Hey /tg/ I'd like your input. How much should the DM let

>>50550775
>information about the game mechanics,
I think every player has a right to know the rules of the game they are playing.

>>50550808
sure rules about how to play and such, but the monsters hit points? its resistances?
how about the DC of a skill check?

plshelp

I think giving the players normally-secret mechanical information is appropriate iff the characters have made some kind of congruent insight in the world. For example, a spell of probing might reveal the stats of an enemy.

Tossing around that shit willy-nilly isn't very fun.

>>50553414
no its just after the session is over he just says all this stuff

>>50553613
After session might be alright, but if it still annoys you, just talk to him about it.

>>50551405
>>50552599
I think it's a non-issue and that your bumping with a not-question is indicative of you looking for a circle-jerk.

Sometimes it's good. Sometimes it's bad. Depends on the game and the people playing it, and there isn't going to be a one-size-fits-all answer posted by anyone, because it isn't a question that really has any better answer than "I do like this" or "I don't like this."

So it kinda seems like your real issue is with your group. But you decided to bring it to an anonymous forum to get some hugs, so maybe the real issue is actually with you.

>>50553722
thank you for this very constructive insult

>>50550775
>How much should the DM tell the players about specific game mechanics they used or had planned?
It depends on each group as >>50553722 said. But I would also like to add: giving NO information about the mechanics at all is also sickening, especially if you go to great lengths to hide it.

For example, let's suppose this scenario.

>"Well anon, roll Acrobatics!"
>"Uh... *roll* got a 15!"
>"Very well. You run and jump over the first two fences while trying to escape the thugs, but on the third one you find a very tall fence that is difficult for you to climb, and while you try to jump to reach something you can use to keep running you notice the thugs are right behind you."
>"Huh? Why, this doesn't seem that difficult for my character!"

You could answer this with

>"Well it was too difficult for you."
>"Why?"
>"Because it was."
>"But why? How did you figure the difficulty out?"
>"It was just difficult."
>"But..."

Or

>"Well it was too difficult for you."
>"Why?"
>"The difficulty was 18. You were not just running from the thugs but you also had to jump several fences, and you couldn't jump the final one."
>"Oh..."

There is nothing wrong with hiding information as much as there is nothing wrong with showing it. But showing EVERYTHING could break the immersion (unless it's stuff like Fate - in which case, only hide things that must be hidden and show the rest), whereas showing NOTHING could also make the players feel you lack transparency.

Do whatever is fun for the group.

There's a lot of communication about the mechanics, the stakes of some action and how exactly works in our game. That being said, it's a homebrew based more on rulings than specific rules, so it's pretty vital. Still, we're not trying to obscure mechanics away or pretend they're not there, we're using them to make the game work for each of us.

That being said, our DM usually doesn't go into that kind of detail about what exactly he was rolling for at some point. Usually. Sometimes he does, and we're fine with that, it doesn't really take away from the game or anything.

Battles, however, run under a bitch of a fog of war. We know how things work and all, but battles in the system are pretty chaotic, fast, merciless ordeals, where unless you actually devote time and actions to finding these things out, or you had time to prepare beforehand, you're not going to know how many exactly there are, how they're faring (other than general "they're coming at you", "they're running", "they're shouting orders to each other" sense) or what have you.

But for the mechanics themselves, things are always open for discussion, and they're there to be used and discussed. Some groups would probably not like it, but for us it's vital.

tl;dr: it depends, talk to your DM about it instead of bitching about such a wildly variable thing on /tg/.

>>50550905

That depends pretty heavily on system, and to a lesser extent on the group. Some systems are designed explicitly with the intent that players know some "metagame" information. Stars Without Number's attack resolution mechanic assumes that the GM tells the players the AC of whatever it is they're trying to hit. Dread's rules explicitly lay out that the player cannot be removed from the game unless they remove a block from the tower. The players are expected to know these things.

I'm of the opinion that your GM is overdoing it a little your case. There's nothing wrong of you to let him know that.

>>50550905
>but the monsters hit points?
Yes.
They already know their own HP, they know how much damage they deal with their weapons, they know their attack scores, they know just about everything.
Being able to tell "oh, that axe could have taken your arm clean off if it had hit properly" is standard. It's just that to players this is translated to "this weapon does 2D6+4".