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

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, that's a fair summary. If changes are made purely to trick/trap the players, rather than because they make sense for the setting, then it changes the feel.

Also, I'm assuming DMs are not announcing creatures, especially creatures they designed that are seen for the first time, by name. It's one thing for players to assume those hulking, regenerating creatures are trolls. It's another thing for the DM to call them trolls.

Well, that's not an assumption I'd make, and honestly, even the description can sometimes lead that way--trolls in D&D in specific often have a relatively specific look compared to a lot of other large humanoids.

(And this doesn't even get into some other monsters that are much more closely tied to their folklorical precedents in what abilities they have, here.)

 

[overgeeked]

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

It is a really odd argument. All you need to do to disprove that theory is meet someone who's incompetent in their job. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've met far more people who are terrible or mediocre at their job than those who are perfect at their job. "They're an adventurer so they should have perfect knowledge of everything associated with adventuring" is nonsensical.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.”

The problem with the latter one here is if you're not metagaming, the "decision" shouldn't even come up. There's nothing special about that moment in time compared to any of the others that have gone on while they're gone. You're not "not deciding to go" you're not even considering it.

Its really not parallel to the attack choices against monsters; in that case you're going to be likely deciding to use something.

 

[GrahamWills]

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

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.

Gotcha. I thought we were discussing standard D&D; my comments were only for those worlds (faerun, greyhawk, etc.)

 

[Maxperson]

Tool proficiencies? Like ... using a shovel? Yes, I do assume everyone can do that

No. According to your theory, because an adventurer's job brings them into contact with many traps, they should all automatically know everything about every trap and have proficiency with the tools and knowledge of how to disarm all of them and open locked doors. They should all have proficiency with alchemy supplies to create potions and identify things they commonly come in contact with. They should all be proficient with jeweler's tools to fix jewelry and cut gems. They should all be proficient with cooking tools. They should all be proficient with smiths and tinkers tools. They should all be proficient with cartographers tools.

Those are all commonly used and encountered things in an adventurer's career.

Terrain types? Yes, they know that rain is wet, snow cold ... not sure what sort of secrets you are expecting here.

They would all be proficient in Nature, etc.

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!


Skill != knowledge

According to you, if it's an adventurer's job to know, they have the skill to do so. Knowledge does = skill in D&D. See knowledge SKILLS under intelligence on pages 177-178 for proof. Hell, information on the various monsters is listed under those skills.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, "disperse, don't group up" is a pretty basic tactic for a number of reasons.

Actually, its only so because of area attacks. Dispersing is not something you'd see much prior to heavy deployment of artillery in militaries; there was little upside to it, and a lot of downside.

 

[Maxperson]

Gotcha. I thought we were discussing standard D&D; my comments were only for those worlds (faerun, greyhawk, etc.)

We are. In standard worlds monsters are rare and not encountered by the populace at anywhere close to the same rates as PCs.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It is a really odd argument. All you need to do to disprove that theory is meet someone who's incompetent in their job. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've met far more people who are terrible or mediocre at their job than those who are perfect at their job. "They're an adventurer so they should have perfect knowledge of everything associated with adventuring" is nonsensical.

Repeat that experience with people who's lives depend on it, and I suspect you'll find it far, far less frequent.

(Also "perfect" is putting your thumb on the scale here for effect; bad form).

 

[Maxperson]

It is a really odd argument. All you need to do to disprove that theory is meet someone who's incompetent in their job. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've met far more people who are terrible or mediocre at their job than those who are perfect at their job. "They're an adventurer so they should have perfect knowledge of everything associated with adventuring" is nonsensical.

I agree. But that's the argument put forth by @GrahamWills when he says that any reasonably smart PC would know everything there is to know about all monsters.

 

[overgeeked]

I agree. But that's the argument put forth by @GrahamWills when he says that any reasonably smart PC would know everything there is to know about all monsters.

It sounds like a version of the optimal argument from pages past. Real people don't always do the optimal thing.