Transparency and Immersion
Yesterday, I played in a D&D 4E game for the first time in a couple months and during the session an interesting issue came up: one of the players was trying to decide whether to use a power that gave him a bonus to an action after the die was rolled. He asked the DM whether using the power would guarantee success, to which the DM replied with a "Use it and find out" sort of response. The player accepted this, but noted that when he ran games, he tended to make his players aware of all the numbers involved (presumably to facilitate decision making and fun for the players, but we got on with the game and never returned to the discussion so I can't be certain). On my long drive home, between thinking about various options for my next character (as my paladin was killed by a black dragon, thereby reinforcing our group's axiom that "it ain't D&D 'til Reynard dies") I got to thinking about transparency as it relates to the rules and the numbers that drive the game, particularly in relation to its effect on immersion in the game.
Let me start by stating that I fall into the same camp as our DM for the session: unless a game rule specifically states numerical threshold for success (a jump check, for example) the DC or target number of what-have-you remains unknown to the players. Even in the case of known difficulties, modifiers may not be explicitly stated (though, unless there is a reason otherwise, circumstances that would impose modifiers will certainly be apparent). 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. I think this is particularly important in games where the players have resources at their disposal to alter the outcome of die rolls (such as action points, re-rolls, or the aforementioned power).
This is not to say that I don't see the value in transparency, especially in groups or styles of play that emphasize the "game" aspect or intentionally try and "even the field" between players and the game master. During such play, the judicious decision making and use of resources by the players (and the GM in many cases) is key to both successful play and the participants' enjoyment of the game. Transparency also has the advantage of greatly reducing, if not eliminating, any sense of unfairness of even "cheating" on the part of the GM, whether "for" or "against" the players. All the cards are on the table, as it were, and the ultimate outcome of any given situation is dependent upon some combination of luck and player decision making.
That being said, I think the benefits of this degree of transparency are outweighed (for the most part; exceptions are the rule in RPG play, after all) by the detriments. By revealing all the numbers the GM, I think, reduces the challenges and adversaries of the game to mere numerical difficulties to be overcome. In so doing, the GM undermines his own role as narrator, for the narrative is damaged. No longer is the attention of the players on him or even the big, scary miniature on the table, but on their character sheets or power cards or whatever else contributes to most effectively achieving a high numerical value than the one presented by the GM. Immersion is lost, perhaps not completely and certainly not irrevocably, but lost nonetheless. And while there is still some tension in, when all the math is done, rolling a die and hoping for a particular, unlikely result, I think it is a pale imitation of the tension born of rolling a die and having no idea what a given result will mean.
A lack of transparency has its drawbacks as well, of course. First, there is the danger of players wasting precious resources should the player overestimate a challenge or underestimate his luck. In addition, charges of unfairness (real or imagined) are more easily leveled at the GM when only her or she knows the "real" difficulty of a given action. And by the same token but on the opposite side of the screen, the temptation to "fudge" the numbers (again, for either the benefit or the detriment of the players, or perhaps the GM's preconceived narrative) is greater when the GM can't be called on it.
Numbers are not the only place where transparency can be an issue. In fact, in an RPG with a GM, the issue of transparency is present in every aspect of play, at every moment at the table. The GM is the eyes and ears of the play characters, and very often also their memories, training and experience. Cleverly describing a stock enemy type to keep the veteran players guessing is an issue of transparency, as is the wizard ally that only speaks in riddles, or simply the answer to the question "What lurks in yon woods?" Cases like these may appear on the surface to be very different from numerical transparency, but in effect are the same: they obfuscate situations and therefore limit the capacity of the players to make informed decisions toward some goal (which, hopefully, is to increase everyone's fun). Like hiding the numbers, immersion may well be preserved, but at what cost.
Given the responsibilities of the GM as both arbiter of the rules and window through which the players view the world of the game, I think the issue of transparency versus immersion is worthy of discussion. Thoughts?
Yesterday, I played in a D&D 4E game for the first time in a couple months and during the session an interesting issue came up: one of the players was trying to decide whether to use a power that gave him a bonus to an action after the die was rolled. He asked the DM whether using the power would guarantee success, to which the DM replied with a "Use it and find out" sort of response. The player accepted this, but noted that when he ran games, he tended to make his players aware of all the numbers involved (presumably to facilitate decision making and fun for the players, but we got on with the game and never returned to the discussion so I can't be certain). On my long drive home, between thinking about various options for my next character (as my paladin was killed by a black dragon, thereby reinforcing our group's axiom that "it ain't D&D 'til Reynard dies") I got to thinking about transparency as it relates to the rules and the numbers that drive the game, particularly in relation to its effect on immersion in the game.
Let me start by stating that I fall into the same camp as our DM for the session: unless a game rule specifically states numerical threshold for success (a jump check, for example) the DC or target number of what-have-you remains unknown to the players. Even in the case of known difficulties, modifiers may not be explicitly stated (though, unless there is a reason otherwise, circumstances that would impose modifiers will certainly be apparent). 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. I think this is particularly important in games where the players have resources at their disposal to alter the outcome of die rolls (such as action points, re-rolls, or the aforementioned power).
This is not to say that I don't see the value in transparency, especially in groups or styles of play that emphasize the "game" aspect or intentionally try and "even the field" between players and the game master. During such play, the judicious decision making and use of resources by the players (and the GM in many cases) is key to both successful play and the participants' enjoyment of the game. Transparency also has the advantage of greatly reducing, if not eliminating, any sense of unfairness of even "cheating" on the part of the GM, whether "for" or "against" the players. All the cards are on the table, as it were, and the ultimate outcome of any given situation is dependent upon some combination of luck and player decision making.
That being said, I think the benefits of this degree of transparency are outweighed (for the most part; exceptions are the rule in RPG play, after all) by the detriments. By revealing all the numbers the GM, I think, reduces the challenges and adversaries of the game to mere numerical difficulties to be overcome. In so doing, the GM undermines his own role as narrator, for the narrative is damaged. No longer is the attention of the players on him or even the big, scary miniature on the table, but on their character sheets or power cards or whatever else contributes to most effectively achieving a high numerical value than the one presented by the GM. Immersion is lost, perhaps not completely and certainly not irrevocably, but lost nonetheless. And while there is still some tension in, when all the math is done, rolling a die and hoping for a particular, unlikely result, I think it is a pale imitation of the tension born of rolling a die and having no idea what a given result will mean.
A lack of transparency has its drawbacks as well, of course. First, there is the danger of players wasting precious resources should the player overestimate a challenge or underestimate his luck. In addition, charges of unfairness (real or imagined) are more easily leveled at the GM when only her or she knows the "real" difficulty of a given action. And by the same token but on the opposite side of the screen, the temptation to "fudge" the numbers (again, for either the benefit or the detriment of the players, or perhaps the GM's preconceived narrative) is greater when the GM can't be called on it.
Numbers are not the only place where transparency can be an issue. In fact, in an RPG with a GM, the issue of transparency is present in every aspect of play, at every moment at the table. The GM is the eyes and ears of the play characters, and very often also their memories, training and experience. Cleverly describing a stock enemy type to keep the veteran players guessing is an issue of transparency, as is the wizard ally that only speaks in riddles, or simply the answer to the question "What lurks in yon woods?" Cases like these may appear on the surface to be very different from numerical transparency, but in effect are the same: they obfuscate situations and therefore limit the capacity of the players to make informed decisions toward some goal (which, hopefully, is to increase everyone's fun). Like hiding the numbers, immersion may well be preserved, but at what cost.
Given the responsibilities of the GM as both arbiter of the rules and window through which the players view the world of the game, I think the issue of transparency versus immersion is worthy of discussion. Thoughts?
