How much game mechanics do PCs get to see?

[Dagger75]

I'm pretty guilty of telling the DC's for skills and what not.

Armor class, I usally tell, it only take a round or 2 to figure it out. It speeds up play. Nothing is as aggravating as watching the fighter debate for 10 minutes if he should do full power attack or not.

Spells, normally I don't. Spells of 3rd level or lower are common enough that you can tell. The higher level ones I make them figure it out.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.

Word.

And in fact, since I use the Defense Roll variant (AC = D20 + modifiers, rather than 10 + modifiers), they won't even figure out a foe's AC over the course of a combat.

Works fine for us.

 

[IronWolf]

As a DM I try to keep as much of the game mechanics hidden as possible. As some have said, for certain skill checks I don't mind letting the players know. Jump and climb are good examples. Seems only fair that they can see how difficult a climb or jump may be.

I do not tell the Save DC's. I just say roll a reflex save, etc. etc.

I don't tell them what spell has been cast unless maybe the party has seen it before or it is plainly obvious through the description. An evil cleric buffing themselves up, only if someone makes a spellcraft check.

I don't tell them the AC's. Let the fighter's have to guess how much to throw into a Power Attack. That's part of the fun not knowing exactly what you are up against (in my opinion anyways...)

And I don't let them know if an NPC made their save or not. I have had some real fun with this when a member of the party tries to use charm person.

 

[Gothmog]

I have found through experience that letting the PCs know the DC for various skill checks, spell saves, AC, enemy HP, etc- basically incorporating more mechanics into the game- slows down play immensely, and makes the players focus more on the numbers rather than roleplaying and the character as an entity apart from the numbers. That said, for some skills it would be possible to guage the difficulty (climb, swim, jump, open lock), I tell them roughy how difficult the task would be: easy= DC 10, moderate=11-15, hard=16-20, very hard=21-25, impossible=26-30, etc.

In the past I have run a long term (12+ year game, still going on) where I kept track of ALL the stats in the game. Yes, thats means the players didn't know their ACs, HPs, saves, exact attack bonuses, or item plusses- and its been GREAT! I broke two hardcore powergamers of their compulsion, and now when playing in a game with all the stats, they don't try to tweak and modify their characters to get every possible plus- they just take a character concept, develop it, and have fun with it even if it isn't the most optimal choice. Yeah, its a little more work for me, but after a session or two, I memorized all the ACs, HPs, attack bonuses and saves, and I also have an excel spreadsheet to help me in case I forget anything. I have to say, but cutting out all the fuss about players endlessly obsessing on stats, play has sped up about 20%, and the players don't want to go back to keeping track of their own stats. When I do run another long-term serious campaign again, I'm definitely doing the same thing, and I would love to play in a campaign where the DM did the same thing.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

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

Generally yes. A skilled climber should be able to guage how tough a cliff is, just like a jumper can guess how far across the chasm. For opposed checks, no, however.

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

I'll occasionally say "beat a 15" but that's just to speed things up. I'd rather not give the DC's - the PC's wouldn't have any way of knowing.

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

Only if they ask for and make a spellcraft roll.

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?

I have them roll and tell me what they hit. If they spend 5 seconds thinking about it, after 2 or 3 rounds, they'll be able to tell - but I prefer they work it out themselves. The gradual reveal can be fun. On the other hand, I'll let them know how well-armored a creature is, and that may reveal some of that info.

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

I will occasionally roll in the open for effect, for instance saying, "he needs a total of 19 to save" and then roll; or I'll say, "ooh, missed by one!", etc. - especially for important saves, etc. But generally, I don't tell them what the NPC did.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

In the past I have run a long term (12+ year game, still going on) where I kept track of ALL the stats in the game. Yes, thats means the players didn't know their ACs, HPs, saves, exact attack bonuses, or item plusses- and its been GREAT! I broke two hardcore powergamers of their compulsion, and now when playing in a game with all the stats, they don't try to tweak and modify their characters to get every possible plus- they just take a character concept, develop it, and have fun with it even if it isn't the most optimal choice. Yeah, its a little more work for me, but after a session or two, I memorized all the ACs, HPs, attack bonuses and saves, and I also have an excel spreadsheet to help me in case I forget anything. I have to say, but cutting out all the fuss about players endlessly obsessing on stats, play has sped up about 20%, and the players don't want to go back to keeping track of their own stats. When I do run another long-term serious campaign again, I'm definitely doing the same thing, and I would love to play in a campaign where the DM did the same thing.

Wow! That's an interesting idea... I'd give that a try, mostly from curiosity. Although I think I'd rather do it as a player than a GM. Too much to keep track of already.

And definitely not with my current group. 6-8 9th level PCs. Think it'd make my head explode.

How large was the group you did this with? What range of levels did you end up playing over? Did any of the players get upset having their numbers removed?

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Having thought this through a bit, there defintely seem to be some mechanics that would defintely want to stay hidden. List so far would include, although not be limited to:

Opposed skill rolls - especially social one. Knowledge check DCs. Spells cast - already a mechanic for that.

Kamikaze Midget - you hit on my reasoning for thinking about doing this. It'd represent the characters gauging the opposition. How did it come back and 'bite you on the butt'?

 

[Gothmog]

Wow! That's an interesting idea... I'd give that a try, mostly from curiosity. Although I think I'd rather do it as a player than a GM. Too much to keep track of already.

And definitely not with my current group. 6-8 9th level PCs. Think it'd make my head explode.

How large was the group you did this with? What range of levels did you end up playing over? Did any of the players get upset having their numbers removed?

I did this with a group of 5 PCs, 2 NPCs, from levels 1-14 or so. The campaign is still running, so its not over yet. At first the two powergamers grumbled a little, but after the 3rd or 4th session, they got used to the idea and really seemed to enjoy it. You do have to make sure the players trust you and your judgement as a DM, so there can't be an adversarial relationship between you. Also, at the end of any combat round someone was wounded, I'd give them a rough estimate on how wounded they were: light=<25%, moderate=26-50%, heavy=51-75%, critical=76=90%, and mortally=91-100%.

 

[Lord Vangarel]

In the past I have run a long term (12+ year game, still going on) where I kept track of ALL the stats in the game. Yes, thats means the players didn't know their ACs, HPs, saves, exact attack bonuses, or item plusses- and its been GREAT! I broke two hardcore powergamers of their compulsion, and now when playing in a game with all the stats, they don't try to tweak and modify their characters to get every possible plus- they just take a character concept, develop it, and have fun with it even if it isn't the most optimal choice. Yeah, its a little more work for me, but after a session or two, I memorized all the ACs, HPs, attack bonuses and saves, and I also have an excel spreadsheet to help me in case I forget anything. I have to say, but cutting out all the fuss about players endlessly obsessing on stats, play has sped up about 20%, and the players don't want to go back to keeping track of their own stats. When I do run another long-term serious campaign again, I'm definitely doing the same thing, and I would love to play in a campaign where the DM did the same thing.

I too ran a campaign like this back in the 80's. Looking back people who played in it voted the most memorable. The players didn't even know the stats for their characters as they rolled them hidden by a screen. They only knew basic stuff like you're strong etc.

 

[Numion]

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

Often yes. No in case of secret door DCs, sense motive, or noticing something. But for almost everything else yes. It adds excitement to rolling the dice when players know "I need 18!"

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

Yes, pretty much always.

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

After a succesful spellcraft check, as per rules, unless it's obvious and thrown at them frequently, like fireball.

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?

I don't tell ACs, but they can figure it out by checking which results hit, and which do not. My players are incredibly bad at this ("I hit on a roll of 3 .. hmm .. I don't power attack")

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

Hard to say. When they strike at PCs I call out the totals and players can tell if it hits. I don't usually remember their ACs, so it's easier this way.

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?

I prefer the open method. It gives players a more tangible feel of the game. It could be hard to judge the skill of their opponent in a duel if I described how easily or badly it hit you .. but calling out the opponents results let's the player instantly know if he's outclassed. Just like someone at the local dojo would quite easily know when he's outmatched.