GMing: Transparency and Immersion

[The Shaman]

In either case, however, I do advocate the use of descriptive indications as to the potential difficulty of an action and/or degree of impact of apparent modifying conditions.

That right there. That's how I prefer to handle it.

I'll first narrate my character's actions ("I'll get up off the ground, run for the wall and dive behind it . . . ") then clarify the mechanics if necessary (". . . so that's a move action to rise from prone, a move action to reach the wall, and a free action to drop prone again.").

I like to game the system - exploit mechanical advantages provided in the rules - but I think describing those actions in such a way as to set the scene is important to enjoying the experience around the table.

Think mechanically, narrate immersively, perhaps?

 

[Aus_Snow]

Reynard again proves to be one of the very few EN World posters whose longer posts I will actually read.

Coincidentally, I happen to agree, as well.

 

[Cadfan]

I estimate how much knowledge the character has, and give an amount of information based upon it. This generally means that PCs know the actual DC of static obstacles. They receive only general descriptions without numbers for almost everything else.

The reason I give static DCs is because I believe that a character should be able to know about what he can accomplish in the regular course of the day.

 

[Ydars]

In 4E I would make an insight check for the PCs; if they make it, they get a reasonable idea of the risk, though I wouldn't couch it in numbers.

If they fail the check I would increase or decrease the "percieved difficulty" by the amount they failed.

 

[Hussar]

I'll agree with Reynard here, although, unlike some, I do state save DC's right out of the gate. Not AC's though. Mostly I do it to save time. "The baddie hits you with X, Fort save DC Y for half" and it saves me having to spend time with that player after that and I can just move on. He or she knows what is needed to save and rolls the save and adjusts the sheet, no more input needed from me and off we go.

Little things like that can radically change the speed at which 3e plays in combat. While I'm no MerricB, we manage to plow through the rounds at a fair clip.

I do think that RFisher has the right of it as well. When in doubt, err on the side of too much info rather than not enough.

 

[Ktulu]

I'm in between. If a player is attacked and hit and wants to know if his daily use power that increases his ac two points will work, I am fully open.

If he wants to know if his daily power that grants him a bonus to hit will, I might not be as open.

In the same boat, I never tell DC's of anything unless it's pertinent to know.

 

[Reynard]

I estimate how much knowledge the character has, and give an amount of information based upon it. This generally means that PCs know the actual DC of static obstacles. They receive only general descriptions without numbers for almost everything else.

The reason I give static DCs is because I believe that a character should be able to know about what he can accomplish in the regular course of the day.

What about circumstantial and/or situational modifiers, out of curiosity? If, for example, a player knows that climbing they wall is a DC 20 check, do they know that the rain and wind impose "a" penalty, or a "-5" (or whatever) penalty?

Relatedly, what about situations where the player isn't aware of the reson they are making a check? In other words, do you call for a "Stealth Check", a "DC 20 Stealth Check", "roll a d20 please", or use passive values or pre-rolls to determine if there bugbear in the next room hears them looting about?

 

[Cadfan]

What about circumstantial and/or situational modifiers, out of curiosity? If, for example, a player knows that climbing they wall is a DC 20 check, do they know that the rain and wind impose "a" penalty, or a "-5" (or whatever) penalty?

As I think about it, I don't tell them, but I stick pretty closely to the +2/-2 guidelines, so they probably know that when I say "its going to be harder to climb that wall while its slicked with rain" that it means a -2 penalty.

Relatedly, what about situations where the player isn't aware of the reson they are making a check? In other words, do you call for a "Stealth Check", a "DC 20 Stealth Check", "roll a d20 please", or use passive values or pre-rolls to determine if there bugbear in the next room hears them looting about?

Those situations generally aren't static DCs. And I don't get your example- if the player wants to be stealthy, he rolls stealth.

There aren't any tricks here. If its the sort of thing a regular person could look at a task and know how tough it is to accomplish, then I give them the exact number. Maybe a better guideline would be: if its the sort of DC that's usually given right in the skill entry in the player's handbook, I tell them. If its not, I don't. I figure that part of knowing what a +5 athletics skill means is knowing that particular types of walls are a DC 10 to climb. So I just tell them and save everybody time.

If I came across an unusual situation that didn't fit my usual habits, I'd just adapt. This is a "how I generally do things" response, not a mechanical, programmed rule.

 

[Reynard]

There aren't any tricks here. If its the sort of thing a regular person could look at a task and know how tough it is to accomplish, then I give them the exact number.

I wasn't trying to be coy -- just trying to spur some discussion on the topic.

I agree with you on your definition of static DCs, though I tend to let the players do their own assessing. they know what their bonus is, and they know its a stone block wall with plenty of handholds, and that it is currently sleeting. As such, they should know generally what their chances of success are so I usually don't call out what the DC is. I also do this because I like to use action/hero points that give you that extra d6 or whatever, and i want the players to decide on their own whether they need to spend that precious resource or risk possible failure and its consequences.

I tend away from transparency, I think, because I like the effect uncertainty or perceived uncertainty has on the game (I've written about this before so I won't bore you with repetition). However, I also like hearing and seeing how other people do things, because goodness knows even after 20+ years of playing and GMing I still have much I can learn.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I think transparency and immersion are mutually exclusive. Since I value immersion, I would prefer a game where the players didn't even know the rules, if I could find a way to make it work.