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

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, that's an issue with all of this sort of thing, but I remain cynical that most groups are nearly as much all on the same page as is required for this sort of thing to never be a problem.

I wont say never... but my group has a group text (and now as of 3ish weeks ago a discord channel) that we all BS on all week. We also start 7 out 10 games with "Hey, what does everyone think of how things are going" that can take 5 minutes to an hour (if we have issues it's closer to that hour) of us talking and maybe even voting it out.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Do these metagaming things actually regularly crop up in people's games? Like sure, I can imagine hypothetical situations where I would object and say "Your character doesn't know that," but I don't remember such actually happening. I'm sure it has sometimes occurred over the years, but it definitely is not a an issue I would spent a lot of time worrying about as it simply doesn't come up.

Its not an uncommon thing to have occur with some groups, especially ones with a gamist bent and some power-gaming tendencies. I had someone get into it about the OOC telepathy thing with a separated group just a couple years ago for example, and much of the group was much worse about it when they were younger.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You technically only need to do it once. At that point, the doubt is sown among the players.

Naw, they'd still plan with the data they had unless it failed repeatedly, because after all, its only relevant in the first place with things otherwise hard to deal with.

 

[iserith]

And my opinion is that generally, its out of your purview to do that. At the point you decide to, the least I can do is make you go to the trouble of throwing me out and replacing me. Teaching other people lessons about the price of actions is a two-way street, and I think it'd do for more players to teach GM's that.

I'm sympathetic to that point of view, but also to players who agree to the table rules of the game being held to their agreement. If you signed up for a group with a "no metagaming" policy, that's on you to abide by that table rule.

That said, where it gets complicated is that what is or isn't "metagaming" is not always obvious with even the "no metagaming" posters not always agreeing on what qualifies. So what ends up happening in my experience is that a player in such a group must learn to navigate that minefield over time with a given group with all of the fraught situations that may arise in the doing. And then relearn it with another group and their particular no-no's.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Its not an uncommon thing to have occur with some groups, especially ones with a gamist bent and some power-gaming tendencies. I had someone get into it about the OOC telepathy thing with a separated group just a couple years ago for example, and much of the group was much worse about it when they were younger.

the thing is it's only a problem if the table is in disagreement. I have seen IRL tables rune MUCH more gamist then I like, and on here I have heard what the people think is advice and how to have a fun game but I think of as HORROR stories of how to play.
If the table is all on the same page it isn't an issue.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the point @Charlaquin was making (and I made up-thread) is that just because you can distinguish knowledge you have from knowledge your character has doesn't mean you are able to accurately make a decision for your character as if he/she didn't have that knowledge. The human brain simply can't compartmentalize that way. The simple example I gave earlier is to imagine that you, the player, know the way to the treasure room. To avoid metagaming, you make your character go the other way. But if you didn't have that information, how do you know which way you would have chosen? You would have based the decision off of something else...a hunch, a clue from the DM, a guess, a habit of always choosing the lefthand passage, etc. The question, "What would I, the player, choose to do if I didn't know that information" is impossible to answer accurately.

Now, maybe that's fine for the anti-metagaming rules you impose on yourself, but don't kid yourself that you are making a decision "as your character".

Yep, that’s exactly the point I was making.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I wont say never... but my group has a group text (and now as of 3ish weeks ago a discord channel) that we all BS on all week. We also start 7 out 10 games with "Hey, what does everyone think of how things are going" that can take 5 minutes to an hour (if we have issues it's closer to that hour) of us talking and maybe even voting it out.

At the risk of coming across as snarky there was a "most" in that sentence for a reason. There's exceptions to everything.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm sympathetic to that point of view, but also to players who agree to the table rules of the game being held to their agreement. If you signed up for a group with a "no metagaming" policy, that's on you to abide by that table rule.

Its not the "no metagaming" I'd be objecting to, but the GM deciding he can decide when I'm doing that. Sometimes its blatant (its going to be pretty clear when the "we just happen to go look for the other group right now" example, and if that's not within the group social contract its not); sometimes its not (the Burning-Hands-on-the-troll thing) and I'm not getting the feeling the poster I was responding to doesn't think he gets to judge when the second is going on, too. At some point "no metagaming" and "I get to tell you why you're doing what you're doing" overlap, and bluntly, the hell with that.

That said, where it gets complicated is that what is or isn't "metagaming" is not always obvious with even the "no metagaming" posters not always agreeing on what qualifies. So what ends up happening in my experience is that a player in such a group must learn to navigate that minefield over time with a given group with all of the fraught situations that may arise in the doing. And then relearn it with another group and their particular no-no's.

Yup.

 

[Thomas Shey]

the thing is it's only a problem if the table is in disagreement. I have seen IRL tables rune MUCH more gamist then I like, and on here I have heard what the people think is advice and how to have a fun game but I think of as HORROR stories of how to play.
If the table is all on the same page it isn't an issue.

The "if" in your last sentence is doing some heavy lifting.

 

[Charlaquin]

I DM a lot, and I know quite a few details about monsters. On a pretty regular basis I have to ask the DM "Would my PC know ____", which is my preference for when I DM as well.

This is also what I do when playing with DMs who’s stance on “metagaming” I either don’t know or know to be more strict than mine. While I am strongly of the opinion that it should be up to the player to decide, I’m not going to disrupt someone else’s game if that’s not how they like to play.