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

[Maxperson]

Well, I'm not sure if "upset" is the word I would use. Disappointed? Underwhelmed? A bit frustrated? Sure. A bad DM means I don't get to play.

But cheating? Guess I don't really see it. But if you want to call it flarfegnugging you can for all I care.

In my view DM abuse of power is as upsetting is far more upsetting than cheating, since the DM cannot cheat. Abuses are the reason why people quit and I would walk out on the spot. Cheating is done by players and may result in my leaving if the DM/Group doesn't do anything about it.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So, anyway... back to the OP where we are discussing transparency of mechanics in good faith play rather than with devious, abusive DMs...

There are lots of ways a good faith DM can handle transparency at their table - and as long as fun is had by all, lots of ways will work. FWIW, here's what we do:

At our table, the DM's rolls are in the open so players can see what dice are being used and get a sense of bonuses - this is especially easy on the VTT where hovering over a roll result will show the dice and modifiers (I think this can be hidden, but I just haven't bothered since I don't see the point for our table).

For ability checks, I'll tell the player the DC and let them know the stakes if the succeed or fail before they roll. In the game world, this is the equivalent of the character being experienced enough to realize the difficulty of what they are about to try and to have a sense of what's on the line. Further, it gives them the opportunity to back it up and rethink the approach if they really want.

For monster HP, I typically have the unnumbered health bar up on the VTT - which is really just me being a little bit lazy as, in person, I will narratively describe the monster's condition - like if the monster starts looking bloodied (half max HP) or appears to be on its last legs (less than 10 HP left).

If someone has a quick question about a ruling, I often have no problem explaining the mechanics in the moment but sometimes will let the player simply know that, in the game world, "huh, yeah, something weird is going on here." The main point is to keep things moving. If an experienced player was constantly interrupting the flow of our game to question the mechanics and/or my rulings, then there would be a conversation after the game to see what we could work out to satisfy their curiosity while keeping the game flowing smoothly. If they kept the interruptions up for a few sessions after our chat, I might offer one or two more warnings but, ultimately, that player would be demonstrating to me that they are just not a good fit for our table and would be asked to move on.

 

[Oofta]

In my view DM abuse of power is as upsetting is far more upsetting than cheating, since the DM cannot cheat. Abuses are the reason why people quit and I would walk out on the spot. Cheating is done by players and may result in my leaving if the DM/Group doesn't do anything about it.

Yeah, I was just talking about my own personal experience. There's bad DMing and there's cheating. The former DM could be running 100% RAW and still be a bad DM. The latter doesn't exist.

I mean, what difference does it make if I modify a monster a day before a session, an hour before the session when reviewing my notes, as combat starts but before initiative is rolled or mid-combat? In any case I don't get upset if a DM is a bad DM, it's just a missed opportunity. I don't even get upset if a player is repeatedly dishonest, it just means I need to find a different player.

 

[Lanefan]

In my view, playing on a grid is anything but accurate, if you want accuracy, play gridless on a vtt, at least it will avoid totally inaccurate computations for angles and for areas of effect.

Indeed; but we still use the grid (10' squares) mostly for a sense of scale. If we need exact distances we eyeball it or use a bit of string.

To each his own, I agree that TotM is not precise, but it's much better for imagining things in one's head, and it's blindingly fast. That being said, I think it's a question of preferences, of course, but also what you were trained to do. I was running TotM 43 years ago when we had nothing to track actual positions, most of our players are completely familiar and comfortable with it, and able to train newcomers very easily in it.

We've used minis since day one; and day one was 40-ish years back.

Which tweaks are you speaking about here, I have no idea what you might be referring to ?

In our groups, the one tweak that enhances fog of war is the total inability for anyone whose turn it's not to speak during that turn, which means that they can't get clarifications or interfere, but I'm not sure it's the same thing. Anyway, that strict application of speaking turn speeds the game by a considerable factor.

Rules tweaks to better simulate fog-of-war unpredictability:
--- drop any and all initiative modifiers
--- reroll initiative every round (preferably on a smaller die than d20; we've used d6 for ages and it works fine)
--- allow tied initiatives and make it very clear that while you're resolving them one at a time at the table they're happening simultaneously in the fiction
--- track movement segment by segment rather than have it all happen on the PC's turn as a "mini-teleport"
--- force perception rolls if-when anyone in melee tries to notice something happening more than one person away; this means you can see your own foe(s), you can see the people fighting next to you in the line, and you can (probably) see their foes. To see anything beyond that is not guaranteed and thus needs a roll.

And yes, this does make combat take longer. IMO it's more than worth it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

A note: Can we try breaking these up less? This is a pain to try and respond to and I'm sure no one is eager to see these walls.

Grids are not accurate, grids are boardgamy. How can grids be accurate with the way 5e counts diagonals ? It's actually ridiculously Inaccurate. For accuracy, use a VTT measuring distance as you move, but honestly, it's usually not important except when you want a gamist approach. Grids are an option in 5e anyway, and a badly defined one because it's just an option.

Because DnD worlds are non-euclidean spaces. Which is actually kind of fun I think, not horridly inaccurate.

Plus, it saves me from having to do the Pyhtagorean thereom every time someone asks me if the enemy who is flying is in range of X, Y or Z abilities.

It's not even HIS character. So first, he should not even be talking. Second, he just spoke as much as the DM did to another player. So what would happen if everything did that ? The game would grind to a stop. Finally, and more importantly, the DM gave all the information in the initial description. The character of the Player 5 might not even have seen any of it, and even if he did, it's none of his business. He even actually forced the DM to repeat some information, and he is fishing for more that has nothing to do with him.

1) Just because it isn't your character doesn't mean you can't ask questions. What if he is a cleric who can remove curses, or has an ability to reduce damage, but the DM has ruled it can only affect non-magical damage (had a DM do that)

2) I'm sorry he talked more than you liked, but again, "you talk to much" is a very different objection than asking questions.

3) Yes, the player asked questions, and the DM ended up repeating information. So what? you seem very focused on it not being his character who was hit, but that doesn't invalidate anything. And yes, he is asking questions to get information. That is the point of questions.

Enemies are not forced to have classes, and they don't have their specificities tattooed on their forehead.

And? What does that have to do with anything? The player Is making assumptions, that doesn't need to be penalized

Basically, he takes all the verbal space of the game for his personal consideration. Extremely rude.

Okay? I'm sure no one who has ever sat down at a DnD table has had poor social skills, right? None of us. Even once. Because, I'm not exactly going to blame a guy for not having great social skills. Doesn't mean I'm not going to try and steer him towards being better if he is at my table, but not going to dismiss him for being a bit rude and unthinking.

Why ? It's only a verbal spell, with no visible effect, and the muttering was described. Do your PCs always have detect magic on ? Do they have natural +20 on arcana to recognise all spells when cast ?

The rules don't say there is no visible effect. Additionally "muttering" is different than casting a spell. If that is all you require then everyone can just mumble and who knows what they are doing.

Additionally, the party needs the opportunity to counter act the magic, and there are multiple ways they can do so. Therefore, there should be an indication that magic has been used. Heck, what if a player has mage slayer, that allows a reaction when someone casts a spell, does that mean they get that reaction on anyone who mumbles, or do they just get to guess if a spell is being cast?

Not "they", one of them did, whoever was the target.

Nothing in the rules say this. Re-read the SAC, and it has nothing to do with combat.

Once more, no. Again, read the SAC, it depends on the spell.

Again, not necessarily, read the SAC: "You’re aware that a spell is affecting you if it has a perceptible effect or if its text says you’re aware of it." It's certainly not the case with hunter's mark.

Mage Slayer can't work if spells are always subtle. And I am assuming the entire party had line of sight to the bandit, there was no indication that they were in seperate rooms. You are nitpicking. Also, if you read Xanathars it does say that the act of casting a spell is perceptible if it has somatic, material OR verbal components. They may not know exactly what the spell did, but they are supposed to know that a spell was cast. I did read the text you are referencing, they make a clear difference between knowing what the spell did, and that a spell was cast.

No it's not, again you are giving away arcana for free. It's not even obvious who is the target of the spell, by the way, it could have been the "ranger" himself.

Could have been, which could explain the d6 as well if it was a self-buff.

Because it might be something else entirely. You gave no description, and that is much worse than not spelling out technical details.

And again, spirit guardians might be very different from one caster to the next, and I might design a power that looks like it, but is subtly (or not so subtly) different. Why spoil it when the PCs have no knowlege of what is being used ?

Because it isn't spoiling it, it is fair play. You can't dispel magic a special ability, you can dispel magic spirit guardians. But, the description was more exciting and more thematic. Descriptions and mechanics don't need to match 1 to 1, but the technical information still needs to be conveyed.

He wants extreme details about the class of the NPC, what exact spell was used (it it was even a spell), all things that his character probably not even saw, nor had any reasonable reason to know.

He asked if they were a rogue and if the die he rolled as a d8 or a d6. Then he demanded answers, but before that he wasn't asking for "extreme details". And yes, knowing the enemy is a rogue is a technical detail, but it is also something that the party could figure out, because avoiding sneak attacks is something they can do.

Also, you continue to make assumptions. What class is P5? Is he playing a ranger? Because then recognizing an iconic ranger ability would be something he would reasonably be able to do. Was he standing right next to P1? you have no idea, you just keep assuming he couldn't have seen what happened. Don't push assumptions onto the scenario. It just muddies the waters.

And we have a different balance, we don't care about the initial scenario, actually we might derail it completely with our actions as players, and there might be huge pans of complete improvisation.

Next time, you will require auditing on the scenario to check that the DM did not deviate ?

You are misconstruing my point. It isn't that the PCs can't change the situation, it is that if I plan on the dragon's lair being a DC 15 and I make it a DC 17 mid-way through because I forgot and change things, that isn't how we want to play. If touching the red ruby causes fire damage, and I don't intend to change that, then dealing necrotic damage is a mistake. I could keep this up for a while. This isn't about auditing the game, or never deviating from the set plan, this is about not making mistakes that change the scenario unintentionally.

Well, I come from a different culture, and from years and years of associative work in particular around caritative and LARP work. And even if people have personal reasons (including fun or not) for doing some work, respect is always due for work that has been done, especially by people who did not do anything themselves.

Not always, like any work of that kind, there are parts to be enjoyed and others less so, but in any case it's still more than doing nothing.

How do you know the players did nothing themselves? Did you go and survey them and find out, or are you assuming?

See, again, I'm not saying we should disrespect anyone, I just find it strange how often it comes up that the DM is provided MORE respect, because they are the DM. And how that always seems to tie in with not questioning them, because they did so much work, and you the player did no work at all, so you should respect and trust your DM and never once question their decisions.

And, isn't that a bit of an odd takeaway? "Well, I bought this copy of settlers of catan, and I did the work of setting it up, so you should respect me and not question me when I tell you what the rules are." That certainly wouldn't fly, right? In fact, it comes across as rather arrogant and rude.

I don't believe DMs deserve any more respect than the players. If you want more respect than that, I guess it is going to come down to how you act. Or, I would question how much respect you give your players if you feel that is an insufficient amount of respect to be given.

It's totally different. What I'm saying is that total coordination during fights as if you have a tactical net deployed giving you total information about what's happening on the battlefield seems a bit too much to me.

Okay. but people play differently, as you have said. And you have no idea the OP's stance on this, so why project your preferences? Also, while one may argue what the character can see, you can't argue that the player knows. So, if the fight is all happening in the same room, and the characters are all together, there is a lot of coordination unless you specifically try to avoid it. I mean, just healing alone requires someone to be keeping track of what is happening to their allies.

D&D is not presenting anything remotely like the way you are playing it either, certainly not in 5e. You are assuming way too much here, none of the examples presented support this.

Actually, as I have shown in regards to knowing that a spell is cast, it does support that. And there is no discussion anywhere in the books of the fog of battle and how you as the player have to have tunnel vision and not observe the battlefield.

Not necessarily, no. They might not want help, you might be butting in.

If you ask me to help you write a story, and then I help you with grammar in that story and you say "I never asked for your help" then you are insane. I literally started this premise off with two people working together. You can't "butt in" on a collaboration.

And sometimes the PCs are discussing amongst themselves, and don't want the DM butting in. Happens all the time. They might be making mistakes, they might not be remembering things differently from the DM, they might also just be roleplaying, it's not an invitation to force your views.

And if the players seem to be misremembering or making mistakes, I will butt in and double check that they know the score. The players might be working on three week old information, and they have lives outside the game, I'm not going to sit back and let them make boneheaded decisions just because they didn't memorize my script about what is going on. I've had DMs do that, and it is frustrating and makes me feel stupid because suddenly my character wasn't paying attention to the quest they got an hour ago.

The fact that I don't need it for a whole evening does not mean I'm not playing the character defined there, and thinking about what I could technically do. It's a bit insulting that you claim that I'm not playing D&D because I'm not using rules and dice for a while. Tell me, where is the rule that says you are right about this, that you stop playing D&D when you don't use rules visibly for a certain amount of time ? Because, on the contrary, I have shown you the place in the books where they tell you that rules and dices are not important for playing the game well, and not what is best in the game.

If I'm insulting you then I'm insulting myself at the same time, because like I said, I've got games that have run like that. Personally, I don't feel insulted to be told that when I'm engaging in zero of the mechanics of the game, I'm not really playing the game.

There are games designed to run slice of life stories. DnD isn't one of them. That isn't an insult.

And when we say that we ruin the game more by having technical discussions and pointing out others' mistakes than by making small mistakes, that's just clearly our preference, please don't tell us that it makes the game worse.

I never said it made it worse for everyone, I said it makes it worse for us. You keep talking about people having different preferences, but you seem to approach every question only from your own perspective and make judgements based only on your own biases. Maybe it is a phrasing issue, but you also constantly quote the rulebook at people who disagree with you like we have no idea how to play the game.

And if I did not ? And why should they get any information before they try anything ? Right at the centre of the dreaded Tomb of Horrors, and they have no clue that they could find terrible and unknown magic ? Does it all have to be scripted and tame and according to the RAW ? You will have a very bad time proving to me that it's forbidden, especially since I have given you plenty of official excerpts that prove that what I'm doing is not only according to the rules, but also full in the spirit of the game (especially 5e).

No, you are the one defining the game that your players are playing because you impose the rules. But again, nothing in the game rules and in its spirit forbid you from doing differently, and im particular completely improvise any situationl, including their abilities and the effect that it has on players. If the players do something so absurd or so clever that it completely falls out of the realm of the rules, why do the rules matter more than the story ?

Again, you have very specific assumptions about the game, it's fine to enforce them at your table if this is what your players expect, but don't try to enforce that on the overall community, especially when the rulebooks tell you that you are wrong about your understanding of the spirit of the game. And don't call us cheaters for improvising monsters on the fly.

I wonder why you keep bringing up the players actions in this discussion. Here is what player 1 did in that demilich examples. Attack the lich. Is that so absurd that it falls outside of the realm of the rules of DnD for attacking and damaging a monster?

There is a big middle ground between tightly scripted where nothing can deviate, and LOLZ Random where the rules get tossed in the trash and the DM decides that since you didn't attack leftly then you die. And if the players can't have a solid grounding in how the world works, then they can't make meaningful tactical decisions. They have abilities that do certain things, if you just take that away from them with no warning, no explanation and no really really good reason, then that isn't the type of game I want any part of.

OK, I'll drop this, 4 other contributors have told you that you are incorrect in this view, it's your right to stick to your guns, but don't think that you'll ever convince me of anything there, or the other contributors either.

Yeah, I find it interesting how many posters are so VEHEMENTLY opposed to the concept that a DM can cheat. Yet, the idea that players can cheat is accepted without anyone batting an eye.

And again, WHERE IS THIS OBGLIGATION TO CLUE THEM ? WHERE ?

You are inventing constraints and trying to pass them as absolute laws, but not only is it written nowhere in the rules, I have shown you time and time again that it's not in the spirit of the rules as written, it's actually the contrary which is written.

In the social contract between you and your players. I've played the game where the DM alters the fundamental aspects of the world without telling anyone. Then gets smug at us because we couldn't figure out how he had changed the world.

And is it really such a burden to give them a bit of foreshadowing? Is it so contrary to the spirit of telling a good story together that you let your fellow writers in on the fact that something is up? Foreshadowing is a literary term after all, and a lack of foreshadowing before a plot twist is often derided as poor storytelling in books, comics, movies and television. So, I think you are dead wrong on foreshadowing being against the spirit of the rules.

This is childish. If a DM was bad enough to want to win, he does not even have to change the rules. Just being 100 tarrasques. Instant win, no cheating according to your definition.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can be childish within the rules, and be childish and cheat.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Just out of curiosity, is it "cheating" when a DM fudges in the players' favor?
(For example, knocking down a bbeg's damage to avoid a tpk; or cranking up a PCs turn undead ability for some "mysterious" reason; or dropping a trap's DCs to ensure PCs can get past it, or whatever?)

Probably. There is obviously a lot of grey space there. Nothing says you can't be cheating even if someone else is benefiting. I've very rarely seen this actually happen though.

Also, "fudging" is a lot less extreme than what we've been talking about, at least to my mind.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Easier maybe, but far less imaginitive and-or immersive.

I'm fine with being less imaginative if it makes things go smoother. I don't really believe in this hard divide between engaging in the mechanics and engaging in the story. It seems very limiting to state that every time I say "he cast hunter's mark as a bonus action" I've stopped telling a story and am now playing a tactical miniatures game with no story and we have devolved into technical jargon.

My players don't seem to lose immersion when they say the exact same thing to me, so why is my saying it any different? My players know that they have four spell slots left, I don't have them just guess how much magical power they have remaining for immersion purposes.

I'm not trying to snap at you in particular, Lanefan, but this dichotomy gets to me. We expect players to constantly be engaging in technical information about the game mechanics, how large is your bonus, how much hp do you have, how many ft is the radius of that spell, and yet if the players ask the DM for that information from the other side they have sinned against the immersion of the story?

It seems to be a divide that doesn't serve much purpose except to obscure things from the players. And not that the players need to know everything, but there is a lot that they should know.

 

[AtomicPope]

After years of DMing I noticed something, completely by accident, during a gaming session of 3rd edition. Through 1st and 2nd ed I would use a very kewl DM screen that had ThAC0, saves, initiative values, and other neat stuff for my referencing pleasure. Then after years of not playing I got back into D&D when 3rd edition was released. The group was completely new. No one knew each other but we were all vets from 2e and earlier, some of us were actual veterans. The DM was great, and really giving it his all. I played a Bard, for the first time evar, and fell in love with the class and concept. The DM rolled behind a screen and gave really vivid, quick descriptions of combat, occasionally asking us for our theatric interpretation of our character's actions. Then, after months of playing, we managed to get ahead of our rivals and beat them to the lost relic (it was very Indiana Jones). They were stalling us, letting the rounds drag on with magic and summoned creatures to slow us down, keeping us trapped in this ancient temple. The big baddy sorceress appeared after several rounds and blasted us with Scorching Rays. The DM took out a huge red D20 just smaller than a tennis ball and rolled it on the table. A '7' (or something like that) appeared, "OK! That's 19!" WTF?!! Then he rolls 2d6 fire damage for 9 points, all in the open. Our fighter dove into a pit of skeletons with the relic and said, "Come and get it!" Seeing the roll is what terrified us.

The description adds narrative weight to the rolls. Ever since that one encounter years ago I rolled in the open. I also add as much transparency as the PCs should know. If a weapon does flaming damage that will be in the description and appear as separate dice. If I Hex or Hunter's Mark a PC I'll give them a look and point at them, then roll an extra D6. Snakes and spiders have fangs dripping with steaming venom. Wraiths have a black mist of necrotic energy that blackened and corrodes you when then strike. All of this is depicted with open dice rolls. The world of Dungeons and Dragons is built on dice and numbers. We can't exclude that from the live game play. If we do then the players are only getting half of the world, the boxed text. All descriptions lack a frame of reference until the players see the dice. Letting the players see the dice can be used to make the situation seem hopeless or heroic. When a monster hits the best AC in your group after rolling a '7' you get scared. When the Fighter doesn't flinch that really speaks to the courage to never back down, even in the face of certain death.

Like anything you do, rolling dice in front the the players can have a style of its own. Sometimes monsters hiss or snarl as you roll the dice. Some villains gloat and twirl their mustache as they force the PCs to make saving throws against their deadly Fireball. Describing how fast and accurate a creature strikes or how their venom can kill you instantly doesn't really register until the dice are shown. When you see 10d6 poison damage dice roll on the table but only 13 points of damage it makes everyone feel you were lucky this time. And everyone is on high alert. If you hear that damage from behind the screen it's viewed as misleading. It might leave the PCs thinking, "How can that be the deadliest poison ever when it's only doing 13 points of damage? I can take another 2 doses! No problem" When really they should be fearing that they're going to die at any moment and the Cleric needs to be healing them and fast!

Disruptive players is a different problem. Some people think they're being "engaging" by constantly interrupting or second guessing the DM. When it becomes a problem usually I implement time limits for each player's turn. When they run out of time their turn is over. If they didn't attack, cast a spell, sneak, or whatever, they're skipped. Seems a bit harsh you'd be surprised how everyone starts looking at the battle and planning their strategy before their turn. I had a player like the one you described and the first time his turn was skipped everyone froze. It was a very big group of 7 players. What I did initially was timed everyone's turn with no interruptions. The one guy took nearly 20 minutes! The next week I came back with the following rules:
1. Each player gets 30 seconds for their turn. When the time is up your turn is over wherever you're at. If you didn't use an action you lose your turn.
2. DM gets 1 minute and 30 seconds for the turn. Same rules apply. DMs have multiple monsters, environment, traps, etc. Creatures that didn't act lose their turn.
3. Give the natural d20 roll and final results only.
4. You can't discuss plans unless your PCs are adjacent

I was able to get an entire combat with 7 players and 5 turns down to 25 minutes or less. When you have a lot of players you need to keep the game moving fast. The situation here is similar. If you have someone interrupting they're controlling the pace, rather than the DM. Don't let them.

 

[Maxperson]

Probably. There is obviously a lot of grey space there. Nothing says you can't be cheating even if someone else is benefiting. I've very rarely seen this actually happen though.

Nothing other than the definition of cheating in a game, which requires the purpose be to gain an advantage. What advantage does the DM get by fudging(which is within the rules anyway since he's the DM and has created the rule by virtue of using it) to save a player?

 

[J.Quondam]

Probably. There is obviously a lot of grey space there. Nothing says you can't be cheating even if someone else is benefiting. I've very rarely seen this actually happen though.

Also, "fudging" is a lot less extreme than what we've been talking about, at least to my mind.

To be fair, you seem to be the only one focused on "extreme" cheating. Most everyone else appears to be concerned with bending rules for the benefit of the game, rather than screwing others over. Actual cheating, as already said countless times, is a violation of social contract, not a rules issue. The fact that it can happen is irrelevant to how sincere gamers play, which is what this discussion is supposed to be about.