC. The game outright tells you the to hit % or the likelihood someone will make their saving throw, allowing you to approach the game with more knowledge.

And i know all dnd game i played, the GM wouldnt tell us monsters' stats, the idea being that you wouldn't know an enemy AC or saving throws or HPs. Part of the fun is "figuring these things", a paradigm i never challenged until i had such a great time playing with the same ruleset, just transparent.

Do you have an opinion? Have you experienced better or worse tabletop experienced when the stats are freely shared?

[OldTrees1]

I have played Honor mode. The transparency Cikomyr2 noticed remains in Honor mode. When Honor mode gives a creature another feature or legendary action, you can read up on that feature/action in game. Thus when you face the owlbear, you can choose to be surprised, or you can read how it was made harder.

Personally, for TTRPGs, there are areas I like transparency, areas I like temporary mystery that turns into transparency, and areas I like mystery.

I like transparency in areas describing the character's knowledge of their own abilities. The character knows how mobile they are. The player should not need to guess how far and fast the character can jump, climb, wall run, etc.
I like some temporary mystery for describing the character's knowledge of their abilities matched vs an unfamiliar foe. I start with AC, Saves, Atk, etc of NPCs hidden from the players. However I do nothing to maintain that secrecy. I openly roll attacks/saves and I let the group know when the enemy was hit.
I like permanent mystery for describing the outcome of a character's failed knowledge gaining efforts. If the party is searching for a secret and don't find it, it stays secret until they do find it.


Part of the reason I don't announce the enemy AC values up front is laziness. My VTT does not display those values to the Players. If it had, then I would be fine with that transparency. As it is, after a few attacks the AC of the enemy is usually known or remarked upon.

[icefractal]

I used to be more on the side of "keep everything a secret until discovered", but over the years I've realized that in most cases it has the same issue as certain other things that are cool in theory - the game just isn't long enough.

We have a limited number of hours to play each week, and most GMs have a limit how long they can run a single campaign before burning out or just wanting to try something new. So that cool payoff that would happen after 200+ battles? It won't happen at all because there won't be that many battles.

So in practice, a lot of the secret information becomes just "eh, we have no info so use standard tactics I guess" rather than any kind of deduction challenge.

I'm not saying this applies to *everything* - if the question is "How did the BBEG know where the army was going to move?" then figuring that out is the gameplay. A spy? Divination? He's a genius at predicting people? Figure it out in-game, I'm not going to say up front. But "what attack bonus does this guy we're likely only fighting once ever have?" isn't usually going to be in that category.

[kyoryu]

I'm a huge fan of transparency. Reveal as much as is reasonable (not necessarily plot stuff). Make figuring out how to deal with the creatures the fun bit, not trial-and-erroring their shtick.

It also has the side benefit of making most metagaming irrelevant.

[Amnestic]

I generally keep stuff to myself when DMing, but don't have an issue revealing stuff as it happens, so like, saves etc. will be rolled openly, and I'll go "okay, 3+7=10, they fail", and from then on the party knows "okay, they've got +7 to that save".

If my players came to me and said "we'd probably have more fun if we knew what the enemies can do, just as you know what we can do" then I don't think I'd have an issue sharing statblocks. Ultimately it's not happened yet, possibly since everyone's 'satisfied' with the existing paradigm.

From a player perspective part of me might prefer just seeing the 'stats' for enemies (HP/AC/Saves) and not their abilities. Maybe I wanna be a little bit surprised when the dragon breaks out a special breath weapon instead of just the standard fire? Idk.

[Biggus]

I don't like the players to know things their characters wouldn't know. This is partly because it disrupts my suspension of disbelief, I like my fantasy to feel as real as possible.

I don't mind if they've had a reasonable chance to size up their opponent; I often just tell them the enemy's AC after a couple of rounds of combat for example, because they already know roughly what it is and it speeds things up.

Also, sometimes an enemy will have an unusual AC or save value for their level/type, or have a special ability I don't want them to know about immediately, I like being able to surprise them sometimes.

I do agree with OldTrees1's point about the characters' own abilities though, they should have a pretty clear idea of how much they can lift or how far they can jump.

@OP: what was it about knowing the enemy's stats you liked? In what way did it make the game more fun?

[Anonymouswizard]

The enemy's stats might not be open, but their rolls are so they can be deduced. If it's a combat focused campaign then Standard Mook X might be open information so attack resolution can be faster.

But like, every GM I've known has actively and occasionally openly fudged to keep things interesting. There's enough ways to do it that you can manage with open rolls. Heck even if the players know the BBEG's exact spell/power list there's nothing stopping them from pulling out a contingency item they didn't have before. Transparency is great for those who want a wargame, but most people I know who want to play a wargame play wargames.

[Yora]

I tend to let players know the target number of a roll after they commited to the action and before they roll the die. At that point there is no more backing out, but for the players there is a certainty that now it's really up to the dice if their action succeeds. My own preferences as GM are now meaningless. I have no more chance to ignore the roll and say it's success or failure arbitrarily.
I can of course set the target number trivially low or impossibly high, but when I do the players know that I did, for whatever reason.

[Beelzebub1111]

I like how Solasta does it and Incorperated it into my games. After battle roll a relevant knowlege or survival check to increase your "Rank" of knowlege. you start off knowing nothing but as you pass checks you learn more after each encounter. First their average HP (I like rolling for every monster this just gives your players a baseline to think of what they will be around), then you learn their typical ac and saves, then you learn abilities and resistances at full knowlege. This is things you can learn through play but this would just be confirmation.

You can also borrow from pathfinder 2e and just roll knowledge as an action to ask a specific question. The difference is you should always give helpful information like if the enemy doesn't have any vulnerabilities or resistance when they ask, you should at least tell them their best and worst saves so they know which to target.

[Catullus64]

As someone whose DM philosophy generally goes against sharing a monster's game statistics, I can say that for myself it has very little to do with any tactical challenge from figuring it out. Quite the opposite: the aim is to draw players' attention away from the mechanical elements of the game so they can focus their attention on imagining the narrative of the fight. Too much information on a monster's AC, HP, attacks, saves, etc, and players start fixating on numbers instead of roleplaying their characters in the fight.

A single-player CRPG is a very different beast. You have visual and auditory elements doing much of the work which, at the table, largely has to be done by imagination. Meanwhile, although numbers may be visible to players, the actual arithmetic of manipulating those numbers, and then translating them back into game outcomes, is handled by a computer. Because of both of these things, the numbers don't get in the way of the fantasy of the fight even when visible.

In brief, this kind of thing works well in a video game because so much imaginative and mechanical work is being done by the machine and not the player. Be wary of importing this thinking to a tabletop setting.

Of course, there's an implicit value judgement in my argument, that presenting players with a fun tactical puzzle to solve is of secondary importance to helping them imagine and roleplay the fight, a value judgement you may simply choose not to share.

[LibraryOgre]

I like how Solasta does it and Incorperated it into my games. After battle roll a relevant knowlege or survival check to increase your "Rank" of knowlege. you start off knowing nothing but as you pass checks you learn more after each encounter. First their average HP (I like rolling for every monster this just gives your players a baseline to think of what they will be around), then you learn their typical ac and saves, then you learn abilities and resistances at full knowlege. This is things you can learn through play but this would just be confirmation.

You can also borrow from pathfinder 2e and just roll knowledge as an action to ask a specific question. The difference is you should always give helpful information like if the enemy doesn't have any vulnerabilities or resistance when they ask, you should at least tell them their best and worst saves so they know which to target.

4e also had DCs to know things about the various enemies. Hit a DC 10, and you know this. Hit a 20, and you know this and that.

For the general topic, though, secrets should be saved for things that have a real impact. That orc is wearing chainmail and has a shield? It shouldn't take long to figure out he has a 3 AC. The only reason I should bother keeping that a secret is if he's actually a polymorphed dragon or the like. You might not know every spell the wizard can throw at you, but you can probably take a reasonable guess at level.

[Batcathat]

As someone whose DM philosophy generally goes against sharing a monster's game statistics, I can say that for myself it has very little to do with any tactical challenge from figuring it out. Quite the opposite: the aim is to draw players' attention away from the mechanical elements of the game so they can focus their attention on imagining the narrative of the fight. Too much information on a monster's AC, HP, attacks, saves, etc, and players start fixating on numbers instead of roleplaying their characters in the fight.

Yeah, this is pretty much where I'm at, too, and as a player I've never been very interested in figuring out the specific numbers of an opponent. Now, if it's something major like them being immune to a particular type of damage or something like that, that's another thing, but that can usually be easily conveyed without complete transparency.

[Beelzebub1111]

4e also had DCs to know things about the various enemies. Hit a DC 10, and you know this. Hit a 20, and you know this and that.

For the general topic, though, secrets should be saved for things that have a real impact. That orc is wearing chainmail and has a shield? It shouldn't take long to figure out he has a 3 AC. The only reason I should bother keeping that a secret is if he's actually a polymorphed dragon or the like. You might not know every spell the wizard can throw at you, but you can probably take a reasonable guess at level.
I do remember that, but it was a bit inconsistent with what you might know. I remember the Bear Lore meme from those days. DC 15: Bears live in caves. DC 20: Bears attack with their natural weapons. I think a successful check should at least tell you something mechanically useful.

[King of Nowhere]

I am also on the side of realism. the players should know what the characters should know, and i use that as a guideline more than everything.
but i am transparent with what the players know.
the characters know, by having done a bit of research, that the high priest of vecna is a powerful cleric whose spells are extremely hard to resist, who relies strongly on save-or-die effects to take advantage of his spells being stronger than others. once the players have discovered that, I can easily tell them that his implosions have a save DC above 35, but lower than 40. it's the same information, just translated. in fact, if they know that the hpov often uses such spells even against fighters and barbarians, which should be especially resistant to such magic, they could easily do the math themselves and figure out that if a 20th level fighter type in our campaign generally has a fort save around +25, the hpov must have a 35+ to his save dc to target high fort saves with a fair chance of success. I generally don't give exact numbers, but I wouldn't have many qualms against it.
the party know, by their own research, know that the noble scion trained from birth to fight is an accomplished sniper, taking down enemies from afar. ooc, i tell them that the sniper rifle allows applying precision damage from afar, and that this enemy is a rogue/assassin delivering death strikes with it. i don't even need to tell them any stat, because they can easily figure them out: they know their opponent is a world elite, so they know she's level 20 (she could be 18, but it doesn't change too much), with high dex, a +5 rifle, and all the available buff items, and they can get a rough statistic from that.

on the other hand, when they went into a sealed plane and encountered monsters never seen before, i didn't give them any stats.


As someone whose DM philosophy generally goes against sharing a monster's game statistics, I can say that for myself it has very little to do with any tactical challenge from figuring it out. Quite the opposite: the aim is to draw players' attention away from the mechanical elements of the game so they can focus their attention on imagining the narrative of the fight. Too much information on a monster's AC, HP, attacks, saves, etc, and players start fixating on numbers instead of roleplaying their characters in the fight.


Indeed; the more the players know the enemy, the more they can strategize. according to the group you have, people will be more or less inclined to strategize. if your group is more roleplay-heavy, it's better to hide the numbers. if the group likes to fight tactically, they'll prefer to know them.

in the specific case of bg3, I always approach videogames more tactically. While I always praised that specific game with all my friends for its open world, plot, and out of combat options, in the end it never compares with sharing a good story with your human party and interacting with the story with a human dm. not if you have a good human party, which i'm lucky to have. so, for all that i like having plenty of use for social or investigation skills, in the end 90% of what i want in a videogame is to powergame my way through my enemies. so I like transparency

[Cikomyr2]

@OP: what was it about knowing the enemy's stats you liked? In what way did it make the game more fun?

I felt I had more control over my actions. My spellcasters knew which enemies have the best intelligence/wisdom/charisma saves, and which had the worst, and it made like casting certain spells was less of a waste of time; which sometimes it feels like in DnD.

Also, a better idea of how much HP was left on enemy, so I would more optimally dish out the damage.

In a way, also having an idea of a monster's HP scale helped figure out when I was outmatched. Something that's always delicate to balance in DnD, since it relies on the DM knowing the encounter in unbalanced and giving the proper hints about it. Full transparency puts the entire burden on the player(s). It's up to them to read the stats and figure if they should just zip out, rather than play 20 questions with their lives, an exercise I find terribly annoying.

(what is annoying to me is not the possibility of overwhelming encounters that can beat the PCs, but the uncertainty about who has the onus to flag the information to the other. 100% transparency of stats removes all ambiguity, as the players can freely draw their conclusion about the 260 HP dragon).

[Biggus]

I felt I had more control over my actions. My spellcasters knew which enemies have the best intelligence/wisdom/charisma saves, and which had the worst, and it made like casting certain spells was less of a waste of time; which sometimes it feels like in DnD.

Also, a better idea of how much HP was left on enemy, so I would more optimally dish out the damage.

In a way, also having an idea of a monster's HP scale helped figure out when I was outmatched. Something that's always delicate to balance in DnD, since it relies on the DM knowing the encounter in unbalanced and giving the proper hints about it. Full transparency puts the entire burden on the player(s). It's up to them to read the stats and figure if they should just zip out, rather than play 20 questions with their lives, an exercise I find terribly annoying.

(what is annoying to me is not the possibility of overwhelming encounters that can beat the PCs, but the uncertainty about who has the onus to flag the information to the other. 100% transparency of stats removes all ambiguity, as the players can freely draw their conclusion about the 260 HP dragon).

OK, thank you for the explanation. I'm certainly not going to tell you what you should or shouldn't enjoy, but to me it just doesn't feel like a roleplaying game at that point, it feels like a tactical combat game. Which I know a lot of people enjoy, but it feels out of place in something where you're supposed to be playing an actual character rather than just moving miniatures about on a board. Each to their own I guess.

[Telok]

Its something I've come to call the "armor-guy with sword problem" over the years. GM describes some guy wearing armor and wielding a weapon. Is it a mook with 12 hp, ac 15, & 1d8 attack? Is it a construct with 300 hp, ac 21, and a 5d6 attack? Is it a teleporting undead thing with 100hp, ac 27, and a 1d8 + 10d6 nectotic + save vs fear quad attack? Is it a wizard? A cleric? Radiates antimagic? Damage aura? No clue, its a armor-guy with a sword until it starts pounding on you.

Many monsters have the same issue, especially in D&D. The GM describes them, but the description has no basis in the rules. Size, speed, armor, claws & fangs, none of it is rules-mapped to even approximate what the critter is like. The descriptions stopped telling us anything and thus meaning anything.

This led to an interesting phenomena. We, as players, stopped caring what we fought and stopped using tactics. Combats became repetitive exercises in just beating down the hit points of the most recent sack of miscellaneous unattached of stats. Without being able to know the abilities of what we were fighting we couldn't plan for anything and we stopped trying to do anything interesting beyond "hit it with basic attacks until it falls down".

[Mastikator]

I don't like the players to know things their characters wouldn't know. This is partly because it disrupts my suspension of disbelief, I like my fantasy to feel as real as possible.

I don't mind if they've had a reasonable chance to size up their opponent; I often just tell them the enemy's AC after a couple of rounds of combat for example, because they already know roughly what it is and it speeds things up.

Also, sometimes an enemy will have an unusual AC or save value for their level/type, or have a special ability I don't want them to know about immediately, I like being able to surprise them sometimes.

I agree and I think the important thing is that if players don't know what their characters wouldn't know, then they should be made aware of what their characters should know. For example if I have a newbie player who's playing a wizard and they're facing an iron golem and he wants to fireball it I'd just tell him that fire will heal the iron golem, and his character knows this because he's a wizard. Likewise a ranger will just know that perytons have resistance to non-magical BPS. A paladin (and necromancer) will know that zombies can't use undead fortitude if they're hit by radiant damage.

The AC one I typically tell them, especially if the AC comes from armor. An enemy with chainmail will have an AC of 16. I prefer to tell them what kind of armor the enemy is wearing.

[kyoryu]

Its something I've come to call the "armor-guy with sword problem" over the years. GM describes some guy wearing armor and wielding a weapon. Is it a mook with 12 hp, ac 15, & 1d8 attack? Is it a construct with 300 hp, ac 21, and a 5d6 attack? Is it a teleporting undead thing with 100hp, ac 27, and a 1d8 + 10d6 nectotic + save vs fear quad attack? Is it a wizard? A cleric? Radiates antimagic? Damage aura? No clue, its a armor-guy with a sword until it starts pounding on you.

Many monsters have the same issue, especially in D&D. The GM describes them, but the description has no basis in the rules. Size, speed, armor, claws & fangs, none of it is rules-mapped to even approximate what the critter is like. The descriptions stopped telling us anything and thus meaning anything.

This led to an interesting phenomena. We, as players, stopped caring what we fought and stopped using tactics. Combats became repetitive exercises in just beating down the hit points of the most recent sack of miscellaneous unattached of stats. Without being able to know the abilities of what we were fighting we couldn't plan for anything and we stopped trying to do anything interesting beyond "hit it with basic attacks until it falls down".

Another reason why I like giving more information - the characters see a lot of info - just how good the armor is, how they move and hold themselves, any subtle auras, etc.

What the GM says is a pretty narrow band of communication. The PCs have a lot more. Just give it to them!

[King of Nowhere]

This led to an interesting phenomena. We, as players, stopped caring what we fought and stopped using tactics. Combats became repetitive exercises in just beating down the hit points of the most recent sack of miscellaneous unattached of stats. Without being able to know the abilities of what we were fighting we couldn't plan for anything and we stopped trying to do anything interesting beyond "hit it with basic attacks until it falls down".
we did that? not in my experience.
if i have to pick something vaguely familiar in that, it's the "hit with basic until it falls"
wait, that clearly refers to 5e, while my experience is 3.5. so ok, not totally relatable. but in my 3.5 experience, for fighter types basic attacks are your strongest feature. so it makes sense to hit with those as the first resort. and if it works, why try something different? as for the casters, they have the big guns, but they can only use the really powerful stuff once or twice per day. so they generally limit themselves to buff and support.
if, and only if, you encounter something that is more problematic, then you use the high level spell slots. and if even those fail, you start to get creative. the reason we use the same tactics 90% of times is that they work. it's more of a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

incidentally, i do believe that if a fight can be breezed through just by basic attacks, it's often not worth rolling dice for. it can better be narrated as "and you easily dispatch the puny foes", and move on with more interesting stuff. but then, it's hard to know which fight it will be. balacing a fight is always a lot of guesswork

[Cikomyr2]

OK, thank you for the explanation. I'm certainly not going to tell you what you should or shouldn't enjoy, but to me it just doesn't feel like a roleplaying game at that point, it feels like a tactical combat game. Which I know a lot of people enjoy, but it feels out of place in something where you're supposed to be playing an actual character rather than just moving miniatures about on a board. Each to their own I guess.

For me, the fact that we dont know what im dealing with and i cant use my character's in-universe immersion and observation to derive information about enemies that would be useful for their survival is what brings me out of immersion.

In real life, an experienced fighter would see how someone holds their sword. Whats their stance. How they move, where their attention are focused on. The little things that help jauge an opponent.

So maybe an experienced fighter knows what an enemy's AC is? A wizard would see the deep cunning that would help defend against some of their spells? A cleric would know which of the adversary looks weak-willed to their Command?

That sort of thing, that translates in "you are knowledgeable about the enemy".

If the DM wants to keep things hidden because it makes sense (monster deliberately try to look more impressive as a mean of intimidation. An assassin hiding his capabilities to look nonthreatening).

You know, it gives a measure of transparency that you can then play with. Rather than start with "so should i guess this orc is supposed to be a 7 hp nobody or hes a veteran warrior of 40 campaigns?". What about the next orc?

[Telok]

we did that? not in my experience.
if i have to pick something vaguely familiar in that, it's the "hit with basic until it falls"
wait, that clearly refers to 5e, while my experience is 3.5. so ok, not totally relatable...

Basically that last sentence. Its a D&D 4e & 5e thing where what a npc/monster is and does is unrelated to the description and type. For example, in most games and D&D 3.x size has a rules defined effect making bigger critters stronger and smaller critters more nimble. Players can use that to prepare tactics. Likewise in 3.x undead have specific traits & weaknesses that can be planned for or exploited.

Without that consistency describing a monster as "a huge hill giant zombie" doesn't actually mean much of anything because the words "huge" and "zombie" don't carry that information any more. You're now facing a bag of hit points with some attacks and any special abilities the GM or writers wanted to throw on. The "huge hill giant zombie" is just as likely to have a good dex save, resist fire damage, and have a 15' reach as it is to have a bad dex save, be vulnerable to fire, and have a 5' reach.

It wouldn't be as bad if it were just a few outlier critters that broke some guidelines. But the npc stats are so divorced from anything beyond hp/ac/dpr and there are so many unique mini-rules in the thousands of stat blocks, that many of the descriptions are as useful to the players as "a person in armor with a weapon". So much information is hidden from the players by the lack of consistency that you can't practically plan anything but the most generic tactics like "haste the fighter and spam damage".

[JNAProductions]

Basically that last sentence. Its a D&D 4e & 5e thing where what a npc/monster is and does is unrelated to the description and type. For example, in most games and D&D 3.x size has a rules defined effect making bigger critters stronger and smaller critters more nimble. Players can use that to prepare tactics. Likewise in 3.x undead have specific traits & weaknesses that can be planned for or exploited.

Without that consistency describing a monster as "a huge hill giant zombie" doesn't actually mean much of anything because the words "huge" and "zombie" don't carry that information any more. You're now facing a bag of hit points with some attacks and any special abilities the GM or writers wanted to throw on. The "huge hill giant zombie" is just as likely to have a good dex save, resist fire damage, and have a 15' reach as it is to have a bad dex save, be vulnerable to fire, and have a 5' reach.

It wouldn't be as bad if it were just a few outlier critters that broke some guidelines. But the npc stats are so divorced from anything beyond hp/ac/dpr and there are so many unique mini-rules in the thousands of stat blocks, that many of the descriptions are as useful to the players as "a person in armor with a weapon". So much information is hidden from the players by the lack of consistency that you can't practically plan anything but the most generic tactics like "haste the fighter and spam damage".

Do you have examples?

And I'd like monstrous examples, not humanoid ones, if possible. "A dude in armor and with a weapon" describes a 1st level Fighter and an 11th level Barbarian and a 20th level Cleric and a 5th level Bladesinger and a 17th level Swords Bard and... Need I go on?

[King of Nowhere]

"A dude in armor and with a weapon" describes a 1st level Fighter and an 11th level Barbarian and a 20th level Cleric and a 5th level Bladesinger and a 17th level Swords Bard and... Need I go on?

I must point out, though, that in the case of humanoids magic gear is generally a telltale sign. Magic weapons often glow, or have pulsating runes inscribed. plus there's ioun stones, and all the plethora of amulets and trinkets... even without identifying, you can have a passable idea of someone's gear power, which is linked to level.
sure, it could be a 1st level dude that inherited everything from his adventurer dad, or it could be a 20th level dude that just got hit by disjunction and is looking for replacement. but those are rare cases, you generally can tell.

[JNAProductions]

Okay-but that doesn’t tell you what their abilities are besides “Weak” or “Strong”.

Glowing sword could be any of those.
Ioun stone, any.
Magic armor, any.

[Telok]

Do you have examples?

And I'd like monstrous examples, not humanoid ones, if possible. "A dude in armor and with a weapon" describes a 1st level Fighter and an 11th level Barbarian and a 20th level Cleric and a 5th level Bladesinger and a 17th level Swords Bard and... Need I go on?
Dude, I'm just a player this edition. I can't tell a shardy-koi from a celestial foo from a... well hardly anything. Like we fought t-rex and zombie t-rex but the only difference was the zombie one occasionally spat out some minions. Couldn't tell the difference between fighting a dragon and a draco-lich, no noticable difference, barbarian was multi-round feared each time. Fought over a dozen different kinds of demons but that's all just "fire & poison don't work on these", no other real differences, and frankly those are such common resists we don't use those spells anyways. Lots of different shadowy spectral undead too, sometimes they phase, sometimes they drain, sometimes both, sometimes neither. Same with big boney undead, some poison, some teleport, some have auras, but nothing about their descriptions tells us anything and there's enough of them in the MMs (or perhaps the GM reskins like people keep saying to) that they all end up descriptively similar. Even when the GM shows us the pics from the books its meaningless because having or not magic sfx in the pic doesn't indicate anything, having or not having wings doesn't mean it can or can't fly, etc. Then we fought an ooze once that turned out to be a phasing spellcaster. No idea what was up with that or if it resisted or vulnerable to anything. Just beat the hp sack down because that's the only thing we know works.

People want to blame the GM but the same guy running Shadowrun, D&D 3.5, and Starfinder didn't have this problem. Its only with D&D 4e & 5e that we stopped planning and caring what we fought because we

[Witty Username]

Some unity of types could help this some.

For example, Undead coming with a pile of internally consistent stuff, helps undead comunicating ideas and players a bit more world interaction.

[JNAProductions]

Some unity of types could help this some.

For example, Undead coming with a pile of internally consistent stuff, helps undead comunicating ideas and players a bit more world interaction.

Like being immune to poison and often inflicting maximum HP drain?

[Witty Username]

Like being immune to poison and often inflicting maximum HP drain?
That and,
Not needing to eat, sleep or breathe, Immunity to necrotic damage. No decernible anatomy (feel bad things like sneak attack Immunity is probably good to stay out, but Immunity to physical effects like blindness, deafness, paralysis etc. could work for that.), Immunity to exhaustion.

3.5 types could mean alot about a creature right off the bat.

[Ignimortis]

Like being immune to poison and often inflicting maximum HP drain?

Like being immune to poison, fatigue, anything having to do with bodily reactions to stuff (sickened/nauseated/etc), negative energy healing them, positive energy dealing damage to them...

In short, way more commonality in abilities than whatever 5e proffers for its' creature types. That's something 3.5 did completely right as a concept, and, more importantly, 99% right as a final result, with some basic issues (undead seem to be immune to mind-affecting stuff regardless of having an INT score, which should be the actual criteria, that sort of thing). But if you see an undead in 3.5, you also know about their blanket immunities (unless you're like level 1 and nobody invested in Knowledge (Religion).

5e? Vampires are not immune or even resistant to poison. Neither are some specific zombie types, and some others are merely resistant. Positive energy does not damage undead specifically, it's on a spell-by-spell basis, and the most basic ones just do nothing. Negative energy/necrotic damage does not heal undead by default, either. There's basically no uniformity to creature types anymore.

[Cikomyr2]

I personally feel all living mortal creatures should be vulnerable to poison damage just to represent biochemistry explicitly designed to hurt them.

It also provides a nice balance to justify the number of stuff immune to it.

But to go back, having more information available to engage with rather than "here's someone, start swinging and finish your turn, others are waiting."

[Maryring]

As a DM of Pathfinder 1st ed primarily, I do not state the enemy's numerical bonuses outright, but I do give my players chances to learn more about a foe before they end up fighting them. Sense Motive, Knowledge and Perception checks can all help provide further insight into the foe. You're not going to know the numerical AC you have to beat, but if you have invested into knowing how your foe works, then you are going to know if you've got a greater than even chance to hit. If the foe looks particularly apt at some kind of combat style, and so on.

Of course, one advantage here over 5th is that there's only one mental save, so an expectation of what saves are good and bad can usually easily be discerned by a cursory glance.

But more importantly, I feel that not explicitly showing information gives an opportunity for my players to feel clever. There's a certain sense of enjoyment being derived from looking at a foe and assessing "this guy is probably vulnerable to Hold Person", trying that strategy, and then feeling a strong sense of satisfaction when they roll high, but are still held.

And that sense of satisfaction can only be achieved if there's a chance to be wrong. If you can see the entire lineup from the start, you don't feel clever for choosing Hold Person. You just know that the guy has a low will save, so you gotta hit the will save. You're not making a choice anymore, you're just performing first grade value comparisons.

[KorvinStarmast]

Maybe I wanna be a little bit surprised when the dragon breaks out a special breath weapon instead of just the standard fire? Idk. 5e gives some dragons two breath weapon options. (Metallic ones).

I do agree with OldTrees1's point about the characters' own abilities though, they should have a pretty clear idea of how much they can lift or how far they can jump. Players can figure that out, and I wish more players I DM'd for would bother to actually know what their characters can do.

I like how Solasta does it and Incorperated it into my games. After battle roll a relevant knowlege or survival check to increase your "Rank" of knowlege. you start off knowing nothing but as you pass checks you learn more after each encounter. First their average HP (I like rolling for every monster this just gives your players a baseline to think of what they will be around), then you learn their typical ac and saves, then you learn abilities and resistances at full knowlege. This is things you can learn through play but this would just be confirmation.Diablo (the original) did something like this. The first few times you battled a monster, the little box under them didn't show anything. After you had defeated a certain number of them (Doom Knights? )) their immunities would display when you moused over them.


A single-player CRPG is a very different beast. You have visual and auditory elements doing much of the work which, at the table, largely has to be done by imagination. Bingo. :smallsmile::smallsmile:

[OldTrees1]

Players can figure that out, and I wish more players I DM'd for would bother to actually know what their characters can do.

In 5E some of the player capabilities, that they "can figure out", require asking the GM. Jump distance is an example where a 5E player knows their minimum jump distance but their PC's capabilities for jumping are not transparent unless they ask the GM about how the GMs rules jumps beyond that minimum distance. In contrast BG3, usually*, gives you all the information up front.

I understand your desire for the players to A) know the minimum, and B) asking you for the rest, since they know it is not transparent by default.

The same holds for lifting, climbing, and a few other things in 5E. Players can figure it out, by looking up the minimum and then asking the GM a series of questions. As a GM, I prefer when the players ask those questions, but I also prefer the series of questions be shorter.

* On rare occasions you might hit some geometry that BG3 miscalculated.

[Dr.Samurai]

I agree with others that it makes sense for PCs to know some things but not others. However, I think some people blur the line between "will know how hard the enemy is to hit" with "will know the exact AC value of the enemy".

We're fighting fire giants. They are wearing plate armor and one has a shield. I know this guy is going to be relatively hard to hit. It doesn't matter if I know his AC is exactly 19, 20, or 21. I know it's higher than most, such as the frost giants we were fighting previously that wore hide armor with no shield.

When I'm playing, I don't particularly care what these exact values are. I tried grappling the frost giant jarl's wife in one encounter. I rolled high and she resisted the attempt. I tried to knock her prone and she resisted that as well. The monk tried to push her away and she made her Strength save. So I deduced after that single turn in the encounter that she had a very high Str mod and probably proficiency in Athletics and maybe Str saves. Exact values not needed.

I agree that the game changes into something different when all of these values are given up front, especially dice rolls. In one of my current games, it's PbP so players can see the DM rolls on the forum. So one player moved away and provoked three OAs. They saw that all 3 of the OAs would hit them, and that the combined damage would drop them to 0. A use of the Shield spell would prevent 1 of those attacks, but keep the character conscious at 3hp. They felt this was not worth the spell slot since on the enemy turn they would likely get hit and dropped to 0 anyways. This becomes less "players know how their abilities work" and more "players can see into the future" and "players can see the 0s and 1s and play the meta". Similarly, watching the Dungeon Dudes play has the same effect. Monty tells them upfront how many enemy attacks hit and at what total attack rolls. This is very generous and buffs reaction abilities considerably for those that have them. I don't see a need for it, and don't like the narrative impact.

[kyoryu]

I agree with others that it makes sense for PCs to know some things but not others. However, I think some people blur the line between "will know how hard the enemy is to hit" with "will know the exact AC value of the enemy".

We're fighting fire giants. They are wearing plate armor and one has a shield. I know this guy is going to be relatively hard to hit. It doesn't matter if I know his AC is exactly 19, 20, or 21. I know it's higher than most, such as the frost giants we were fighting previously that wore hide armor with no shield.

When I'm playing, I don't particularly care what these exact values are. I tried grappling the frost giant jarl's wife in one encounter. I rolled high and she resisted the attempt. I tried to knock her prone and she resisted that as well. The monk tried to push her away and she made her Strength save. So I deduced after that single turn in the encounter that she had a very high Str mod and probably proficiency in Athletics and maybe Str saves. Exact values not needed.

While this is true, I also don't see a huge level of value in obscuring that information. And I've often seen more issues with GMs trying to play cagey with exact values and give hints just not giving enough info.

IOW, to me the decision matrix is pretty simple. I don't see any harm in giving out the exact values, and it's a really convenient shortcut that bypasses any misunderstandings. So while they're not necessary (and I agree with that!) they're a good way to give players the info I actually do want them to have while not having to worry about miscommunications.

[KorvinStarmast]

In 5E some of the player capabilities, that they "can figure out", require asking the GM. Jump distance is an example where a 5E player knows their minimum jump distance but their PC's capabilities for jumping are not transparent unless they ask the GM about how the GMs rules jumps beyond that minimum distance. In contrast BG3, usually*, gives you all the information up front. That's an odd hill to chose to die on.


I understand your desire for the players to A) know the minimum, and B) asking you for the rest, since they know it is not transparent by default. I want them to know the basics of chapter 9, I want them to know their own PC top to bottom. If you are a level 7 monk, you need to know all about a monk that is in the PHB. (And if the sub class is in a different book, the Player needs to know that).
Then ask the DM about stuff that is unclear/confusing/novel.

Very few of the people who play in my games bother to put in the effort. Because I do, I find that frustrating.
Example: a guy I play with has a pseudodragon familiar. He basically doesn't use it unless I ask him if he is. Same guy, shadow sorcerer, finally tried to use his shadow doggie during a fight...at level 11. "Yeah, I forgot about that". A monk who plays for me consistently has to be reminded of how flurry of blows worked up until about level 9.. Then she got the hang of it.

I do have a few players who make the effort to know their stuff, and I love DMing for them.

One of the reasons I like to play in Phoenix's game so much is that all four of the players (me included) get into knowing what our characters can do...and trying to use all of the features, and trying stuff that isn't on the character sheet ... it's fun.

[King of Nowhere]

Players can figure that out, and I wish more players I DM'd for would bother to actually know what their characters can do.

that's a problem with some players being low effort. i had some of those myself, never find a fix beyond finding other players.
but really, if someone does not want to put in the effort to engage the numerical part of the game at least to a basic competence level (i mean, i had a player who after one year still did not know her saving throws), then d&d is probably not for them

[OldTrees1]

I want them to know the basics of chapter 9, I want them to know their own PC top to bottom. If you are a level 7 monk, you need to know all about a monk that is in the PHB. (And if the sub class is in a different book, the Player needs to know that).
Then ask the DM about stuff that is unclear/confusing/novel.

Very few of the people who play in my games bother to put in the effort. Because I do, I find that frustrating.
Example: a guy I play with has a pseudodragon familiar. He basically doesn't use it unless I ask him if he is. Same guy, shadow sorcerer, finally tried to use his shadow doggie during a fight...at level 11. "Yeah, I forgot about that". A monk who plays for me consistently has to be reminded of how flurry of blows worked up until about level 9.. Then she got the hang of it.

I do have a few players who make the effort to know their stuff, and I love DMing for them.

Yes, I understand and share this desire for players to know their character's capabilities. In cases where those capabilities are not transparent, I too appreciate and desire the players ask the GM so that the player can know their character's capabilities.

I also desire, and hope you can understand the desire, for more of the character capabilities to be transparent rather than opaque. You are right that players can figure the opaque stuff out by asking the GM. So when you quoted Biggus in order to reply to this preference of mine, I thought it reasonable to agree with your desire for players to know their character's capability and clarify my desire for transparency about character capabilities. Nobody needs to die on any hill if we choose peace and understanding.

[Vahnavoi]

Transparency is not vital, as long as there are strong indicators for how to progress in a game. For most game mechanics based on hidden information, accumulation of information itself is a progress tracker. This said, based on observing common complaints, a lot of modern games or at least game masters don't utilize hidden information efficiently. Largely because they aren't clear on what the gameplay task for the player is supposed to be.

It starts with the seemingly obvious: if your game involves numbers and dice, the expected core gameplay would be your players doing arithmetic and probability. If that's not what you want them to do, why are you bothering your players with numbers and dice? Figure out a non-numerical way to represent information and keep the numbers and dice out of their sight.

---

OldTrees1:

As a commentary on the discussion between you and KorvinStarmast, I consider all information a player can just ask from their game master to be transparent. Reason being, a game master is effectively serving as a player's external memory for all such cases. It's not much different from having the information written down. Opaque information is what a player has to figure out on their own, truly opaque information is things even the game master doesn't know.

[Dr.Samurai]

While this is true, I also don't see a huge level of value in obscuring that information.
I think it depends on what we're talking about.

I take more issue with letting players know what the monster has rolled on their attack rolls or saving throws, etc. because I do think it interferes with playing the game.

Saying "the monster has a +6 to hit" is less offensive to me than saying "the monster just hit you with all three multiattacks and the rolls are 23, 17, and 24".

"The monster just used 1 of its 3 Legendary Resistances" is also a different thing to "the monster makes its save".

I don't think players should feel entitled to this information, and I think it changes how the game is being played to give out this information, for the worse.

[Ignimortis]

I personally feel all living mortal creatures should be vulnerable to poison damage just to represent biochemistry explicitly designed to hurt them.

It also provides a nice balance to justify the number of stuff immune to it.

But to go back, having more information available to engage with rather than "here's someone, start swinging and finish your turn, others are waiting."
Well, some TTRPG systems tend to do that either through implicit knowledge if the backbone is there (i.e. 3.5) or by explicit "learn stuff about X" checks like PF2's Recall Knowledge is explicitly designed to do. Either approach is fine and has its' own benefits and downsides, although the former resonates better with me (every skeleton is likely vulnerable to being bashed with a mace, it's just common sense, innit?).

In 5e, you're mostly stuck with calculating to-hit by using your party's ACs as measuring sticks. And maybe seeing an ability cooldown d6 or d4 rolled by the GM sometimes.

[OldTrees1]

OldTrees1:

As a commentary on the discussion between you and KorvinStarmast, I consider all information a player can just ask from their game master to be transparent. Reason being, a game master is effectively serving as a player's external memory for all such cases. It's not much different from having the information written down. Opaque information is what a player has to figure out on their own, truly opaque information is things even the game master doesn't know.

Ah. I was using transparent/opaque slightly differently than you are. Thank you for pointing that out.

[Cikomyr2]

I just Want to reassert something important: even in the event the DM would give information, i dont think they HAVE to give perfect information.

I dont mind a DM telling me the duellist in front of me has an AC of 17, but he hides from me the Duellist has a Parry Reaction that gives him +3 to AC. Thats someone having a secret trick in battle that i did not expect.

Thats actually ***cool***. Things deliberately hidden should be hidden.

But if a wizard doesn't care that people knows he's a wizard, dont give the cagey stuff like "oh well thats a man without armor with a staff in the back". Theres a thousand cues someone living in a magical world would have to recognize a spellcaster (component pouches, focuses, flair of magic,.whatever). Then the one time an Arcane Trickster manages to sneak magic stuff on you, you get genuinely had. Or a warlock keeping a low profile.

[KorvinStarmast]

So when you quoted Biggus in order to reply {censored} multiquote! :smallfurious: Sorry about that.


"The monster just used 1 of its 3 Legendary Resistances" is also a different thing to "the monster makes its save". The latter is probably the way it was intended to work, but I won't swear to it. (I would have to ask Mearls).

I dont mind a DM telling me the duellist in front of me has an AC of 17, but he hides from me the Duellist has a Parry Reaction that gives him +3 to AC. Thats someone having a secret trick in battle that i did not expect.

Thats actually ***cool***. Things deliberately hidden should be hidden. yes.

Or a warlock keeping a low profile. My firest ever Warlock in this edition was an Archfey/chain whose background was Entertainer.
By day, he was the minstrel, bard, stand up comedian. By night, he fought crime (or adventured, whatever). His sprite stayted invisible unless it was necessary not to be.

[OldTrees1]

{censored} multiquote! :smallfurious: Sorry about that.
Nothing to be sorry about. We all know the rare frustrations. (this week the forum multiquote kept asking if I wanted to restore an old post)

[King of Nowhere]

by the way, something else impacting the transparency or perceived lack of consistency is: do you fight the same type of enemies often?

because I don't like introducing a crapton of worldbuilding elements that are encountered once and are quickly forgotten afterwards, so I often tend to use the same kind of enemies, and this leads to players learning them. but in many cases the dm will look to make encounters by pulling some appropriately CRed creature from a manual, only for that creature to never being seen again.
and this can encourage the perception of inconsistency

[Telok]

by the way, something else impacting the transparency or perceived lack of consistency is: do you fight the same type of enemies often?

.... but in many cases the dm will look to make encounters by pulling some appropriately CRed creature from a manual, only for that creature to never being seen again.
and this can encourage the perception of inconsistency

Yeah. That's a thing. I build a monster bible for my campains of about 100 or so critters & npcs and use that for anyone who isn't a unique individual. Granted the baseline "animal" and "generic people" are templates with minor variations, it just fits in barely noticable differences between elf and tau "generic mall-cop". The players aren't going to be shocked by anything I call "<species> mall-cop with a <gun type>" suddenly sporting a death aura and adding +10 poison damage to everything.

On the other hand having dealt in D&D with four or five different types of wraith/shadow-like undead things with totally different abilities & mechanics, a dozen different humanoids in plate armor with a 2-handed sword or sword & shield thats anything from a human guard to a celestial to a construct to a vampire spellcaster, and innumerable variations of "a lizard-faced person with scales & claws" thats anything from a demon to a hopped up alligator to a mini-dragon...

Yeah. There can be an issue with picking out cr appropriate critters from a huge database or set of monster manuals. Eventually you can get lots of things that are descriptively or visually similar. Then, if they're all mechanically quite different because there aren't consistent sets of critter & ability building guidelines, the players end up having no expectation that any description maps to any capabilities. If every critter becomes "expect anything" the players can't plan except in the most super generic terms. And that led our group to all monsters & npcs being bags of hit points with what feels like random special abilities thrown in.

[NichG]

I just Want to reassert something important: even in the event the DM would give information, i dont think they HAVE to give perfect information.

I dont mind a DM telling me the duellist in front of me has an AC of 17, but he hides from me the Duellist has a Parry Reaction that gives him +3 to AC. Thats someone having a secret trick in battle that i did not expect.

Thats actually ***cool***. Things deliberately hidden should be hidden.

But if a wizard doesn't care that people knows he's a wizard, dont give the cagey stuff like "oh well thats a man without armor with a staff in the back". Theres a thousand cues someone living in a magical world would have to recognize a spellcaster (component pouches, focuses, flair of magic,.whatever). Then the one time an Arcane Trickster manages to sneak magic stuff on you, you get genuinely had. Or a warlock keeping a low profile.

I'd generalize this and say:

Hidden information can lead to awesome gameplay, but it doesn't do that just by virtue of being hidden. The fact that a thing is hidden has to be incorporated in an intentional manner in order to extract that value - that means things like making finding the information out an active part of play (and not just doing mental math), making the hiding or revealing of information a meaningful decision for characters (like in Amber Diceless where you basically have static rankings of who would win/lose in different kinds of conflicts and making sure people don't know exactly where you are in that ranking is an important element of strategy), having mysteries that can be figured out or revealed and where doing so is impactful, etc.

IMO, in the absence of active, intentional uses of the fact that some particular information is hidden, the good feelings associated with informed decision making outweigh the passive benefits from the information being hidden.

So e.g. 'the AC of this enemy is hidden' or 'the elemental resistances of this enemy are hidden' aren't particularly interesting on their own. But if you have a monster which has a very exotic vulnerability, it could be very effective gameplay for that to be hidden when there are leads and interviews and other possible ways for the players to choose to actively investigate that vulnerability in advance of fighting it.

And on the fence, something like 'there's a DC 25 trap somewhere on the battlefield but you have to hit the Search check to actually know that IC' could be thwarting a potential active use of hidden information, or it could be good transparency, but that would depend on what the fight is, what the trap is, and how it's being used by whoever put it there. If part of the fight is asymmetric information between the sides - one side knows about it, the other side doesn't - then that information being hidden is serving an important purpose and could be interacted with in various ways. If its just a random room of a dungeon and the trap isn't really going to be lethal but just consume some resources, it could actually be more interesting to communicate to the players 'there's some bloodstains here - probably a trap but you can't immediately tell how it triggers or what it does'. Because the 'by the way, take 23 damage because you forgot to search' sequence of play isn't really all that interactive.

[kyoryu]

I just Want to reassert something important: even in the event the DM would give information, i dont think they HAVE to give perfect information.

I dont mind a DM telling me the duellist in front of me has an AC of 17, but he hides from me the Duellist has a Parry Reaction that gives him +3 to AC. Thats someone having a secret trick in battle that i did not expect.

Thats actually ***cool***. Things deliberately hidden should be hidden.

But if a wizard doesn't care that people knows he's a wizard, dont give the cagey stuff like "oh well thats a man without armor with a staff in the back". Theres a thousand cues someone living in a magical world would have to recognize a spellcaster (component pouches, focuses, flair of magic,.whatever). Then the one time an Arcane Trickster manages to sneak magic stuff on you, you get genuinely had. Or a warlock keeping a low profile.

Those are good examples. There are times when it does make sense to deliberately hide something, especially when it's something that the character themselves would and could conceal.

I guess a more accurate take on my stance is something like "be transparent by default. Hide information for effect, but generally do so only when the information is in some way being deliberately concealed". That's still more weak than I'd actually word it, but the idea is that by default, things like AC, HP, etc. should be available info, and only hide things that have are being held "in reserve".

Even in those cases, though, i think it's more interesting to reveal the information early, and have the challenge be "how do we deal with this?" rather than "how do we figure the thing out?" Trolls and fire is the classic example - going through every attack type to figure out what might work is, to me, kinda boring. Figuring out how to coordinate attacks from different characters to best handle the troll vulnerabilities? That's a lot more interesting. And revealing it removes any metagaming concerns as well as the awkward "when have we done enough to cash in on the info we already know OOC" minigame, which i just find tedious.

[Cikomyr2]

Those are good examples. There are times when it does make sense to deliberately hide something, especially when it's something that the character themselves would and could conceal.

I guess a more accurate take on my stance is something like "be transparent by default. Hide information for effect, but generally do so only when the information is in some way being deliberately concealed". That's still more weak than I'd actually word it, but the idea is that by default, things like AC, HP, etc. should be available info, and only hide things that have are being held "in reserve".

Even in those cases, though, i think it's more interesting to reveal the information early, and have the challenge be "how do we deal with this?" rather than "how do we figure the thing out?" Trolls and fire is the classic example - going through every attack type to figure out what might work is, to me, kinda boring. Figuring out how to coordinate attacks from different characters to best handle the troll vulnerabilities? That's a lot more interesting. And revealing it removes any metagaming concerns as well as the awkward "when have we done enough to cash in on the info we already know OOC" minigame, which i just find tedious.

Exactly! Known mechanics and numbers are things the players can engage and coordinate over. Unknowns are things players will probe and paranoid over.

****. Even cheating sometimes can be fun. Imagine if there was a big encounter set in a hallway, and the DM outright tell the player "there are 4 traps hidden around this area, could do from 10 to 80 damage". It would make the encounter more suspenseful as some players may rush ahead with the dread of triggering the traps.

I am reminded of Alfred Hitchcock's words about 5 minute or boredom followed by being startled, vs 5 minutes of dread. If you telegraph to your players when bad **** are coming their way, they will engage with you and actually play scared.

If you just sneak damage on to them because they didnt ask questions, they will be surprised and possibly frustrated.

[LibraryOgre]

On transparency of HP, one thing I appreciated from 4e was "Bloodied", a term which means "Half or less HP". It was a useful descriptor without necessarily talking about numbers of HP (which might be hidden from players), without leaving them perfectly fine until they were dead.

[gatorized]

Since I roll in the open for everything, there's a log of every roll in the game, and a trait's rank directly determines the number of dice rolled, the players learn more about a creature every time it does anything, including defending. I also allow them to learn more info about creatures with an appropriate ability or talent roll, just like for anything else in the world. And that's not even counting stuff like Weakness Detection, Attuned, etc

[Vogie]

One of the things I love about PF2e is the codification of the "Recall Knowledge" action. It gives the players the ability to roll knowledge-based skill checks to see that information you want to be transparent, while also giving you the choice of not announcing everything for every fight. Successful Recall Knowledges can allow the players to find out what they are immune or resistant to, what things it's vulnerable or weak to - you can even reveal what their lowest DC is. It's often used by spellcasters because they have the ability to use different spells and flex towards the weaknesses - If the lowest is the Reflex, then I will use this and won't use this, for example. Once that information is out there, anyone can use it - "Oh, my wizard found out it has a low will save... maybe I'll try Demoralizing it before I attack this turn to give it the Frightened condition"


On transparency of HP, one thing I appreciated from 4e was "Bloodied", a term which means "Half or less HP". It was a useful descriptor without necessarily talking about numbers of HP (which might be hidden from players), without leaving them perfectly fine until they were dead.

I like this as well. You can use whatever you like - I like splitting it out to the Diablo setup 4 where above 80% hp is "Healthy" and below 50% is "injured". As a DM, once you include these types of things in your normal descriptions, you can then iterate on them. The monster only acts like this when it's healthy, then it acts like that. The tactics or spells might change when they're bloodied. I also include the "barely hanging on" condition trait if they are at or under 10 hp.

[Psyren]

One of the things I love about PF2e is the codification of the "Recall Knowledge" action. It gives the players the ability to roll knowledge-based skill checks to see that information you want to be transparent, while also giving you the choice of not announcing everything for every fight. Successful Recall Knowledges can allow the players to find out what they are immune or resistant to, what things it's vulnerable or weak to - you can even reveal what their lowest DC is. It's often used by spellcasters because they have the ability to use different spells and flex towards the weaknesses - If the lowest is the Reflex, then I will use this and won't use this, for example. Once that information is out there, anyone can use it - "Oh, my wizard found out it has a low will save... maybe I'll try Demoralizing it before I attack this turn to give it the Frightened condition"

5.5e is adding this sort of thing via the new Study Action.


I like this as well. You can use whatever you like - I like splitting it out to the Diablo setup 4 where above 80% hp is "Healthy" and below 50% is "injured". As a DM, once you include these types of things in your normal descriptions, you can then iterate on them. The monster only acts like this when it's healthy, then it acts like that. The tactics or spells might change when they're bloodied. I also include the "barely hanging on" condition trait if they are at or under 10 hp.

While I wouldn't mind the "bloodied" condition coming back, I'm not sure it makes sense for every monster either, so I can see why they didn't make it a universal thing. If they brought it back I wouldn't complain though.

[Maryring]

One of the things I love about PF2e is the codification of the "Recall Knowledge" action. It gives the players the ability to roll knowledge-based skill checks to see that information you want to be transparent, while also giving you the choice of not announcing everything for every fight. Successful Recall Knowledges can allow the players to find out what they are immune or resistant to, what things it's vulnerable or weak to - you can even reveal what their lowest DC is. It's often used by spellcasters because they have the ability to use different spells and flex towards the weaknesses - If the lowest is the Reflex, then I will use this and won't use this, for example. Once that information is out there, anyone can use it - "Oh, my wizard found out it has a low will save... maybe I'll try Demoralizing it before I attack this turn to give it the Frightened condition"

As someone who hasn't touched PF2e at all, how is "Recall Knowledge" different from the PF1e Knowledge Checks? At least in my games, I almost always allow a specific knowledge check already to identify key aspects of a foe. And that's only "almost always" because sometimes sense motive is better.

[Beelzebub1111]

As someone who hasn't touched PF2e at all, how is "Recall Knowledge" different from the PF1e Knowledge Checks? At least in my games, I almost always allow a specific knowledge check already to identify key aspects of a foe. And that's only "almost always" because sometimes sense motive is better.

It's better codified as to what you can learn (although it could do with more specific examples in my opinion) and it works within the action economy. It's meant to learn specific meta information like: WEaknesses and Resistances, Best and Worst Saves, Specific abilities like attack of oppurtunity.

[Maryring]

Ah. Thanks for the answer. It sounds a bit like what I'm already using, so not something to search out and cri.. err, respectfully study and learn from. But it's good to see the system made clearer.

[Ignimortis]

It's better codified as to what you can learn (although it could do with more specific examples in my opinion) and it works within the action economy. It's meant to learn specific meta information like: WEaknesses and Resistances, Best and Worst Saves, Specific abilities like attack of oppurtunity.

IIRC, this is actually just a common houserule. RAW, it only grants you "some useful information" as determined by the DM.

[ciopo]

IIRC, this is actually just a common houserule. RAW, it only grants you "some useful information" as determined by the DM.

Oh yeah, the "useful information", the kind of description that prompts me to ask leading questions such as "does my character know that [some information that I, the player, know]"

in other words, snark aside, I find that obfuscating mechanically relevant information ( example : lycanthropes and alleged vulnerability to silver weapons ), even when using the rules-appropriate, results in an increase in metagaming that information, and then that awkwardness of wasting turns doing something ineffective on purpose, or not wasting turns doing somethign ineffective on purpose, but having the awkwardness of acting on information you haven't been esplicitly been told, but your character should have known due to high knowledge result.

I.E., if I make a good knowledge roll about the werewolf or whatever, and you don't tell me "you should use silver weapons", I will use silver weapons all the same, If I get questioned about it, I would probably snark about "well, since I know (whatever fluff things I got told about weres just some minutes ago), why wouldn't I know about (tactically relevant info about weres) ?


So, yeah, I'm on camp transparency :)

[Beelzebub1111]

Oh yeah, the "useful information", the kind of description that prompts me to ask leading questions such as "does my character know that [some information that I, the player, know]"

in other words, snark aside, I find that obfuscating mechanically relevant information ( example : lycanthropes and alleged vulnerability to silver weapons ), even when using the rules-appropriate, results in an increase in metagaming that information, and then that awkwardness of wasting turns doing something ineffective on purpose, or not wasting turns doing somethign ineffective on purpose, but having the awkwardness of acting on information you haven't been esplicitly been told, but your character should have known due to high knowledge result.

I.E., if I make a good knowledge roll about the werewolf or whatever, and you don't tell me "you should use silver weapons", I will use silver weapons all the same, If I get questioned about it, I would probably snark about "well, since I know (whatever fluff things I got told about weres just some minutes ago), why wouldn't I know about (tactically relevant info about weres) ?


So, yeah, I'm on camp transparency :)
I allow that sort of meta information. If I said "Werewolf" I assume that comes with the knowledge of what a werewolf is in general. A knowledge check would tell you whether it's a weakness to silver or a resistance to non-silver. I would probably throw on a little extra information like to be careful about its bite since that's the part that spreads the curse. Save your nimble dodge for that attack.

If I only describe him as a snarling feral man in a loincloth surrounded by wild dogs, the knowledge check might tell you that he's showing telltale signs of lycanthropy and that they are weak to silver. If the players assume he's a werewolf beforehand and use silver, good for them they picked up on the hints themselves, and if it turns out to just be a guy so be it.

Same with trolls. If I say troll, I assume you have any meta information related to trolls, if you want more specifics: roll for Recall Knowledge.

[Ignimortis]

Oh yeah, the "useful information", the kind of description that prompts me to ask leading questions such as "does my character know that [some information that I, the player, know]"

in other words, snark aside, I find that obfuscating mechanically relevant information ( example : lycanthropes and alleged vulnerability to silver weapons ), even when using the rules-appropriate, results in an increase in metagaming that information, and then that awkwardness of wasting turns doing something ineffective on purpose, or not wasting turns doing somethign ineffective on purpose, but having the awkwardness of acting on information you haven't been esplicitly been told, but your character should have known due to high knowledge result.

I.E., if I make a good knowledge roll about the werewolf or whatever, and you don't tell me "you should use silver weapons", I will use silver weapons all the same, If I get questioned about it, I would probably snark about "well, since I know (whatever fluff things I got told about weres just some minutes ago), why wouldn't I know about (tactically relevant info about weres) ?

So, yeah, I'm on camp transparency :)
And that is a way of using this rule. Doesn't change the fact that RAW it's as useful or useless as the GM makes it, and only now they've gotten around to fixing it with the new core books to, well, the general reading many people use of "make a check, get to ask questions about AC, useful abilities, weaknesses and so forth". But right now, per PF2.0, it is about as useful (or perhaps even less so) as using knowledge skills on targets was in PF1.

[Brookshw]

I havent tried the Honor difficulty mode, so please forgive me if it completely wrecks my arguments.

I was just thinking of the degree of transparency in Baldur's Gate 3 actually making the game more fun. You know how many HP enemies have. You know their saves, you know their AC. The game outright tells you the to hit % or the likelihood someone will make their saving throw, allowing you to approach the game with more knowledge.

And i know all dnd game i played, the GM wouldnt tell us monsters' stats, the idea being that you wouldn't know an enemy AC or saving throws or HPs. Part of the fun is "figuring these things", a paradigm i never challenged until i had such a great time playing with the same ruleset, just transparent.

Do you have an opinion? Have you experienced better or worse tabletop experienced when the stats are freely shared?

I have zero interest and gain no value from reducing a game of creativity, fantasy, an imagination, down to a strategy guide level. No thanks, not interested, will not run my tables that way.

[Cikomyr2]

I have zero interest and gain no value from reducing a game of creativity, fantasy, an imagination, down to a strategy guide level. No thanks, not interested, will not run my tables that way.

I dont think you understand the point, but you do you!

[NeptunianOM]

I have played & DMed many games where HP & AC were open knowledge, so that was not that interesting to me. What really interested me was how the DC for every skill was known before you rolled the dice. I found that to be so liberating and interesting from the player's side because, for the most part, DCs are not public knowledge. The DM just says, "Give me a DEX Save" or "Make an Arcana Check". As a player, I really liked having that knowledge. I will try to implement open DCs as a regular aspect of DMing 5E

[kyoryu]

I have played & DMed many games where HP & AC were open knowledge, so that was not that interesting to me. What really interested me was how the DC for every skill was known before you rolled the dice. I found that to be so liberating and interesting from the player's side because, for the most part, DCs are not public knowledge. The DM just says, "Give me a DEX Save" or "Make an Arcana Check". As a player, I really liked having that knowledge. I will try to implement open DCs as a regular aspect of DMing 5E

I don't know why that's not more generally accepted. For the most part, when you attempt things, you know roughly how difficult they are. If I'm jumping across something, I can see how far it is, and what the launch and landing areas are like. If I were to pick a lock, I could tell if it was a cheap dollar store lock or a high-grade security lock (especially if I'm an expert or even really competent in the field).

You could talk about hidden info, like "the tree looks easy to climb, but you don't know about the brittle branches" or "the lock looks easy, but it's rusted". Arguably, that's part of what the dice roll is for.

And it makes the decision-making process for players so much more interesting, too. I apply this to just about every game I run. I really see no downsides.

[Satinavian]

I don't need the open DCs for most knowledge checks or awareness checks or the like. They usually don't come with a cost for an attempt or a risk for failure that is worse than not rolling.

For most things where the decision to attempt or not attempt is meaningful, the DC should be known.

[diplomancer]

I have played & DMed many games where HP & AC were open knowledge, so that was not that interesting to me. What really interested me was how the DC for every skill was known before you rolled the dice. I found that to be so liberating and interesting from the player's side because, for the most part, DCs are not public knowledge. The DM just says, "Give me a DEX Save" or "Make an Arcana Check". As a player, I really liked having that knowledge. I will try to implement open DCs as a regular aspect of DMing 5E

The best thing about open DCs is that they actually force DMs to determine a DC before the die is rolled. I see so often "give me an x check", you roll the die, and the DM goes like "well, such and such happened".

And the worst part of this is that, again in my experience, this makes the number rolled more important than the modifiers. If you roll a 7 and you have a +6 the DM might describe a worse outcome than if you rolled a 12 with +0.

[icefractal]

I have played & DMed many games where HP & AC were open knowledge, so that was not that interesting to me. What really interested me was how the DC for every skill was known before you rolled the dice. I found that to be so liberating and interesting from the player's side because, for the most part, DCs are not public knowledge. The DM just says, "Give me a DEX Save" or "Make an Arcana Check". As a player, I really liked having that knowledge. I will try to implement open DCs as a regular aspect of DMing 5EI'm with you on that! It's a big reason I like the 3E skill system better than the 4E or 5E ones (despite largely agreeing with the skill consolidation that they do) - 3E establishes a whole baseline of known DCs.

And as diplomancer mentions, pre-setting DCs both keeps the GM honest and conveys that honesty to the players. And FWIW, I would call this an honesty thing, not a "rules vs rulings" thing - deciding each DC on the fly just before anyone rolls is "rulings over rules", deciding it after someone rolls, based on the roll, is making the check secretly meaningless but pretending it matters.

[kyoryu]

And as diplomancer mentions, pre-setting DCs both keeps the GM honest and conveys that honesty to the players. And FWIW, I would call this an honesty thing, not a "rules vs rulings" thing - deciding each DC on the fly just before anyone rolls is "rulings over rules", deciding it after someone rolls, based on the roll, is making the check secretly meaningless but pretending it matters.

In most rules-light games, you can't really have preset difficulties. What you generally have is a well-understood set of difficulty targets for calibration, and generally a culture of announcing the opposition before the roll.

This is made easier because the numbers in most games don't scale like they would in D&D.

But, yeah, supporting you that it's not a "rules over rulings" thing at all. Transparency can be in place either way.

[Cikomyr2]

Slight tangent, but to me one big problem is that certain DM (and players) cannot handle plain success/failure outcome for certain situation. They ask for a die roll and then cannot handle when it doesnt go their way.

If the story absolutely, 100% depends on your players finding a piece of paper, no amount of natural 1 critical fail on your investigation roll should make you miss it. In fact, why even make your PC do the roll?

Alternatively, if something is outright ludicrous and impossible, why hint that a nat 20 would succeed? Why allow the roll to happen if you do NOT want this to happen, period?

[kyoryu]

Slight tangent, but to me one big problem is that certain DM (and players) cannot handle plain success/failure outcome for certain situation. They ask for a die roll and then cannot handle when it doesnt go their way.

If the story absolutely, 100% depends on your players finding a piece of paper, no amount of natural 1 critical fail on your investigation roll should make you miss it. In fact, why even make your PC do the roll?

Alternatively, if something is outright ludicrous and impossible, why hint that a nat 20 would succeed? Why allow the roll to happen if you do NOT want this to happen, period?

The general advice from narrative games is "don't do that". If you need to roll on something that must/should succeed, then make the roll about something besides success. Okay, you'll find the clue. The question is whether you find it before the police show up or not.

This can be simulated with more atomic actions by allowing retries, but having each one take some amount of time. I generally prefer single rolls, as people are bad at combinatorial math (myself included)