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

[Maxperson]

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.

The narration isn't a part of determining what the PC knows. The narration is the culmination of the PCs actions and the monster's actions.

 

[iserith]

The narration isn't a part of determining what the PC knows. The narration is the culmination of the PCs actions and the monster's actions.

I'm not sure what you mean by this or how it relates to what I said above about it not being a good strategy to curtail "metagaming" by creating more opportunities for it to occur.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure what you mean by this or how it relates to what I said above about it not being a good strategy to curtail "metagaming" by creating more opportunities for it to occur.

Nobody is creating more or less opportunities for metagaming. If I place a troll, I'm not creating an opportunity for metagaming any more than if I placed an elemental, a dragon or anything else with a special ability of some sort. The only way for me to avoid those "opportunities" would be to only employ creatures with literally no special abilities, attacks, defenses, etc., which in 5e is almost all of them. Even goblins have them.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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

Exactly.

 

[iserith]

Nobody is creating more or less opportunities for metagaming. If I place a troll, I'm not creating an opportunity for metagaming any more than if I placed an elemental, a dragon or anything else with a special ability of some sort. The only way for me to avoid those "opportunities" would be to only employ creatures with literally no special abilities, attacks, defenses, etc., which in 5e is almost all of them. Even goblins have them.

I don't know what else to say other than several of us have already shown how these opportunities are created and how they can be avoided. It seems to me that if I cared about how players make decisions for their characters, I would work to avoid situations where there's an incentive to "metagame."

As for monsters, I don't change every monster in my games, but I change just enough of them where players know that "metagaming" is a risk and that it's smarter play to take in-game actions to verify their assumptions before acting on them. This isn't actually my goal either - I just like modifying monsters from time to time. But the side effect is that players are less likely to "metagame."

 

[hawkeyefan]

It is true.

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.

Sure they have. I mean, I get that you’re saying that’s not their intentionally creating the scenario in order for metagaming to occur… but it’s unavoidable based on the circumstances, so it’s not really much of a distinction.

You had said this:

Whether the PC's knowledge matches the player's knowledge or not isn't the result of a DM created position

It absolutely is. Use a monster that doesn’t require exploitation of a player-known vulnerability. Don’t use one that does.

f I place a troll, I'm not creating an opportunity for metagaming any more than if I placed an elemental, a dragon or anything else with a special ability of some sort.

You are if the selection of a troll is coupled with a GM desire for the players to behave as of their characters don’t know about the fire vulnerability. That’s why I included both those elements in my “equation”.

It’s not the selection of the troll alone that is the issue. It’s the selection of the troll combined with the GM’s need for the players to not metagame.

I use trolls all the time with no issue. But if I had some need for the players to pretend they don’t know what they know, then I’d choose another monster.

 

[Lanefan]

Why do you assume that the illusion doesn't contain the illusion of dust?

Because I specifically said it didn't, and the example was mine taken from a module I just wrote and ran.

At the time the permanent illusion was cast there was very little dust on the floor, and the caster didn't think to add any for later. Mistake on the caster's part, yes, but them's the breaks.

 

[Lanefan]

Then I wouldn't flat out describe it that way as that would give away something that could go unnoticed. What I would do is give perception checks to notice the lack of dust, with rangers(trackers who note things like that) and rogues(trap experts) gaining advantage. If successful, I would inform those people of the lack of dust on one section of the hall.

The party didn't have a Ranger; and otherwise never paid any attention to the floor after the initial narration that the first bit they could see was dust-covered and had no tracks (which would have been blatantly obvious in the dust had there been any). The illusionary floor was beyond their initial range of sight.

 

[Lanefan]

Whereas I would just include it in the description of the environment, for the reasons I gave in that post.

If all I get amounts to "We're checking the double doors on the right" then when they get there and can now see the door at the hall's end I get "Change of plans - we're heading for the door at the end of the hall", that doesn't imply a whole lot of caution or observation of anything other than doors. Nonetheless, I did give the Thief (who ultimately found the illusion trap the hard way) a roll to notice something amiss before she got there - but she blew it.

 

[Lanefan]

If your goal is to prevent outside considerations from affecting play, many times the attempts to stop metagaming from happening actually require metagaming.

The split party thing… sometimes, people do randomly decide to show up and it happens to be in the nick of time. Your view prevents that possibility. It prevents that possibility due to considerations outside the game. You are still letting player knowledge influence what happens in the game.

Which IMO points directly to the DM having done it wrong. When the party splits the players should also somehow be split, be it by some of them moving to another room or (more commonly) by things being done by note or (if online) whisper. That way, if the missing PCs do happen to turn up just at the right moment it really is coincidence rather than a player-side contrivance.

@overgeeked is quite right: some (many? maybe even all?) players, on learning of in-game information their characters don't and can't know (e.g. what happens to one half of a split party), simply can't help themselves from using it. The only way to stop this is to not let them learn that information in the first place until and unless their PCs could know it as well.

They cleary don’t feel the same about it as you. They don’t mind it. Instead of expecting everyone else to budge, maybe you should?

Some things are non-negotiable. This is one.