Lyxen
Great Old One
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.
You know what, this part of the discussion is a bit sterile, we have points of views which are not that different in the end, yes, there is technical information, but much less than what the OP is speaking about. Whether it's significant or not is really a matter of perspective.
My view is that it is limited as much as necessary for comprehension because it's supplied mostly by description. Some people want more technical detail, it's fine if they want/need it, just not our preference, that's all.
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>
Player: "I move behind the gnoll" (we don't use flanking, it's one of the really bad options of the DMG, but it's another topic).
This is because the player has estimated that he could (looking at a gridless map on a VTT or thinking about the situation in TotM), and if the DM agrees it does not go further than this. If the DM disagrees, he will tell him "it's a bit far" but most of the time it will be OK.
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.
And that is globally fine, as you can see there is absolutely zero detail, in particular no detail about the spread between the two attacks and the amount of radiant damage done by the smite. This might be relevant to the DM, who will only ask for it if it's relevant.
This is why I don't think that there is much gap between us on that topic, but there is a large gap with what the OP is describing, that's all.
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.
See above, I'm more that type of player doing my descriptions myself, the level of technical details is minimal and well below what the OP mentions.
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.
And this is more or less what we are doing, what we are not doing is saying "The infernal knight uses his "soul tear" power, radius 20 feet, DC 15 Wisdom save".
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.
You are right, we have some variability at our tables, but it's mostly people who have been playing together for years. However, I've also ran beginner games for my daughter's friends in the UK using exactly the same techniques with just a bit more guidance because they are beginners and it works.
The DM sets the scene, the players play in it with the knowledge that the DM imparts, that's all. But the OP's guy is different, he wants to game the world using the rules, and for that he wants extreme details.
And I hasten to say that some complete tables like to game that way and it's fine too. I'm just exposing another way that works, that I've seen working at many tables, not saying that it has to apply to everyone and especially those who prefer another way of playing.
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.
It depends on the tone of the question, but again, I feel that the difference is not that great.
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.
You have a very rules orientated table, which is fine, but there are also many tables that play in a different fashion, who actually abide by what the PH say: "There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game—at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils."
So when the story is more important than winning and losing (and in particular winning under some conditions), you get different weights on your decisions.
And again, there is this assumption that the player must be polite...
Yes there is. Isn't it the case ?
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.
I have explained this many times, the DM is afforded more respect for the very simple reason that he is doing work to prepare and run nthe game. By default, a player could come to the table, seat his ass down and expect to be entertained.
That respect does not allow a DM to act as an a-hole, but as a player I am always, by default, respectful of the preparation time and the work done by the DM, and I thank him at the end of the evening.
That being said, as a DM, I also thank my players for playing at the end of the evening, and ask them if they have suggestions for the next time.
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.
And how would they know that it's magical ? Do they automatically see magic ? No, they don't in general, so there is, once more, no reason for them to know.
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".
Well, if a player could see magic (or took the time to do it), he might know whether it's magical accuracy (hunter's mark) or just skill-based accuracy (sneak attack). But you are basically granting free divination powers to your players...
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.
Come and play at our tables. Using TotM can be wrapped in 30 minutes without too much of a problem.
And again, there is nothing wrong with running a technical game, it does not prevent story and roleplaying, but a game only lasts a certain amount of time, and every minute that you spend on the technical resolution of the fights is one less minute spent on what really matter to us, story and roleplaying. In our last game of Odyssey of the Dragonlords on Friday, we had two significant but quick shuffles that lasted minutes and al the evening was for story and roleplaying. If your player enjoy technical gaming, then it's another part of the evening that you enjoy as well. No problem either case, just a different balance of activities that make people happy.
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.
And so have you. I know your way of thinking very well, I've played that way in particular at 3e and 4e for years. But there are other ways of thinking that it seems YOU have not thought about.
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.
It's fine 95% of the time, I never said that we could not pause for complex cases, but we won't slow the game for extra technical information that is not needed for the characters themselves, and that we think the player should not have in any case to avoid him having to balance between two solutions, one of them influenced by knowledge his character should not have.
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.
Great for you, but we are all LARP players, and we find that the level of coordination required to get that information is hampering our enjoyment, it's too much metagaming for the level of verisimilitude that we want. What is happening over there is interesting, but is probably not something that the other characters know too much about, especially in technical details that we don't care about in general.
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.
See above, "winning".
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.
I'm not trying to emulate reality because, despite having been in hundreds of LARP fights, I can tell you that you see almost nothing most of the time. Combat is so fast, maybe you can read something about the guy just in front of you, maybe the global situations, but even registering that a spell was used on you from 5 meters away is difficult.
So we are going more by the movies/books of the genre that we try to emulate, and in them combat is usually extremely chaotic with quite a bit of tunnel vision.
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.
Again, it's a question of degree. We are not stupid either, doing mistakes every single action that we are taking.
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.
why would that be ? Is he asking for help ?
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.
And once more, it's a deviation from the rules as written to expect people to play "the system". Re-read the introduction to the PH, I have given you many citations previously. Or watch a bit of Critical Role.
It's fine to play technically, it is NOT fine to say that not playing the system technically is not the expectations, it's not only wrong, it's factually wrong as written by the devs themselves: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."
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.
Fine, let's drop it then.
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.
Are the players having fun ? If yes (and it's the case at our tables), it does not matter that the character is struggling with 8 less HP. Actually, it's fun to roleplay the struggle.
This is important for you because you play the game technically, and it's fine, please understand that the game can be played in a completely different fashion where 8 fewer HP will not matter much.
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.
I won't dispute with you, at least two other posters are in line with my view, you won't budge, that's fine, but neither will I.
A DM who records every hit on the monster as only taking away 1 hp instead of the listed amount is cheating.
What listed amount ? Where ? If I decide that my Demilich takes only one point of damage per PLUS of the weapon, it's purely my decision as a DM, how exactly is that 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.
As another contributor told you, acting like a 10 years old (actually this is even insulting to 10-years old) is not cheating, it's acting childishly, it's completely different. But if a mature DM did this and had good reasons about it including his players having fun, it would not be cheating.
You have a very single minded devotion to a specific way of playing the game where you let the rules master you, please understand that there are other ways to play, at least, if not more, supported by the rules, and that calling this cheating is derogatory to other ways of playing. Please stop.