GMing: Transparency and Immersion

[Reynard]

Transparency and Immersion

Yesterday, I played in a D&D 4E game for the first time in a couple months and during the session an interesting issue came up: one of the players was trying to decide whether to use a power that gave him a bonus to an action after the die was rolled. He asked the DM whether using the power would guarantee success, to which the DM replied with a "Use it and find out" sort of response. The player accepted this, but noted that when he ran games, he tended to make his players aware of all the numbers involved (presumably to facilitate decision making and fun for the players, but we got on with the game and never returned to the discussion so I can't be certain). On my long drive home, between thinking about various options for my next character (as my paladin was killed by a black dragon, thereby reinforcing our group's axiom that "it ain't D&D 'til Reynard dies") I got to thinking about transparency as it relates to the rules and the numbers that drive the game, particularly in relation to its effect on immersion in the game.

Let me start by stating that I fall into the same camp as our DM for the session: unless a game rule specifically states numerical threshold for success (a jump check, for example) the DC or target number of what-have-you remains unknown to the players. Even in the case of known difficulties, modifiers may not be explicitly stated (though, unless there is a reason otherwise, circumstances that would impose modifiers will certainly be apparent). In either case, however, I do advocate the use of descriptive indications as to the potential difficulty of an action and/or degree of impact of apparent modifying conditions. I think this is particularly important in games where the players have resources at their disposal to alter the outcome of die rolls (such as action points, re-rolls, or the aforementioned power).

This is not to say that I don't see the value in transparency, especially in groups or styles of play that emphasize the "game" aspect or intentionally try and "even the field" between players and the game master. During such play, the judicious decision making and use of resources by the players (and the GM in many cases) is key to both successful play and the participants' enjoyment of the game. Transparency also has the advantage of greatly reducing, if not eliminating, any sense of unfairness of even "cheating" on the part of the GM, whether "for" or "against" the players. All the cards are on the table, as it were, and the ultimate outcome of any given situation is dependent upon some combination of luck and player decision making.

That being said, I think the benefits of this degree of transparency are outweighed (for the most part; exceptions are the rule in RPG play, after all) by the detriments. By revealing all the numbers the GM, I think, reduces the challenges and adversaries of the game to mere numerical difficulties to be overcome. In so doing, the GM undermines his own role as narrator, for the narrative is damaged. No longer is the attention of the players on him or even the big, scary miniature on the table, but on their character sheets or power cards or whatever else contributes to most effectively achieving a high numerical value than the one presented by the GM. Immersion is lost, perhaps not completely and certainly not irrevocably, but lost nonetheless. And while there is still some tension in, when all the math is done, rolling a die and hoping for a particular, unlikely result, I think it is a pale imitation of the tension born of rolling a die and having no idea what a given result will mean.

A lack of transparency has its drawbacks as well, of course. First, there is the danger of players wasting precious resources should the player overestimate a challenge or underestimate his luck. In addition, charges of unfairness (real or imagined) are more easily leveled at the GM when only her or she knows the "real" difficulty of a given action. And by the same token but on the opposite side of the screen, the temptation to "fudge" the numbers (again, for either the benefit or the detriment of the players, or perhaps the GM's preconceived narrative) is greater when the GM can't be called on it.

Numbers are not the only place where transparency can be an issue. In fact, in an RPG with a GM, the issue of transparency is present in every aspect of play, at every moment at the table. The GM is the eyes and ears of the play characters, and very often also their memories, training and experience. Cleverly describing a stock enemy type to keep the veteran players guessing is an issue of transparency, as is the wizard ally that only speaks in riddles, or simply the answer to the question "What lurks in yon woods?" Cases like these may appear on the surface to be very different from numerical transparency, but in effect are the same: they obfuscate situations and therefore limit the capacity of the players to make informed decisions toward some goal (which, hopefully, is to increase everyone's fun). Like hiding the numbers, immersion may well be preserved, but at what cost.

Given the responsibilities of the GM as both arbiter of the rules and window through which the players view the world of the game, I think the issue of transparency versus immersion is worthy of discussion. Thoughts?

[Mercule]

In all (RPG) game systems I use, I keep "secret" numbers secret. For 3.5, that meant monsters' ACs weren't declared until it was pretty obvious ("A 22 misses, but a 23 hits.... I wonder what the AC is."), but things like Tumble DCs were transparent (I'd even do the math for the players, if they weren't rules-hounds). If someone has a good idea, I'll sometimes allow a skill roll to get an estimate, but I rarely just give the number.

I tend to agree with you that it's more fun to not know all the numbers up front. Part of the fun of adventuring is making your best guess on whether you can take the other guy. Also, I very strongly believe that there should be mysteries for the players to solve. If the only time I don't give an AC is when there is some plot point that has an effect on AC (maybe an invisible necromancer has an aura that bolsters those skeletons), then it really feels very meta-gamey.

On the other hand, my players don't always get the hint when they say "Those skeletons shouldn't have that high of AC," and I reply, "That may be something you should think about." Sometimes, you have to beat players over the head with information.

[Varianor Abroad]

Transparency and immersion are wonderful. To me. Not everyone feels that way. It's the difference between where your gaming group falls in preference. (I think Robin Laws covered this ground nicely in Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering.)

[Oni]

I like to play things close to the vest. However I kind of feel like 4e is meant to be more numerical transparent given how some of the powers work.

[maddman75]

Depends on the game really. The more complex and tactical the rules, the more likely I am to be transparent. In a game like 3e or Exalted, I'd probably let the PCs know what all the numbers are. In say HEX or BRP I'd probably keep things vague.

Tactical games have more of the 'fun' come from making those choices, so the players should be better informed. Less tactical games its simply less important, so by de-emphasizing it you can focus on others.

[FireLance]

I don't think it's a straightforward dichotomy between transparency and immersion, but what is the right level of transparency that enhances immersion. In most cases, the two extremes work against immersion. Total transparency raises the question of how the PC could be so sure of the exact odds. On the other hand, a complete lack of transparency raises the reverse question of how the PC could be so ignorant.

IMO, the ideal amount of transparency to enhance immersion would leave the player in pretty much the same position as the PC: with some idea, but still imperfect knowledge, of what the odds (or, for non-numerical examples, the facts of the situation) actually are.

One relatively crude way of doing this in-game might be for the DM to secretly roll 2d10 - 11, adjust the target number by this amount and tell the PC the result. So, if success requires a DC 25 check result, and the DM rolls a 4 and a 9, he could tell the player that he thinks he needs to get 27 or higher to succeed.

[RFisher]

We’ve all played with that DM who was so opaque that we felt like we might as well just dice to choose our actions. Right?

The key to me is to not be that guy. When in doubt, err on the side of telling the players too much.

[Jack7]

I'm basically with Reynard on this one.

"it ain't D&D 'til Reynard dies"

Ain't it the truth.

[el-remmen]

I'm a pretty "keep things fuzzy DM".

I never tell people what AC they need to hit, or even what DC they need to save against. Obviously, they trust me (or why have me run the game) and anyway, if I were inconsistant they'd call me on it.

At the same time I will do things like say, "The rogue uses his dodge feat against you this round" not because I feel like I necessarily have to tell them (though I might also describe them as being extra dodgy), but so I don't forget.

For me immersion means knowing very little beyond my immediate character. I don't even like to know other character's hit points. In my games we describe our characters as lightly, moderately, seriously, or critically wounded each one corresponding to a quarter of your HP total. So if my character has 40 hps total and is at 27, I'd say "I am moderately wounded."

As DM, I like the "ah-ha" moment, for me it is all about the reveal, like a magic trick. At the end of a campaign I hand over my notebook and they can look through at monster stats and places the campaign could have went, alternate versions of things, NPCs, etc. .

[Kamikaze Midget]

My own view is that you know everything your character knows.

Generally, you know your own abilities, and the rules that govern them. You know what an AC of 25 means in the game world, and what Jump score of +5 means, too.

You don't know anything that's "out there," with any certainty. You don't know the AC of that dragon. You don't know how he might have moved the way he did.

You do know that if you have an AC of 25, and something hits you, that that thing can probably dent a brick wall, though.

[The Shaman]

Originally Posted by Reynard

In either case, however, I do advocate the use of descriptive indications as to the potential difficulty of an action and/or degree of impact of apparent modifying conditions.

That right there. That's how I prefer to handle it.

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?

[Aus_Snow]

Reynard again proves to be one of the very few EN World posters whose longer posts I will actually read.

Coincidentally, I happen to agree, as well.

[Cadfan]

I estimate how much knowledge the character has, and give an amount of information based upon it. This generally means that PCs know the actual DC of static obstacles. They receive only general descriptions without numbers for almost everything else.

The reason I give static DCs is because I believe that a character should be able to know about what he can accomplish in the regular course of the day.

[Ydars]

In 4E I would make an insight check for the PCs; if they make it, they get a reasonable idea of the risk, though I wouldn't couch it in numbers.

If they fail the check I would increase or decrease the "percieved difficulty" by the amount they failed.

[Hussar]

I'll agree with Reynard here, although, unlike some, I do state save DC's right out of the gate. Not AC's though. Mostly I do it to save time. "The baddie hits you with X, Fort save DC Y for half" and it saves me having to spend time with that player after that and I can just move on. He or she knows what is needed to save and rolls the save and adjusts the sheet, no more input needed from me and off we go.

Little things like that can radically change the speed at which 3e plays in combat. While I'm no MerricB, we manage to plow through the rounds at a fair clip.

I do think that RFisher has the right of it as well. When in doubt, err on the side of too much info rather than not enough.

[Ktulu]

I'm in between. If a player is attacked and hit and wants to know if his daily use power that increases his ac two points will work, I am fully open.

If he wants to know if his daily power that grants him a bonus to hit will, I might not be as open.

In the same boat, I never tell DC's of anything unless it's pertinent to know.

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by Cadfan

I estimate how much knowledge the character has, and give an amount of information based upon it. This generally means that PCs know the actual DC of static obstacles. They receive only general descriptions without numbers for almost everything else.

The reason I give static DCs is because I believe that a character should be able to know about what he can accomplish in the regular course of the day.

What about circumstantial and/or situational modifiers, out of curiosity? If, for example, a player knows that climbing they wall is a DC 20 check, do they know that the rain and wind impose "a" penalty, or a "-5" (or whatever) penalty?

Relatedly, what about situations where the player isn't aware of the reson they are making a check? In other words, do you call for a "Stealth Check", a "DC 20 Stealth Check", "roll a d20 please", or use passive values or pre-rolls to determine if there bugbear in the next room hears them looting about?

[Cadfan]

Originally Posted by Reynard

What about circumstantial and/or situational modifiers, out of curiosity? If, for example, a player knows that climbing they wall is a DC 20 check, do they know that the rain and wind impose "a" penalty, or a "-5" (or whatever) penalty?

As I think about it, I don't tell them, but I stick pretty closely to the +2/-2 guidelines, so they probably know that when I say "its going to be harder to climb that wall while its slicked with rain" that it means a -2 penalty.

Originally Posted by Reynard

Relatedly, what about situations where the player isn't aware of the reson they are making a check? In other words, do you call for a "Stealth Check", a "DC 20 Stealth Check", "roll a d20 please", or use passive values or pre-rolls to determine if there bugbear in the next room hears them looting about?

Those situations generally aren't static DCs. And I don't get your example- if the player wants to be stealthy, he rolls stealth.

There aren't any tricks here. If its the sort of thing a regular person could look at a task and know how tough it is to accomplish, then I give them the exact number. Maybe a better guideline would be: if its the sort of DC that's usually given right in the skill entry in the player's handbook, I tell them. If its not, I don't. I figure that part of knowing what a +5 athletics skill means is knowing that particular types of walls are a DC 10 to climb. So I just tell them and save everybody time.

If I came across an unusual situation that didn't fit my usual habits, I'd just adapt. This is a "how I generally do things" response, not a mechanical, programmed rule.

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by Cadfan

There aren't any tricks here. If its the sort of thing a regular person could look at a task and know how tough it is to accomplish, then I give them the exact number.

I wasn't trying to be coy -- just trying to spur some discussion on the topic.

I agree with you on your definition of static DCs, though I tend to let the players do their own assessing. they know what their bonus is, and they know its a stone block wall with plenty of handholds, and that it is currently sleeting. As such, they should know generally what their chances of success are so I usually don't call out what the DC is. I also do this because I like to use action/hero points that give you that extra d6 or whatever, and i want the players to decide on their own whether they need to spend that precious resource or risk possible failure and its consequences.

I tend away from transparency, I think, because I like the effect uncertainty or perceived uncertainty has on the game (I've written about this before so I won't bore you with repetition). However, I also like hearing and seeing how other people do things, because goodness knows even after 20+ years of playing and GMing I still have much I can learn.

[Mishihari Lord]

I think transparency and immersion are mutually exclusive. Since I value immersion, I would prefer a game where the players didn't even know the rules, if I could find a way to make it work.