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

[Maxperson]

Interesting, two people who agree that "metagaming" shouldn't be done are disagreeing on whether casting fire bolt on a troll is or is not "metagaming." Good thing they don't play at the same table! (I assume.)

There's no disagreement. He just apparently missed me say multiple times that it would be okay under that situation.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No, it's not because there's an important distinction between the DM narrating the result of what the player has described and telling them that certain things they want to try are not allowed to even be introduced

telling someone the target gets to decide no roll if you hit them or not is just saying you cna't hit them with more steps.

The DM is tasked with narrating the result of the adventurers actions which may or may not involve mechanics at the DM's discretion. In this PVP house rule, the DM is delegating their role of narrating the result of the adventurers' actions to the target of the PVP attempt who may decide what to narrate instead of the DM.

and if I declair an attack on your orc and you say "don't roll I will narrate how you miss" that is still you telling me I can't hit the orc

Just like the DM, the player may decide whether the attempt succeeds or fails. This ensures that PVP is consensual. They can roleplay their characters as they see fit under this arrangement and resolve it accordingly.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Interesting, two people who agree that "metagaming" shouldn't be done are disagreeing on whether casting fire bolt on a troll is or is not "metagaming." Good thing they don't play at the same table! (I assume.)

almost like my entire argument is the table must agree...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And I've said at LEAST five times in this thread that if firebolt is the go to spell, I don't have an issue with them going to it with a troll when they don't have knowledge of the weakness. That would fall under the "Consistent prior roleplay" that I keep mentioning.

There's no disagreement. He just apparently missed me say multiple times that it would be okay under that situation.

again I was just pointing out that ALL uses of fire would not get me to say "Come on you don't know that" more expressing my thoughts then opposing yours.

 

[Oofta]

And I've said at LEAST five times in this thread that if firebolt is the go to spell, I don't have an issue with them going to it with a troll when they don't have knowledge of the weakness. That would fall under the "Consistent prior roleplay" that I keep mentioning.

If someone always does eldritch blast as their cantrip of choice and they use firebolt the first round against that troll, yeah I'd question it. Fortunately my players are reasonable nowadays and do their best to not metagame. It makes life easier.

 

[iserith]

telling someone the target gets to decide no roll if you hit them or not is just saying you cna't hit them with more steps.

Sometimes I can't hit something because I rolled low. I still got to make the action declaration to try. And players absolutely will allow another PC to hit theirs if they think it's fun and contributes to an exciting, memorable story. It's also no additional steps since it's the same process of play the DM would follow normally.

and if I declair an attack on your orc and you say "don't roll I will narrate how you miss" that is still you telling me I can't hit the orc

You still get to make the attempt. Your character swings a sword at the orc and they dodge out of the way. What nobody is doing here is tell you that you can't even make the attempt because "metagaming." That is the veto on action declaration we're discussing.

 

[Bill Zebub]

except that is exactly what it is in more steps... it's saying "You can't do that because I wont let you try)

it is just in extra steps to make him feel better.

If you truly can't see the difference then I'm not sure what to say.

 

[iserith]

almost like my entire argument is the table must agree...

My argument is that disagreements can exist and only do exist because of the table's self-imposed stance over "metagaming." Setting aside that stance means no possibility of disagreement over whether an action declaration is valid. You can try to do whatever you want. You may succeed, fail, succeed with a setback or complication, etc. as normal.

 

[Bill Zebub]

telling someone the target gets to decide no roll if you hit them or not is just saying you cna't hit them with more steps.

The one and only time I've actually used @iserith's approach to resolve pvp (I was DMing high school kids and one of them was disruptive) they did in fact narrate getting hit and taking damage.

Sooo........

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sometimes I can't hit something because I rolled low. I still got to make the action declaration to try.

just knock it off this is such a stupid argument... rolling low is way diffrent from no roll