|
2 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2011 - 10:12AM
#11
|
|
|
Player attacks:
a) players are told the value of the defense they're swinging at before the attack
b) players are told the value of the defense they're attacking once one player has attacked that defense.
c) players are not told the defenses, but no effort is made to prevent players from comparing rolls to figure defenses out.
d) every effort is made to keep monster defenses secret, and even temp bonuses and penalties are not announced.
Monster attacks:
a) monster rolls in the open, and the rolled number and bonus is announced to the player, who tells the DM "hit" or "miss"
b) monster rolls in the open, and only the total number is announced - players are free to do match however they want to figure out bonuses.
c) monster rolls secretly, and only the total number is announced - players are left guessing what the monster's bonuses are.
d) monster rolls secretly, and the DM checks the players relevant defense and tells the player if the attack hit or missed
However, I have no objections to any of the other methods.
Ditto.
On all accounts.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2011 - 12:06PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
Player attacks: C though I sometimes use B when characters are making area attacks on large groups to speed things up.
Monster attacks: B unless the monster is mysterious or hidden, in which case I might start with C until the characters are aware of what they are fighting.
In general I'm fairly obscure on handing out information on monsters. Knowledge checks won't get you the creatures exact defenses or powers, just general information and an idea of what their attacks and defenses are.
Jay
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2011 - 12:59PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
When I first started I used to hide everything from the players. It was pretty easy since most of them weren't as good at math as I was and couldn't figure out monster ACs (we were using THAC0). As time went on I gradually became more open until now I just flat out tell them the monster defenses. I still hide other stat info, but they can learn that with the right skill check.
I find it's just easier to give them a reasonable amount of information up front. That way the players know best how to use their abilities. I used to worry about metagaming, but you can't really eliminate metagaming anyway. I've found that being up front about most things makes it easier on the players. They seem to focus on what their characters are doing and not on trying to figure out the monsters. They feel better about using their abilities when they know that it's a good time to use them. Now if they don't take the time to size up their enemies and end up dropping a daily on minions, well that's their fault. But especially for reroll abilities, you can't make a good judgment about that power without understanding the implications of using it. If you only hit on a 18+, a reroll is a terrible choice.
I do roll my dice secretly though. I'm usually honest about the results, but if I want to fudge the results as the DM, I want that flexibility.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2011 - 4:25PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Dec 25, 2009
|
I use, and have always used, C on both counts.
Not that I have any objection to any of the other methods, but C&C is the way I've been playing it since I first played D&D, and I see no reason to change what works.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2011 - 7:53PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I play; player attack: C and monster attack: a motified B. I roll in the open, I don't declare the monster's attack total, I ask for a Pc's defense and declare hit or miss. Maybe I just want to keep them guessing. There are some good points about power use and greater transparency with declaring a monsters defense. Then again I like to keep them guessing.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2011 - 8:49PM
#16
|
|
|
3E/Pathfinder game, same difference.
While not all the time, often enough my DM will tell us what DC we need to get for a saving throw. For the most part players can't do anything about it anyway, but previous game it was enough to know whether my crusader/master of nine should use a saving throw maneuver or not or this campaign whether my sorcerer should cast Protection From Evil for future saves. The cavalier took Improved Iron Will feat (Pathfinder) and can decide whether it's worth rerolling his Will save he can do once per day. Obviously it doesn't bother the DM, but I think he does it for convenience. We have six players. It's easier for us just to tell him whether we make the save or not. We're all honest about it.
Similar to knowing the bad guy's AC. That he won't tell us directly, but it's easy to figure out when you roll a 13 and hit then roll a 12 and miss. We can eventually just roll and say we hit or miss for that combat. We're all adults. Metagame distinction is important to us, but that's mostly for general roleplay. For combat mechanics, we're given more leeway. The DM will cut in if there's abuse (Honest Unintentionally), but it's not common enough to be a bother. I suppose it helps no player knows the Monster Manual/Pathfinder Bestiary. I've only skimmed it myself. I know the DM likes this concept. It keeps some mystery.
Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts Champion!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 21, 2011 - 10:24AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Dec 28, 2010
|
C, I announce near misses and exact hits sometimes
C, unless the difference is significant, then I just say "hit", although sometimes I just ask my lv3 wizard "will a 26 hit your AC?" for fun... :P
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 21, 2011 - 10:56AM
#18
|
|
|
I don't tell people what the defenses are *at first*, for most monsters, but I don't object to them figuring it out - and I'll tell them, outright, if a power is useful or not to use.
"Shield's not going to make this miss"
"Memory Of 1000 Lifetimes is certain/almost certain/could/might/probably won't/can't help."
And sometimes, I'll tell the PCs outright after a few rounds things like "this guy's Fortitude is higher than his AC. It's a bad defense to attack", especially if someone's targeting Fort and getting frustrated.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 21, 2011 - 12:10PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Nov 10, 2008
|
C and C
I guess it is a matter of preference regarding either a more (edit: subversive lol!) immersive or a more (table-top) game-mechanics oriented approach to battles.
Regards
Nikolaj
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 21, 2011 - 12:40PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
C and C
I guess it is a matter of preference regarding either a more subversive or a more (table-top) game-mechanics oriented approach to battles.
What does "subversive" mean in this case? I find that having transparent defenses augments my descriptions of creatures and speeds up the game. My players use this information, but I don't think of that as metagaming, just strategy.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
