Jonathan Tweet advices: let the players peek behind the screen

[malraux]

This sounds like reasonable advice for a few sessions. Its like when you are teaching someone to play a card game, you both lay your hands out in front rather than hidden, just to work through the mechanics. And for me, with the rules so different, I'll be happy to have the players watch how I do things as well.

 

[Njall]

Its just another nudge to make folks more comfortable with the concept of D&D without a DM in my opinion. At first have the DM lay everything out so everyone can learn the mechanics, then once everything is all open anyway why do we need this DM guy anyway? I think Hasbro has wanted this for a while. The concept of marketing a product like a module that only one player out of a group of five or six will buy is unique to the RPG form and foreign to them. If everyone buys all products and plays equally there is more money to be made.

Considering that we still have a DMG and that it seems in 4e there are far more things that rely on DM adjudication than in 3e (NPC stats, some skill checks, no more random loot tables), I don't really think this is the case.

On topic, I think it's a good advice, at least for a few sessions. I don't see how this detracts from fun. The PC are going to know if the monster hit or missed them in a matter of seconds anyway, so...

 

[Wormwood]

I'd say it's excellent advice for learning a new system.

 

[catsclaw227]

I'm a little on the fence about showing my players all the mechanics, but it seems to me that it would lead to a lot more sayings like "Oh, an orc, I need to roll 13 or better to hit him" rather than "Damn, orcs! I pull out my longsword and attack". Which, in my opinion, is not good.

I want to avoid this as well.

One COULD argue that showing the mechanics will help with game understanding which then helps with speed of play which can then help with putting the "rules' in the background so that RP can take center stage, but I think it's dubious at best.

Unfortunately, with the combat being very tactical and grid-based, moving the mechanics to the background is very difficult, and while it may work with your OWN game group after some time, if you play with many groups it will be impossible.

I want the mechanics to disappear and let the RP come out, but this is where the out-of-combat part of the game shines.

Its back to the debate about what D&D is.... a tactical combat game with some neat RP elements, or an RPG with a tactical combat element. I prefer to think of it as the latter.

EDIT: And on topic.... I think opening the screen for the first couple of sessions to get all the players and DM up to speed is not a problem for me. I'd rather do this than be stuck arguing a misunderstanding in two months because we were being mysterious about a game mechanic.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I'd say it's excellent advice for learning a new system.

I completely agree. I might take this advice tonight at the London Dungeon event, depending on what the players want.

 

[amethal]

I don't see what the uproar is about.

Welcome to the internet.

 

[Heselbine]

This is really bad advice. It's as if the world is no longer understandable enough to interact with, players need to know the rules of it to play the game. That's just flat out wrongheaded.

Why would I show the players how a trap works before they... play with the trap to figure out how it works? Test it to bypass it? Or ignore the thing by blowing it up?

Wanna know a secret? Here's the answer, that should help you figure it out.

Wow, I have to say I think this is pretty silly. I'm certainly not going to explain everything to my players in this way. I don't think it will enhance their gaming experience at all.

 

[Mallus]

It's terrific advice, no matter what edition you're playing.

In my 3.5 game, just about all the players know the rules better than I do -- I DM for shilsen, the walking Rules Compendium . In a manner of speaking, they're the ones with the screens in front of them and I'm doing the peeking...

When we're dealing with mechanics, things are very transparent. Frankly, it just speeds up play. The more bookkeeping/error-checking I can offload on them, the better. This neither infringes on the authority I need to run the game, which, BTW derives from the player's consent and not from hiding mechanical details from them, nor does it cut into the campaign/encounter mysteries, which are things I spin out of my imagination... such as it is.

 

[The Little Raven]

The most shallow, insipid, uninteresting type of secret possible is a game-mechanical secret.

Quoted for mother trucking truth.

Keeping rules a secret, especially when you're all learning the game, is beyond silly to me.

 

[Harr]

Hm. I don't understand many of the responses here.

I've done this as a matter of course since I started gaming years ago. I don't tell them all the stats from the beginning, but when they try something, I always tell them what DC they need to hit and why. I always roll my dice out in the open, and I always tell them what I need to roll to do what, and why, beofer I roll.

I count it as one of the best decisions I ever made when I was starting out. The amount of awkwardness and pressure that instantly goes out the window is amazing, and the atmosphere in games gets relaxed and fun, and 'game-y', which for some people might not be good, but for us it's exactly what we want.

By now I can't even imagine it doing it another way. Players rolling without knowing what they need to hit and why? Sorry, feels weird, random and boring. Me rolling some dice in secret? Sorry, feels slimy, and for that I might just as well not roll at all and just say what number I think should come up.

I would definitely recommend trying this out (to DM's who don't take their roleplaying just way too seriously, I guess).

I'd really like to hear why someone would think that 'keeping stuff secret' is the key to a better game (and something like an actual explanation instead of just a vague 'it's superior' attitude is what I'm looking for).