How to explain Monsters new abilities to the PCs

[Celebrim]

Sounds like you've got an extreme gamist player who is clashing with your style of delivering.

What the player wants is exact information about the game's current metagame state. That is, he wants to know what exploits an enemy is using or capable of using so that he can best adjust his game tactics to compensate. You are conflicting with this desire by providing him information about the game's ingame state.

The problem isn't going to go away. You can't narrate your way around it. It's a fundamental clash in philosophies. The only good news is that the player will probably get less argumentative once he has a firm grasp of the 4e rules.

My suggestion is if questioned on the mechanics of a monster power that you probably should pause to give a brief non-technical description. Something like:

"Bob recalls that Hobgoblins train to fight in formation. When two hobgoblins are adjacent they can contribute to the other's defence."

This gives your gamist player the information he wants which is, "Split up my foes so I can defeat them." without overloading your game discussion with discussion of the game rather than the world being simulated. You avoid as much as possible breaking kayfabe.

I'd kinda avoid asking for alot of rolls to recognize powers because if your player is as gamist as I imagine, he'll then be encouraged to propose rolling the dice continually to try to pump you for information. It's sometimes appropriate but try to limit it to when its really necessary like vulnerabilities of otherwise obdurate monsters.

 

[Dausuul]

Here's my feeling on the subject:

#1: Unless somebody made a Knowledge check to remember it, the DM should not ever reveal a monster's special abilities before it uses them. Half the fun of fighting new monsters is seeing what crazy-ass abilities they bust out.
#2: Generally speaking, any ability that isn't purely mental should have a physical manifestation of some sort.
#3: If there is something that the PCs can do to disrupt this ability, they should get a reasonable clue about it. This is especially the case with martial abilities.

So, in this example, I'd start the combat by describing how the hobgoblins form up in ranks, shield to shield. Then, the first time one used the Phalanx ability, I'd describe it as:

"You attack the first hobgoblin, but the one next to him throws out his shield to block your swing."

That, combined with the rigid line of hobgoblins on the battlemat, should convey that the hobgoblins are using some kind of formation tactic; clearly, if goblin #2 were not next to goblin #1, blocking like this would not be possible.

If the players didn't pick up on this--maybe they mistook it for general combat description--then next time, I might say:

"Again, the second hobgoblin blocks for his friend. Life would be a lot easier if you broke up that formation."

It's a tricky business; you don't want to ruin the mystery by handing the players a stat-sheet up front, but you also want them to be able to figure it out over time. If they never realize that the hobgoblins are getting a benefit from their shield-wall, some of the cool factor is lost.

I think it will get easier as players become used to 4E--they'll soon learn that each monster has a particular tactic it likes to use, and whenever you see the monsters executing an unusual maneuver, you probably want to break up that maneuver. An experienced 4E player would probably notice the hobgoblins lining up and think, "Hmm, they probably get bonuses fighting like that. Let's try and break them up."

 

[mlund]

When something mechanical is going on, players should know about it. Players shouldn't have to guess what parts of your description are mechanics-driven and which parts are just embellishment. When something like a Phalanx actually has an impact on the game, the players should get the general idea of what's going on even if you don't give them the hard numbers. This has to be distinguishable from fluff narrative that doesn't have anything to do with game mechanics.

As long as the player can go "He's harder to hit because he's next to his ally. If I separate him from his friend, he'll be easier to hit," things are OK.

If that gets confused because players have to guess which parts of your descriptions are elements they can interact with in-game and which parts aren't, then you have a problem to deal with.

- Marty Lund

 

[Hussar]

My 4E style would be as follows:

- Don't tell them the AC of the target
- Don't tell them the Hit Points of the target
- Don't tell them the exact mechanics of an enemy ability
- Don't tell them if the NPC is a Minion

- Do tell them if the target has a high quality of armor, iron scales on its hide, etc.
- Do tell them whether the target looks like it's still vital, winded, "bloodied" or faltering
- Do tell them in general what the enemy is doing (your phalanx example is good for that)
- Do tell them when the enemy expires! (and if you ask them to roll damage after they hit, they'll know it ain't no Minion)

So I think you're in good shape.

Just for the novelty of it, I completely agree with Korgoth.

breaking kayfabe.

Now there's a word I never saw before. Cool word. I like learning stuff.