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

[Maxperson]

Let’s look at the latter. Let’s say I don’t use Burning Hands very often… it’s typically a last resort when enemies get close.

But this time, I run up and blast a troll with it.

What do you do?

I mean, certainly it’s not impossible for this to have happened. Certainly wizards may occasionally try nee tactics, right?

A low AC wizard trying the new tactic of running up to within 15 feet of a troll and making it angry? The people I play with are smarter than that.

I wouldn't do anything in game. After the game I'd have a one on one and talk to him about cheating. A second happening and he wouldn't be asked back to the game. I don't tolerate cheating.

I don’t play with cheaters either, Max. Putting a smiley emoji at the end doesn’t make the shade less douchey.

By now after multiple conversations on this topic you know that the context is my game. I've even said that in more than one post in this thread. Acting like I'm talking about yours is equally "douchey."

Why is dragon breath common knowledge (but not the kind of BW by dragon type, somehow) but not fire versus trolls? Seems arbitrary. Which goes back to the DM being a major contributor to metagame situations.

People talk about dragons more. Even in the real world when I go into shops I see a hell of a lot more dragon art, earrings, etc. than troll stuff.

 

[hawkeyefan]

A low AC wizard trying the new tactic of running up to within 15 feet of a troll and making it angry? The people I play with are smarter than that.

I’m currently playing a wizard who does that kind of thing pretty regularly. Guess I’m not smart.

I wouldn't do anything in game. After the game I'd have a one on one and talk to him about cheating. A second happening and he wouldn't be asked back to the game. I don't tolerate cheating.

What if he said “I don’t know, it just seemed like the right decision for the character”?

By now after multiple conversations on this topic you know that the context is my game. I've even said that in more than one post in this thread. Acting like I'm talking about yours is equally "douchey."

Nah, it was a response. And more direct.

People talk about dragons more. Even in the real world when I go into shops I see a hell of a lot more dragon art, earrings, etc. than troll stuff.

They never talk about aarakokra or aboleths or trolls at all, though? None of the PCs could be privy to any of that info, but everyone's privy to facts about dragons?

Okay.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don’t like the idea of blocking any actions declared by players. They get to decide what their character does, not me.

Gating it behind a check seems a bit more reasonable than just blocking it, but it doesn’t really solve the issue. At some point, you have to let them use fire on the troll, or whatever’s in question.

It seems more like a need to control things by the DM.

This was why I finally stopped doing that sort of thing; at the end of the day, I'm not there to second-guess what someone decides their character is doing, and I began to conclude it was overly control freakish on my part. I'll occasionally still step in and do something like "why are you doing this right now?" in a case like the separated character groups thing, mostly because it indicates the possibility we're having some kind of a clash of expectations going on (not in terms of the metagaming, but in terms of what the metagaming is being used to address) and want to work it out rather than have it repeat. But past that, the worst I'll do is point out there's no particular reason to expect the character would know to do something (in cases far more oblique than the fire-and-troll thing).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Gating it behind a check seems a bit more reasonable than just blocking it, but it doesn’t really solve the issue. At some point, you have to let them use fire on the troll, or whatever’s in question.

That can run into another issue, which is one that comes up with social skills and persuasive player sometimes: Do you want those lore skills to actually be worth taking? Then at least with some of them, allowing the player who knows the monsters like the back of his hand act like he had the appropriate lore may be a problem for reasons entirely outside of whether its metagaming or not. Usually that's more of an issue with really specific and off the wall actions, though, far beyond the "Flaming Hands used on the troll" kind of thing.

 

[iserith]

That can run into another issue, which is one that comes up with social skills and persuasive player sometimes: Do you want those lore skills to actually be worth taking? Then at least with some of them, allowing the player who knows the monsters like the back of his hand act like he had the appropriate lore may be a problem for reasons entirely outside of whether its metagaming or not. Usually that's more of an issue with really specific and off the wall actions, though, far beyond the "Flaming Hands used on the troll" kind of thing.

If the DM lets the players know that monsters and lore may be changed from what is in the books, verifying one's assumptions before acting upon them becomes optimal play. That means recalling lore and possibly rolling ability checks with the Intelligence-based skills. Or they can not take them and hope their assumption is correct - a rather short-sighted strategy in my view considering the (usually) low cost for attempting and even failing such a check.

 

[pemerton]

What's the point of RPGing, from the player perspective?

To win, like in the approach to play advocated by Gygax in his PHB? Then if the GM introduces trolls into the situation, and I know that trolls can be hurt by fire, I will use fire! That's why there are so many weird monsters in AD&D with all their various immunities, vulnerabilities, etc: new creatures get introduced to provide new puzzles for the players to solve

To experience playing my PC, making decisions for them and finding out what happens next? Then what does it matter whether or not I use fire vs a troll - it doesn't defeat my play goal to play a PC who does or doesn't know (or intuit) that fire is a good thing to use against a troll

To be a participant in the telling of a story that meets some pre-scripted requirement - such as that the protagonist is ignorant of trolls' vulnerability to fire? Then the "metagaming" issue will matter. It's an upshot of a particular play goal, not a general problem.

 

[Lanefan]

It's not. Though sure an amazing number of gamers will say the game MUST ONLY be played this ONE way.

And I have a special loathe for the Bully Four players. The type that picks the class/race/character THEY want to play...and then Bullies or Forces another player to be one of "The Four" that is left.

All the players can play what they want but it makes loads of in-character sense that if there's gaping holes in the lineup e.g. no warriors or no sneaks they'd go and recruit someone (a player's second PC, or an adventuring NPC) to fill that gap - maybe not immediately, but certainly after their first adventure once they realize that gap exists. End result: a party that has a bit of everything in it.

 

[Lanefan]

Made what worse?

Unrealistic or out-of-character play, lack of consistency and believability in character actions, and - as noted - at-table arguments.

 

[Lanefan]

Have you never read a story, or heard about a situation in real life, where someone got a bad feeling and then did exactly what you’re denying can happen?

Your world is one where someone can’t get a hunch and go check on someone who’s likely doing something dangerous. It’s bonkers.

If they want to go and check they can tell me how long they're going to wait before doing so. For example if the scout's not expected back for an hour but they're going to start worrying after only half an hour, then at the half-hour point I'll check and find out what they're doing.

All to prevent what? Verisimilitude? By denging something that happens all the time in the real world? That doesn’t seem verisimilitudinous at all.

It does, provided that - both in and out of character - people are willing to commit to doing what they say they're going to do.

If I ask what your character's doing for the hour the scout expects to be gone and you say your character's just going to wait for her to return, that's your action declaration and you're committed to it unless something interrupts you e.g. a wandering monster or a scream in the distance or whatever.

Which means that if after the hour I come back and ask "What next?" and you say "Well, after half an hour I would have..." I'm completely within my rights to shut you down right there for two reasons: one, you now know nothing happens in the full hour and two, you already committed yourself to doing nothing for that time.

And if you want to go to where people aren't committed to their action declarations once they've been made, we've got bigger and likely unsolvable problems.

 

[Lanefan]

Why is dragon breath common knowledge (but not the kind of BW by dragon type, somehow) but not fire versus trolls? Seems arbitrary. Which goes back to the DM being a major contributor to metagame situations.

That dragons often have some sort of breath effect is fairly common knowledge if only due to all the stories told about them. Which dragons breathe what, or how big an area it covers, or any other fine details likely aren't learned by a party until they've faced a dragon or two and figured out how the things work.

That, and in the right situations some dragons' breath effects are pretty easy to telegraph through char marks on walls, acid pitting on stumps and logs, and so forth.

About the only thing a neophyte character would almost certainly know for sure is that standing in front of a dragon is probably riskier than standing behind one.

As luck would have it, they just took out a big ol' Blue in my game. They knew from numerous sources going in that it breathed lightning but had no idea what else it had going for it other than size, toughness, and a fearsome reputation built up over decades if not centuries; but they had circumstantial-evidence level reason to believe (correctly, as it turned out - long story) that it might be getting weaker rather than stronger as it aged. Once they met it they found it hadn't lost a thing on its lightning breath but its melee ability was nowhere near what it once was, and it could barely fly any more. Even then, it still knocked off two characters out of five in a real edge-of-the-seat combat.