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

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Sounds like the problem in that case is that you're trying to play with people who fundamentally disagree with you about RPGing.

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.

Nope. The veteran is metagaming by avoiding the metagme option, if that's the reason he is doing it. If you know the right hand fork leads to the treasure, so you intentionally take the left hand fork, you just metagamed (according to the definition you have offered.)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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

again reseting the counter isn't better then an action most times... so yeah initative matters, and what the other option the healer has is...

if a war cleric that hits as hard and as often as your front line damage dealer has to choose 'heal or attack' then there isn't really an optimal answer... but I personally would rather drop that healing word when the front line is at half hp then at 0

 

[overgeeked]

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?

I'm running a game. The players are metagaming. The problem isn't that I'm running a game. It's that they're metagaming. The solution is to not run games according to this analogy. It's a really bad one, btw.

Nobody is accusing you of doing anything wrong,

So far, no one but iserith. Repeatedly and at length.

but clearly what you are doing is leading to something you don't like. So...stop?

That's not a given. And that connection has not been explained. I've asked for that to be explained a dozens times. And yet, crickets. And no, iserith hasn't explained it, only repeated the claim ad nauseum.

Do you want to have a crack at it? Explain to me how it's my fault the players are metagaming.

If what bothers you is certain player behavior that they would choose to do if it weren't for your stance on it,

That's not how it works. My stance on metagaming does not in any way cause the players' metagaming behavior.

stop putting them in those situations.

Stop putting them in situations where the player knows more about what's happening than their character possibly could? Okay...so no maps because the players have a different vantage point than the characters. No rulebooks for the players because then the players would have game mechanical knowledge the character wouldn't have and the players will inevitably act on it. No character sheets with numbers because the character doesn't know any of that. That kind of thing?

(And for chrissake, don't ask them to explain/justify their actions...knowing you hate 'metagaming' you're just asking them to lie.)

It's funny that it's just assumed to be the default that players will metagame and the only solution is to not care. If they feel the need to lie then they clearly know they're doing something wrong. It's problematic player behavior and it shouldn't be happening in the first place. Simpler solution: don't do the wrong thing.

Sounds like the problem in that case is that you're trying to play with people who fundamentally disagree with you about RPGing.

Yeah. I want to play an RPG, they want to play a boardgame. They're not the same thing.

Nope. The veteran is metagaming by avoiding the metagme option, if that's the reason he is doing it. If you know the right hand fork leads to the treasure, so you intentionally take the left hand fork, you just metagamed (according to the definition you have offered.)

No, they're not.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sounds like the problem in that case is that you're trying to play with people who fundamentally disagree with you about RPGing.

I wonder how many times this is the issue not just at the table but here talking about the games...

like i said sometimes it feels like there are 5 different rule books, each with a variety of styles (with some over lap) and when we are talking I am talking about 1 rule book and the guy on the other end of these posts is useing another. I know it isn't TRUE, but it sure feels that way sometimes.

 

[iserith]

again reseting the counter isn't better then an action most times... so yeah initative matters, and what the other option the healer has is...

if a war cleric that hits as hard and as often as your front line damage dealer has to choose 'heal or attack' then there isn't really an optimal answer... but I personally would rather drop that healing word when the front line is at half hp then at 0

Your kind-heartedness is going to get us all killed.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Your kind-heartedness is going to get us all killed.

or my pragmatic keep everyone up and dealing damage will end the fight without anyone dropping

 

[iserith]

So far, no one but iserith. Repeatedly and at length.

No, not wrong, but certainly it looks to me like you're setting yourself up for failure.

Was it you who said in another thread you had gone through hundreds of players in your West Marches game?

That's not a given. And that connection has not been explained. I've asked for that to be explained a dozens times. And yet, crickets. And no, iserith hasn't explained it, only repeated the claim ad nauseum.

I did explain. Repeatedly and at length. Others have tried as well. As I said well upthread, it's likely going to be difficult for you to understand due to your priors.

 

[Xamnam]

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?

I'm just really jazzed from reading this thread that my table loves to lean into the fiction of the low insight roll and not double check or change how they're acting because of it.

Hiding a roll is more hassle than it's worth most of the time, especially when you have passive scores handy to work with, and even more so when those can function as a floor. I can't think of a time that I personally would hide their results from them, but that might be because they play very fairly about it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah. I want to play an RPG, they want to play a boardgame. They're not the same thing.

The labels you choose positively drip with derision.

But, in any event, regardless of nomenclature, you seem to recognize the problem.

 

[Oofta]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have not tried your way in 5E. I've experienced similar enough in 4E and previous editions for that matter to know what you're talking about.

EDIT: But I also think it's a bit presumptuous to say that we don't know ourselves well enough to know what we would like. My imagination is not so limited that I cannot possibly imagine what it would be like.