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

[GMforPowergamers]

If you truly can't see the difference then I'm not sure what to say.

the ONLY difference I see is the step where if I try I auto fail so there is no reason to try...

it would be more like if instead of me saying "You can't use fire" (not what I would say but as example) if I said "If yo metagame to fire you will just not deal damage, due to auto miss"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My argument is that disagreements can exist and only do exist because of the table's self-imposed stance over "metagaming."

disagreements end if you talk it out like adults.

Setting aside that stance means no possibility of disagreement over whether an action declaration is valid. You can try to do whatever you want. You may succeed, fail, succeed with a setback or complication, etc. as normal.

 

[iserith]

just knock it off this is such a stupid argument... rolling low is way diffrent from no roll

In both cases the result is failure in this example. The DM is tasked with determining for all action declarations if a check of some kind is appropriate. This is just the normal process of play. Sometimes things fail outright. Sometimes they have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure so the DM calls for a roll.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The one and only time I've actually used @iserith's approach to resolve pvp (I was DMing high school kids and one of them was disruptive) they did in fact narrate getting hit and taking damage.

Sooo........

soo... what does this mean?

 

[Maxperson]

If someone always does eldritch blast as their cantrip of choice and they use firebolt the first round against that troll, yeah I'd question it. Fortunately my players are reasonable nowadays and do their best to not metagame. It makes life easier.

Yeah. My players don't try and exploit things for personal gain, either. We all went beyond that a long time ago.

 

[Bill Zebub]

soo... what does this mean?

That you are incorrect that letting the target decide the outcome is an automatic miss and therefore the same thing as not being allowed to try.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In both cases the result is failure in this example. The DM is tasked with determining for all action declarations if a check of some kind is appropriate. This is just the normal process of play. Sometimes things fail outright. Sometimes they have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure so the DM calls for a roll.

this is nonsense and I am not responding because you and I will just fill 10 pages then get the thread locked... We disagree, you think it is different, I think it is just more complex way of doing the same.

 

[iserith]

the ONLY difference I see is the step where if I try I auto fail so there is no reason to try...

it would be more like if instead of me saying "You can't use fire" (not what I would say but as example) if I said "If yo metagame to fire you will just not deal damage, due to auto miss"

Determining the result and narrating it is within the DM's role. Determining what the player can attempt to do in the first place is not.

disagreements end if you talk it out like adults.

Sometimes they do. But as I mention upthread, the DM has all the power here if they are the one who determines if the player is acting in bad faith and must be uninvited from future games. That's a strong incentive to defer to the DM, even if you disagree.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That you are incorrect that letting the target decide the outcome is an automatic miss and therefore the same thing as not being allowed to try.

I am not spending pages going around with you, we have to agree to disagree

 

[iserith]

this is nonsense and I am not responding because you and I will just fill 10 pages then get the thread locked... We disagree, you think it is different, I think it is just more complex way of doing the same.

If you think it's nonsense, then you must think the rules are nonsense. That's okay, of course.