D&D 5E Average damage or rolled damage?

[Chocolategravy]

Static damage is very artificial. It's like in movies where the hero always kills with 1 bullet but the hero can never die because he knows how many bullets he can take. The damage range is a much better method, now the hero can graze an enemy, or *gasp* the hero can die! Pretty unappealing using set damage, and considering part of the reason they even made D&D in the first place was because miniature games where a character had either 1 or 2 wounds didn't really fit the type of game, an RPG, that they wanted to be playing.

 

[delericho]

There's no helping that since if I weren't using a more precise definition like I do people would have even less of a chance to understand what I mean when I say there is no such thing as metagaming

If you're going to claim there's no such thing as metagaming, you really have to use the common definition. Otherwise, you might as well just define 'metagaming' as 'pink unicorns' and have done.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If you're going to claim there's no such thing as metagaming, you really have to use the common definition.

No, that's not true. My argument has always been the the common definition of metagaming is actually talking about two different things (one which doesn't actually exist, and another which is out-right cheating because it isn't using knowledge the character doesn't have but rather doing things the character can't do), so the only way in which I have to use the common definition is to say how I believe it to be wrong - which I have done.

Otherwise, you might as well just define 'metagaming' as 'pink unicorns' and have done.

Metagaming is a lot like pink unicorns; some folks think pink unicorns (read: meta-gaming according to the common definition, excluding where that common definition is used as a shorthand to refer to a player having their character do things it is genuinely impossible for the character to do) are a real thing because they can paint up a horse and strap a horn on it and say it's a unicorn, and then act like I'm the one doing something strange when I say "No, that's just a painted horse with a horn strapped to its head."

 

[Satyrn]

A player doesn't get to suddenly decide that their grandpappy is a survivor of the underdark and at some point explained all that goes on down there to the PC, just as the party is descending into the depths of the earth.

But why not? That's a common enough thing in TV series. Like, when Xena flashes back to her past in China just as the plot introduces a trip to China.

 

[robus]

This concern about meta-gaming seems more about the DM feeling the players aren't challenged enough and are thus wrecking their encounters but cutting down the monsters too easily.

I guess I'm not understanding why, if you have a group of experienced players you don't just up the challenge of each encounter? Sure they know the tricks. But they're going to have to use them wisely to get the better of the monsters and come out reasonably unscathed.

And what was this thread about again?

 

[Satyrn]

I guess I'm not understanding why, if you have a group of experienced players you don't just up the challenge of each encounter? Sure they know the tricks. But they're going to have to use them wisely to get the better of the monsters and come out reasonably unscathed.

And what was this thread about again?

I've limited myself from making encounters challenging. I try to focus on fun. A difficult fight can be fun, of course, but so are those where the players don't feel threatened and can be encouraged to do the crazy, silly, fun stuff like you see on TV shows and action movies.

And they actually have to "metagame" for this to work. They have have to use the players' knowledge that they are mostly safe from real harm to make their characters choose suboptimal fun combat actions.

 

[sleypy]

My opinion is when the creature is called a troll the character is seeing something familiar; they know its name. Thus, the player should decide how much their character knows about a "troll".

With a description like, "A large mossy green humanoid with poor posture and an awkward gait," then I would be a little bothered if a player uses their knowledge of the Monster's Manual's description. I don't think they are doing anything wrong per se; it an annoyance similar to running an FR campaign with a Realms geek (I mean no offense).

 

[billd91]

But why not? That's a common enough thing in TV series. Like, when Xena flashes back to her past in China just as the plot introduces a trip to China.

That might work with a limit number of wildcard background options - for example, each PC gets 2-3 blank spots on their background, to be defined later as the campaign develops. Without some kind of agreed limit, however, this can be pretty badly abused. I would be particularly wary of a single player doing this frequently to the point of looking like Jon Lovitz's pathological liar character on SNL.

 

[Satyrn]

. . . Without some kind of agreed limit, however, this can be pretty badly abused . . .

It probably wouldn't be, though. I've never seen anything resembling the original example (the Underdark grandpappy) happen in my games and I'd happily it.

And if as a DM you did wind up seeing it abused, you could just politely veto it the occasional time. " hey Jack. Not this time, eh? You've already done this flashback schtick to death "

 

[robus]

I would argue the only real way to "cheat" in DnD is to steal peeks at the DMs notes on the adventure/campaign. Judging anything else as "cheating" is just asking for trouble IMHO. Knowing (and making use of) the stats/weaknesses for a monster seems pretty weak grounds for an accusation of cheating by an experienced player?

But knowing what's around the next corner of an unexplored dungeon? Grounds for immediate dismissal!