"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?
I think a "to hit" number is okay (after somebody lands a hit), but hit points are (IMO) better conveyed as description than as a number. The players should never know for certain that the next hit is going to bring down a foe. It will impact their decision making. Just my opinion, though.
Quote from: Aos;291841The players should never know for certain that the next hit is going to bring down a foe. It will impact their decision making.
Why do you think it will impact their decision making in a negative way, rather than a positive one?
I don't reveal AC or HP to players. If they ask what armor their foe is wearing, I'll describe it. If they ask how many HP their foe has, I'll describe their foe's condition.
A concrete knowledge of these stats, though, can lead to metagamey action in a place where I don't want metagamey action.
I did experiment once with not revealing even the PCs' hit points to my players. It actually worked out very well; they were very cautious about entering combat as they could never be sure exactly how close their characters were to death. Not sure why I abandoned it; I think I needed to pare down my bookkeeping a bit at the time (I was running 2e with a few add-on books and 30+ pages of house rules).
(edit: damn I type slow; 2 posts before I finished this one!)
Quote from: KenHRIf they ask what armor their foe is wearing, I'll describe it. If they ask how many HP their foe has, I'll describe their foe's condition.
You're giving them the info though - just parsing it through descriptive language rather than being more clear with the actual numbers.
Quote from: KenHRA concrete knowledge of these stats, though, can lead to metagamey action in a place where I don't want metagamey action.
This is what I'm wondering about - how will the players use this info
in game and if you think it's a bad thing I'm interesting in hearing what you think will happen.
Agreed it gets too metagamy. The whole hey there are 4 of them on less than 5 hps just do that area effect spell that does 5 damage to all enemies within 3 squares.
Gosh I tried to make that 4E ish but I still ended up using the word spell, tsk , tsk
You're absolutely right: descriptive language is still giving the player info. However, the info is far more fuzzy and subjective than just giving them the numbers. It's the kind and quality of info they'd be getting if they were there hacking away at the beastie (more or less).
I guess I'm coming at it from, to use a term, an immersionist perspective. I want players to make decisions based on the situation, not on the numbers.
I do understand that, these being games, the numbers are a large part of the situation. And I know it's indulging in (to use another far more irritating term) illusionism to an extent when going for description over numbers. However, for me and every player with whom I've ever had the privilege of sharing a table, that's precisely the draw of the game.
The numbers are needed to run the game, but we like to obscure them as much as possible for the sake of atmosphere.
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!"
- Dave Arneson
Quote from: jibbajibbaThe whole hey there are 4 of them on less than 5 hps just do that area effect spell that does 5 damage to all enemies within 3 squares.
We don't use a battlemat, so all positions are abstracted. Other than casting sleep (HD matter, not HP) or throwing flaming oil, they don't really have area of effect options. I can see where players might start metagaming more at higher levels with more spells... but then again they already do that. :)
Quote from: KenHRThe numbers are needed to run the game, but we like to obscure them as much as possible for the sake of atmosphere.
Yes, this is one of the areas where I was unsure of the effect on the game.
Although the players are already dealing with numbers for: PC hit points, AC, weapon damage, and to-hit -- so numbers are already a big part of the mix.
You get all the numbers up-front in a Fighting Fantasy or Solitaire D&D module, and I'm not convinced that hiding that info actually contributes to the immersion. Certainly if your character spent a minute of melee combat with an enemy they'd have a better appraisal of that enemies strength / weakness in combat than the inevitably vague description I'd probably be offering the player at the table.
If 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?
Quote from: RandallS;291850"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!"
- Dave Arneson
Dave is awesome... but his approach to tabletop games might not be the right fit for my group. :)
I finally found the example of how Dave checked for "surprise":
QuoteAt this point Dave took us into the laundry area of the basement, telling us he wanted to see what we would do. He had us line up in our marching order. Then he turned off the lights saying a sudden wind had blown out our torches. Then we heard some screaming. We generally scattered as best we could. He turned on the lights looked at what we had done and then went back to the other room, telling us that a black blob (like the thing in the classic Japanese horror movie "The Blob" from the 1950's) had killed one of the NPCs who ran into it. We soon found that our weapons dissolving when we struck it. Then we got some torches relit and found that we could fight it with fire. Eventually we killed it losing a couple more men in the process.
:rotfl:
That's awesome... but not something I'm going to emulate.
Quote from: Stuart;291840"You do not truly know someone until you fight them." -Sereph, The Matrix Reloaded
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War
If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him....
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
- Sun Tzu
Quote from: Stuart;291851You get all the numbers up-front in a Fighting Fantasy or Solitaire D&D module, and I'm not convinced that hiding that info actually contributes to the immersion. Certainly if your character spent a minute of melee combat with an enemy they'd have a better appraisal of that enemies strength / weakness in combat than the inevitably vague description I'd probably be offering the player at the table.
I've never found immersion in Fighting Fantasy books (awesome as they are!) or Solo modules.
I'm perfectly happy to relate any info regarding how the PC perceives the skill/condition of their opponent(s). But players rarely ask. So there's one area where providing the numbers up-front might be more (dare I say it?) "realistic" in some ways than hiding them.
I've run games with full open information and other games without. All I know is, in my experience, hiding the information created a different atmosphere around the table that I preferred.
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?
They can infer that from observation, even before combat starts. For example, guys with higher hit points tend to look big, nasty and very competent.
During combat, the players know their hit rolls and how much damage they're doing with their weapons. Information on how tough their enemies are can be very easily derived from that. If they've hit a gobbie three times in a row and did max damage with their long swords every time and the monster's still standing...well, they know they're dealing with a tough customer.
I think that aspect is a wash either way.
Quote from: KenHR;291858I've never found immersion in Fighting Fantasy books (awesome as they are!) or Solo modules.
My experience is that not so much the Solo modules, but Fighting Fantasy and Choose Your Own Adventures have that "You're In the Story" quality that books in general have to offer. Not so much during combat, because there's no added description of what's going on - but when you encounter certain monsters and you see their stat block, it makes the difference between "yeah, okay" and "OMG RUN!"
Stuart, run the expirament and see how your groups likes the change. That is probably the best suggestion I can offer because there are too many factors involved (mostly around not knowing your own players or having experienced your own GM style).
For me, I've found that with most groups that wrecks the suspension of disbelief that I was trying to maintain and causes the action to become too metagamey. For a few groups, it doesn't affect it all, but this is definitely a case where Your Mileage May Vary.
Quote from: jeff37923;291863mostly around not knowing your own players or having experienced your own GM style
Speaking of which... Expedition to the Ancient Academy is now on iTunes (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=309259067)! :D
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.
:D
Quote from: Stuart;291940Yeah. Get out of my house.
:D
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.
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.
I do both. "He's staggering badly and bleeding from the gut! 17 HP down and 2 to go!"
That sort of goes with when a player rolls a crit and it's like "54 points! Suck that, monster!"
Hmm, interesting. Well, the way I see it, it's kind of up to the GM and Players to see what works best for them (like pretty much anything else). I can understand the arguments for both and they both seem valid. That kind of takes it into preferences at this point.
I would rather deal with a GM that can describe how badly hurt the monster is based on previous attacks and hit points left, etc.
Hit points are already so abstract when it comes to descriptions so maybe for players new to the system it might be really helpful and make a real difference in their strategy and the survival of the party. Either way, do what works for you...
I think its quite important that the GM describe clearly just how damaged an opponent is, but not by saying "its got 12 hit points left!"; they need to do it in the context of the game.
This was hammered home to me particularly in my Legion campaign. Its important there because a member of the Legion of Superheroes cannot kill, and some of my PCs do serious amounts of damage per hit. But, they can reduce the number of dice they roll for damage too, basically pulling their punches; so just how much they decide to do in damage is going to depend on getting an accurate idea from me of how badly hurt their opponent is.
I think its fair for a player to ask "is a full-strength blow from my PC going to kill him?" and the GM to answer "in all likelihood, yes".
RPGPundit
I guess it is just... part of the game, but another problem I run into is a player that absolutely can't believe how strong or weak an opponent was.
What about levels then? I like to say, "You can tell by his stance and confidence that he is no match for you," or something like that. Again, it lets a bluffer pretend he is something he isn't.
If you don't mention something like that, how is a player to know how hard he needs to go to win?
My guys are usually clued in when one of them get ripped in half.