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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Um, actually locks are composed of numerous moving parts!

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

In my experience, this problem can be resolved without having to hide the numbers from the players simply by making sure each attempt is consequential. If each attempt comes at a cost or carries a risk if it fails, players won’t just keep trying repeatedly. If there is no cost or risk that makes sense in the fictional context, then I just let the player have the win.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I've been experimenting with calling for stealth checks when the possibility of detection occurs, as opposed to when hiding or sneaking is initially declared.

This I feel preserves the tension of stealth (if only for a moment) but still allowes the Player to roll the dice.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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

this IS a selling point, but one my group doesn't use much.

 

[iserith]

this IS a selling point, but one my group doesn't use much.

Yeah, we don't fudge at our table and stating the DC and stakes in part ensures that outcome. If I were a DM that did want to fudge, giving the DC and stakes would make that very hard or impossible.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Exactly. And, I can see why to many, this may be reason to tell the players the DCs and/or let them see their roll results some of the time but not all of the time. I fully acknowledge that there may well be cases when it doesn’t make sense for the character to be able to make a good assessment of how difficult a task might be, or how well they did on a task they’ve attempted. It’s just that, the way I set up challenges and resolve actions, those cases just don’t really come up. Now, that’s in part because I think the player experience is overall more enjoyable when you have that kind of information, so I prioritize making it plausible for the players to have it more than making it implausible. I get the impression that some DMs actively prioritize creating situations where it’s implausible, in order to combat metagaming. In fact, I used to do so myself. But what I found was that when I stopped trying to prevent metagaming, it stopped being a problem. Not to say that players stopped making decisions that were influenced by out-of-character factors, just that whatever bad things I was afraid would happen because of those factors never materialized. The game got a lot more fun when I stopped caring why a player made any particular decision and just focused on letting what they decided to do play out as it would.

 

[overgeeked]

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.

Wow. So condescending. Now we're not even trustworthy enough to accurately report our own experiences. FFS. This is why people think you're being rude and calling them liars.

You might have a similar experience if you tried it, or you might not.

I have tried it. I don't like it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've been experimenting with calling for stealth checks when the possibility of detection occurs, as opposed to when hiding or sneaking is initially declared.

This I feel preserves the tension of stealth (if only for a moment) but still allowes the Player to roll the dice.

This is how I do it, and it works like a charm for me.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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

And since assuming the worst about the motivations of other people seems to be a thing....

 

[Bill Zebub]

In my experience, this problem can be resolved without having to hide the numbers from the players simply by making sure each attempt is consequential. If each attempt comes at a cost or carries a risk if it fails, players won’t just keep trying repeatedly. If there is no cost or risk that makes sense in the fictional context, then I just let the player have the win.

Another example of how focusing in too narrowly mis-conveys the principle. A different play style might not work if you only try out one of the principles.