GMing: Transparency and Immersion

[FireLance]

So, perhaps this would be a good summary?

Full, complete transparency: War game
Total lack of transparency: Guessing game
Somewhere in the middle: Role-playing game

 

[steenan]

Much depends on the game itself: both supported play style and mechanics.

If the mechanics is simple, but not abstract, letting the players know the numbers does not break immersion - the characters would have the equivalent information. The more detailed and complicated the mechanics becomes and the further it goes into abstractions, the less compatible are immersion and transparency. In D&D - complex and quite abstract in 3e, a little simplier but more abstract in 4e - they really are opposites.

On the other hand, some games are not designed for immersion and it has nothing to do with mechanics. "Dogs in the Vineyard" don't support immersion - and running it in more opaque way would not change it, at the same time moving the play away from what the game is about. Donjon differs greatly from DitV, but is similar in this aspect. Both involve the players in narration much more than traditional RPGs - that just requires transparency and weakens immersion.

 

[el-remmen]

Based on the way the game is run according to the books. I can't account for every possible subsystem used by DMs in what I'm saying - which is that there is no mandate for hiding this information.

Very true. I just am all in favor of things that emulate "fog of war" - which what we call any kind of flub, miscalculation or forgotten action at my table. "Worse things have happened in the heat of battle," we say.

Perfect example from 2 sessions ago, one player thought another had cast protection from arrows on him, so he yelled at got the attention of a bunch of spear-wielding barbarians from up on a roof, and when they threw four at him and I told him the damage he turns to the other player and says, "Now how much does the spell absorb?" the other player replied, "What spell?"

Turns out the spell cast on the PC was message! The wizard had cast protection from arrows on two others and there was just some confusion about who got what. What did we do? We didn't take it back. . . We just rolled with it. . . In the frantic preparations for the barbarian attack there was a poor assumption made - it made for drama and a funny confrontation after the battle.

To me this is the essence of the level of immersion I am looking for in my games.

Plus, playing the way you described would cause combats to take longer than they already do, with questionable benefits

Yeah, never really worried about the length of combats, and the benefit is the fun of imprecision

Anyway, I have found that allowing people to count things out before they do them (in my game, if you count out boxes for character movement you have moved that way, no take-backs (on the other hand I do warn players about potential AoOs as they approach them)) leads to slow downs where folks try to figure out the exact perfect way to move and try several possibilities before choosing one.

Heck, we even severely limit suggestions between players unless it is in-character (allowing intelligent enemies a chance to hear and react).

 

[gizmo33]

Very true. I just am all in favor of things that emulate "fog of war" - which what we call any kind of flub, miscalculation or forgotten action at my table. "Worse things have happened in the heat of battle," we say.

Yea, there are many games that rely on this "fog" to provide an extra element of interest. I remember a time in DnD where we experimented with a "declare your action before you roll initiative" way of doing things. Other editions of DnD (based on your "protection from arrows" example, I would assume you're not playing 4E) are one thing, but I think with 4E some of the powers were assumed to be used by a player with knowledge of the numbers involved. This is a balance issue for 4E and wouldn't apply to other editions.

The wizard had cast protection from arrows on two others and there was just some confusion about who got what. What did we do? We didn't take it back. . . We just rolled with it. . . In the frantic preparations for the barbarian attack there was a poor assumption made - it made for drama and a funny confrontation after the battle.

The player could have missed the spell casting information because he was crunching too loudly on a cheesypoof at the time. That would be one of my qualms about this personally - that the players reason for missing the information would not be applicable to the character's missing of it. Then again, it's nice when players pay attention, and there has always been a "you are your character, you make his decisions" metagaming aspect to DnD - which is nice because it keeps the players paying attention.

Anyway, I have found that allowing people to count things out before they do them (in my game, if you count out boxes for character movement you have moved that way, no take-backs (on the other hand I do warn players about potential AoOs as they approach them)) leads to slow downs where folks try to figure out the exact perfect way to move and try several possibilities before choosing one.

IME they still do this, they just don't move their character, so they pretty much just walk around the board a bunch of times (or something similar) and then decide, which actually takes longer. Granted, I could (and have) gotten strict and said "this is combat, you've gotta go now!" but I'm often in the middle of choosing tactics for monsters or making notes and I can't devote 100% of my attention to being fair on timing issues. I'd need a seperate ref just to watch the clock. I think I might buy a stopwatch though, just for the heck of it.

Same thing with limiting player communication - I make a half-hearted attempt to enforce this, if for no other reason than just to keep the game moving. It's half-hearted because I know that sometimes I was paying attention to how long a player's action took, and other times I'm not paying attention - and I'd hate to enforce strict time limits in a situation that would cost a character his life if I wasn't consistent about it. So in the end I rationalize it as: "your character is a hero, he can think fast on his feet and he has a special rapport with the other PCs in the party so he knows what they're thinking". My current crop of players overthink *everything* but they don't seem to mind the slowness and I'd hate to enforce a table rule if everyone but me would be annoyed by it.

 

[el-remmen]

The player could have missed the spell casting information because he was crunching too loudly on a cheesypoof at the time. That would be one of my qualms about this personally - that the players reason for missing the information would not be applicable to the character's missing of it.

Well, that is kind of my point. Since the dumb mistakes and oversights of just us being humans playing a game always leads to things that would break immersion (i.e. a character doing something "wrong" because of a player mistake) we try to find justifications in-game that make sense.

The character in question (to give more detail) is known to be obstinate and - arrogant and assumes he knows how everyone should act - this sometimes leads to him making assumptions - we made the spell mistake into one his assumptions ("Of course he cast protection from arrows on me, that is the most logical thing to do in this situation. . ." Oops!)

I'd hate to enforce a table rule if everyone but me would be annoyed by it.

I am with you on that one. I usually use my "DM authority" to force trying a rule - but if it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out - I mean, we are just playing a game. For example, I have been laxed about enforcing the giving advice thing lately - just mentioning it when things get bogged down.

 

[brocktoon]

As Reynard's DM I have to chime in-

Reynard died so that the party might live.

granted, he made an in-game choice that greatly increasedthe challenge, buthe knew that, and his trash-talking the dragon didn't help, BUT, because the dragon was so angered with him, his paladin became the primary focus.

A hero's death indeed....

Transparency-

what irks me is when players ask for the DC-. I will ask- do you want to try and jump? And they pause the game, ask what the DC is, look up the athletics skill, etc... As a DM I tend to look down on this, and might even add to the DC if at all possible. Enjoy the moment, do bold things, be brave, trust the GM, etc.... Certainl, if the established, stated DC is failed, i don't care. If the player just goes for it, I am much more forgiving.

In the shield example, the wizard later cast it without any question, and BAM! it worked. Hmmm... I don't recall if the +4 was actually enough, but in that moment it was!