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.
Damage type may be part of the description, but it is also technical information. Also, while the AC ballpark is useful, it is still fairly common to mention the total, at least at my tables, because AC can change depending on reactions.
But, my point still stands. Even the "bare minimum" of technical information is a significant amount of technical information.
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.
I don't understand what you seem to mean by a "nice description". A basic turn just for some comparison.
Player: Okay, I'm going to move, one, two three, four, five, here behind the Gnoll Cultist. Can I get flanking with <Player 2>
DM: Yep, that's advantage.
Player: Okay, then I'm going to swing twice with my longsword. First attack is a 17.
DM: Misses.
Player: Okay, second is a 21
DM: Hits
Player: Awesome, burning a level 2 slot for divine smite.
DM: Got it
Player: That's 25 damage
DM: Okay <Doing math> Still up.
DM or Player (I've got some Players who describe and some who prefer me to): Sir Frederick charges across the battlefield, sliding in behind the cultist. His first blow is deflected by the creature's staff as it twists around, but his second cuts a large gash into its chest that explodes with the steely flames of Iron Lord.
DM: <Player 2> you're up.
And that's basically every turn. Some are faster, some have more questions, but I've never really had a "simply with a nice description" go on, unless everyone rolls and then just says what happens without talking about their rolls or abilities at all.
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 ?
Sure, that one isn't confusing. But just because you can show a very simple, non-confusing example doesn't mean other ones can't be more vague. Just off the top of my head...
"The Infernal Knight thrusts his sword into the ground, and the souls of his victims claw up from the earth, striking at all of you. Everyone make me a wisdom save versus 20 necrotic damage as the shades howl and circle around him."
They might know exactly what they have to do versus the damage, but that doesn't mean all the details of what just happened and what can be done were clear.
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.
Well, I can't say either. I'm pretty good at memorizing things and everyone pays attention as well, that's how we catch the mistakes.
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.
And there is a major assumption you are making. I haven't had a consistent table for multiple adventures... ever? I had a group of three or four who were in a few games in a row for about two or three years, but while one or two people might be consistent, new people join our games and old people leave all the time.
If you approach with the assumption that the same group of people has been playing together for 5 to 7 years, that colors things when some of us have new people every year.
Technically fairly is not our objective in the game. Our objective is fun and story.
The two aren't exclusive.
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.
And I'm more level-headed than that. Sure, I'm not really going to put up with someone cussing me out and screaming, but a bit of a pointed question is nothing. And the reason to seek clarity about the technicalities is to make sure everyone is having fun. I won't be having fun if I find out I messed up a rule to the detriment of my players. And many of my players have pointed out mistakes I made in their favor (I do this as well) because winning on the fact the DM messed up the rules isn't satisfying.
And again, there is this assumption that the player must be polite... but shouldn't the DM also be polite and courteous? What's the point of saying "The Player needs to respect the DM" is the truth is "The Player and the DM need to respect each other"? It seems like making a pedestal distinction.
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,
Why don't they have the right to know? If they don't know it is a magical ability then they can't do anything to disrupt it. There are plenty of abilities that allow the players to dispel magical effects from their characters, but those don't dispel "making an accurate shot" You also can't break concentration on "being accurate".
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.
I've heard people make this claim many times, and I've talked to everyone I've ever played with, and we don't get how this is possible. The only thing we can figure is people who have "combats" where the entire party ganks a guard or two in less than a round. The only times I've seen a combat run faster than 30 minutes is when not everyone even gets a turn to act.
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.
I'm not saying you can't. But you make sweeping statements like "It would be a waste of everyone's time to answer that" and you don't seem to account for people having different ways of thinking. And you have done this consistently.
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.
Because maybe they have an ability that activates in the situation in question. And, while I get that you seem to run at a breakneck pace, I think putting forth that a delay of even ten seconds is unacceptable generally is far to strict.
Additionally, my players tend to think like a team, so something that affects one member is important information for the rest of them. They don't need the spotlight back on them as soon as possible.
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.
If you find competing against the system to be competitive, I guess so, but I generally don't see competing against the game as a competition. And also, again, there is this assumption that the character doesn't know the information. But they are in the moment. They are seeing the micro-expressions, seeing the enemies stance, listening to their words and cadence, feeling the changes in the air, and seeing dozens of other signals that the player's don't get.
I find myself often questioning how much information we hide that the characters would actually figure out.
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.
If they are speaking the story, you likely won't notice. If you are reading it? I've often found stories unbearable due to grammar and pacing mistakes, even if the concept is interesting.
And if I'm helping someone write that story and they are making grammar mistakes? It'd be more rude to ignore their mistakes and let them continue as though they did nothing incorrect.
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.
No, it certainly isn't perfectly set up to tell those stories. Unless all you think you need is a character name and to speak the story to each other, there are no mechanics or anything to support that kind of game. You can do it slice of life sections, but you aren't playing the system as it is expecting to be played.
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.
No, we don't have to absolutely color inside the lines, but going from discussing "what kinds of information are shared at the table" to "My player's don't cheat" is a mighty leap that doesn't have much reason to be discussed.
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.
Suspension of disbelief doesn't need to be broken for the mistake to have a major impact. Making a mistake that costs someone 8 hp when they only have 60 hp, is a really big chunk of hp. You make too many of those sorts of mistakes and the player's are going to be struggling far harder than they are supposed to.
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.
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.
You are wrong. A DM who suddenly declares that his monster can cast 9th level spells at-will, or is immune to all damage, or hits you for 9,999 damage is cheating.
A DM who records every hit on the monster as only taking away 1 hp instead of the listed amount is cheating.
DM's can cheat. I don't care that you also get to make the rules, changing the rules mid-fight in your favor, declaring players miss when they would have hit to protect your monster and make it "more interesting", ect ect. It's cheating.
