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

[Maxperson]

I guess we have a different view of how stupid characters are. I tend to think that someone whose job is it is to fight monsters and has likely being doing it for years can learn more than characteristics of TWO (or maybe FOUR) monsters.

Me, too. I don't think anyone here has suggested that. I just disagreed with your portrayal of what a basic monster was.

Clearly, your worlds are inhabited by a very different type of person than mine are!

Yep! Mine are inhabited by millions of people who do not run into monsters anywhere near as often as the PCs, so don't have a modern college library full of information on them all in every town and city. If every man, woman and child ran into that many monsters, the PCs were never born and the world was depopulated a looooooooong time ago.

 

[Charlaquin]

Again, how do you verify assumptions? You do it by using something to verify in the case of vulnerabilities it or by ignoring it in the case if resistances and immunities. So if I'm assuming a devil is immune or resistant to fire, I'm not going to waste a round casting firebolt at it to see if it really is immune. I'm going to use something else. If I assume that an earth elemental is vulnerable to thunder, I'm going to verify by using thunder. The assumptions are the metagaming. And yes, verifying or ignoring(depending on the metagaming) is a no brainer.

Dude, just ask “do I know anything about devils’ resistances or immunities?” In my experience the vast majority of DMs will either ask you to make some sort of check, or just tell you. Boom, assumptions verified (or falsified).

 

[Maxperson]

@GrahamWills to take your theory and apply it elsewhere... Adventurers also commonly go into ruins, dungeons, tombs, encounter traps, walk through all terrain types in all weather conditions, need to know history, track monsters, and so on. Do you automatically give them all of those skills and tool proficiencies as well? Because the smart adventurer in your realistic world would know everything about all of that as well.

What's the point of even having skills for adventurers when all of them would know everything because that's their job?

 

[Maxperson]

Dude, just ask “do I know anything about devils’ resistances or immunities?” In my experience the vast majority of DMs will either ask you to make some sort of check, or just tell you. Boom, assumptions verified (or falsified).

That's not verifying an assumption. That's asking for the answer. Verifying an assumption is, "I assume that if I cast knock on that door it will open. DM, I'm going to verify that assumption by casting knock on that door."

 

[GrahamWills]

Not in D&D. You seem to be under the misapprehension that all of the monsters are roaming the world in packs or something and people are putting the info on some magical internet.

Maybe because the game rules books say that it is? "Volos Guide to Monsters" is available for 50gp to anyone who wants to buy it as an in-game resource. The rules literally say that to only do people collect that info, but they sell it for the same price as a banquet for 5 people.

"Books" are the "magical internet" of the fantasy game world.

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe because the game rules books say that it is? "Volos Guide to Monsters" is available for 50gp to anyone who wants to buy it as an in-game resource. The rules literally say that to only do people collect that info, but they sell it for the same price as a banquet for 5 people.

"Books" are the "magical internet" of the fantasy game world.

The in-fiction Volo's Guide to Monsters is not the same book as we have here in the real world.

From the 5e Volo's. Elminster's notes.

"10. UNTIL WE KILL EACH OTHER, USING VOLO's HANDY TIPS, BUNDLED UP NEATLY HEREIN."

"12. LET ME BE FAIR. THE LAD MEANS WELL AND HAS DONE WELL. BETTER THAN I EXPECTED. SOME OF WHAT'S IN THIS BOOK IS TRUE, AND CAN EVEN BE TRUSTED."

 

[Charlaquin]

I think that goes back to what was said earlier. It's almost impossible to separate player from character knowledge. The player knows all these things so they can't help but assume their common knowledge as a D&D player is common knowledge to the inhabitants of the in-game world. That's where the roleplaying comes in. And not giving the player more knowledge about the game world than their character would have.

I’d say exactly the opposite. It’s typically very easy to separate player knowledge from character knowledge - if the party is split, you know that anything you as a player hear going on with the other group, your character doesn’t know. What is impossible is to disregard relevant knowledge (be it player knowledge or character knowledge) when you make a decision. For example, if the other group gets into danger, you could decide to come help them, which I think we can agree would be a decision influenced by your player knowledge. Or, you could decide not to come help them, which would also be a decision influenced by your player knowledge. You can’t actually know how you would behave if you were ignorant of the other group’s status, therefore any decision you make is “metagaming.”

 

[GrahamWills]

@GrahamWills to take your theory and apply it elsewhere... Adventurers also commonly go into ruins, dungeons, tombs, encounter traps, walk through all terrain types in all weather conditions, need to know history, track monsters, and so on. Do you automatically give them all of those skills and tool proficiencies as well? Because the smart adventurer in your realistic world would know everything about all of that as well.

Tool proficiencies? Like ... using a shovel? Yes, I do assume everyone can do that
Trap types? Like "this one shoots an arrow?" yes, if they have detected a trap, it's rare they don't know what it is supposed to do
Terrain types? Yes, they know that rain is wet, snow cold ... not sure what sort of secrets you are expecting here.
History? I'd expect them to know basic history, the same as we would.
Track monsters? They'd definitely know HOW to do so -- but execution might be an issue!

What's the point of even having skills for adventurers when all of them would know everything because that's their job?

Skill != knowledge

 

[hawkeyefan]

If the character is impatient and you-as-player want to play it as impatient, don't tell me up-front you're waiting for an hour. Tell me up-front you're waiting for 15 minutes, or however long you think your character can last without doing something rash.

Because yes, once you declare your action you're committed to seeing it through barring external interruption. For example, in the scout situation I might get the party to tell me how long they're waiting (let's say an hour) then go and play out the scouting. Let's say the scouting goes well and the scout would return in 45 minutes. Before the scout's player comes back, I return to the main group and see if anything has interrupted their waiting. Look, a wandering monster or patrol came by at the half-hour point, what would you do? And I play that out. Now that I know what happened there, I can go back to the scout player and tell her what she sees on returning to the party.

But what if... immersed in my indecisive character... I also change my mind? What then?

Am I allowed to emerge from metagaming quarantine?

"Disperse, don't group up!" implies knowledge of how the breath weapon works; knowledge the PCs may or may not have. "Don't stand in front of it!" implies knowledge that it likely has a breath weapon of some sort, which is common knowledge even among peasants thanks to far too many Bards telling stories for coppers.

No, "disperse, don't group up" is a pretty basic tactic for a number of reasons. "That thing could catch a bunch of us with a single claw!" or "It could crush us with its belly!" or "Its tail could swat us all like flies!"

Prime example of how the GM thought something was metagaming, but which actually wasn't.

Ah, but yes it would. That player would have knowledge of them that the character would not, and be caught in the trap of either metagaming to use that knowledge or metagaming to not use it. Either way, the purity of in-character decision-making would be reduced.

What would have changed? Like, specifically in your example.

Also, purity tests... I mean, that about sums it up, I suppose.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's not verifying an assumption. That's asking for the answer. Verifying an assumption is, "I assume that if I cast knock on that door it will open. DM, I'm going to verify that assumption by casting knock on that door."

Well it’s what @iserith means when they say “verify your assumptions”