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

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

again, I think the whole table just needs to agree on how to play. If the rest of the group wants "we are young dumb and new" experience that could mess up the fun for the table... but at most games no one will blink at it.

 

[iserith]

again, I think the whole table just needs to agree on how to play. If the rest of the group wants "we are young dumb and new" experience that could mess up the fun for the table... but at most games no one will blink at it.

No argument from me there, and people should be held to their agreements in my view. My argument is only that assertions that the rules specifically support the idea that "metagame thinking" is cheating or the like is not correct. They frame it specifically as a risk to the character or risk to the player's time and make no mention at all about setting up a framework for determining what characters know before certain action declaration are deemed valid by the DM. Such a framework would naturally fall into the category of "table rules," but that's all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

I think you can combine these just fine. Yes, the higher skill+roll indicates better attempts but you still need to beat the DC.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But why would you describe a three thusly? I wouldn't; I would describe it as a clumsy attempt.

I'd actually describe it as one where something outside made it not go as well. Describing bad rolls as clumsy attempts is a good way to make people playing avowedly competent characters feel like they're anything but. Its a good way to demoralize a lot of players.

 

[iserith]

I'd actually describe it as one where something outside made it not go as well. Describing bad rolls as clumsy attempts is a good way to make people playing avowedly competent characters feel like they're anything but. Its a good way to demoralize a lot of players.

Agreed. Don't say what the character did. Narrate the result of the adventurer's actions, what impact what they did has on the environment or creatures in it. It's the player that gets to say what they do, not the DM.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'd actually describe it as one where something outside made it not go as well. Describing bad rolls as clumsy attempts is a good way to make people playing avowedly competent characters feel like they're anything but. Its a good way to demoralize a lot of players.

Sure, fair enough. Though a character who is capable of rolling a total of three is not particularly competent as their bonus is +2 at best.
I usually only describe rolls below five as feeble or clumsy, as that is failing to reach even very easy DC. But of course characters with even remotely decent bonus cannot roll that low.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Agreed. Don't say what the character did. Narrate the result of the adventurer's actions, what impact what they did has on the environment or creatures in it. It's the player that gets to say what they do, not the DM.

Depending on the people involved (but this requires knowing your players) it may actually be best to frame it as caused by exterior causes, because some people will assume failure means their character screwed up as a default. Its probably a good idea to actively not feed that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, fair enough. Though a character who is capable of rolling a total of three is not particularly competent as their bonus is +2 at best.
I usually only describe rolls below five as feeble or clumsy, as that is failing to reach even very easy DC. But of course characters with even remotely decent bonus cannot roll that low.

Oh, I misread that; I assumed 3-on-the-die, not a total of 3. The latter does, indeed, suggest less than great competence in whatever it is.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Oh, I misread that; I assumed 3-on-the-die, not a total of 3. The latter does, indeed, suggest less than great competence in whatever it is.

yeah I was thinking the rogue with a 15+ stat and prof (maybe expertise) rolled a 3 getting a 7-14 total... hence why I said it bugs me that people think that rolling low is an auto fail...

I sat at a table once a few years ago where someone had a +16 and rolled a 5 and said "I bet that doesn't make it... I only rolled a 5" and I as a player said "Isn't that still like high teens for you?" and he added it and said "Yeah, 21 actually"

 

[iserith]

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

Now that I am in front of my DMG, it doesn't really do that either. It does say "Some DMs feel it adds a layer of metagame thinking."

"Metagame thinking" is not in the same category as the "metagaming" you and others don't like.

D&D 3e and possibly earlier editions of the game (I don't remember them well enough) support your definition and stance on "metagaming." D&D 4e and 5e do not.