I think the recommended course here is already established in the 4E DMG (I don't have the book right now). IIRC it says that the players should be aware of the numbers. I would assume that the powers that use this concept (like Shield) were balanced with the others. If you, as a DM, change the basic mechanics of this, it affects the usefulness of the power in a way that was not intended by the designer (assuming (1) that what I recall about the DMG is true and (2) that the designer kept this in mind when designing the power.) In any case, if the DMG (or PHB for that matter) wasn't clear on this it should have been because it's a pretty significant issue mechanically.
GMing: Transparency and Immersion
I don't have my DMG in front of me either, but if I recall correctly the suggestion about making the numbers available to the players is for beginners (DMs and players alike) and for vets just transitioning to 4E. I don't think it is intended to suggest that the game is to be run like this indefinitely.
Gothmog
First Post
I'm with you- I prefer immersion over transparency, both as a player and a DM. For a period of about 12 years, I ran a regular 2e D&D game where the players had NO NUMBERS at all. No ability scores, AC, HP, THAC0, saves....nothing. At first, it was kind of a shock to them, but we were trying it as an experiment to see if it could get one of the guys from powergaming quite so badly...and it did! Later, the players told me the loved not having to keep track of the numbers, and it allowed them to see the world through their character's eyes more than as a game. To this day, they still say its the best campaign they have ever played in. We still play that game once a year or so, when we can get everybody together from around the country again.
I'm running two 4e games right now- one by the book, and one immersive. I was a little worried that 4e's powers element might make it hard to do immersively, but so far it hasn't been a problem. Players still know the effects of a power and how much damage it does relatively speaking, but don't have the numbers or fiddley bits in front of them. I don't state DCs, ACs, defenses, hit point damage, etc- the players don't know the numbers. There are a few little hiccups since 4e is a more gamist system, but nothing that can't be handled pretty easily (healing surges mainly). I'm running the game for some people completely new to RPGs (and two guys who are gamer veterans and who were in the 2e game referenced above), and so far they are loving it.
This isn't an edition wars statement at all, but I never could run an immersion, numberless game like this in 3e. Character build, synergies, buff spells, and items were so important that it quickly taxed my ability to keep up with it all. The players didn't like it because they felt my attention was divided in too many ways, and it was stressful to DM. 3e is a game that requires a high degree of transparency, and from my experiences as both a player and DM, I found deep immersion almost impossible with it.
Yep, thats what I do as well when playing and DMing. I also encourage my players do this when performing actions, using powers, etc- and if they come up with something really clever or creative, they get a bonus to the roll or get some special effect in addition to their attempted action. Conversely, if they try to use the same trick or description over and over on the same enemy, I might give a small (-1 or -2) penalty since the enemy is expecting it.
Last edited:
Aus_Snow
First Post
(emphasis mine)
Not at all, IME. Sucks that immersion didn't work out to be achievable for you, but it certainly *is* achievable, as my experiences and those of many other DMs and players of 3e/d20 have confirmed.
Note: As per your own post, this is absolutely not an 'edition wars' post. I have no doubt in my mind, for example, that 4e does not disallow immersion either, as I'm sure your own experiences and those of many others would show.
Gothmog
First Post
Exactly. Different people have different expectations from a game, and different strengths. My players tended to focus on builds a lot in 3e, and its hard to be build-centric and immersive at the same time. To challenge their builds, I had to keep on top of character abilities and builds, and create monsters that either catered to or countered those builds to make a satisfying experience for my players. I also found the fiddly bits of 3e harder to keep up with and straight during preparation and play. To me, it felt like I was following a formula, which drained a lot of enthusiasm from me, and my players. We did try the "numberless" game with 3e for about 3 levels (10 total sessions), and we all finally decided it wasn't a satisfying experience.
Despite some weirdness in 4e (like healing surges), my group and I find it far more immersive. I really like the hands-free and non-formulaic attitude of 4e- thats what gets me creative juices flowing. Builds aren't nearly as important, so my players can just decide on what looks fun for them to play and try, and not worry about a gimped character in a few levels. I'm also more excited about running and playing D&D 4e than I have been any game in a long time, and I think my players pick up on that.
I think the ability for immersion is strongly correlated with the enthusiasm and how much work the DM wants to put into his game. If you aren't excited about your game, your players won't be either, and it won't be immersive. If you are excited about your game, this infects the players too, and they'll really throw themselves into their characters with joy. System doesn't determine immersiveness- the chemistry of the people playing and their excitement do.
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
"How many Hit Dice does it have? What's it's AC? I want to know because somehow this scrawny runt in the rusted armor is kicking my ass and I can't seem to hit him at all."
I've had variations on this phrase thrown at me time and again and they all make me grind my teeth. I am keeping track of the numbers, thanks. I know who needs what to hit or be hit. I am under no obligation to show you my game notes, the module text, or any such nonsense. If you're fighting brontosauruses as outlined in the MONSTER MANUAL and you've carved through a pack of them*, and suddenly the fourth one breaths fire, regenerates all lost hit points, and begins using multiple spheres of annihilation against the party, then yeah, things have changed and maybe you'd have a right to say "Wait a damn minute you told us those were brontos..."
Maybe.
But no, no you don't get to know right off the bat how the numbers crunch. I mean if you were playing WARHAMMER FANTASY BATTLES and you asked your opponent "Let me see your Magic Cards, I want to know what you drew so I can use effective counterspells and cancel you out" or "Hey, are you going to use your night goblin fanatics against my cavalry? Just let me know so I know how to use some command points..." you'd get laughed out of the tournament.
*=if your party is fighting multiple brontosauruses and winning in AD&D then you have got a truly bad-assed party!
Aus_Snow
First Post
Heh, got me there.
I'm definitely an enthusiastic DM. I love it. But yeah, you're right. Maybe there are some systems that inhibit immersion, but I've yet to try one.
I sort of fall between the camps; my general approach to DMing is to keep the target numbers hidden (perhaps with a little help in the mode of "you think it'll be easy/hard"). However...
...after two or three rounds of combat, I tend to just tell the PCs the defenses they need to hit. It's easier that way, and - by then - I think their characters should have a good idea of what is going on. It speeds things up, and allows them to make informed tactical decisions.
I feel that transparency - in the long run - doesn't really help or hinder immersion. That relies on other factors.
Cheers!
...after two or three rounds of combat, I tend to just tell the PCs the defenses they need to hit. It's easier that way, and - by then - I think their characters should have a good idea of what is going on. It speeds things up, and allows them to make informed tactical decisions.
I feel that transparency - in the long run - doesn't really help or hinder immersion. That relies on other factors.
Cheers!
Toben the Many
First Post
I agree.
The OP is interesting, and on the surface I would normally agree. However, as I read it, I found myself disagreeing more and more. I couldn't figure out why until I went and thought about it.
If my DM gives me the cold, hard numbers, what normally happens is I quickly make my decision, and then make my roll. If my DM basically says, "Roll and find out," I suddenly find myself stopping everything and then weighing my choice more carefully. I start thinking a lot more about the consequences of my actions.
So, why to I stop? Because with a hard number, I can usually tell within just a moment if my ability to do something is generally favorable or not. So, it quickly becomes a decision of "Yeah! I'll do it!" or "Nah. I'll try something else." Right after this quick decision, I jump right back into the game, still immersed.
However, when put up against the unknown, I find myself second guessing. That long pause while I consider my decision causes me to fall out of the game and out of the immersion.
I think it also comes from having been both GM and player. Too often, I find that when the GM says, "roll and we'll find out", it really means:
"If you roll pretty high you'll be able to do it. If you roll kinda low, you won't."
The reason I hate that kind of GMing is that my stats soon become meaningless. The success of whether I accomplish something or not is determined by what the d20 rolls, not what my abilities are compared to the d20.
Similar Threads
