Knowing the Numbers

[obryn]

Alright, so a recent thread had this statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Gildedragon]

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

[NichG]

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

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

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

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

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

[The Grue]

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

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

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

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

[Rhynn]

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

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

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

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

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

[jedipotter]

Most of the time, its a lot of extra work to conceal the numbers from the players and there's very little actual gain.

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

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

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

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

[Eisenheim]

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

[Thrudd]

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

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

[Jay R]

I don't tell them what the AC is, but my method helps them figure it out.

We're playing 2E:

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

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

[Eisenheim]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Slipperychicken]

It they know the DC is 20, and they only have a +2, they won't even try.

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

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

[Thrudd]

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

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

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

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

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

[Pex]

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

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

[jaydubs]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jedipotter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spoiler: Example

Show

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

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

[Eisenheim]

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

[NichG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SiuiS]

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

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

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

[Jay R]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[NichG]

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

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

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

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

[Thrudd]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ravens_cry]

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

[TuggyNE]

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

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

[Knaight]

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

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

[Ravens_cry]

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

Eh, computer games generally (generally) hide the numbers, at least to a degree, with flashy graphics and sound effects, so I don't see why we can't use narrative description to do the same thing. It's a little more work, though some mental mad libbing can help, but it can be rewarding for immersion. Sure, give them the numbers to a degree, I'd personally hate it if a DM didn't tell me how much damage I took in raw number form and I, as a player, would prefer to roll my own damage, but add the description as well, and keep what numbers you can to yourself. Besides, it gives you an extra emotional leverage for the player. Numbers for most of us just don't have the impact a good description can.

[Knaight]

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

The description and the number are hardly mutually exclusive.

[Ravens_cry]

The description and the number are hardly mutually exclusive.

Never said they were. In fact, I said just the opposite. but the idea that a descriptive play by play is too much work rather implies that combat and other active description should be kept to a minimum.

[Knaight]

Never said they were. In fact, I said just the opposite. but the idea that a descriptive play by play is too much work rather implies that description should be kept to a minimum.

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

[Ravens_cry]

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

If we only did what was 'necessary', we'd be reduced to rolling strange (or not) dice and getting to roll different dice (maybe) if we got more (or less) than a certain number. I know you don't mean to quite that extent, but even then it's a less rich experience all around in my opinion.

[lunar2]

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

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