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

[iserith]

I have a different perspective. If my character doesn't know about a creatures vulnerabilities, then I roleplay them like that. To me, that's the whole point of what roleplaying is - trying to put yourself in the shoes of someone else and imagine how they would act. Otherwise, I'm just going to wreck every encounter because I've been playing the game for more than 40 years and I own almost every book.

To me it makes no sense that my character who has never heard of a troll would instantly shout, "We need fire or acid!" So yeah, this can take a little more effort to roleplay as a character trying to figure out something that you, the player, already know, but it's not really hard. And for me it's plenty fun imagining how this character would approach the problem.

That's cool. You should certainly be able to make choices like this for your own character when you play in my view. Where it becomes decidedly uncool for me is when you insist other people at the table must do it, too, or else they are "cheaters."

 

[Maxperson]

How is it like that? Where is the rule stated that players are not to build up skill over time, and play better as a result?

It's a recommended table rule from page 235 of the DMG.

On page 241 of the DMG it implies that some DMs will ignore inspiration because it adds metagaming.

And what does advantage mean here? What "advantage" is the player getting? Over whom?

You don't see what advantage the player is getting by being able to just have his PC "know" a weakness so that it can be exploited when the PC doesn't actually know about the weakness? And it's clear what the advantage is over.

Why should I take your pronouncements about D&D's rules and principles more seriously than his?

What pronouncement? I've said nothing about how YOU should run YOUR game. I leave that bit of arrogance to some others on this forum.

But suppose that someone decides to try and make decisions from their PC's point of view, who gets to decide what the PC does and doesn't know? As a player gains expertise, why can't they play their PCs as more and more expert and capable, should they wish to do so?

There's a difference between capable and knowledgeable. And by RAW it's the DM who decides. That's why there are rules for determining what the PC knows that leave it to the DM.

It's not how I generally play D&D. I generally allow players to author their own PC backstories, within common-sense limits. (And what I've suggested doesn't in my view exceed those limits.)

Of course. It's your prerogative to alter the rules however you wish. If you want to give the players the ability to author, you can. The default of the game, though, is that they can't except for a bit of character creation and advancement.

I don't understand what you mean by "players/PCs". Those are pretty different things - players are real people who are playing a game; PCs are imaginary people, elements in a shared fiction.

Combat challenges both. It's not purely a player challenge where the player can just ignore the rules and have his PC know everything about all monsters and use that knowledge to his advantage over the monsters.

But in any event, not all RPG play is about challenging the players, at least in the sense of testing their guts, their strategic acumen, etc. As you seem to acknowledge in one of the quotes above, play can be about pretending to be someone else. In which case the challenge to players is to faithfully portray that character. A player can meet that challenge by playing a PC who doesn't know about trolls, or by playing one who does. It doesn't seem to make much difference either way.

Sure. I'm talking about D&D combat, which is a challenge to both the player(strategically/tactically) and the PC. And I disagree with the bolded assessment. Trolls become MUCH easier when you know about their weakness. Demons become much easier when you know what they are resistant and immune to so you can avoid wasting or diminishing your attacks. It makes a significant difference to know vs. not know.

Just look at the following example.

A group of fighters who use non-magical greatswords with great weapon fighting in every combat come across a monster that is immune to non-magical weapons. They just decide to use their magical daggers, despite their PCs being totally unaware of the immunity. How is that not going to make a significant difference in how the combat goes? How is that meeting the challenge in the same way?

 

[Clint_L]

That's cool. You should certainly be able to make choices like this for your own character when you play in my view. Where it becomes decidedly uncool for me is when you insist other people at the table must do it, too, or else they are "cheaters."

I'm also in a different position because I DM far more than I play, so when I do play I am always, by far, the most knowledgeable at the table in terms of what's in the game rules. I suspect that most of us in this conversation are in the same boat. If there's a new adventure coming out and I know someone might run it, I intentionally skip reading it because I agree that legitimate surprises are more fun to puzzle out than pretend ones.

Edit: Often I'll use skill and ability checks to see whether my character will figure something out, when I figure there is sufficient evidence. My current character is a monk who used intelligence as a dump stat, and I'm having great fun with their obtuseness.

 

[iserith]

It's a recommended table rule from page 235 of the DMG.

If you're referring to the section on "metagame thinking," it is important to know (where this discussion is concerned) that it has nothing at all to do with pretending not to know something. It is more to do with not making your decisions based on erroneous out-of-game information like believing the DM won't throw a monster that's too powerful at the characters or wasting session time investigating a door because the DM's description was lengthier than normal. Which is exactly what I advise my players to do: Verify your assumptions in-game before acting on them or you put yourself at risk. That it contains the word "metagame" does not mean it supports how you and others handle this issue. However, I will agree that if you have a policy as you do, it's important to communicate that as a table rule (not an actual rule of the game) prior to play.

 

[Maxperson]

ditto...

I MIGHT if I felt we needed a moment of levity make a joke... "In a dark hallway SOMEHOW you managed to find every lit area, but nobody seems to have noticed"

Hah! Try this for a bit of levity. Back during 3e I was playing a rogue and was scouting ahead in a dungeon. I came to a large room with pillars in it. As I was going through I heard something moving up ahead so I said to the DM, "I duck behind a pillar and hide." completely forgetting that I was carrying the lantern.

Needless to say he didn't ask me to roll to see if I could hide.

 

[Maxperson]

If you're referring to the section on "metagame thinking," it is important to know (where this discussion is concerned) that it has nothing at all to do with pretending not to know something. It is more to do with not making your decisions based on erroneous out-of-game information like believing the DM won't throw a monster that's too powerful at the characters or wasting session time investigating a door because the DM's description was lengthier than normal. Which is exactly what I advise my players to do: Verify your assumptions in-game before acting on them or you put yourself at risk. That it contains the word "metagame" does not mean it supports how you and others handle this issue. However, I will agree that if you have a policy as you do, it's important to communicate that as a table rule (not an actual rule of the game) prior to play.

It explicitly says it's about thinking like your character would think, which automatically includes what the character knows. Just because the few, non-exhaustive examples don't mention it, doesn't mean that it's not there.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I think there is a valid school of thought that (usually) interprets the number on a d20 roll as a scale that describes how well your character did something. For example, rolling an 18 on a Charisma (Persuasion) check is always viewed as better than, say, rolling a 12. Commonly, those who subscribe to this school don't tell players the DC for ability checks ahead of the roll and may not even have one in mind. The DM might be using feel and experience to determine success/failure in the moment based on the roll, with high being a success, low being a failure, and middling numbers going either way depending on how they feel the scene should go. This school gives the DM more narrative control. It also sets the expectation with players that a high roll is (almost) always a success and a low roll is (almost) always a failure.

Then there is another valid school of thought that (usually) interprets the number on a d20 relative to a static DC/AC or an opposed roll to simply determine success or failure. For example, rolling an 18 on a Cha(Persuasion) check is no better than rolling a 12 versus a DC 10. Both were good enough to succeed. This lends consistency to all d20 rolls (or "tests" as they might come to be called in 1D&D) - for example, a PC who rolled a 5 on a grapple check against an enemy who rolled a 3 did not grapple any worse that the PC who rolled a 17 vs the enemy's 3. Similarly, a PC who rolled a 15 on an attack roll did not hit any better than a PC who rolled a 10 against an AC 9 zombie. This school gives the players the knowledge of the outcome as soon as the dice settle.

Exception: For both schools of thought, a 20 on an attack roll is a crit and is a superior outcome to any other number. Well, as long as snake eyes aren't rolled for damage, I suppose.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Just look at the following example.

A group of fighters who use non-magical greatswords with great weapon fighting in every combat come across a monster that is immune to non-magical weapons. They just decide to use their magical daggers, despite their PCs being totally unaware of the immunity. How is that not going to make a significant difference in how the combat goes? How is that meeting the challenge in the same way?

yeah so right before the lock downs around the end of 2019 I was in a 2 day con game (2 4 hour sessions) that had a HUGE mix of players... including me and a gaming buddy who both know 5e, 2 people who had never played a TTRPG before 1 guy who had not played since 1e, and a woman who only knew pathfinder, a guy who played non D&D games but never D&D... and the DM who I thought was going to pull his hair out. We had pregen 4th level characters.

a woman who had never played anything took the wizard and was expected to know how to handle it... but teh BIG issue of how our party kept failing was the guy who played non D&D games... he was the hafling rogue I will never forget. He had a non magic sling and 3 magic knives (+1 keen... totally broken in 5e) but he kept using the sling because "I'm a thief I'm not getting into a fight if I can help it" BUT then we got into a fight with some undead (I think wights) and his sling wasn't working so he moved in... but then asked "You said these things are old dry dead bodies right" and tried to light them on fire instead of stabbing them...

if you don't know WHY your attack isn't working moving to a magic weapon MAY come easy to us but not everyone...

Just FYI we TPKed in hour 1 of session 2 and the DM looked like he wanted to cry...

 

[iserith]

It explicitly says it's about thinking like your character would think, which automatically includes what the character knows. Just because the few, non-exhaustive examples don't mention it, doesn't mean that it's not there.

My character thinks trolls are harmed by fire and blasts the troll accordingly. I might be right. I might be wrong. I get to establish what my character thinks. It's my choice and my risk. The rules on page 235 don't say anything about the specific way you manage this at your table.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Hah! Try this for a bit of levity. Back during 3e I was playing a rogue and was scouting ahead in a dungeon. I came to a large room with pillars in it. As I was going through I heard something moving up ahead so I said to the DM, "I duck behind a pillar and hide." completely forgetting that I was carrying the lantern.

Needless to say he didn't ask me to roll to see if I could hide.

classic