Quote from: Stuart;291851If the players knew some of the monsters had higher hit points - maybe they would be more inclined to retreat?  If they knew some of their retainers were better in combat than others, maybe they'd position them differently in the marching order?

Part of the thrill of combat is not knowing all this stuff. If they retreat it's because combat (as described) is not going their way - bad rolls and all. Many dramatic scenes would be lost if I used the method you're thinking of trying out. Not knowing coupled with vivid descriptions are powerfull immersive tools, IME.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Stuart;291840I can't think of any good reasons not to share this info (but maybe you can).

What do you think the effects of doing so would be on our game?  Would you do something like this?

I wouldn't. It encourages metagaming (aka "It only has 12 hit points remaining! Use your fireball!" kind of game play).

Personally, I prefer to describe the creature as the combat unfold. Clues are there to point out the general state of the opponent. "Tired", "gashing wounds bleeding profusely", "A hazy, distant look in its eyes from its obvious exhaustion"... that kind of thing.

Prefer in-world references to describe what's going on in the game. Drive the players into the make-believe. Not out of it. Don't encourage the players to think in terms of game mechanics.

Quote from: Stuart;291844You're giving them the info though - just parsing it through descriptive language rather than being more clear with the actual numbers.

I tend to give the players concrete numbers for decision-making when it's something their characters are likely to know, such as the modifier to a skill check they may want to attempt (as I dicussed in another thread).

Armor class and hit points are out of the realm of character knowledge. They may be able to infer armor class as combat goes on, and I will certainly give them descriptive indicators of the opponent's condition, but no actual numbers.

Quote from: Stuart;291852Dave is awesome... but his approach to tabletop games might not be the right fit for my group.

LOL. That's certainly true. This bit works fine for my groups, however, so does letting them know the AC -- at least for monsters the characters are familiar with.

QuoteI finally found the example of how Dave checked for "surprise":

Awesome indeed, bu6t I think that was a one off thing. It's certainly not something I'd do. Especially as my laundry room is too small and not dark.

Quote from: Stuart;291840"You do not truly know someone until you fight them." -Sereph, The Matrix Reloaded

For our next D&D session I'm considering letting the players know the AC and Hit Points of monsters once they've engaged them in combat, rather than keeping that as secret info "behind the screen".  I'm also thinking of letting them know the AC and Hit Points of their Retainers once they fought alongside them in combat as well.

I can't think of any good reasons not to share this info (but maybe you can).

What do you think the effects of doing so would be on our game?  Would you do something like this?

People can usually tell what they are dealing with in my game by the decryption of the first hit. If you deal 8 and I tell you that you draw a nasty gash that makes them wary, you know they are probably half dead. If you deal 8 and all you do is cut their cheek or tear their coat and they laugh, you know you probably have 70 or 80 to go.

My payers can usually figure out the to hit number pretty quickly. I normally just tell them after a few rounds so they know I'm not cheating or changing it. They also easily figure out its to-hit sense I roll all my dice in the open.

Quote from: Benoist;291881I wouldn't. It encourages metagaming (aka "It only has 12 hit points remaining! Use your fireball!" kind of game play).

I don't think it is metagaming. Say you are a high level Dusk Blade with a fireball ready to go. You fight some guy down to 12 hit points at the point of your sword, see that he is hurt and can't get away, and make the decision.

slash slash slash cut cut spurt... "And now... YOU DIE" ffffooosshhhhhh

Quote from: Cranewings;291896I don't think it is metagaming. Say you are a high level Dusk Blade with a fireball ready to go. You fight some guy down to 12 hit points at the point of your sword, see that he is hurt and can't get away, and make the decision.

slash slash slash cut cut spurt... "And now... YOU DIE" ffffooosshhhhhh

Each time you think in terms of game mechanics, you're metagaming. I doesn't matter how you translate it in the game world.

In your example, your character (and therefore, you, at the game table) wouldn't know how many hit points the creatures still has. You would still be able to decide, by the way the creature looks wounded, tired, crippled, whether you want to play your action that way or not. Then, I, as DM describe whether the creature dies or not.

Quote from: Benoist;291897Each time you think in terms of game mechanics, you're metagaming. I doesn't matter how you translate it in the game world.

Then there's metagaming the entire time you play 99% of RPGs, and I'm okay with that.

Quote from: Benoist;291897You would still be able to decide, by the way the creature looks wounded, tired, crippled, whether you want to play your action that way or not.

This is the 'black box' from one of the other threads.  I have no idea what those things mean to you.  Since hit points aren't wound points basing things on descriptions of how much little cuts the enemy has actually works against immersion for me.

Quote from: Benoist;291897Then, I, as DM describe whether the creature dies or not.

See the other thread on GM's fudging the rules to make their favourite NPCs survive combat.  No thanks.

Well, the way we used to do it before the advent of 4e D&D was that an opponents AC was revealed until it was hit successfully.  Once an opponent was hit, then the DM would reveal it's AC.  We wouldn't reveal hit points though, this was done to descriptive terms.

Now, with 4e D&D we just ask at any time what the hit point totals are of any opponnent.

Quote from: Stuart;291909This is the 'black box' from one of the other threads.  I have no idea what those things mean to you.  Since hit points aren't wound points basing things on descriptions of how much little cuts the enemy has actually works against immersion for me.

I think it comes back to the "trust" issue that was also mentioned on that other thread.  If your GM is consistent with the descriptors and uses mechanical keywords to clue in players (like the "that looks like it would be a formidable task" example), that will avoid a lot of the parsing issue.

In the end, this is all down to preference and the way you look at RPGs.  I know if I suspected a GM was regularly keeping pet NPCs (or worse, GMPCs) alive despite what the dice say, I'd probably leave the game, and I have, more than once.

I can only approach this from a players stand point.  I'm in several campaigns right now, where two of my GM's do not reveal AC or HP's but in my other campaign  I am aware of both.  I notice when I play the games where the AC or HP are unknown, I look for a tactical advantage and base my decision to attack on certain key words that I hear or are expressed.  

Now..in the game where I know the AC or HP, I find my self consumed with these numbers.  First off, this is the first time where a GM has given this information to me, so it through me off a bit at knowing my enemy.  Second I found myself kind of doubting my characters ability to whip some ass against the stronger foe, but on a good note I delve into the rules a bit more to find certain advantages against the monsters in my favor.

Quote from: Stuart;291909Then there's metagaming the entire time you play 99% of RPGs, and I'm okay with that.

I'm not. It misses the whole point of RPGs to entertain yourself via immersion in a world of make-believe.

Quote from: Stuart;291909This is the 'black box' from one of the other threads.  I have no idea what those things mean to you.  Since hit points aren't wound points basing things on descriptions of how much little cuts the enemy has actually works against immersion for me.

Bottom line: the "black box" argument is about whether a DM sucks or not and/or whether players assume the DM sucks or not. See other threads about Rules vs. GM for that.

The GM should be able to convey information via immersive descriptions. If not perfectly, this also assumes the GM actually listens to the players' feedback and works at it over the course of the game. If not, he is a lazy bastard who doesn't deserve to be a GM in the first place and I wouldn't play with that guy on a regular basis.

As a player, one either immerses himself in the game world, i.e. he role-plays, or he's not. If not, then there's something he still has to learn about what a role-playing game is and isn't. I would discuss it with the player.

Quote from: Stuart;291909See the other thread on GM's fudging the rules to make their favourite NPCs survive combat.  No thanks.

Because I get to know as GM how many HP a creatures got and thus when it dies or not, and not you as a player, you automatically assume I fudge? If you're not trusting me to run a game properly, the door's there.

Quote from: Benoist;291933If you're not trusting me to run a game properly, the door's there.

Yeah.  Get out of my house.

Quote from: Stuart;291940Yeah.  Get out of my house.

Basically. I'm not wasting my time trying to play a role-playing game with someone who doesn't trust me to begin with.

As a player, I'd rather not know for the simple reason that it takes away from the GM having to describe things as thoroughly. Additionally, I think it's a bit easier to feel the danger of combat and stay in-character if you're not sure if it's gonna take one or two more rounds to down a foe.
It prevents situations where players must ask themselves, do I risk it? Do I flee? etc...

If you feel it will enhance your group's gaming experience overall, go for it. If you think the things I mention are worth keeping in the game, don't.