Immediate Interrupts: Rule vs Etiquette?

[DracoSuave]

All the information the players need to make their choices comes from you. Therefore, within the rules of the game and the limits of PC knowledge, Insight, and Perception, tell players everything they need to know. You don’t have to reveal all aspects of a situation or hazard in one go. You should, however, give enough information that the players know what’s up and have an idea what to do—and what not to do.

The DMG suggests directly that if your players have a tactical choice to make based on something they can legitimately perceive, you should provide them with that information. The skill put into an attack against them when they have a particular affinity for defensive mojo (i.e. they have a power) certainly qualifies as something they'd legitimately be able to perceive.

I don't need to tell them exact numbers, but if it's in Shield range, it's fair game to tell them, and if it is not, it's fair game to not.

You're dealing with a character with an IQ that must be above average and likely has Wisdom higher than 12 which makes them inherently perceptive. The vast majority of characters with Shield are smart and saavy enough to know the effects of attacks against them they have specific training to thwart. It's very reasonable for them to have an informed take on the matter.

 

[Nail]

DMG, page 15. It doesn't explicitly say "hidden rolling is expected", I grant...

First: As you see from p. 15 of the DMG, hiding your rolls is NOT the default assumption.

Second: As you see from p. 15 of the DMG, the very first reason they give ("If you roll where players can see, they know that you’re playing fair.") is for rolling the dice out in the open. That's pretty darn telling, methinks.

Third: of course there are times when rolling secretly is justified. ..but "all the time"? IMO, No.

 

[Danceofmasks]

I like to keep things consistent, just in case PCs want to PK.
So ... since the PCs know their own attack roll totals, I do the same for the mobs.
I.e. they call out their totals vs. a defense, and the target declares if it's a hit.

It's a procedure that always works, no matter who does it.
'cos if a machine finds it hard to understand, it fails at streamline.

 

[SteelCoyote]

It says, "You are hit by an attack." It doesn't say, "You are attacked." This is a metapower. If you have an AC of 18, and the DM gets a 20, he says, "I hit you." You then say, "I use Shield, so I have an AC of 22." The DM says, "I didn't hit you." You then describe the scene accordingly.
The DM doesn't need to tell you that he got a 20. Maybe it was a 23. You know that you're hit, and you use the Shield hoping to negate the hit. Either way, though, it wasn't an obvious miss. It was a hit that is negated.
I tend to roll all dice and ask if anyone wants to do something before I describe the entire scene.

Normal:
Me- Your AC is a 20. He hits. Do you want to use anything?
Player- No.
Me- The Orc charges into you and you can feel his axe sparking off of your armor into your face.

This circumstance:
Me- Your AC is a 20. He hits. Do you want to use anything?
Player- Yes. I use Shield.
Me- The Orc charges you and you can see his axe coming right down onto you. At the last second, your arms comes up with a shield of force and barely manages to knock the axe to the side.

Or, if the Shield didn't help:
Me- Your AC is a 20. He hits. Do you want to use anything?
Player- Yes. I use Shield.
Me- The Orc charges you and you can see his axe coming right down onto you. At the last second, your arms comes up with a shield of force. Unfortunately, you put it up to slow and over to the side too far. While the axe does make contact with the Shield, he manages to have it be a glancing blow and continues his momentum. The axe makes contact with your armor and you can feel a sharp pain in your shoulder.

^ That was how I was doing things. I see that in my OP I didn't make that clear when I'd say "you're hit".

I still, despite liking Mouseferatu's suggestion, prefer this style of gaming since it's most like the 1st & 2nd edition games I grew up with where the player (and thus the character) didn't always know what -exactly- was the right thing to do.

The classic example of this style was my GM's classic response to my Rogue searching for a trap:"You don't detect any traps"

Saying that he/she would be hit shouldn't (imho) automatically tell the player whether or not the use of Shield would be successful (especially as it still has a useful extended defensive effect).

I like to blur the line separating character from player knowledge, so the player is less likely to metagame and more likely to play as the character would have to--making decisions on the fly without absolute knowledge.

 

[Sunglare]

I tihnk Nail covered it prertty well

Why not just use both Flavor text and numbers. This game and previous additoins work off of numbers. If groups aren't using the numbers then they might as well be larping.
Also how do you blur the line between character and player Knowledge when the character is wiser and smatter then the player?

Personally I think a DM should never just says he hits, he should not be keeping track of the characters defense scores. The DM needs to roll the dice then calls out what the attack roll is and what defence he hit.
And as Nail said numbers can add tension to the game. When your running a new game at level 1 and throw a monster at them that is hitting AC 30 they become very weary of that monster. You can only describe Muscles so well on a creature.

Plus describing the same attack from a monster over and over again can get repetitive. Describe it really one time and then stremeline it from there. If you described it good enough the first time the player will have it in head what is going on.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Also how do you blur the line between character and player Knowledge when the character is wiser and smatter then the player?

This I think is where the key disconnect is coming from. The way I view it, the Wizard would probably know if his Shield would be effective or not. Basically, he's seeing an attack coming and thinking "Oh no, I'm ****ed" and bracing for it, or he's thinking "Wow, he's going for an overhead smash. If I can just put my shield up now I think I can block it."

It's like catching a football or something. You can tell when the ball is coming down where it's going to land, whether you need to catch it in the chest or reach, and whether you need to speed up or slow down. You can also tell when it's so horribly under or overthrown that there's no hope of getting it and you don't bother sticking your hands out at all. The Wizard is the same, he should know whether or not he can get the incantation and hand-waving off in enough time to make a difference.

 

[scarik]

I always call out he rolls 22 vs AC or similar.

1 I dont want to track all their Defenses

2 If they have a power that can change their Defense (Shield, Staff) then they actually get to make that decision of use it now or save it for later in case the mob throws a meaner attack their way.

 

[balard]

I use a similar way. Normally I narrates all attacks, both of my players and from my monsters. Than I only say the true value of the attack when I don't know for sure. Since most of the rolls are 50% of chance, normally a 15+ in the dice means a clean hit. For players with Shield and like abilities I always says the total roll, or just say the attack is to good for then to deflect.

One good compromise with the description, is the shield being active all time, but he "breaks" or "elapses" when the wizards choose o use the power. The other attack that miss(the shield stood powerful) or hit(the shield was bypassed) is narrated appropriately