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

[Don Durito]

I think there can be value in letting people see some of the game structures. I think sometimes people think witholding achieves more then it does. I tend to be transparent about DCs and that includes AC unless there's a reason that wouldn't be immediately obvious (ie a heavily armoured warrior - I'll tell the DC, a monk that looks like an ordinary bandit, not until after an exchange).

In particular, I think that exploration tends to work better when there's a bit of a transparent game structure.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Knowing how a flower works doesn't make it unbeautiful...

 

[Shiroiken]

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.

This isn't necessarily limited to DMs. IME around that days of 3E, players would routinely read the DMG and MM, a trend which continues to this day. Of course, other than magic items and monster abilities there's not much info there anymore that would surprise the players.

 

[generic]

Knowing how a flower works doesn't make it unbeautiful...

I'd argue that quite the opposite is true. A deeper understanding leads to deeper investment, and a more profound appreciation of systems and the beauty within.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I have to disagree with the OP. If it works for your group and adds to the excitement, great, but that would not be the case IME. It would take too much of the challenge out of the game if players knew what they were up against.

Here is an example: We recently finished our high-level campaign (went levels 1-20 over 18 months) and the final BBEG was an Archmage who was extremely powerful. So, I decided to give him a couple boons from the DMG to make him more interesting. My favorite was Irresistible Offense (IIRC) which allowed him to bypass damage reduction! Boy, was the player with the Dragonborn (fire) and Barbarian (bear totem) surprised when his PCs got hit by his Fireball and ended up taking NORMAL damage, not halved! LOL, the player was pissed off, "Like, WTF! Why am I taking regular damage?!" I told him, there were reasons and he didn't know so just play. The other players got a kick out of it, too, and in the end (after they won) I was free to tell him why he was taking regular damage.

If they had known this Archmage could do that, would it have changed things? Certainly, they would have had to worry about how to deal with the tanks not being as tanky. But, the surprise and shock in the moment was worth more. It created a MUCH greater concern and challenge because they didn't know what they were dealing with.

For mechanical things, such as AC, I only tell them the AC when someone hits it exactly, then I'll say "You just hit, so the AC is 17," etc. Up until then, it is easy enough for the players to call out what AC they hit. Usually after a handful of attacks, they know the ballpack anyway. Often I won't tell them otherwise because there are other factors that might contribute to the AC (or whatever) that they are unaware of and I want them to discover or learn about later on.

 

[BigZebra]

I think this differs wildly from one table to another.
But with my current group I agree. They revel in the combat tactics and to strategize around it. Granted, they want the combats to be part of a great story and plot, but the combats are the highlights. So much, that I'm considering trying PF2e Beginner Box when we are done with our Tyranny of Dragons campaign. They might like the extra options, or perhaps 5e is the sweet spot for them and all the extra complexity isn't worth it.

 

[Oofta]

I never reveal exact HP of monsters, although I do give verbal descriptions of how wounded the monster is looking. I used to have a chart that I used (when I DMed more for public games) that broke it down into 25% ranks.

For AC, I sometimes tell them after the monster has been attacked a few times, but only after it's been hit and missed by different attacks because it speeds things up. I also describe in general things such as heavy armor, dodging nimbly out of the way or just taking the hits with minimal or no armor. Basically give people a general idea at first and then narrow it down.

I don't like getting too into numbers more than necessary, I find it helps my sense of immersion.

 

[BigZebra]

I never reveal exact HP of monsters, although I do give verbal descriptions of how wounded the monster is looking. I used to have a chart that I used (when I DMed more for public games) that broke it down into 25% ranks.

That is a good idea. Think I'll make one. Especially one of my players keep asking me if they can see how wounded the monster is, and I try to make something up, but it would be nice with a table like that.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I never reveal exact HP of monsters, although I do give verbal descriptions of how wounded the monster is looking. I used to have a chart that I used (when I DMed more for public games) that broke it down into 25% ranks.

I suppose it depends on how you view the abstract quality of hit points.

I think things like this are ok, though, because after all as DM you typically know about how injured the PCs are, and sometimes (even if unknowingly) metagame your strategy with that knowledge in hand--I've seen it time and time again and know I am guilty as well LOL!

I would probably say something like "Injured" (half HP) and "Wounded" (quarter HP), but that's about it. Otherwise, I also use narrative to describe how well they are doing against BBEG's and such.

For AC, I sometimes tell them after the monster has been attacked a few times, but only after it's been hit and missed by different attacks because it speeds things up. I also describe in general things such as heavy armor, dodging nimbly out of the way or just taking the hits with minimal or no armor. Basically give people a general idea at first and then narrow it down.

Yep, I just find it make things faster and easier unless I have a distinct reason why I can't tell them early on.

 

[jasper]

I agree with my former drinking buddy Jack Daniel. I give out more information now than back in my old school days. Back then AC and one or two points of information only. Now AC, HP, and status conditions. It is better when I off load the tracking to another player. BUT I see withholders points. SO if it works for your table it CorrectRightFun.