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

[Charlaquin]

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.

On the contrary. I’m giving people the benefit of the doubt, assuming that their reports of their experiences are accurate. I absolutely believe that the way Oofta describes the things he has tried is accurate. And it doesn’t sound similar to what I’m advocating for. Which is exact why I think what he has tried isn’t a good indication of whether or not he would like what I’m advocating for.

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

Ok. That’s perfectly fine.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Exactly

 

[hawkeyefan]

The point isn’t to center the mechanics, it’s just to equip the players with the information they need to assess their likelihood of success, which is information I think the character should likewise have.

Yup. That’s a well worded description of it.

There are two layers to play, as much as some folks wish it was otherwise.

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

I would just let the players tell each other how many hit points they have. Yes, their characters wouldn’t know, but if hit points mean anything at all in the game, then one character should be able to look at another and realize “wow, Dirk looks like he’s on his last legs” or what have you.

Why prevent that?

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

I think this is a huge part of it, yeah. The desire to keep the players in the dark about things… seems like a red flag to me. Transparency is just another benefit to sharing information.

I also can’t help but connect the dots from someone who so wants to control how people play to someone wanting to control how play goes… so leaving in room to fudge is likely not the best idea.

 

[Xamnam]

I would just let the players tell each other how many hit points they have. Yes, their characters wouldn’t know, but if hit points mean anything at all in the game, then one character should be able to look at another and realize “wow, Dirk looks like he’s on his last legs” or what have you.

Why prevent that?

That's what I meant. The players should know how much HP everyone else at the table has. The characters should be able to see how battered they all look. It's just the out of fiction terms being used in an explictly in fiction dialogue that I was not fond of.

Like I said later, I have no favor for DMs that actively prevent players from communicating exact HP numbers.

 

[overgeeked]

On the contrary. I’m giving people the benefit of the doubt, assuming that their reports of their experiences are accurate.

Which is why you said the opposite...

My experience leads me to think that your self-assessment may not be perfectly accurate.

So weird that you say one thing, then when called on it, say the opposite.

I absolutely believe that the way Oofta describes the things he has tried is accurate. And it doesn’t sound similar to what I’m advocating for. Which is exact why I think what he has tried isn’t a good indication of whether or not he would like what I’m advocating for.

LOL. "If you'd really tried it..." Clearly this is a waste of time. Tschüss.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

You could invert this to frame it more in terms of our own motivations: a benefit of openly stating DCs and letting the players see the results of their rolls is that it allows the players to be confident that I’m not fudging.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which is why you said the opposite...

So weird that you say one thing, then when called on it, say the opposite.

I’ve been saying the same thing this entire time.

LOL. "If you'd really tried it..."

Yet again, I have never said this. I have no idea if you’d like it if you tried it. I’m just not convinced that you wouldn’t like it by saying “I’ve tried these other things [which do not sound at all similar], and I didn’t like them.”

Clearly this is a waste of time. Tschüss.

Yes, it is a waste of time to try to distort what I’m saying into something I’m not. I choose my words carefully and intentionally (most of the time; nobody’s perfect), so it’s pretty evident to anyone reading what I’ve said that your characterization of it is inaccurate.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

But for situations where there are things the characters can’t observe? When characters don’t have complete awareness of all the external factors, so the players don’t act on information their characters couldn’t have.

Reusing my guard example from the initial post, you try to bluff the guard that “you’re just travellers” you roll a 3 on deception, you see you have a 3, but then the guard says with a smile “welcome, come on in, you must be tired after such a long journey on the roads”, doesn’t that make you immediately suspicious knowing you rolled a 3? suspicious in a way you wouldn’t be if you didn’t know the results of your roll, and no matter how much you might try to ignore that information as you describe your actions it’s still going to be there in your mind influencing your thought process whether you want it to or not.

 

[Xamnam]

But for situations where there are thing the characters can’t observe? When characters don’t have complete awareness of all the external factors, so the players don’t act on information their characters couldn’t have.

Reusing my guard example from the initial post, you try to bluff the guard that “you’re just travellers” you roll a 3 on deception, you see you have a 3, but then the guard says with a smile “welcome, come on in, you must be tired after such a long journey on the roads”, doesn’t that make you immediately suspicious knowing you rolled a 3? suspicious in a way you wouldn’t be if you didn’t know the results of your roll, and no matter how much you might try to ignore that information as you describe your actions it’s still going to be there in your mind influencing your thought process whether you want it to or not.

I will say, I run every roll like that as a contested one, even on something as innocuous as a bartering a minor discount. That way, even if you roll poorly, they might have done worse. Or, you may roll well, but they might have rolled better. And they might have bonuses or penalties. That helps to mirror the unknowability of the situation in a satisfying way for me.

 

[Charlaquin]

But for situations where there are thing the characters can’t observe? When characters don’t have complete awareness of all the external factors, so the players don’t act on information their characters couldn’t have.

Reusing my guard example from the initial post, you try to bluff the guard that “you’re just travellers” you roll a 3 on deception, you see you have a 3, but then the guard says with a smile “welcome, come on in, you must be tired after such a long journey on the roads”, doesn’t that make you immediately suspicious knowing you rolled a 3? suspicious in a way you wouldn’t be if you didn’t know the results of your roll, and no matter how much you might try to ignore that information as you describe your actions it’s still going to be there in your mind influencing your thought process whether you want it to or not.

It makes perfect sense to me that the character would be equally suspicious. Presuming the 3 means an unconvincing deception, why wouldn’t the character realize they’ve made an unconvincing deception? Maybe their voice cracked when they were speaking, or they stammered or hesitated. There are many narratives that make it plausible for the character to be aware that they’ve done poorly, and it makes a better experience for the player if they know they’ve done poorly. So why choose a narrative that makes it implausible for the character to know they’ve done poorly?