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

[Lanefan]

A low AC wizard trying the new tactic of running up to within 15 feet of a troll and making it angry? The people I play with are smarter than that.

Burning Hands goes 15 feet these days?

In my game it only goes three, meaning that to cast it on a Troll you're going to be well within its reach.

Good luck with that. Please make sure your Wizard's will is up to date before attempting.

 

[Lanefan]

They never talk about aarakokra or aboleths or trolls at all, though? None of the PCs could be privy to any of that info, but everyone's privy to facts about dragons?

Interesting example, because they just met some Aarakocra recently in my game and had no clue what they were (which makes sense in one regard at least: I'm not sure if I've ever DMed any before now). I just called them "Flying People" or "Birdmen" or something similar, because that's what they looked like to the PCs. They weren't an obvious threat and could fairly easily be bypassed, so the PCs more or less left them be and kept going.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I’m a 50-something white male investor from New England.

Do I, or do I not, know how to tell mountain lion tracks from wolf tracks?

Should be easy to determine, right?

There's a lot more information you didn't supply. What is your WIS score and do you have proficiency in Survival? Are you saying Investor is your background or your class? These are things as DM I would know, and much more.

And FYI, you are HUMAN in race, not "white male". The color of your skin and gender identity are not important to me.

Also, as I said upthread, if the player can supply a reasonable argument why they would have such knowledge (which generally becomes part of their backstory...) then I recant my objections.

However, since your tone is snarky, I don't expect you to actually take any of this seriously, so please don't feel obligated to respond.

So you, as DM, are keeping track of backstory, background, race, class, in world experiences, etc for each PC in your game to make sure the players are playing their characters correctly plus describing the environment, creating coherent story hooks, running monsters and NPCs, adjudicating actions, etc. That’s… a lot to put on one’s DM plate.

This isn't about "playing their character correctly", it is about using player knowledge vs. PC knowledge. If a player overhears something at the table that their PC is not privy to and has their PC act on that knowledge, that is what I challenge and stop.

Now I’m imagining this:

“Cut! Cut! Mark, WTF, there’s no way you could hit that shaft with a photon torpedo without using your targeting computer!”

“But…but… I heard Alec talking to me…”

“His character is dead! Got that? Dead! You are totally spoiling verisimilitude here!”

“He told me to trust the Force…”

“Oh, lord, not this again. No, you trust me! ME! I am the director, not Alec, and not some voice in your head!”

And more snark...

D&D is not a play, and the absolute last thing I want in a D&D game it is for the DM to behave like the players are actors in a play they’re directing.

Fine, more of an improv then? Either way, you are using off stage information for on stage behaviors, which is a no-no at my table.

And human brains are incapable of ignoring information when making decisions. If you know something relevant to the decision, it will affect your decision-making.

When I play as a player instead of the DM, I know TONS of information my PC would not (about monsters, magic items, how spells work, and so much more), but I NEVER use that knowledge to represent what my PC does in another DM's game!

I have to ask myself if given my backstory, background, etc. would my PC likely know X or Y or not? I will consult with the DM on their view about it if my own is in question and act accordingly.

I'll be dead honest: even years ago, and certainly these days, my response would be "Says you."

(And this is from someone who used to do the same thing but has long concluded doing that sort of thing is not my business to do).

Fair enough, that is your prerogative of course. My response would be "There's the door."

If you, as a player, can't separate your own knowledge about what is happening in the story and things you know about the DM game from what your PC would know (or at least be reasonably likely to know), then I will do it for you until you learn how.

The distinction between telling somehow to play their character and how not to play their character may be important to you, but if you think it is to everyone, let me disabuse you.

No, I understand how others might have a problem with it (look at the responses in this thread!) but if the player can't handle it and stop metagaming themselves, either suck it up, learn to do it yourself, or head for the door. I don't LIKE having to do this, but it isn't fair to myself or the other players when someone metagames IMO.

So how do you decide that a PC never had any opportunity to learn about something in question?

I challenge them about it. If they have a reason which makes sense, I let them continue on. If they don't, I won't. But that is more about cases of "in world knowledge" dealing with past experiences of the PC... not about other metagaming issues.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Right. I play a wizard who has, among other spells, burning hands. Me not using it against trolls because the wizard has never encountered trolls before is me changing my actions due to out of character knowledge. It swings both ways.

It’s a matter of consistency, how likely is your wizard in any other situation to go to burning hands? Is this a swarm of weaker goblins that they can catch a bunch in the AoE? No? Is fire their primary damage type of their spells? No? Do they start every other battle off with burning hands? No? Is the majority of the rest of their spells are cold based and they just so happened to choose to use burning hands in this situation when the DM knows they have better damaging single target spells those are situations to be suspicious of metagaming.

Making a decision to adhere with in character ignorance is not the same as making a decision in spite of that character ignorance.

 

[Retros_x]

Metagaming precludes roleplaying. Giving them metagame info their character could not possibly have pushes them squarely into mefagaming.

No it doesn't. A players knowledge and skills will never be 1:1 to their characters. Rollplaying is about making decisions from the footings of their characters. It doesn't mean the player is not allowed to have any knowledge of the game system. Knowing the DC just gets the tension up, it gets rolled anyway. Its funny that you say in this thread multiple times that you don't want to play D&D as a computer game, but you are so hang up on immersion, realism etc. and that the players can not be trusted - it seems you see yourself like the graphical interface between the player and the world of a videogame. Or the director of a game or a movie. But definitely not as a facilitator of a collaborative story-telling game. Have some trust in your players and in the game you are playing.

No, it isn’t. Precise knowledge of the odds is not possible. Rough knowledge of one’s abilities, sure. A rough idea of the environment, sure. Knowing you have a 65% chance to do something, nope.

With your argumentation you should also hide the players HP, spell slots, Hit dice etc. from them too. Basically you should remove their character sheets from them, because all of this is exact precise mathematical abstraction that kills roleplaying in your logic. But for some reason you are cool with the players knowing exactly how much damage they can endure until they go down, but woe to those who know their chances in an ability check.
Overall it sounds like you have an adverserial DM style, which can be fun if the whole table wants that, but please realize that your style is the only "good" way to play DnD. If the players are having fun, than it is good. If not, then not. Realism can be good, but also bad, depending on what the table want.

 

[pemerton]

Anyone who didn't know much about D&D, but read one of these threads, would think that the most interesting thing that happens in D&D play is deciding whether or not to attack trolls with fire. It's like the game has become a parody of itself: an aspect of monster build that had its origins as a type of puzzle for players to solve (ie which served a purely instrumental purpose) seems, for some D&Ders at least, to have become an end in itself.

If you want your players to solve puzzle, set real ones, not ones to which they already know the answer but are expected to pretend to be puzzle by nevertheless! (What bizarre sort of railroading is that?)

If you want your players to play characters, then put things in front of them that will push them to play their characters. Is troll vulnerability to fire really all the game has to offer here?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This isn't about "playing their character correctly", it is about using player knowledge vs. PC knowledge. If a player overhears something at the table that their PC is not privy to and has their PC act on that knowledge, that is what I challenge and stop.

So a player best have a very complete backstory lest they leave out details that could cause conflict of player vs PC knowledge during gameplay? Seems like a high expectation for players, in that case.

I have to ask myself if given my backstory, background, etc. would my PC likely know X or Y or not? I will consult with the DM on their view about it if my own is in question and act accordingly.

So, in your games, the DM knows the PC better than the player?

If you, as a player, can't separate your own knowledge about what is happening in the story and things you know about the DM game from what your PC would know (or at least be reasonably likely to know), then I will do it for you until you learn how.

Some might argue that you cannot reasonably separate player knowledge from PC knowledge 100%. But I think that is fodder for another thread entirely.

No, I understand how others might have a problem with it (look at the responses in this thread!) but if the player can't handle it and stop metagaming themselves, either suck it up, learn to do it yourself, or head for the door. I don't LIKE having to do this, but it isn't fair to myself or the other players when someone metagames IMO.

That's just the thing that many DMs here have given up on: policing how the PC thinks, talks, and acts. According to the 5e rules (or, if one prefers, guidelines), deciding how the PC thinks/talks/acts is the player's duty, not mine as DM. If I ever ask for clarification about WHY a PC is saying/thinking/trying to do something, it would be out of simple curiosity of wondering what they are hoping to accomplish and to possibly hear something from the player that might add to the fun, memorable story. It is never to tell the player: "Sorry, that's not how your character would act/talk/think." A fictional reason is readily available for any of these - and I, as DM, don't want that extra duty so I leave it to the players. Sometimes the players choices are optimal, sometimes they are suboptimal, sometimes (either way) they can earn Inspiration.

I challenge them about it. If they have a reason which makes sense, I let them continue on. If they don't, I won't. But that is more about cases of "in world knowledge" dealing with past experiences of the PC... not about other metagaming issues.

And I think several people here think this "challenge" from the DM is one that gets in the way of smooth game flow. I know from past experience of having run this way. Once I dropped worrying about player motivations behind PC actions, our 5e game became much, much more enjoyable for the players at our table and, especially, for me as DM. Clearly, YMMV.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

As players we all get along fine, as much as any typical group of friends get along over the long haul.

As characters, though, we're often all about the secrets and subterfuge and suchlike, depending on the situation.

I see it differently. If you're the one off scouting and I'm waiting around with the rest, it's my chance to chat out-of-game with my friends* and knock back a beer if I want. There's always next session to get back into character.

* - except in online play, which is one of numerous reasons why I so dislike it.

yeah, this seems so far from the play style we have used for the last 20ish years I can bearly comprehend using it. We used to d o this but I am not very interested in going back to it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yeah that is how our tables run too. If you feel the need to keep secrets you must not trust your friends very much


We do this too. In fact we play Vampire this way with groups actively working against each other. We still see no reason to take the group to notes or other rooms.

If my CHARACTER is hiding something that doesn’t me I have to

agreed. This is how we play it too. We don't often work at odds, but when we do we cheer each other on out of game. I have in the last 4 years at least twice reminded someone that was doing something in secret from my character that they knew something in game about me or us they could use if they wanted... our feeling is if we have to hide it, we shouldn't be doing it.

Now Vampire is a fun game (but it has been a while since we played) last time we did my best friend out of game and I were both working different angles and we even had a friendly bet out of game (buying dinner) over who could get the prince's favor.
We just chose not Role Play characters at odds, BUT not REALLY be at odds out of game.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Long experience has taught me to assume people will use whatever information they have, including that gleaned from meta-sources. I'm very rarely wrong.

my experience is that when the OTHER players become the audience cheering you on (and maybe helping with memory and advice) we have no NEED to use out of game info or metagame because we are not just RPing for ourselves but for each other. We don't WANT to metagame.

I'd be truly amazed were it the case that even though those opposed groups knew what each other was doing, they didn't act on that information.

I can tell you we do our best not to, and get the benefit of all having fun together.

Then again, the war-vs-sport dichotomy comes into it here as well. I ain't here for sport.

I am here for fun... I don't support the war-v-sport dichotomy because I don't think our style is either...