How much game mechanics do PCs get to see?

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I'm curious to know how much of the game mechanics DMs let the players know about...

Do they know skill check DCs before they decide to use the skill?

Do they get to know the save DCs they're rolling against?

Do they get to know which spell an NPC threw at them?

Do you tell them the AC of a combat target? Or get them to roll and you tell them whether you hit or not? Something else?

Do you tell them the total dice rolls or just whether the NPC failed or suceeded at whatever they were trying to do?


What do other people do and/or prefer?


Currently, I tend to keep a lot of the mechanics to myself. I'll tell the players the AC of something if they've hit it enough to work it out... I'll tell them if they're being targeted with an obvious and common spell. I do roll all the dice out in the open, but just tell the PCs whether they've been affected by it... but not by how much, except in vague terms - e.g. 'The orc easily hits you', 'The mind flayer almost dances away from your fireball', etc.


I'm seriously considering moving towards a very 'mechanics in the open' style of GMing. I think it'd be interesting to see how this worked out... would certainly give the players a very concise view of the world around them? On the other hand, would seeing 'under the hood' kill off the mystery of the game? Would it make things too wargamey?

Any thoughts?

 

[knifespeaks]

As much as possible, I keep everything hidden....

They don't get to know skill check dc's;

They don't get to know save dc's;

In game spell descriptions generally allow experienced players to know what spell has been cast;

They don't get to know ac's - just roll the dice;

And just whether the NPC failed or not.....


I never roll my rolls in view of the players - they don't need to know.

 

[Victim]

I'm curious to know how much of the game mechanics DMs let the players know about...

Do they know skill check DCs before they decide to use the skill?

Do they get to know the save DCs they're rolling against?

Do they get to know which spell an NPC threw at them?

Do you tell them the AC of a combat target? Or get them to roll and you tell them whether you hit or not? Something else?

Do you tell them the total dice rolls or just whether the NPC failed or suceeded at whatever they were trying to do?

What do other people do and/or prefer?

Any thoughts?

Usually, yes. If the task is fairly common, it makes sense that the PC will know roughly how difficult for him. If the task is super tough, the player should probably have some idea what he's getting into to make sure that both he and the DM are on the same page - ie, "You know that's at least DC 35, right? Are you sure you want to try it?" Some things remain hidden (trap DCs, opposed bluff or sense motive checks, etc).

Usually, yes. It can speed up play since the DM doesn't have to worry about comparing everyone's save. It also kind of makes sense that they could tell whether this was a feeble attack or a powerful one during the course of fighting off the spell.

Almost always, but simply because people have spellcraft. Even if no one has the skill to recognize the spell as its being cast, many spells will have distinctive visual signatures. Something like Fireball is probably common knowledge - although it'd take skill to tell a normal fb apart from a delayed blast one set to explode immediately. Unless the criterion is something like "Ouch, normal fireballs don't hurt this much. Must be the higher order version."

Yes, after a round or two. People will try to figure it out anyway, and telling the players speeds things up. However, the DM starts to get pissed when people use the AC info to start calculating optimal power attacks.

It depends. The DM usually rolls openly, so we can try to figure stuff out anyway. We get to see especially feeble or skilled NPCs, essentially.

 

[fba827]

I, personally, do tend to prefer the mechanics stay hidden. That said, how our groups actually play depends mainly on the group as a whole and DM preferences.

Keeping things hidden means a bit more micromanaging for the DM so opening things up lessens the load (a _little_ - very little) for the DM since he does not need to watch every single roll of the dice, etc.

If I'm with groups that lean towards roleplaying, hidden mechanics seem to work cleaner. If I'm playing with groups that like to play as a tactical war game, then keeping the hood off seems to work better.... so, really, it goes back to style.

just my two cents.

 

[Jeph]

I haven't been GMing much, but the guy who runs the game I play in doesn't tell us much right out. It's easy to infer, though--after a couple of swings at an opponent you'll probably know their AC within a point or two. Likewise for enemy spellcasters: after you've saved against or taken damage from them a few times, you should know thier general power level. And identifying a spell is fairly easy for any character with a few ranks in Spellcraft, even if the player doesn't recognize it from the description that the GM gives. The DC is, I believe, 15 + spell level if you can observe the spell while it's being cast, or 20 + spell level if you can only see its effects.

--Jeff

 

[painandgreed]

It varies according to need and feel. For general rolls that don't really mean much in the long run, I just give them the DCs after they roll the first time. Same for AC. After they make a few attempts to hit, I just let them know the AC they're trying for. We all know the game and I trust them* so it speeds things up and is more enjoyable if I just let the PCs do the rolling. If I think that it matters to the game or that it might change their actions, I keep the DCs unknown or sometimes roll for them (usually for Search and Listen).

*or at least I trust them not to cheat unless they really need to. As DM I flub rolls one way or another occationally to preserve metaplot or prevent TPK, so when things are deparate, I usually don't question "suspicious" crits. As a player I don't do this because I want an objective game and trust the DM to do it if nessisary, but some players insist on doing it and usually it's just easier to let them than spend half an hour arguing over a roll.

 

[Ellie_the_Elf]

My players tend to know the most commonly used skill DCs, but if they don't know I don't usually tell them. For spot/listen and stuff like that, I get them to roll then ask who beat a 20 (or whatever number the DC was) just cause it's quicker than going round the table and asking, especially now that they're almost epic and at least 4 out of 6 will pass everytime. For search checks I never tell them what the DC was though for obvious reasons...

Save DCs I'll sometimes tell them, usually if a lot of the party needs to save to speed things up.

I find that they usually figure out what spells are being thrown at them, either from the description or spellcraft rolls.

I don't tend to tell them ACs because of things like power attack but after a round or two they can generally be estimated, if the thing they're fighting survives that long!

I never tell them what I've rolled for an NPC, but they tend to figure out when it was a 1

Usually I go for whatever option enables the game to run the smoothest- it's rare we get more than 4 hours to play each week so we try to make the most of them

Leisa.

 

[Olive]

Do they know skill check DCs before they decide to use the skill?

Usually. They know how good they are at something.

Do they get to know the save DCs they're rolling against?

No.

Do they get to know which spell an NPC threw at them?

If they make the appropriate spellcraft check as detailed in the rules.

Do you tell them the AC of a combat target? Or get them to roll and you tell them whether you hit or not? Something else?

They roll, and they either hit or they don't. They'll figure it out over a combat though.

Do you tell them the total dice rolls or just whether the NPC failed or suceeded at whatever they were trying to do?

Failure or success.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Do they know skill check DCs before they decide to use the skill?

For some things yes. Search? No. Climb? Yes. Knowledge? No. Jump? Yes.

In short, if the player could work out the numbers from the evidence presented before them, then I just hand out the DC. If there's some sort of hidden factor, then I don't.

Do they get to know the save DCs they're rolling against?

Yup. It really doesn't help them to know, and occasionally it can be a real benefit in terms of fear factor (22! Noone could save against that!)

OTOH, if I suspected a PC of fudging rolls, I might ask them to tell me the number before I tell them the DC.

Do they get to know which spell an NPC threw at them?

I describe the effects of a spell, and if they guess (usually because THEY have the spell on their own list), great.

Otherwise it's down to spellcraft.

Do you tell them the AC of a combat target? Or get them to roll and you tell them whether you hit or not? Something else?

Sometimes I just tell them the AC, sometimes I make them roll first.

For nameless goons, I hand out AC's, because it speeds up minor fights a lot.

Do you tell them the total dice rolls or just whether the NPC failed or suceeded at whatever they were trying to do?

Usually I just roll and tell them success or failure.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm pretty open with it. Of course, it has bitten me on the butt before, so maybe I *shouldn't* be. Unless there is a specific reason to hide it, I let 'em know, especially if they take a few moments to gauge the challenge/opponent/etc. I'm assuming the characters aren't nearly as careless with their lives as the players sometimes are. Of course, sometimes I translate it into period-specific terms: "You know with your strike that it would take a warrior of consumate skill or power to be able to damage this creature" pretty much tells the Wizard all he needs to know to not swing around anymore.