WOTC podcasts

[JeffB]

I've been listening to the latest POdcast that is up.

One thing I notice is that whomever is the DM, seems to be giving out "in game" info I'd not give a player. For example, several times he states that a monster is "bloodied" or states that "this is the last encounter" or describing what an opponents amulet does rule-wise and things of that type nature.

Myself, as a DM (and not a particularly good one, but) I'd be loathe to give out information like this to players. I could understand if a PC had a power that depended on a foe being bloodied (nothing comes to mind off hand, though I've not read through all the powers in the PHB-in fact only the first couple levels of each class), and I'd never state "this the last encounter"..that would kinda ruin the game for me as a player, and as a DM it would ruin wrapping up the adventure with story elements.

Heck, I do my best to not blurt out the title of a module, or let a player see it.

IDK, just seems weird to me, and certainly not the way I would play/run a game. The PODCAST (besides being mostly cursing and jibber jabber) seems a poor representation of "this is what a session of D&D is like".

 

[Jack99]

I am pretty sure that you are supposed to know when a creature is bloodied.

 

[JeffB]

You may be right. I've not seen that specified in the books (not saying it isn't there though), and thats why I question it.

 

[Jack99]

Yeah, I don't think the books say anything on this subject. I just play it that way. Somehow, without being able to rationalize it right now, it just makes sense (to me).

Cheers

 

[malraux]

Knowing bloodied should be obvious to the players.

For a fast casual game wherein you're trying to teach people the rules, some OOC info is reasonable. And IIRC knowing that the encounter with blood dripping everywhere and the priest opening up a rift into the shadowfell is the last encounter is pretty "duh". Really though, I don't see anything wrong with being informal and taking down the DM screen. Its what I'm doing with the start of my KotS campaign. Seeing how stuff works helps everyone learn the rules.

 

[juggler434]

Also, it was a one shot adventure with 1 new player, 1 player who hadn't played in a long time, and 1 experienced player, if I've heard correctly, trying out a system that hadn't hit shelves yet. So I think the GM's were a little nicer to help make a longer lasting podcast, and it also let them give a few details on the system for those who are curious how it all works.

 

[wedgeski]

IDK, just seems weird to me, and certainly not the way I would play/run a game. The PODCAST (besides being mostly cursing and jibber jabber) seems a poor representation of "this is what a session of D&D is like".

I think you really need to consider the podcast in the context of both the players and what it might be trying to achieve in terms of reaching out to *other* people who might not knowna d20 from a sprout.

A good session of D&D to an experienced player is a very different beast to a good session of D&D to a new player. Multiply that by the infinite tastes of individual people and "what a session of D&D is like" is almost impossible to pin down.

 

[Agamon]

The DMG does talk about this. Your not supposed to hide relevant game info from players. One specific given example is bloodied. That said, I kinda agree with the OP otherwise. Trying to build a mood is difficult when using game terms, so if they aren't relevant, I don't.

 

[Henry]

I've been listening to the latest POdcast that is up.

One thing I notice is that whomever is the DM, seems to be giving out "in game" info I'd not give a player. For example, several times he states that a monster is "bloodied" or states that "this is the last encounter" or describing what an opponents amulet does rule-wise and things of that type nature.

Myself, as a DM (and not a particularly good one, but) I'd be loathe to give out information like this to players.

I took it as being for the podcast's AUDIENCE, not the players at that table. How else would YOU know that the creature on the table is bloodied unless you were supplied that info? Just like they cards they flashed on the screen with the power info from time to time, it was a tool for the audience, not the players. There may be gripes with their presentation, or how they did things for the benefit of the camera, but I myself don't see him announcing that stuff as a flaw, per se.

Me, I just got a kick out of seeing Wizards staff having some fun playing their own game. I'd get a laugh seeing The Rouse or Andy Collins whooping it up in a session for a few minutes.

If I were directing it, probably the only thing I'd do differently was:

Maybe reevaluate the sound - it sounded like Dave Noonan had a mic behind his screen, but not enough mic coverage to the players at the table, as their words were kind of garbled to me. They've always had to work a little at their audio skills on their podcasts, as evidenced by the complaints I used to have about Mike Mearls being so much softer-sounding than Dave, until they corrected that a few podcasts ago.

I'd have fudged the die rolls some to make it more exciting - they were having a crappy day with those rolls. Seeing someone whoop it up over a critical hit with some vicious damage behind it or something would have made for some more action.

And maybe cut out a little more dead-air time, which is always a problem when you're taping a table game session.

Other than those, it actually went pretty well, in my opinion.

 

[Kzach]

Although it's not implicitly spelled out, I think it's fairly obvious that player's are meant to know when a creature is bloodied, based on the sheer amount of powers and abilities, and the intimidate skill in the game that require them to know so they can use them.