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

[Charlaquin]

depends some of the BEST stories and some of the MOST fun nights start with a failed roll... now some of those bests start with a lucky crit too.

Sure, and that’s why, although I would rather succeed than fail on any given action, I definitely don’t want to succeed on every action. Hence, dice.

I never see the benefit of 'not rolling' Me and afew others have gone round and round about player skill vs character skill and I just don't get it, but I am happy for you if you enjoy it.

Well the benefit of rolling is getting what you wanted without risking negative outcomes.

we DID take precautions, we searched for the trap and failed. So IN GAME we thought it was safe, even if out of game we were pretty sure it wasn't.

That’s one precaution. And, hey, if that was sufficient for you, more power to you. Like I said, I think I misinterpreted what you were saying because the description sounded like reckless character behavior to me, but I see now that you didn’t mean it that way.

again we do take precautions (we search for traps if we think they are there, we put up buffs if we think there is a fight or we are going to pick one) we just take that if our character makes a mistake it isn't the end of the world.

Of course it isn’t the end of the world. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t try to avoid it if I can.

 

[iserith]

So when someone in your game picks a lock and fails, what’s an example of the situation changing so they can’t just keep rolling? At a guess something basic like picking the lock but the pick breaking.

Sure, that's an example of progress combined with a setback.

So that’s one example but you still haven’t explained why it’s the DM’s fault when the players metagame. Your argument seems to be “stop caring and it’s not a problem.”

Not caring about how other people arrive at decisions for their characters is a huge step toward making the issue go away, sure. But not providing opportunities for it to happen can also help as I've already described.

It’s also no longer a problem that the players cheat on their rolls if I don’t care, but it doesn’t mean they’re suddenly not cheating.

That's quite a bit different than players arriving at their decisions in a particular way that you don't like. But also solved by not creating opportunities for it to happen by everyone rolling clearly in the open. You haven't said that you think "metagaming" is cheating so far as I can recall, but for those who believe it is, that's only because it violates their table rules. It's not a universal thing.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well the benefit of rolling is getting what you wanted without risking negative outcomes.

getting what you want is where I think we disagree...

right now I have 3 characters I play (I am NOT DMing for the first time since 3e came out!!) each of them have goals in the games they live in. MY GOALS, what I the player want is the same though... a fun night at the table taking on the role and a cool story when all the nights add up. So there is NO risk of ME not getting my goal (well I mean a weird TPK, but 5e that is hard to come by, or a game peetering out before there is a good stopping point but no dice rolls will stop the 2nd one) is slim to none.

If my bladesinger doesn't get his goal, or gets hit with a negative outcome, that sucks for him. However since I am roleplaying him being bummed at not getting it, and I am having fun at the table and afterwards we have a cool story, I the player GOT what I wanted.

 

[Charlaquin]

getting what you want is where I think we disagree...

right now I have 3 characters I play (I am NOT DMing for the first time since 3e came out!!) each of them have goals in the games they live in. MY GOALS, what I the player want is the same though... a fun night at the table taking on the role and a cool story when all the nights add up. So there is NO risk of ME not getting my goal (well I mean a weird TPK, but 5e that is hard to come by, or a game peetering out before there is a good stopping point but no dice rolls will stop the 2nd one) is slim to none.

If my bladesinger doesn't get his goal, or gets hit with a negative outcome, that sucks for him. However since I am roleplaying him being bummed at not getting it, and I am having fun at the table and afterwards we have a cool story, I the player GOT what I wanted.

In a big-picture sense, I agree. Sure, I’ll still have a great time if my character fails, even if they die. But in the moment-to-moment gameplay I’m going to be striving to survive and to achieve my character’s goals because I’m roleplaying them and that’s what they would do. That’s just part of immersing myself in the character.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Do you not have more fun winning than losing?

I don't think that's the point.

In my group, for example, we tend to make up reasons for the failed check; usually some non-punitive buffonery people in the old days would reserve for a natural 1 if they weren't in the mood to make the character stab themselves and explode.

I see some value lost getting rid of that in favor of obfuscating so the DM can hit them with it on a delay.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think that's the point.

In my group, for example, we tend to make up reasons for the failed check; usually some non-punitive buffonery people in the old days would reserve for a natural 1 if they weren't in the mood to make the character stab themselves and explode.

I mean, that’s just good clean fun. I see that all the time, and partake in it myself on occasion as well.

I see some value lost getting rid of that in favor of obfuscating so the DM can hit them with it on a delay.

I have no idea what you’re saying here. You do know I’m in favor of the players knowing when they succeed and when they fail, right? Obfuscating stuff is the opposite of what I’m advocating for.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I have no idea what you’re saying here. You do know I’m in favor of the players knowing when they succeed and when they fail, right? Obfuscating stuff is the opposite of what I’m advocating for.

Didn't say you did. Just commenting on the general tenor of the thread.

 

[overgeeked]

But not providing opportunities for it to happen can also help as I've already described.

Please point to specific posts with specific solutions because all I’ve seen is generalities.

 

[iserith]

Please point to specific posts with specific solutions because all I’ve seen is generalities.

Adjudicating failed checks as "progress combined with a setback" instead of nothing changing about the situation (and thus encouraging a dogpile). I've mentioned this in several posts, including my first one in the thread.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Did you read the OP, that sort of explains the problem. If that isn't a problem for you, that's cool, but for others it is.

I did. And I'm suggesting that people for whom it is a problem are projecting their expectations on other people, some of whom they happen to play with. Basically, your problems are yours, and unless other people are actively trying to make things hard for you, the most you can say is you don't belong gaming together, not that they're doing anything wrong.