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

[Redneckomancer]

I think that's part of it.

I also think that this goes back to the DM being at fault. They're presenting the players with a challenge... if the challenge is such that things the players already know gives them an unfair advantage, then that's a flawed challenge. Come up with another way to challenge the players.

Expecting them to pretend not to know the thing they know... what does that challenge? Their ability to play dumb?

It's just silly.

This exactly. If a player is playing the game in good faith it shouldn't matter if they're metagaming or not. If you spoil the movie we're watching, it doesn't matter if you've seen the movie before or not, your specific behavior has ruined the experience.
Also, specifically to RPGs, it's really on how the DM runs the game if metagaming (and not being a dick) can ruin it or not.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Let's say I'm playing an online, competitive game. I know the cheat codes to the game to cheat but I don't use them. According to your logic, I'm still cheating. That's illogical and meaningless, as is the definition you've come up with.

That only follows if you consider cheating = metagaming. If you think that's a given, its not. There are all kinds of reasons to metagame that have no relationship to cheating.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There's a key element missing from your analogy.

In the video game example, there is no character knowledge. There is no distinction between what the character in the game knows and what the player knows.

For an RPG, both A and B are examples of the player making a decision for the character based on information they know only as a player. In one case, he uses fire and in the other he doesn't, but in both cases that decision is made because he knows about the weakness to fire.

I don't know why you consider this true. Its no more impossible to play a computer RPG while firewalling away things you know as a player that the character avowedly doesn't than it is in person to person RPGing. There may be more rewards for the latter, but its entirely doable in both cases.

 

[hawkeyefan]

At least to me it is not really not about advantage, at least not mainly. I think the point of roleplaying is to get immersed and inhabit a viewpoint of a fictional person, and part of doing that is to accept that this person will have different amount of knowledge than you the player. If you're incapable of doing that, what's even the point of playing?

Sure, but then if the point is not the challenge of the situation, then the very idea of an unfair advantage goes right out the window.

Then we're just concerned with plausibility or verisimilitude or what have you. In which case, we would work to find a way for the character to know the bit of detail in question.

Or, alternatively, if the player wants to play as if they don't know, hey that's their choice. What's problematic to me is the GM stepping in and trying to make these decisions for them.

If the goal of play is the challenge of the game, then it's a poorly crafted challenge. If the goal of play is to craft a narrative about the PCs, then worrying about "unfair advantages" is misplaced.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Got it now? Actually, scratch that. I don't care. This is a silly tangent argument. Accept my analogy or not I'm not going to argue about it any more.

Just a note that this sort of thing comes across as a passive-aggressive way to try and have the last word. It may not be producing the effect you intend it to.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't know why you consider this true. Its no more impossible to play a computer RPG while firewalling away things you know as a player that the character avowedly doesn't than it is in person to person RPGing. There may be more rewards for the latter, but its entirely doable in both cases.

Does the game make you do that and then get mad when you don't?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Sure, but then if the point is not the challenge of the situation, then the very idea of an unfair advantage goes right out the window.

Then we're just concerned with plausibility or verisimilitude or what have you. In which case, we would work to find a way for the character to know the bit of detail in question.

Or, alternatively, if the player wants to play as if they don't know, hey that's their choice. What's problematic to me is the GM stepping in and trying to make these decisions for them.

If the goal of play is the challenge of the game, then it's a poorly crafted challenge. If the goal of play is to craft a narrative about the PCs, then worrying about "unfair advantages" is misplaced.

This.

And - perhaps it goes without saying but I'll do it for emphasis anyway - the two goals are not mutually exclusive.
Well-crafted challenges certainly can go hand in hand with crafting a narrative.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Does the game make you do that and then get mad when you don't?

How is that relevant? We're not talking about what sort of motivations and countermotivations are present, just that you can do it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

How is that relevant? We're not talking about what sort of motivations and countermotivations are present, just that you can do it.

No, that's not what I'm talking about.

 

[Maxperson]

Stating that a particular variation of a definition is right or wrong isn't helpful. It's not going to convince many people who don't already agree with you. The value of bringing one in is in making your own position clear so that people can engage with it honestly. Accusing people of twisting the meaning of a word just poisons the well of conversation.

It's apples and oranges.

I've said, "When my group buys a vehicle, they aren't allowed to buy sports cars, SUVs or trucks, because that would be cheating." And then they came in and said, "Well, since when you go to the dealership you see sports cars, SUVs or trucks, that's the same as buying one by our definition, so it can't possibly be avoided," there's no conversation to be had. You're talking about Martians while I'm talking about fish.