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

[iserith]

The same if you're not willing to consider that it matters a lot. That's the thing with metagaming. Whether it matters or not is entirely opinion based, not some sort of objective thing that you can point to and say that it doesn't matter at all because X, Y and Z.

For you it doesn't matter. For @overgeeked and myself it matters a lot. None of us is wrong about that. We just can't try to apply our views to the other side, because that's when it fails.

I once cared about it a great deal because that's what the rules and the groups I learned from taught me. One day - somewhere mid-D&D 3e - I decided not to, and that's when I saw for the first time it only mattered to the extent I let myself be bothered by how other people make decisions for things they control and I do not. Once I set that aside, it's had no impact on my enjoyment of the game. I learned it was entirely self-inflicted.

 

[Oofta]

Not once in this conversation have I claimed, let alone insisted, that my preferred style is better, nor that you couldn’t possibly know if you’ll like it. I have explained why I prefer it, and I have said it’s possible that you might like it if you tried it.

You're doing fine up until the point "you might like it if you tried it" which you keep repeating like a mantra. I'm trying to explain what it feels like when you keep repeating it and I'm not sure if I'm just not being clear or what. People who try to push their ideas on others regularly use the "if you try it you might like it" thing. I knew a guy who was a complete ass who insisted that if I just knew them better that I'd like them. Spoiler alert, I didn't. Same thing with sushi/sashimi*, various TV shows, the list goes on.

You may not intentionally be saying that your way is better or that we disagree only because I haven't come over to the dark side**. But that is the way the phrase is regularly used. Using it once or twice? Okay. Using it repeatedly? That's when it starts to sound like a dog whistle.

Put this another way. I brought up 4E because it's the most recent edition where whenever there was a challenge and the rules instructed the DM to explicitly tell people what the target numbers were, what the consequences of failure were. You dismissed it out of hand and seemed to ignore the point I was trying to make. The moment the DM throws out a number, when they tell people exact details like exactly how long something will take, it breaks the narrative immersion for me. It doesn't matter if it's 5E, 4E or older versions, describing the situation or potential solution in game term numbers takes me out of the moment and puts my thought process into gamer mode instead of PC roleplaying mode.

So that's what I'm trying to get at. I don't mean to state your intent, but I don't understand why you don't accept people's reactions to what you're saying when you continuously repeat it and get pushback.

*for most people and most eating options in the US they're pretty much the same.
**they do have cookies, so I understand the appeal.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

You're doing fine up until the point "you might like it if you tried it" which you keep repeating like a mantra. I'm trying to explain what it feels like when you keep repeating it and I'm not sure if I'm just not being clear or what. People who try to push their ideas on others regularly use the "if you try it you might like it" thing. I knew a guy who was a complete ass who insisted that if I just knew them better that I'd like them. Spoiler alert, I didn't. Same thing with sushi/sashimi*, various TV shows, the list goes on.

You may not intentionally be saying that your way is better or that we disagree only because I haven't come over to the dark side**. But that is the way the phrase is regularly used. Using it once or twice? Okay. Using it repeatedly? That's when it starts to sound like a dog whistle.

Put this another way. I brought up 4E because it's the most recent edition where whenever there was a challenge and the rules instructed the DM to explicitly tell people what the target numbers were, what the consequences of failure were. You dismissed it out of hand and seemed to ignore the point I was trying to make. The moment the DM throws out a number, when they tell people exact details like exactly how long something will take, it breaks the narrative immersion for me. It doesn't matter if it's 5E, 4E or older versions, describing the situation or potential solution in game term numbers takes me out of the moment and puts my thought process into gamer mode instead of PC roleplaying mode.

So that's what I'm trying to get at. I don't mean to state your intent, but I don't understand why you don't accept people's reactions to what you're saying when you continuously repeat it and get pushback.

*for most people and most eating options in the US they're pretty much the same.
**they do have cookies, so I understand the appeal.

I find that my own blood pressure is reduced and my own enjoyment of these forums is heightened when I choose a more charitable interpretation of what someone is trying to communicate. If I am struggling to do so, I (try my best to) refrain from replying until I give myself a break and come up with a more measured response or simply decide not to respond at all.

For example, one might uncharitably interpret your reference to the "complete a**" in your first paragraph as an not-so-subtle analog to @Charlaquin. Me, I'm going to choose not to interpret it that way and go back to reading what others are saying here that might help me either 1. learn something new or 2. strengthen what I already know about my table's own desired playstyle. If you try it, you might like it.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I think there are also different ways to 'fail'. For example, I was just thinking of the 'bluff the guard' example, rolling low may not mean he runs and sounds the alarm immediately. Maybe he reports you as soon as you walk away. Maybe even he's so excited to see 'strangers from the Far West' that he calls over another guy who's also from the Far West - now, not only have you created a situation, but now the consequences have increased?

 

[Bill Zebub]

While exercising the hound this morning (no, that's not a euphemism, unfortunately) I had some more thoughts about this. Hopefully this will be as eloquent in writing as it was in my head.

If somebody is opposed to metagaming, but it's a non-issue because for years they've had a regular group of like-minded players and thus it doesn't really come up at the table, great. Carry on.

But the virulence expressed by some suggests it's not that easy. It seems like there's a problem in that the anti-metagamers find themselves...frequently? occasionally?...at a table with players who don't share their beliefs.

When that's the case, instead of debating what's a "better" play style, ask yourself if it's better to insist that there are two opposed play styles that cannot co-exist (at the same table) without tension, or to adopt a philosophy that lets everybody at the table have fun together?

Upthread one of the evil metagaming examples offered was a situation where the party is split, and when something interesting happens to one group, the other group shows up with the excuse that they wanted to borrow a book. Or maybe it was to return a book. This sort of things happens all the time in books and movies. The hero walks into the room, "Hey, honey, have you seen my random orbital sander?" only to discover that the bad guys are there. Mayhem ensues.

Now, sometimes the "excuses" are less interesting than others, but sometimes the sheer absurdity of the coincidence is part of the entertainment. Anybody remember the Pink Panther where Clouseau is in a public restroom and he drops the roll of toilet paper? As he leans down and reaches under the door to try to retrieve it, the assassins in the booths on either side of him shoot through the partitions and kill each other. Awesome. We don't roll our eyes and say, "The director couldn't think of a realistic way to get the hero out of a tight spot so had to invent that improbable coincidence."

So when a player announces their character runs down the hall to where the action is, and bursts in asking for their book, why is that so terrible? I mean, it's not very creative the second time it's used, and maybe it misses an opportunity for something more interesting that might be a seed for an evolving plot (or maybe the book in question is vital the plot and it's actually a great idea). But it's not outside the fiction.

I suspect, for those who are bothered by it, it's because we are judging not the narrative itself, but rather the player's motivation for choosing that narrative. And every time this debate comes up, that seems to be where it leads: some players/DMs judging other players for the reasons they choose actions, not necessarily for the actions themselves.

And something else to consider: if the players don't share anti-metagaming beliefs, they are still going to metagame, just more subtly. So when a reason comes up to split the party, they are going to think ahead and realize the DM won't allow them to make certain decisions if a problem arises, so they are just going to try to refuse to split up, even if that's what the narrative calls for. Have you really achieved anything?

Imagine the following scenario (which I plagiarized from...somebody):
1. Your 12 year old niece plays D&D for the first time ever. Knowing nothing about the game, as soon as she sees a troll regenerate she thinks to use fire on it. Awesome, right?
2. The next day, her dad tells you, "Haha...the one thing I told her was to expect trolls, and to use fire on them. I knew it would drive you crazy." OMG...she's a dirty metagamer!
3. Some time after that, you find out from your sister that her husband was just pulling your leg because he knows how you feel about metagaming, and he didn't tell her any such thing. She really did spontaneously think of it. Awesome again!

If the "you" in the story responds as I describe, flip-flopping between cheering the player's action and being annoyed by it, it shows that it's all in your head. The actual action at the table hasn't changed, only our belief about the motivation of the player. Why? Why do you care about their motivations?

I used to live 5 miles out on a busy two-lane highway with few opportunities to pass where people frequently drove below the posted speed limit. It drove me crazy. "USE THE OTHER PEDAL!!!" I would shout. My wife convinced me to imagine my own mom in the car ahead of me, nervous about driving at dusk with close oncoming traffic and narrow shoulders. Whenever I managed to do that (I'll admit it wasn't easy) the driving of the person ahead of me stopped bothering me. It was all in my own head. (I'll point out that it took a while for her to convince me. I'm glad I didn't react the way that some here react to @Charlaquin.)

If you can bring yourself to not care about the motivations of other players, and only focus on the action at the table (and your own motivations), then there's no distinction between action declarations that originate with roleplaying and those that originate with metagaming. You can play your own character however you want, roleplaying in the way you think is best, and be completely unaffected by how other people choose to play theirs. Both play styles can peacefully coexist.

So, again, it's not about which play style is better, it's about whether it's better to allow people with different preferences to game together happily, or to insist that they can't.

 

[Starfox]

I use this as a DM technique, particularly on checks like knowledge skills or Perception.

PC rolls a 4 on a perception check. I as a DM know there is nothing for them to see. "You don't see anything, but you are not entirely convinced you are right". PC rolls a 2 on a Know check. What they are asking is general knowledge "Yes, you have heard elves have pointy ears - but you rolled low so you are not entirely certain".

 

[Charlaquin]

You're doing fine up until the point "you might like it if you tried it" which you keep repeating like a mantra. I'm trying to explain what it feels like when you keep repeating it and I'm not sure if I'm just not being clear or what. People who try to push their ideas on others regularly use the "if you try it you might like it" thing. I knew a guy who was a complete ass who insisted that if I just knew them better that I'd like them. Spoiler alert, I didn't. Same thing with sushi/sashimi*, various TV shows, the list goes on.

You may not intentionally be saying that your way is better or that we disagree only because I haven't come over to the dark side**. But that is the way the phrase is regularly used. Using it once or twice? Okay. Using it repeatedly? That's when it starts to sound like a dog whistle.

Which is why I’ve been repeatedly acknowledging that you also might not like it if you tried it. All I’m saying is, I didn’t think I’d like it either, for the same reason you say you don’t think you would like it. Your experience might not be the same, but it seems crazy to me to think that the same couldn’t possibly happen to you.

Put this another way. I brought up 4E because it's the most recent edition where whenever there was a challenge and the rules instructed the DM to explicitly tell people what the target numbers were, what the consequences of failure were. You dismissed it out of hand and seemed to ignore the point I was trying to make. The moment the DM throws out a number, when they tell people exact details like exactly how long something will take, it breaks the narrative immersion for me. It doesn't matter if it's 5E, 4E or older versions, describing the situation or potential solution in game term numbers takes me out of the moment and puts my thought process into gamer mode instead of PC roleplaying mode.

But, see, that’s a big part of why I’m inclined to suspect you might not dislike it as much as you think you would: what I’m suggesting isn’t like 4e at all. The fact that you make this comparison makes it seem like you are getting the wrong idea of what this type of gameplay is actually like, just as I initially was.

So that's what I'm trying to get at. I don't mean to state your intent, but I don't understand why you don't accept people's reactions to what you're saying when you continuously repeat it and get pushback.

I fully accept that you might not enjoy this type of play if you tried it, and I keep repeating that as well because you seem to be ignoring when I say it. All I’m saying is, the reasons you say you wouldn’t like it sound just like the reasons I thought I wouldn’t like it, and are also not really accurate to what my experience of actually playing this way has been.

 

[Xamnam]

What they are asking for is for you is to stop suggesting they try it. They feel they've come as close as they want, and have made that clear repeatedly. You've made your point, it's been heard, they understand your position. It would be kind to honor their request. Especially because continuing to do reads like you don't trust their own self-assessment.

 

[Charlaquin]

I use this as a DM technique, particularly on checks like knowledge skills or Perception.

PC rolls a 4 on a perception check. I as a DM know there is nothing for them to see. "You don't see anything, but you are not entirely convinced you are right". PC rolls a 2 on a Know check. What they are asking is general knowledge "Yes, you have heard elves have pointy ears - but you rolled low so you are not entirely certain".

Personally I’m not a fan of the DM narrating what the characters think or feel. But if this works for your group, cool!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, no, the point of a trap is to protect something, usually something valuable. A good trap needs to be identifiable and avoidable by the people who made it, so they can access whatever it’s protecting.

one of my favorite "This trap can't be" moments was when we entered a goblin church in the underdark and found a trap but didn't know how to disarm it...I pointed out either A it magically knew goblins were coming and didn't activate or an idiot proof off switch had to be present.
my argument to the DM was this... average goblin isn't smarter then average person in the real world, and in the real world what happens when you have passwords at work... The DM admited everyone writes them down somewhere...