Game Transparency

[Dire Bare]

My comments were about the utter crap from the article and had nothing to do with how you run your game.

Your tone suggests otherwise. By so rudely dismissing a play style you assume the article is all about (have you even read the article in full yet?), you also rudely dismiss the play styles of the majority of posters in this thread, those who have said "Hey, that's the way I play!" and "Wow, what great ideas, I'm going to start using some of those!"

Describing what a monster does based on what the PC's can sense is a regular part of an encounter. Telling them that the creature can only do this once or that you made a successful recharge roll shouldn't need to be.

Do the players tell you what they will be doing in the next round so the monsters can head it off to keep the encounter interesting?

Having less transparent play style is fine if that's what you and your group prefer. This style is even discussed in the article in question. But to insinuate that your style is "correct" and that a more transparent style is "crap" . . . .

The article is not only full of advice on adding more transparency to your game, but it discusses the decision each DM must make on how transparent or not you want your game to be, it compares and contrasts the two styles. The article takes some common situations and gives a bit of advice for a "non-transparent" style (or less transparent), a more fully transparent style, and the "balanced approach".

Even if you are uncomfortable with adding more transparency to your game, this is a well-written and useful article.

 

[MrMyth]

I dunno, I find the picture to be a bit ... stupid.

Fire giants are resistant to fire? What is meta-gamey about that? Do fish breath water? (But, do lava dwelling Thoqqua breath, and if they do, do they breath lava?)

Ah, but that's the entire point! How do you convey to the players information that is obvious to their characters to allow them to make functional decisions in combat? Where is the line between what is obvious and what requires the DM to point out? What abilities should remain hidden, and which ones should be apparent?

Now, all of these questions and the answers to them will change from one group to the next. But that's at the heart of the article as well - each group needs to find what it is comfortable with in regards to transparency. Each DM needs to carefully evaluate what will work best for their group, and make sure they haven't (accidently or intentionally) been frustrating players with incomplete or misleading information.

There can certainly be a time and place to have hidden surprises, but there is also many situations where you want the players to feel like they know exactly what is going on in the battle. It doesn't just help them tactically, but it can help immerse them in the fight - seeing tangible effects that reflect the different nature of the combatants.

 

[ppaladin123]

My comments were about the utter crap from the article and had nothing to do with how you run your game.

The article actually offers three separate approaches to game transparency and discusses the pros and cons of each. It also suggests that certain player types would have more or less fun with each of the approaches.

I thought the article was very good. Nowhere does it tell you to, "play this way." Instead it offers advice on how to alter transparency to suit the game style you and your players have agreed upon.

I think some posters are just looking at the accompanying picture and writing this article off as justification/advocacy for meta-gamey play styles. That is not it at all. Please take the time to read the article; it is actually quite thoughtful.

 

[malraux]

Maybe we can get a regular feature added to Dungeon called BadWrongFun.

 

[Cadfan]

I telegraph an awful lot of information and I prefer that it be telegraphed to me.

Partially that's because I don't experience a disjunction between hearing stats and imagining action. My character experiences the game's reality first hand. The most efficient way of communicating that experience to me is to be precise. I figure my character can look across a battlefield and know certain things almost instantly- that the orcs with the cudgels and dirty hides strapped to them are trivial threats, that the hyperventilating orc with the chainmail and the big axe and the bugged out eyes is a major threat, and so on.

Knowing the actual stats, or at least their ballpark, actually helps me immerse because it avoids the biggest issue I have, the biggest thing that wrecks immersion- having to guess at stupid stuff my character would naturally know. And I consider "the orc with the cudgel is a pushover" or "this guy's really agile and hard to pin down, don't try to hit him with a fireball" to count.

 

[ExploderWizard]

(have you even read the article in full yet?),

I can't. They stopped printing Dragon.

Its possible I am mistaken and the article doesn't suggest the types of things being referenced here. If thats the case, I based my response on incorrect secondhand knowledge and I was wrong.

 

[Cadfan]

I can't. They stopped printing Dragon.

Its possible I am mistaken and the article doesn't suggest the types of things being referenced here. If thats the case, I based my response on incorrect secondhand knowledge and I was wrong.

Hmm.

 

[Dire Bare]

I can't. They stopped printing Dragon.

Its possible I am mistaken and the article doesn't suggest the types of things being referenced here. If thats the case, I based my response on incorrect secondhand knowledge and I was wrong.

Yup.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I can't. They stopped printing Dragon.

Oh, come on, EW. Aren't we being just a tad histrionic here? If you don't like the electronic form of Dragon, that's fine. That's absolutely your right. But to claim or pretend, even hyperbolically, that their choice to go electronic has made it impossible for you to read? That's just silly.

 

[Logan_Bonner]

I wonder how much we could charge for D&D Outsider. You subscribe and we publicly announce that you are emphatically not a D&D Insider subscriber.