How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Maxperson]

I guess that depends on the description? I can't think a qualitative phrasing that would be more and better information than a quantitative one, from a gameplay mechanics standpoint.

Did you see my troll examples upthread? The torch, barrel of oil, pit and rough terrain in the description dwarf from an options and game mechanics standpoint, AC 15 and 84 hit points.

AC 15 isn't even very useful. Your to hit is going to remain static almost all of the time, or be boosted like it would be in any case, and other than the oddball smite avoidance, the 84 hit points won't help much, either.

Having knowledge of the pit to push the troll into, the torch and barrel to maim or kill the troll with, or utilization of the rough terrain to the PCs' advantage, though, will be far more useful. And without numbers attached, but WITH mechanics attached to all of it.

 

[Reynard]

Did you see my troll examples upthread? The torch, barrel of oil, pit and rough terrain in the description dwarf from an options and game mechanics standpoint, AC 15 and 84 hit points.

This is apples and oranges, though. There is no realistic scenario in which the GM doesn't describe the room. The only valid comparison is "AC 15" versus "a tough leathery hide that looks like it can turn all but the most skilled blade" or the like.

Unless I am completely misunderstanding an argument I stepped in the middle of, which is totally possible.

 

[Maxperson]

This is apples and oranges, though. There is no realistic scenario in which the GM doesn't describe the room. The only valid comparison is "AC 15" versus "a tough leathery hide that looks like it can turn all but the most skilled blade" or the like.

It's not apples and oranges other than being descriptions vs. numbers. But in a discussion about descriptions providing(or not) better options and tactical information than numbers, it's right on point. It shows that descriptions are superior to numbers when providing such information.

Unless I am completely misunderstanding an argument I stepped in the middle of, which is totally possible.

Maybe. So many posts happen over so many pages, I can't remember who stepped in where. Hell, I can't remember where I stepped in.

 

[Reynard]

It's not apples and oranges other than being descriptions vs. numbers. But in a discussion about descriptions providing(or not) better options and tactical information than numbers, it's right on point. It shows that descriptions are superior to numbers when providing such information.

You can only compare the two in regards to transmitting the same information, was my point. The description of the room and the description of the troll are two different kinds of information. Either one could be presented qualitatively or quantitatively.

Maybe. So many posts happen over so many pages, I can't remember who stepped in where. Hell, I can't remember where I stepped in.

Lol

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is apples and oranges, though. There is no realistic scenario in which the GM doesn't describe the room. The only valid comparison is "AC 15" versus "a tough leathery hide that looks like it can turn all but the most skilled blade" or the like.

Unless I am completely misunderstanding an argument I stepped in the middle of, which is totally possible.

In 5e, AC 15 is hardly, "a tough leathery hide that looks like it can turn all but the most skilled blade".

 

[pemerton]

It shows that descriptions are superior to numbers when providing such information.

No one in this thread has asserted that reading a monster stat block is a better way to convey information about the situation as a whole than (say) describing where the monster is located, and that it has a Damocles sword (or barrel of oil, or whatever) suspended above it.

This is apples and oranges, though. There is no realistic scenario in which the GM doesn't describe the room. The only valid comparison is "AC 15" versus "a tough leathery hide that looks like it can turn all but the most skilled blade" or the like.

Unless I am completely misunderstanding an argument I stepped in the middle of, which is totally possible.

You are not misunderstanding. The ostensible comparison is exactly the one you give: where DM1 recites the monster stat block but provides no information about the situation; and DM2 provides information about the situation (including some description of the monster) but does not read out any stats.

This is why I said that it is not relevant to @hawkeyefan's argument!

 

[pemerton]

Any particular reason they would recognize it? Is it part of their training? Or their backstory?

It seems to me that an educated cleric or wizard would be likely to recognise a circle of protection.

 

[pemerton]

That isn't what I said. They can track the stars through the night sky if they want. It's simply not part of the role of player to track that stuff. It IS part of the DM's role. The numbers in the module are there for the DM, not the players.

Why is it not part of the players' role to keep track of the damage they have inflicted, and the likely hp remaining of the monsters they are fighting? Why is it not part of the players' role to calculate odds of success by reference to their attack bonuses and saving throw DCs, relative to the ACs and saving throw bonuses in NPC/creature stat blocks?

I mean, if players aren't expected to play the game in something like the way that wargamers would, why does the game use wargame-style resolution?

 

[Distracted DM]

There needs to be a guide on how to step into a thread that's 40+ pages deep.

For me, as a DM? The more that players know "the rules," the better. It makes my life easier!

On one side, we have the DM behind a full-body screen, the DM is rolling all the dice or almost all the dice, and the only way that the players are interacting is by asking questions, saying what they're doing, and maybe they have a character sheet.

On the other... What's the other extreme? I guess like.. no DM, no need for adjudication, the players playing everything by themselves? A video game, maybe? One of those solo adventures but for a group

I think, probably most people think, that the best experience lays between these two extremes. The only annoying part of players knowing too much about the rules is when they assume things based on the rules that they know, and the circumstances as you plan them call for an adjudication/alteration/dismissal of the rules.

Hm, the other irritating thing is that since they know how their character class will level up, they build out their characters for the foreseeable future. If they didn't know what their character would get at the next level before it came, then they wouldn't be so focused on the "build" and focus more on how their character is developing during the game.

 

[Reynard]

In 5e, AC 15 is hardly, "a tough leathery hide that looks like it can turn all but the most skilled blade".

Okay. Seems to miss the point, tho.