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

[generic]

From the earliest days of my career as a DM, I've always strived for a sense of immersion through simulation. In each of my games, I wanted the story to feel real, not explicitly "gamey", or mechanically precise. I made dozens of subsystems to simulate injury, told stories from the perspective of what the characters would know, and, for a time, I enjoyed that.

But, then, I started to think back on the games (often, the video games) which truly engaged me in their stories. In many of these games, the player was allowed to know, in a purely mechanical sense, what the hell was going on. There's a reason the best games have boss battles with huge health bars at the top of your screen. The anticipation you feel while watching that bar drain out, and seeing the Boss shed its layers, is indescribably exhilarating.

So, I decided to dip my toes into the waters of letting D&D be a game, rather than a purely immersive experience. It started by having the BBEG's health tick down, through Roll20, right on the screen. The players strategized, and waited until the boss had been weakened significantly to unleash the final, most risky, blow. I then tried adding the kind of visual or audible indicators which games often have, but, this time, very explicitly. I'd say "resist" or "weakness" when certain types of damage were dealt, and the information would be noted on-screen. Eventually, I did away with most of the subtlety altogether, letting the players look over the BBEG's stats and gnaw their fingernails in anticipation.

Immersion doesn't always lead to fun, and, sometimes, being able to see what you're up against is half the enjoyment anyway.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Speaking as a player of the old-school TSR editions, I enjoy D&D a great deal more when I let both dungeon-exploration and hex-crawling be as board-gamey as the old rules make them out to be. "Turn three in the dungeon. No wandering monsters this turn. You can move another 90 feet, you can search the area, or you can do something else. Two more turns until you have to rest and three until your torch goes out. What do you do next?" Those structures were put there for a reason, and they're actually a lot of fun to use. Modern D&D loses something by not having them.

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.

I'm not sure whether my style of gaming is good or bad for immersion—rather, my chief overriding concern is "verisimilitudinous simulation of the fantasy milieu"—but certainly giving the players more concrete information to work with is a good thing if you want their actions and reactions to hinge on the question, "What would you do if you really were your character and in their shoes?"

 

[Morrus]

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.

 

[generic]

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.

Wonder, maybe. Fun? On that, I'm less certain.

Whatever works for your group is your method of enjoying the game, of course.

But, I'd be willing to argue that intentional removal of player information is more frustrating than it is immersive, especially in combat.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Too much boardgame in my RPG means I'm playing a boardgame not a RPG.

Too much videogame in my RPG means I'm playing a videogame not a RPG.

Too much miniatures combat game in my RPG means I'm playing a miniatures combat game not a RPG.

Too much focus on mechanics absolutely destroys my ability to enjoy my RPG experience. I'm one of the weird ones that actually trusts the GM to play fair so I don't need to see behind the screen. I like it when mechanics take a back seat and the narrative and the shared imagination space takes precedence. The more I have to engage in mechanical thought the less I can focus on the narrative and the less I enjoy the RPG experience.

 

[generic]

Too much boardgame in my RPG means I'm playing a boardgame not a RPG.

Too much videogame in my RPG means I'm playing a videogame not a RPG.

Too much miniatures combat game in my RPG means I'm playing a miniatures combat game not a RPG.

Too much focus on mechanics absolutely destroys my ability to enjoy my RPG experience. I'm one of the weird ones that actually trusts the GM to play fair so I don't need to see behind the screen. I like it when mechanics take a back seat and the narrative and the shared imagination space takes precedence. The more I have to engage in mechanical thought the less I can focus on the narrative and the less I enjoy the RPG experience.

To each their own, man. All I know is that stuff gets crazy when the LSD is on the table. Sometimes, people need to know what the hit point value is, to try to maintain a little bit of a grip on reality.

 

[zarionofarabel]

To each their own, man. All I know is that stuff gets crazy when the LSD is on the table. Sometimes, people need to know what the hit point value is, to try to maintain a little bit of a grip on reality.

As you literally just said. To each their own. That's why we are lucky that there are so many different RPGs and no One True Way to play them.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

This. Abolutely this.

The biggest regret I have (and have had for 35 years now!) about becoming a DM is that it showed me what's under the hood; namely, a bunch of stuff that as a player I'd be quite happy not knowing.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think it's important to have a good balance of both and to have the rules structured in a way so that the gm can swing the dial a bit either way to play up & down various aspects as plot & action deserve without needing to rebuild half the game to shift from d&d straight over to Bob'sHomebrewSystem. I think 4e & 5e got the balance wrong by trying to excise too much from the dial while designing for narrow scope of "proper".

 

[el-remmen]

Yeah, I am a withholder. I don't tell the players the AC or the monster's HP. When a PC hits a monster I describe the hit and use indicators of quarters of total HP to give a sense of how injured it is. Still have 75% of its hps? Then it is lightly wounded. More than 50% but less than 75%? Moderately wounded, and so on with "Seriously" and "Critically" wounded following. (that is kind of a health bar and like a video game, sans specific numbers).

As for abilities, well that is what stuff like experience and favored enemy or other gathered lore is for.

But I also can see how some people would find this frustrating. But I wonder would they also find it frustrating when they meet a Blink Dog with an illithid's psionic blast or an owlbear with fire breath? In such a game would the players expect the DM to say "By the way this owlbear has a breath weapon?" or "This piercer has human intelligence?"