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

[Oofta]

Good thing that isn’t the exchange that’s happening, then.

Not at all. Again, Oofta is quite open about not having tried it. They say they know they wouldn’t like it based on other things they have tried, which they think are similar, and I think are dissimilar.

Who’s we? Oofta says they haven’t tried it. You’ve tried it and you didn’t like it? Ok. That does happen sometimes; different strokes.

For the last time, I have not tried exactly what you're talking about in 5E. I have experience with similar style in previous editions (not just 4E). The odds of having used precisely what you describe in any edition is close to zero.

Not sure why you keep going back to this statement. Either you've described what you are talking about in a manner I'm not grasping, in which case please clarify, or I understand and have experienced it close enough to know my reaction. The former is on you when I repeat my statements if you don't take the time to clear up confusion, the latter is calling me a liar.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I have tried multiple options, I know myself well enough to know what happens when someone says something like "It will be a DC 15 and it will take you 10 minutes" it has a negative effect on my enjoyment.

@Charlaquin: I don't want to speak for you, so could you clarify if this accurately describes what you are talking about?

 

[Maxperson]

I don’t, @Lanefan said it didn’t.

Then I wouldn't flat out describe it that way as that would give away something that could go unnoticed. What I would do is give perception checks to notice the lack of dust, with rangers(trackers who note things like that) and rogues(trap experts) gaining advantage. If successful, I would inform those people of the lack of dust on one section of the hall.

 

[Charlaquin]

@Charlaquin: I don't want to speak for you, so could you clarify if this accurately describes what you are talking about?

The “That’ll be a DC 15 check and take 10 minutes” bit? I mean, those words are pretty close to something I would say when running a game, but I can’t tell if it accurately reflects the gameplay at my table because the surrounding context is missing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Then I wouldn't flat out describe it that way as that would give away something that could go unnoticed. What I would do is give perception checks to notice the lack of dust, with rangers(trackers who note things like that) and rogues(trap experts) gaining advantage. If successful, I would inform those people of the lack of dust on one section of the hall.

Whereas I would just include it in the description of the environment, for the reasons I gave in that post.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?

Yes they absolutely should. It conveys a litttle information… “Wow I rolled high and still didn’t succeed; this is harder than I was expecting” and similar. These are observable things to the characters.

Informed players > uninformed players.

All metagaming bothers me. Every time a player makes a decision (any decision) based on game mechanics or out of character knowledge, that's metagaming and it bugs me. Let's see, some examples.

This is the problem. Your expectations seem very out of line with your group.

P1: "I swing my sword..." DM: "You hit! How bad is the wound?"

is a more immersive exchange than

P1: "I got a 19 to hit." DM: "You hit! How much damage?"

Actually, I personally find the second example a bit more immersive. The numbers give a specificity to the information that the words in the first lack.

Very quickly the game becomes "my character makes a standard move of ten feet forward and makes an attack action".

The. Horror.

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.

No, it’s not. It’s spot on.

If your goal is to prevent outside considerations from affecting play, many times the attempts to stop metagaming from happening actually require metagaming.

The split party thing… sometimes, people do randomly decide to show up and it happens to be in the nick of time. Your view prevents that possibility. It prevents that possibility due to considerations outside the game. You are still letting player knowledge influence what happens in the game.

Same with the minster vulnerability thing. Sometimes, a new player (view this as an inexperienced character) may intuit or even just by luck to use fire on trolls. If a veteran player is playing a low level character, preventing them from using fire IS metagaming. Instead of the player using their knowledge in order to take an action, it’s you as GM using their knowledge to prevent an action.

It’s also a perfect example of how metagaming can be the GM’s fault. If you don’t want that to happen, then don’t design encounters with trolls for veteran players.

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

It’s not your fault that they’re metagaming. It’s your fault that you have a really broad definition of metagaming and that you feel the need to prevent others from doing it.

They cleary don’t feel the same about it as you. They don’t mind it. Instead of expecting everyone else to budge, maybe you should?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

For you. Just because it was that way for you, doesn't mean that it's that way for everyone.

 

[Charlaquin]

For the last time, I have not tried exactly what you're talking about in 5E. I have experience with similar style in previous editions (not just 4E). The odds of having used precisely what you describe in any edition is close to zero.

The way you describe the things you have tried sounds dissimilar to the play I am describing to me. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, though. Perhaps another example beyond 4e skill challenges would help get your point across better.

Not sure why you keep going back to this statement. Either you've described what you are talking about in a manner I'm not grasping, in which case please clarify, or I understand and have experienced it close enough to know my reaction. The former is on you when I repeat my statements if you don't take the time to clear up confusion, the latter is calling me a liar.

I have tried to clarify. I have been trying to clarity. I’d love the discussion to return to trying to form mutual understanding instead of trying to accuse me of saying things I’m not saying.

 

[overgeeked]

Y: “You should try it.”

For the last time, I have not tried exactly what you're talking about in 5E. I have experience with similar style in previous editions (not just 4E). The odds of having used precisely what you describe in any edition is close to zero.

X: “I have.”

He literally said in the very post you quoted that he hasn’t tried it, but has tried something similar. To which I respond that I don’t think what he’s tried is actually similar. You know, the thing @Bill Zebub said was happening.

Not at all. Again, Oofta is quite open about not having tried it. They say they know they wouldn’t like it based on other things they have tried, which they think are similar, and I think are dissimilar.

Y: “I don’t believe you.”

Not sure why you keep going back to this statement. Either you've described what you are talking about in a manner I'm not grasping, in which case please clarify, or I understand and have experienced it close enough to know my reaction. The former is on you when I repeat my statements if you don't take the time to clear up confusion, the latter is calling me a liar.

It's pretty clear.

 

[hawkeyefan]

"It will be a DC 15 and it will take you 10 minutes" it has a negative effect on my enjoyment. It puts me in gamer mode and detracts from the flow of the game for me.

The way I look at this is kind of like an adaptation or a translation. Taking something in one medium and putting it into another, or taking something in one language to another.

If I hear “It’ll be a DC 15 and it will take you 10 minutes” that’s what I hear as a player. What my character is experiencing is something a bit different. He may turn to his companions and say “It’s a bit complex, but I’m pretty confident I can do it. It’s gonna take me a few minutes though.”

For me, the numbers convey the character’s situation to me as a player. I now feel more informed as a player to make decisions, much as the character would be informed by actually being in that situation.

I mean, the arguments against providing numbers mostly amount to “the GM can just describe things better”… but of the goal is to paint an accurate picture for the players, then it’s hard to say that “DC 15” does a worse job than “kind of difficult”.