How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[grankless]

I wonder if the split here has anything to do with the division between those who think HP totals in D&D impact the world in only a binary sense (something is either fully capable and above 0hp, or dying at 0hp or less) and those who think the effects of HP loss are visible to the world inhabitants (wounds, exhausted appearance, etc...) but the effects on die rolls and the like only have two levels for ease of game play. It feels like the description of how injured something was would necessarily be useless if you literally thought there was no visible effect until they hit 0.

As a cast member on a podcast I listen to once said, "breaking your hand in Call of Cthulhu has way more impact on the game than dying in Dungeons in Dragons does".

4e had "bloodied" as a mechanic, where a variety of abilities and whatnot would activate when you or the target were below 50% HP, which is as far as I can tell the only actual first-party "wound tracking" to exist between 3e and 5e (I don't know if any eist in 1 or 2e). This was of course thrown out in 5e because of people who think it's too "gamelike" (as if HP isn't much more of a game construct and they are in fact playing a game).

 

[grankless]

Also, this thread sure is 80 pages of arguing over if it's good or bad to know AC numbers or not which is kind of not remotely relevant to the actual OP of the thread.

 

[Corinnguard]

This is why, in the example of the runic circle, I’d just tell the players what it is. I mean, it’s observable… the players will likely figure it’s magical, so why put that in doubt?

There are two approaches to this. First, you expect the players to not act on the knowledge. That’s just annoying, and makes play focused on trying to find the “key” to simply understand what they already know is going on.

The second is to allow them to proceed how they like. In this case, they’d likely treat the circle like they “suspect” what it is rather than “know”. Which is pretty much the same thing.

So I just share the information and then see what they want to do about it. Can they disrupt the runes? Or are the runes in danger of failing? Those are the kinds of things that I use rolls for.

Just the basic situation? I share it with them. I want them to figure out a solution not get bogged down in simply understanding what’s going on.

This is basically the equivalent of you leaping up behind from your GM screen, and shouting "Spoilers!" Why not let the party figure out what the circle is first before you tell them what it is? Some of your players might be looking forward to the little mystery they find in front of them.

If your players want you to tell them stuff that only the DM should know, they will. If they say no to what you want to do, accept their choice and move on.

There needs to be a guide on how to step into a thread that's 40+ pages deep.

"How to carefully step into a forum thread that's gone Meta."

 

[Maxperson]

You can only compare the two in regards to transmitting the same information, was my point. The description of the room and the description of the troll are two different kinds of information. Either one could be presented qualitatively or quantitatively.

I don't agree, because you are very rarely going to just be describing numbers or the rest of the information. You'll be describing numbers PLUS all the rest, so the description will almost always be greater than just numbers. Neither one exists in a vacuum or white room. It's a whole.

 

[Maxperson]

No one in this thread has asserted that reading a monster stat block is a better way to convey information about the situation as a whole than (say) describing where the monster is located, and that it has a Damocles sword (or barrel of oil, or whatever) suspended above it.

People have in fact asserted in this thread that the numbers convey more information and options than the description does.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Error

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is basically the equivalent of you leaping up behind from your GM screen, and shouting "Spoilers!" Why not let the party figure out what the circle is first before you tell them what it is? Some of your players might be looking forward to the little mystery they find in front of them.

I thought I explained in the post you quoted. It’s because there is no mystery. Perhaps I should clarify… there’s no mystery for the players.

Anyone except perhaps a truly novice player will know what a runic circle is likely to be. And even a novice player who’s even passing familiar with genre fiction will recognize it.

Having the players pretend to not know is, to me and many others, not an engaging way to spend time at the table. What’s interesting about such a thing is what can or should be done about it… the danger it represents or the obstacle it poses.

That’s what I’m interested in finding out. What do they do about this? Not just “do they recognize what’s going on here?”

If your players want you to tell them stuff that only the DM should know, they will. If they say no to what you want to do, accept their choice and move on.

Why would only the DM know this? Why wouldn’t a wizard, bard, or cleric know it? Why wouldn’t any other character with the Sage or Acolyte background? Or any other one with some suitable reason?

Hell, we know about these things in a world where they’re not even real. Surely there would be folklore in the characters’ world that just about any character may know.

So why dick around? Get to the good stuff.

 

[Maxperson]

Why is it not part of the players' role to keep track of the damage they have inflicted, and the likely hp remaining of the monsters they are fighting?

Why are you not responding to what I say and instead making up fiction to respond to? I never said the above. Like at all. The numbers in the module are NOT the players keeping track of the damage that they roll.

Why is it not part of the players' role to calculate odds of success by reference to their attack bonuses and saving throw DCs, relative to the ACs and saving throw bonuses in NPC/creature stat blocks?

Because in D&D it's just not. I challenge you to find anywhere in the PHB(the rules of the game) where it says that the players should be given the numbers when the DM is describing the scene.

Look at the example of play on page 5. The DM asks for an intelligence check with investigation, but does not provide the DC. He did not just give the players the weight limit of the bridge.

Look at the How to Play section on page 6. The DM describes the environment, not the numbers. The players decide what to do based on the description. The DM narrates the results. No numbers are given or told to the DM or players should be given.

Look at the DMG section on the rules, page 235. It says to discourage metagame thinking, which includes using numbers make PC decisions.

Look at DMG page 247 where it says that most DMs track monster hit points in secret. It leaves the option of making the hit points secret up to the DM, but doesn't even come close to suggesting that play should happen that way. It suggests the opposite by stating that most DMs don't do it.

Unless the DM gives the numbers to the players, it isn't a part of their role.

I mean, if players aren't expected to play the game in something like the way that wargamers would, why does the game use wargame-style resolution?

Because history. The game can't shift that much, and I don't believe even Gygax ever said that players should be given all the numbers, or even any numbers from the DM side of the screen.

 

[Campbell]

@Maxperson

Just for clarity - are you trying to say players should not be given numbers or that they should not try to intuit them (so is to make better decisions about which abilities to use)? Like if a player remarks "16 hits but a 14 does not" is that player in the wrong or thinking about the wrong things?

 

[pemerton]

People have in fact asserted in this thread that the numbers convey more information and options than the description does.

No one in this thread has asserted that any numbers (however attenuated) convey more information and options than any and all description.

@hawkeyefan has asserted that numerical stats for a creature/NPC (in a D&D-esque RPG) conveys more information than descriptions of the attributes that those stats model/express - eg that AC 15 conveys more information than tough hide.