Game Transparency

[arscott]

Here

The part that catches my attention right away is the cover art. That's a pretty kick-ass piece of artwork--Manages to humorously illustrate a metagame topic while still looking like fantasy art.

The article itself is alright. Describes different approaches to transparency without really advocating one or another.

The "tips from the pros" sections have some useful advice. I really want to second Steven Schubert's suggestion of letting the player know when they've missed by a point or two. He seems to describe it as a bit of a gloating experience, but my approach is to tell players that they've missed by one and ask them if they're forgetting any modifiers. Nothing's more fun than turning a near miss into a big hit with an oft-forgotten bonus.

Something that they didn't touch on is visual indicators--I love having the Fiery Dragon counter collections because I never have to say "You bloody the monster"--Instead, I can just give a flavorful description and flip the token over to show the bloodied side.

 

[Rechan]

The picture made me giggle.

Too tired to process otherwise.

 

[Jack99]

The picture was indeed funny, and I learned that I play like the pros!

 

[vagabundo]

Some nice tips there and some reminders of stuff I'd already thought off but forgotten to do - passive knowledge checks.

Well worth a re-read every so often. I should print and put together a binder of helpful DMing articles. I should probably look though my old dragons for some as well.

 

[Derulbaskul]

I must admit I wasn't impressed. It was essentially the sort of advice you can find on ENWorld if you ask the right question but puffed up to fill six pages in Dragon.

 

[avin]

Too metagamist for my style of DMing. Announce to players that "this miniatures are minions" is cheesy. Then, when Wizards realize people perceive 4E as a tactic game with low RP (or something like that, The Rouse article posted here on EN) they don't know why...

Granted, I didn't read it all, I'll go back and see if there's more roleplaying hints for giving players game clues.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I must admit I wasn't impressed. It was essentially the sort of advice you can find on ENWorld if you ask the right question but puffed up to fill six pages in Dragon.

But given that there are a lot of gamers who will be DDI subscribers, download the material and read it at their leisure, but never go near an internet forum... given that, I think it was an excellent article.

It may even help me with a problem player that I have.

 

[Zaukrie]

I liked the article. Not all articles should be aimed at experienced gamers and DMs, some should be aimed at newer gamers.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Too metagamist for my style of DMing. Announce to players that "this miniatures are minions" is cheesy. Then, when Wizards realize people perceive 4E as a tactic game with low RP (or something like that, The Rouse article posted here on EN) they don't know why...

Granted, I didn't read it all, I'll go back and see if there's more roleplaying hints for giving players game clues.

So you missed the part where he distinguished between the "open" and the "subtle" variant, and where he presented examples for both?

Some players like it the "metagamey" way. Others don't. Both sides need some information to make meaningful decisions, and there are ways to get it to them.

 

[avin]

Yes, I missed it, that's why I said I was going back to text and read it for a fair judgement.

Some pelayers love metagame, but I keep them out of my table, sorry