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

[Xamnam]

this is the sort of thing I only see in 2 cases... 1 it's a joke MEANT to be ridicules and get a laugh or smirk out of game, or 2 the DM has forbid out of game terminology and the players are being jerks with malicious compliance.

Yeah, I'd agree that that's most cases, and I have zero patience for DMs who condition their players to act that way. Perhaps a better example, which I've seen happen, is someone, again clearly speaking as character and not as player, saying "No, let me, I have a plus three, you only have a plus one." It's a small thing, it doesn't ruin anything, and it moves on quickly. But I can't deny I'd be just the smallest bit happier if the character had said "I think I'm a bit better suited for this than you" OR that comment happened player to player.

 

[Hriston]

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, players should be allowed to see the results of their die rolls. Where's the fun in rolling if you don't get to find out how you rolled?

 

[bloodtide]

So the problem I see is that way too many players roll play the numbers game.

The Dark lord has a city destroying machine. But it has a weak spot(groan). So the player rolls to hit the spot and the DM says the attack failed to blow up the machine. They roll and three and (think) they failed as they rolled low. They will jump up and be ready to try again. They roll again, get a five, and (think) they failed as they rolled low.

Every time the roll low, then will be obsessed with rolling again as they (think) that is why they failed.

On the other side, the player rolls a 19 and the GM says the attack failed to blow up the machine. And the game just stops. The player enraged beyond all reason starts to scream and rant that "the game is too hard" and the "DM is being hostile" or whatever cool spew they read online.

There is no 'win' to knowing the numbers.

 

[iserith]

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

I'm nobody special in this regard. But I also know that someone who comes on an internet forum and takes a moral position on "metagaming" as being a sin (or substantial equivalent) isn't likely to see my point of view or, if they do, say they changed their mind on the matter. That's okay though because those who haven't done that can see that it is absolutely possible, and relatively easy with a big upside, and though my responses are quoting certain posters, they aren't aimed at them.

 

[Bill Zebub]

“I don’t believe you” does not necessarily mean “you are lying”; it can also mean “I believe you believe this thing, but I also think you are mistaken.”

 

[Charlaquin]

Then can you explain the context better? The PCs have identified an obstacle, as DM you're telling them what is required to overcome that obstacle and how long it will take. In the case you mentioned it was a trap, I've given examples of a lock.

Sure! I agree, a lock is probably a better example to use, as it has fewer moving parts, so it cuts to the real issue more directly.

I think the lock example is a little simpler if that's okay as a start. I don't want to get into specific verbiage of how skills are involved, that's pretty secondary. So a slightly abbreviated encounter might look something like ..

I actually think the specific verbiage of how skills are used is very relevant. I think a lot of our misunderstandings are coming from assuming that these sorts of specifics don’t make much difference, when in reality they make all the difference. But, I will try to engage in the example as you present it.

DM: The door has a padlock on it.
Joe: I take a closer look, is it trapped?
DM: Make an investigation check
Joe: 15
DM: As far as you can tell there are no traps, do you you attempt to open it? [DM knows it's a DC 20]
Joe: Yep, I get a 17.
DM: It's apparently more difficult than it looks It doesn't open, you can keep at it but if it doesn't open right away it could take a few minutes, even up to half an hour.
Joe: Okay, I'll try again for a few minutes.
DM: [Rolls in secret, gets a low number meaning it's going to take a while.] You've tried for about 5 minutes, how much longer do you want to try?
Joe: Ugh, tough lock. We haven't seen a patrol yet [there is no immediate time concern, but some] so I'll try up to half an hour.

So I never told the PC exact numbers, just generalities. I might have variations on this but that's the gist. There may even be situations where the 15 investigation wasn't high enough to find an alarm trap and the padlock can't be opened even after half an hour (in world time, not game time) in which case either guards will have shown up or I'd say something about the lock being broken.

This looks a lot like the way I’ve seen other DMs run such situations, and if you enjoy that, awesome. I’ll try to follow along with the same scenario, but more how it would look if I were DMing. An important thing to keep in mind is that I use periodic checks for complications (which can include wandering monsters, but also other things that make the PCs’ lives more complicated) to apply time pressure. A lot of player decisions come down to managing time. I use different time scales for different contexts, but basically a time-consuming action eats up about a sixth of the interval between checks for complications, and a dangerous action can trigger a check for complications early. Some actions are both time-consuming and dangerous, some are one or the other, some are neither. With that out of the way, here’s how that scene might go at my table:

DM: The door has a padlock on it.
Joe: I take a closer look. Is it trapped?
DM: I am hearing your goal is to find out if it’s trapped, could you be a bit more specific about how you try to find that out?
Joe: I don’t want to touch it or anything, I’m just giving it a thorough visual inspection.
DM: You don’t see anything out of the ordinary for a padlock of this make.
Joe: Ok. I want to try to pick it.
DM: Alright, it’s going to require DC 20 Dexterity check to open, and I’ll add a die to the time pool.
Joe: Hmm… Alright, but I want to spend inspiration to get advantage on the check.
DM: Sounds good. Alice, what are you doing during that time?
[I’d go around the table getting everyone’s action declarations before proceeding to resolution, then…]
DM: Ok, how’d you do on that lock, Joe,
Joe: Only a 17, so I haven’t got it open yet.

I’d then proceed with resolving the other players’ actions, re-establish the scene accounting for what changed as a result of those actions, and ask what the players what they want to do. If Joe wants to keep trying for a half hour, that would be two repetitions of this cycle, but one of the advantages of this method is that he doesn’t have to commit to the full half-hour. After each attempt he can re-assess the situation and decide to keep going or try something else instead. As time advances towards the next complication roll, this may affect the players’ priorities and strategies, just as it would the characters’.

FYI: I have a game and won't get back to this for a while.

Awesome, I hope it goes well!

 

[Maxperson]

I'm nobody special in this regard. But I also know that someone who comes on an internet forum and takes a moral position on "metagaming" as being a sin (or substantial equivalent) isn't likely to see my point of view or, if they do, say they changed their mind on the matter.

The difference is that I'm perfectly accepting of those who are okay with metagaming. I'm not going to tell you that you're doing it wrong or even imply it the way that you are, or say if you'd just try it my way you'd understand, or...

I get that we are all different and our likes and dislikes are our own. And I also understand that just because something was self-inflicted for you, doesn't make it that way for me.

 

[overgeeked]

“I don’t believe you” does not necessarily mean “you are lying”; it can also mean “I believe you believe this thing, but I also think you are mistaken.”

That's not the wildly better take you seem to think it is.

 

[Charlaquin]

I go back and forth on this. I'll admit it's a kind of arbitrary line, but for me the friction comes mostly when game terminology crosses from being used by the players to used by the characters. I have no issue with someone saying they have a proficiency in stealth when we're deciding what to do as a table, but someone who is clearly speaking as their character saying "On a health scale of 1-56, I'd guess I'm at about a 22." chafes me quite a bit.

Generally, though, that's something I see players, not DMs, doing. I don't think I should always know the DC, but it doesn't pull me out of the game to hear it when I do.

I subscribe to what I call the “clouded mirror” model. What gets communicated by me and the players at the table is reflected in what gets communicated and perceived by the characters in the world, but the mirror is cloudy. It’s not a one-to-one reproduction, just an approximation. I think most groups do this to some extent - for example, theoretically the characters are speaking “common,” not whatever language he players are speaking in. This extends to things like game mechanics as well. I say “DC 15,” not because your character knows the precise odds of success at a task, but because your character probably has a good idea how hard the task will be, and telling you the DC approximates that knowledge more closely and with less room for misunderstanding than a purely narrative description would.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That's not the wildly better take you seem to think it is.

I don’t believe you.