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

[pemerton]

I find the easiest way to handle PvP is to just tell players that it's not allowed. If a PC attacks another PC, the attacking player immediately becomes an NPC (after reminding the player of the rule of course).

<snip>

But I don't see how this has any connection to metagaming

Here's the connection that I see: the only way a player can follow the no PvP rule is by metagaming. Because if they rely only on in-character knowledge, they can't know the real-world fact about which game participant has ownership of which element of the fiction.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Also a bit like someone who really likes grapefruit juice deciding, more-or-less arbitrarily, that nothing else counts as juice, or even as a beverage. That all the people out there drinking orange juice, or creaming soda, or whatever, aren't really drinking at all.

It's pretty bizarre.

yeah I get pretty annoyed at the "that isn't real RP" argument that either directly or inderectly gets made here all the time

 

[Bill Zebub]

that is correct... by ban I mean we all just don't... if for some reason someone forgot we would all talk about it (as equals)

And, if that occurs, maybe one of them also reads this forum and will say, "Hey, instead of just saying 'never' I heard about this idea..."

I hope so. It's a really fun solution.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Here's the connection that I see: the only way a player can follow the no PvP rule is by metagaming. Because if they rely only on in-character knowledge, they can't know the real-world fact about which game participant has ownership of which element of the fiction.

this comes down to the idea I found back in 3e when a player says "That is what my character would do" answer with "You made the character, so either make another one or find a way to have this one DO something else."

To be clear, I ask the metagaming be minimized... but I don't think that there is never a reason to metagame.

 

[Oofta]

The commonality is that both are versions of telling players "You may not declare that action." Which some of us believe are not part of 5e.

Well there are some actions they can't declare, or at least that are meaningless. They can't jump over the moon. Go ahead and try, nothing happens. Whether it's "part of 5E" is where I disagree ... it is and always has been part of the social contract at the table.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And, if that occurs, maybe one of them also reads this forum and will say, "Hey, instead of just saying 'never' I heard about this idea..."

I hope so. It's a really fun solution.

I doubt it... 3/4 the group doesn't talk gaming online, and the 2 players who used to be on here left due to edition waring

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well there are some actions they can't declare, or at least that are meaningless. They can't jump over the moon. Go ahead and try, nothing happens. Whether it's "part of 5E" is where I disagree ... it is and always has been part of the social contract at the table.

That's exactly the example @Lanefan was using. If the player declares "I jump over the moon", instead of saying, "You can't do that" you just narrate "You get a good 23 inches off the ground before gravity pulls you back down." See? Nobody said, "Your character wouldn't do that" or "That action is not allowed."

@iserith's approach to pvp is similar.

P.S. There is a difference between "actions they can't declare" and "actions that are meaningless." The latter just means it doesn't change the game state in a meaningful way. The former means there is somebody at the table who gets to tell you what actions you are allowed to declare. Huge distinction.

 

[Oofta]

Here's the connection that I see: the only way a player can follow the no PvP rule is by metagaming. Because if they rely only on in-character knowledge, they can't know the real-world fact about which game participant has ownership of which element of the fiction.

I would assume that most tables have certain metagame rules about PC behavior. At my table one is no evil PCs. Others might include something like don't be a complete misogynistic jerk just because "that's what your character would do" and similar.

 

[Oofta]

That's exactly the example @Lanefan was using. If the player declares "I jump over the moon", instead of saying, "You can't do that" you just narrate "You get a good 23 inches off the ground before gravity pulls you back down." See? Nobody said, "Your character wouldn't do that" or "That action is not allowed."

@iserith's approach to pvp is similar.

P.S. There is a difference between "actions they can't declare" and "actions that are meaningless." The latter just means it doesn't change the game state in a meaningful way. The former means there is somebody at the table who gets to tell you what actions you are allowed to declare. Huge distinction.

I guess I wouldn't bother narrating something the character and player know is impossible. I don't see the point and if a player insists we'll have a chat about why they're attempting something impossible and how I run a relatively serious game.

This is different from trying to lift MCU Thor's hammer* which, while impossible, is something the character and player do not know is impossible.

*We all know no murder-hobo PC is going to be "worthy"

 

[Bill Zebub]

I guess I wouldn't bother narrating something the character and player know is impossible. I don't see the point and if a player insists we'll have a chat about why they're attempting something impossible and how I run a relatively serious game.

Ok, but you are being squirrely here. You just used that example, and when I tried to distinguish between the two approaches, you shifted to "having a talk with them about their behavior." You've changed it from a discussion about meaningless actions and disallowed actions into a discussion about problem players.