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

[iserith]

And, again, you still haven't explained that despite being asked to several times. But whatever.

I've explained it several times using examples from the start of the thread. I don't know what else to say.

Sigh. The same old it's all always the DM's fault and the players have zero responsibility.

It's less about assigning blame and more about what's pragmatic and what is an exercise sure to result in frustration and posts on internet forums.

Clearly this is pointless. Tschüss.

I suppose that depends on what one's goal is in the discussion.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And, again, you still haven't explained that despite being asked to several times. But whatever.

Sigh. The same old it's all always the DM's fault and the players have zero responsibility.

Clearly this is pointless. Tschüss.

Analogy time! (Because that always goes over so well.)

Let's say you're a germaphobe and you hate shaking hands, and your friends know that. If whenever you see them you stick your hand out, hoping they will remember that you're a germaphobe, they will probably reflexively shake your hand.

They are not doing anything wrong, so there's nobody to "blame" for this situation. But at the same time, this behavior really bothers you, so why don't you stop sticking your hand out? Nobody is accusing you of doing anything wrong, but clearly what you are doing is leading to something you don't like. So...stop?

If what bothers you is certain player behavior that they would choose to do if it weren't for your stance on it, stop putting them in those situations. (And for chrissake, don't ask them to explain/justify their actions...knowing you hate 'metagaming' you're just asking them to lie.)

 

[overgeeked]

Similar to what I said above, I homebrew monsters, and like it when DMs homebrew monsters, not to "prevent metagaming" to keep players/me in the dark, to better feel what the character is feeling. (Hopefully stark terror, not feigned stark terror.)

I should have been more specific. After the players made it clear they'd literally never stop metagaming monster stats, I started homebrewing monsters to prevent the players from metagaming. I like the surprise element, too. I prefer the referee to homebrew as discovery is a big part of the fun for me. As a referee I use a lot of random rolls and charts to keep some element of surprise for myself.

I would argue you don't have control over your own "metagaming", either. The very attempt to not use information you think your character doesn't have means you are not making a decision from your character's perspective, but from your, the player's, perspective.

Not quite. Making a decision for your character based on information they don't have is metagaming. You the player still need to make a decision. You just don't get to do the metagame thing without in-character justification. "Because I want to" is a childish response. If you can't come up with something to justify it in-character, then you do something else instead.

To use the classic example, a brand new player with no experience of the game might very well try fire the moment they witness a troll regenerating. The anti-metagaming veteran might, in an attempt to accurately portray the novice adventurer, avoid that action at all costs. Who is the metagamer?

It's a "classic example" in the same way that Zeno's dichotomy paradox is a paradox, re: it isn't. The new player isn't acting on game mechanics knowledge the character doesn't have, so they're not metagaming, they just got lucky. The veteran isn't metagaming by avoiding the metagame option. That's like saying if you're anti-X you're really X. It's a nonsense argument.

 

[iserith]

The Spot Healer. Party healer who doesn't heal until someone goes down because "pop up healing" is more efficient. Also PCs not bothering to do anything about another PC making death saves until they get two fails.

Oh, and just wanted to point out that these are actually bad tactics.

You heal after the 1st death save (and healing word only) because the second death save could be a "1." Frankly doing it after two fails should be more annoying than whatever annoyance you feel because you think that's "metagaming."

 

[Lanefan]

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

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.

Go back to my example upthread of the scout sneaking across the manor grounds where the manor is, unknown to anyone, deserted. By not even going through the motions of rolling I've given the player (and thus, character) the meta-game information that the crossing was safe and unobserved - information that the character in the moment wouldn't and couldn't know. So in order to prevent this, I'm going to roll.

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

Obvious example: the gate guard works for the local Thieves' guild and has a lot more going for him than meets the eye. The PCs think he's a simple gate guard, slow of wit and strong of arm, because that's what the guard wants them - and everyone else passing through that gate - to think. No way in hell am I telling the players that the DC to bluff this guy is about 18 when they've every reason to think it's maybe half that; nor am I going to tell them that instead of just securing passage at the gate, the real stakes when interacting with him are whether or not he puts the PCs on the Thieves' radar as marks who could use a little selective wealth reduction while in town.

Another example: they latch on to a piece of information and draw the wrong conclusions, then proceed as if those conclusions were correct.

Say they find an incriminating letter signed "B", and somehow talk themselves into thinking it came from Duchess Britta when in fact it came from Bloodknife the Assassin. So they go off and start investigating a Duchess-sized red herring of their own creation. Nothing intentional on my part as DM, they made the wrong deduction; but I still have to run it straight, as if their investigation of the Duchess is what the adventure intends them to do (even though I'm probably flying by the seat of my pants at this point!). I can't just tell them they're wasting their time even though I-as-DM know that herring's getting bigger by the moment, at least not without violating the integrity of their roleplaying.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No. When the players know the rolls the game quickly descends into a mechanical board game. Very quickly the game becomes "my character makes a standard move of ten feet forward and makes an attack action".

it CAN become that... my buddy Big Yon used to do that.... he approached every combat as a wargame looking for the optimal placement and action and would not understand when we did 'what our character would act like' instead of the best action... I have a whole Gym/college/smoking analogy that finally got through to him.

And that is on top of the metagame problem: When a player figures out something like a DC that they feel is "too high" they might at beast give up, and at worst just stop playing the game. There is also the problem of the players "gaming the game" and doing mechanical things to get that number.

It's best to hide the numbers as much as possible.

I am just at a loss. I don't understand how we can all be playing the same game, all have largish circles we travel in and have such VASTLY different experience.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I have a whole Gym/college/smoking analogy that finally got through to him.

Oh? I’m curious, may we hear the analogy?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Oh, and just wanted to point out that these are actually bad tactics.

You heal after the 1st death save (and healing word only) because the second death save could be a "1." Frankly doing it after two fails should be more annoying than whatever annoyance you feel because you think that's "metagaming."

TBH this is also one of those things I'm not sure is really optimal all the time... if you knock me down, on my turn I make a death save and then next I get a healing word then the monster that knocked me down gets to go before I do again I have been taken out of the fight...(unless somehow this healing word is doing more then the monsters damage)

 

[iserith]

TBH this is also one of those things I'm not sure is really optimal all the time... if you knock me down, on my turn I make a death save and then next I get a healing word then the monster that knocked me down gets to go before I do again I have been taken out of the fight...(unless somehow this healing word is doing more then the monsters damage)

Depends on initiative, right? Plus it's really more to just reset the death save counter...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Oh? I’m curious, may we hear the analogy?

Okay, so the guy was in okaish shape (for one of us) but he smoked and had a good job getting out with a big degree.

So I pointed out that if you looked at everything in real life you could at age 16 plot the 'optimal' path to the best outcome... you would still go to college (like he did) but you would never start smoking, and you would do casual light work outs through out your life... but all that video game TV and later RPG time, man that would have been better learning some kind of psychology... interpersonal skills. Then as he aged he would find his better health and better people skills would have moved him even farther in the job he had and wanted...
so why didn't he do that? Maybe at 16 that wasn't in his mind, but today, if he wanted the better longer life he would most likely start down that path... do you want to?

and it wasn't just "i don't want to" or "that would be hard" he realized "I'm just not built that way... I don't care to be 'nice', i hate working out, and time in RPG and computer games are how I destress"
"But those aren't optimal choices are they?"
he swore alot before coming to the conclusion that people DON'T do the optimal thing... (Funny thing he started going to the gym with us and walking on the treadmill and cut WAY back on smoking and drinking over the months that followed)