How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

hawkeyefan said:

Why? The GM’s not allowed to give an indication of the thing’s abilities? So no “statue garden” outside the medusa lair? No volcanic lair of a red dragon? No open display of capability to establish the danger?

Not allowing this kind of stuff seems far more meta (as you use the term) than allowing it.



Yes because for many people, having just a gist of an idea doesn’t match what they’d expect to have if they were actually there. It doesn’t make them feel like the character in the situation.

Click to expand...

But hard numbers do? Where is the PC getting those numbers from?

hawkeyefan said:

Why? The GM’s not allowed to give an indication of the thing’s abilities? So no “statue garden” outside the medusa lair? No volcanic lair of a red dragon? No open display of capability to establish the danger?

Click to expand...

Sometimes yes, sometimes no; not all monsters are met at their lairs.

But consider this:

Pre-set scene: mid-dish level party are walking through an unexplored forest en route to a castle or similar they know to still be at least a few miles away.

DM: "As you break out of the trees and are able to see across a clear shallow valley ahead, you notice a strange-looking creature about 400 feet away from you, just on your side of a creek that runs down the valley. If the creature were a lot smaller it would be similar in many ways to a St Bernard dog, but from here it looks to be about 8 feet high at the shoulder and probably has a few more legs than a typical dog would - looks like six instead of four. Safe to say none of you have ever seen anything quite like it. It was drinking from the creek, but as you appear it hears you and looks at you, then its mouth opens (and those teeth are huge!) and it charges toward you at high speed. It'll probably only take a couple of rounds to get to you, given how fast it's moving. What do you do?"

At this point, what's the justification for giving the players any further info as to the giant dog's capabilities, AC, intentions, or anything else?

Crimson Longinus said:

But the number represents a real quality that exists in the setting. At least if you interpret rules simulationistically, which I know you do. So knowing that number can simulate knowing the quality it represents.

Click to expand...

It can, but I prefer to avoid them in-universe where possible. It feels wrong to tell your fellow adventurers, "Don't worry, that ogre only has an AC of 12".

Thomas Shey said:

Man, you're going to really have to learn that "Let them learn everything the hard way" is not a way most people are interested in playing any more,

Click to expand...

Not my problem.

Thomas Shey said:

if they ever really were.

Click to expand...

Oh, I think they were.

Micah Sweet said:

It can, but I prefer to avoid them in-universe where possible. It feels wrong to tell your fellow adventurers, "Don't worry, that ogre only has an AC of 12".

Click to expand...

Obviously. But we are not talking about in-character speech, we are talking about the GM conveying information.

Crimson Longinus said:

Obviously. But we are not talking about in-character speech, we are talking about the GM conveying information.

Click to expand...

Which raises a point: should the GM be mostly communicating in character-speak (i.e. as a narrator describing what the characters see-hear-smell-etc.) or in game-speak (i.e. inserting game-mechanical numbers into that narration)?

Me, I far prefer the former.

Lanefan said:

Which raises a point: should the GM be mostly communicating in character-speak (i.e. as a narrator describing what the characters see-hear-smell-etc.) or in game-speak (i.e. inserting game-mechanical numbers into that narration)?

Me, I far prefer the former.

Click to expand...

Whilst most of the descriptions should be evocative and about the setting, game information must be occasionally be communicated anyway, so I don't see particular reason to avoid it when it makes the communication clearer and the gameplay smoother.

The question of how to convey information to the player by way of their PC is an important one. There are times when it makes sense to use descriptive terminology, including words like "difficult" or "easy" to communicate that information. When doing so, though, you have to keep in mind the capabilities of the PC and the perspective of the player. if you tell a 7th level fighter that the bandit captain carries herself with a deadly grace and bears the scars of many won battles, you are probably telling the player that they are looking at a peer. If you tell that to someone playing a fist level fighter, you are probably telling them that she is above their pay grade. What I would not do, and don't think i have ever done, is say "The bandit captain looks like she is CR4/3rd level/4+ HD".

Micah Sweet said:

Having the DM give you the numbers helps your immersion?

People really are different.

Click to expand...

"In the clearing ahead, you see a pair of 9' tall humanlike figures. They seem very thin and have minor deformities- one has an obvious club foot, and the other's face looks like it's partially melted due to a malformed jaw. They wear furs and hides with pieces of metal armor stitched into strategic places, and wield spears."



From this description, how does one tell, exactly, if they are dealing with an easily dealt with threat, or a deadly encounter? You can metagame that the DM isn't going to use an encounter of two easily defeated mooks, but you really don't know. Are they as tough as giants? Trolls? Ogres? Bugbears?

No idea. Should you alpha strike by using a powerful spell, or attempt to use minimal resources? No amount of experience can let you make an informed decision, unless you know exactly what these things are from player experience.

Or again, you could metagame and think "well, this is the second encounter, we might face up to 6 more today. Or not."

Now, I could say, "this is a Verbeeg, it's slightly more dangerous than an Ogre." And maybe that's enough.

Or I could say "he has 5 hit dice, one attack, and a Strength of about 20 and a (surprisingly good, based on the description) 16 AC." Now, I know the players can make a proper tactical assessment.

D&D is a game where a little bunny rabbit can actually be a horrible abomination. Description doesn't actually tell the player very much about what they are dealing with. There are, however, cues a trained combatant can glean from someone's stance, how they carry their weapons, the condition of said weapons, and a hundred more intangibles that I don't have the time to describe (or think about in the moment).

Some feel that you should have to have a special feature, like the Battlemaster, to be able to size up foes. I'm in the opposite camp- everyone should be able to do this if they're in the business of facing down deadly foes on a daily basis.

And note, there's still lots of room for surprise, even with the information I just shared! "Hey, Fighter, did you know that when enraged, a Verbeeg Smasher can score critical hits on a 19 or 20?"

"No...I didn't."

"Now you do!" : )

Micah Sweet said:

If the PC has reason to have a general sense of someone's capability (and often they do), then that's fine.

And if the PC has reason to be ignorant than yes, ignorance is immersion.

Click to expand...

So who decides how much ignorance?