D&D 4E 4e: the metagame.

[Gort]

I absolutely hate it when...

DM: It looks as though you've beatent he bluster out of him.

ME: So, is he bloodied?

DM: ...Yes.

It is such a waste of time when DMs try to prance around the rules like that!

Seriously, jsut be up front with the info and be as clear and concise as you can and the game flows tons smoother.

I've seen 4E battles take twice as long and fair half as well as others due to the kind of behavior I describe.

I dunno, I like a bit of flavour text in combat. Obviously it's a case of extremes. I don't want to have to describe every at-will power I use, because there are certain fights that go on until that's all you've got left, and I don't want to have to keep coming up with different ways to say, "I cast Magic Missile".

However, I see nothing wrong with, "Utgard becomes a blur as he swings his axe around him in a mighty Sweeping Blow!" every once in a while.

I guess I like a combination of rules and flavour text. "I diplomacy at the guy to make him do what I want" is just flatter to me than, "I try to convince the knight that even though we are outnumbered by the orcs, we should still attack due to the danger to the nearby village. <to GM> Shall I roll diplomacy?"

 

[Ravingdork]

I dunno, I like a bit of flavour text in combat. Obviously it's a case of extremes. I don't want to have to describe every at-will power I use, because there are certain fights that go on until that's all you've got left, and I don't want to have to keep coming up with different ways to say, "I cast Magic Missile".

However, I see nothing wrong with, "Utgard becomes a blur as he swings his axe around him in a mighty Sweeping Blow!" every once in a while.

I guess I like a combination of rules and flavour text. "I diplomacy at the guy to make him do what I want" is just flatter to me than, "I try to convince the knight that even though we are outnumbered by the orcs, we should still attack due to the danger to the nearby village. <to GM> Shall I roll diplomacy?"

Oh don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with using flavor (I adovcate its use all the time), just so long as you clearly state what is really going on with the mechanics as well.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

You gotta love RPGs, where often actually just "gaming" is considered metagaming.

I agree that whether metagaming is bad *at all* is just a matter of opinion -- I've played in some great game where using and leveraging the mechanics and interesting RP went hand-in-hand. Just depends on what you want.

 

[Orcus Porkus]

As such, I think it really all boils down to what passes for "fun" in your games. Do the benefits of knowing which foes are minions outweigh the drawbacks in your games? If so, then disclose the information by all means. if you feel that minions ought to be virtually indistinguishable from normal enemies, then don't point them out as such.

Agreed. All I can say is it makes my girlfriend's wizard happy to effectively slaughter masses of minions. girlfriend happy = DM happy.

 

[Lizard]

I absolutely hate it when...

DM: It looks as though you've beatent he bluster out of him.

ME: So, is he bloodied?

DM: ...Yes.

It is such a waste of time when DMs try to prance around the rules like that!

I hope you're being sarcastic.

Or that you never end up at my table...for your sake.

I consider it the job of the DM to narrate combat so that the players feel like they're reading the fight scene in a well-written (if somewhat purple-prosed) novel - not dissecting the printout from an EQ raid.

 

[Lizard]

I think the reverse is True, 4e is intentionally working to reverse the metagaming trend of concealing information from players that their characters could discern without difficulty.


What AC a monster hits? The characters can see and feel the attack, the players can't.

Is the monster bloodied? Do you honestly believe that skilled combatants have no ability to judge if they are winning or losing a fight?


It's a dirt common bad DMing habit to refuse to answer questions about information universally known in the PCs culture an d then mock or punish the faux pas that inevitably result. And most of the DMs that do it think they are being utterly reasonable.

I'm glad 4e is trying to reverse this terrible trend.

This is good:
Player: "How is the monster looking?"
DM:"He's starting to show signs of wear. He's moving a bit slower and covered with countless small wounds, all dripping ichor. Nothing too major, though -- he's got a lot of fight left in him."

This is bad:
Player: "How is the monster looking?"
DM:"He's taken 20 hit points. He's got 40 left."

 

[Mouseferatu]

I hope you're being sarcastic.

Or that you never end up at my table...for your sake.

I consider it the job of the DM to narrate combat so that the players feel like they're reading the fight scene in a well-written (if somewhat purple-prosed) novel - not dissecting the printout from an EQ raid.

And here, we learn that Lizard and I are not in disagreement on every issue.

I agree with him wholeheartedly. While it's true that the PCs also need to receive mechanical info, I have no interest in either playing in, or running, a campaign where the mechanics are the entirety, or even the majority, of the DM/PC interaction. If there's not at least a little description in every attack--even if it's just a few words--it's not my kind of game.

 

[zillah]

ok, i as a player expect the DM to follow the rules of the mechanics. unless at the start of the campaign or when i come into a game the DM says "ill tell you bloodied in a flavorful way but not directly bloodied" I expect the DM to say "you cut his chest and he starts bleeding guts, he's bloodied"
or whatever the DM says as long as "he's bloodied"

 

[Kzach]

ok, i as a player expect the DM to follow the rules of the mechanics. unless at the start of the campaign or when i come into a game the DM says "ill tell you bloodied in a flavorful way but not directly bloodied" I expect the DM to say "you cut his chest and he starts bleeding guts, he's bloodied"

That's pretty much my method.

I work on the basis that hits aren't hits and only bloodied and 0 hit points count as actual physical damage. Everything else is close calls, dust in eyes, clangs on shields, scrapes on armour, minor bruises absorbed by armour or deft movement, etc.

I try and quickly and succinctly describe a brief attack/defence exchange in a colourful way to liven up combat. And on bloodied I'll try and describe a minor hit of some type that draws blood or cracks a rib, kinda thing. On the hit that takes someone down below 0, I try and describe it as a major blow.

On enemies, I'll describe bloodied and then say, "And now he's bloodied," and on 0 hit points I'll describe the death blow and say, "He drops dead."

I don't try and drag the game down though with detailed descriptions. That's just as bad as mechanics-only games.

 

[Ravingdork]

This is good:
Player: "How is the monster looking?"
DM:"He's starting to show signs of wear. He's moving a bit slower and covered with countless small wounds, all dripping ichor. Nothing too major, though -- he's got a lot of fight left in him."

This is bad:
Player: "How is the monster looking?"
DM:"He's taken 20 hit points. He's got 40 left."

Actually, both your examples are bad. The first doesn't help the player too much, whereas the second is probably too much information. A better example of a GOOD explanation would be the following: "He's starting to show signs of wear. He's moving a bit slower and covered with countless small wounds, all dripping ichor. Nothing too major, though -- he's got a lot of fight left in him, unlike his allies. He isn't yet bloodied."

The player likely asked the GM the question for one of two reasons: 1) to get an idea of how it compares to other potential targets, or 2) to figure out if the creature is bloodied or not (for abilities that work off of it).

Outside of those two reasons, I can't think of any reason why a player would even need to know such things. Currently there are no powers or abilities that require the player to know the exact HP of a monster, so that isn't something a DM should be forthcoming about (except in descriptive flavor perhaps).