There's absolutely nothing wrong with the players not being prepared for everything, or with monsters/the world displaying unexpected traits, behaviors, or phenomena.  Frankly that's just good DMing, I love customizing monster blocks to throw the occasional curveball at my players when I DM.  When I'm not just inventing blocks wholesale and challenging them with enemies they've never seen before.

What I hate and reject is the idea that the player shouldn't know how fundamental action resolution works or what the numbers on their sheet mean.  The player should have all the information they need to create the character they want to create, and to make effective decisions for the character they've created within the world information available to them. 

The rules of the game ARE "the laws of physics" for the game world, they represent how the world works.  The characters grew up in a world governed by those mechanical systems and structures, they have an intuitive understanding of how that stuff works the same way we have an intuitive understanding of how everyday physics works. 

The character may not know "I have a Strength score of 18" in so many words and numbers, but they understand their strength.  They understand how it stacks up to other creatures, they understand how to use it, and they understand what they're generally able to accomplish in the game world with their Strength. That translates to the player knowing the rules for action adjudication, as well as the rules tied to Strength as an ability score. Can exotic circumstances mess with that understanding and change the rules on them?  Sure!  But exotic circumstances are by definition Not The Norm, and the player is absolutely allowed - I would go so far as to day encouraged, if not required - to know The Norm. 

Elsewise how the hell do you expect a player to play the game? 

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

What I hate and reject is the idea that the player shouldn't know how fundamental action resolution works or what the numbers on their sheet mean.  The player should have all the information they need to create the character they want to create, and to make effective decisions for the character they've created within the world information available to them. 

The rules of the game ARE "the laws of physics" for the game world, they represent how the world works.  The characters grew up in a world governed by those mechanical systems and structures, they have an intuitive understanding of how that stuff works the same way we have an intuitive understanding of how everyday physics works. 

 
Spot on. Yes: the idea that you'd deliberately keep players in the dark in how to do things/succeed or fail is just bizarre. As you say: how in the world can they expect to do well (or have fun) if they're not able to know and rely on the basic resolution mechanics of the game?

 The thing about crafting is "If I could make money at all similar to what I get from adventuring by sitting around crafting, why am I adventuring?" If you really are concerned with worldbuilding verisimilitude... how crafting works is mostly irrelevant because PCs are never going to do it.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Quote from Wysperra >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

 

A lot of the comments so far speak to Body, not Crunch. Hell, a lot of the comments basically say to use a system like the existing one, just phrased differently.

 

 

Have you never played HERO games Fantasy HERO?

 
not in many years, lol, but I recall when they started to take champions and turn it into the hero system. Was never a fan, but did some side jobs.

 Shucks. It has all the crunch you could want =)

I never release monster stats to players.

I often include something from an in-world narration POV about what is encountered out there -- perhaps a single line of text that speaks to something about a creature. Doing so is part of the core "thing" I am doing when I do this -- taking away metagame knowledge. I throw a ton of information at my players, both meta (for purposes of understanding the world from a Character perspective) and immediate.

But I never give them stat blocks. Even for familiars or companions. Those don't show up in anything that players will see.

I sat at a table one year at Gencon and was treated horribly as a person and had the worst single gaming experience of my entire life, and this was the 80's. I aim to be very much unlike that DM -- who did not allow us to roll our own dice, or to look things up in books, or to even try to start an argument. It was very much unlike any other game of 1e I had ever seen played by anyone anywhere at that time, and it was really bad adventure as well, and I hate that I spent the coin I had scrimped and saved and sacrificed for in order to have what I hoped would be a good experience.

The conversations outside of things that year and the next, however, more than made up for it, and kept me from seeing this game as something that is narrow and ugly, because I looked at what it could be.

So, I agree wholly that the basic rules of the game should be known. I say that table rules should be written out, that they should be known to all, and that they be used consistently.  If it is something the characters would know, it should be there (with openness for in game revelations), but that if it is outside the realm of what characters should know, they they shouldn't. I haven't used a published critter since the early 2000's. I have used the name and the image, but never the stats or abilities. I am careful to explain what a creature looks like, and what it is they do, and there are enough clues for players to figure stuff out.

This is all part of why I don't mind if players make themselves prepared. At low levels, they may be used the 3 foot tall gobins they have been fighting for a while, but then back up and take stock again when they start to encounter those bigger goblins, including the huge 8 foot tall ones. They may have heard of the Merow that have been sneaking up the rivers, but until one appears before them, leaping out of the water and onto their boat, they won't know what a Merow can do, except stuff that would be commonly passed along (in game, often) by the folks who have survived such.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

 The thing about crafting is "If I could make money at all similar to what I get from adventuring by sitting around crafting, why am I adventuring?" If you really are concerned with worldbuilding verisimilitude... how crafting works is mostly irrelevant because PCs are never going to do it.

 People got more than one reason to adventure other than money.

Quote from Wysperra >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Quote from Wysperra >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

 

A lot of the comments so far speak to Body, not Crunch. Hell, a lot of the comments basically say to use a system like the existing one, just phrased differently.

 

 

Have you never played HERO games Fantasy HERO?

 
not in many years, lol, but I recall when they started to take champions and turn it into the hero system. Was never a fan, but did some side jobs.

 Shucks. It has all the crunch you could want =)

 I prefer "light" crunch, lol. 

A bit more than 5e, but only when it is of value to my players. 

IF I wanted that level of high crunch in D&D, I'd go back to 3.5 -- and I hated 3/3.5.

HERO System is pure granola. It was in the 80's, I am willing to bet it still is today, lol. It is also crunch that is incohesive, but that's a personal thing of mine. I made a more fun "cross genre" system that we really enjoyed a lot more than that using MSHAS a a start. So, compare Champions and TSR's old Marvel game, and you'll see the gap there for me, lol.

Even with all the stuff I add on and change (magic points, new classes, new races, etc)  I like 5e. Psionics and Magic are the most drastic change I've likely done in probably over a decade -- and that's because we wanted a system for magic that matched more closely that of the books we read and the shows we watch, and then we had to do something since we killed the ability to use the original source material. It took 40 years, but we got tired of the normal way and wanted to use something new that made magic operate in a different manner. WHile still being able to use the same spells (I still chuckle at that).

But you couldn't play in our game without having access to the 5e books. Outside of character creation, the total page count for rules (including magic) is less than 200. i've added  material, but it is still useless without at the very least having read the PHB, and really should include PHB, DMG, TGE, and XGE. Character creation is a bit more, but it is a world where a lot of stuff is different, even though you can still create most of the default subclasses as a character, just not in the same way.

Quote from The_Traveling_Cleric >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

 The thing about crafting is "If I could make money at all similar to what I get from adventuring by sitting around crafting, why am I adventuring?" If you really are concerned with worldbuilding verisimilitude... how crafting works is mostly irrelevant because PCs are never going to do it.

 People got more than one reason to adventure other than money.

 
That they do, lol. I even have a list.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

I never release monster stats to players.

I often include something from an in-world narration POV about what is encountered out there -- perhaps a single line of text that speaks to something about a creature. Doing so is part of the core "thing" I am doing when I do this -- taking away metagame knowledge. I throw a ton of information at my players, both meta (for purposes of understanding the world from a Character perspective) and immediate.

But I never give them stat blocks. Even for familiars or companions. Those don't show up in anything that players will see.

Why?

Does no one in your world write treatises on the nature, properties, and observed capabilities of creatures both mundane and magical?  Are the characters in your game unable to look at a pixie and judge with reasonable accuracy what its capabilities may be - especially after fighting several of them?   Do characters with knowledge skills not have any firm idea what knowledge they actually have?

A lot of players have an automatic, knee-jerk bristling negative reaction to anything remotely smacking of 'metagaming' and assume any player knowing any number other than numbers on their character sheet makes for an instantly bad game. This is false.  Just like a player knows their oen capabilities, the character in the game can observe things that are conveyed in the system through numbers.

Classic example: a trained warrior with years of experience in martial combat should be able to size up the defenses of common opponents with a glance, or at the VERY least after a single exchange of blows.  This is easy to represent by simply telling the warrior the target AC number they need to hit; their training and martial expertise grants them that information because they can plainly perceive how effective their target's defenses are. It's not 'metagaming' for a player to know that number; it's simply a clean, time-efficient way to give the player knowledge their character should have. 

Same with knowledge skills and research.  If the research warrants specific mechanical knowledge?  Let the players have the numbers.  Let them KNOW, rather than vaguely suspecting, if their character's abilities and the circumstances of the game warrant them knowing.  There's no need to constantly obfuscate and muddle, make sure no player ever knows anything for sure even down to the simplest, most clearly observable phenomena.  Knowing the numbers doesn't mean someone is metagaming, any more than them knowing their own character's numbers does.  It simply represents the character knowing with precision, rather than having a vague, wishy-washy pseudoclue the DM can retroactively make wrong just to mess with them. 

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

I never release monster stats to players.

I often include something from an in-world narration POV about what is encountered out there -- perhaps a single line of text that speaks to something about a creature. Doing so is part of the core "thing" I am doing when I do this -- taking away metagame knowledge. I throw a ton of information at my players, both meta (for purposes of understanding the world from a Character perspective) and immediate.

But I never give them stat blocks. Even for familiars or companions. Those don't show up in anything that players will see.

 

Why?

Does no one in your world write treatises on the nature, properties, and observed capabilities of creatures both mundane and magical?  Are the characters in your game unable to look at a pixie and judge with reasonable accuracy what its capabilities may be - especially after fighting several of them?   Do characters with knowledge skills not have any firm idea what knowledge they actually have?

A lot of players have an automatic, knee-jerk bristling negative reaction to anything remotely smacking of 'metagaming' and assume any player knowing any number other than numbers on their character sheet makes for an instantly bad game. This is false.  Just like a player knows their oen capabilities, the character in the game can observe things that are conveyed in the system through numbers.

Classic example: a trained warrior with years of experience in martial combat should be able to size up the defenses of common opponents with a glance, or at the VERY least after a single exchange of blows.  This is easy to represent by simply telling the warrior the target AC number they need to hit; their training and martial expertise grants them that information because they can plainly perceive how effective their target's defenses are. It's not 'metagaming' for a player to know that number; it's simply a clean, time-efficient way to give the player knowledge their character should have. 

Same with knowledge skills and research.  If the research warrants specific mechanical knowledge?  Let the players have the numbers.  Let them KNOW, rather than vaguely suspecting, if their character's abilities and the circumstances of the game warrant them knowing.  There's no need to constantly obfuscate and muddle, make sure no player ever knows anything for sure even down to the simplest, most clearly observable phenomena.  Knowing the numbers doesn't mean someone is metagaming, any more than them knowing their own character's numbers does.  It simply represents the character knowing with precision, rather than having a vague, wishy-washy pseudoclue the DM can retroactively make wrong just to mess with them. 

 
That part where I mention the in world narration POV? That's the treatise type thing you are speaking of. The current one is called The Critteralia of Shim Sheroo. Shim was a merchant who once adventured, and he wrote down his experiences in a book that focused on what he met and what was out there. However, yes, some of it is not "good information" -- but all of it is something that could be reasonably thought of.

It does not have stat blocks. It says "this is what they did when we encountered them, this is what worked for us, and this is what I have heard in rumor".

During play, in an encounter, they can usually figure out the AC of a creature. I am not saying that I don't have stat blocks, I am saying they don't see them. Part of the play is figuring that out and then making their own notes about it. 

Nor am I suggesting others do the same -- as you point out, not all players have the same level of trust in their DMs as mine do. I would be offended if someone suggested I just make up what creatures do on the fly -- in part because if I did then I wouldn't be able to use them effectively. 

For my group, part of the fun is in figuring it out -- so I do it that way to provide them with the fun they want.  Simply put, for us, it plays better. 

There really isn't a reason to give them stat blocks, anyway. Since a lot of the creatures are based on descriptions from myth, legend, and folklore, if someone did research, they'd get back a result that might describe the hide as tough as plate, claws like a sharp blade, breath that can burn stone, and so forth.

It preserves a bit of mystery, and creates a sense of engagement in the open worlds that I run -- it is more immersive.

I'm with AEDorsay here. In cases when I use homebrew critters/NPCs, they never, ever see the stat block.

First, I've never had them ASK to see it. So there's that.

But even in the examples given by Yurei - all that stuff can be provided verbally, without giving away the store in terms of hard numbers, in-game. And good players will note and remember what the creature can do, its approximate AC, etc. Even if they were to consult a sage or do research, I'd just relate verbally most of the information as narrative flavor text (with accurate, helpful information) rather than give them the stat block.

The core of the matter is disabusing people if the notion that the numbers are inherently icky, unclean, or cheating - that if players know the numbers then both the players and the DM (but mostly the players) are Doing It Wrong.

That is deeply untrue.  The numbers are a tool, like everything else.  It's how you utilize them that makes the difference.  Some tables get a kick out of shrouding the numbers, forcing players to muddle and guess and never have any firm knowledge of what they're dealing with.

Other tables would go nuts over that junk, and not in a good way.  "Hide as tough as stone, claws like swords" are statements that mean nothing at all; they're narratively pretty but provide dick monkey squat in the way of actionable information. Players that prefer that narrative-driven approach certainly aren't wrong, but neither are DMs who say "you've exchanged blows with this for twice now, and you have the measure of its defenses.  The AC you need to hit is 18; if you hit that go ahead and roll damage, no need to confirm the hit."

Numbers are tools to facilitate the game, not a necessary evil to be avoided at all costs. 

Honestly, in the real world we often don't have a great idea how effective things like armor are even after the battle, let alone before; D&D statblocks make things look a lot more certain than anything actually is. Not to mention that creatures aren't mass produced to a standard; why would a 50 lb wolf have the same stat block as 150 lb wolf (and yes, this is well within realistic variance for adults).

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

 The thing about crafting is "If I could make money at all similar to what I get from adventuring by sitting around crafting, why am I adventuring?" If you really are concerned with worldbuilding verisimilitude... how crafting works is mostly irrelevant because PCs are never going to do it.

 A new edition is a new chance to establish new norms.

MAGE RINGS are a nearly primordial type of magic item, the last of the ancient craft secrets in modern times. These seemingly simple bands of enchanted metal are impossible to create with modern knowledge, and their origins are unknown. Some say the mage rings come from an earlier, more grand society. Others say they come from the earth itself. Still others insist the mage rings come from the future, somehow.

Mage rings contain stable magic that allows their wearer to maintain otherwise unstable magic items. That's all they do. They're among the most powerful items that exist.

Some magic items will fall apart, their components too ensorcelled to work as a unit. This is the most common problem for magic item crafters. A creature wearing a mage ring can command one item to maintain its form. A wearer of two can command two items. And so on.

Player characters in high magic settings should start with 2 mage rings each, and usually obtain another one every 2 or 3 levels. In low magic settings, they should start with none, but obtain one each every five or six levels. For settings in the middle, such as the Forgotten Realms, PCs should start with one mage ring each, and obtain one each every four or five levels. Each PC needn't obtain a ring at the same time, and they can distribute them amongst themselves or trade them away as they see fit. They are not class features, and this paragraph is not rules text, only advice.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Gwar1 >>

I think its fine to have downtime activities, but players should also be able to actively pursue things, and, get things done while adventuring. I think exp should be another option for progressing certain things. The rules for crafting were kind of crazy to me, the time in workweeks was far beyond the time to level.

 The time requirements for crafting are totally reasonable from a worldbuilding perspective. They're just ... not useful to most PCs.

 everything is reasonable from a world building perspective, if you define it as what ever I say in lore makes sense.

it doesn't really make sense in terms of game design, consistency, or much else really.

20 days to create an uncommon item, why? game design wise thats super slow, lore wise, people can cast simulacrum and create a whole new magical person that lasts forever in 12 hours, yet for some reason it would take this guy 200 days of 8 hour work to make a dagger that does fire+piercing damage? It makes no real sense. 

it makes sense from a standpoint of, we want it to take 200 days to make a rare item so people don't engage with this mechanic in normal games, and people wanting to profit in downtime are inefficient. But there were many possible solutions to the second issue, and the first is a questionable goal.

Quote from Gwar1 >>

everything is reasonable from a world building perspective, if you define it as what ever I say in lore makes sense.

it doesn't really make sense in terms of game design, consistency, or much else really.

20 days to create an uncommon item, why? game design wise thats super slow, lore wise, people can cast simulacrum and create a whole new magical person that lasts forever in 12 hours, yet for some reason it would take this guy 200 days of 8 hour work to make a dagger that does fire+piercing damage? It makes no real sense.

A notoriously gamebreaking spell is your best example? Honestly, simulacrum should use the item crafting rules, a permanent effect like that shouldn't be possible in a mere 12 hours. Or give it a 24 hour duration and if you cast it every day for a year it's permanent.

In terms of game design and consistency, a tier 1 PC engaged in ordinary commercial activity (such as crafting) should be able to make money consistent with crafting or  practicing a profession. Higher tier character should be able to make more, but crafting a tier-appropriate permanent item (uncommon in tier 1, rare in tier 2, very rare in tier 3, legendary in tier 4) should take something like 100 days for a character of that tier, and if a spell bypasses that... the spell should be fixed. For example, fabricate should be something like:

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

The core of the matter is disabusing people if the notion that the numbers are inherently icky, unclean, or cheating - that if players know the numbers then both the players and the DM (but mostly the players) are Doing It Wrong.

That is deeply untrue.  The numbers are a tool, like everything else.  It's how you utilize them that makes the difference.  Some tables get a kick out of shrouding the numbers, forcing players to muddle and guess and never have any firm knowledge of what they're dealing with.

Other tables would go nuts over that junk, and not in a good way.  "Hide as tough as stone, claws like swords" are statements that mean nothing at all; they're narratively pretty but provide dick monkey squat in the way of actionable information. Players that prefer that narrative-driven approach certainly aren't wrong, but neither are DMs who say "you've exchanged blows with this for twice now, and you have the measure of its defenses.  The AC you need to hit is 18; if you hit that go ahead and roll damage, no need to confirm the hit."

Numbers are tools to facilitate the game, not a necessary evil to be avoided at all costs. 

 
well, I mean, if numbers were ugly, unclean, or cheating, then they’d not have character sheets. kinda silly to think that.

but I never said anyone was doing anything wrong, I pointed out how I deal with monsters. There is a pretty wide gap there, especially as I didn’t reference other ways of doing so as wrong or right.

While I wholly agree that some tables would go nuts over that, in my particular example, my players would immediately scribble down “AC 17, d6 claw swipe,  breathes fire hotter than fireball so more damage” because they would get it — so I can’t agree that such an approach provides dick monkey squat because factually it tells someone a whole lot.

Just in a Narrative way instead of mechanical. Neither is better or worse, nor have I implied otherwise.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

The core of the matter is disabusing people if the notion that the numbers are inherently icky, unclean, or cheating - that if players know the numbers then both the players and the DM (but mostly the players) are Doing It Wrong.

That is deeply untrue.  The numbers are a tool, like everything else.  It's how you utilize them that makes the difference.  Some tables get a kick out of shrouding the numbers, forcing players to muddle and guess and never have any firm knowledge of what they're dealing with.

Other tables would go nuts over that junk, and not in a good way.  "Hide as tough as stone, claws like swords" are statements that mean nothing at all; they're narratively pretty but provide dick monkey squat in the way of actionable information. Players that prefer that narrative-driven approach certainly aren't wrong, but neither are DMs who say "you've exchanged blows with this for twice now, and you have the measure of its defenses.  The AC you need to hit is 18; if you hit that go ahead and roll damage, no need to confirm the hit."

Numbers are tools to facilitate the game, not a necessary evil to be avoided at all costs. 

 
I've been careful to not use loaded or harsh wording about it. I'm just in line with AEDorsay: I like preserving some mystery, and for the players to be thinking narratively about the creatures they encounter, not just mechanically.

I'm in agreement that everyone knowing the stat block isn't inherently bad or wrong. Hell, if you've played the game long enough and you're fortunate enough to be both DM and player, you're going to know the canon statblocks anyway. That's not cheating, that's just a byproduct. Likewise, it's not wrong or dishonest for a player to read the Monster Manual in their spare time.

For me, this is about approach and tone, not about some kind of rigid right/wrong way to play the game.

You know you can just disallow crafting/item acquisition at your table, right Pantagruel?  If you really don't want players gaining access to any items or equipment other than randomized loot, that's totally within your power as a DM.  You don't have to allow crafting just because other people want stronger rules for it and aren't as concerned with the socioeconomic ramifications of "easy" item creation. 

Quote from Gwar1 >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Gwar1 >>

I think its fine to have downtime activities, but players should also be able to actively pursue things, and, get things done while adventuring. I think exp should be another option for progressing certain things. The rules for crafting were kind of crazy to me, the time in workweeks was far beyond the time to level.

 The time requirements for crafting are totally reasonable from a worldbuilding perspective. They're just ... not useful to most PCs.

 everything is reasonable from a world building perspective, if you define it as what ever I say in lore makes sense.

it doesn't really make sense in terms of game design, consistency, or much else really.

20 days to create an uncommon item, why? game design wise thats super slow, lore wise, people can cast simulacrum and create a whole new magical person that lasts forever in 12 hours, yet for some reason it would take this guy 200 days of 8 hour work to make a dagger that does fire+piercing damage? It makes no real sense. 

 

it makes sense from a standpoint of, we want it to take 200 days to make a rare item so people don't engage with this mechanic in normal games, and people wanting to profit in downtime are inefficient. But there were many possible solutions to the second issue, and the first is a questionable goal.

 
So, I am particularly big on the idea of crafting being a downtime thing. It took an effort for me to acknowledge that folks can crochet, do needlework, and knit in a dungeon, lol. But I want to point something out about that effort -- it was a player effort and it was mostly about me being willing to let them make socks while traveling and exploring.

Yes, that was the literal example that won me over, lol. I tend to approach things from a "real word" and then add fantasy to them. Iwas sort hung upon the whole "in the dungeon thing", and I was wrong to be so.

So, a mail shirt might take 500 hours to make. That's not the fantasy, that's the reality, It is shocking how easily one can google stuff, y'know?

That's a fairly standard "middle ages" baseline -- for mail.  It also requires a workshop, and includes fitting and other factors, so for the "fantasy" part, I'd cut it down to probably 250 hours. TO people who make chain mail, that is easily the most unrealistic thing they could think of. So, fantasy part met.

Note that I describe Hours, as well.  I don't deal in days, myself, I deal in hours.

Most standard portraiture done during that era took about 180 hours.

making a cask to age wine or bourbon in could take as much time as a chain shirt. You start to dig into things, and suddenly the notion of 200 hours for something seems, well, really gentle -- and these are non-magical items. Even if you can move away from the requirements for a workshop, the crafting of a dagger back then took far, far longer than it does today, where someone can use modern tools and technology (starting with a hearth and the ready presence of ingots) to make a knife in about six hours -- for them, it was a lot more time. Like 100 hours, easy.

because of the 8 hours a day rule, that means you can apply fatigue to time over 8 spent -- which shorten the number of day -- or you can have someone help and reduce that time (if done in shifts or combined), and so forth.

Again, this is before magical item stuff comes around.

I see magical item stuff as being the second stage in the creation of something -- they have to make an ordinary thing before they make a magical form of it. So the magical part might take less time -- I mean, generally, magic is pretty quick. So, if the "normal" phase of the item includes rare or unusual ingredients, it could easily take more time since they aren't part of the normal process.

THen comes the enchanting or imbuing or whatever, and that's a process as well.

So even then, most of the items that folks want to make during an adventure are still going to require downtime -- assuming that one tries to follow a realistic set up.

On the other hand, one can also go the videogame route -- "sure, you go the stuff? you got the tools? Go for it, make your roll."

That's going to be a hard sell to a lot of DMs and even more players. Enough to block it from reaching the 80% popularity point? I think so. Whereas I don't think that would be the case for a system that comes even marginally close to "reality".

I could be wrong -- as I noted, the PF system is popular among its folks.

on the other hand, the party now has less penalty as they tread into cold weather because when they were still in warmer lands, player A picked up a few skeins of yarn and started knitting and player b did the same and now the whole party has cold weather clothes.

how many hours of crafting time is that?

THe big challenge is always going to be the "i want to make it now, in the dungeon" crowd -- and ime, that isn't going to fly, because while carving a pretty basic, boring stick into a wand might not take a long time, the lore of the game world may add or require special materials, or intricate detailing, and all of that adds to the complexity of creating it.