Jonathan Tweet advices: let the players peek behind the screen
- Thread starter TerraDave
- Start date
Yeah, I agree with you.Serensius said:
There's nothing wrong with the players being given some explicit details of their opponents AC/HP/etc. especially when they are getting a feel for a new game system, and 4e *is a NEW game system. OTOH, I also want to allow the players to get into and stay in character, as much as they want. As they get more used to the system, I would expect to have to mention rules, numbers and such less often.
In my experience, there is a faction of players who are playing a game with (as little) role playing added as possible...they don't feel comfortable, it isn't fun for them, to act out much of anything. Their general approach is to say "I attempt to...I hit the Kobold, bluff the Duke, jump over the chasm, push the goblin into position for Joe...what do I need to roll?" They *need* to know the mechanics to have fun. For them, if all the mechanics are hidden, they feel lost, get frustrated, stick their nose into the book and "*find* the damn rule" themselves!
Another faction of players sees it as role playing with a bit of game thrown in. They are going to wax verbose about everything and care little about mechanics. They just want to share in telling a story.
I've found that the two different types tend to frustrate each other. IMO, big part of the DM's job is to give both sorts what they need and keep it fun for both sides. So, some players are going to get more mechanics and rules talk from me, and some are going to get more narrative back from me. In neither case, though, will I completely excise rules or narrative from the conversation because having both act as a bridge between the two types of players. I want to keep the narrative player listening while I'm talking the the gamer, and I want to keep the gamer focused on the table (not a rule book) while I'm talking to the storyteller.
The following is slightly off topic in this thread, I think, but these are some thoughts I've had about how I deal with the need to both expose and hide mechanics during encounters.
In the PBP games I DM, I do all the rolling because the players *want* me to. I'd let them roll and tell me or use an online die roller, but they just don't want to. So, we run very narrative driven games, but there are still mechanical rules "behind the screen." The players, for the most part, just don't want to know what the rules are. OTOH, they *do* want to know what their PC can actually DO and some of them want more details than others...IOW's some lean more game and some lean more narrative. So, in combat encounters, I've been exposing some of the mechanical details while still focusing more on the narrative for some time now.
Our basic routine for combat is: I set the scene in a Beginning of Turn X post, the players reply to me with what their PC's are attempting, I combine their proposed actions with the NPC actions, adjucate the results and respond with an End of Turn X post. A turn then is generally 1 set up post from me, 1 post from each player, and 1 summary post from me in that order. Both of my posts include a list of PC's and Monsters including some info about their conditions (AC, HP/hp, weapon), usually a rough map of positions (attachment, link to a map online, or even a crude ASCII representation), and a narrative of the scene and what is happening.
The narrative reads like a few paragraphs from a story with some mechanical things interspersed through it. Part of one of my End of Turn posts might include..."Cedric's mighty swing hits the goblin [G1: hit, dam: 6, G1: 8/2] staggering the vile monster. The wounded monster hacks at Cedric with its short sword [hit, dam: 1 Cedric: 48/47] scratching his arm. Ithilnaur somersaults over the line of battle and lands lightly behind the goblins, he flings a dagger at the goblin mage [miss, GM: 10/10] but misses."...and so on...all based upon the posts from the players of their proposed actions, what the monsters did, and all the rolls, and decisions, I made.
The gamey player's post might have been "I whack the goblin in front of me.", while the more narrative player's post might have been six paragraphs about his run and acrobatic somersault over the goblins followed by his killing their mage with his thrown dagger...notice in this case his proposed action was a move, a challenge, and an attack and he failed on the attack part and I rewrote what he had posted to fit what really happened. If he had failed in the challenge of vaulting over the goblins I'd have done an even larger rewrite where he might have landed *on* a goblin while trying to jump over him and I've have decided what effect that might have on the monster, the PC, and the set up for the next turn.
This technique is even more gamey than some of my players like, but it has turned out to be a pretty good compromise.
SweeneyTodd
First Post
I was kinda unclear a few pages back so I figure I'd take another crack at it. (I was responding to some of the "rules must have a sense of wonder" comments, which were sort of more about 4e in general and not about not using a DM screen when you're teaching the game.)
This is all just my opinion, of course.
Every roleplaying game has this thing in it where you go from an intent for your character to take an action to consulting the rules to determining a result and then describing what actually happens in the in-game fiction. Some people call this IIEE - Intent, Initiation, Execution , Effect -- but there's no need to use the fancy label.
"I attack. (roll 15) Hit, 8 HP damage, orc is dead" is one example of this. (Yes, we all know this is dull and the 'wrong' way to play, but it follows all the steps in a very boring fashion.)
A half-hour roleplayed conversation is another example of this, a lot of the time. I'm not as clear where the rules come in in this case, these are often DM adjudication. There's still that IIEE process going on.
So the point I was trying to make is that you always, in any roleplaying game, have to make a little mental hop from the rules results to the in-game fictional description of events. In D&D 3.x, it was a really small hop, because the rules were worded in a way that mixed mechanics with describing the fictional world as if it were real. In 4e, it's a slightly larger hop, but it's still smaller than in a lot of other games.
So basically, the Effect part at the end -- where you convert mechanics into description and everybody sort of pictures the thing as "really having happened" in the fictional game world -- is different enough in 4e that a lot of people don't consider it easy and natural to do. I agree that it's harder -- a lot of the rules are like "Okay, this happens", and what that means in the game world depends on a lot on your table and how they want things to be pictured in their heads.
My point, long as it's taking me to get to it, is this: If you make the "IIE" part really transparent, at least while you're learning the game, the last "E" part is easier to grapple with. If everybody at the table totally gets that the rules say "Paladin hit kobold and bloodied him", then when they get the cool GM description of how that looks in the game world, they can kinda start getting a good consensus on how rules results -> fictional outcome look for this campaign.
This is all just my opinion, of course.
Every roleplaying game has this thing in it where you go from an intent for your character to take an action to consulting the rules to determining a result and then describing what actually happens in the in-game fiction. Some people call this IIEE - Intent, Initiation, Execution , Effect -- but there's no need to use the fancy label.
"I attack. (roll 15) Hit, 8 HP damage, orc is dead" is one example of this. (Yes, we all know this is dull and the 'wrong' way to play, but it follows all the steps in a very boring fashion.)
A half-hour roleplayed conversation is another example of this, a lot of the time. I'm not as clear where the rules come in in this case, these are often DM adjudication. There's still that IIEE process going on.
So the point I was trying to make is that you always, in any roleplaying game, have to make a little mental hop from the rules results to the in-game fictional description of events. In D&D 3.x, it was a really small hop, because the rules were worded in a way that mixed mechanics with describing the fictional world as if it were real. In 4e, it's a slightly larger hop, but it's still smaller than in a lot of other games.
So basically, the Effect part at the end -- where you convert mechanics into description and everybody sort of pictures the thing as "really having happened" in the fictional game world -- is different enough in 4e that a lot of people don't consider it easy and natural to do. I agree that it's harder -- a lot of the rules are like "Okay, this happens", and what that means in the game world depends on a lot on your table and how they want things to be pictured in their heads.
My point, long as it's taking me to get to it, is this: If you make the "IIE" part really transparent, at least while you're learning the game, the last "E" part is easier to grapple with. If everybody at the table totally gets that the rules say "Paladin hit kobold and bloodied him", then when they get the cool GM description of how that looks in the game world, they can kinda start getting a good consensus on how rules results -> fictional outcome look for this campaign.
WhatGravitas
Explorer
This is the reason, why I'm announcing the AC (and in 4E probably the Reflex, Fortitude, and Defence values as well) after the first attack roll.catsclaw227 said:
Because now, the players know the AC - thus this:
"I've rolled a 23! Do I hit?"
"No."
To:
"26! I hit him!"
This means less ask-and-answer about game effects, it even increases the RP factor: If you're the character and you swing a sword, you also see hits instantly. The less the players are bothered with asking me about "Do I hit", the more they can actually play and even roleplay in combat - because they then know (as the PC should) know their odds.
Cheers, LT.
Stormtower
First Post
Why would we want to keep the rules secret? As ambassadors of the new edition, DMs ought to be most concerned with making players feel confident and competent in their mastery of the new rules.
One of the things that draws players back to the D&D table week after week is that feeling of increased rules mastery... IMO we should be encouraging and reinforcing that feeling whenever possible.
Sense of wonder, IMO, should rarely if ever be based in game mechanics. Rather, it should be evoked by sensual descriptions (not sexual, but having to do with the sense), dramatic narrative, sense of place and setting.
One of the things that draws players back to the D&D table week after week is that feeling of increased rules mastery... IMO we should be encouraging and reinforcing that feeling whenever possible.
Sense of wonder, IMO, should rarely if ever be based in game mechanics. Rather, it should be evoked by sensual descriptions (not sexual, but having to do with the sense), dramatic narrative, sense of place and setting.
Mishihari Lord
First Post
Lanefan said:
Agreed. It's just more of the "game" over "simulation" focus.
Which sucks.
JRRNeiklot
First Post
He mutilated it in 2,000 and defecated on its corpse in 2008.
