D&D General Should players be aware of their own high and low rolls?

[CreamCloud0]

Renamed the thread for greater clarity and accuracy and added a TLDR to the initial post:
are there situations where players shouldn’t be made aware of the results of their own dice because even just knowing they rolled high or low reveals information they shouldn’t have and might affect their decision making?

 

[Lanefan]

I’ve been over them several times already. Reduces waffling,

Not a benefit. If the characters would be indecisive, then that's what gets roleplayed.

helps the DM to call for rolls when they’re relevant instead of any time an action is declared,

Not necessarily a benefit, if one doesn't want to give away metagame info via the presence or absence of a roll.

and prevents miscommunication about the difficulty and stakes of actions are some of the major ones.

Sometimes a benefit. Other times not; the PCs are allowed to get it wrong and-or simply not know all the stakes involved, aren't they?

 

[Lanefan]

Renamed the thread for greater clarity and accuracy

Not sure if that helps any.

Sometimes player shouldn't be aware that there's a roll involved at all.

And when they do roll, while often the results are fairly obvious there should be provision for times when the roll doesn't map to the fiction due to hidden info.

 

[Charlaquin]

You've also said you explicitly tell the players the DC. That telling the players the DC, the stakes, etc is something you explicitly do.

Here's something that's absolutely true for me: game speak breaks immersion.

The second people start talking about checks, DCs, hit points, saves, etc...immersion is over. Done. The only way to be immersed is to not use game speak. To only talk about the world and the fiction of the game. The moment game speak comes in, immersion is broken.

So when you suggest explicitly using game speak and I say that breaks immersion, that's what's going on. All of your suggesting in the thread have revolved around bringing game speak explicitly to the fore and centering it in the moment. That's antithetical to immersion and verisimilitude.

We’re talking about when a check is being called for, so game speak is already happening regardless of whether you state the DC abs stakes or not.

And that's not something the character would know. The character knows their skill level, they don't know how tough the lock is.

Why don’t they? A person trained in lockbreaking should very much be able to make a reasonable assessment of the difficulty of picking a given lock.

And they certainly don't know the future enough to say how long the lock would take to pick.

Nor can the player. But they should be able to make a reasonable guess, which stating the DC and stakes allows the player to do, just as their character would be able to do.

This is where we're hung up on verisimilitude. You're centering the game and its mechanics so the player can make good gaming choices. That's antithetical to immersion and verisimilitude.

I’m doing no such thing. I’m being transparent with the mechanics so that the player can understand the things their character should.

Or maybe you don't assume we haven't tried to do things your way already and found them lacking. I can't speak for Oofta,

Oofta already spoke for Oofta, and made it clear they had not tried it my way. Oofta is who I was speaking to, I made no assumption about your experience.

but I have run things basically as you suggest. It was the least satisfying boardgame I've ever played. No immersion, no verisimilitude. It was D&D as boardgame instead of D&D as immersive fantasy world. I don't disagree with you simply to disagree. I disagree with you because I've done it your way and it sucked for me.

Ok. That’s your experience. My experience has been quite different - my games were vague and nebulous before adopting these strategies, which made immersion impossible. I also find it much easier to immerse myself in the character when playing with DMs who use the same or similar techniques than with DMs who hide information in the name of curtailing metagaming. So, when you say “your approach doesn’t work for me because I care about immersion,” that doesn’t track. Immersion is a big part of why I use the techniques I do. Maybe it wouldn’t work with the way you prefer to immerse yourself in your characters, that’d make sense.

The less the game is centered the more immersive the experience is. That's simply a fact for me. No amount of you saying "but the gameplay" is ever going to change that. No amount of you arguing we should center the game is going to change that.

I’m not arguing anyone should center the game. As I’ve said several times, my approach is very much fiction-first. Doesn’t mean things that improve the gameplay experience aren’t also positives.

Right. And, if you've noticed, a lot of people complain about how the normal state of the game stops dead when combat starts.

Here you are, trucking along, following the play loop, narrating...immersed in the world and the fiction...then suddenly it stops and the mechanics take over. To me, that's bad. Keep the mechanics out of the way, out of our mouths, and keep narrating.

Sounds like a poorly-run combat to me. Loath as I am to direct people to his website, the angry GM’s article, “How to Run Combat like a &@$! Dolphin” gives pretty good advice on how to alleviate this problem.

The mechanics can abstract these things without us having to center them and speak them. Any time you stop talking about the world and the fiction you're stopping the immersion.

P1: "I swing my sword..." DM: "You hit! How bad is the wound?"

is a more immersive exchange than

P1: "I got a 19 to hit." DM: "You hit! How much damage?"

It's dead simple to keep things in the narration and immersive mode. Roll in the open. If you're on a VTT, you already are. You don't need to use game speak. It's better for immersion if you don't.

Here’s a neat thing you can do: tell the players the monsters’ AC and not only do you never have to say the dreaded numbers out loud again, you even need the exchange of “did I hit?” “Yes/no” any more. The player will know immediately if they hit and can go straight to narrating the results, every time.

I know, I know, “there’s no way the characters could know the target’s AC.” Except yes, there absolutely is. If the target is wearing armor, it’s common knowledge how protective that armor is. And it’s not at all implausible for a trained adventurer to be able to tell how nimble an opponent looks, or how tough a monster’s hide is.

 

[Lanefan]

I know, I know, “there’s no way the characters could know the target’s AC.” Except yes, there absolutely is. If the target is wearing armor, it’s common knowledge how protective that armor is. And it’s not at all implausible for a trained adventurer to be able to tell how nimble an opponent looks, or how tough a monster’s hide is.

Oftentimes with armoured foes, this is true. But I don't want to just give away that the foe is wearing a ring of protection +x, or Bracers AC y, or is under the influence of some defensive spell or other. And that's what would happen.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm starting to wonder if you and @Charlaquin are talking about completely different types of immersion here.

You're talking about immersion in character; where (ideally) your only thoughts are those of your character and you forget about real-you for a while.

She, I think, might be talking about immersion in the act of playing the game; similar to when one forgets the rest of the world exists while deep in a game of chess.

Your version (it's mine too) largely requires that player knowledge and character knowledge be the same, as far as is practical.

Her version, if I've got it right, doesn't care as much about who knows what but instead just wants the game itself to flow smoothly and seamlessly in order to keep players immersed in the act of playing.

I can see where you’d get that idea, but no. When I say immersion I mean something like “synchronicity between the player’s experience and the character’s experience.” Sometimes, abstraction is necessary to facilitate that synchronicity, because DM description alone isn’t enough to properly achieve that synchronicity. I mean, we could LARP instead, that might be more immersive in some ways. But, it can also be less immersive in others. And it’s also a lot more work to do well.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Not sure if that helps any.

Sometimes player shouldn't be aware that there's a roll involved at all.

And when they do roll, while often the results are fairly obvious there should be provision for times when the roll doesn't map to the fiction due to hidden info.

Maybe it’s not more clear but in my opinion it’s somewhat better, success or failure implied it was more about passing a threshold, high and low rolls is more about the dice themselves.

While it’s interesting all the talk about knowing target DC’s isn’t what i was asking about in my initial post.

 

[Charlaquin]

@overgeeked if gamespeak broke my immersion so easily, I would be using some far more rules light game than D&D 5e. Now it is true that extensive gamespeak, and lacking fiction will harm immersion, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that the fiction wouldn't be provided along with the numbers. In fact fiction informs the numbers and vice versa. The DC I set for the task is based on my description of the situation, the injury I describe is informed by the damage number rolled. These things go hand in hand.

Exactly. Though, I would add that in my opinion, the ideal version of a game mechanic is one where you’d be able to correctly guess what fiction it represents even if there was no narrative description. I strive for this when I design custom monsters, for example. Obviously I do give plenty of narrative description, but the gameplay should feel like fighting the monster I’m describing, even if I didn’t actually describe it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not a benefit. If the characters would be indecisive, then that's what gets roleplayed.

Might not be a benefit to you. I’d wager it would be to most folks.

Not necessarily a benefit, if one doesn't want to give away metagame info via the presence or absence of a roll.

I’m still not convinced there’s a situation where stating the DC and stakes gives away information that couldn’t already be gleaned from the context leading up to the action that the check is being made to resolve. Unless of course you intentionally call for checks that have no immediate stakes, just for the sake of creating such situations. And then we’re back to this being a “problem” that stops existing the moment you stop taking precautions to prevent it.

Sometimes a benefit. Other times not; the PCs are allowed to get it wrong and-or simply not know all the stakes involved, aren't they?

Well, I figured “unintended miscommunication” was implied there. Why you would want to intentionally mislead your players about those things, I can’t imagine.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oftentimes with armoured foes, this is true. But I don't want to just give away that the foe is wearing a ring of protection +x, or Bracers AC y, or is under the influence of some defensive spell or other. And that's what would happen.

See, I’d include some telegraph about the presence of a magically enhanced defense in my description of the creature. Maybe a shimmering aura or suchlike. But, I could certainly see a case for making that a surprise. “Normally you would have expected a blow like that to hit, but at the last moment some unseen force stops your blade just short of its mark.” That could be cool.