D&D General Letting a Game feel like a Game ~ Mechanics and Simulationism

[werecorpse]

To me the reason the hp bar makes sense in computer games is because it’s a visual representation of how badly injured the enemy appears. This imo isn’t Gamist over simulationist it’s a way to simulate things the players character would likely know in a way that makes sense to the player but the player looking at the fight via a screen cant sense - like how well a blow landed, how heavily the enemy is breathing, how agile/light on their feet they are compared to when the fight started etc.

They also get to know stuff I think a reasonable skilled combatant would know. How injured the enemy is etc. How easy the enemy looks to hit, are they heavily armoured, nimble etc (this can be deceptive but the info can be available by description).

All but 1 of my players have played consistently for well over 30 years (the other played a bit 25 years ago but only has been playing regularly for about 3 years) so we do tend to shorthand If we don’t have roll20 hp bars
”He looks to have taken about 40%” etc

I do also tell them the AC after a couple have hits have landed - mostly to speed up combat if they have multiple rolls to hit.

At low levels (1-4) I give rubbery descriptions for resistance, vulnerability etc but as they get to higher levels I just tell them once an effect lands. I figure they recognise most of this stuff.

I am pretty bad at descriptions of combat actions so at the end of it all it’s pretty gamist due to that weakness but it’s not a conscious decisoon.

 

[Don Durito]

To me the reason the hp bar makes sense in computer games is because it’s a visual representation of how badly injured the enemy appears. This imo isn’t Gamist over simulationist it’s a way to simulate things the players character would likely know in a way that makes sense to the player but the player looking at the fight via a screen cant sense - like how well a blow landed, how heavily the enemy is breathing, how agile/light on their feet they are compared to when the fight started etc.

They also get to know stuff I think a reasonable skilled combatant would know. How injured the enemy is etc. How easy the enemy looks to hit, are they heavily armoured, nimble etc (this can be deceptive but the info can be available by description).

All but 1 of my players have played consistently for well over 30 years (the other played a bit 25 years ago but only has been playing regularly for about 3 years) so we do tend to shorthand If we don’t have roll20 hp bars
”He looks to have taken about 40%” etc

I do also tell them the AC after a couple have hits have landed - mostly to speed up combat if they have multiple rolls to hit.

At low levels (1-4) I give rubbery descriptions for resistance, vulnerability etc but as they get to higher levels I just tell them once an effect lands. I figure they recognise most of this stuff.

I am pretty bad at descriptions of combat actions so at the end of it all it’s pretty gamist due to that weakness but it’s not a conscious decisoon.

Yes. I'm not sure I really agree with the difference being postulated between simulationist and gamist concerns.

These two things aren't really necessary at odds. The difference between "the monster has 10 hit points left" and "the monster is severely wounded" is basically stylistic. They're really two different ways of communicating the same information.

We're not talking about dissociation here.

 

[Blue]

In combats, I reveal the Armor Classes of monsters the first time the monster is attacked, hit point totals the first time a monster is damaged, and monster hit dice the moment they make an attack. Players being able to use that information and strategize around it is also really fun for them, in my experience.

As a DM I roll in front of the players, and also describe the quality of rolls. So the players don't know the AC, but know a 16 "hit easily" and an 11 missed, and narrow it down from there. Or that the giant rolled a 7 and I still describe it as "a solid hit" and not a "barely catching you" means that the giant is gonna hit you if given a chance.

 

[DND_Reborn]

As a DM I roll in front of the players

I never do. If I get a crazy roll at the right or wrong moment, I'll lift the DM screen to let them see it, just so they know I'm not fudging rolls in their favor or out of it.

But then again, I don't normally see their rolls either, as I am behind the screen and they roll in trays. I have to stand up if I want to actually see a roll.

 

[Blue]

I never do. If I get a crazy roll at the right or wrong moment, I'll lift the DM screen to let them see it, just so they know I'm not fudging rolls in their favor or out of it.

But then again, I don't normally see their rolls either, as I am behind the screen and they roll in trays. I have to stand up if I want to actually see a roll.

...okay.

We're talking about communicating information to the players. Not sure how your comment adds to that.

As a side note, the characters are in the world, and the DM is the window to the players for that world. The characters should be able to see that a sloppy swing that a giant needed to correct was still able to easily punch through the character's armor and score a hit. The DM should be communicating that in some way. If you aren't showing your dice, and you are just announcing "hit" or "miss", there's detail there the players should be getting from the DM. There are plenty of valid ways to communicate that besides showing the roll. Could be all narrative. Since that's what this thread is about, why not share?

 

[billd91]

Yes. I'm not sure I really agree with the difference being postulated between simulationist and gamist concerns.

These two things aren't really necessary at odds. The difference between "the monster has 10 hit points left" and "the monster is severely wounded" is basically stylistic. They're really two different ways of communicating the same information.

We're not talking about dissociation here.

I disagree. The difference between the two is more than just style. I don’t know how many hit points “severely wounded“ is nor how that compares to the damage options I have as a player. There is still a shroud of uncertainty. “10 hit points left” does tell me how the creature compares to my damage options in ways I can potentially exploit to make a more precisely expensed decision.

 

[el-remmen]

There is still a shroud of uncertainty.

For my preferred style of play that shroud should always be there to some degree or another - just like real life!

 

[zarionofarabel]

For my preferred style of play that shroud should always be there to some degree or another - just like real life!

I'm with you on that. If my RPG turns into a math game, I'm out! I would rather stick a pencil in my eye than do math homework while playing a game I want to play for fun.

 

[DND_Reborn]

...okay.

We're talking about communicating information to the players. Not sure how your comment adds to that.

Simply stating how I run my tables and I know other DMs do as well. In a smaller group or setting, I could see people being about to witness each others' and the DM's rolls, but our set-up doesn't make it practical and neither have those in the past.

As to adding to your discussion, once a PC hits an exact AC, I will indicate they "just hit" and let them know it is the exact AC. Otherwise, I have never viewed attack rolls as how well someone is hit--to me that is the damage roll. The only exception is the critical hit, reflected in the damage by being double dice. I see attacks as binary--you are effective or you aren't. Some people don't like double dice because if you roll double 1's your damage sucks and they do max plus a roll or something similar. When someone rolls crap damage on a critical hit, I narrate it as a glancing blow to the head or something--a vital area, but little impact.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I feel like a sense of wonder is connected to a sense of mystery, and the more the players know, the less they feel both. Which is partly why older gamers get burned out -- the wonder and mystery is gone. Same happens with movies and TV. I can't help but wonder if the solution for older gamers is to remove information.

The problem with wonder-as-mystery is that it can only work once. You can't un-solve a mystery. If that's the only source of wonder, gaming is destined to fail at producing it, because by its very nature of being a system with rules, the mystery must have a solution.

But!

There's a different source of wonder. A source that is inexhaustible. And that is things the players don't have total knowledge of yet. The difference between mystery, as in "this is an unknown to be solved," and exploration, as in "there's always a beyond-the-horizon."

Players will inevitably figure out how certain mechanics work, and if you give them yet another Tolkienesque pseudo-medieval fantasy, they're going to think they know what to expect. But if you offer different kinds of worlds, ones where the players don't have those internalized tropes, ones where they honestly don't have any real idea what might lie a thousand miles in an arbitrary direction, then there's no need to rely on systematic knowledge veiled from the player's eyes. Wonder will naturally arise as they encounter things they haven't seen before, both fantastical and mundane.

I have had players feel wonder about dinnerplates and trees, because they knew they had to ask questions, they knew they couldn't assume something worked like they ordinarily expect it to, because the world they're adventuring in doesn't run on familiar tropes. I've never had to conceal the abilities or overall combat prowess of creatures from my players to generate a feeling of wonder or dread in combat. (I don't personally speak HP or armor numbers aloud, but I do communicate these things through descriptions like "wow, that was a TELLING blow, another like that and it's definitely toast" or "you did make contact, but this thing doesn't have discernible anatomy, so what would have been lethal to a human has barely slowed it down" etc.)

Wonder is best cultivated by breaking down expectations, not by building up mystery. When you rely only on mystery, the wonder must always fade, sooner or later. When you don't know what to expect, every surprise is wondrous in its own way; the wonder never stops.