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

[J.Quondam]

I honestly don't get the desire to utterly eliminate all metagaming.

It's still just a game and the efforts to eliminate or shame it don't seem worth it.

Yeah, and not least because any effort to "eliminate metagaming" is itself metagaming.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

5e RAW is that damage isn't even beginning to be visible until 50% hit points, and even then it's some scratches or a bruise. Not that I enforce players not knowing the PCs hit points, because that's not fun, is a pain in the rear, and leads to TPKs, but RAW doesn't support that.

I mean, that rule says two things that, to me, make it read a bit more flexible (or, less prescriptive, if you prefer) than what you are saying above:

"Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways."
and
"When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury." [emphasis mine]

 

[Maxperson]

Which is a situation created by the DM that now puts the player in position of engaging in the "metagaming" that some posters say they don't like. Have the guard do something else instead:

The DM creates no situations to put a person in the position of metagaming. The DM just DMs, describes and narrates. Whether the PC's knowledge matches the player's knowledge or not isn't the result of a DM created position and is the result of a variety of factors from background to gameplay to skills and more.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, that rule says two things that, to me, make it read a bit more flexible (or, less prescriptive, if you prefer) than what you are saying above:

"Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways."
and
"When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury." [emphasis mine]

Sure and what "typically" means is that in the instance of say a giant scorpion sting that hits and does 10 hit points to a 100 hit point PC, a scratch or something MUST happen in order for the poison to happen. Outside of an atypical attack where some sign of injury must happen, nothing shows up.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The DM creates no situations to put a person in the position of metagaming. The DM just DMs, describes and narrates. Whether the PC's knowledge matches the player's knowledge or not isn't the result of a DM created position and is the result of a variety of factors from background to gameplay to skills and more.

That’s not true.

Veteran players + trolls + DM desire for players to not metagame = DM created situation.

 

[Charlaquin]

There's nothing similar between a fish and an octopus. They are completely different sea creatures. What I described between the types of fish = similarity. And similar is close enough to know whether we'd like something or not.

Yes, that was the point. The things people are describing that they have tried do not sound similar to the thing they’re saying they know they won’t like because of having tried said dissimilar things.

 

[Charlaquin]

What does that have to do with metagaming? The fiction will determine whether the PC is aware or not. There's nothing to contrive there. If the fiction warrants the PC knowing, the PC will. If the fiction doesn't, he won't. I don't have to contrive anything to match what the player knows or doesn't.

You, as the DM, are in the position to narrate the results. Why narrate fiction that makes it implausible when you could narrate fiction that makes it plausible?

 

[Maxperson]

That’s not true.

It is true.

Veteran players + trolls + DM desire for players to not metagame = DM created situation.

100% false. The DM did not create that situation in order to cause metagaming to be an issue, which is the claim being made. The DM just made a troll encounter. Metagaming either happens or not depending on in-fiction circumstances and whether the player is going to try and cheat(in a game where metagaming isn't allowed) if the in-fiction circumstances result in the PC not knowing.

At no time, though, has the DM created a situation in order to put a person in the position of metagaming.

 

[iserith]

The DM creates no situations to put a person in the position of metagaming. The DM just DMs, describes and narrates. Whether the PC's knowledge matches the player's knowledge or not isn't the result of a DM created position and is the result of a variety of factors from background to gameplay to skills and more.

In the example provided, the DM can choose from one of many options when narrating the result of the adventurer's actions. They chose an option that leads to uncertainty when the player has knowledge that the roll is low which puts the player in the position of having to decide whether or not to act on that knowledge. That is the DM creating the opportunity for it to occur. They could have chosen otherwise as I have shown.

Presumably, the DM who cares about "metagaming" here would try to avoid creating these opportunities wherever possible. To do otherwise seems like an ineffective strategy to me.

 

[Maxperson]

You, as the DM, are in the position to narrate the results. Why narrate fiction that makes it implausible when you could narrate fiction that makes it plausible?

The narration has nothing to do with it. Either the PC knows somehow or he doesn't. Narration doesn't play into that.