D&D General DM's: How transparent are you with game mechanics "in world?"

[EzekielRaiden]

I never (or almost never) tell my players the specific numbers, but I give them reasonable qualitative descriptions, e.g. "Your hit lands, but it seems to leave the creature barely affected," or "wow, that was a solid hit! Another one like that and it's a goner!"

On the flipside, I try to be pretty transparent with my players about most things. I won't put explicit flags on the moves I make or the like, but I will tell them (usually at the end of session) if I totally improvised stuff or come clean about something if I'm not sure it worked out well. And in the one situation we've had where things almost went truly pear-shaped, I was honest with them (after the fact) that I had intentionally made a fight way too hard to see if I could actually challenge them, and pulled back a bit when I could see that I had finally done so. (They'd steamrolled multiple "this should be just a little too hard" fights, so I was trying to check to see if I even could push them beyond their limits. Turned out I could, but they used a clever strategy that gave me an opening for weakening their opposition in a way that the players could learn about and, potentially, exploit later.)

And when it comes to gear and mechanics...I try to preserve surprises when possible. On the flipside, though, I try to reach out and work with players to give them what they want. It helps, of course, that I run Dungeon World, which is light enough that I can basically house-rule invent whatever I want on a moment's notice. But even within that framework, I try very hard to be supportive of anything my players are genuinely enthusiastic about that isn't exploitative or coercive. They know I have their backs. E.g., our party Battlemaster completed his first personal arc by recovering the semi-legendary lost fourth volume of Struggle and Calm by General Khalifa al-Hamdan,. We worked out that that would grant him access to a new Battlemaster Tactic: Hammer and Anvil, which would be of benefit to him when coordinating with allies (essentially, a "set 'em up, knock 'em down" kind of thing.) I've done other, similar things for the other players (except the new person who just joined, since...they just joined, so I haven't had a chance yet!)

 

[kenada]

It depends. For mechanics that originate from or interact with the players’ character sheets, I try to be as transparent as possible. I don’t think it’s worth slowing down the game to hide the AC of enemies or difficulty of skill checks. The players will intuitive it eventually anyway. There are some exceptions though. I usually don’t outright say that monsters take reduced damage. It’s usually implied by the way the blow is described.

If we’re learning a game, and there’s a question of how something works, I’ll take a moment to explain what is happening. For example, when we first started playing 5e, and I ran Lost Mines of Phandelver, the players were worried about the thugs in town because they did two attacks. They assumed the thugs must be really high-level fighters (since we were coming from Pathfinder where NPCs typically were built like PCs). I took some time to explain how things work in 5e, and that cleared things one.

One area where I typically don’t reveal mechanics is when it comes to GM-side mechanics. I’m not going to reveal the results of my random event checks. I don’t use player-known hexes in our hex crawl. The players know how far away something is (“it’s north about 9 hours through the forest and over the mountain”), but they are not privy to how I track progress. I’m running Worlds Without Number, so that also goes for the faction game. The result of that will manifest in the game world, but they won’t know mechanically just how that came about (though if any are interested in how the faction game works in the abstract, I’m happy to explain it).

The issue I have with the OP’s situation is the rules-lawyering being directed at the DM. The creatures have to be built this certain way because that’s how it works for the PCs. I assume a conversation has been had explaining how monster design works in D&D. If not, having one should clear up any misunderstandings about how creatures and NPCs work. Even if you keep certain things secret or close to the vest, it behooves you as a DM to be willing to talk about how the game works (in an appropriate context, which is usually but may be in the middle of battle).

If the disruptions continue in spite of trying to address the player’s concerns, then that’s probably something that needs to be discussed with the group (to see if it’s bothering anyone else) and the player (to see if some kind of compromise can be struck). It could be that the player is just a really bad fit for one’s style, but I’d hesitate to take drastic action if everyone else is cool with it.

As for what’s on the players’ character sheets, I like to review them because my players have a habit of making mistakes. Like not having all the skill points, feats, or other things they should have. This was particularly bad when I was running Pathfinder 2e because that system is pretty tightly tuned, and several of my players had missed things.

 

[Umbran]

The point I was making is that it is unnecessarily, punitively, excessive

And I think this characterization is excessive, so... there you are.

for no discernible reason

I mean, I'm right here - you could ASK the reason.

There's a whole side conversation to be had about internet discourse and things of the form, "I will attribute motives to you instead of asking your motives."

 

[Plaguescarred]

I'm usually transparent with metagaming stuff unless i have reasons to keep the player's in the dark. So things like spellcasting, i would usually reveal when a spell is cast and what noticeable effect it produce. Wether i play online or in person, it will generally be obvious what the extra D6 is from in the OP scenario.

 

[Lyxen]

You can trust that they've neither made a mistake or cheated, but given that you've stated that you don't know what's on their character sheets, you can't possibly know that they aren't. They might be making frequent mistakes, and you would never know. That they may confer with each other is no guarantee (they might all be mistaken regarding how something works).

And as long as everyone is happy about the game, how is that a problem ?

On the other hand, if they check with you, then you know whether or not they are handling it correctly, but you are also aware of those capabilities. You can then plan accordingly with your tactics, unlike the players (who require the DM to be transparent in order to strategize effectively in respect to their opponents' capabilities).

You might have missed that, but my view is that monsters don't have their capabilities displayed on their foreheads for the player to strategise. If the players want their character to strategise, they will do it with what their characters know and see from my descriptions, not from metagame information as to how the rules approximate what is happening in the world

And the other way around, the PCs don't have their abilities tattooed on their foreheads for the DM's monsters to optimise their tactics. And finally, we don't play as the DM vs. the Players.

Even if they don't ask, you likely see their characters in action enough to have a good assessment as to what they're capable of.

Not necessarily. We don't do that many combats, and I honestly have no idea what their choices were in the last levels.

Whereas the monsters in a D&D game are disposable, and tend to be used in variety, meaning that without transparency the players may have difficulty coming up with meaningful tactics.

The tactics are perfectly meaningful for characters adventuring into the unknown. Encounters are not necessarily tailored for them, so they have to be careful. We are not playing a combat game at all, we are playing a story game.

 

[Lyxen]

Um, so? I don't see how this changes anything I said, and I'm quite aware you can do this.

The point is that it's not because you are playing on a VTT that you have to display everything, that's all.

 

[Fanaelialae]

And as long as everyone is happy about the game, how is that a problem ?



You might have missed that, but my view is that monsters don't have their capabilities displayed on their foreheads for the player to strategise. If the players want their character to strategise, they will do it with what their characters know and see from my descriptions, not from metagame information as to how the rules approximate what is happening in the world

And the other way around, the PCs don't have their abilities tattooed on their foreheads for the DM's monsters to optimise their tactics. And finally, we don't play as the DM vs. the Players.



Not necessarily. We don't do that many combats, and I honestly have no idea what their choices were in the last levels.



The tactics are perfectly meaningful for characters adventuring into the unknown. Encounters are not necessarily tailored for them, so they have to be careful. We are not playing a combat game at all, we are playing a story game.

It's not a problem if everyone is happy, but it is nonetheless a fact.

If you think that I'm advocating that monsters have their abilities tattooed on their foreheads, you've misconstrued my intent entirely. I haven't suggested anything remotely like that. What I have said is that a DM should be transparent with respect to their description of what monsters are doing, so that players can make informed decisions.

If a character is sneak attacked, for example, I do think it's important to describe the enemy as taking advantage of the distraction caused by an ally. Similarly, if a spell is cast, the players should be told as much (rather than the NPC muttering, which could simply be muttering). This way the players are able to understand the world similarly to how their characters could.

 

[Lyxen]

Sure, he isn't likely saying that. But, what I'm trying to understand is where you draw the line between the players receiving technical information and them asking to clarify technical information.

They are not receiving any apart from the bare minimum (damage received, conditions applied). The rest id description.

A DM could totally choose to tell the player how many attacks and whether or not sneak attack was applying, but a player is wrong for asking if that was the intent behind the massive spike in numbers?

He should get it from the description (which is what the game is about, see the PH introduction). I'm not saying it's wrong for a player to ask at any table, it's just that at our tables, we usually don't provide explanations, at best further descriptions if something has not been understood.

Didn't you also say you haven't looked at a player's sheet in years? You might have forgotten something about the defenses of the player.

I might, and if something really shocks the player (like he is hit for a massive fire damage while being resistant to fire), he might ask whether the DM is sure, or if his fire resistance was actually taken into account, but this happens really rarely.

For example, I actually was playing on a VTT game where the DM was rolling a lot of attacks, dealing a lot of damage, and the had a character take some big number, and we asked "wait, isn't that poison damage?" when we saw the roll. Because the player had gotten a Periapt of Proof against Poison months before, and it had never come up, but he was immune to poison damage.

In any case, poison damage is not described the same ways as piecing damage, if poison is involved, it is part of the description, so it's time for the question above.

Or, a my tables, I tend to math quickly, and tell the players their damage total after resistance. But, sometimes my players don't know if I did after resistance or before, so they have to ask me. And knowing whether or not the extra damage from an attack qualifies for resistance is important information for the player.

It should be clear for the description, and it usually is.

Mistrust and making sure there is clear communication are two different things. I trust all my DMs. That doesn't mean I think they are incapable of making mistakes. Especially with how often I make mistakes as a DM.

If mistakes are really damaging to the game, I would agree with you. Our perspective is that a few hit points mistakes now and then is not damaging to the game, so it's better for the game not to burden every resolution with details, that's all.

I'm sorry man, I don't buy it. Everyone messes up occasionally. Forgetting rules, mixing rules up, ect. It happens.

So what ? I've not said that, technically, no mistakes are made, but the game is not a technical game, and for us it is a worst mistake to cripple the game than to have small technical mistakes go unnoticed. Who cares ?

And since some fights and games can get down to the entire party in single digit hp with no resources remaining... taking a little bit more damage than you were supposed to can be a big deal. Yes, a big enough deal to stop the combat for a moment and double check. It isn't like the combat is a narrative cut-scene, you are dealing with technical information constantly in combat

And with the minimum of it to make it cinematic, quick and exciting, instead of bogged down into technical details.

And, I'm really not terribly comfortable with this idea that the player has to be polite and not accusatory (not saying that they should be accusatory, but it is being presented as a requirement) and if the DM feels like it they can explain what happened.

Unless you really believe that the DM would make the technical mistake on purpose, then what purpose does it serve not to be polite ? What is the purpose of trying the DM to feel guilty ? Will it make the game better ? My experience is that it can only make the game worse.

This just comes across as... a bad power dynamic. Sure, if there is a good reason not to tell them, maybe because it is a plot secret, then don't tell them. Hint at the fact or outright say "it matters for the plot, so you;ll need to figure it out" but we are talking figuring out that an NPC used a spell instead of a PC ability. That's not something that is a big mystery. So why not tell them? Why act like you are doing them some big favor by being kind enough to explain the rules of the game to them?

Why not tell them ? Because it slows down the game, because it has no interest to the other players, and because it fosters a bad competitive ambiance at the table, deteriorating the relationship between friends just trying collectively to create an interesting story.

Yeah, if I make a mistake that negatively impacts the PCs, I want to know about it. I want to know about it now, not after the session when it is too late to fix it. Because I want to challenge the PCs fairly, not challenge them because I failed to run the encounters without errors.

And where in the purpose of the game is it written that the aim is to challenge the PCs ? Where is it said that the rules are absolute and that not following them is a mistake ? There are many ways to play the game...

Again, people make mistakes.

I actually was playing with a friend in a one-shot not too long ago. He's played a rogue for years in various games. We were in a fight and his character hit, and he grabbed a bunch of D6's. So I asked "Dude, why are grabbing all those dice?"

And he looked at me, looked at his dice, looked at his character sheet and said, "Oh, right. I'm playing a paladin. I don't have sneak attack."

And that is why I wanted to pull attention to your post, because in the quote you were responding to, Fanaelialae specifically mentioned mistakes and that they have happened. But, your response, and even your response here, isn't about making mistakes. It is about cheating or powergaming.

Actually no, its not. It's about honest mistakes and the fact that if they are minor and not impacting the game too much, they sure can be glossed over without pointing it out, especially during the game.

Look, I'm happy for you if you and your players never make mistakes or confuse things or misunderstand a rule, but not everyone has that experience.

Never said we did.

And since the discussion is about asking for clarification in general, I feel it is really harmful to the conversation to immediately assume cheating on either side. The point Fanaelialae was trying to make I think is that since the DM asking for clarification when something weird was going on is fine, it seems strange to hold the players to a different standard. Since we don't assume the DM is cheating in creating the scenario that is strange, why would we assume the player is cheating?

Never pointed out one more than the other. I specifically wrote "Either cheating or making a mistake of that size." Of course, if it's a huge mistake like a paladin trying to sneak attack, it will be obvious. But small mistakes, who cares?

And if we are fine with the DM calling out the player on potential cheating, and DMs can cheat, isn't it equally fair to call out the DM on cheating if they are doing so?

By definition, a DM cannot cheat, as he can decide at any moment to apply exactly the rules that he wants to apply. Moreover, as he is not playing against the players, what exactly is the point of cheating for him ?

I don't want to assume cheating in either direction, because that isn't conducive to the discussion, but if we are, then I'd say the same standards apply both ways.

And see above, they don't the rules are not the same for the DM and the players.

 

[Lyxen]

It's not a problem if everyone is happy, but it is nonetheless a fact.

I'm not even exactly sure what is a fact ?

If you think that I'm advocating that monsters have their abilities tattooed on their foreheads, you've misconstrued my intent entirely. I haven't suggested anything remotely like that. What I have said is that a DM should be transparent with respect to their description of what monsters are doing, so that players can make informed decisions.

And that is fine, if you describe what is happening in the game world, which I have always said is the basis for the DM communication. What is not mandatorily included is the technical communication of the details of the rules and how they broke down into the result given.

If a character is sneak attacked, for example, I do think it's important to describe the enemy as taking advantage of the distraction caused by an ally.

And I gave that example earlier, it's part of the description.

Similarly, if a spell is cast, the players should be told as much (rather than the NPC muttering, which could simply be muttering). This way the players are able to understand the world similarly to how their characters could.

I completely agree, although in a number of cases, the PCs will not see or hear the spell cast, for example (too far, subtle spell, too many distraction).

 

[turnip_farmer]

I've never had to deal with a player like the OP's, but I've recently started becoming more transparent anyway, for several reasons. Partly, because I do sometimes screwup when I'm running a big complex battle with multiple NPCs, and my table's rules lawyer knows the rules better than I do. If I'm transparent about what's going on, he politely corrects my errors, and I get to cackle in maniacal glee when I explain that this monster is eating his face off due to a special ability rather than an error.

More importantly, though, I realised that I spent too much time trying to craft these forced sentences that didn't really make any sense for no good reason. All I really wanted to say was 'the firebolt did half damage because he has resistance to fire'. Why not just say that, instead of saying the same thing in a tortured way that the player probably interpreted as the same thing, but potentially misunderstood for no reason other than the quality of my prose?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Obviously in-world and in-world-pertinent questions are fine, and completely expected-- even encouraged! Demands for meta-information are not.

And what counts as meta-information?

AC is a meta-information concept, but asking what armor someone wears makes perfect sense. Hit Points are meta-game information, but as many players point out, knowing how exhausted/badly injured their opponent is is something that they should clearly be aware of. There are many concepts that are just easier to discuss and express in terms of the meta-mechanics, than they are the in-world fiction.

These lines are a bit blurry. For example, I had a DM once who had us fighting a Draco-lich. My character was a storm sorcerer and I had been bored and curious, so I was keeping track of my damage that fight. And I'd been unleashing multiple spells a round for nearly an hour, the fight was nearly over it seemed and I'd done nearly 300 points of damage by myself.

I commented to the DM that this thing was incredibly tough, because I knew how much I'd hit it for, and the rest of the party were doing somewhat similiar. The DM's Response? "Oh, he's immune to lightning damage, he used to be a Blue Dragon." Round after round, spell after spell, had been wasted, because the DM had just been taking the damage numbers, rolling the saves, and never said anything about something that my character would have noticed.

Meta-information, but also in-world pertinent.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The point is that it's not because you are playing on a VTT that you have to display everything, that's all.

Not sure why you quoted me to make this point, but okay.

 

[J.Quondam]

And what counts as meta-information?

AC is a meta-information concept, but asking what armor someone wears makes perfect sense. Hit Points are meta-game information, but as many players point out, knowing how exhausted/badly injured their opponent is is something that they should clearly be aware of. There are many concepts that are just easier to discuss and express in terms of the meta-mechanics, than they are the in-world fiction.

These lines are a bit blurry. For example, I had a DM once who had us fighting a Draco-lich. My character was a storm sorcerer and I had been bored and curious, so I was keeping track of my damage that fight. And I'd been unleashing multiple spells a round for nearly an hour, the fight was nearly over it seemed and I'd done nearly 300 points of damage by myself.

I commented to the DM that this thing was incredibly tough, because I knew how much I'd hit it for, and the rest of the party were doing somewhat similiar. The DM's Response? "Oh, he's immune to lightning damage, he used to be a Blue Dragon." Round after round, spell after spell, had been wasted, because the DM had just been taking the damage numbers, rolling the saves, and never said anything about something that my character would have noticed.

Meta-information, but also in-world pertinent.

"chain mail" is in-world info, AC 16 is not.
"It's looking pretty beat up!" is in-world info, "It's lost 100 hp" is not.

As for the lightning attack example, the GM was in the wrong, imo. But that's not an issue of meta-information; that was straight up lack of any information! If the opponent isn't affected by an attack, then obviously the GM should make that clear. That's certainly doable in-world*: "It looks like it pretty much shrugged off that attack!" or even "Looks like it might be immune to your lightning!"

It's not for everyone (clearly, lol!); and I know some players want "perfect knowledge" at all times. That's cool. But in my experience, almost all players have preferred that the curtain stay mostly down. Which is fine, because keeping information exchange entirely in in-world terms is neither hard to do, nor to understand. It just means the uncertainties are a bit bigger than zero. Keeps it exciting.

 

[Chaosmancer]

They are not receiving any apart from the bare minimum (damage received, conditions applied). The rest id description.

The bare minimum is still an awful lot. What was rolled to hit, hp damage, damage type, what saves they need to make, the effects of failing those saves. Other than that the only thing I can think of is the name of the ability. So, you give out quite a bit of technical information, but expect the players to ask almost no technical questions... because you are worried about the flow of the scene? Combat flow is very choppy in general,so I don't see the concern.

He should get it from the description (which is what the game is about, see the PH introduction). I'm not saying it's wrong for a player to ask at any table, it's just that at our tables, we usually don't provide explanations, at best further descriptions if something has not been understood.

Okay, descriptions are great, but do you know how often those descriptions are instead confusing? And if the player just asks for more and more descriptions, isn't it just faster to tell them in the mechanical terms? I mean, at some point your objection is more about how they ask the question than the fact that they are asking.

I might, and if something really shocks the player (like he is hit for a massive fire damage while being resistant to fire), he might ask whether the DM is sure, or if his fire resistance was actually taken into account, but this happens really rarely.

Why not? It's happened to us quite often.

In any case, poison damage is not described the same ways as piecing damage, if poison is involved, it is part of the description, so it's time for the question above.

It should be clear for the description, and it usually is.

"Should be clear" does not mean "is clear". You are putting a lot of this on the assumption that the DMs description provides everything the player actually needs to know, and that the player understands that. And if it isn't clear, then questions are going to be asked.

If mistakes are really damaging to the game, I would agree with you. Our perspective is that a few hit points mistakes now and then is not damaging to the game, so it's better for the game not to burden every resolution with details, that's all.

So what ? I've not said that, technically, no mistakes are made, but the game is not a technical game, and for us it is a worst mistake to cripple the game than to have small technical mistakes go unnoticed. Who cares ?

Well, my group for one. Yeah, If I made a mistake on the technical level that affects actual change in the game, like reducing hp, that is more than important enough to clarify. That difference could end up changing the story, and I want my game to be run fairly. That includes letting them catch mistakes and making sure that everything is running smoothly

Unless you really believe that the DM would make the technical mistake on purpose, then what purpose does it serve not to be polite ? What is the purpose of trying the DM to feel guilty ? Will it make the game better ? My experience is that it can only make the game worse.

Again, my point wasn't that the player should be accusatory, just that it was very noticeable that you immediately specified that the player must be polite for the DM to even consider giving an answer. Especially given that the OP and myself and most others have taken no position that anyone is accusing anyone of anything. You are adding this fact in, and I find that puzzling. Of course people should be polite to each other, that should go without saying, but you are starting to draw the battle lines. Implying a player who isn't polite is trying to make the DM feel guilty. It could also be possible that they are exhausted after a 12 hour shift, had a bad day getting chewed out by middle-managers, and are working on a short temper because of it. I'm not going to demand people are polite to me and ascribe motives to them if they aren't. I don't see how that makes the game better either.

Why not tell them ? Because it slows down the game, because it has no interest to the other players, and because it fosters a bad competitive ambiance at the table, deteriorating the relationship between friends just trying collectively to create an interesting story.

1) If it slows down the game to say "it's basically hunter's mark, we can talk more later" then your game moves way faster than mine. Combats can stretch for an hour or more, and not every second is spent in the weeds. Sometimes it is me as the DM doing math to subtract hp, and I've got time to answer questions while I do that. Or while I'm moving figures on the board.

2) Who says it is of no interest to other players? Maybe it does interest them. We can't know that.

3) How does it foster any competitive ambiance to seek understanding clarity? Me and my friends use this technical language all the time. We aren't competitive in the game, nor do our stories suffer. Maybe it would be like that at your table, but as a general rule, I don't think we can say this is true.

And where in the purpose of the game is it written that the aim is to challenge the PCs ? Where is it said that the rules are absolute and that not following them is a mistake ? There are many ways to play the game...

I don't need the rules to tell me that breaking the rules when I don't intend to is a mistake. It is sort of like grammar, if you are breaking the rules on purpose that is very different than breaking them unintentionally. I'm not saying never change the rules, what I am saying is that if you didn't change the rules and the players ask what is going on, that might be a sign you made a mistake and did something you didn't intend to do.

Also, stories with no challenges can be quite boring. Not all of them, but DnD isn't set up well to tell slice of life stories, so challenge is an expected part of the experience.

Actually no, its not. It's about honest mistakes and the fact that if they are minor and not impacting the game too much, they sure can be glossed over without pointing it out, especially during the game.

Never said we did.

Never pointed out one more than the other. I specifically wrote "Either cheating or making a mistake of that size." Of course, if it's a huge mistake like a paladin trying to sneak attack, it will be obvious. But small mistakes, who cares?

Why is cheating even in the discussion? Nobody was really discussing cheating, until you came in and started talking about it. And what counts as a minor mistake? 10% of the player's hp is fairly significant to my eyes, not something minor.

By definition, a DM cannot cheat, as he can decide at any moment to apply exactly the rules that he wants to apply. Moreover, as he is not playing against the players, what exactly is the point of cheating for him ?

And see above, they don't the rules are not the same for the DM and the players.

You are wrong. You are correct in that the DM should not be playing to beat the players, but they absolutely can cheat. And if you need to "decide" that the "rules" are that your boss monster has resistance to all attacks, immunity to that condition, and regenerated half their spell like abilities... you cheated. There are ways to set up a power-up or a desperate last play, but those are different than straight up cheating.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

I'm not sure how to answer, since the example left me more confused than when i clicked the title. That said, it does seem like a frustrating and antagonistic interaction.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

To OP: This sounds like a classic example of "Players not trusting the DM" syndrome.

Usually, when/if a player asks me or tries to 'correct' me for saying something that doesn't jive with the rules, I either apologise and fix it if I was wrong...or say "There's a reason". That's where it ends. They accept it and we move on and they try and figure out WHY that kobold was getting an extra d6 damage with his arrow hit.

That said, the distinction between "game mechanics talk" and "PC talk" is usually easy to discern. But even then, we just 'filter out' any mechanics or translate it into "in-game imagination stuff". So if a Player says "Nice! I just hit AC 22...for 17 points with my 2-handed sword", it's obvious the PC isn't 'saying' that at all; pure game mechanics. I then sometimes re-phrase it into game narrative ("Right...you swing in a wind up arch and bring it down on the poor kobolds skull, easily splitting it in half. It drops in a sickening *SPCHLURTCH!").

So I guess the bottom line is... mechanics are part of the game, er, mechanics. Now, if a PC says "Shopkeeper! You can't sell Viking Stout Ale here, the books say it's only available in Vanaheim"...then we have a problem. But that's, uh, never happened that I can remember anyway. My player would phrase it as "Shopkeeper! How in the world did you get a tun of Viking Stout Ale? That's only available in Vanaheim...?".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Lyxen]

The bare minimum is still an awful lot. What was rolled to hit, hp damage, damage type, what saves they need to make, the effects of failing those saves.

Let's not confuse everything. What was rolled to hit is not necessary (I know the AC ballpark, see it more precisely if I need to), the damage type is just part of the description, so it's just the damage.

As for asking a save, of course I need to describe the effect and tell the kind of save and the result, just as above. But it's certainly not detailed.

Other than that the only thing I can think of is the name of the ability. So, you give out quite a bit of technical information, but expect the players to ask almost no technical questions... because you are worried about the flow of the scene? Combat flow is very choppy in general,so I don't see the concern.

It's not choppy at all if you do it simply with nice description, although it's also due to our "no talking during someone else's turn" rules.

Okay, descriptions are great, but do you know how often those descriptions are instead confusing? And if the player just asks for more and more descriptions, isn't it just faster to tell them in the mechanical terms? I mean, at some point your objection is more about how they ask the question than the fact that they are asking.

Our players don't find them confusing, what can I say ? The fire giant slams his flaming hammer at you, you take 19 damage plus 10 fire. It's already a not so simple case, how confusing is that ?

Why not? It's happened to us quite often.

What can I say, maybe we pay more attention to combat, maybe we are better at memorising things, who knows ? And we have run all levels, so it's not a question of complexity.

"Should be clear" does not mean "is clear". You are putting a lot of this on the assumption that the DMs description provides everything the player actually needs to know, and that the player understands that. And if it isn't clear, then questions are going to be asked.

And then, after a few years playing together (and some of us have been playing together for 35+ years, and the whole of 5e) maybe it's always clear. And maybe, because no-one interrupts and nitpicks, it also easier to provide simple and clear descriptions. The end result, it works really well for us.

And just have a look at Critical Role, it's simple and descriptive, almost nothing technical and everyone is having fun. I can't do the voices as well as Matt, but I can run a combat just as smoothly.

Well, my group for one. Yeah, If I made a mistake on the technical level that affects actual change in the game, like reducing hp, that is more than important enough to clarify. That difference could end up changing the story, and I want my game to be run fairly. That includes letting them catch mistakes and making sure that everything is running smoothly

Technically fairly is not our objective in the game. Our objective is fun and story.

Again, my point wasn't that the player should be accusatory, just that it was very noticeable that you immediately specified that the player must be polite for the DM to even consider giving an answer. Especially given that the OP and myself and most others have taken no position that anyone is accusing anyone of anything. You are adding this fact in, and I find that puzzling. Of course people should be polite to each other, that should go without saying, but you are starting to draw the battle lines. Implying a player who isn't polite is trying to make the DM feel guilty. It could also be possible that they are exhausted after a 12 hour shift, had a bad day getting chewed out by middle-managers, and are working on a short temper because of it. I'm not going to demand people are polite to me and ascribe motives to them if they aren't. I don't see how that makes the game better either.

And if all these things are true about the DM, why needle him about technicalities when he is just trying to help you tell a good story ?

So yes, it never happens at our games that players are not polite to the DM, but if anyone were to be impolite to me, I would just show him the door.

1) If it slows down the game to say "it's basically hunter's mark, we can talk more later" then your game moves way faster than mine.

Does the player have any right to know it's a hunter's mark ? In general no, it's just an accurate shot. So why waste time ? Moreover, it really depends on the roll, so some attacks with hunter's mark are going to be puny anyway,

Combats can stretch for an hour or more, and not every second is spent in the weeds.

Not ours. In 5e, except when it's a huge battle combat is usually well under one hour, sometimes just a few minutes using Theater of the Mind, and it's certainly not in the weeds. It's the excitement, and the fear, and the triumph that matters.

Sometimes it is me as the DM doing math to subtract hp, and I've got time to answer questions while I do that. Or while I'm moving figures on the board.

Good for you and if your players like it. Just pointing out that it's not the only way to play, you can play really well using completely different ways of thinking.

2) Who says it is of no interest to other players? Maybe it does interest them. We can't know that.

Even if it might interest them, their characters have even less reason to know the information. Why provide it to them ? And at our tables, people are not interested in anything delaying someone else's turn, they'd rather that it swings back to them. Even if you delay 10 seconds on each player, it's still a full minute wasted for every player until their turn comes again.

3) How does it foster any competitive ambiance to seek understanding clarity? Me and my friends use this technical language all the time. We aren't competitive in the game, nor do our stories suffer. Maybe it would be like that at your table, but as a general rule, I don't think we can say this is true.

Trying to leverage technical information that the character does not know about to play tactically better is trying to get an edge on the system, so it's by default competitive.

I don't need the rules to tell me that breaking the rules when I don't intend to is a mistake. It is sort of like grammar, if you are breaking the rules on purpose that is very different than breaking them unintentionally. I'm not saying never change the rules, what I am saying is that if you didn't change the rules and the players ask what is going on, that might be a sign you made a mistake and did something you didn't intend to do.

And again, if someone is telling a great story and is making grammar mistakes telling it to me, I will not stop his story to point out the mistakes. Not only is that extremely rude, but it's also silly as it's much better to enjoy the story.

Also, stories with no challenges can be quite boring. Not all of them, but DnD isn't set up well to tell slice of life stories, so challenge is an expected part of the experience.

D&D is perfectly set up to tell slice of life stories, you know. Not everything has to be on the knife's edge. Just read books of watch movies of the genre, this is what we are trying to emulate while playing.

Why is cheating even in the discussion? Nobody was really discussing cheating, until you came in and started talking about it.

Do we absolutely have to speak only about the subject of the thread ? I came in and mentioned trust. Obviously, when there is lack of trust, someone thinks about the reasons for it. But fine, if you don't want to discuss cheating, let's leave it out of the equation, it does not matter that much.

And what counts as a minor mistake? 10% of the player's hp is fairly significant to my eyes, not something minor.

You are the one putting arbitrary values here, but what I count as minor is anything that does not break suspension of disbelief in the player, and that threshold is completely dependend on the player.

You are wrong. You are correct in that the DM should not be playing to beat the players, but they absolutely can cheat. And if you need to "decide" that the "rules" are that your boss monster has resistance to all attacks, immunity to that condition, and regenerated half their spell like abilities... you cheated.

Once more, no. Please explain what, in the rules, prevent the DM to decide that monster does just this ? Not only is there absolutely nothing in the rules about this, but on the contrary the rulebooks themselves tell you exactly what I told you, the DM does what he wants, decides which if official rulings are in play or not, and can do whatever he wants.

There are ways to set up a power-up or a desperate last play, but those are different than straight up cheating.

Once more, nothing forces the DM to decide anything in advance, whether it's deciding the rules, the abilities of a monster, what triggers things, etc.

Obviously, if a DM abuses this, and presents an inconsistent world that is not fun, the players will leave quickly. But, compared to what you stated above, I've had quite a number of cases where monsters were completely invulnerable because the players had ignored many clues about their invulnerability, and actually had to flee because there was no victory to be had that day.

And when they learnt about it, they did exactly like all heroes do in the books/movies of the genre, said "what idiots we have been" and set up to correct their mistakes.

And when I create a custom monster that does not play by the rules, I don't apologise or explain things in advance, I just let my players discover it and react, just like what happens in books/movies.

Remember, the rules are just approximations of the way the world behaves in standard cases. But in some cases, the world is stronger than the rules, and the story matters more than rules. Just because the DM does not play by these approximations does not mean that he is cheating. He can't cheat, he literally makes the rules.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You are wrong. You are correct in that the DM should not be playing to beat the players, but they absolutely can cheat. And if you need to "decide" that the "rules" are that your boss monster has resistance to all attacks, immunity to that condition, and regenerated half their spell like abilities... you cheated. There are ways to set up a power-up or a desperate last play, but those are different than straight up cheating.

Nope. Cheating is breaking the rules. But according to the D&D rules, the GM has power to alter and ignore any rules at any moment at their discretion. Thus it is by definition impossible for the GM to cheat. Now GM can do a lot of things that may feel unfair and unfun to players, but that's another matter.

 

[J.Quondam]

Nope. Cheating is breaking the rules. But according to the D&D rules, the GM has power to alter and ignore any rules at any moment at their discretion. Thus it is by definition impossible for the GM to cheat. Now GM can do a lot of things that may feel unfair and unfun to players, but that's another matter.

Agreed. The rules (or at least the good rules) are what safeguard consistency in the game world. They're what allow the PCs to interact with 90% of the game in a rational way and get more or less the expected results. When a GM "breaks" a rule or "hides" information, the characters experience something* "off"... and that, in turn, should serve as a cue to the player that something's wonky in the gameworld. Quite often, in fact, that's where the adventure really begins!

As in so many of these sorts of threads, the real issue here is just the trust between the players and the GM. Resolve that, and most of these concerns go away, I think.

* Yeah, it's possible the GM actually is being a weenie, or just not communicating well with the players. But that's a different problem!

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm not even exactly sure what is a fact ?

Reposting what I wrote, to which you then responded with, what does it matter as long as everyone is happy:

"You can trust that they've neither made a mistake or cheated, but given that you've stated that you don't know what's on their character sheets, you can't possibly know that they aren't. They might be making frequent mistakes, and you would never know."

If everyone is happy, it's fine. That's the most important thing . However, it's nonetheless true that if you don't know what the PC's capabilities are, you cannot know if they've used them in error. That's the fact I was referring to.