How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[pemerton]

That distinction makes no difference to what I said. That 1 better to hit ACs 10 to 1 doesn't put the fighter head and shoulders above that guard.

Doesn't it? What if they are fighting a knight who wears plate mail, carries a shield, and has a DEX of 15? Assuming that both the fighter and the guard have STR 16 (and so no bonus to hit), the fighter hits on a 19 or 20, the guard on a 20. That is twice the chance to hit!

Even against an AC 5 opponent (say, a guard sergeant wearing mail), the fighter hits on a 15+ (so 6 chances in 20), the guard on a 16+ (so 5 chances in 20). The fighter is 20% more likely to hit. That seems significant to me.

 

[pemerton]

Probably because in the example that @hawkeyefan gave, the DM didn't. In his example he said he would just give that knowledge to the players and come up with the justification later. That's not the DM giving thought to who would or would not know it and then deciding.

@Micah Sweet, I notice that you liked this reply. So can I just clarify - are you talking about my imaginary example of a GM mentioning that a dragon is trapped in a circle of imprisonment (post 765), and criticising my (imagined) narration? Or are you talking about something else?

 

[Maxperson]

Here's an example of GM narration, from p 2 of the free 5e D&D Basic PDF:

After passing through the craggy peaks, the road takes a sudden turn to the east and Castle Ravenloft towers before you. Crumbling​

towers of stone keep a silent watch over the approach. They look like abandoned guardhouses. Beyond these, a wide chasm gapes, disappearing into the deep fog below. A lowered drawbridge spans the chasm, leading to an arched entrance to the castle courtyard. The chains of the drawbridge creak in the wind, their rust-eaten iron straining with the weight. From atop the high strong walls, stone gargoyles stare at you from hollow sockets and grin hideously. A rotting wooden portcullis, green with growth, hangs in the entry tunnel. Beyond this, the main doors of Castle Ravenloft stand open, a rich warm light spilling into the courtyard.​

I notice that the GM assumes the PCs can recognise Castle Ravenloft, guardhouses (even abandoned, crumbling ones), drawbridges, rusted iron chains, and gargoyles.

What is the principle that forbids the GM from narrating "You see the dragon is trapped inside a circle of imprisonment"?

Nothing forbids it. There is a rather marked difference between common knowledge items like drawbridges, chains, gargoyles(the decorative kind), and uncommon or rare knowledge like magic circles.

 

[Maxperson]

Doesn't it? What if they are fighting a knight who wears plate mail, carries a shield, and has a DEX of 15? Assuming that both the fighter and the guard have STR 16 (and so no bonus to hit), the fighter hits on a 19 or 20, the guard on a 20. That is twice the chance to hit!

Ugh! I hate that argument. 5% is 5% is 5%. Saying it has twice the chance to hit is deceptive. It attempts to trick the reader into thinking that the difference is large, when it remains the same 5% it was at every other AC other than 0. 5% is not "head and shoulders above."

By the way, having to come up with a corner case to attempt that argument is essentially admitting that I am correct and the difference isn't much. If it was significant, you wouldn't have had to create that special circumstance.

 

[pemerton]

Nothing forbids it. There is a rather marked difference between common knowledge items like drawbridges, chains, gargoyles(the decorative kind), and uncommon or rare knowledge like magic circles.

Doesn't the GM get to decide what is common, uncommon or rare knowledge?

 

[pemerton]

Ugh! I hate that argument. 5% is 5% is 5%. Saying it has twice the chance to hit is deceptive. It attempts to trick the reader into thinking that the difference is large, when it remains the same 5% it was at every other AC other than 0. 5% is not "head and shoulders above."

There is no deception. Against the knight with AC1, the fighter hits twice as often as the guard. The DPR is double.

 

[Maxperson]

Doesn't the GM get to decide what is common, uncommon or rare knowledge?

Yep. Based on the facts of the setting and as fairly as he can.

 

[Maxperson]

There is no deception. Against the knight with AC1, the fighter hits twice as often as the guard. The DPR is double.

5% is 5%. Quadruple your chances of a heart attack and it's still a very long shot for you to have one. That "double" you mention above is trivial in the same way, and requires a corner case to even happen. You had to conjure up the one armor class where that trivial doubling is true. One higher or one lower and ceases to be.

 

[aramis erak]

There is no deception. Against the knight with AC1, the fighter hits twice as often as the guard. The DPR is double.

It's the type of response my Stats Professors (during BA and MA programs) labeled as deceptive statistics.
It's not wrong, technically, but it leads the statistically unaware to make erroneous judgements.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The reason why I don't like metagaming in 5e D&D is because it upsets the suspension of disbelief that is so vital to role-playing a character in a RPG. I am trying to operate in-character, which means I can only act on knowledge that's in-universe. If I decided to use any knowledge that my character should not know for my own personal benefit, it would be bad sportsmanship on my part. I would be cheating. And that's not who I am as a player.

If the GM says what something is, why would your character not know it?

In my halfassed example, based on @pemerton ’s slightly more sketched out example, I said that I would share the information with the players because I considered it obvious. And, more importantly, I was unconcerned with that knowledge as far as the encounter itself went.

So there’s no unfair advantage to be had.

5e D&D is not some indie role-playing game that deliberately supports and encourages metagaming.

You're okay with metagaming, but you don't take advantage of it by letting your character know everything you know?

I have very different views about metagaming than many folks do. I think a lot of people mistake playing the game as metagaming. But it’s not. Allowing things that are outside of the game influence your thinking is metagaming. But the things we’re talking about… magic circles and ACs and so on… are very much part of the game.

So I don’t really know how to answer your question. I don’t consider my players taking advantage of anything because I don’t rely on situations where they have to pretend they don’t know what they know in order to create a challenge.

It's not up to the GM to decide what the PC knows in 5e D&D.

It is at least partially. Also, this conversation isn’t limited to 5e.

The GM describes the scene and then asks the players what they are going to do next. The players then declare what the characters are going to do in the scene, and if any of their actions require a skill check, the GM will ask them to roll the dice to see what happens next.

The GM is suppose to help guide the players through an adventure, not dictate their every move by telling them everything they need to know without earning it on their own.

No one has even suggested this. Stop jumping to extremes.