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

[Oofta]

Yes, which is why I prefer the much easier and less troublesome - don't be a jerk at the table.

Sadly, some people don't realize they're being a jerk. That guy who would open up the MM and read of pertinent stats for monsters we encountered? He was surprised when we told them it was annoying.

But it goes back to my default advice for dealing with issues. If you have a problem, just talk about it like reasonable adults and try to figure out a solution.

 

[hawkeyefan]

B doesn't exist. You act or don't act based on what your PC knows or typically does, not what the player knows.

There is no way to determine what the character would have done if the player had not known about the fire vulnerability. We cannot know.

In 38 years of playing D&D, I've never seen a new player(or an experienced player with a new and unknown monster) randomly switch from their regular attack to some other attack that just happens to be the one the creature is vulnerable to. I'm okay with the super, duper, extremely looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong odds of this circumstance happening.

I was talking about the character. Would you agree that it is possible that the character may, through luck or a guess, use fire immediately upon facing a troll? Is that something that could happen? I would think that we can agree, yes, this is conceivable.

Not allowing the character to do that is limiting the possibilities. And what is the source of this limitation?

The fact that the player knows.

So the actions that are allowed are limited based on player knowledge.

Okay. So the once in a gazillion times that the above happens, it's my fault.

The rest of the time it works out nicely and there's no fault or metagaming to be had.

If you build an encounter that relies on the players pretending to not know something they know, then yes, that's the GM's fault.

This is the point about the desire to prevent metagaming instead works to highlight it. If that's the crux of the challenge... here are some trolls, but you better pretend not to know about them or else... that's a poorly designed encounter.

 

[Maxperson]

In a game where the DM was REALLY concerned about metagaming, I'd NEVER play a swiss army knife type mage. I'd be too concerned that my own knowledge would get into my decisions all of the time - or that my decision to NOT act on my knowledge was overcompensating and hurting the group somehow. And I certainly wouldn't want to have to justify decisions to the DM all the time, yuck.

You don't have to play in a vacuum, though. If you aren't sure if your PC would know something, go to your skills and background. Maybe the DM will be like, yes you know or maybe you'll have to roll because the outcome is in doubt.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not saying your standard is a bad one, and sometimes depending on the trap and circumstances I do similar things. I'm saying that I don't feel that it's always necessary to telegraph traps. Sometimes the king wears down the stones that are not stepped on to keep them looking the same, or cleans the shiny stone, making it blend in again. People are smart enough to keep traps hidden. It's when the traps are not maintained, or maintained sloppily that telegraphing is warranted.

Yeah, different people have different preferences here, and I’m also not saying people who have a different standard for traps than I do are wrong, by any means. It’s just that for me, if I think the narrative that this king wore down the stones to keep them looking the same could lead to a player walking into a trap that they perceive as being unfair, I’d rather choose a different narrative.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sadly, some people don't realize they're being a jerk. That guy who would open up the MM and read of pertinent stats for monsters we encountered? He was surprised when we told them it was annoying.

In fact, I would posit that people almost never realize they’re being jerks.

But it goes back to my default advice for dealing with issues. If you have a problem, just talk about it like reasonable adults and try to figure out a solution.

Hear, hear!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Saying that every D&D player who faces a troll a second time is metagaming makes the word meaningless IMHO.

Pretty much, yes!

 

[Maxperson]

I was talking about the character. Would you agree that it is possible that the character may, through luck or a guess, use fire immediately upon facing a troll? Is that something that could happen? I would think that we can agree, yes, this is conceivable.

Sure, and it's conceivable that I can win the lottery tonight.

I've just never seen the situation you are describing happen in 38 years of consistent D&D play, so I'm good with the long odds on it not happening. Just like I drive my car without worrying about a fatal accident, or walk outside my door without worrying about being hit by lightning.

Not allowing the character to do that is limiting the possibilities. And what is the source of this limitation?

Rationality. It's not rational for me to believe that I'm going to be hit by lightning walking out of my door, get into a fatal crash whenever I get into my car or win the lottery.

So the actions that are allowed are limited based on player knowledge.

Not really. Super corner case scenarios like the one you are painting don't change anything.

 

[Mort]

Sadly, some people don't realize they're being a jerk. That guy who would open up the MM and read of pertinent stats for monsters we encountered? He was surprised when we told them it was annoying.

I wonder how that player would react to encountering a monster that looked like one from the MM but didn't quite conform.

I had a player once who actually got mad at me when the group encountered a monster they THOUGHT they knew the stats of - but they didn't. The player was absolutely livid and actually screamed that I was presenting the monster wrong.

But it goes back to my default advice for dealing with issues. If you have a problem, just talk about it like reasonable adults and try to figure out a solution.

Yes, speaking to each other and figuring out a solution is generally the way to go. Even if, sometimes, the solution is you're not a fit for each other's table (hopefully a rare outcome).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Hey @CreamCloud0, see what you started!?! (j/k)

Are you still following any of this? I feel my head spinning people seem to be talking in circles so much. Oh well...

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure, and it's conceivable that I can win the lottery tonight.

I've just never seen the situation you are describing happen in 38 years of consistent D&D play, so I'm good with the long odds on it not happening. Just like I drive my car without worrying about a fatal accident, or walk outside my door without worrying about being hit by lightning.

Rationality. It's not rational for me to believe that I'm going to be hit by lightning walking out of my door, get into a fatal crash whenever I get into my car or win the lottery.

Not really. Super corner case scenarios like the one you are painting don't change anything.

It's not a super corner case. It's every instance of metagaming. We can never say what a character "would" have done if the player didn't know something they do know. It can't happen.