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

Charlaquin · Nov 13, 2022

overgeeked said:
Y: “You should try it.”

Except I’m not saying he should try it. Never in this conversation have I actually suggested he try it. Once, I asked if he had tried it, and I made sure to hedge that by saying “it’s fine if you haven’t.”

overgeeked said:
X: “I have.”

Except he literally isn’t saying he’s tried it here. He’s saying he doesn’t need to try it because he has tried other things he thinks are similar.

overgeeked said:
Y: “I don’t believe you.”

Except I’m not saying I don’t believe him. I absolutely believe that what he says is true: he has not tried it, but has tried other things. Based on how he has so far described those other things, I don’t think they sound similar to what I’m describing.

Oofta · Nov 13, 2022

Charlaquin said:
The “That’ll be a DC 15 check and take 10 minutes” bit? I mean, those words are pretty close to something I would say when running a game, but I can’t tell if it accurately reflects the gameplay at my table because the surrounding context is missing.

Then can you explain the context better? The PCs have identified an obstacle, as DM you're telling them what is required to overcome that obstacle and how long it will take. In the case you mentioned it was a trap, I've given examples of a lock.

I think the lock example is a little simpler if that's okay as a start. I don't want to get into specific verbiage of how skills are involved, that's pretty secondary. So a slightly abbreviated encounter might look something like ...

DM: The door has a padlock on it.
Joe: I take a closer look, is it trapped?
DM: Make an investigation check
Joe: 15
DM: As far as you can tell there are no traps, do you you attempt to open it? [DM knows it's a DC 20]
Joe: Yep, I get a 17.
DM: It's apparently more difficult than it looks It doesn't open, you can keep at it but if it doesn't open right away it could take a few minutes, even up to half an hour.
Joe: Okay, I'll try again for a few minutes.
DM: [Rolls in secret, gets a low number meaning it's going to take a while.] You've tried for about 5 minutes, how much longer do you want to try?
Joe: Ugh, tough lock. We haven't seen a patrol yet [there is no immediate time concern, but some] so I'll try up to half an hour.

So I never told the PC exact numbers, just generalities. I might have variations on this but that's the gist. There may even be situations where the 15 investigation wasn't high enough to find an alarm trap and the padlock can't be opened even after half an hour (in world time, not game time) in which case either guards will have shown up or I'd say something about the lock being broken.

FYI: I have a game and won't get back to this for a while.

Charlaquin · Nov 13, 2022

hawkeyefan said:
The way I look at this is kind of like an adaptation or a translation. Taking something in one medium and putting it into another, or taking something in one language to another.

If I hear “It’ll be a DC 15 and it will take you 10 minutes” that’s what I hear as a player. What my character is experiencing is something a bit different. He may turn to his companions and say “It’s a bit complex, but I’m pretty confident I can do it. It’s gonna take me a few minutes though.”

For me, the numbers convey the character’s situation to me as a player. I now feel more informed as a player to make decisions, much as the character would be informed by actually being in that situation.

I mean, the arguments against providing numbers mostly amount to “the GM can just describe things better”… but of the goal is to paint an accurate picture for the players, then it’s hard to say that “DC 15” does a worse job than “kind of difficult”.

Yeah, and I since I tend to use the 5-point DC intervals, I could probably say easy, medium, and hard instead of DC 10, 15, and 20 if the players I was running the game for had a preference for that. The point isn’t to center the mechanics, it’s just to equip the players with the information they need to assess their likelihood of success, which is information I think the character should likewise have.

It’s kind of like the player skill vs. character skill argument. A character trained in lock picking should have the skill to examine a lock and make a reasonable guess about how hard it might be to pick in a given amount of time. But most players probably don’t have that skill, nor should they be required to in order to play a character trained in lock picking. Nor, frankly, do I have the skill to describe a lock such that the player would be able to make that assessment even if they did have the skill to do so. So instead, we use abstract game mechanics to represent all of that.

Xamnam · Nov 13, 2022

hawkeyefan said:
If I hear “It’ll be a DC 15 and it will take you 10 minutes” that’s what I hear as a player. What my character is experiencing is something a bit different. He may turn to his companions and say “It’s a bit complex, but I’m pretty confident I can do it. It’s gonna take me a few minutes though.”

I go back and forth on this. I'll admit it's a kind of arbitrary line, but for me the friction comes mostly when game terminology crosses from being used by the players to used by the characters. I have no issue with someone saying they have a proficiency in stealth when we're deciding what to do as a table, but someone who is clearly speaking as their character saying "On a health scale of 1-56, I'd guess I'm at about a 22." chafes me quite a bit.

Generally, though, that's something I see players, not DMs, doing. I don't think I should always know the DC, but it doesn't pull me out of the game to hear it when I do.

Maxperson · Nov 13, 2022

Charlaquin said:
No, what they’re doing is insisting they know for sure they wouldn’t like it and saying I’m being rude.

Perhaps some have suggested you're being rude. Not all of us. Insisting we won't like it is something that is valid without us trying it, though. I don't need to jump off a 30 foot cliff naked to know that I wouldn't enjoy it. That's an extreme example, but it also applies to milder things. I can look at something and visualize how it works and see if I would like it or not.

nevin · Nov 13, 2022

CreamCloud0 said:
This is a concept that keeps resurfacing in my head every now and then, should the players be made aware or not of their own and each other’s dice rolls in certain situations? Are there certain situations that by all logic should remain a mystery to me if I actually succeeded or not but that 19 showing on my D20 all but confirms I’ve got it well in hand, that the dice tells us more about the results than by any rights they should.

TL DR; are there situations where players shouldn’t be made aware of the results of their own dice because even just knowing they rolled high or low reveals information they shouldn’t have and might affect their decision making?

Consider the classic scenario: I’m trying to bluff a guard at the gates, “we’re just a group of humble travelers seeking refuge for the night” you roll your dice and...it’s a 3, but now you know it’s a 3 you know you flubbed, The guard is turning back inside to call someone else probably, crap! Quick get the wizard to cast charm person on them!

But should you really know that the guard wasn’t fooled in that situation, and if you didn’t know you failed why did you cast charm person? How many times would people just stand there and let the results play out?

It’s metagaming, but i think it’s such a minor and commonplace form of it that we often don’t recognise it as such, We’re so accustomed to knowing all our own rolls that the idea of not knowing them seems entirely alien.

Did we fail our investigations in this office or was there just nothing to find? Did you disarm the trap with your thieves tools or is it still active? Did you correctly identify these flowers as either medicinal or poisonous? Did the rogue just succeed their death saving throw or roll a crit 1?

So should there be more situations where players aren’t clued in to their own rolls for more natural reactions? What are your thoughts?

I lean into the not always camp. If the players mess up a roll that doesn't mean the effect will be immediate. The guard may be smart enough not to challenge the PC's and go get reinforcements. But let the players know up front that they won't see all the rolls that effect them.

overgeeked · Nov 13, 2022

Sigh.

Charlaquin said:
Except he literally isn’t saying he’s tried it here. He’s saying he doesn’t need to try it because he has tried other things he thinks are similar.

Yes, he's tried something similar enough for him to be satisfied. His 95% is close enough for him...

Charlaquin said:
Except I’m not saying I don’t believe him. I absolutely believe that what he says is true: he has not tried it, but has tried other things. Based on how he has so far described those other things, I don’t think they sound similar to what I’m describing.

But his 95% is not close enough for you. You're demanding 100% or nothing.

It's a variations of the No True Scotsman.

Y: "If you'd try it, you'd love it." X: "I have tried something similar enough and I didn't like it." Y: "So you haven't really tried it."

GMforPowergamers · Nov 13, 2022

Xamnam said:
someone who is clearly speaking as their character saying "On a health scale of 1-56, I'd guess I'm at about a 22." chafes me quite a bit.

this is the sort of thing I only see in 2 cases... 1 it's a joke MEANT to be ridicules and get a laugh or smirk out of game, or 2 the DM has forbid out of game terminology and the players are being jerks with malicious compliance.

Maxperson · Nov 13, 2022

Charlaquin said:
He literally said in the very post you quoted that he hasn’t tried it, but has tried something similar. To which I respond that I don’t think what he’s tried is actually similar. You know, the thing @Bill Zebub said was happening.

Similar is good enough. I've tried trout, bass, cod, canned tuna and another kind of fish that I can't remember, and I don't like fish. I don't need to try salmon to know that I won't like it. It tried similar things and it didn't work out.

nevin · Nov 13, 2022

overgeeked said:
Unless there's an actual ticking clock and the players care about that ticking clock, yes they can. There's effectively infinite food, water, light, and other resources for PCs so those will almost never be an issue. Depending on how you read the resting rules and combat, getting attacked while trying to rest effectively doesn't matter. Then there's things like Leomund's Tiny Hut, the genie lock's vessel, etc so getting a long rest is guaranteed. So none of those things matter. Leomund's Tiny Hut is a ritual so even if you're not taking a long rest, if the referee is enforcing the one long rest per 24 hours thing, the PCs can simply sit in their indestructible bunker and wait. So time is irrelevant unless the referee pushes time as a limited resource, and then only if the players actually care. In my experience, they'd rather let the entire world die in fire than go into a single easy fight with less than full power.

I've played and DM'd parties like that , but if they rest the bad guys rest and the world go on. Don't fight it. That's a whole night of running away prepping for a fight. Giants Piling a giant's piling boulders on the tiny hut so they'll collapse when it expires. Embrace your party style and adjust the game to it. There's more than one way to throw the party out of the frying pan into the fire especially when you know how they are going to react.

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

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)

Oofta

Legend

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)

Xamnam

Loves Your Favorite Game

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

nevin

Hero

overgeeked

B/X Known World

GMforPowergamers

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

nevin

Hero

Similar Threads