D&D General If you had to choose between quality of story or combat

[Maxperson]

No, it seems you're trying to generate a narrative meaning from a bit of abstracted game mechanics that exist for simplicity's sake where no such narrative meaning actually exists.

How does humanoid = elemental? The druid isn't actually becoming the creature in question.

 

[Azzy]

How does humanoid = elemental? The druid isn't actually becoming the creature in question.

You're still clinging to a view that 5.5e is meant to be simulationalist. The druid IS becoming that creature (with exceptions) in the narrative regardless of the game mechanics. Much like, in the game, something may inflict the Poisoned condition without that something being a literal poison in the narrative. You're reaching into your imagination to derive that a druid wildshaped into an elemental retains its "blood and circulatory system" because that's nowhere in the text or even implied by the text.

 

[Coroc]

No, hidden rolls are massively more work. If I call for a roll, the player makes the roll and adds their own bonuses and any current modifiers. If I make a secret roll, I have to ask for their bonuses (because I'm not mentally tracking dozens of skill modifiers in my head) and whether they have any conditions that affect it, and also ask whether they're using any special abilities. It's just a crazy amount of extra work to possibly prevent something that I don't even care about.

Agree, there also were times when i did all the rolls hidden (2e) behind the DM screen for the purpose to do hidden fudges in rare occasions. That was, when i was still young and inexpereinced, and i did it mostly to protect characters from a stupid death by bad dice luck mid adventure. Back then this even was considered good DMing by some, the reason was that 2e was much more dangerous in terms that some real bad rolls could ruin an otherwise perfect game.
Now, whether i DM or play, i roll everything out in the open. 5e did allow me to taylor encounters so precise, that i can take a party to the edge without killing them off, and without any fudging ever needed.

By not worrying about it, I have no suspicion in the first place, I don't have to worry about tracking SOP at all, and I never have to argue about it. This just seems like an immense time and effort to put in to avoid PCs possibly spending one round less on opening a door than they would otherwise.


How does 'spread out and open the door using no limited use abilities' actually use time and resources that 'stand close and open the door using no limited use abilities' doesn't? At most one or the other option will require most of the party to use one round to get to a particular position. Using a cantrip to try to open the door doesn't use up a spell slot or ammunition or anything else. It seems like either option is no resources and either no time or a single out of combat round at most.

I think what he meant, is if the party decides to examine some more after the failed roll, e.g. cast detect poison, detect magic, dispel magic, organize some tools or mechanical or other items (a can of acid anyone?) to protect themselves from a trap they did not find. That clearly might be time consuming or cost resources.

That's part of what I don't get about all of the hand-wringing over possible metagame cheating, you're talking about two choices that probably take the same time, and if not are within a round of each other (depending on exactly where PCs were in the room), neither of which use up any limited use resources. The idea of worrying that PCs might spend 1 round more or less on non-combat activity just doesn't occur to me since I don't track time out of initiative that tightly under normal circumstances. If I was worried about six seconds out of combat time, I'd put the exploration in initiative order and actually run it round by round.

Nah i think you missunderstood here: The concern was, that without context, which we did establish above by adding it with examples like

e.g. vault door is trapped 99% no matter if i find the trap or not (that does not require a high or low dice roll to give additional info)
It is definitely no metagaming to investigete further

vs. pretty ordinary door, no additional info available, player makes it dependant on whether his roll is high or low to do additional measures or not. This would be metagaming by transferring player knowledge derrived from the dice roll to the character. This is not cheating it's just very bad and immature roleplaying.

 

[Coroc]

Just because they can do it (and I'm less certain than you that they consistently can) doesn't mean IMO they should have to do it.

Well, it is to much effort for the dm to do all rolls, my dm hated to roll - these days he does it real rarely, because atm we play Symbaroum, the mobs do not roll to hit within that system but the players roll to defend.

 

[Lanefan]

How does humanoid = elemental? The druid isn't actually becoming the creature in question.

So if I'm an Elf Druid and I shapeshift into an Elemental a sword of Elf-slaying will still do extras to me 'cause it "knows" somehow that I'm still an Elf?

Ditto if I'm an Elf Wizard and I polymorph into an Elemental?

Seems highly counterintuitive from here.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, it is to much effort for the dm to do all rolls, my dm hated to roll - these days he does it real rarely, because atm we play Symbaroum, the mobs do not roll to hit within that system but the players roll to defend.

I'm rolling dice behind my screen all the time anyway, one or two more here and there ain't gonna make much difference.

 

[Lanefan]

Agree, there also were times when i did all the rolls hidden (2e) behind the DM screen for the purpose to do hidden fudges in rare occasions. That was, when i was still young and inexpereinced, and i did it mostly to protect characters from a stupid death by bad dice luck mid adventure. Back then this even was considered good DMing by some, the reason was that 2e was much more dangerous in terms that some real bad rolls could ruin an otherwise perfect game.

Luck is luck - sometimes you stomp the opponent super-easy, other times the opponent stomps you unless you cut and run (and maybe have to leave someone behind).

I think what he meant, is if the party decides to examine some more after the failed roll, e.g. cast detect poison, detect magic, dispel magic, organize some tools or mechanical or other items (a can of acid anyone?) to protect themselves from a trap they did not find. That clearly might be time consuming or cost resources.

Yes.

Nah i think you missunderstood here: The concern was, that without context, which we did establish above by adding it with examples like

e.g. vault door is trapped 99% no matter if i find the trap or not (that does not require a high or low dice roll to give additional info)
It is definitely no metagaming to investigete further

vs. pretty ordinary door, no additional info available, player makes it dependant on whether his roll is high or low to do additional measures or not. This would be metagaming by transferring player knowledge derrived from the dice roll to the character. This is not cheating it's just very bad and immature roleplaying.

I don't think it's bad or immature roleplaying, I think it's the players simply taking what the game gives them and using it to best advantage; which in my view is actually good play.

My position is that the game should be set up so as not to give this advantage to them in the first place.

 

[bsss]

I have checked out on this door exercise mostly, but I think the metagaming/unwarranted advantage situation is pretty clear.

Scenario: you describe how your character is searching the door for traps --- what your PC is inspecting, prodding, whatever, and then you look at me, the DM, expectingly, wanting an answer to what your character finds. I respond in one of the following ways (among other possibilities):

1. I immediately look you dead in the eye and say "you find no traps".
2. I look down at my notes for a moment, maybe turn a page or scroll on my laptop, nod, and say "you find no traps".
3. I look at my notes, ask you to roll in the open, you roll high, and I say "you find no traps".
4. I look at my notes, ask you to roll in the open, you roll low, and I say "you find no traps".
5. I look at my notes, ask you for any searching bonuses you have, roll in secret for you, and say "you find no traps".
6. I roll something behind the screen, maybe subconsciously (or consciously) mutter "interesting..." to myself, and say "you find no traps".

If you would have your character act differently --- does or doesn't follow the SOP, chooses to or not to open the door, asks another character to try because your character "sucks at this", whatever --- we have entered metagaming territory, because the same in-game reality has been established in all situations and yet something else, presumed to be our table process and out-of-game context, has influenced your decision.

I don't think it gets clearer than that. The severity, concern, and ramifications of metagaming are up to the table, but I don't think anyone could plausibly suggest that it didn't happen, unless you behave randomly/have your PC behave randomly, in which case the whole scenario was a waste of the DM's time (THIRD (sigh) EDIT: a waste of time other than potentially finding a trap, I will split the hair ahead of time, but a waste of time for evaluating no-trap-do-I-open-the-door next steps).

The problem with this observation-based decision is we can't test the 6+ options at each door to test that you have your character act consistently, branching reality style, so we have to derive the observations over many doors and see what they yield about your consistency. So inconsistent behavior --- "well sure, last time you did 1 and I opened the door without following the SOP but this time you did 6 and I had my expendable hireling open the door" --- raises an eyebrow.

Other than pointing that out, I have really lost track of what the trapped door scenario is supposed to be telling us.

EDIT: addendum: Lanefan rolls for the PCs to constrain the situations and dodge part of the potential for metagaming. Ditto for roll in the open DMs. Ditto for a DM just winging it. Those constraints can help both parties avoid metagaming, or lessen the "severity" of the "crime". Those are fine, if strictly personal preference, safeguards.

SECOND EDIT: I remember now (I seriously forgot) what this is supposed to be telling us: if the 6+ options and expectation for consistency mean we DMs are regulating what the character is "supposed to think". I don't think so, for a variety of reasons, because I care more about what the character does than what they think and because I think the door is a clearer cut game situation than a social encounter among those reasons.

 

[AlViking]

I have checked out on this door exercise mostly, but I think the metagaming/unwarranted advantage situation is pretty clear.

Scenario: you describe how your character is searching the door for traps --- what your PC is inspecting, prodding, whatever, and then you look at me, the DM, expectingly, wanting an answer to what your character finds. I respond in one of the following ways (among other possibilities):

1. I immediately look you dead in the eye and say "you find no traps".
2. I look down at my notes for a moment, maybe turn a page or scroll on my laptop, nod, and say "you find no traps".
3. I look at my notes, ask you to roll in the open, you roll high, and I say "you find no traps".
4. I look at my notes, ask you to roll in the open, you roll low, and I say "you find no traps".
5. I look at my notes, ask you for any searching bonuses you have, roll in secret for you, and say "you find no traps".
6. I roll something behind the screen, maybe subconsciously (or consciously) mutter "interesting..." to myself, and say "you find no traps".

If you would have your character act differently --- does or doesn't follow the SOP, chooses to or not to open the door, asks another character to try because your character "sucks at this", whatever --- we have entered metagaming territory, because the same in-game reality has been established in all situations and yet something else, presumed to be our table process and out-of-game context, has influenced your decision.

I don't think it gets clearer than that. The severity, concern, and ramifications of metagaming are up to the table, but I don't think anyone could plausibly suggest that it didn't happen, unless you behave randomly/have your PC behave randomly, in which case the whole scenario was a waste of the DM's time (THIRD (sigh) EDIT: a waste of time other than potentially finding a trap, I will split the hair ahead of time, but a waste of time for evaluating no-trap-do-I-open-the-door next steps).

The problem with this observation-based decision is we can't test the 6+ options at each door to test that you have your character act consistently, branching reality style, so we have to derive the observations over many doors and see what they yield about your consistency. So inconsistent behavior --- "well sure, last time you did 1 and I opened the door without following the SOP but this time you did 6 and I had my expendable hireling open the door" --- raises an eyebrow.

Other than pointing that out, I have really lost track of what the trapped door scenario is supposed to be telling us.

EDIT: addendum: Lanefan rolls for the PCs to constrain the situations and dodge part of the potential for metagaming. Ditto for roll in the open DMs. Ditto for a DM just winging it. Those constraints can help both parties avoid metagaming, or lessen the "severity" of the "crime". Those are fine, if strictly personal preference, safeguards.

SECOND EDIT: I remember now (I seriously forgot) what this is supposed to be telling us: if the 6+ options and expectation for consistency mean we DMs are regulating what the character is "supposed to think". I don't think so, for a variety of reasons, because I care more about what the character does than what they think and because I think the door is a clearer cut game situation than a social encounter among those reasons.

Some people seem to assume that no matter how the DM tells the player the character did not find a trap that the character should assume there is no trap. That's the main issue, the DM telling the player what their character's assumption is.

There is a slightly different issue in that the player could be more cautious only in cases they roll low, if they roll high they assume there is no trap and will react differently.

My players don't suddenly become more cautious or questioning if they roll low so it's not an issue in my games. If it became obvious it was happening consistently I'd likely have an out of game conversation with them but I would still never tell a player what their character thinks no matter what they rolled for the check.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Different systems. If they want to use magic to open the door in my game, that's a spell they won't be using for something else today. If they're really paranoid about the door they'll start using divinations, burning up more spells and more time (most divination spells in my game take 5 or 10 minutes to cast). If they want to use boots or feet to open it, that takes a bit of time and generates a lot of noise (and maybe hurts a bit if things go really wrong). If they want to get fancy and try taking the door off its hinges (if possible), that also takes time and may make some noise.

Well of course if you use a completely different system with completely different abilities than I was talking about, and have PCs react in a completely different way using different tools, things will be different. But you're assuming a completely different scenario than the example, so it's really a different topic - in the example their options take basically the same time (one will take a round longer depending on where other PCs were standing during the trap search) and both use up no resources.