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

[Charlaquin]

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.

Same thing

 

[DND_Reborn]

Same thing

Not even close.

 

[Lanefan]

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."

With things like trolls etc. I kinda get this, but when the players do something like split the party do you also make sure one half doesn't know what the other half is doing?

 

[Charlaquin]

Not even close.

Either way, you are dictating what the player is allowed to decide their character does, which as @Mort pointed out, is as great a sin at some tables as metagaming is at others.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

How is finding out if the PC knows or not and roleplaying what the PC knows and not what the player knows making a decision based on consideration outside of the PC's knowledge?

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."

Or you can ascertain it in the fiction to see if you do or not. If you aren't doing that and making the decision without that information, that's your fault. My players and I figure it out before the PCs act.

 

[iserith]

With things like trolls etc. I kinda get this, but when the players do something like split the party do you also make sure one half doesn't know what the other half is doing?

No, I don't.

 

[Lanefan]

The benefits to this (if one considers them such) don’t justify it. Nor do they really accomplish all that much.

I’m no less likely as a player to say “My character is going to go check on the other group” after being made to leave the room than I would be if I heard what happened.

I may even be more inclined because I feel like there must have been something worth hiding.

If this is SOP then there's no reason to think there's something worth hiding this time as opposed to any other time.

What do you do when a player comes back in from the other room and says he wants to return to the other group?

Well, for one thing that wouldn't happen: if I've split the players one group has to wait on hold - and knows it - until I'm done with the other group, and I make sure not to let either group get too far ahead in game-world time by bouncing back and forth between them if I had to.

That said, if it did happen I'd tell the returning player to go back and wait until I'd got done with the first lot; though it would serve as a heads-up to me not to run the first group very far forward in time. And probably 95% of the time one of the groups is static anyway, waiting for some sort of 'away team' to get something done.

Not only are there other ways to stop it, there are also other ways to deal with it. One of which is to stop worrying about it.

Honestly, all the effort to prevent things could be spent on letting people do things.

Only if what they do is consistent with the fiction rather than driven by metagame considerations. Otherwise I'm ready, willing, and quite happy to ban or veto actions taken purely for metagame reasons that make no sense in the fiction. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Either way, you are dictating what the player is allowed to decide their character does, which as @Mort pointed out, is as great a sin at some tables as metagaming is at others.

And either way my response is the same:

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

Think of it this way:

The Player is an actor in a play. While backstage, they see the Bad Guy murder someone. Later on, while ON STAGE, the Player sees the Bad Guy come on stage as well and yells out, "You, Villain, are a Bad Guy and a murderer! Constable, arrest them!"

Sort of ruins the atmosphere and such for the other actors, the director, and anyone who happens to be in the audience, don't ya think???

Now, as the "Director", I--the DM--yell, "Stop, stop, stop! What are you doing, Player? Your character in the play doesn't know they are the Bad Guy! Sigh... Ok, everyone, ignore that outburst and back to positions..."

So, if the Player continues to disrupt the play by doing such things, as the Director I will tell them they are fired and look for another Player for the play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

There’s a difference between an exploitable weakness of the kind I was talking about, and just special abilities. So i think your point is moot in this regard.

But you’re right about it being unavoidable. It’s going to happen. Devoting so much energy to trying to stop it just seems pointless to me.

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.

No, that’s not what I said at all. I said I use trolls myself, right? I just don’t worry if players know about the fire vulnerability. If i want such a vulnerability to be meaningful… some kind of “we need to find the silver bullet” type scenario, then I’m not gonna choose something the players all know.

Use any monsters you feel like using. Just don’t make players pretend to know what they don’t. That’s just as metagamey as acting on the knowledge.

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.

How do you even play?

Like, if the players are facing a dragon and someone says “don’t bunch up… spread out!” do you call timeout and ask how he knows to do that?

Where does it end?

 

[iserith]

How is finding out if the PC knows or not and roleplaying what the PC knows and not what the player knows making a decision based on consideration outside of the PC's knowledge?

What you're proposing is different than we we're discussing. You are adding a step that suggests to me the player asks the DM what they know.

What it appears to me is that everyone "metagames," including you and your players, but you've simply decided that some "metagaming" can be ignored. Which is great, because that brings us a step closer to agreement. Just imagine that some of us choose to ignore just a few more of those instances than you choose to.

Or you can ascertain it in the fiction to see if you do or not. If you aren't doing that and making the decision without that information, that's your fault. My players and I figure it out before the PCs act.

That seems a lot less immersive to me to stop the game to ask the DM what you know than to simply roleplay a person living in the setting operating on whatever the player thinks is appropriate.