Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 7183264" data-attributes="member: 2011">No, it's not necessarily the DM's job to do that. That's a play style assumption on your part.Seramus basically got it correct.Just like the PCs do not know about hit points and the players do not know how many hit points the monster has, the PCs do not know truly know about damage resistance (since it is a game mechanic, the game mechanic could just as easily be that the monster regenerates hit points on its next turn), nor should the players know the difference between a monster with high hit points vs. a monster with low hit points and damage resistance.In other words, it's ok for the DM to not describe damage resistance at all. It's ok if he does, but your contention that it's &quot;not particularly fun or useful&quot; if he does not is not necessarily true.Describing resistance narratively, or not describing it at all are both ok.If one describes it, one is giving a hint to players as to what different actions might work. And that's fine.If one does not describe it, the players make those decisions without DM influence. And that's fine too.Alternatively, a DM could give a Perception roll, a Knowledge check, etc. There are a lot of ways the DM could handle this situation and give out this information (or not) without flat out narratively spoon feeding it to the players.Hit points and even damage resistance are merely rules in the game. There are a lot of ways to describe resistance, or even to allow the players to never discover it. It does not have to be the DM giving a hint or flat out saying it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 7183264, member: 2011"] No, it's not necessarily the DM's job to do that. That's a play style assumption on your part. Seramus basically got it correct. Just like the PCs do not know about hit points and the players do not know how many hit points the monster has, the PCs do not know truly know about damage resistance (since it is a game mechanic, the game mechanic could just as easily be that the monster regenerates hit points on its next turn), nor should the players know the difference between a monster with high hit points vs. a monster with low hit points and damage resistance. In other words, it's ok for the DM to not describe damage resistance at all. It's ok if he does, but your contention that it's "not particularly fun or useful" if he does not is not necessarily true. Describing resistance narratively, or not describing it at all are both ok. If one describes it, one is giving a hint to players as to what different actions might work. And that's fine. If one does not describe it, the players make those decisions without DM influence. And that's fine too. Alternatively, a DM could give a Perception roll, a Knowledge check, etc. There are a lot of ways the DM could handle this situation and give out this information (or not) without flat out narratively spoon feeding it to the players. Hit points and even damage resistance are merely rules in the game. There are a lot of ways to describe resistance, or even to allow the players to never discover it. It does not have to be the DM giving a hint or flat out saying it. [/QUOTE]

Verification