Do you tell players what they need to roll TO HIT?

[cyclopeatron]

I was wondering about how all you DMs out there handle TO HIT rolls for players... Do you tell your players what they need to roll to hit? I have tried both ways - simply telling them if they've hit or not, and also telling them what they need to hit before they roll.

There are really good arguments for doing it either way, but lately I've settled on telling payers what they need to roll because it seems to give combat a more exciting edge where everyone is watching the die with bated breathed, then the whole group either groans or gives high-fives. The uncertainty of the "secret to hit" doesn't produce this effect at all...

I'm curious about what you all do...?

[jblittlefield]

Apr 3, 2010 20:03:41 GMT -6 cyclopeatron said:

I was wondering about how all you DMs out there handle TO HIT rolls for players... Do you tell your players what they need to roll to hit? <snip>

Nope...but most of us have been playing since 1978 or thereabouts, so they all have a pretty good idea. My DM style is more descriptive in focus; therefore the dice are just a means to an end and my guys focus on what I'm saying more than the pip count.

[howandwhy99]

Never. Or for any roll. It defeats the entire design of the game, if a referee does this. IMO it is the purpose of the game for the players to figure out what works and how through play. At least it is in mine.

I've pointed out before I view D&D and some other early RPGs as interactive pattern finding games. This may be scoffed at, but it's what I see a lot of folks doing, if even only part way. This doesn't mean all groups must play according to this design and/or in this manner, but in my experience it delivers the most enjoyment for exploration of the unknown - at least the unknown outside one's own desires.

[jblittlefield]

Apr 3, 2010 21:18:07 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

Never. Or for any roll. It defeats the entire design of the game, if a referee does this. IMO it is the purpose of the game for the players to figure out what works and how through play. At least it is in mine. <snip>

Mine too.

[eris]

I don't tell them, but for those that care they tend to figure it out pretty quickly.

[jimlotfp]

Such secrecy bugs me, as it serves no purpose other than to give me more stuff to keep track of and I'm not so interested.

I just tell the players their opponents' AC, and they tell me if they hit.

I figure anyone locked in combat will have a pretty good idea of how difficult it is to damage their opponent anyway.

[waysoftheearth]

I'm with Eris, and also Dave Arneson if this quote is truthful:

"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!"
- Dave Arneson

I let the players roll and tell me the result, or in my play-by-post I do the rolling, but I still tell the players the result of the die roll. And then I tell them the outcome.

The way I see it, the players are entitled to these two pieces of information, but everything else (including the opponent's AC) is purely the refs business.

[Deleted]

Nope. I tell my players nothing of the sort. ;D

[coffee]

I go along with the Arneson quote as well.

Mind you, as a player, I'm actively deducing the AC from the information I hear. This doesn't matter as much in D&D, but in AD&D, where I know the combat tables are different, it gives me more to play with.

(That being said, however, it really doesn't affect my dice at all...)

[makofan]

I don't tell the players, but after a while you know you need a 12 to hit a kobold - so when a 12 misses, it gets interesting ...

[Finarvyn]

In spite of the fact that I have Dave's quote in my signature, I don't follow that 100% of the time. Often I'll not tell the players the first time they encounter a monster, but after they hit a time or two I'll share that information to save time.

I think that the philosophy of the quote is good, however. I don't think that players ought to know all of the rules, and in fact it often ruins some of the fun when they do.

[ragnorakk]

I don't, but if the combat lasts more than a few rounds, they can generally deduce what the target number is. I like to not announce the target number because that way I can apply situational modifiers and such without having to explain everything

[Falconer]

Player rolls the die, is responsible for adding his own modifiers, reports the number and I report hit or miss result. Players do not know their own THACØ or Saving Throw target numbers or what AC they are trying to hit or any of that. That is all referee-only info easily found on charts. And, once that info is found, it is easy enough for the referee to make a note of it so it doesn’t have to be looked up again.

Yes, a player will eventually realize what the target number is in a given situation, if he’s lucky and rolls the exact number needed (a hit) and one below it (a miss). But since they lack both THACØ and AC information, it is near impossible for them to “work out” those numbers, not to mention major geekery. Heck, I have been refereeing for a long time now and I couldn’t/wouldn’t do it as a player. So I hit on a 17 and miss on a 16. That could mean the monster is tough or I am weak, or both! Regards.

[eris]

Apr 6, 2010 21:34:30 GMT -6 coffee said:

I go along with the Arneson quote as well.

Mind you, as a player, I'm actively deducing the AC from the information I hear. This doesn't matter as much in D&D, but in AD&D, where I know the combat tables are different, it gives me more to play with.

(That being said, however, it really doesn't affect my dice at all...)

As I said, the players that care to know are deducing the AC (et al) from the roll and the result.

IAC, when I describe the scene I'll usually mention what the opponents are wearing, and even if I don't players will ask for that sort of information during a fight. When they do I'll, of course, tell them. The PC's are products of their enviornment and in their environment they would *know* what chain mail, plate, leather, etc look like, so the players are entitled to that information.

However, they aren't entitled to *know* exactly what to roll, IMO. Part of the fun, for all of us, is for them to figure it out....

Player A: "A 14! That should be a hit!"

DM: "The large Orc in the chain mail fends your sword off with its shield and laughs cruelly!"

Player A: "d**n! He's higher level that I thought! Little help over here!"

...the player learns that a 14 won't do it and the Orc is wearing chain, he can start deducing from there...

And speculation about the Orc swirls around the table...

Player B: "I hit him with a 14 last turn, but my PC is higher level than your's."

Player C: "This guy must be the boss. Let's concentrate on him."

Much more fun that "Player A, your PC needs a 15 to hit, now roll for it."

[iamtim]

I actually use THAC0 so my players tell me what AC they've hit; I tell them if it was a successful attack or not.

[gorebonzo]

Apr 13, 2010 16:16:13 GMT -6 iamtim said:

I actually use THAC0 so my players tell me what AC they've hit; I tell them if it was a successful attack or not.

That's a good compromise. I might try that out.

Generally, yeah, I don't tell the players squat. I'd actually like to get over the bad habit of saying "you hit" at all, actually. Seems like it would be better to describe hits (and misses!) through narrative. So: Your sword bounces off his armor, or, you knock his helmet off and put a gash in his forehead.

[tavis]

I just made a long post in response to this thread at The Mule Abides, the salient points of which are:
- solving the puzzle of what numbers you need to hit takes time away from other aspects of the D&D pattern recognition game like "what's behind the door the goblins were guarding?"
- I'm drawn to the idea of telling players what I need to hit them before I roll - and also doing this in a social situation where a reaction roll will spell a PC's doom or survival
- Delta's blog found that showing players the wandering monster table used in play created immense excitement around the act of making a wandering monster check

EDIT: Cyclopeatron's blog also has a great summary of ideas in this thread!

[howandwhy99]

May 23, 2010 12:16:04 GMT -6 tavis said:

- solving the puzzle of what numbers you need to hit takes time away from other aspects of the D&D pattern recognition game like "what's behind the door the goblins were guarding?"

I also agree that OD&D is a pattern recognition / pattern finding game, but I do not find keeping the the AC of a foe secret takes away from learning other secrets. I'd rather keep the mystery solving aspect in every part of the game by keeping the hidden rules behind the screen (the code, or pattern if you prefer) entirely hidden.

It's certainly a preference and not some way of "doing it wrong". But by my understanding, knowledge of the underlying pattern is the primary reward of the game. So any information given by the DM is a reward. By telling players the actual number of a distributive pattern rather than the "verbalized attempt" - "pattern-based response" telling of the pattern, a DM skips the reason the dice are in the game in my opinion. It also puts the math in front of the players as well as making the DC an absolute known (told by "God") rather than a constant repetition of which they are always unsure of no matter how often it repeats.

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 28, 2010 7:44:48 GMT -6 gorebonzo said:

Apr 13, 2010 16:16:13 GMT -6 iamtim said:

I actually use THAC0 so my players tell me what AC they've hit; I tell them if it was a successful attack or not.

That's a good compromise. I might try that out.

This approach isn't so practical because attack rolls can be adjusted negatively if the opponent has magical armor, a magical shield, a ring of protection, a protection from good spell, etc.

IMHO this isn't the kind of information the player should have, but without that information the player can't really know what AC he has hit.

[Deleted]

No.

[tetramorph]

I ask them to tell me what AC they hit. That speeds up the process for me.

After a few rounds they have figured out the AC and then we admit that and move on.

But it is important for me to make them search and have that element of the unknown, at least initially.

Most of the folks I play with also DM. But without cracking open M&M, they don't usually remember. And even after having just fought something, they often don't recall the AC two or three encounters later.

So I feel like there is appropriate anxiety leading to appropriate knowledge.

Perhaps this could be role-played as a party coming slowly to realize what exactly they are up against and in for through the act of combat.

[Starbeard]

I use a slightly modified and streamlined Chainmail weapon vs armour table, so there's no actual 'AC' in my OD&D games. You simply have 'chainmail' or 'leather and shield', and different types and sizes of weapons will be more or less effective against it.

I've tried a couple of different ways, each to good effect: giving the players the table and just letting them roll and tell me if they hit, which speeds up play; giving the players a 'descriptive table', which just lists the weapons and what they've best and worst fighting against, and letting them figure out the exact numbers for themselves.

I never had a problem using either method, really. I'm leaning on sticking with the more hidden method, though.

[Deleted]

Not only do I not tell them, they are uninterested in figuring out the AC by derivation, as am I. It's too much work and I just don't care.

[premmy]

I don't tell them the exact AC, but I'll give them a general idea whether an enemy is particularly agile, slow or well-armoured if they ask for it. I follow the same philosophy for other risky tasks - a competent adventurer might not know exactly how many feet and inches he's going to jump, but he should be able to look at an (exposed) pit and decide whether it should be a breeze for him, a herculean task, or if it could really go either way.

We're talking about adventurers with CLASS LEVELS, quite possibly SEVERAL of them, in a world where the average "civilian" is a 0 level NPC. They should be competent enough to be able to tell an easy job from a hard one.

[chicagowiz]

They tell me what they rolled and I tell them if they hit. Since we use a Target20 system, they can do the math to get the AC + bonus value, and that gives them a rough idea.

[Scott Anderson]

On a related note, I let my players throw against the treasure table for their own treasures. It's like playing scratch tickets. I tell them what letter they got, and they throw the dice. It's a thrill.

[Deleted]

I usually don't tell my players what they need because I typically don't even know myself. I'll figure it out if the roll is in the questionable range.

[snorri]

Jan 29, 2015 10:04:56 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

I usually don't tell my players what they need because I typically don't even know myself. I'll figure it out if the roll is in the questionable range.

The same. I do'nt care too much. When they're happy with a good score, it's ok. I'm so lazy.

[Stormcrow]

Not only do I not tell them, the next time I start a campaign I'm not even going to let them do the rolling. Yeah, yeah, illusion of empowerment and all that, whatever. I think there's something to be said for the Free Kriegsspiel approach.

[cadriel]

I don't let the players know what to roll. OD&D, after all, dictates that there are "leader" types among groups of enemies, and the PCs shouldn't know which, if any, is going to have a lower AC than the next. So I'd rather keep the targets known only to me.