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

[Maxperson]

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.

It is unavoidable. Pretty much every monster has some sort of weakness, special ability, etc. that wouldn't be known by every PC. That's a major distinction. You guys aren't avoiding such scenarios, either. You're just okay with metagaming.

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

I'm going to look at A in the MM.

Aarakocra: Special ability Dive Attack.
Aboleth: Lots of specials.
Angels: Lots of specials.
Animated Objects: Has specials.
Ankheg: Acid Spray.
Azer: Specials.

So according to what you just said, I can't use anything in the MM under A. The rest of the letters are just as bad. I mean, I guess I can use ogres. No, wait. They have darkvision which might not be known by everyone. I guess I can't use any monsters.

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.

Forget troll. Troll is just the poster child. Vulnerabilities aren't the issue. Out of character knowledge is the issue, so any special ability, resistance, vulnerability, special movement type, etc. is metagame fodder.

 

[iserith]

You guys have claimed that they are created and shown common every day encounter situations and said that they are somehow special, but they aren't. There are very, very few monsters without something that wouldn't be known by everyone.

There's nothing to create or avoid where metagaming is concerned, other than metagaming itself.

I certainly don't try to avoid it, but certain ways that I go about DMing disincentivize it or remove the conditions for it happening without needing to rely on other people changing their behavior.

I prefer not to engage in an arms race with the players. Better just to get players who won't cheat(talking about my game here).

Leaving aside that decisions made by players not to exploit a monster's weakness because it would break the social contract is itself "metagaming," would you not even change a single monster's stat block, in any game, to effectively bring into doubt the reliability of "metagaming" such that players will think twice about doing it, thereby acting more in-character by trying to verify their assumptions before acting on them?

 

[Maxperson]

Leaving aside that decisions made by players not to exploit a monster's weakness because it would break the social contract is itself "metagaming,"

It's not metagaming. The decision is based on PC knowledge which by definition is not metagaming. If the PC knows, you can do something about it. If the PC doesn't, you can't.

would you not even change a single monster's stat block, in any game, to effectively bring into doubt the reliability of "metagaming" such that players will think twice about doing it, thereby acting more in-character by trying to verify their assumptions before acting on them?

No. I'd never change something because of metagaming. I do occasionally change something just for the sake of variety or because it's a new variety of whatever, but metagaming isn't even a thought when I do it.

 

[iserith]

It's not metagaming. The decision is based on PC knowledge which by definition is not metagaming. If the PC knows, you can do something about it. If the PC doesn't, you can't.

It's making a decision based on a consideration outside of the character's knowledge, that is, breaking the social contract that exists between the players and DM. I can imagine countless ways my character might reasonably believe that a given monster is vulnerable to a particular thing, but given such a social contract, I may decide not to so as not to run afoul of it. This is "metagaming."

No. I'd never change something because of metagaming. I do occasionally change something just for the sake of variety or because it's a new variety of whatever, but metagaming isn't even a thought when I do it.

Great, same here. In effect, you are curtailing the efficacy and therefore the incentive to engage in "metagaming." In addition to not making it my business how someone makes decisions for their character, I find this encourages player to act as their characters might which is neat.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If a player tries to have their PC do something because of player knowledge, I just tell them "No, you can't. Your PC doesn't know that and would have no reason to act that way."

The response is nearly always a resounding, "Oh, yeah, you're right. Ok, I'll do ____________ instead."

Now, if a player does offer justification for their PC's action beyond player knowledge, in which case it is a reasonable assumption, I relent and they can proceed as they want.

In the same respects, I don't play the monsters/NPCs in a way that would represent knowledge or understanding beyond what THEY would know, either!

 

[Charlaquin]

@Charlaquin, what are tension pool and time pool dice?

Same thing, I use the terms pretty much interchangeably. Either way, it’s a mechanic I use for tracking time and rolling for random encounters. It’s a pool of 0-6 d6s. When someone takes a time-consuming action (about 10 minutes in dungeons or other adventure locations, about 4 hours overland, or about a day during downtime), I add a die to the pool. When the 6th die is added to the pool, I roll them all and then remove all the dice from the pool. When someone takes a risky action (DM judgment on what counts, but like… making a lot of noise in the dungeon, traveling at night or through dangerous territory, carousing during downtime, that kind of thing), I roll all of the dice currently in the pool and then return them to the pool (obviously if multiple characters are each doing different time-consuming activities during the same stretch of time I don’t add multiple dice.) Whenever I roll the time/tension pool dice and one or more of them comes up a 1, a complication occurs. Not always immediately, but usually not long after. I’ll make different tables of possible complications for different contexts, and they can vary from random encounters, to resource drains like a draft blowing out torches or rations spoiling, to events that are ominous but not actually threatening. But they are never positive for the PCs.

 

[Mort]

If a player tries to have their PC do something because of player knowledge, I just tell them "No, you can't. Your PC doesn't know that and would have no reason to act that way."

The response is nearly always a resounding, "Oh, yeah, you're right. Ok, I'll do ____________ instead."

Problem is - you've just TOLD a player what their PC thought and how they should act.

To some groups THAT is a significantly bigger sin than metagaming.

It's a pretty rough divide.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Problem is - you've just TOLD a player what their PC thought and how they should act.

To some groups THAT is a significantly bigger sin than metagaming.

It's a pretty rough divide.

No, I've told them when their PC would NOT have thought that or acted like that because they are using knowledge which their PC is lacking.

And if they don't like it, they can leave. The door is over there. Have a nice day.

Fortunately, my players learn not to act on player knowledge compared to PC knowledge, so I only have to do it once or twice, and often not at all since we cover this in session 0.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

In my own case at least, this is very much not a one-to-one correlation.

I keep the players in the dark about what their characters don't know. I try my best to enlighten them about what their characters do know. Fudging doesn't enter into it.

 

[Lanefan]

To be fair, it also can be from people who expect a more naturalistic playstyle and are bothered by contrivance in general. I wouldn't be surprised if there's considerable mapping to people who are, as an example, also hostile to metacurrancy.

Very much so, in my case. Good call.