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

[Bill Zebub]

This is one of the cases where I'm going to have to take the other side of this (at least to a degree), because I actually believe in social skills/tasks with teeth. But then, I'm perfectly content to have such things generally have mechanical teeth (i.e. Intimidation has a certain mechanical result) and let the player roleplay his character's reaction to suit himself. But I think social skills should exist and be at least somewhat binding whether they're going from PC to NPC or vice versa.

I know this is controversial, particularly in the D&D end of the hobby.

Yes, there are other games where this sort of thing is built in.

What I like about your response is that it acknowledges that it's simply a playstyle preference, without any vitriol about other people doing it wrong and being bad at roleplaying.

 

[Maxperson]

Do I know that goblins ride dire wolves as mounts? That dire wolves hunt in packs? Do I know what a dire wolf is? Do I know what a wolf is? Do I know what a dog is?

Do I know that red dragons breathe fire? Do I know the dragons have breath weapons? Do I know what a dragon is?

Do I know that fire and acid suppress a troll's regeneration? Do I know that trolls regenerate? Do I know that trolls eat people? Do I know what a troll is?

I'm a 1st level fighter with a hermit background and no applicable skill proficiencies. Do I know how to build a boat? Do I know how to maneuver a canoe? Do I know what a canoe is?

One roll for goblins takes care of all of the first row. You roll(assuming the outcome is in doubt) and based on that roll I inform you of what you know about goblins. Same with red dragons, trolls and boat building. There are skills for all of that and no need for multiple questions.

You will also never have to ask whether you know what a dragon or dire wolf is. When a monster appears if you know what it is due to background, common knowledge, etc., I will say, "You see a troll" or "You see a red dragon." If you don't know what it is, "I'll say you see a wolf that's at least three times the size of any wolf you have ever seen before."

You don't really want the players to ask about everything that they think might be common knowledge.

Right. One question or preferably declaration suffices.

Player: "I think back and recall everything that I know about goblins."

You're drawing a firm line between points of knowledge and world experience that can be assumed by the player and those that need DM approval, and that line is based on your personal preference and judgment.

Judgement only. I don't prefer them to know or not know. That doesn't matter to me. It only matter that the PC have the knowledge in order to use it.

And that means there is room for good-faith disagreement between DM and player (and among players themselves) about what is considered common knowledge.

I've never had disagreement, so I don't know what that's like. Probably because we all know what the PC knows for sure. All that's left is whether the knowledge is in doubt or an automatic no, and that's for me to decide not the player.

 

[iserith]

This is one of the cases where I'm going to have to take the other side of this (at least to a degree), because I actually believe in social skills/tasks with teeth. But then, I'm perfectly content to have such things generally have mechanical teeth (i.e. Intimidation has a certain mechanical result) and let the player roleplay his character's reaction to suit himself. But I think social skills should exist and be at least somewhat binding whether they're going from PC to NPC or vice versa.

I know this is controversial, particularly in the D&D end of the hobby.

That's certainly how it was in D&D 3e as I recall, where monsters and PCs had more parity. One could demoralize a foe and impose upon them the "shaken" condition with a successful Intimidate check, for example. I think it might also be true in Pathfinder, but I've only played in one adventure for PF2E so someone else will have to verify that. There's just no support for that in D&D 4e or D&D 5e. It really is a one-way street where the rules are concerned in those games.

 

[Irlo]

One roll for goblins takes care of all of the first row. You roll(assuming the outcome is in doubt) and based on that roll I inform you of what you know about goblins. Same with red dragons, trolls and boat building. There are skills for all of that and no need for multiple questions.

You will also never have to ask whether you know what a dragon or dire wolf is. When a monster appears if you know what it is due to background, common knowledge, etc., I will say, "You see a troll" or "You see a red dragon." If you don't know what it is, "I'll say you see a wolf that's at least three times the size of any wolf you have ever seen before."

Right. One question or preferably declaration suffices.

Player: "I think back and recall everything that I know about goblins."

Judgement only. I don't prefer them to know or not know. That doesn't matter to me. It only matter that the PC have the knowledge in order to use it.

I've never had disagreement, so I don't know what that's like. Probably because we all know what the PC knows for sure. All that's left is whether the knowledge is in doubt or an automatic no, and that's for me to decide not the player.

If you've ever had a player use fire bolt on a troll and objected to it on the grounds of metagaming, you might very well have had a disagreement with a player about what the PC knows about trolls.

You asked how there can be a disagreement about what falls under PC knowledge. I answered. If you really think there's no room for disagreement, only room for being right and wrong, well, I don't have more to add to the conversation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, there are other games where this sort of thing is built in.

What I like about your response is that it acknowledges that it's simply a playstyle preference, without any vitriol about other people doing it wrong and being bad at roleplaying.

I can sometimes get a little sparky about it for reasons, but its an off-topic discussion for this thread, and turns on whether you prioritize certain types being viable versus an ironclad view of who should judge effects on a character (and I freely admit my view that this shouldn't be asymmetrical is entirely my own); as with similar, but less fraught discussions of certain kinds of intellectual tasks within games I don't think its an entirely taste issue, but that's a rabbit-hole this thread doesn't need.

 

[Oofta]

Somehow the meaning of my words seems to have gone right past you.

If there is agreement about the rules then everybody should abide by it. Period. And, if so, there's no debate, right?

But there's no default social contract against the kind of play you are describing. (Is it possible you think there is? That all players should just know they can't use player information, without it being clearly explained at the beginning of play?)

And we're debating what happens when those two viewpoints collide. Those on one side have described players who don't agree as "adversarial", "cheaters", etc. And I am describing how, from the perspective of those players (not as objective fact) the opposing DM will seem controlling and uptight.

Apologies if I misread but I would hope that we can agree that metagaming preferences, along with other social contract issues, should be openly discussed as a group. Personally I think that while the DM should always listen to the feedback of players but should be the one to make the final call on what's allowed.

Obviously some players will be jerks and not agree with established norms. I call them "ex players" in my game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's certainly how it was in D&D 3e as I recall, where monsters and PCs had more parity. One could demoralize a foe and impose upon them the "shaken" condition with a successful Intimidate check, for example. I think it might also be true in Pathfinder, but I've only played in one adventure for PF2E so someone else will have to verify that. There's just no support for that in D&D 4e or D&D 5e. It really is a one-way street where the rules are concerned in those games.

You're correct on both your former counts (D&D3e, PF1e and 2e). And as I noted above, this being asymmetrical is not uncommon in games, but I'll just say I'm not a fan and leave it at that.

 

[Maxperson]

So, is it your assertion that the DM and player will always be in agreement about what the character knows?

Pretty much. We both know completely what the player has encountered or heard during game play. So complete agreement there. We both know what his roleplay has consistently been like, so complete agreement there. We both know what his skills are, and that's entirely my call anyway, so complete agreement there. That leaves only background and it's crystal clear what he's put into his background and which background he's chosen for his PC, so no disagreement there.

Common knowledge? The player doesn't get to determine what is or is not common knowledge, so we can't disagree there, either.

There's no room for disagreement at all?

What's left to disagree about?

Because I thought it was established upthread that two people can read the same information and come to different conclusions. If that is true, then it seems to me the same thing can happen with regard to background, race, class, backstory, past events, etc.

Disagreeing on a rules(PHB) or guidelines(DMG) interpretation is different. 5e rules and guidelines are written vaguely/poorly just to invite such disagreement and interpretation, and they were done by a third party, not the two of us.

But even that doesn't address the fact that actions don't necessarily need prerequisite knowledge in order to be attempted. I don't need to know a troll is harmed by fire to lob a fire bolt at one. Or throw alchemist's fire on it. Or it hit with a torch. Those things can happen whether someone knows a troll is vulnerable to fire or not.

Sure, but the only reason to go straight to one of those methods when the PC doesn't know about it is the player trying to bring in OOC knowledge in order to gain unfair advantage. He may try and sugar coat it with a weak justification like, "He just felt like using firebolt for the first time," but that's not going to cut it. If had any sort of valid reason to do it, it would be covered by prior roleplay, skills, prior game play or background.

In my game bringing in OOC knowledge is cheating and the player knew about and agreed to that before he joined the game, so he does in fact need the prerequisite knowledge.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You're correct on both your former counts (D&D3e, PF1e and 2e). And as I noted above, this being asymmetrical is not uncommon in games, but I'll just say I'm not a fan and leave it at that.

I know you said "leave it" but can I engage you on this 'asymmetrical' thing?

If the person who controls a character declares an attempt to manipulate another character, and the person who controls the target character adjudicates the outcome, first by deciding whether or not it succeeds, and then if they aren't sure by setting a DC and asking for a roll, then we do have symmetry. In the case of PC acting on NPC, it's the DM who adjudicates using those steps. In the case of an NPC acting on a PC it's the player who adjudicates. It's perfectly symmetrical.

When it becomes asymmetrical is when it's the DM who adjudicates regardless of whether they are initiating the attempt or on the receiving end of it.

Thoughts?

EDIT: That doesn't mean that somebody's personal preference about how to handle these things couldn't require asymmetrical rules. That's valid. I'm just debating which version is truly symmetrical.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So social skills on monsters in the PHB dont actually do anything?

Would your position be different if the Intimidate skill expressly granted the Frightened condition on a DC 15, instead of requiring the PC to simply act scared?

Would you allow it to be used vs the PC then?

If so, what is the difference between the two examples? How on earth are they in any way consistent?

me and he have gone round and round on this, I have rule verbage and he has rule verbage that supports but he wont even admit I could be reading the rules