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

[iserith]

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”.

Another goal (or side effect at least) of not sharing DCs or discussing the stakes could be to make it easier to fudge.

 

[Charlaquin]

Perhaps some have suggested you're being rude. Not all of us. Insisting we won't like it is something that is valid without us trying it, though. I don't need to jump off a 30 foot cliff naked to know that I wouldn't enjoy it. That's an extreme example, but it also applies to milder things. I can look at something and visualize how it works and see if I would like it or not.

Indeed! And I have repeatedly acknowledged that, if you haven’t tried it, you might still not like it. But the thing I keep coming back to is, I used to think I wouldn’t like it, for the same reasons people are saying they think they wouldn’t like it. And I was wrong. It is possible others could be wrong in the same way I was. It’s also possible they could be right. I am in no way claiming anyone will definitely like it if they try it, or that anyone who doesn’t like it must not have tried it. I’m saying, if you haven’t tried it, it’s possible (though by no means assured) that you might like it more than you think you will. I know it’s possible, because it happened to me.

 

[iserith]

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.

I'm not even implying that it's wrong. I don't take a moral position on this as some do. I'm just saying that problems arising from this approach, of which certain posters have stated they have many, are coming from inside the house. (That would have been better closer to Halloween.)

 

[Charlaquin]

Sigh.

Yes, he's tried something similar enough for him to be satisfied. His 95% is close enough for him...

But his 95% is not close enough for you. You're demanding 100% or nothing.

It's a variations of the No True Scotsman.

Y: "If you'd try it, you'd love it." X: "I have tried something similar enough and I didn't like it." Y: "So you haven't really tried it."

I’m not saying if you’d try it you’d love it. I’m saying, I didn’t think I’d like it either, for the same reasons you say you wouldn’t like it. And when you describe what you’ve tried that’s similar, it doesn’t actually sound similar to me. My experience leads me to think that your self-assessment may not be perfectly accurate. Maybe you wouldn’t like it, and if you don’t want to try it, that’s totally fine. Do whatever makes you happy. I’m just saying I thought very much the way you purport to, I tried it anyway, and now I’m glad I did. You might have a similar experience if you tried it, or you might not.

 

[Xamnam]

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.

I'm fond of this lens. One of the easiest problems to fall into is distance between character skill/perspective/knowledge, and player understanding of the world and situation, given how they primarily see it through the pinhole of what the DM actually says. The more you can do to minimize that gap, the more confidently the players can act. Sometimes that is best served through detailed explanation, and sometimes it is best served by some simple game terminology.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

this is an interesting example...

so there is a weak spot... but an all but unhittable one. (I mean i assume it was an attack they thought had a chance to hit they were useing something they were prof in) it seems like the 19 is telegraphing the 'this was a bad plan' where the 3 or even a 12 makes it look like you just missed... but like how do you know the diffrence between 'missed' and 'this is dumb and never gona work'

now I am betting my players would try to stack more bonuses either way... advantage, guidance bless, and insperation(bardic) all seem to be incoming...

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not even implying that it's wrong. I don't take a moral position on this as some do. I'm just saying that problems arising from this approach, of which certain posters have stated they have many, are coming from inside the house. (That would have been better closer to Halloween.)

And I'm saying, and I'm correct with this, that for some of us that's just the way the house was built. It isn't something we built for ourselves the way you did.

 

[Charlaquin]

Similar is good enough. I've tried trout, bass, cod, canned tuna and another kind of fish that I can't remember, and I don't like fish. I don't need to try salmon to know that I won't like it. It tried similar things and it didn't work out.

The point of contention here is that what folks are saying they’ve tried that’s similar, doesn’t actually sound similar to me. It’s like you saying you’ve tried those fish so you know you won’t like octopus. Like, ok, they both live in the ocean, but I’m telling you from experience that octopus doesn’t actually taste like fish tastes. You still might not like it, and it’s fine if you don’t want to try it, but not liking tuna is not as strong an indicator of what you’d think of octopus as you seem to think it is.

 

[iserith]

now I am betting my players would try to stack more bonuses either way... advantage, guidance bless, and insperation(bardic) all seem to be incoming...

Yes, they're making a reasonably informed decision to try to hit a high AC or DC by spending resources. That's working as intended as far as I'm concerned.

 

[iserith]

And I'm saying, and I'm correct with this, that for some of us that's just the way the house was built. It isn't something we built for ourselves the way you did.

We'll just have to disagree here. It's a learned behavior and it can be unlearned. Not saying anyone must or have to or that it's right or wrong, but it's a pragmatic solution to a lot of problems expressed by the people who cleave to that approach.