To Fudge or not to Fudge...

[Jimlock]

Whereas I have exactly the opposite point of view.

Meaning?

I say this because it allows for metagame thinking...

"oh...he hit me with a 7? This means he's no less than...."

 

[Jimlock]

another example:

An "unidentified" (as in no one knows what class he is) Villain strikes the party.

The party's wizard throws at him a spell with a fortitude save.

The DM throws his D20 openly in front of the players and gets a 13. The DM announces that the NPC has missed the save and that the spell takes effect.

A player goes: "Wow, his fortitude save is really low!" turns at the wizard and cleric of the party and continues: "Hit him with spells that have a fortitude save!"

The party should get such information only after they've tried multiple tactics and effects on the NPC... (most of the fortitude saves he missed... most of the will saves he succeeded)


The examples are endless...

 

[Nagol]

Although seeing the numbers can provide the players with world information, I consider that a feature, not a bug.

The players are much more constrained in data flow compared to their characters. The players get a 2-second verbal description and perhaps a tactical layout. The characters have the full range of sensory input coupled with potentially deep professional experience. The players seeing an attacker hit an armoured foe on a 8 now have some information regarding its fighting prowess -- information that by rights a well-trained combat veteran should be able to pick up quickly enough from observation/interaction anyway. The information view the players get is imprecise. That creature saved with an 18, but pretty much anything would save with an 18! The attacker hit that round with this form of attack on an 8. Would a 7 have hit? Are there conditional or situational or timed effects that affect the probability?

Seeing the die results match with in-game effects offers other advantages to the DM:

• The players have additional input to detect situational discrepancies. This is hitting much better than its companions. Is it better armed, better skilled, stronger, or affected by magic? Such discrepancies are too subtle for the wide variability and small population of die rolls in a typical combat to demonstrate -- the variations are lost to the noise of combat.
• It allows the players to understand when the opposition is going through a lucky/unlucky streak as opposed to getting the wrong impression of ability based on a small sample of rolls.
• It sidelines suspicion of favortism and illusionism.
• It widens the response potential from the the players -- if the opponents are missing on a 17, maybe the threat level is so low they can act more confident, take the fight less seriously, or try to figure out what they've blundered into by taking prisoners/surrendering or what-have-you. Conversely, if the creature is hitting on a 5, it may be time to consider an alternative course to toe-to-toe combat.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Meaning?

I say this because it allows for metagame thinking...

"oh...he hit me with a 7? This means he's no less than...."

If you have players prone to metagame thinking, you'll get that thinking no matter how you roll the dice. Put those same players in a highly secret game with lots of fudge, and they will "game" the DM. Meaning, they'll start studying reactions, body language, etc. to gain their information.

The key is that there is nothing inherently wrong with metagaming. There are times when certain types of metagaming is distracting to others at the table. Ideally, the group would talk about this, and channel the metagaming into its more useful tracks. And these exist, even in a game that doesn't use something like fate points for mechanical metagaming. For example, if you ever had a player do A in character instead of B in character, because A was going to give another player a chance to do C in character--that's metagaming.

 

[Jimlock]

The players are much more constrained in data flow compared to their characters. The players get a 2-second verbal description and perhaps a tactical layout. The characters have the full range of sensory input coupled with potentially deep professional experience.

IMO, it's the DM's job/obligation to provide all this necessary info through his storytelling. Talking about immersion.

There are enough calculations already that bog the game down.

As I player, I want my DM to describe me what my character sees, feels, listens and perceives, I don't want to calculate numbers so as to picture the evasive maneuvers of my enemy.

As a DM, I want my players to get into the story, into the battle, not just sit there like accountants trying to figure out what the numbers mean on their own.

I guess it depends on how you want your game. No disrespect intended, it is a matter of taste.

 

[Jimlock]

If you have players prone to metagame thinking, you'll get that thinking no matter how you roll the dice. Put those same players in a highly secret game with lots of fudge, and they will "game" the DM. Meaning, they'll start studying reactions, body language, etc. to gain their information.

Not necessarily.

Moreover, a good DM should know how to act, bluff and hide himself. It's his job.

The key is that there is nothing inherently wrong with metagaming.

That's your opinion, and perhaps how you like your game. It is not a fact.

I disagree. I think metagaming is bad, and has always caused harm to the games I've played.

 

[Nagol]

IMO, it's the DM's job/obligation to provide all this necessary info through his storytelling. Talking about immersion.

There are enough calculations already that bog the game down.

As I player, I want my DM to describe me what my character sees, feels, listens and perceives, I don't want to calculate numbers so as to picture the evasive maneuvers of my enemy.

As a DM, I want my players to get into the story, into the battle, not just sit there like accountants trying to figure out what the numbers mean on their own.

I guess it depends on how you want your game. No disrespect intended, it is a matter of taste.

First, I did not say no narration takes place. Just that the dice add an additional medium of data input for the players to use as they see fit.

Why do I feel that extra medium is valuable? It'd take me 20 minutes to say everything I feel for 6 seconds on a rollercoaster -- the distance of the people, the colour, the sounds, the smells, internal perceptions, what I see, what I don't see, how my friends are reacting, how the bystanders are reacting, how the strangers around me are reacting, how warm it is, etc.

The upshot is verbal communication is a poor substitute for being in the scene yourself. The players are starved of the data we treat as routine everyday. It would be diffciult and (very) time consuming for me to complete a single combat if I were to try to describe everything to each player from their character's perspective.

So what happens? The data gets homogenised across the whole player base. But, there is still too much. So now you prioritise and drop all the data you don't think is relevant or you think hasn't changed since the last update.. But now we have a single actor deciding what's relevant to the player. Each player remembers the scene slightly differently. Each player interprets the new description differently. Each player fills in the holes in the scene for himself. Something the DM thought would be a cue word goes without notice. Something else said innocently is seized on as a clue.

Additionally, each player can decide what, if any calculations he wants to perform on visible die rolls. By and large the initial gut reaction ("He missed with a 14? That's a relief!") is enough. If a player really wants to work out that that means his attack bonus can't exceed +30 with the sword, it's not a big deal. All it means is he can get a better estimate of success for combat options against that attack if nothing changes for the opponents.