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

[GMforPowergamers]

I disagree. If the DM is changing 1 monster out of 8, metagaming is very much incentivized because it's still far superior to have advantage in 7 fights than it is to maybe have bad luck in the 8th.

If you aren't changing most of the monsters, it's still superior to have an advantage in most of the fights.

I have to agree with Max... but with a bit of a different solution... if you front load those changes you MAY be able to pull it off...

game 1- all normal monsters, game 2- 3 normal fights 1 homebrew swap, game 3- all homebrew swap, game 4- 3 homebrew swap 1 normal, game 5- all normal monsters, game 6- 2 normal 2 homebrew

that is if we average 4 fights a night 24 fights 10 of them homebrew... even if your next 5 games are all normal monsters you may have them 'worried' enough... or if you throw 1 in 8 after that you would 'keep them on there toes'

 

[Maxperson]

I mean using custom monsters.

Yes, so did I. Iserith uses custom monsters for variety(as do many DMs), not because he cares about metagaming, so their use can't be assumed to be because the DM doesn't want you to metagame. That's my point.

 

[Xamnam]

Yes, so did I. Iserith uses custom monsters for variety(as do many DMs), not because he cares about metagaming, so their use can't be assumed to be because the DM doesn't want you to metagame. That's my point.

Yes, and if creativity on that front matters to the DM, I'm not going to assume anything about monsters going forward.

 

[Maxperson]

I have to agree with Max... but with a bit of a different solution... if you front load those changes you MAY be able to pull it off...

game 1- all normal monsters, game 2- 3 normal fights 1 homebrew swap, game 3- all homebrew swap, game 4- 3 homebrew swap 1 normal, game 5- all normal monsters, game 6- 2 normal 2 homebrew

that is if we average 4 fights a night 24 fights 10 of them homebrew... even if your next 5 games are all normal monsters you may have them 'worried' enough... or if you throw 1 in 8 after that you would 'keep them on there toes'

That's not really different from I've been saying. That's very close to the 50% number I said would be needed to maybe stop metagaming, and which you say MAY work.

We're saying the exact say thing.

 

[iserith]

What are those assumptions, though? They're the metagaming from the book and would be confirmed by the telegraphing, so metagaming will be advantageous in those 7 fights. In the 8th fight the telegraphing should clue us in, so why would we not metagame?

As I said upthread, the tell for lack of telegraphing is the belief that players always pick up on the clues. They don't, as evidenced in the anecdote I shared with you regarding the troll. The best option is to always try to recall what you know of the monster before engaging with it. Because while you may suspect it's unchanged from the Monster Manual or that you've picked up on the telegraphing the DM is laying down, it's the successful result of a die roll that will likely be the thing that verifies your assumptions. (Or an auto-success granted by the DM.)

 

[J.Quondam]

Still not clear to me why a GM applying (or even inventing?!!) meta-knowledge about PCs is okay, but PCs applying meta-knowledge about the world is not.

 

[Maxperson]

As I said upthread, the tell for lack of telegraphing is the belief that players always pick up on the clues. They don't, as evidenced in the anecdote I shared with you regarding the troll. The best option is to always try to recall what you know of the monster before engaging with it. Because while you may suspect it's unchanged from the Monster Manual or that you've picked up on the telegraphing the DM is laying down, it's the successful result of a die roll that will likely be the thing that verifies your assumptions. (Or an auto-success granted by the DM.)

Nobody is perfect and some fights end up as difficult ones when maybe they shouldn't be. That's not incentive not to make 7 out of 8 fights much easier by metagaming.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, and if creativity on that front matters to the DM, I'm not going to assume anything about monsters going forward.

I don't understand how metagaming affects that. The DM is still being creative and we're still enjoying a new monster or version of a monster when it shows up.

 

[Maxperson]

Still not clear to me why a GM applying (or even inventing?!!) meta-knowledge about PCs is okay, but PCs applying meta-knowledge about the world is not.

In what way?

 

[Bill Zebub]

As we all know, humans (and demihumans et al in D&D) are pattern-finding machines. As expertise and experience (particularly that employed and garnered under duress) increases, mental models typically increase in effectiveness (unless there is an inherent problem with the model that cascades, especially early in the formulation) and always increase in usage rate.

Expert martial combatants are going to (a) know things broadly due to exposure to various styles and their clashing over the historical record, (b) be able evaluate opponents immediately based on their movement skills, technical prowess, weight distribution, sequencing attacks and defenses + (a) above, (c) they're going to spend the early clashes probing and feinting while circling and controlling distance in order to elicit responses of their opposition so they can further build out their mental models.

D&D barely engages with this fundamental, and paramount, aspect of martial combat. Where it does, its not really part of the core mechanics (which it is in actual martial combat) but it does so as part of niche PC build features/feats etc. If it did engage with this? It would engage with this via players sussing out useful (if not essential) information from GMs via low rolls and high rolls which are the D&D-equivalent to (a) + (b) + (c) above (particularly the latter two, but the first intersects with them).

I'm not envisioning a combat system...at least, a 1v1 dueling system...in which both combatants simultaneously reveal their move, and it exists on some sliding scale between feinting to learn more about your opponent and making a genuine attack. As you learn about your opponent you accumulate bonus dice. Throw all your dice on the table too early and possibly waste them. Throw them too late and possibly be dead.

If somehow the information on fire hasn't found its way via word-of-mouth and spread like wildfire through civilization (doubtful imo), then we have to consider your average troll would reflexively cringe from the flickering flame and heat of an oil-fueled lantern or an outright torch right? Cringe, shrink, perhaps audibly whimper in a subtle mewl or something. That is a tell! That is a tell that expert martial combatants faced with death around every corner are going to perceive and pick up on to build out their mental model! That is a tell that is likely to make an expert martial combatant raise their torch/lantern higher or step forward while brandishing it to probe for response (in order to build out their mental model)!

Does this (what should be pretty rote social transaction between adventurers and Trolls in all the instantiations of this D&D trope ever) back-and-forth always-and-ever happen at tables where this sort of metagaming is verboten? At what point does the ignorance-cosplaying player get to implicitly declare "I've built out my mental model enough to understand the aversion to fire happening here" with an actual declaration of using their torches/lanterns vs trolls (or escalating to magic or better alchemical nukes) like a tenured martial combatant/adventurer that hasn't succumbed to Darwin's Law long ago (precisely because their mental modeling didn't suck like those that perished)?

Imagine an RPG taking place in the current world.

"The bear charges you."
"I play dead."
"Your character wouldn't know to do that."
"Wait...I'm an accountant and I know that. My character is a hunter!"
"Yeah but it's not on your character sheet."
"Can I at least make a Wis check? I'm proficient in survival."
"Ok."
"Oh, drat....with my bonus that's 7."
"Nope. You are the only hunter in the world who doesn't know anything about bears. Want to try running?"