GMing: Transparency and Immersion

[gizmo33]

I think the recommended course here is already established in the 4E DMG (I don't have the book right now). IIRC it says that the players should be aware of the numbers. I would assume that the powers that use this concept (like Shield) were balanced with the others. If you, as a DM, change the basic mechanics of this, it affects the usefulness of the power in a way that was not intended by the designer (assuming (1) that what I recall about the DMG is true and (2) that the designer kept this in mind when designing the power.) In any case, if the DMG (or PHB for that matter) wasn't clear on this it should have been because it's a pretty significant issue mechanically.

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by gizmo33

I think the recommended course here is already established in the 4E DMG (I don't have the book right now). IIRC it says that the players should be aware of the numbers. I would assume that the powers that use this concept (like Shield) were balanced with the others. If you, as a DM, change the basic mechanics of this, it affects the usefulness of the power in a way that was not intended by the designer (assuming (1) that what I recall about the DMG is true and (2) that the designer kept this in mind when designing the power.) In any case, if the DMG (or PHB for that matter) wasn't clear on this it should have been because it's a pretty significant issue mechanically.

I don't have my DMG in front of me either, but if I recall correctly the suggestion about making the numbers available to the players is for beginners (DMs and players alike) and for vets just transitioning to 4E. I don't think it is intended to suggest that the game is to be run like this indefinitely.

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by Reynard

Lots of good stuff by Reynard

I'm with you- I prefer immersion over transparency, both as a player and a DM. For a period of about 12 years, I ran a regular 2e D&D game where the players had NO NUMBERS at all. No ability scores, AC, HP, THAC0, saves....nothing. At first, it was kind of a shock to them, but we were trying it as an experiment to see if it could get one of the guys from powergaming quite so badly...and it did! Later, the players told me the loved not having to keep track of the numbers, and it allowed them to see the world through their character's eyes more than as a game. To this day, they still say its the best campaign they have ever played in. We still play that game once a year or so, when we can get everybody together from around the country again.

I'm running two 4e games right now- one by the book, and one immersive. I was a little worried that 4e's powers element might make it hard to do immersively, but so far it hasn't been a problem. Players still know the effects of a power and how much damage it does relatively speaking, but don't have the numbers or fiddley bits in front of them. I don't state DCs, ACs, defenses, hit point damage, etc- the players don't know the numbers. There are a few little hiccups since 4e is a more gamist system, but nothing that can't be handled pretty easily (healing surges mainly). I'm running the game for some people completely new to RPGs (and two guys who are gamer veterans and who were in the 2e game referenced above), and so far they are loving it.

This isn't an edition wars statement at all, but I never could run an immersion, numberless game like this in 3e. Character build, synergies, buff spells, and items were so important that it quickly taxed my ability to keep up with it all. The players didn't like it because they felt my attention was divided in too many ways, and it was stressful to DM. 3e is a game that requires a high degree of transparency, and from my experiences as both a player and DM, I found deep immersion almost impossible with it.

Originally Posted by The Shaman

I'll first narrate my character's actions ("I'll get up off the ground, run for the wall and dive behind it . . . ") then clarify the mechanics if necessary (". . . so that's a move action to rise from prone, a move action to reach the wall, and a free action to drop prone again.").

I like to game the system - exploit mechanical advantages provided in the rules - but I think describing those actions in such a way as to set the scene is important to enjoying the experience around the table.

Think mechanically, narrate immersively, perhaps?

Yep, thats what I do as well when playing and DMing. I also encourage my players do this when performing actions, using powers, etc- and if they come up with something really clever or creative, they get a bonus to the roll or get some special effect in addition to their attempted action. Conversely, if they try to use the same trick or description over and over on the same enemy, I might give a small (-1 or -2) penalty since the enemy is expecting it.

[Aus_Snow]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

3e is a game that requires a high degree of transparency, and from my experiences as both a player and DM, I found deep immersion almost impossible with it.

(emphasis mine)

Not at all, IME. Sucks that immersion didn't work out to be achievable for you, but it certainly *is* achievable, as my experiences and those of many other DMs and players of 3e/d20 have confirmed.

Note: As per your own post, this is absolutely not an 'edition wars' post. I have no doubt in my mind, for example, that 4e does not disallow immersion either, as I'm sure your own experiences and those of many others would show.

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow

(emphasis mine)

Not at all, IME. Sucks that immersion didn't work out to be achievable for you, but it certainly *is* achievable, as my experiences and those of many other DMs and players of 3e/d20 have confirmed.

Note: As per your own post, this is absolutely not an 'edition wars' post. I have no doubt in my mind, for example, that 4e does not disallow immersion either, as I'm sure your own experiences and those of many others would show.

Exactly. Different people have different expectations from a game, and different strengths. My players tended to focus on builds a lot in 3e, and its hard to be build-centric and immersive at the same time. To challenge their builds, I had to keep on top of character abilities and builds, and create monsters that either catered to or countered those builds to make a satisfying experience for my players. I also found the fiddly bits of 3e harder to keep up with and straight during preparation and play. To me, it felt like I was following a formula, which drained a lot of enthusiasm from me, and my players. We did try the "numberless" game with 3e for about 3 levels (10 total sessions), and we all finally decided it wasn't a satisfying experience.

Despite some weirdness in 4e (like healing surges), my group and I find it far more immersive. I really like the hands-free and non-formulaic attitude of 4e- thats what gets me creative juices flowing. Builds aren't nearly as important, so my players can just decide on what looks fun for them to play and try, and not worry about a gimped character in a few levels. I'm also more excited about running and playing D&D 4e than I have been any game in a long time, and I think my players pick up on that.

I think the ability for immersion is strongly correlated with the enthusiasm and how much work the DM wants to put into his game. If you aren't excited about your game, your players won't be either, and it won't be immersive. If you are excited about your game, this infects the players too, and they'll really throw themselves into their characters with joy. System doesn't determine immersiveness- the chemistry of the people playing and their excitement do.

[thedungeondelver]

"How many Hit Dice does it have? What's it's AC? I want to know because somehow this scrawny runt in the rusted armor is kicking my ass and I can't seem to hit him at all."

I've had variations on this phrase thrown at me time and again and they all make me grind my teeth. I am keeping track of the numbers, thanks. I know who needs what to hit or be hit. I am under no obligation to show you my game notes, the module text, or any such nonsense. If you're fighting brontosauruses as outlined in the MONSTER MANUAL and you've carved through a pack of them*, and suddenly the fourth one breaths fire, regenerates all lost hit points, and begins using multiple spheres of annihilation against the party, then yeah, things have changed and maybe you'd have a right to say "Wait a damn minute you told us those were brontos..."

Maybe.

But no, no you don't get to know right off the bat how the numbers crunch. I mean if you were playing WARHAMMER FANTASY BATTLES and you asked your opponent "Let me see your Magic Cards, I want to know what you drew so I can use effective counterspells and cancel you out" or "Hey, are you going to use your night goblin fanatics against my cavalry? Just let me know so I know how to use some command points..." you'd get laughed out of the tournament.

*=if your party is fighting multiple brontosauruses and winning in AD&D then you have got a truly bad-assed party!

[Aus_Snow]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

I think the ability for immersion is strongly correlated with the enthusiasm and how much work the DM wants to put into his game. If you aren't excited about your game, your players won't be either, and it won't be immersive. If you are excited about your game, this infects the players too, and they'll really throw themselves into their characters with joy. System doesn't determine immersiveness- the chemistry of the people playing and their excitement do.

Heh, got me there. I'm definitely an enthusiastic DM. I love it.

But yeah, you're right. Maybe there are some systems that inhibit immersion, but I've yet to try one.

[MerricB]

I sort of fall between the camps; my general approach to DMing is to keep the target numbers hidden (perhaps with a little help in the mode of "you think it'll be easy/hard"). However...

...after two or three rounds of combat, I tend to just tell the PCs the defenses they need to hit. It's easier that way, and - by then - I think their characters should have a good idea of what is going on. It speeds things up, and allows them to make informed tactical decisions.

I feel that transparency - in the long run - doesn't really help or hinder immersion. That relies on other factors.

Cheers!

[NilesB]

In my play, I find a lack of transparency to destroy immersion. It always makes me more aware of how much information about the scene my character has but I don't.

[Toben the Many]

Originally Posted by NilesB

In my play, I find a lack of transparency to destroy immersion. It always makes me more aware of how much information about the scene my character has but I don't.

I agree.

The OP is interesting, and on the surface I would normally agree. However, as I read it, I found myself disagreeing more and more. I couldn't figure out why until I went and thought about it.

If my DM gives me the cold, hard numbers, what normally happens is I quickly make my decision, and then make my roll. If my DM basically says, "Roll and find out," I suddenly find myself stopping everything and then weighing my choice more carefully. I start thinking a lot more about the consequences of my actions.

So, why to I stop? Because with a hard number, I can usually tell within just a moment if my ability to do something is generally favorable or not. So, it quickly becomes a decision of "Yeah! I'll do it!" or "Nah. I'll try something else." Right after this quick decision, I jump right back into the game, still immersed.

However, when put up against the unknown, I find myself second guessing. That long pause while I consider my decision causes me to fall out of the game and out of the immersion.

I think it also comes from having been both GM and player. Too often, I find that when the GM says, "roll and we'll find out", it really means:
"If you roll pretty high you'll be able to do it. If you roll kinda low, you won't."

The reason I hate that kind of GMing is that my stats soon become meaningless. The success of whether I accomplish something or not is determined by what the d20 rolls, not what my abilities are compared to the d20.

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by Toben the Many

Too often, I find that when the GM says, "roll and we'll find out", it really means:
"If you roll pretty high you'll be able to do it. If you roll kinda low, you won't."

The reason I hate that kind of GMing is that my stats soon become meaningless. The success of whether I accomplish something or not is determined by what the d20 rolls, not what my abilities are compared to the d20.

that's a very specific kind of GMing, one which I tend to frown upon. Call it "storytelling" or "fudging" or whatever, it's essentially cheating in favor of the GM's personal preferences. I don't think a lack of transparency at suggests a need or desire to fudge - though the temptation might be there.

Let the numbers hold and let the dice fall where they may, I say.

[Toben the Many]

Originally Posted by Reynard

that's a very specific kind of GMing, one which I tend to frown upon. Call it "storytelling" or "fudging" or whatever, it's essentially cheating in favor of the GM's personal preferences. I don't think a lack of transparency at suggests a need or desire to fudge - though the temptation might be there.

Let the numbers hold and let the dice fall where they may, I say.

That's a great point. To assuage by paranoia and GM distrust, how does one tell the difference between the GM keeping the numbers hidden, and the GM fudging everything?

[gizmo33]

I understand DMs not wanting to tell players how many hitpoints the monsters have left. And in general, I understand not wanting to give players more information that their characters would have.

But the first issue to settle is whether or not a 4E Shield spell, for example, was balanced with the other powers assuming that the player had the information or didn't. Shield is more effective with information than without. This is irrespective of any "immersion" issues and just has to do with balancing powers.

On the subject of immersion, IMO there's a question here as to whether telling players what AC a monster hits (for example) or telling them when a monster is "bloodied" really is substantially different than the tons of mechanical information available to the PCs. Heck, they can see *exactly* how far away a monster is when they use ranged spells. They know how many hitpoints they have, and they know what AC their own attack hits, etc. etc. etc.

A picture is worth a thousand words (ie. an inordinately long time spent describing petty details), as they say, and I think sometimes the mechanics of the situation are a necessary shorthand for giving players the information that they're character would have. Take the Shield example again: wouldn't an experienced adventurer gain some instinct for when they are facing a threatening attack (ex. a roll that will easily hit) from a one that would just barely hit? A shield spell is an immediate reaction - so you're actually already breaking immersion by allowing the player to retrogame anyway. And as a DM, I don't want to sit there with a thesaurus and try to pick different words for each kind of hit or miss in order to approximate what the numbers would tell them anyway.

[el-remmen]

Originally Posted by gizmo33

Heck, they can see *exactly* how far away a monster is when they use ranged spells.

How can they see that?

Is it just that in my games I have players pick the target and then count the range. . . It is possible to come up short.

I also have them pick the box they are targeting for AoE spells then roll a d4 to see which intercise is the actual center to get around what I consider the cheesy ability to perfectly positions spells every time. Though I do allow a feat (Accurate Caster) to get around this.

[gizmo33]

Originally Posted by thedungeondelver

But no, no you don't get to know right off the bat how the numbers crunch. I mean if you were playing WARHAMMER FANTASY BATTLES and you asked your opponent "Let me see your Magic Cards, I want to know what you drew so I can use effective counterspells and cancel you out" or "Hey, are you going to use your night goblin fanatics against my cavalry? Just let me know so I know how to use some command points..." you'd get laughed out of the tournament.

Yes, obviously the game needs to define what information you can have, and what you can't, when you play it. Warhammer works like it does because that's one of the agreements of the game. Think about it though - the person coming up with the tactics is some giant head hovering over the battlefield and able to see the back ranks as clearly as the front. What happened to the fog of war? Obviously the player of Warhammer has access to some tactical information that a tiny, wounded little miniature surrounded by screaming orcs and demons would not have.

And these rules are different between games. I don't run 4E the same way I ran ADnD because it seems to me that 4E power use necessitates some of this information. But even in ADnD, what reason do you have to even say that PCs "hit" a monster. Given the way that hitpoints work, there's no obvious reason to conclude that your character's weapon connected at all with the creature he's fighting.

[gizmo33]

Originally Posted by el-remmen

How can they see that?

Based on the way the game is run according to the books. I can't account for every possible subsystem used by DMs in what I'm saying - which is that there is no mandate for hiding this information.

Originally Posted by el-remmen

Is it just that in my games I have players pick the target and then count the range. . . It is possible to come up short.

Right, well what basis do they have for guessing this range? A giant head hovering over the battle field (a relatively flat one at that AFAIK). So a giant hovering player head is guessing what range (in inches, mind you) their little miniature down on the board is at? I really don't see a fundemental difference here other than you've subsituted one type of player knowledge for another. As a player in your game, I would wonder why my keen-eyed 1000 year old elf wasn't picking his own range instead of letting some near-sighted 30-some year old dude do it for him.

Plus, playing the way you described would cause combats to take longer than they already do, with questionable benefits - obviously according to my particular priorities. But I would think that a persual of the 4E PHB, with rules on diagonal movement and whether or not squares are counted within a particular effect, would provide a clue to you that many 4E players use grids. And the use of grids is what I assumed in my statement - and I think assumed by the rules.

Originally Posted by el-remmen

I also have them pick the box they are targeting for AoE spells then roll a d4 to see which intercise is the actual center to get around what I consider the cheesy ability to perfectly positions spells every time. Though I do allow a feat (Accurate Caster) to get around this.

Right, I should have been clearer (and I thought it was obvious from the context and use of 4E Shield spell) that other game systems have other rules for what players know and don't know. As i said, it's important to note that 4E must have had an intent on this subject when it designed certain powers.

There was a time when I found exact placement of fireballs to be cheesy as well. But given hit points and saving throws (or attack rolls in 4E) and all of that, there is enough variation in the outcome of a fireball that I didn't find the introduction of an additional mechanical system to be worth it.

[Alan Shutko]

A good point that's been brought up here that I echo is that players have knowledge of their own capabilities, and should have better understanding of DCs. They won't necessarily know about other creature's capabilities or things which aren't immediately apparent.

An example that keeps coming up in my game is Acrobatics. I believe that a character trained in a skill should know the approximate DCs of common things. Is walking over that board considered easy, or hard? If I'm trained, I should be able to evaluate a situation and decide roughly how likely it is I can accomplish a task. Naturally, there might be considerations I don't see (the board looks wet from rain but has actually been oiled). But as a player, I don't like constantly being told "roll and find out". It makes skill use less appealing compared to a boring attack, since the attack has a reasonably well-defined chance of success. Even if you don't know the AC going in, you've been watching the entire party roll and get a pretty good idea pretty quickly. And the downside to an attack roll is just that you miss... instead of falling to the ground, tripping, or the usual array of entertaining mishaps DMs like to give you on skill checks.

It may be more immersive to ignore the numbers, but that only works for me if it's expected that my character has no real idea of his ability to accomplish any task.

[jbear]

I am DM a group of player's that are almost completely new to RPG and dnd.
I have valued transperency over immersion. This has been a natural answer to the fact they have shown certain distrust towards my decisions on several occaisions, or that an attack has missed with a total attack roll of 20. I have even gone so far as to show them the monsters stats after a game to prove I wasn't cheating. In this way I hope to build up their trust and thus be able to avoid such situations in the future.

Also, in a way, every time someone rolls a dice and says my attack roll total is 26 the game slips out of the full immersion it was in. Is it anymore damaging to the players imagination of the adventure/story by replying you needed 28, your blade grazes the creatures chest but doesn't pierce the thick leather armour?

Also I don't think the GM is only a Narrator, otherwise the title would be GN and you probably wouldn't roll any dice at all. I certainly don't think his 'role is undermined' by giving meta-game information to the players.

I do, however realise, my GM style is currently influenced by the inexperience of my players. I prefer that the pace of the game is lighter at the moment. They hum and har enough as to what to do as it is, without beingly overly strict about not mentioning DC's needed to achieve a possible course of action or having them weighing up wether to use shield due to being in the dark about its effectiveness for 5 minutes.

There are 7 character's in the group and we don't meet very often. These are two other important factor influencing my gaming style. Game time is precious, so when I need to get the game moving I do So in what I consider the most effective way possible... fast forward to the juicey bits where I consider the decisions truly important and worth taking time to mull over.

And yet when I think the story calls for tension and the sense of hidden danger or deadly menace I try to immerse the player's deliberately by keeping DC and other stats secret. For example Stealth or Perception.

I advocate transparency and applaud those who have the freedom and receive the trust from their players to be able to play with full immersion.

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by Alan Shutko

A good point that's been brought up here that I echo is that players have knowledge of their own capabilities, and should have better understanding of DCs. They won't necessarily know about other creature's capabilities or things which aren't immediately apparent.

An example that keeps coming up in my game is Acrobatics. I believe that a character trained in a skill should know the approximate DCs of common things. Is walking over that board considered easy, or hard? If I'm trained, I should be able to evaluate a situation and decide roughly how likely it is I can accomplish a task. Naturally, there might be considerations I don't see (the board looks wet from rain but has actually been oiled). But as a player, I don't like constantly being told "roll and find out". It makes skill use less appealing compared to a boring attack, since the attack has a reasonably well-defined chance of success. Even if you don't know the AC going in, you've been watching the entire party roll and get a pretty good idea pretty quickly. And the downside to an attack roll is just that you miss... instead of falling to the ground, tripping, or the usual array of entertaining mishaps DMs like to give you on skill checks.

It may be more immersive to ignore the numbers, but that only works for me if it's expected that my character has no real idea of his ability to accomplish any task.

I think the answer to this particular issue is consistency from the GM. That is, in any given circumstance where the player/PC might ask how difficult something is to accomplish, the GM's answer has the same meaning as the last time such a question was asked. It may be as simple as sitting down with a little chart where DC 10-14=easy, 15-19=moderate, 20-24=difficult, etc... and using that terminology to let the player's know the range of difficulty. i agree that characters and players should have some idea of what they are capable, but there are times when things in real life seem like they should be easy, but end up being difficult.

But the issue that inspired me to think about this was something different than a simple assessment of the probability of success. In this instance, the player was trying to determine whether to use a limited resource (in this case a 4E power, but it could as easily be force points or hero points or whatever) to modify the outcome of a roll to make the result more favorable to the PC. i think this is altogether different than deciding whether to scale the wall or go inside and take the stairs (insert whatever risk vs reward circumstances make this an important choice). The question was a wholly metagame one (not kocking it, by the way -- I think metagaming is a natural aspect of RPG play, though how much varies between games and even within games depending on circumstance).

[Nightson]

Nothing pulls me straight out of the game like lack of transparency about things characters should know. ACs and Attack Rolls fall under that umbrella for me.