Jonathan Tweet advices: let the players peek behind the screen

[thedungeondelver]

I think the uproar is because Mr. Tweet said "peek behind the screen". I honestly, even as an AD&D/OD&D DM never, ever didn't let the players know how mechanics work.

With that said, I never, ever, ever let the players see what the adventure was, look at maps, know what was just around the corner, etc.

The more players know and abide by the mechanics, the happier I am. If they hit a point and say "Look, just tell us what die to roll," that's fine, too. I think that's the "peek behind the screen" that he meant. Not "let them read the module", which is what I think a lot of people here thinks he meant.

Hell it's what I thought he meant when I saw the post topic, before I read.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I see that as was said above there are a type of player that want to feel that they aren't playing a game. These are the types of players that are willing to sit around for a 4 hour session while their character is unconscious because they know they are playing in a realistic world and their fun is in exploring that world in a realistic fashion. It isn't about the cool stuff their character can do, it isn't about the story, it is about the world they are playing in being as accurate as possible.

Those people will not like 4e. It's just not that sort of game. It rather takes to hood off the game and allows people to see it as a game, but it claims to be a better game than its predecessors. It might be worse at creating immersion, but when you do have to look at the rules they will be easier to understand, easier to use, and quicker to resolve.

 

[mhensley]

Well he's already destroyed D&D, so that's out.

He was also one of the main designers on 3.0.
So, which time did he destroy it?

Yep, 3e was just the first step towards what they're trying to pass off as D&D now. He's right up there with Lorraine Williams as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Wormwood]

I think the uproar is because Mr. Tweet said "peek behind the screen".

The "uproar" happened because the board currently houses a small group of people desperate to take offense at anything 4e related.

Personally, I think they're adorable. Shine on, you crazy diamonds!

 

[Rechan]

Hey Wormwood, glad to see you're back.

 

[Rechan]

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.

1) Looking at the MM...

Orc Drudge AC 16
Orc Raider AC 17
Orc Berzerker AC 15
Orc Warrior AC 21
Orc Eye of Gruumsh AC 19
Orc Bloodrager AC 21
Orc Chieftan: AC 22

My point? Saying "It's just an orc, so its AC is 13" doesn't cut it anymore. You have to be a lot more specific.

2) Even so, we're all forgetting that many players also DM. And many players who don't DM still own the MM. I know people who I honestly believe could cite monster stats and spell descriptions in their sleep. So, I really don't see where this fear of "Oh no, the PCs might remember the numbers attached to the monsters" is coming from.

For some gamers, players and DMs alike, a monster will only be a collection of stats. And for others, the stats are secondary to the notion of the monster. Either they are one of these, or they aren't, and you can't prevent them from being this way; it's just how they are. Worrying about that seems pointless.

3) More Importantly, when you're teaching someone chess, you aren't playing a real game with them. You don't try to beat someone who doesn't know the rules, because that's just asinine. Here, what is being suggested is during the first session, you explain things as they go. Call it a demo if you will. It's all to get familiar and understand how things function.

 

[thedungeondelver]

The "uproar" happened because the board currently houses a small group of people desperate to take offense at anything 4e related.

Personally, I think they're adorable. Shine on, you crazy diamonds!

I think that's kind of a condescending attitude to take about it, but with that said, myself? I don't really have a dog in this fight. I like steak and 4e is peanut butter - ain't even the right aisle for me.

I was really speaking more to the particular verbiage that got used in the OP - what was perceived versus what was intended.

 

[Wormwood]

Hey Wormwood, glad to see you're back.

I'm gone for one week and the place goes to hell.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

As far as I'm concerned, the more of the mechanics the players know, the better it is, whether we are dealing with a 'gamer' or 'roleplayer'.

The 'Gamer' si happy plotting his tactics based on the revealed info.

The 'Roleplayer' can take better charge of his story. After all, he knows his odds and he knows immediateky if his action has succeeded which typically means that he doesn't miss a beat in his narrative. There is a minimal need to interupt his theatrics with OOC questions to the DM since he already knows the stage and stakes.

It's the DMs who sometime thrives on secrecy. Makes them feel powerful. I know the drill, I have done that in the beginnings. Poll players on how much information they should be given and the story becomes quite different.

The only thing a DM should keep secret is the story, I say.

 

[pemerton]

Its just another nudge to make folks more comfortable with the concept of D&D without a DM in my opinion.

4th ed PHB, p 8: "One person has a special role in a D&D game: the Dungeon Master (DM). . . Every D&D game needs a Dungeon Master - you can't play without one." The rest of p 8, and pp 9 and 10, continue in a similar vein. I therefore don't understand where this notion of GM-free D&D is coming from.