During my last session one of my players was trying to pick between two powers to use against a foe and, in the process of debating, asked me what he needed to hit. Without thinking I blurted out the number. I was caught off-guard; normally I don’t share those things, and I was pretty upset about it (more with me for responding without thinking than with him for asking).
I was upset because I like to keep the players guessing. I don’t like to let them know exactly what they need to succeed; if they figure it out in play then that’s fine, but otherwise I enjoy keeping them in the dark, using terms like “you just missed!” or “that shot went really wild” to indicate how close they are to hitting. Similarly, I keep my NPC modifiers secret, in spite of a “no fudging” policy (I go back and forth on “showing the roll”).
By contrast, I usually let my players keep damage tallies for NPCs (not the total health, just how much damage they’ve done). This flies in the face of my “keep them in the dark” policy, as they can observe how much damage opponents take before falling (would they really remember if they weren’t keeping totals?), but I prefer the ease on my bookkeeping more than the integrity of keeping them in the dark.
So how about you? Do you worry about mechanical transparency? Do you keep your players in the dark at all times or do you simply hold off transparency until, for example, the initial encounter is over? Or are you the type of GM that gives out mechanical information at the outset?
Have you ever taken mechanical obfuscation to extremes? Have you, for example, refused to tell players how much damage their characters have taken (restricting info to “you took a solid hit” or “you don’t think you’ll survive another blow”)? Have you kept modifiers hidden (i.e. “your magic sword gives off a minor blue glow”)?
It’s not so much keeping the players guessing, but to keep them away from thinking of the game as a math problem instead of the adventures of characters. I use the mechanics as a tool to get an impartial answer to the question “does the action succeed?” if the outcome is not obvious. But the mechanics are not the game. So the less numbers are mentioned, the less likely it is that the game devolves into something like that.
I do the same, and for largely the same reason. In my LT group all but one of the people at the table possess college degrees in Engineering or Math. Games of all kinds — not just RPGs — can devolve into exercises in probability calculation and optimization theory with this group. Being a little vague about what number is needed for success gently reminds players not to over analyze the math and instead focus on the storytelling.
BTW, when I say “being a little vague” I mean, for example, that I don’t state up front what an enemy’s AC is. I will describe its obvious defenses, of course, such as “Wearing finely tooled plate armor” or “Covered in a thick-looking chitinous shell.” When an attack misses I’ll describe the miss, too, with phrases such as “The villain narrowly dodges your swing” or “Your arrow bounces harmlessly off the shell of the beast, who seems completely unfazed by it.” Players who are paying attention will work out the AC sooner or later anyway, and that’s okay with me from a storytelling perspective because engaging a foe in combat should reveal much more about its defenses than merely looking at it does.
Our combats start out with not knowing but go into numbers more later. I figure that once the players figure out that an 18 hits, there is no problem saying 18.
Also, to speed up 4e combats I’ve also been known to tell the party that they need only ask if something hits on a 14 or higher when there is no creature (without penalties) on the board with any stat lower than that. Granted 4e tends to be combat heavy.
As for hiding stats about players from players … I find that is more book keeping than I want to do, but definitely can see it in more role playing scenarios.
That’s almost exactly how I do it too (in D&D games); in 4e I tended to ask “did you make a DC 15 save?” while in 5e I tend to ask, “So, what are your Will save results”?
As you mentioned, once a PC hits a critter at a specific AC, I nod that hitting AC 19 is plenty. The next player might need to ask if hitting AC 17 is enough, since they hit AC 19 but missed against AC 16.
In a lot of ways I liked the simplicity/transparency of 4e. Look, I’ll give you a fair fight and trust you to honestly report hits & misses. I don’t feel quite right being so transparent yet, though for goblins and other critters that they’ve encountered a number of times, everyone knows that AC 15 works… so when it doesn’t, it’s time to look at what’s affecting things.
I suppose it also depends on which game you’re playing. For instance, BASH! (Basic Action Super Heroes) specifically makes a point of telling the Narrator (GM) to keep everything transparent. It’s important in that game because characters have a number of Hero Points they can spend, and if they don’t know how many they would need to spend to turn a failed roll into a successful roll, it would be kind of an un-fun guessing game.
If it’s D&D, I think it makes absolute sense to keep the target number from them, since it reinforces the role-playing aspect. That said, I suppose a successful wisdom roll could probably give them a clue as to what kind of attack would be more beneficial.
I generally tend to avoid this kind of obfuscation. I find it can turn combat in particular into a weird game of “Mother May I?” (GM may I hit on a 16? No you may not.) For me mechanical transparency is a a type of beneficial meta-gaming. If my players know how to approach a situation, it speeds up the game. For some this might be immersion breaking but I’d rather have that than play a guessing game with my players.
Also, some systems require that you tell the player the target number or the GM doesn’t roll at all. Cypher System and Powered By The Apocalypse come to mind. These games literally can’t work if you don’t tell the players the required target numbers.
I prefer to play this way too. It speeds up things where you can tell the group the enemy’s defense or ask who failed a save. Plus it help eliminate fudging on the GM’s side.
Also, it makes sense past level 1. While we don’t know the target number for a free throw, people with practice know how to perform that action. Leading throws in sports, how to apply the brakes driving, and lots of other actions let people make decisions how to approach it. Giving the players the target numbers helps them run characters who behave more competently.
It may be worth noting that Burning Wheel is one of my favorite games, the GM gives the target number (objective) and what happens if the PC failed, before the dice are ever rolled. Every decision is informed.
I agree with Brian Bentley – I don’t really feel like obfuscating combat numbers accomplishes anything other than turning the game into “Welp, I got a 17 and hit and Bob missed with a 16, so I guess we know its AC now.” Honestly, AC is a pretty pointless thing to hide. It rarely influences anyone’s decision making process beyond what is obvious from looking at the situation anyway (“Well, I know I’m a lousy shot with this bow, so I think I won’t target the guy with the obviously high AC.”).
So really all this does is slow the game down for no real benefit. If you’re trying to keep the roleplaying happening during combat, the far more effective way to do it is to switch a game system with fewer moving parts in combat, rather than trying to hide some trivial detail that doesn’t actually reduce the player’s mental workload at all. (Actually, I think hiding target numbers INCREASES the mental workload and therefore distracts from RP as people try to keep track of what numbers hit whom.)
So yeah. I guess my counterquestion for the author and people who like this style is “what do you feel is gained from hiding some numbers?”
I tend to start combats out with the ‘Fog of War’ obscuring the mechanics, but as things progress, I have no problem with letting the players know their exact targets. It usually speeds things up a bit and establishes a bit of trust between the players and the GM.
I *will* keep hit point totals obscured for much longer, though. We tend to use the ‘bloodied’ descriptor for almost all systems to describe when a foe is obviously on the downward side of his health bar, so to speak.
I started playing RPGs with D&D 4e’s release events. for about a year I didn’t know that the bloodied condition was a new thing. I use it in every system with hit points now. Even without mechanical effects to trigger, it give the PCs a good gauge.
I think it also adds some realism. You can tell who is relatively fresh in a fight and who has been clobbered. Now so can the PCs without tracking damage.
A little late to the conversation. The way my preferred system does combat is with a skill check. Your skill level or lower to succeed, higher fails. The better they are the more often they hit, but everyone has a chance to hit regardless of how they attack. This way there is no questions of will a 16 hit or not, it’s a clear success/fail without playing 20 questions. This also shifts some of the book keeping over to the players. Damage however is DR by armor type, so just because everyone hits, doesn’t mean they all did damage.
There is also a fatigue system in play that ramps up the difficulty the more the players try to accomplish in a single round. That however is a different mechanic from the To Hit.