How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[soviet]

Yes, I'm definitely the one who missed it, since I brought it up in the first place and asked about it, in posts #866 and #871.

OK, so you did. Apologies.

 

[Pedantic]

Though honestly, how hard it is to figure out a defense various considerably anyway. Its a little trickier with D&D-oids because of the range of results with a D20, but its still something you can sometimes figure out in a single round (or close enough); if one person misses with a 14 and another hits with a 16, the AC is either 15 or 16 and it doesn't take much to figure that out.

AC is rarely interesting, unless it's unusually high or low to begin with. You just don't have a big tactical shift within the 55%-70% hit range. I'm happy to give it away in the initial "what do I know about this thing" checks, or after the first few attacks. Either way, it significantly speeds things up to let PCs evaluate their own attacks. The same logic applies to the DCs of enemy abilities that happen repeatedly and saving throw bonuses/opposed checks.

In fact, in that last case, I have found it can increase excitement to directly translate the math to "you'll need to roll an X to do the thing you're trying" so everyone around the table can get invested in seeing how a die turns up.

 

[Lanefan]

Though honestly, how hard it is to figure out a defense various considerably anyway. Its a little trickier with D&D-oids because of the range of results with a D20, but its still something you can sometimes figure out in a single round (or close enough); if one person misses with a 14 and another hits with a 16, the AC is either 15 or 16 and it doesn't take much to figure that out.

True, though rolls that so neatly bracket the AC don't always occur before the combat's over.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Nope. I'm speaking from the experiences I have had and with virtually every DM that does it, it's about realism and not control. With maybe one single exception, and I'm not even sure about him, none of them have said or even implied, "I need a way to control the players, so part of my diabolical plan of control is not to hand out the numbers." I did hear a ton of how it wasn't realistic. It ruins the challenge. And so on. They had valid reasons, not control issues.

Not just the numbers. Any and all information. The GM having to be the source of it all. Only parceling out what they think “makes sense” or is “obvious”. But as we’ve seen in this very thread, and in countless other examples, peoples’ ideas of what “makes sense” varies wildly.

In fact, it seems so preposterous that DMs would want to control players and do so by not sharing numbers, that it makes me wonder if you have completely misread the DMs you've played with that don't just hand all the numbers over to the players.

It’s not so much about controlling players as it is controlling the game. As I said, I based my assessment on many GMs I played with, the industry advice that was prevalent in that period, and how it influenced me as a GM.

You mean except for the last time in which I also clarified.

I’ve kind of given up trying to make sense of that particular branch of the conversation.

Apples and Oranges. As I explained to @pemerton, numbers have different uses for different roles. I also love how in one breath you say I didn't clarify and in the next you say that I used numbers to make it clearer.

I said you used numbers to try and make it clearer. I didn’t say it worked.

DM: Because you the players clearly understand the purpose of the runic circle, the wizard understands that it's a summoning circle.
DM: No, wait. It's a teleportation circle.
DM: No, wait. It's a circle used for ritual sacrifice.
DM: No, wait. It's a circle used for protection.
DM: No, wait. It's a circle used by giant clerics to stand in when communing with their gods.
DM: Crap! Which of those ways was the one that you all clearly understood it to be? I'm going to need to know in order to make the circle do that instead of one of the other various ways it could be used.

There was context in the original example. As you’ve said, description matters. I’d describe the rune circle and what was going on with it in such a way that I could end the description with “you have no doubt this is a binding circle, used to summon dark entities” or what have you.

I'm not really following the rune circle discussion, I think I have already forgotten the context in which it was introduced...

I have forgotten as well. I don’t think the specifics matter so much as the fact that context would make it clear.

Exploring the world through the eyes of the characters, not the jaded and game-weary eye of the players, is the good stuff, at least to me.

Who’d jaded or game weary?

What I’m talking about doesn’t conflict with what you’re saying.

@hawkeyefan was saying that he would just tell the players what the runic circle was, because the players have a clear idea of what it is. How he would do it is justify it somehow via a PC with an appropriate class or background and have the information come out that way. My response was to show that there isn't really a "clear" thing it could or would be, since there are several options.

But there’s only one actual answer, right? So I’d describe it accordingly. This isn’t difficult stuff. Why would a GM confuse themselves?

 

[Thomas Shey]

True, though rolls that so neatly bracket the AC don't always occur before the combat's over.

No, but it becomes more likely the more attacks are directed at one, or one kind of opponent. If you have a radical mix of different opponent types it becomes less likely, but I'm not sold in most games that's the common case.

 

[Manbearcat]

So, attached is the V and Font Scales for bouldering (free climbing on small rock formations or artificial rock walls; no gear/ropes). The Font Scale is higher resolution than the V.

I want to just focus on 6b through 8c+ (forget 9a and 6a+ or lower where things get a little tricky for reasons I won't get into for sake of brevity and staying away from too much "inside baseball"). That spread is 16 grades. Now take your average Pro or Elite climber (which would be a D&D combatant otherwise, they would have been selected out of the discipline via Darwinism). Their ability to look at (I didn't say interact with) a boulder problem within this spread of 16 grades and independently land on the same number (or within one grade) as other Pro/Elite climbers is uncanny.

Seems apposite.

 

[pemerton]

Context is your friend. Here it is again for you.

"One final note: as valuable as this volume is with its wealth of information, some DMs may wisely wish to forbid their players from referring to the MANUAL in the midst of an encounter, since it will be considerably more challenging to confront a monster without an instant rundown of its strengths and weaknesses - and besides, a D & D player’s true mettle (and knowledge) will be put to the test. And as even the most casual D & D player knows, that’s what this fascinating game is all about. . ."

I mean, he is literally saying that keeping the numbers from the players during the encounter makes the game more challenging right before he says that the game is about challenge.

He literally says that not letting the players look up the book makes the game more challenging. He then comments that not letting them look up the book will put their knowledge to the test. What knowledge is he referring to? To me, those most natural reading is their knowledge of the contents of book.

This advice seems to me to date from a period where memorising the Monster Manual, and more generally remembering monster stats and attributes was part of the environment of skilled play. It's a particular application of a wargame ethos.

There is no implication in what Gygax says that players should be inferring their to hit numbers from the GM's description, or via inference from what rolls by what players for what PCs do and don't miss. There is no implication in what Gygax says that it is unrealistic for the players to know numerical information about AC, hp etc. In fact the game seems to me to take for granted that players will think in such terms: various armour types are rated by class, and then other modifications (for DEX, magic etc) are applied to generate equivalent degrees of protection even when a creature/NPC is not wearing armour of that precise class. Spells like Bless and Shield have their effects expressed in related numerical terms. Players are encouraged to think of the risk posed by monsters in terms of their Hit Dice, which are a numerical marker of both their durability, and the threat they pose, in combat. When it comes to rangers' tracking and thieves' special abilities, these are directly expressed to players in terms of % chances of success.

Applying Gygax's model to @hawkeyefan's examples, the GM would tell the players "You see a troll" or perhaps "You see a nine-and-a-half foot tall, rather gaunt, moss-green humanoid, with long claws and fangs". The players then discuss among themselves: What's its AC? Does anyone remember its immunities? Etc. And the brains trust would put together, via their recall, that it is more than 6 HD, is AC 4, and regenerates unless burned by fire or acid. They might also remembers that it deals rather punishing damage in melee (an average of 20 hp per round, multiplied by the to-hit chance).

And suppose that the players are correct in their recollection. The Gygaxian referee has no reason not to congratulate them on their knowledge. Or suppose that they mis-remember - they recall AC 5, for instance. Well, when they roll a hit against AC 5 and say to the GM, "I reckon I've hit it" nothing stops the Gygaxian referee replying with a taunt - "You memory is off today. It's AC 4!"

This is all about wargaming skill, where memorising opponent stats (eg how many hits does it take to destroy such-and-such a tank?) is part of the skill. It has nothing to do with realism, or immersion.

I was talking to @pemerton who tried to use the game's wargaming roots as the reason to hand out the numbers.

And here is what I actually posted:

Gygax's approach to D&D was a wargame approach, in which some information (from the fiction) that is obvious to the characters (eg how is this mercenary equipped?) is numerically represented in ways that the players are expected to be familiar with - eg a sword does d8 damage, a hauberk is AC 5, etc. Whereas some other information is hidden, and part of the point of play is to try and learn it.

There is no principle in Gygax's work that I am familiar with which states that it is important that the GM not tell the players any stats, because this is not the players' role.

So not only are you, @Maxperson, wrong about what Gygax literally said, you are also wrong about what I "tried to" do.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not really following the rune circle discussion, I think I have already forgotten the context in which it was introduced...

I, relatively casually, offered as an example of a GM describing the scene to the players as including a dragon trapped in a circle of imprisonment.

@Corinnguard and @Maxperson have proceeded to tell me that this is not something a D&D (or any?) GM is allowed to do, because player and/or PC knowledge of what the runic circle is must be gated behind some sort of skill/knowledge/ability check.

 

[pemerton]

So we're back, unsurprisingly, to this whole argument just being preference. Some folks like it one way, some another. Everyone is right.

Some posters have told me it's all about realism. Others have told me it's about immersion.

I have a vague recollection of you being among those posters, although I've not gone back through the thread to confirm that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Some posters have told me it's all about realism. Others have told me it's about immersion.

I have a vague recollection of you being among those posters, although I've not gone back through the thread to confirm that.

Realism and immersion are my preference, yes. What's yours?