Hidden dificulties, NPC stats and metagaming

[Knaight]

I generally don't reveal the numbers, but that's less a matter of active secrecy and more a matter of fluid description. Even then, I tend to favor systems with some sort of unified scale where there's a reasonable guess, and if flat out asked I'll generally reveal that information if it is something that a character would know (e.g. the difficulty to swim across a river that is completely visible). In a game like D&D that also includes things like AC, in plenty of others that's a matter of the skill of the opposition and not necessarily something known.

[Thrudd]

The character is right there fighting the monster. The party is right there fighting with him. They all see how easy or hard it is to hit the thing. It becomes in character knowledge. That extrapolates to metagame by the players figuring out the AC when two characters with +5 to hit, one rolls a 10 and misses, another rolls an 11 and hits.

It is not a crime against humanity for players to know things.

That's fine when they figure out a number, but they have to be the ones that figure it out. They see how hard it is to hit when I tell them whether their attacks hit or miss, not before. I will never describe a monster as having "AC 5". It has a thick leathery hide and pointy bone protrusions. If you calculate that you need a 15 to hit it, good for you.

[Fizban]

May I sig this? Plus the rest of the post.

Pretty sure that's the first time anyone's asked me that, I'm flattered Go ahead of course, though you'll need to cut it down or spoiler it to fit within the sig guidelines.

That's fine when they figure out a number, but they have to be the ones that figure it out. They see how hard it is to hit when I tell them whether their attacks hit or miss, not before. I will never describe a monster as having "AC 5". It has a thick leathery hide and pointy bone protrusions. If you calculate that you need a 15 to hit it, good for you.

I think we're actually all in agreement here, no one's been advocating giving out enemy AC beforehand. Just different degrees of effort before streamlining. It's the skill checks and other aspects where we're disagreeing.

As for needing specific skill DCs, it should be common sense that something described as difficult means needing a higher score to succeed. . . If I say it looks like it would be impossible, that applies the same to anyone and you ought to take me at my word, it isn't a relative "impossible". As the DM I'm not trying to trick you into making poor decisions, I'm giving you as much information as your character would have. . . . If I say that there is a slippery smooth surface to walk across and it will be hard to keep your balance, the player is responsible for knowing the abilities of their character enough to know if they have a good shot at succeeding at that.

Difficulty is relative by definition. Unless you assign a number to "easy" and "hard" and "impossible" they only mean anything with regards to an individual. You expect the player to know if they have a chance of success, but unless you tell them a number (or range) then there is literally nothing to compare their own numbers against. Your "information" is meaningless and they are forced to pull out their own DMGs to try and calculate what they're doing, while hoping you didn't leave something out because they didn't ask. If you're referring to the Difficulty Class Examples chart at the start of the skills section then fine, but since you're advocating against players knowing DCs I assume that you are not, which means you're not telling them anything.

(which is why I've given those up to go back to AD&D/retro clones)

I assume the players were also interested, because doing this in response to the players wanting to use their numbers doesn't sound good.*

The DM's job is to give good descriptive cues that relay important information and also help immerse the players in the world. Giving stats and numbers up front I would feel like I was being lazy, phoning it in as a DM. I feel like part of my job is to keep the "man behind the curtain" behind the curtain, that means keeping mechanics and calculations as much out of view as possible.

Just like in a video game, as a player you don't see all the algorithms and calculations that go into resolving every action you take. You try stuff, and the program shows you what happens. Think of the RPG the same way, the DM is the game engine which runs all the algorithms, the player should not need to interact with that or even be aware how it happens. You try stuff, the DM tells you what happens.

I just don't understand this. Keeping the man behind the curtain and only speaking in descriptions and vague difficulties is far lazier to me than having the mechanics ready and putting them into the proper player friendly terms for the situation. Anyone can compare a DC to a bonus and say maybe, it takes preparation to give an actual answer. The DM's job includes making sure everyone can play on the same level, and sometimes that means having information ready for people that don't know every facet of the game.

Video games don't show you all the mechanics, but they also tend to involve dozens of combats per hour where you control all the characters, against opponents that always use the same stats, with no risk of failure since you can just reset. DnD 3.5 has maybe a couple fights per week, where you don't control all the characters, each foe could be using a completely different set of stats, and getting your character killed usually has consequences. It's not reasonable to expect the same learning curve, or to rely on trial and error when your life is on the line and either your character or DM should know better.

*While it's good that you're now running a system that's more suited to your style, I still say it's fundamentally flawed. Black-box gaming rewards those who already know all the rules and punishes those who don't, that's why it's the DM's job to put everyone on the same field, and it's extremely unlikely that every player in the group has the exact same knowledge level. Removing most of the potential knowledge doesn't end the problem, just covers it up.

[goto124]

It seems that Thrudd plays with more experienced players who are quite number- and optimal-strategy-obsessed. His method of DMing also seems to work better with close friends, who have a better idea of what he means by easy, hard, etc.

I am, of course, only making a guess. Feel free to correct me.

Off-topic note to Fizban: There is an extended signature thread. People post there, and then link to that post in their sigs. I'll be using my extended sig to quote you, especially since I prefer to keep my sig as short as possible.

[Thrudd]

Difficulty is relative by definition. Unless you assign a number to "easy" and "hard" and "impossible" they only mean anything with regards to an individual. You expect the player to know if they have a chance of success, but unless you tell them a number (or range) then there is literally nothing to compare their own numbers against. Your "information" is meaningless and they are forced to pull out their own DMGs to try and calculate what they're doing, while hoping you didn't leave something out because they didn't ask. If you're referring to the Difficulty Class Examples chart at the start of the skills section then fine, but since you're advocating against players knowing DCs I assume that you are not, which means you're not telling them anything.

I assume the players were also interested, because doing this in response to the players wanting to use their numbers doesn't sound good.*

I just don't understand this. Keeping the man behind the curtain and only speaking in descplayerse and vague difficulties is far lazier to me than having the mechanics ready and putting them into the proper player friendly terms for the situation. Anyone can compare a DC to a bonus and say maybe, it takes preparation to give an actual answer. The DM's job includes making sure everyone can play on the same level, and sometimes that means having information ready for people that don't know every facet of the game.

Video games don't show you all the mechanics, but they also tend to involve dozens of combats per hour where you control all the characters, against opponents that always use the same stats, with no risk of failure since you can just reset. DnD 3.5 has maybe a couple fights per week, where you don't control all the characters, each foe could be using a completely different set of stats, and getting your character killed usually has consequences. It's not reasonable to expect the same learning curve, or to rely on trial and error when your life is on the line and either your character or DM should know better.

*While it's good that you're now running a system that's more suited to your style, I still say it's fundamentally flawed. Black-box gaming rewards those who already know all the rules and punishes those who don't, that's why it's the DM's job to put everyone on the same field, and it's extremely unlikely that every player in the group has the exact same knowledge level. Removing most of the potential knowledge doesn't end the problem, just covers it up.

In 3.5, it would in fact refer to the difficulty categories from the books. I am not saying players should not know the rules of the game or be aware that there is such a thing as a DC. I am saying that I don't want calculations and numbers to rule the game.

For me, 3.5e became basically a tactical battle game, like fantasy battletech. Which was great for a while, I love battletech. But combats take hours, as you've pounted out, with all the modifiers, and a high level of system mastery for players was required if they expected to perform optimally. It was not very accessible to new players, high learning curve.

My decision to change system was not based on specific players behavior, but a gradual desire to have a different sort of game, and the ability to include brand new rpg players along with veterans.

Your arguments may be valid for d&d 3.5, the learning curve being so high I would want to point out to players all the different sources of bonuses and penalties to their attempted actions.

What I mean be "lazy" would be just telling the players what they need to roll, rather than actually describing anything. Like "ok, these guys all have AC 5, roll your attacks and tell me if you hit." instead of paying attention to each roll and describing what happens.

The system I'm using basically puts everyone on the same field by removing all the fiddly bits. There is no potential knowledge that an experienced player might have that would help them in any meaningful way or give advantage over a new player. That is my goal, along with making sure the focus is on immersion in the game world vs immersion in the rules.

[Keltest]

In 3.5, it would in fact refer to the difficulty categories from the books. I am not saying players should not know the rules of the game or be aware that there is such a thing as a DC. I am saying that I don't want calculations and numbers to rule the game.

For me, 3.5e became basically a tactical battle game, like fantasy battletech. Which was great for a while, I love battletech. But combats take hours, as you've pounted out, with all the modifiers, and a high level of system mastery for players was required if they expected to perform optimally. It was not very accessible to new players, high learning curve.

My decision to change system was not based on specific players behavior, but a gradual desire to have a different sort of game, and the ability to include brand new rpg players along with veterans.

Your arguments may be valid for d&d 3.5, the learning curve being so high I would want to point out to players all the different sources of bonuses and penalties to their attempted actions.

What I mean be "lazy" would be just telling the players what they need to roll, rather than actually describing anything. Like "ok, these guys all have AC 5, roll your attacks and tell me if you hit." instead of paying attention to each roll and describing what happens.

The system I'm using basically puts everyone on the same field by removing all the fiddly bits. There is no potential knowledge that an experienced player might have that would help them in any meaningful way or give advantage over a new player. That is my goal, along with making sure the focus is on immersion in the game world vs immersion in the rules.

The solution here is simple. Tell them that if they spend too much time quibbling about numbers instead of actually doing something, you will assume their character is having a stroke or something and their turn is skipped.

They will be displeased, but they will spend significantly less time worrying about the minutiae.

[goto124]

The solution to what problem?

[Keltest]

The solution to what problem?

to the problem of people quibbling so much about stats and numbers that it bogs down the game.

[goto124]

Ah. As suggested in other threads about how to deal with large numbers of players, you could use a stopwatch, egg timer, or hourglass to give every player limited time. 6 seconds for the player to say something, 60 seconds to finish making their decisions, for example,

[Milodiah]

Honestly, I tend to begin giving the players DCs and things like that if they're taking repetitive actions such as hitting the same monster for the third time in a row, etc, to allow them to take over some of the number-crunchingm or if they ask (out of character) about the difficulty of task X I give them a ballpark of what the DC might be, i.e. in the 20s, or 30s, or 40s, etc. I believe they have a right to have a rough estimate of their chances based on penalties or bonuses, assistance, magic items, etc.

My logic there is that, for example, someone with several ranks in Craft (Blacksmith) could, in-character, sit down and say, "You know, you're asking me to make a masterwork high-quality breastplate, but you're also telling me it needs to be done in four days, and I don't have a full forge...do you have any idea of how steep those penalties are I simply don't think that's all that likely to happen, buddy." Sometimes it's even more obvious. Someone who has climbed things before should know that yes, it is probably beyond their abilities to climb the side of a vertical marble slab that's slick with water from being part of a fountain, but not beyond their abilities to scale a natural rock face.

[Fizban]

In 3.5, it would in fact refer to the difficulty categories from the books. I am not saying players should not know the rules of the game or be aware that there is such a thing as a DC. I am saying that I don't want calculations and numbers to rule the game.

Ah, I assumed wrong then.

It was not very accessible to new players, high learning curve.

My decision to change system was not based on specific players behavior, but a gradual desire to have a different sort of game, and the ability to include brand new rpg players along with veterans.

Your arguments may be valid for d&d 3.5, the learning curve being so high I would want to point out to players all the different sources of bonuses and penalties to their attempted actions.

Fair enough. I'm a little. . . biased? I guess. I see a high learning curve, and my response to that is to help people learn it so we can all enjoy the game at the top. I can understand intellectually that some people just don't like learning, and there are plenty of things I don't bother learning myself, but in all honesty I expect people to be interested in learning to play games. That's half the fun. I'm interested in roleplaying but I'm mostly there for the game: learning it, playing it, and adapting it. Roleplaying is nice but it's more of a next step adaptation, I've spent most of my time without any game groups so I wouldn't have learned any systems if my focus was heavy RP.

What I mean be "lazy" would be just telling the players what they need to roll, rather than actually describing anything. Like "ok, these guys all have AC 5, roll your attacks and tell me if you hit." instead of paying attention to each roll and describing what happens.

Clarified, gotcha. On the flipside of what I said above, I don't find giving a baseline of description difficult at all and assume everyone should be able to do so, though in reality some people do get stuck in that rut you've described.

The system I'm using basically puts everyone on the same field by removing all the fiddly bits. There is no potential knowledge that an experienced player might have that would help them in any meaningful way or give advantage over a new player. That is my goal, along with making sure the focus is on immersion in the game world vs immersion in the rules.

Are you using a homebrew system? I only know a few systems (Mutants and Masterminds, New World of Darkness, and DnD 3.5/5e, with a bit of DnD 1e/4e and I read some FATE once), but none of those systems had few enough rules I would say it's possible to truly level the playing field all the way down to new player tier. Obviously I'm there for the rules (which can facilitiate connection to the world mind you), so I don't like them being pushed to the side. Clearly you want some amount of rules or you'd just freeform, I'm just wondering how much rules you are/need to hide to feel you've accomplished your goal. Not that it's a question that can be answered in a general objective sense, as the goal is met depending on the players and you've only got so many of those.

I'm also wondering if there's a Stormwind Fallacy corollary or something, like "Game mechanics do no automatically break roleplaying immersion." I know it's the opposite for me in any case: knowing the rules have suddenly been broken means the world is not coherent, it doesn't make sense and I can't take it seriously. It's like when you lose a fight in a cutscene when you know for a fact you could beat the boss otherwise. All the fancy description in the world from either side of the DM screen doesn't matter if I know perfectly well something doesn't work that way (I can make exceptions for stuff that was planned in advance, particularly if the DM has mentioned there will be some alterations or fiat coming and I can wave it away as divine influence).

Ah. As suggested in other threads about how to deal with large numbers of players, you could use a stopwatch, egg timer, or hourglass to give every player limited time. 6 seconds for the player to say something, 60 seconds to finish making their decisions, for example,

I actually was trying to use an egg timer to speed up combat, and motivate people to pay attention when it's not their turn and learn how to play their characters. Unfortunately between my own forgetfullness and the tendencies of those less motivated players, it basically fell by the wayside and in the next game I suggested it and all refused. I'll admit I was pretty disappointed. As often as it's suggested I get the feeling that a lot of groups would actually point-blank refuse.

[Nightcanon]

How about this for a rule of thumb:
Pre-combat: you get a description of your opponent before combat starts (unless surprised)- "a squad of guards comes round the corner. They wear shiny silver breastplates and carry halberds."
First round or so of combat: roll and tell me what AC you hit.
Once everyone has more or less worked it out: roll to hit vs AC 16
Players can ask what the situation looks like, and get an answer like "the guy you just hit has blood streaming from his thigh, and two others are down with arrows in them. The older guy with the beard who just hit Friar Baltus twice in succession barely seems to have a scratch on him".

Skills: when you as a player know your 'opponent' is there, and have a good idea of your own ability, you get to make the roll. I know roughly what grade I climb at, and can tell whether I failed because I clumsily stood on a slipperly bit of moss on the wall, or because the whole thing is too smooth.
If you don't know if you have a success chance, because there may or may not be a secret door, the DM rolls. If you strongly suspect one, take 20 and a have a painstaking search.

[Darth Ultron]

"Game mechanics do no automatically break roleplaying immersion."

They do.

But it depends on the role playing level of the game:


Low RP a lot of games play here. They only role play a little bit, sometimes. The players mostly know all the numbers. The game play is very mechanical.

The Vague Middle This type of game role plays about half the time, maybe, if they want to and think it is important. They will randomly switch from role play to hard core mechanical play based on some unknown random formula.

Pure Role Play This type of game only uses mechanics a little bit, sometimes. The players never know the numbers. The game is mostly all role playing.

[goto124]

They do.

But it depends on the role playing level of the game:

I think the keyword is 'automatically'.

[Jay R]

I don't have a problem with ACs becoming obvious after a couple of melee rounds. That's in-game information. In SCA fighting, I learn pretty quickly who I can hit easily.

But skill checks can be a problem. And the problem isn't the hidden difficulty, but the public roll. Even if I don't know the DC, I know how well I rolled, and therefore know how likely it is that he can do better.

If my character is searching a room, and I roll a 19, I have every reason to think there's nothing there my character can reasonably find. But if I roll a 2, I have every reason to think continued searching will improve my chances.

Remember that a 2 doesn't mean he knows he didn't search well, but that he didn't consider looking for the right kind of hiding place - a hidden wall, under the bookshelf, etc.

I would prefer not to have that information, so that I can make a decision without it. If I know, based on the roll I see, that it's a good idea for my character to continue searching, then it's impossible for me to actually decide the way he would, and it's all too easy to come up with a rationalization why he should decide the way I know is best.

As a DM, I try to take some meta-knowledge away from players, by re-writing. Dragons are not color-coded for the benefit of the PCs. Of elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, goblins, and orcs, at least one does not exist, at least one is slightly different from the books, and at least one is wildly different. Several monsters have different alignments from the books. The name of an Undead will not tell the players what will or won’t hurt it. The first time they see a member of a humanoid race, I describe it as a “vaguely man-shaped creature.” This could be a goblin, an elf, or an Umber Hulk until they learn what they are. After a round or two, I start giving them more details.

This means that after a round or two, when they notice that the humanoids are hyena-faced, they start calling them, "Those things we don't know are gnolls". OK, I didn't prevent the meta-knowledge, but at least I slowed it down. The next time they see them, I'll call them "gnolls".

In short, yes, meta-gaming can cause difficulties. The DM's job is to eliminate those difficulties when feasible, reduce them when possible, and endure them when necessary.

[Darth Ultron]

If my character is searching a room, and I roll a 19, I have every reason to think there's nothing there my character can reasonably find. But if I roll a 2, I have every reason to think continued searching will improve my chances.

Actually you have no reason to think that way.

There is something hidden in the room. The player rolls a 2 and is told they find nothing with a search. They immediately think that they ''missed something'' and there is ''something to find''. And they might waste a ton of game time trying to find something in the room. And the other side is just as bad. The player rolls a 19 and is told they find nothing with a search. They immediately think there is ''nothing to find''. But what if the search DC was 20?

And what if nothing was in the room? Rolling a 2 or a 19 don't matter when there is nothing to find.

I would prefer not to have that information, so that I can make a decision without it. If I know, based on the roll I see, that it's a good idea for my character to continue searching, then it's impossible for me to actually decide the way he would, and it's all too easy to come up with a rationalization why he should decide the way I know is best.

In my more deep role play games, I roll most skill checks for players. That might work for you.

[goto124]

Haven't we already established that Search checks, Spot checks, etc are rolled by the DM and the exact numbers hidden?

[Thrudd]

Ah, I assumed wrong then.

Fair enough. I'm a little. . . biased? I guess. I see a high learning curve, and my response to that is to help people learn it so we can all enjoy the game at the top. I can understand intellectually that some people just don't like learning, and there are plenty of things I don't bother learning myself, but in all honesty I expect people to be interested in learning to play games. That's half the fun. I'm interested in roleplaying but I'm mostly there for the game: learning it, playing it, and adapting it. Roleplaying is nice but it's more of a next step adaptation, I've spent most of my time without any game groups so I wouldn't have learned any systems if my focus was heavy RP.

Clarified, gotcha. On the flipside of what I said above, I don't find giving a baseline of description difficult at all and assume everyone should be able to do so, though in reality some people do get stuck in that rut you've described.

Are you using a homebrew system? I only know a few systems (Mutants and Masterminds, New World of Darkness, and DnD 3.5/5e, with a bit of DnD 1e/4e and I read some FATE once), but none of those systems had few enough rules I would say it's possible to truly level the playing field all the way down to new player tier. Obviously I'm there for the rules (which can facilitiate connection to the world mind you), so I don't like them being pushed to the side. Clearly you want some amount of rules or you'd just freeform, I'm just wondering how much rules you are/need to hide to feel you've accomplished your goal. Not that it's a question that can be answered in a general objective sense, as the goal is met depending on the players and you've only got so many of those.

I'm also wondering if there's a Stormwind Fallacy corollary or something, like "Game mechanics do no automatically break roleplaying immersion." I know it's the opposite for me in any case: knowing the rules have suddenly been broken means the world is not coherent, it doesn't make sense and I can't take it seriously. It's like when you lose a fight in a cutscene when you know for a fact you could beat the boss otherwise. All the fancy description in the world from either side of the DM screen doesn't matter if I know perfectly well something doesn't work that way (I can make exceptions for stuff that was planned in advance, particularly if the DM has mentioned there will be some alterations or fiat coming and I can wave it away as divine influence).

I actually was trying to use an egg timer to speed up combat, and motivate people to pay attention when it's not their turn and learn how to play their characters. Unfortunately between my own forgetfullness and the tendencies of those less motivated players, it basically fell by the wayside and in the next game I suggested it and all refused. I'll admit I was pretty disappointed. As often as it's suggested I get the feeling that a lot of groups would actually point-blank refuse.

I am with you on wanting to teach a game you like to others, and I used to feel the same. But married life changes things a lot. Spouses want to play games, but most people are not into learning a complex system. There are games I like which are rather inaccessible to casual gamers, and I just had to accept that. I choose different games for those people.

My preference now for D&D is a homebrew which is built mostly on Basic D&D and 1e AD&D, the systems I first taught myself 25 years ago. I take elements from different OSR retroclones, too, and I think 5e has some useful stuff. It's quite far from free-form, at least on my side of the screen, I heavily use tables and dice for random generation and deciding events and outcomes.

Yes, experienced players often will have a bit of an edge, just because they tend to be better players, they have better tactics, they are used to reading the cues that a DM gives. But there is no really mechanical advantage that a player with more knowledge of the game gets, there is no way to build their character differently or spend points differently or choosing feats that gives an advantage which new players might not be aware of. The benefits gained through good tactics in combat are obvious and common sense, there aren't tricks you can use which give you a better bonus that would not be obvious to anyone. Get behind cover if someone is shooting arrows at you. Don't charge into someone with a planted pike. If you turn your back on someone that you're fighting, you will be vulnerable and probably get hit. If you attack someone from behind, they can't use their shield to defend themselves. That is how I want combat to go, people assessing the battlefield based on the perception of the characters and making decisions as though they were there.
It's never that the rules are broken, I wouldn't do that. But the rules have a level of abstraction that does not require keeping track of lots of minutiae. For example, you don't have five different categories of AC that can each be negated or added to by different factors. Just one AC that is an abstraction of all those things. Same with attack bonuses and saving throws, there are very lmited things that can add or subtract from them, there is no keeping track of multiple sources of modifiers applying to different characters and regions under specific circumstances.

[Fizban]

Good answer. We play some very different DnD but I can agree with your moving in that direction for those reasons.

[Deified Data]

I'm not going to tell a player the AC of an enemy or the DC of a challenge. If they figure it out themselves through trial and error, so be it. I prefer not to enable metagaming as much as humanly possible, but I appreciate that going into an encounter with zero consideration for the numbers behind the scenes never happens.