D&D 4E 4e: the metagame.

[Old Gumphrey]

And I don't give a crap about the player.

Done, and done.

 

[Runestar]

I find I can no longer tell when someone is genuinely trying to be serious or simply being sarcastic...

 

[Kzach]

I find I can no longer tell when someone is genuinely trying to be serious or simply being sarcastic...

Just assume everyone is being snarky all the time.

You'll become bitter and cynical, but you'll only be wrong 1 in 10 times

 

[keterys]

You'll become bitter and cynical, but you'll only be wrong 1 in 10 times

And only because people are too lazy to be snarky 100% of the time.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Why not do both?

Being firmly in the "narrativist" camp, I believe that RPGs are "interactive stories" created in consensus between the players and the PCs, so I strongly encourage the players to provide additional narration to describe in-combat effects.

However we avoid a "Disengage vs. Cadfan" situation by also providing the mechanical descriptions, immediately before or after the narration.

For example, in my table, the "shield spell situation" described by Runestar would go like this (in-game-narration voice is in italics, out-of-game voice is in regular font):

DM: "The foul orc swings a nasty-looking handaxe over its head, making it fly towards the wizard!" <rolls>
"the orc rolls a 25 vs. AC for 7 damage"

Wizard: "Well, Im hit. And since my AC is 18 shield won't help"
"The axe hits the wizard, scraping his forearm before he can finish the gestures of a protective spell... OW!! I'll get you for that, filthy greenskin!"

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.

It may take a little extra time, but my players seem to appreciate when I narrate something like:

"The Orc shaman grunts as the rogue's dagger gets past the layers of boiled leather!
<place a small bit of red playdoh over the figure>
This guy's now bloodied."

Great narration, but I have one question. How feasible is it to expect the DM to be able to come up with all sorts of appropriate descriptions for every monster in every encounter the party faces? That was one problem I faced when I tried something along this line in my 3e games. The first few encounters worked great. But by the 4th fight, I was rapidly running out of different and ingenious ways to describe the extent someone (or something) was wounded without giving too much away. It soon became tedious and tiring to repeat myself over and over again like a cracked record, and the players quickly caught on as to what sort of status each description was referring to anyways.

We do sometimes run out of descriptions, but since the burden is placed on both DM and players, we are not very critical when someone struggles with an adjective or repeats him/herself every once in a while.

Also, we find that it is important that everyone develops an "in character" voice that is separate from the "regular, out-of-character" voice, so that everyone knows when one is narrating and when one is just describing in-game mechanical effects, or just asking someone to pass the chips bowl.
We usually achieve this by narrating in a slightly louder tone of voice, but we are not below a certain amount of "acting" (sometimes overacting!), you know... accents, catchphrases, hand-gesturing and other things that have defined D&D dorkness over the years .

 

[buzz]

It may take a little extra time, but my players seem to appreciate when I narrate something like...

I've done this, and I've had players do this. One guy had a little rattle that he would shake when his PC cast a spell, like a totem or charm.

What I find inevitably happens is that since this narrative flavor has no mechanical weight in D&D, any well-intentioned narration and prop use eventually dwindles and stops. And I can't blame anyone, because it really just wastes time after a while. D&D is not about elaborately describing every blow or spell.

If you want narrative, play a game about narrative. D&D, at its core, *is* about the metagame.

 

[Disengage]

Done, and done.

You took that out of context.

I meant that I don't give a crap about it making it easy for or centered around characters.

The characters are exploring my world; I am not simply DMing theirs. It's a very specific mindset, that's all.

This has nothing to do with me being on a power trip, either. It's about immersion. When they play their characters, I want them to play AS IF they were those characters, and that includes being blind to things that their characters would be (with a few exceptions). I want them to make actions as if they are down on the dirt, clad in bulky armor, with a Drow wielding a hammer trying to kill them, not the calm, cool, micro-managing hand-of-god sitting above the battlefield, like they really are.

I hate talking with my friends. Again, sign me up!

Yay out-of-context! Talking at the table is fine, so long as it doesn't slow things down. What is NOT fine at the table are things like:

"Hey, I think that Orc's AC is 18"

"Guys, I'm a few chambers ahead of you and I see some sweet treasure!"

"Hey Jack, get over in this square so that you can use this power and give me Combat Advantage so I pwnz0r this guy!"

So you either ignore PC abilities that operate on the bloodied condition, or you keep track of all of it yourself while you're trying to DM? That sounds totally awesome, sign me up.

NO. What I will not tell my players is that they are "Bloodied" (notice the capital B). When I tell them that it's now ok to use certain powers, I will let them know in no certain terms that now is the time.

The fuzzy terms help keep things "in character" or "in game". That's it.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

The characters are exploring my world; I am not simply DMing theirs. It's a very specific mindset, that's all.

Of course, and it certainly works. I played under a DM for four years who probably thinks very similarly. We played some of my favorite games, and whenever I'm behind the screen I do my best to emulate his improvisation and sense of story. It was truly his invention, and he knew it well and how it should work.

But remember that once you present that world to your players, it's no longer just yours, but theirs as well. You may do the brainstorming and generation, and set the course of events. But you are not creating a story about Baron von Osterbaden and his ingenius policymaking or mercantile trade revolt of 1707; it's about the players and their characters.

So really, you and your group are sharing the world. You may set up events, even lead or force them along the path of your choosing, but even then they may still surprise you. (And if you really want this kind of control, why not write a novel?)

Though he was snarky about it, I think what Gumphrey has issue with is that your mindset seems not to include the players and what they want. This of course is not necessarily the case; perhaps you've given your players what they're looking for within the framework of your world? That's certainly appropriate; kitchen sink campaigns are not for everyone, and really it's difficult to create a character outside of any context. I think every DM caters to his players in some respect, otherwise even your friends will lose interest and stop playing.

I suspect you don't have frequent game sessions where the players come over and you spin yarns about current events and history in your setting for several hours. Unless this is the case, you are certainly running a character centered game, whether or not you care about it.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

I find I can no longer tell when someone is genuinely trying to be serious or simply being sarcastic...

Sorry for the confusion, I like to be more clear than that. Here is a hint: I actually like to talk to my friends.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I want them to make actions as if they are down on the dirt, clad in bulky armor, with a Drow wielding a hammer trying to kill them, not the calm, cool, micro-managing hand-of-god sitting above the battlefield, like they really are.

One problem... while it's easy to force players to "play down" to the low intelligence or wisdom they've chosen for their rogue ... what about the intelligence on the wizard or the tactical warlord? What if the character should be smarter than the player, doesn't it break the immersion for the characters to be limited by the tactical inefficiencies of the players?

Similarly, a group of adventurers with any experience will have cohesion and comraderie that would allow for quick decision making and tactical maneuvering that would, in game, be much quicker than the back and forth at the table, and hmm and hawing.

I would fully expect a rogue to ask for combat advantage [assuming he isn't trying to stealth], in some manner like "Hey, Cleric, flash this guy and blind him, I'll take care of the rest".

Now the pinning down of AC is metagamy, but at the same time, outside of a few situational powers, knowing the monsters AC means knowing whether the attack hit or not when you initially rolled it. [knowing the various defences is a bit harder to pin down though]. Most games, even the most metagamey and gamist, will at least require you go back to be in the same general area as the rest of the party to tell them about the treasure a few chambers over.

"Hey Jack, get over in this square so that you can use this power and give me Combat Advantage so I pwnz0r this guy!"

Basically, what I'm saying is that odds are the adventurer's are more skilled than the players are at communicating this kind of information in the heat of battle. Talking is a free action. If a monster understands them, and has any way of preventing their plans then perhaps he might stop it.

NO. What I will not tell my players is that they are "Bloodied" (notice the capital B). When I tell them that it's now ok to use certain powers, I will let them know in no certain terms that now is the time.

The fuzzy terms help keep things "in character" or "in game". That's it.

However, telling them that they have unlocked the ability to use certain powers ... which are also metagame, out of character terms ... It just seems like avoiding the word bloodied and then saying "by the way, out of character, you can use all your bloodied based effects now" instead of just saying "he is bloodied", which at least sounds like something that could be in game.

Of course, the whole dice rolling thing, knowing what hit or didn't hit and how much damage you did is all metagamey too ... maybe the DM should just roll everyone's dice behind the screen and narate the results. Also a player knowing their own hp value is a bit of a metagame concept too as they can figure out precisely how much healing they need ...