D&D General "Player Skill" versus DM Ingenuity as a playstyle.

[Reynard]

It’s really about how cleverly you operate the rules. I would never tell players they need a 9 to hit. Or that they need a 12 to disarm the trap. Or they need 12 damage to kill the monster. That's not immersive. They could eventually deduce those things after repeated attempts (if they really want to) but they aren’t told those things outright.

The goal isn’t to reproduce a video game but rather replicate the tension you might experience if you were to actually encounter these things.

But to be clear, all this isn't what I'm talking about when I mean challenge. I mean in-game challenges to the characters like the monsters themselves, traps, puzzles, mysteries that require player's head to help solve. Things like hiding the system ("roll a 12 to hit," "you take 7 hit points damage") are more to do with immersion than challenge.

Look at these two scenarios, though, for how mystery and tension can be added to standard monsters:

Scenario 1:
Player: I attack the orc
DM: Ok, roll, you need a 12.
Player: I roll a 15.
DM: Ok, you hit, roll your damage. You need a 4.
Player: I roll a 6.
DM: Ok, it's dead.

Scenario 2:
Player: I attack the orc
DM: Ok, what weapon are you using? Roll to attack.
Player: I'm using my magic broadword. I roll a 15.
DM: You plunge the sword into its shoulder. Roll your damage.
Player: I roll a 6
DM: Your sword cleaves through its shoulder and down through its chest and the orc falls in a bloody heap, dead.

The first is mechanical and uninteresting. The second leaves open the mystery of how dangerous the orc was, and how difficult it would be to kill even though everyone knows generally how difficult orcs are. If you amped or changed the stats for the particular orc, you leave open room for surprise and strangeness in the encounter -- "hey, this orc isn't acting like a typical orc!"

This is an unfair comparison because you could include the gory details in the first example, too. Flourishes like that don't have anything to do with mechanical transparency. A lot of games show the difficulty right on the character sheet, including classic D&D with saving throws. I don't think having those numbers available to the player inherently negates immersion.

Of course, I don't think immersion is particularly important in enjoying RPGs, but many folks consider it paramount. To achieve I think you need Free Kreigspiel levels of system opaqueness and I don't think most players want that.

 

[Wolfpack48]

This is an unfair comparison because you could include the gory details in the first example, too. Flourishes like that don't have anything to do with mechanical transparency. A lot of games show the difficulty right on the character sheet, including classic D&D with saving throws. I don't think having those numbers available to the player inherently negates immersion.

Of course, I don't think immersion is particularly important in enjoying RPGs, but many folks consider it paramount. To achieve I think you need Free Kreigspiel levels of system opaqueness and I don't think most players want that.

My experience of players who want all the maths are the same players who don't want any immersive details.

But sure, you could add those flourishes to Scenario 1 -- I still think adding the difficulty numbers in plain sight negates some mystery until you actively engage with the creature. The keys in the example:

"You need a 12 to hit it"
"You need a 4 to kill it"

 

[Reynard]

My experience of players who want all the maths are the same players who don't want any immersive details.

I don't think I have ever encountered a player who was actively against descriptive flourish.

But sure, you could add those flourishes to Scenario 1 -- I still think adding the difficulty numbers in plain sight negates some mystery until you actively engage with the creature. They keys in the example:

"You need a 12 to hit it"
"You need a 4 to kill it"

For the record, I tend to be more open about the first than the latter, and then not often the first until it has been a couple rounds. Initially, I want the players to have to discover the monster -- not because it is immersive, but because tension and mystery are fun in and of themselves. I almost NEVER tell them how many hit points the bad guy has -- except sometimes I can't help but giddily gloat when they leave it with only 1 HP.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I don't think I have ever encountered a player who was actively against descriptive flourish.

I have. On multiple occasions.

For the record, I tend to be more open about the first than the latter, and then not often the first until it has been a couple rounds. Initially, I want the players to have to discover the monster -- not because it is immersive, but because tension and mystery are fun in and of themselves. I almost NEVER tell them how many hit points the bad guy has -- except sometimes I can't help but giddily gloat when they leave it with only 1 HP.

To be honest, I care more about the latter as well. The first I figure the characters will find out their to hit eventually anyway, but I still don't volunteer the info. In RQ, they see their chance to hit right on their sheet, and will know if they crit or fumbled, but they don't know how good the monster's defensive skill is.

 

[Voadam]

I don't get why or even how those things are "rules" of the game though. Like, immunity as a term is a rule of the game, sure. But it's not only expected, it's practically required that DMs invent some of their own monsters, unless they're rigidly running a module (and most of the DMs advocating black-box rules are not doing so, wouldn't even want to do so.) That pretty clearly moves away from "the rules of the game" and into...just individual DM expression.

You are just using a different understanding of rules than Kask was using in his foreword.

"This came about as a result of the proliferation of rule sets; while this was great for us as a company, it was tough on the DM. When all the players had all of the rules in front of them, it became next to impossible to beguile them into danger or mischief.
The new concept pioneered within these pages should go a long way towards putting back in some of the mystery, uncertainty and danger that make D&D the unparalleled challenge it was meant to be. Legend Lore once again becomes the invaluable spell it was meant to be. No more will some foolhardy adventurer run down into a dungeon, find something and immediately know how it works, or even what it does. By the same token, no longer will players be able to send some unfortunate hireling to an early demise by forcing him to experiment on his master’s goodies."

He is specifying the rules problems Eldritch Wizardry is addressing.

Nothing in Eldritch Wizardry hides the PC mechanical rules of attacking and saves as you understand them, it deals with players having the core rule book and access to the monsters and treasures information by just adding new monsters and magic items and having a system for artifacts and relics to have powers determined by the DM instead of a specific set in the book that a player can just read. And a section to get around players employing hirelings to determine artifact powers.

"The abilities of all artifacts and relics must be determined by trial and error, by the players, and
usually their effects are permanent and irreversible (due to the extreme strength of the magic
used to create them). It is both unlawful and evil to give a relic to a non-player character because
there may be danger involved. Non-player characters who are given artifacts to try out
will, upon learning how to use them, attempt to dominate or destroy their masters/employers."

There is nothing here to change the rules behind the DM screen or to now ban players from reading the core book or to obscure the mechanics or whatever.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Part of all this is trying to replicate the sense of wonder you felt the first time you played a TTRPG. Everything was mysterious. As you become experienced and understand the rules and have lived through a lot of the typical challenges, some of the shine will inevitably wear off. I think this is when the hobby started to become more sophisticated with its adventures and started introducing more things like character arcs, cultural experiences, spiritual growth and moral quandaries. There are only so many variations of traps after all.

 

[payn]

Part of all this is trying to replicate the sense of wonder you felt the first time you played a TTRPG. Everything was mysterious. As you become experienced and understand the rules and have lived through a lot of the typical challenges, some of the shine will inevitably wear off. I think this is when the hobby started to become more sophisticated with its adventures and started introducing more things like character arcs, spiritual growth and moral quandaries. There are only so many variations of traps after all.

For sure. I can say I have definitely evolved from discovering monsters and traps and more into detailed plot and exploration style. There is far more interesting ways to portray trolls and encounter them then running into ones with orange skin that are not weak against fire with unknown ACs. Kingmaker did this excellently.

 

[jayoungr]

No more will some foolhardy adventurer run down into a dungeon, find something and immediately know how it works, or even what it does, By the same token, no longer will players be able to send some unfortunate hireling to an early demise by forcing him to experiment on his master's goodies.

These sentences jumped out at me. If the goal is to make sure players don't know what various items do, isn't that MORE likely to lead to them forcing hirelings to try them out first? What in the book makes it now impossible for them to do that?

 

[Reynard]

These sentences jumped out at me. If the goal is to make sure players don't know what various items do, isn't that MORE likely to lead to them forcing hirelings to try them out first? What in the book makes it now impossible for them to do that?

See post 95 by @Voadam above.

 

[jayoungr]

See post 95 by @Voadam above.

Well, that's what I get for not reading to the end of the thread!

Anyone else here read Knights of the Dinner Table? I'm reminded of Lord Gilead--he was formerly a lowly hireling whom the PCs forced to test out an unknown magic item that turned out to be a Helm of Lordship. Who knows, maybe the writers had just reread this supplement before writing that story!