Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;707455For example - if I whack at the monster, I should be told the AC. If I get poisoned, I get to know the save DC and how the poison works, etc.

For convenience, yes.  But, you as a player have no "right" to purely meta information (which is what you just said). You can tell by your hits & misses roughly (or precisely) how good the monsters armour is.

I agree that the player has no "right" to the information, but I prefer to have it, as well.

I know that some people get a kick out of the "guess the number" mini-game, but after finding out that I preferred other activities during the game session, I grew tired of it (only because it was tedious and inefficient).

Alas, some DMs still find it to be an entertaining mini-game. If it added value, I wouldn't mind it as much.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;707455I don't mind monster stats and even names being kept from me, so long as the rules/stat block is revealed as we need them and engage with those elements. For example - if I whack at the monster, I should be told the AC. If I get poisoned, I get to know the save DC and how the poison works, etc.

You would make a sad face at my games. I don't always give you the monster's AC. I don't always give you the DC or probability to every single check you make. Sometimes you don't even know if you're supposed to roll high or low. And I make some rolls for you sometimes so you don't know something your character wouldn't.

I actually prefer to wait a few rounds before just announcing AC and +hit of an opponent, it creates a bit of uncertainty that means maybe the fighter keeps his shield up and doesn't 2h power attack everything until he gets an idea of how dangerous an opponent is. Once that has been established, usually by round 3 or so, then make it all open to speed things up.

Quote from: Benoist;707492You wouldn't like my games. I don't always give you the monster's AC, and I don't give you the DC or probability to every single check you make. And I make some rolls for you sometimes so you don't now something your character wouldn't.

While the first two would be negatives for me, I do see the value added for you last point.

Quote from: FickleGM;707489I agree that the player has no "right" to the information, but I prefer to have it, as well.

I know that some people get a kick out of the "guess the number" mini-game, but after finding out that I preferred other activities during the game session, I grew tired of it (only because it was tedious and inefficient).

Alas, some DMs still find it to be an entertaining mini-game. If it added value, I wouldn't mind it as much.

Irrelevant.  There is no "guess the number" game unless the GM is so piss poor that the players aren't intensely involved in the game.  (which is what you have experienced).  In that case there is also, "play the video game on the smart phone "game".  And countless other things to do during a poorly run game.

Quote from: Arduin;707496Irrelevant.  There is no "guess the number" game unless the GM is so piss poor that the players aren't intensely involved in the game.  (which is what you have experienced).  In that case there is also, "play the video game on the smart phone "game".  And countless other things to do during a poorly run game.

I wasn't referring to loss of interest, because I agree with that. What I was referring to was value added to the game. And yes, the mini-game exists (even if just in each player's head), even more so when players are engaged. Players slip from "I hit a 5 AC, did I hit?" to "I hit" as they win the mini-game in their heads. Some even go so far as to *gasp* table-talk and meta-inform their fellow players.

I just don't see the value added. It also isn't a game breaker or anything close to that. Tedious, but only slightly. Then again, I just prefer to know the target when I roll the dice, rather than put it through the DM translator and wait for the answer. Once again, this is barely an annoyance, just a preference.

Quote from: Arduin;707463For convenience, yes.  But, you as a player have no "right" to purely meta information (which is what you just said). You can tell by your hits & misses roughly (or precisely) how good the monsters armour is.

And the GM has no "right" to have me as a player. GMs had best learn to work with their players, and I expect combat and powers transparency. Games have rules, and I expect GMs to uphold their end of the agreed upon contract. "Mother may I" is not gaming, because I will not tolerate illusory bullshit of GMs shifting stats and cheating because it matches their "personal vision" (which has happened to me far too many times.)

I have an absolute right to read all rulesbooks, and I *demand* that the rules be enforced. Fuedalism collapsed in the real world, and I don't tolerate variants of this at my gaming tables. I as a GM abide by this. That kind of narrativism is poison for trad style gaming.

Also, Mr GM, don't be an ass. Tell me what the damned monster's AC is, OK?

Now we see what this being a "major annoyance" looks like. A bit of an overreaction in my opinion, but worth it for the entertainment value, alone.

Basically, Kai is one logical step away from claiming that reading Monster Manual and using that knowledge beforehand to plan your strategy in game isn't metagaming, and I've had that discussion before, thank you very much.

And yeah, GM hasn't a "right" to you as a player, neither you have an inborn "right" to be a player. And personally, if any player ever demands from me knowledge of mechanics in regard to the encounter, I'll execute my right as a person to tell him to take a hike.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;707506And the GM has no "right" to have me as a player. GMs had best learn to work with their players, and I expect combat and powers transparency. Games have rules, and I expect GMs to uphold their end of the agreed upon contract. "Mother may I" is not gaming, because I will not tolerate illusory bullshit of GMs shifting stats and cheating because it matches their "personal vision" (which has happened to me far too many times.)

I have an absolute right to read all rulesbooks, and I *demand* that the rules be enforced. Fuedalism collapsed in the real world, and I don't tolerate variants of this at my gaming tables. I as a GM abide by this. That kind of narrativism is poison for trad style gaming.

Also, Mr GM, don't be an ass. Tell me what the damned monster's AC is, OK?

Have you considered that a gm might follow the rules perfectly, and still not reveal all the numbers to you?

For example, if you were battling a demon in a shapechanged form and with an illusion on it to appear like a different creature....Why would you want to know its stats?

I don't see how the gm hiding numbers has to be linked with gm shenanigans.


I happen to almost always tell players the AC of things they are battling, but If there is a good reason not to tell, like an illusion, it makes sense not to reveal that right away.


I agree that rules should be enforced as far as is practical. But rules eventually fail to cover unexpected situations.
I also insist the gm be the final authority, not the rules.

Crap, perfect example of value added. I am switching sides now!

It's been far too long since illusion or quality misdirection has been used in one of my groups. I should have considered that.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;707506And the GM has no "right" to have me as a player.

Yes?  So what?  Players are a dime a dozen in the D&D realm.  I couldn't run enough games to to satisfy the demand...

Quote from: FickleGM;707503I wasn't referring to loss of interest,

If you are sitting around trying to figure out meta info to the point of making a game of it, you are talking about playing under a piss poor GM that can't hold your attention.  That is de facto..

I thought this was worth a seperate response.

"I will not tolerate illusory bullshit of GMs shifting stats and cheating because it matches their "personal vision" (which has happened to me far too many times)"

So isn't that just a bad gm? Wouldn't that same bad gm still be an asshat even if he followed the rules?

I really don't see how a gm using raw rules makes him a gm you would want to play with.

Why not just leave the games of bad gms?