How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[hawkeyefan]

Then they figure it out in combat like their character would. Oh, the character won't have an exact number, but will be able to tell about how hard it is to hit after a while of fighting.

Because it's less fun that way. Just because it's not less for for you, doesn't make it untenable for us to play that way when in fact it's more fun for us.

My comment about it being “untenable” was not about the game itself, but rather about hiding rules. It can’t last because the players will learn the rules through observation.

As for it being fun… sure, that’s a matter of preference. But for me, if the fun part of play is figuring out what a creature’s AC is, then I’d probably not play.

Saying that the monster is easy to hit, very easy to hit, moderately hard to hit, hard to hit and very hard to hit also allow for informed decisions. There's no need for a number to be assigned in order to make such a decision.

By the same argument, there’s no reason not to provide a number. You’re describing communicating a quantitative element. So why not just give the quantity?

 

[hawkeyefan]

If it's a monster you've never seen before, the bolded should only be learned the hard way.

Why? The GM’s not allowed to give an indication of the thing’s abilities? So no “statue garden” outside the medusa lair? No volcanic lair of a red dragon? No open display of capability to establish the danger?

Not allowing this kind of stuff seems far more meta (as you use the term) than allowing it.

Having the DM give you the numbers helps your immersion?

People really are different.

Yes because for many people, having just a gist of an idea doesn’t match what they’d expect to have if they were actually there. It doesn’t make them feel like the character in the situation.

 

[pawsplay]

Having the DM give you the numbers helps your immersion?

People really are different.

Let's say you don't have the numbers. But does your character have a general sense of something's capability? Is ignorance immersion?

 

[Thomas Shey]

If it's a monster you've never seen before, the bolded should only be learned the hard way.

Man, you're going to really have to learn that "Let them learn everything the hard way" is not a way most people are interested in playing any more, if they ever really were.

 

[Aldarc]

Man, you're going to really have to learn that "Let them learn everything the hard way" is not a way most people are interested in playing any more, if they ever really were.

It's metagaming to avoid metagaming. Of course that sort of metagaming that is here being avoided was cool in the Gygaxian idea of "skilled play," because it meant the players learned and could prove how skilled they were at playing the game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't have strong feelings about announcing the AC in either way, I usually do after the PCs have attacked something as it just is easier in play. And I don't think it is particularly unbelievable or immersion breaking if an experienced combatant who can see the enemy's armour and armament, as well as has a chance to observe how they defend themselves, can pretty accurately gauge how hard hitting that foe is. Close enough on the plausibility front for me to take this win on the playability front. YMMV.

And I do think that learning about the enemies in play is fun, I just don't put basic numerical things like AC into that category. It is more about what sort of powers and weaknesses the enemy might have etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My comment about it being “untenable” was not about the game itself, but rather about hiding rules. It can’t last because the players will learn the rules through observation.

As for it being fun… sure, that’s a matter of preference. But for me, if the fun part of play is figuring out what a creature’s AC is, then I’d probably not play.



By the same argument, there’s no reason not to provide a number. You’re describing communicating a quantitative element. So why not just give the quantity?

Because it isn't defined as a number in the setting, just in the game as an abstract.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Man, you're going to really have to learn that "Let them learn everything the hard way" is not a way most people are interested in playing any more, if they ever really were.

I don't see how your opinion of the popularity of a preference is in any way relevant, and in this case borderline insulting IMO.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Let's say you don't have the numbers. But does your character have a general sense of something's capability? Is ignorance immersion?

If the PC has reason to have a general sense of someone's capability (and often they do), then that's fine.

And if the PC has reason to be ignorant than yes, ignorance is immersion.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because it isn't defined as a number in the setting, just in the game as an abstract.

But the number represents a real quality that exists in the setting. At least if you interpret rules simulationistically, which I know you do. So knowing that number can simulate knowing the quality it represents.