Newbie DM question: how much to reveal about the monsters?

[Mapache]

I put up the all monsters' defenses on a whiteboard (along with the players', all in initiative order). It really speeds up combat for everyone to be able to check if their attacks hit without having me consult my notes. Additionally, I think being open about monster defenses makes for more interesting choices about what defense to target. If you don't know the defenses, and you don't happen to have that monster memorized, then you're not going to find out what they are over the course of a few attacks during a fight, so you're running blind and just picking your best power. Informed choices make for better gameplay. (And if you want a simulationist justification, the players knowing the defense numbers represents their characters being capable of sizing up opponents, being the experienced combatants as they are.)

 

[draquila]

Wow thanks for all the replies! I guess I'll try to describe the monsters well enough such that the players can get an idea about the strengths/weaknesses and let the players discover the abilities as they are used. All of my players are newcomers to D&D as well, and we're all feeling a bit daunted by the idea.

Do you guys have any suggestions for our first session? I foresee spending quite a lot of time just explaining the rules, then creating the characters, and then playing will be very slow as we work out how the rules actually work, calculating initiative and attack rolls and whatnot... I'm afraid it could turn some people off the game.

Also, what are some useful tools to use?

 

[Cerebral Paladin]

I have become completely persuaded by the start actually gaming as soon as possible school. So if your players have the books as well, have them make characters before the game starts. Then give a real quick explanation of the basics (roll a d20 add modifier check target, high always good, powers target one of 4 defenses, healing via spending surges, standard-move-minor each turn, any order--usually attack, move, (sometimes) use a class feature). Then get playing. Don't worry about getting the right character builds for the campaign--let the players freely rebuild after the first session. Your goal is to build momentum and have fun, not to do everything perfectly.

(If your players don't have the books, consider asking them to e-mail you concepts (class, race, whatever) and then building up quick characters for them to use. Anything to not spend time poring over rulebooks in the first session that you could spend having fun and making sure that everyone is hooked.)

Also, don't worry about not doing all the rules perfectly. For the first game, getting going is more important than doing everything right. There will be time to figure things out that you screwed up later.

 

[DracoSuave]

This is basically the only thing I really dislike a great deal about 4th Edition. I don't like it when play grinds to a halt as the DM reads off a laundry list of powers that only some people are even paying attention to.

Interesting.

I rather enjoy it when that one power no one bothered to listen to suddenly does massive screw-over and they go 'WHAT!?!' and the one listening player goes 'See, that's why I stood over here.'

But then, tactically minded groups will listen, and smashmouth non-tactically minded groups won't.

And probably won't have knowledge skills anyways.

IT ALL WORKS OUT!

 

[Jhaelen]

Yeah, my 4E DMing experience is limited to RPGA, where I need to go by the book, so to speak.

Umm? Why does the RPGA have anything to do with this? Are you afraid of players complaining about your DM style if you don't hand them everything on a silver platter.

AFAIK, the RPGA today is mainly concerned about one thing: That the players enjoy the game. You are pretty much given free reign on how you achieve that. You don't need to do _anything_ by the book. The RPGA modules explicitly say it in the standard intro section:
Feel free to change anything into something you feel would work better for your players.

Personally, I don't tell anything about a monsters abilities unless successful monster knowledge checks are made and even then I tell them everything in gameworld terms, not in rule terms. I've never had anyone complain about that approach so far.

 

[the Jester]

The players should know what their characters can see and what they know (via monster knowledge checks). Without an appropriate knowledge check, they certainly shouldn't know exactly what the monster's tricks are until the monster uses them!

 

[KarinsDad]

I put up the all monsters' defenses on a whiteboard (along with the players', all in initiative order). It really speeds up combat for everyone to be able to check if their attacks hit without having me consult my notes. Additionally, I think being open about monster defenses makes for more interesting choices about what defense to target. If you don't know the defenses, and you don't happen to have that monster memorized, then you're not going to find out what they are over the course of a few attacks during a fight, so you're running blind and just picking your best power. Informed choices make for better gameplay. (And if you want a simulationist justification, the players knowing the defense numbers represents their characters being capable of sizing up opponents, being the experienced combatants as they are.)

Wow. I cannot express how strange this POV sounds.

There really isn't much of a choice (let alone an interesting one) if the player knows every single time what the lowest defenses are. When a player has two Fort attacks, a Reflex attack, and a Will attack and the monster has a low Will defense and a high Fort defense, it is rare that the player will use a Fort attack first.

You keep using that word -- I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Kingreaper]

Wow. I cannot express how strange this POV sounds.

There really isn't much of a choice (let alone an interesting one) if the player knows every single time what the lowest defenses are. When a player has two Fort attacks, a Reflex attack, and a Will attack and the monster has a low Will defense and a high Fort defense, it is rare that the player will use a Fort attack first.

You keep using that word -- I do not think it means what you think it means.

It IS a choice: let's say the fort attack pushes. And the high-fort enemy is right next to a lava-pit.

That's a choice.

Let's say the monster with high will also seems to have a really good basic attack. And you have a power that could make it hit its allies.

That's a choice.


If the players have NO CLUE what the defenses are, then which defence something targets is irrelevant to when they use it. Which is less good.

TBH I tend not to make the defenses public, but I tend to give hints (ie. dextrous for high ref, commanding/composed/berserker for a high will, or big/burly/muscular for a high fortitude)

 

[KarinsDad]

If the players have NO CLUE what the defenses are, then which defence something targets is irrelevant to when they use it. Which is less good.

Do you really think that most players are so clueless that they think that the big Brute nasty in front of the Fighter has a high Will and a low Fort? Are the players in your games really that clueless?


There's nothing wrong with having an idea of the defenses (and powers and other aspects) that some monster might have. There is a definitive issue with knowing EXACTLY what the monster defenses (and other abilities and stats) are. The monster has a Strength of 19.

It becomes a game of Chess at that point.

As a exaggerated example (so that I am not accused of making a strawman which some people yell when someone else exaggerates), do you tell the PCs how many hit points the monsters have right away? Exactly what powers they have and exactly how those powers work? Which skills they have and their numbers for each? Exactly what plans the monsters have this upcoming round?

The point is that too much information is just as bad as too little information. There needs to be a balance, but exact metagame stats shouldn't be included in that balance.

The players need enough information to make decisions without necessarily having so much information that they cannot make a bad decision.

Bad decision making by the players is just as much a part of the challenge of an encounter as good decision making.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

One thing I would like to emphasise (as I'm not always good at doing this, and I regret when I don't) is to indicate to your players when a creature's hit effects the character. For example, the goblin hexer has an ability that damages the PC if he moves closer to the hexer - let the player know that the PC has been cursed and that it will inflict "terrible vengence" on the PC if he approaches the hexer.

As well, try to foreshadow some of the monster abilities -for example, if they are going to fight a black dragon, have puddles of acid on the tunnel floor on the way in. Especially do this for mechanics that seem a bit wonky - for example, Myconids can share their damage amonst themselves, so when my PCs encountered some, I described how whenver they put their "feet" down, roots grew into the forest floor, then were wrenched up up as the "foot" was lifted. It can be really cool when the players put 2 and 2 together and go "oh, so that's how that works" or "oh, that's why you told us that".

Now, admittedly, some of the monster effects are difficult to descibe in a meaningful way, but I think its worth the effort to put some thought into describing how things work - from my own experience, while 4e is a much superior game on a tactical level, the 4e's focus on mechanics (as evidenced by the removal of "jack of all trades" powers/abilities such as polymorph, telekineses, wish, etc) can detract from the emersiveness of the experience, and describing how things work in a way that makes sense in the game context (rather than on a rules basis) helps bring that emersiveness back in.

Now, I admit this is something I'm pretty bad at (at best, my descriptions are minimalist) but I believe its something worthy to strive for - you just need to strike a balance between not saying enough and being too verbose and giving too much away.