I think the concerns about it impacting immersion are worth bringing up with my players.  I'll ask them if they'd like to play with knowledge of monster HP or not and see what their preference is.

I tell my players the AC of the monster as soon as they engage... What I want to know is if they hit and how much damage they did, and I don't need to be involved in that process every strike. I don't find the actual process of running fights in RPGs very thrilling (and more description of the action just makes it worse). I'm just interested in outcomes.

I don't flat-out tell players a monster's HD, but I also make all monster to-hit and damage rolls out in the open. They can figure it out pretty quick, and from there guess a range of hit points.

I generally reveal that when a monster's hit points are at just a point or two.

In all cases, I figure even first level characters are not fresh off the turnip truck (a first level fighter was called a veteran in every D&D version from 1974 to 1989!) and would be able to judge, once engaged, how tough their foe is, and when the time is right for a finishing blow.

Quote from: Drohem;291910Now, with 4e D&D we just ask at any time what the hit point totals are of any opponnent.

Yuck!  The cool thing about 4e is the bloodied condition so you can see when an opponent is at 50% or less.   That's all the GM needs to let anyone know.

If I am generous, I will say "wow, that attack nearly bloodied him" if a single blow nearly chops them in half or "the orc is deeply bloodied" if the creature only has a handful of HP left.

Quote from: Benoist;291945Basically. I'm not wasting my time trying to play a role-playing game with someone who doesn't trust me to begin with.

Fully agreed.

Quote from: JimLotFP;291984I don't find the actual process of running fights in RPGs very thrilling (and more description of the action just makes it worse).

Heathen!

For me, my favorite part of GMing is descriptions of battle and the roleplay in the bloody hack and slay.

Quote from: JimLotFP;291984In all cases, I figure even first level characters are not fresh off the turnip truck (a first level fighter was called a veteran in every D&D version from 1974 to 1989!) and would be able to judge, once engaged, how tough their foe is, and when the time is right for a finishing blow.

Yup.  If players tell me their PC is sizing up a foe, I give them descriptive info that they can turn into metagame numbers for themselves.

Quote from: Spinachcat;292014Yuck!  The cool thing about 4e is the bloodied condition so you can see when an opponent is at 50% or less.   That's all the GM needs to let anyone know.

If I am generous, I will say "wow, that attack nearly bloodied him" if a single blow nearly chops them in half or "the orc is deeply bloodied" if the creature only has a handful of HP left.

Yeah, I lean more towards what you describe, but I am alone in my group on this point.  They are giddy on this concept, and which has developed into a term in our group, that 4e D&D is "friendly."  Whenever an point is brought up, or something is under examination, then it is jokingly said that it's "friendly 4.0!" and benefit automatically falls to the character and the matter is done.

Normally I keep that info to myself (but not exactly secret): I give out the bloodied condition.

In my play by post I am laying it all in the open, just to ease the process of gaming over an online medium. This is my first time ttrying to run 4E via a message board.

The game was more fun before Gary gave us copies of his working notes.

Seriously.  Not KNOWING how many hit dice the Chimera had, or what the AC of an ogre was, was truly thrilling.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;292020In my play by post I am laying it all in the open, just to ease the process of gaming over an online medium. This is my first time ttrying to run 4E via a message board.

And it has worked well!  I like the little OOC round updates.  I like the format as well.  I can read the descriptive post of the combat round, and then read the snapshot game system information that produced the descriptive text.

Quote from: Old Geezer;292024The game was more fun before Gary gave us copies of his working notes.

Ultimate Grognard Victory Post!

I know what you mean.   Codifying things removes much of the mystery.  Its why I re-skin monsters and make them from scratch quite often in any RPG that I play because I want that mystery.  

Its important for spells too which sadly became rigid very early on.   I make it a point to occassionally add unexpected special effects to magic spells and I never declare what spell the NPC is casting - just the effects.

I don't reveal Hit Points, but after few rounds, I'll reveal other relevant combat information such as AC and Saves. I like doing so as it preserves the surprise for a bit, but takes some of the burden off me to respond to each and every roll.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiI like doing so as it preserves the surprise for a bit, but takes some of the burden off me to respond to each and every roll.

Sharing the responsibility for both in-combat narrative and hit points book-keeping is definitely part of the appeal to me.

Quote from: Spinachcat;292051Ultimate Grognard Victory Post!

I know what you mean.   Codifying things removes much of the mystery.  Its why I re-skin monsters and make them from scratch quite often in any RPG that I play because I want that mystery.  

Its important for spells too which sadly became rigid very early on.   I make it a point to occassionally add unexpected special effects to magic spells and I never declare what spell the NPC is casting - just the effects.

Me too.

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.

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.

But you aren't there. You can't see what is going on. In real life, a boxer can tell when his opponent is on his heals and strike.

In the game, if the GM says, "oh he looks hurt," you can't know for sure how bad he is. Real people know when their opponent is hurt bad enough to make an intelligent decision. If the GM said, "he looks bad enough to die from a fire ball," it would be fair. A warrior that has been around the block enough to level up would be able to tell.

Quote from: Cranewings;292118But you aren't there. You can't see what is going on. In real life, a boxer can tell when his opponent is on his heals and strike.

In the game, if the GM says, "oh he looks hurt," you can't know for sure how bad he is. Real people know when their opponent is hurt bad enough to make an intelligent decision. If the GM said, "he looks bad enough to die from a fire ball," it would be fair. A warrior that has been around the block enough to level up would be able to tell.

This is my thinking on the issue as well. Someone engaged in melee would have a much better appraisal of their opponent than I (not a skilled swordsmen) can articulate to my players (also not skilled swordsmen).  I think it's actually more realistic for the players to have this info.

Quote from: Cranewings;292118In the game, if the GM says, "oh he looks hurt," you can't know for sure how bad he is. Real people know when their opponent is hurt bad enough to make an intelligent decision. If the GM said, "he looks bad enough to die from a fire ball," it would be fair. A warrior that has been around the block enough to level up would be able to tell.

Sure! Why couldn't the DM describe the wounds in those terms? Or if he doesn't at first, at the request of the player who'd point out what you just wrote? I sure could accept that reasoning in a game, coming from the player of fighting-type and/or experienced character.

The problem lies in the ability of the GM to consistently convey that information to the players so well that the players can make accurate decisions... which would be the same as telling them their enemy's hitpoints, unless you have a player o two that just can't get it, in which case it isn't fair to them.

If you can explain it with flavor text so well that everyone is on the same page, it is the same as telling them the hp count, or close to it.

Ha... another use of the Bluff skill could be to act as if you have a different number of hitpoints.