How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
My point is that it shows a difference in focus. I expect that a game that concerned with hiding the AC is going to tend to be frustrating when it comes to sharing information. That I'm going to have to 10 foot pole my way through everything.
A certain not-excessive degree of the bolded is exactly what I'm after in play, in reflection of how the PCs would realistically be somewhat more cautious in their approach than they are played...or would risk suffering much harsher consequences. And I say this as someone who loves gonzo characters. :)

As player you're always free to ask for more info, but there will eventually come a point when I say "That's all you're gonna get without longer and-or closer observation, or hands-on experimenting".
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
The other thing that I just now realized would annoy me about the GM giving me-as-player the opponent's numerical info is that doing so takes away pretty much any hope of GM-side deception.

In D&D a description of "This guy looks belligerent and is moving to attack you. He's got a beat-up looking wooden shield, is wearing a rather tattered and well-worn suit of leather armour, and has a shortsword in one hand and a dagger in the other. As he moves toward you he looks more graceful than strong, and probably knows what he's doing with those weapons." In modern D&D that description might tell an experienced player that the attacker's AC is around 17 (2 from the leather, 2 from the shield, and give-or-take 3 from dexterity) and that the attacker has at least some combat skills.

But if the GM just flat-out tells the players that the foe's AC is 17, she's lying; in that what the GM isn't saying is that the attacker's shield is +2 and his armour is +1 with displacement, meaning his actual AC is 20 and your first "hit" will in fact miss. And if the GM says the attacker's AC is 20 that's going to significantly change the PCs' approach, in that the numerical info the GM is giving them doesn't line up with what the characters can see and thus they'll know this guy's packing magic.

Never mind all that talk of being more graceful than strong is to cover that he's wearing a belt of giant strength under his armour. :)
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
So, to be clear, you don't let players see the stats of their characters either? Because 'in real life people don't know their own capabilities'.
I tend to prefer games that don’t have long lists of buttons for the players to push, no. The more abstract the better. “You’ve been a town guard for 5 years” more than “you have a +2 to hit” kind of thing. People know their experiences, people don’t know the math behind their experiences.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
A certain not-excessive degree of the bolded is exactly what I'm after in play, in reflection of how the PCs would realistically be somewhat more cautious in their approach than they are played...or would risk suffering much harsher consequences. And I say this as someone who loves gonzo characters. :)

As player you're always free to ask for more info, but there will eventually come a point when I say "That's all you're gonna get without longer and-or closer observation, or hands-on experimenting".

But people don't generally walk around with the equivalent of ten foot poles in real life. That really says to me that play is gonna be about "gotcha" type elements.... that if I don't ask the right question (which my character would not have to ask, by the way) then I'll miss some key bit of info or similar.

The other thing that I just now realized would annoy me about the GM giving me-as-player the opponent's numerical info is that doing so takes away pretty much any hope of GM-side deception.

There's something inherently conflicted about the person who is responsible for my understanding of the game world actively trying to deceive me.

I'm not saying that it never has a place, but I just don't think "how can I lie to them?" needs to be a major consideration.

Also, you didn't respond to the second half of my previous post, and I'd love to get your take on the below as a justification for sharing game information like ACs and distances and the like. Several posters have expressed similar sentiments, and most have been responded to vaguely or avoided entirely.

I think the point here is that no matter how good a GM or boxed text may be at this, they will fall short compared to what the character can perceive and intuit from their "actual" surroundings.

What do folks think of this idea?

@Lanefan @Micah Sweet @overgeeked @Reynard @Corinnguard
 

Reynard

Legend
But people don't generally walk around with the equivalent of ten foot poles in real life. That really says to me that play is gonna be about "gotcha" type elements.... that if I don't ask the right question (which my character would not have to ask, by the way) then I'll miss some key bit of info or similar.



There's something inherently conflicted about the person who is responsible for my understanding of the game world actively trying to deceive me.

I'm not saying that it never has a place, but I just don't think "how can I lie to them?" needs to be a major consideration.

Also, you didn't respond to the second half of my previous post, and I'd love to get your take on the below as a justification for sharing game information like ACs and distances and the like. Several posters have expressed similar sentiments, and most have been responded to vaguely or avoided entirely.



What do folks think of this idea?

@Lanefan @Micah Sweet @overgeeked @Reynard @Corinnguard
I think player experience counts for a lot here. If you tell experienced players that they see orcs, they have a sense of what that means. If you tell them that they see "ogres whose bodies are covered in metal scales and whose eyes burn with eldritxh fire" they have a baseline plus some uncertainty. That uncertainty is good and fun. I do not think telling players AC or other details before they have engaged the bad guys is good or fun.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
AC is shorthand*. It's actual definition "Armor Class" is even an misnomer, as you can have a high AC without wearing actual armor at all!

I could say "he's wearing no visible armor, but you can see the telltale signs of an Abjuration effect, likely Mage Armor, carries a shield, and is remarkably swift"...or I could say "he has AC 19" and it means pretty much the same thing.

Arguably, one could attempt to dispel a Mage Armor where you can't a suit of physical armor, and that's a consideration that could be made, if I ever saw anyone actually do it (outside of the high-level 3.5 Dispel meta). And as for Dex bonus, well heck, you don't even lose that anymore, so it's also practically no different from physical armor (unless you need an indication of whether or not a target has a high Dex save, and you could just say that if someone asks).

*I realize this isn't a D&D specific thread, but many systems have a defense rating of some kind, and even those that don't have some other form of defense that makes you less likely to suffer harm in combat.

If someone doesn't want to use shorthand, and wants to describe every opponent the party faces (and trusts that their players will grok what is being said), that's perfectly fine. I, however, have found that using the game's shorthand and cutting out the middleman of my brain trying to describe it, and my player's brains trying to decipher my statements, makes for a smoother play experience.

By contrast, my current DM never announces AC, but will tell us if we're close to hitting someone (so that we can use Bard dice, rerolls, or Luck points* as necessary). And by round 2, we generally know what we need to hit anyways. If he just said "this guy has an AC of 15", I'm not sure much would change, but it's his style and I'm fine with it.

*Kobold Press optional rule in use for his Midgard campaign.

You don't have to give out statblocks, and to be honest, most players I know can't handle that cognitive load, lol. If I read off the whole stat block, I'd get the same glassy eyed stare in response as I do to my flavor text! This isn't a knock on their intelligence, just that some people like to turn off their "work brains" to best enjoy D&D. A guy I play with regularly is an EMT who absolutely knows how to do math and memorize lots of information, as it's vital to saving lives- but when he plays, he'll have trouble calculating his damage rolls, even when he uses the same pool of dice and modifiers a large percentage of the time!

And it's still possible for enemies to have defensive abilities that can modify their AC "oh he can parry/Shield/what have you", or keep hidden certain nasty special abilities, if "surprising" your players is important to your play style.

Now let me address another comment I've seen several times so far- giving the players information "for free". The DM is the only source of sensory input for the players. They see what you tell them they see, they hear what you tell them to hear. I don't know about other people, but no description, no matter how detailed, can substitute for what their characters could conceivably sense- ie, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Plus, in the heat of the moment, you might forget a detail that the players would have otherwise picked up on. It happens- I once infamously mispronounced a word I had only ever read while reading a text block in an old 1e adventure, and thus my players missed a critical detail about an encounter! So in my opinion, it's very likely that much of the time, players are getting less information than they would if they themselves (let alone their characters, who are likely superior to them in many ways) were in this situation.

I'd rather err on the side of giving them more than letting them walk into a "gotcha" moment that shouldn't have been one, but even so, there shouldn't need to be a "special ability" to let someone know whether it's a good idea to engage a situation or flee from it (as fleeing gets harder the longer you've engaged in a combat).

Unless, of course, your group's preferred style of play is uber-cautious, combat is the very last resort, we poke at everything with 11' poles routinely send waves of hirelings to their doom, and every single thing you see could theoretically be a deadly monster in disguise.
 

Reynard

Legend
AC is shorthand*. It's actual definition "Armor Class" is even an misnomer, as you can have a high AC without wearing actual armor at all!

I could say "he's wearing no visible armor, but you can see the telltale signs of an Abjuration effect, likely Mage Armor, carries a shield, and is remarkably swift"...or I could say "he has AC 19" and it means pretty much the same thing.

Arguably, one could attempt to dispel a Mage Armor where you can't a suit of physical armor, and that's a consideration that could be made, if I ever saw anyone actually do it (outside of the high-level 3.5 Dispel meta). And as for Dex bonus, well heck, you don't even lose that anymore, so it's also practically no different from physical armor (unless you need an indication of whether or not a target has a high Dex save, and you could just say that if someone asks).

*I realize this isn't a D&D specific thread, but many systems have a defense rating of some kind, and even those that don't have some other form of defense that makes you less likely to suffer harm in combat.

If someone doesn't want to use shorthand, and wants to describe every opponent the party faces (and trusts that their players will grok what is being said), that's perfectly fine. I, however, have found that using the game's shorthand and cutting out the middleman of my brain trying to describe it, and my player's brains trying to decipher my statements, makes for a smoother play experience.

By contrast, my current DM never announces AC, but will tell us if we're close to hitting someone (so that we can use Bard dice, rerolls, or Luck points* as necessary). And by round 2, we generally know what we need to hit anyways. If he just said "this guy has an AC of 15", I'm not sure much would change, but it's his style and I'm fine with it.

*Kobold Press optional rule in use for his Midgard campaign.

You don't have to give out statblocks, and to be honest, most players I know can't handle that cognitive load, lol. If I read off the whole stat block, I'd get the same glassy eyed stare in response as I do to my flavor text! This isn't a knock on their intelligence, just that some people like to turn off their "work brains" to best enjoy D&D. A guy I play with regularly is an EMT who absolutely knows how to do math and memorize lots of information, as it's vital to saving lives- but when he plays, he'll have trouble calculating his damage rolls, even when he uses the same pool of dice and modifiers a large percentage of the time!

And it's still possible for enemies to have defensive abilities that can modify their AC "oh he can parry/Shield/what have you", or keep hidden certain nasty special abilities, if "surprising" your players is important to your play style.

Now let me address another comment I've seen several times so far- giving the players information "for free". The DM is the only source of sensory input for the players. They see what you tell them they see, they hear what you tell them to hear. I don't know about other people, but no description, no matter how detailed, can substitute for what their characters could conceivably sense- ie, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Plus, in the heat of the moment, you might forget a detail that the players would have otherwise picked up on. It happens- I once infamously mispronounced a word I had only ever read while reading a text block in an old 1e adventure, and thus my players missed a critical detail about an encounter! So in my opinion, it's very likely that much of the time, players are getting less information than they would if they themselves (let alone their characters, who are likely superior to them in many ways) were in this situation.

I'd rather err on the side of giving them more than letting them walk into a "gotcha" moment that shouldn't have been one, but even so, there shouldn't need to be a "special ability" to let someone know whether it's a good idea to engage a situation or flee from it (as fleeing gets harder the longer you've engaged in a combat).

Unless, of course, your group's preferred style of play is uber-cautious, combat is the very last resort, we poke at everything with 11' poles routinely send waves of hirelings to their doom, and every single thing you see could theoretically be a deadly monster in disguise.
Just to be clear, my concerns are not based on verisimilitude or realism or any of that. I think uncertainty is fun, and uncertainty in combat is the most fun. Figuring out what you are up against while it is trying to kill you is fun.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
Just to be clear, my concerns are not based on verisimilitude or realism or any of that. I think uncertainty is fun, and uncertainty in combat is the most fun. Figuring out what you are up against while it is trying to kill you is fun.
And you're certainly allowed to have fun that way, if the rest of your group is on the same page. I've found that less uncertainty works best for my games, and I don't think anything is wrong with that either.
 

Reynard

Legend
And you're certainly allowed to have fun that way, if the rest of your group is on the same page. I've found that less uncertainty works best for my games, and I don't think anything is wrong with that either.
Sure. And if it works for you, great.

Out of curiosity, you don't ever feel like the game just turns into rote tactical monotony that way?
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top