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

[bsss]

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.

Well, that's the trick. The DM shouldn't tell the player what their character's cognitive assumption is, but also, I think the DM would also like meta-information to keep from "bleeding in" to the game and influencing something that was left to the dice. I think it's reasonable to feel that the game's die rolls and in-game information --- specifically constrained by the agreement I assert must exist for play to proceed, as above --- should not be influenced by out-of-game table tells.

This looks a lot like a belief that in-game, the information given to the player that the character did not find a trap should mean that the character acts accordingly to having received the information that they did not find a trap, regardless of how the DM told the player, because the character actually did receive the same information --- no traps found --- in the 6+ options.

"Accordingly" is admittedly troublesome, especially because every "door" is different. I think the DM that cares about avoiding metagaming attempts to construct (rather than your trust/conversation approach) an environment where the out-of-character information can't "bleed in" to the character. I don't do that in a particularly heavy-handed way because I, like you, generally don't see this problem with my players, and that if they do it, it's low-incidence and not a big deal to me --- "accordingly" has come via observation and trust, so like you it's not an issue and if it ever became one, I'd handle it outside of the game.

But, there is a logic to expecting in some way that die results are from a gameplay perspective indicative of further in-game action, or at least that using out-of-game information is undesirable. Lanefan's enforcement makes a more black box situation where the player can't know what they rolled (aside from maybe the player being able to read Lanefan's other tells (assuming they exist)), and I think he feels in some way that such information would taint the game. For example:

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

And so the player is more strongly bound to the results of the roll because all they know is what Lanefan tells them. From there, Lanefan is content to allow the players to have their characters proceed in a number of ways --- he is not asserting dominance over the PC.

Lanefan's solution is not what some of us would do, but it's also probably more agreeable than a "no, you can't do that, you have no evidence that the door is trapped" assertion. However, they both come from the same place --- avoid the OOC information from becoming IC action, because it corrupts the gameplay in some way.

I think the roll in the open approaches are interesting, because they kind of say "here's control over the game, roll the dice, but I trust you to not let the results 'bleed in'", and I think that's a good attempt at playing an agreeable game with a lighter hand. But, it comes along --- with a DM suspecting metagaming, anyway --- with more need to assess that trust by understanding how every "door" is different and if the difference in "according" actions is rational or random or abusing the advantage. It's when that the advantage seems abused when our trust model breaks down, and people take the Lanefan approach or the "the dice decide" approach.

Now I've of course spent a lot of time talking about trust and agreement, so putting aside the case there where there's no problem to worry about, the Lanefan and "the dice decide" approaches are not, I think, coming from a position of the DM "wanting to play the player's PC" or anything like that, but just wanting to maintain a sort of firewall between the OOC and the IC. And that part, specifically, I completely get. That if the players want to be trusted (i.e. they don't want to be in an environment where Lanefan rolls their checks for them, because they can't be trusted), they also have to trust the DM is doing something other than trying to take control when they call for checks and rolls and have an expectation of the outcomes. This is, notably, something where D&D's opinion and attitude has shifted over the years.

 

[AlViking]

Well, that's the trick. The DM shouldn't tell the player what their character's cognitive assumption is, but also, I think the DM would also like meta-information to keep from "bleeding in" to the game and influencing something that was left to the dice. I think it's reasonable to feel that the game's die rolls and in-game information --- specifically constrained by the agreement I assert must exist for play to proceed, as above --- should not be influenced by out-of-game table tells.

This looks a lot like a belief that in-game, the information given to the player that the character did not find a trap should mean that the character acts accordingly to having received the information that they did not find a trap, regardless of how the DM told the player, because the character actually did receive the same information --- no traps found --- in the 6+ options.

"Accordingly" is admittedly troublesome, especially because every "door" is different. I think the DM that cares about avoiding metagaming attempts to construct (rather than your trust/conversation approach) an environment where the out-of-character information can't "bleed in" to the character. I don't do that in a particularly heavy-handed way because I, like you, generally don't see this problem with my players, and that if they do it, it's low-incidence and not a big deal to me --- "accordingly" has come via observation and trust, so like you it's not an issue and if it ever became one, I'd handle it outside of the game.

But, there is a logic to expecting in some way that die results are from a gameplay perspective indicative of further in-game action, or at least that using out-of-game information is undesirable. Lanefan's enforcement makes a more black box situation where the player can't know what they rolled (aside from maybe the player being able to read Lanefan's other tells (assuming they exist)), and I think he feels in some way that such information would taint the game. For example:

And so the player is more strongly bound to the results of the roll because all they know is what Lanefan tells them. From there, Lanefan is content to allow the players to have their characters proceed in a number of ways --- he is not asserting dominance over the PC.

Lanefan's solution is not what some of us would do, but it's also probably more agreeable than a "no, you can't do that, you have no evidence that the door is trapped" assertion. However, they both come from the same place --- avoid the OOC information from becoming IC action, because it corrupts the gameplay in some way.

I think the roll in the open approaches are interesting, because they kind of say "here's control over the game, roll the dice, but I trust you to not let the results 'bleed in'", and I think that's a good attempt at playing an agreeable game with a lighter hand. But, it comes along --- with a DM suspecting metagaming, anyway --- with more need to assess that trust by understanding how every "door" is different and if the difference in "according" actions is rational or random or abusing the advantage. It's when that the advantage seems abused when our trust model breaks down, and people take the Lanefan approach or the "the dice decide" approach.

Now I've of course spent a lot of time talking about trust and agreement, so putting aside the case there where there's no problem to worry about, the Lanefan and "the dice decide" approaches are not, I think, coming from a position of the DM "wanting to play the player's PC" or anything like that, but just wanting to maintain a sort of firewall between the OOC and the IC. And that part, specifically, I completely get. That if the players want to be trusted (i.e. they don't want to be in an environment where Lanefan rolls their checks for them, because they can't be trusted), they also have to trust the DM is doing something other than trying to take control when they call for checks and rolls and have an expectation of the outcomes. This is, notably, something where D&D's opinion and attitude has shifted over the years.

If you're seriously concerned about the players using information gathered from the number rolled on the D20 influencing their decisions roll for them. Personally I'd rather trust my players and if it ever became an issue have a chat with them. I find directly discussing the issues with the players (or the DM if I'm playing) that come up on this forum is the best solution.

I don't have a huge issue with it unless it becomes an issue because I know that sometimes I attempt to do something and realize I didn't do a great job. I don't see why characters in the game couldn't do the same.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yeah. It's another example of where 5.5e went wrong. The druid should become a beast, elemental, dragon or whatever. Instead, the druid stays a humanoid while assuming the form of the beast or elemental, which is different from turning into a beast or elemental. They should have just left it alone instead of changing it.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

How the PCs react and what tools they bring to bear is up to the players; and I think that would be true regardless of edition.

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.

I'm assuming the same scenario as everyone else: a door where after a check it's still uncertain (in the characters' view) whether or not it's trapped. What do they do next?

And sure, 5e makes things easy with what amounts to at-will Knock effects. It's bad that way. Doesn't deny all the other possible approaches I noted, though.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

How the PCs react and what tools they bring to bear is up to the players; and I think that would be true regardless of edition.

I'm assuming the same scenario as everyone else: a door where after a check it's still uncertain (in the characters' view) whether or not it's trapped. What do they do next?

And sure, 5e makes things easy with what amounts to at-will Knock effects. It's bad that way. Doesn't deny all the other possible approaches I noted, though.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

How the PCs react and what tools they bring to bear is up to the players; and I think that would be true regardless of edition.

I'm assuming the same scenario as everyone else: a door where after a check it's still uncertain (in the characters' view) whether or not it's trapped. What do they do next?

You're not assuming the same scenario I did. In the scenario I specified, the PCs are only doing things that take no significant time (deciding whether to cluster around the door or spread out) and use no resources (using mage hand or thaumaturgy if possible). While you're talking about them using up spell slots, other limited use abilities, or spending significant amounts of time. And in my scenario what people objected to was 'roll, find no trap, continue to be cautious in a way that uses no extra time or resources' which is the opposite of your complaint that the PC might roll high and decide not to be cautious. It gets confusing because people keep trying to warp the scenario around, apparently out of a desire to have someone they can castigate for metagaming for advantage.

In my scenario but with your reaction, the PCs choosing to not be cautious at the door because of a high roll don't gain any advantage. If the door isn't trapped, then them approaching cautiously or not is irrelevant, if it is trapped (and their roll wasn't enough or their search wasn't the right thing to find the trap or the trap wasn't findable), then them not being cautious is a disadvantage.

That's why all of this hand wringing into metagaming accusations leading into the need for a recorded SOP with extensive justifications for any deviations is so mind boggling to me. In my scenario, they're just playing cautiously like you say they should anyway. With your reaction but my conditions, they're deciding to do something that is either neutral or disadvantageous. Why spend any effort, much less this much effort, worrying about whether they're metagaming, or got bored being cautious, or have a reason to be less cautious, or whatever. It's just such an inconsequential thing to even care about, and either has no effect or gives the PCs a penalty.

And sure, 5e makes things easy with what amounts to at-will Knock effects. It's bad that way. Doesn't deny all the other possible approaches I noted, though.

There is nothing remotely like an at-will knock effect in 5e or 5.5. Mage hand lets you move things up to 5 pounds, thaumaturgy causes an unlocked door or window to fly open or shut. Neither gets through locked doors (which is the primary use for knock) and neither works on everything that might colloquially be called a door in a dungeon. Note that in my initial example I said 'if possible', since there are a lot of 'doors' that mage hand won't open due to the weight limit, and thaumaturgy is similarly limited by what qualifies as a 'door' (typically people rule that it will open and close a normal door with hinges and a latch or knob, but not doors that open through more complicated devices or that function like a portlicus).

 

[tetrasodium]

You're not assuming the same scenario I did. In the scenario I specified, the PCs are only doing things that take no significant time (deciding whether to cluster around the door or spread out) and use no resources (using mage hand or thaumaturgy if possible). While you're talking about them using up spell slots, other limited use abilities, or spending significant amounts of time. And in my scenario what people objected to was 'roll, find no trap, continue to be cautious in a way that uses no extra time or resources' which is the opposite of your complaint that the PC might roll high and decide not to be cautious. It gets confusing because people keep trying to warp the scenario around, apparently out of a desire to have someone they can castigate for metagaming for advantage.

In my scenario but with your reaction, the PCs choosing to not be cautious at the door because of a high roll don't gain any advantage. If the door isn't trapped, then them approaching cautiously or not is irrelevant, if it is trapped (and their roll wasn't enough or their search wasn't the right thing to find the trap or the trap wasn't findable), then them not being cautious is a disadvantage.

That's why all of this hand wringing into metagaming accusations leading into the need for a recorded SOP with extensive justifications for any deviations is so mind boggling to me. In my scenario, they're just playing cautiously like you say they should anyway. With your reaction but my conditions, they're deciding to do something that is either neutral or disadvantageous. Why spend any effort, much less this much effort, worrying about whether they're metagaming, or got bored being cautious, or have a reason to be less cautious, or whatever. It's just such an inconsequential thing to even care about, and either has no effect or gives the PCs a penalty.

There is nothing remotely like an at-will knock effect in 5e or 5.5. Mage hand lets you move things up to 5 pounds, thaumaturgy causes an unlocked door or window to fly open or shut. Neither gets through locked doors (which is the primary use for knock) and neither works on everything that might colloquially be called a door in a dungeon. Note that in my initial example I said 'if possible', since there are a lot of 'doors' that mage hand won't open due to the weight limit, and thaumaturgy is similarly limited by what qualifies as a 'door' (typically people rule that it will open and close a normal door with hinges and a latch or knob, but not doors that open through more complicated devices or that function like a portlicus).

That is almost certainly because @Lanefan is almost certainly using the original scenario where the players waste a bunch of table time spotlight hogging as a result of metagaming off the observed roll while your "scenario" is an effort to avoid admitting there is a line of reasonableness that would obviously be getting crossed in order to defend the "PlAyErS dEcIdE wHaT tHeIr Pc ThInKs" absolute. That's a distinction that keeps getting tossed aside in order to defend an abhorrent absolute for dozens of pages.

You may not have been the one to change it, but the thread is on page 159, there's no question that it's a "there is a line" vrs an absolute

 

[Remathilis]

That's why all of this hand wringing into metagaming accusations leading into the need for a recorded SOP with extensive justifications for any deviations is so mind boggling to me. In my scenario, they're just playing cautiously like you say they should anyway. With your reaction but my conditions, they're deciding to do something that is either neutral or disadvantageous. Why spend any effort, much less this much effort, worrying about whether they're metagaming, or got bored being cautious, or have a reason to be less cautious, or whatever. It's just such an inconsequential thing to even care about, and either has no effect or gives the PCs a penalty.

I feel a lot of this procedural argument is mostly about springing "gotchas" on players who do not specify the exact precautions being taken at all times.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

It's magic.

Seriously how does a sword of elf-slaying tell the difference between an elf and a human (humans are close enough to interbreed with elves), a dwarf, a gnome, or a tiefling? I actually consider the most plausible option here being to look at the soul not the body.

If you polymorph you change your body but not your soul. So a sword of elf-slaying could easily consider you an elf.

On the other hand if we're looking at the macro-categories like Humanoid, Construct, or Elemental those are much more likely to trigger based on biology. So I might rule that a polymorphed elven wizard is vulnerable to a sword of elf-slaying (because elf soul) and of elemental bane but not of humanoid-killing.

And then we get to Nystul's Magic Aura and wizards who show up as oozes.

 

[Flying Toaster]

I feel a lot of this procedural argument is mostly about springing "gotchas" on players who do not specify the exact precautions being taken at all times.

If this is the case, it would resemble the kind of “Simon Says” routines that some Viking hat DMs used to use against players working their way through puzzle dungeons full of traps, magic pools, and other weird hazards. Which seems ironic to me as I doubt that those DMs had ever even heard of metagaming, or would have cared about it at all if someone had explained it to them. Those kinds of DMs seem to have been much more concerned with keeping players on their toes than with making sure that they really inhabited their roles the way an actor might.

I started playing in the mid-1980s, and I remember that even in the later 1E era there were still some DMs who were concerned about players knowing too much about the rules or about the standard monsters in the official monster books. They were probably following the DMG advice to always ride herd on the players and punish them whenever they were in-so-lent (Dr. Evil pinky finger). This may have been fine advice for running EGG’s home game full of wily, fiendishly clever veteran adult war gamers, but we found it yielded mixed results when all of the participants were callow junior high school boys.