FireLance
Legend
You might need to re-think the name. Most of those who would subscribe to D&D Outsider wouldn't consider 4E to be D&D.
Game Transparency
- Thread starter arscott
- Start date
Ktulu
First Post
Epic post of the week. Right here.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Does one have to be subscribed to read the article? If yes, then as a non-subscriber I guess I'm out of luck.
That said, game transparency is an interesting topic. I'd rather the transparency be reactive rather than proactive - e.g. in the minion example, after easily taking down one or two minions you-as-character can start to tell the foes apart, and at that point the DM can react by describing "yeah, these four over here seem similar to the two you already clobbered, but that guy up the middle seems a lot rougher and tougher"; as opposed to proactively describing such a difference (unless, of course, it's blatantly obvious) before you've even asked or engaged.
And sometimes, you just can't tell. Zombies all look the same - the only possible way you can tell them apart stats-wise is after the fact, when you realize some went down easy and some took a lot more work. (note that you can achieve exactly the same effect by randomizing their hit points, giving minions a chance to survive a blow or two)
Lanefan
ExploderWizard
Hero
So my choices are to hack the site, or get illegal pdfs of the material? Thats not impossible but its wrong.
Phaezen
Adventurer
Or of course, you know, ask a friend who has a subscription if you could read the article or even buy a 1 month subscribtion.
I have not read the article, but from the posts in here I get the impression that what the article calls transparency I would call metagaming.
Also the words "less transparent" have quite a negative tone to it (as transparent is generally considered a good thing), so its not a surprise that people get the impression that not telling player such informations is bad (less transparent).
Also the words "less transparent" have quite a negative tone to it (as transparent is generally considered a good thing), so its not a surprise that people get the impression that not telling player such informations is bad (less transparent).
Betote
First Post
Keefe the Thief
Hero
Your choice would be to either get the article in a legal way and read and discuss it OR not to get it, not to read it and (subsequentally) not to discuss it. Problem solved.
Thats really the same procedure as for the print magazines.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I think the general assumption - even in D&D 4 - is that game statistics affect the game world. So a Minion is in some way different from a regular monster. Zombies that are Minions might look particularly rotten and falling apart, for example, while other Zombies appear stronger and more imposing.
The article goes into the different ways how you can describe this, be it by explicitely calling out the game terms describing the monsters, be it by just narrating it (sufficiently consistently) that the players can determine the approximate meanings themselves, or by combining both (narrating first, then using game terms.)
The end goal is always that you want to give the players the ability to make meaningful decisions, and for that, they need information.
---
2Exploder Wizard:
Think for a moment - why are you assuming aspects on an article you didn't know - let's pretend there was a print version of Dragon, but you didn't have it yet because it was sold out when you came to your FLGs or whatever? Would you also assume the article contains "utter crap" before reading it?
The same is true now - it's not impossible that an article in a digital magazine that might or might not be "Dragon in name only" is utter crap, but you certainly lack the ability to determine this if you don't read it. No need to be bothered, angry or worried about something you have no insights into.
The article is very clear that each group needs to find the balance that works best for it, so I'd say that any negativity isn't quite there.
Ok, for those of you who have not read the article but feel obliged to comment on the wrongness of it, let me give a general overview of what the article actually considers 'badwrongfun':
The opening of the article is an excerpt from a hypothetical gaming session in which the players have been wiped out, and the DM shrugs off their complaints of difficulty by pointing out how poorly they've played - the mage sent his fire attacks against the fire resistant enemy, they kept doing small amounts of damage to a regenerating foe, and they kept fighting inside a mummy's aura of despair.
Except the DM didn't tell them that one enemy was fire resistant, that one enemy was regenerating, and didn't even let them know about the aura - just calculated on his own the penalties it was giving them.
I think we can all agree that this sort of knowledge is information player's should have. Not necessarily known at the start of the fight (though the right knowledge checks might solve this), but the effects of this should be obviously revealed in gameplay. When you hit a fire resistant enemy with fire damage, it should be clear the attack did not deal full damage. When an enemy regenerates damage, it should be clear it is healing. When the PCs are under the effect of an Aura of Despair that gives them direct mechanical penalties, they should be aware of this.
The article then goes on to discuss various ways to solve this. You can do it entirely in character: "The warrior laughs as you hurl your Scorching Burst, and you can see runes over his armor come to life and protect him from the attack!"
Or you can go the fully transparent route: "Yeah, that guy has Fire Resistance 5. He takes 5 less damage from your Scorching Burst."
Either of these is an acceptable solution. What is not acceptable is withholding information from the players that their characters should have. That isn't avoiding metagaming - that is ignoring the conventions of the game itself.
Are there enemies whose effects might be inherently hidden? Sure. I certainly favor reskinning enemies so they will be a mystery to PCs walking into the fight. But once the fight starts, hiding obvious capabilities should be an extremely rare choice, usable only when both the challenge and the flavor of the fight calls for it.
Once again - every group will have different opinions on what works best for them. How transparent they want things to be, how they want the DM to convey knowledge, what areas of knowledge should be conveyed. The article doesn't just welcome that, but takes an approach designed to help with whatever method a group is looking for.
Similar Threads
