D&D 5E Average damage or rolled damage?

[Fedge123]

For a fairly long time (back in 3e days) I had to make sure to keep a note of PCs' Spot and Listen modifiers and to roll those checks for them. Because if I didn't then the players would respond to being asked for such a check (and with no other trigger) by having their characters load up on all manner of defensive enchantments.

And yes, they did it every single time a check was asked for, and they didn't prep for an ambush except when a check was called for.

It was really blatant - my calling for a check meant an ambush was coming, and although the dice clearly indicated that the characters didn't know about it, they'd "just happen" to decide that then (and only then) was the time to get ready.

I guess it's lucky there's no such thing as metagaming.

I stopped this behavior by asking players to roll perception (or similar) checks at random/innocuous times, when there was actually nothing to see or find of particular note. It keeps them on edge

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

There are times the rules firmly establish that a character doesn't have particular information.

That is covered by comments regarding knowing things that are impossible to know.

For a fairly long time (back in 3e days) I had to make sure to keep a note of PCs' Spot and Listen modifiers and to roll those checks for them. Because if I didn't then the players would respond to being asked for such a check (and with no other trigger) by having their characters load up on all manner of defensive enchantments.

And yes, they did it every single time a check was asked for, and they didn't prep for an ambush except when a check was called for.

It was really blatant - my calling for a check meant an ambush was coming, and although the dice clearly indicated that the characters didn't know about it, they'd "just happen" to decide that then (and only then) was the time to get ready.

I guess it's lucky there's no such thing as metagaming.

What you are describing is a poorly framed situation in which what is and isn't know aren't established clearly - you think it is clear that the players have no idea that their characters are in a dangerous area, and the players think it is clear that there are obviously some sense of unknown dangers, but neither side is actually taking the time to help the other be on the same page, by way of you better framing the scenario so that they know what they do hear/see rather than framing only that there is something to see/hear but they can't quite be sure what it is, or by way of them better explaining their actions through role-playing as simple as PC One: "It's quiet." PC Two: "Too quiet." accompanying the sudden danger-prep.

It's no more difficult that to look at my campaigns and see that the scenario you describe doesn't happen even though I don't hide die rolls from my players nor roll checks for their characters to see that what you are describing isn't an inherent result of the player having information the character not only doesn't, but can't have like a die result.

 

[delericho]

Damn that sucks i would of either A) said nope not happening stop metagaming you butt wipe

Don't get me wrong - in many, many ways that was a great group to be with. They just had the occasional quirk.

B) called for checks to spot clouds and kittens and grass utill they burned all their slots then ambushed them with 3dragons 2 giants 3ninjas 4 pirates a shark and the kitchen sink

I stopped this behavior by asking players to roll perception (or similar) checks at random/innocuous times, when there was actually nothing to see or find of particular note. It keeps them on edge

Yep, calling for random checks at 'safe' times definitely works. It does tend to slow down the game, though.

 

[delericho]

What you are describing is a poorly framed situation in which what is and isn't know aren't established clearly

You weren't at my table.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You weren't at my table.

Then allow me to rephrase: What you are describing, which may or may not actually match what happened at your table, is a poorly framed situation in which what is and isn't know aren't established clearly judging from the evidence that you have provided.

 

[delericho]

Then allow me to rephrase: What you are describing, which may or may not actually match what happened at your table, is a poorly framed situation in which what is and isn't know aren't established clearly judging from the evidence that you have provided.

I'm sorry my facts are so inconvenient.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'm sorry my facts are so inconvenient.

What facts are supposedly inconvenient for me?
The only fact you have presented is that you didn't give me enough evidence about your game to reach an accurate conclusion - and I'm not even sure that is actually a fact because of it.

 

[delericho]

What facts are supposedly inconvenient for me?

Fact One: the dice clearly indicated that the characters were not aware of the ambush.

Fact Two: my calling for a Spot check and no other trigger was enough to cause a Pavlovian response in my players, whereby they'd immediately start loading up on defensive spells.

Fact Three: this was not a single instance, but a repeated pattern of play.

Fact Four: as soon as I made sure player knowledge and character knowledge were the same, the problem disappeared.

Now, do you want to tell me I'm lying, or would you rather attack my DMing style again?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[delericho]

You might want to consider that the part quoted may have some applicability outside of the instant conversation.

It takes two people to argue - and life is too short to argue with the same people, if you know what I mean.

You raise a good point, but... someone is wrong on the internet!