From what I’ve seen, there are two schools of thought when it comes to disclosing target numbers (called a variety of things in different systems):
- Don’t tell your players what they need to roll, just let them figure it out after a few attempts.
- Tell them what they need to roll.
I’ve been used to option one as the default approach for years, on both sides of the screen. Over the past few years, though, I’ve had a chance to see option two — full disclosure — in action as a player, and it rocks.
I’m now solidly in the second camp, and will be taking the full disclosure approach the next time I run a game. Telling your players what they need to roll has several benefits:
- Saves time (they’ll figure it out anyway, so why not just tell them?).
- Allows them to make more informed choices — both about whether and how to attempt the task, and about whether or not to expend finite resources (action points, for example).
- Encourages creativity — “Crap, I can’t make that DC. I’ll have to try something else.”
- Pulls the party together to help with important rolls.
- Signals to your players which rolls are really critical, and which are less important.
You don’t have to share every target number, either — just most of them. You can still make a few rolls in secret, or keep mum about what the party needs to roll when you think it’ll add drama to the situation.
If you’re used to not disclosing target numbers, this represents a major shift in play style — and one that might not be for you. The best way to find out if this play style works for you and your group is just to try it. At your next session, disclose all (or nearly all) target numbers in advance, and see what happens. Like me, you might discover that you love this approach.
I’ve always GMed full disclosure when it comes to target numbers. I’ve always done it with D&D primarily because the suspense of not knowing wasn’t really a factor my players enjoyed, and we played a combat heavy game so just telling players things like enemy AC was just easier. They’d figure it out anyway.
Recently however, I’ve been running WoD, so I had to because more challenging tests remove die from their dice pool, so I’m used to it now.
Also, it makes GURPS alot faster to resolve rolls when the players know the modifiers to their target number. They can just tell me whether they succeed or not (course… you need to be able to trust your players).
The second approach sounds good but I’m wary of using it because I know my players will start reverse-engineering their enemy, which I really don’t like, especially with important and recurring enemies. They discuss it on the table so it’s perhaps more of a meta-gaming issue but it’s still something that will bother me if I use the second option.
Full disclosure is an extreme. Like all extremes it has its weaknesses. I usually give DC for all skills checks but I’m not a fan of giving away AC. Combat should be a life-or-death situation and the unknown adds a lot of tension to a fight. Even if the PCs figure out the AC after 1 round, they’ll have doubted and guessed for 1 round.
I tend to like full disclosure. It certainly makes things faster and easier on both player and GM, and I’ve almost never seen it take away from the game. Besides, I think GMs often underestimate the amount of information a character should be able to glean about what they’re doing or going up against.
I should note that I think withholding certain things just makes sense, particularly those things where if you fail, you’ll never know you failed. (The classic example being of course a Search check—did you fail to find something, or was there nothing to find?) To me “full disclosure” doesn’t necessarily mean every single DC number.
This is interesting. I see people mentioning AC above, which was my first thought. Of course, then I think back on last session where one player writes down everyones hits and misses and zeroes in on the AC in a round or two… which always bugs me. So, maybe I should just realize that gamers will game and tell them those numbers.
Our DM does about half and half on disclosing numbers, and as a player, that’s the way I like it. I don’t like walking into combat and knowing I can’t hit the Big Bad; I want to try it out a bit first and see how well I fair. Yes, we all figure it out eventually, but the initial not knowing makes the encounter more tense and exciting.
With some group situations, our DM gives the full-disclosure. For instance, when everyone had to make a reflex save vs an entangle spell, he told us our target number, and we told him if we made it or not. It took a lot less time, and besides, it’s the kind of thing our characters would have known instantly anyway so there wasn’t a reason for a build-up.
I think it depends on the group and on the specific encounter which method works best.
I agree– for most cases, just tell them their target number. It makes things run a lot more quickly in most cases.
I understand the text in Iron Heroes goes even further and suggests that you tell the players up front all the DCs for toppling the apple cart, and making use of their environment, as a way to encourage more swashbuckling fights. That also made a lot of sense; I have swinging bridge and narrow trail locations where I’ve figured out DCs and consequences… and I intent to tell the players from the beginning what they are. They can make an informed decision from there.
full disclosure, whenever i can. i think the only numbers i don’t disclose completely are monster/NPC hit points. i keep a running total of damage on the whiteboard, and give impressions of damage (lightly wounded, seriously wounded, dead) on request, but reserve the actual hit points for myself. its something of a safety valve, a tool to adjust an encounter which has gone horribly wrong.
As a Call of Cthulhu keeper, I find it’s very helpful not to reveal targets – not so that the players will be in the dark, but because I haven’t picked them yet. This gives me a short respite in which to decide a) what the effect of this action might be (does it make sense? is it fun? can I work it into the story?), b) what skills or attributes might be relevant, and c) what the target number should be. Most of the time I never have to pick a target number because the result speaks for itself.
Want to turn that car into an improvised explosive device? Roll the dice. 91% – that’s a failure. 5% – good work. 32% – what’s your mechanical repair? 37%? Hmmm… sorry, it’s the middle of night and its pouring rain and you lost your tools a way back. Mechanical Repair /2 might have done it, but I’m afraid you’re out of luck.
I’ve been touting this horn for long time. And to those fearing that players will reverse engineer the enemies or that knowing the odds will lessen the tension I can only say this:
In Practise It Does Not!
I actually think that knowing the ‘numbers’ for the enemy makes it less likely that people try to dig out the rest of the stats.
And not knowing the odds does not build tension. I state this as near absolute fact: There is lot more tension when you know that you’ve got 67% chance of making it than if you know that you probably have some chances. Try it!
Of course, I go to extremes and claim that Especially things like Search Checks need to be fully disclosed for players. Mainly, because this forces the GM to think. And it builds tension: “Roll 18 on spot or you will walk into an ambush by gnolls, and..”. This also kills metagaming the spot checks dead, since if the character failed, the player is now locked in combat (=fun) and not trying to find excuses for making more spot checks (=not fun)
I almost always divulge the “to hit” number so that the players can figure out their own bonuses and so that combat can move along at some kind of pace beyond snails’. (though even then some battles become epic).
Similarly, I nearly, almost always reveal saving throw, ability, or skill check requirements if it will add to the game. Who doesn’t love watching the entire party cringe when the player with the lowest dex is forced to “roll under an eight” on a d20?
Sometimes…hardly ever…almost never…do I just ask a player to roll a die without knowing why. On the rare occasion when I do ask for a blind roll, the players know something is up. The die is rolled, the players look up expectantly, and I stare at the die, shaking my head slightly as though I am disheartened for their sakes, or incredulously like I can’t believe the number. At that point the tension builds immensely and you can feel the excitement in the air.
All that said, I guess I agree with Stupid ranger who said “it depends on the group and on the specific encounter which method works best,” but in general I usually prefer to let them know where they stand.
The system I play usually has disclosure of the target # on most things, but there are a few areas where you can’t do it reasonably. Search type checks, things where the player should think the character succeeded whether they did or not. Usually I let most other things be upfront and out in the open. That is where I make all my rolls.
I generally always give out target DCs for skills and saves. It creates a great deal of excitement when the odds are extremely long; and it creates equal amusement when success is almost assured and a 1 comes up. It also lets them figure out what they need to roll before hand, rather than after.
With AC, I don’t give it away initially, but usually reveal it after a few rounds. Initially, the players enjoy trying to guess and discover which enemies are easy to hit and which are hard. But later revealing the AC allows the game to move faster.
So a good mix of both hidden and revealed values seems to work best for me. The key is to tailor it to what the players enjoy.
I prefer not to share ACs. But then, as a gamist, I also see nothing wrong with the players keeping track of what they needed to hit and figuring out the AC.
I am all for disclosing DCs anytime a character could make a reasonable evaluation as to the difficulty, though I could see having occaisions where it might make sense to lie (because there is some kind of trap involved, or the PC is using an as yet unanalyzed magic item). Of course in the case of search checks, where the PC doesn’t have a reasonable way to evaluate difficulty, then it would be reasonable to keep the DC secret. Even then, sometimes it might be reasonable to say something like: “The DC for finding the missing ring in this particular room is 30 because of the heaps of trash.” Of course it would also be reasonable for the GM to secretly keep that the DC is actually 35, because it isn’t the trash the PCs have to sort through, but they have to find a hidden compartment under the trash.
Of course how DCs are shared depends totally on the style of play. There are some styles of play for which making almost everything public improves the game. Other styles of play require at least some hidden knowledge and surprises.
Frank
I too employ a hybrid style. In D&D, I definitely share all saving throw DCs, and most skill checks. Things like searching for secret doors I keep closer to the vest to prevent from giving too much away (which I think players enjoy anyway). AC I reveal when they get close to it, since they’ll be able to figure it out anyway, but not initially to ruin any surprise.
I think the bigger issue is “why am I asking for this roll?” It’s now a big pet peeve of mine when playing where the DM asks everyone to make a Listen check, and then individually asks everyone for their rolls, and then points out who made it (though sometimes forgetting in the process!) It’s much easier to just have everyone roll and either tell them “If you rolled higher than X, you hear this…” OR say “Whoever rolled the highest hears this…”
Mark’s suggestion should either come with a [d20] tag or with a huge disclaimer of D.O.G. (Depends On the Game)
And it’s not just about individual play style but on how the game itself is constructed. Can you imagine even trying to give away numbers in HackMaster? If the players didn’t kill you for trying, you still have all the wonky formula to try to “explain” which will never work anyway. The game is designed to have that obstacle built into certain rolls.
Imagine(the rpg) has an actual explanation and an in-game mechanical way of discovering those numbers if you want them. It is still one of my group’s favorite games because of those features.
And, of course, there is play style to consider. A group ( like mine ) that loves HackMaster is not going to want the numbers “disclosed” even in a d20 game.
So… this wouldn’t go over well with my regular group and in fact I sometimes get chewed out for accidentally giving away numbers. Thanks but no thanks.
I agree entirely with Frank’s comment, that AC should be “discoverable”, and most DCs should be given if it’s reasonable that the character could discern them.
FWIW, I play D&D pretty exclusively.
Wow, I just agreed with Frank. Is that a sign of the End Times? 😉
Telas
Chris, your point about AC was the genesis for this post. In every group I’ve gamed with, the players know the ACs they care about within a round or two — so why waste the time hiding it from them?
This goes double when players have to consider spending constrained resources like action points to boost rolls. It sucks to spend an AP and find out later that you hit without it.
If, as a GM, you put a lot of effort into describing foes in ways that indicate how tough they’re going to be to hit/damage, that seems like a viable alternative. Even then, though, I think I’d rather just know the AC.
I actually expected this to be a more contentious topic than it’s proved to be so far. 😉
Telas, oh, I think we’ve agreed before…
Martin: why discover the ACs? When tactical, gamist play is the game style, I think it makes sense. Sure, players ARE good at figuring out ACs, but it still allows them to develop and use a skill. Also, while the players will figure out the ACs pretty quick, they still have to commit themselves to the combat to discover them.
In a less gamist game, or one not focused so much on tactics, then it may make more sense to be open with AC. I also agree with your comment about hero points, but the use of hero points is definitely a different game style than the hard core tactical/gamist that makes AC discovery an element of play.
I should also note that discovery of AC is probably acceptable/good in some forms of simulationism, which can have just as much focus on tactical combat, just with a different goal. In fact, some might argue that such “in character” discovery is a hallmark of simulationism, though in fact it isn’t.
Frank
Most people seem to agree that giving target numbers is way to go (atleast often). Though I’ve really seen only one good justification (darelf: “We don’t like it, nuh-uh.”)
Frank, rest of you AC hiding people, how important part as a game you see the discovering the AC instead of hearing them? On scale 1-10? Have you played how many games that you do get the numbers upfront? What was the thing you really don’t like. Actual examples only.
And search/spot rolls? How important is it for you, as a player that you do not get to know that you failed a search/spot check or similar ‘counter-example’ of open DC:s? How many games you’ve played that you get the numbers upfront? Why were they worse? Actual examples, please?
.. Also if someone would explain to me, why having an extimate of probability which is (kinda) estimate of effect is more tactical than just knowing probability? Tactics is about applying limited resources in optimal way, so how can it be more tactical with less information? I can see that if you have way of applying resources to learn stuff, but..
(iz contenshus martin! I iz involved)
No problem.
I played in a game where the AC numbers were hidden until we discovered them, and I enjoyed it very much. At one point we had a player who would metagame the ACs (Troll, with a breastplate… he’ll be AC 21), and it was very annoying, knowing in advance the numbers necessary. It really takes some of the sense of mystery and discovery out of the game.
Boiling it down to a straight numbers game is similar to saying, “There’s a secret door in the south wall that leads to the treasure room, if anyone can roll a DC25 Search check.” (Extreme example, admittedly.)
That said, there are definitely some caveats. Don’t hide every target number – if you’ve got any ranks in Climb, you should know the DC of a rough cliff face. And give hints liberally – Armor’s obvious, but Mage Armor isn’t until you engage in combat.
Telas, I don’t actually mind the player metagaming the AC of the troll with breast plate, that’s just applying knowledge. But then I don’t really have a problem with the players knowing details from the Monster Manual. If I want a surprise of this nature, I need to make the monster non-stock in some way.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
Frank