Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="erisred" data-source="post: 4274042" data-attributes="member: 55284">Yeah, I agree with you.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.</blockquote>

Verification