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

[GMforPowergamers]

Which is why I keep harping on not giving players knowledge their characters don't have.

my group stopped keeping secrets in 3e. We have gone decades and editions just trusting each other to be audience cheerleader and co player. passing notes and privates 1 on 1 gaming isn't fun for us.

 

[Lanefan]

My counter point would be "if you want to go scouting can the rest of us at least watch, since you are doing it, instead of pausing our group activity for you to have a private 1 on 1 activity with the DM?"

No, because if you watch you'll get info your characters don't have. Enjoy your beer, I'll be back soon.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No, because if you watch you'll get info your characters don't have. Enjoy your beer, I'll be back soon.

we don't do alcohol either most of the time... and if you did this any amount of times I would just walk. I only get a few hours of RP in I am not wasting it while you play solitaire.

 

[Lanefan]

my group stopped keeping secrets in 3e. We have gone decades and editions just trusting each other to be audience cheerleader and co player. passing notes and privates 1 on 1 gaming isn't fun for us.

As players we all get along fine, as much as any typical group of friends get along over the long haul.

As characters, though, we're often all about the secrets and subterfuge and suchlike, depending on the situation.

 

[Lanefan]

we don't do alcohol either most of the time... and if you did this any amount of times I would just walk. I only get a few hours of RP in I am not wasting it while you play solitaire.

I see it differently. If you're the one off scouting and I'm waiting around with the rest, it's my chance to chat out-of-game with my friends* and knock back a beer if I want. There's always next session to get back into character.

* - except in online play, which is one of numerous reasons why I so dislike it.

 

[Charlaquin]

If it's what the characters would do, it's what gets done.

Regardless of group, if I'm playing the sneaky scouty type and the clunkies insist on following me every time I try to scout ahead for them, there's gonna be some in-character yelling once stealth is no longer required.

Right, so that’s one of the things it tells about your playstyle. But also there’s a whole ton of unspoken assumptions underlying the whole situation, which might not hold true in other people’s campaigns. For example, for this to be very common, it must be typical to have groups with a mix of stealthy characters and non-stealthy characters. Also, being in places where there would be need to scout in multiple directions must be common. I could go on.

 

[overgeeked]

Exactly! Which is why I keep harping on not giving players knowledge their characters don't have.

Nuke it from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

 

[HammerMan]

my group stopped keeping secrets in 3e. We have gone decades and editions just trusting each other to be audience cheerleader and co player. passing notes and privates 1 on 1 gaming isn't fun for us.

Yeah that is how our tables run too. If you feel the need to keep secrets you must not trust your friends very much

As characters, though, we're often all about the secrets and subterfuge and suchlike, depending on the situation.

We do this too. In fact we play Vampire this way with groups actively working against each other. We still see no reason to take the group to notes or other rooms.

If my CHARACTER is hiding something that doesn’t me I have to

 

[Lanefan]

Right, so that’s one of the things it tells about your playstyle. But also there’s a whole ton of unspoken assumptions underlying the whole situation, which might not hold true in other people’s campaigns. For example, for this to be very common, it must be typical to have groups with a mix of stealthy characters and non-stealthy characters.

I would think this sort of mix is nigh-universal. The stereotypical party of four has one sneak (a Rogue-type), one quiet person without sneaking skills (a Wizard-type), one probably-armoured person who can't sneak well (a Cleric-type) and one certainly-armoured person who can't sneak worth a damn (a Fighter-type). Rare would be the party of all sneaks and rarer yet would be the party with none.

Also, being in places where there would be need to scout in multiple directions must be common.

Not multiple directions, or not often anyway. Just one direction - usually ahead - while the non-sneaks stay back.

Of course, if a group generally eschews caution of any kind in favour of face-charging everything, these concerns all become irrelevant. I've played in and DMed those parties too.

I could go on.

 

[Charlaquin]

OK, fair point. Improv acting is a better analogy, but that doesn't have a script (usually).

And part of improv acting is “yes, and.” I don’t know if you’ve ever tried improv, but stopping a scene to say, “wait, no, your character wouldn’t do that” would not go over well in that context.

Exactly! Which is why I keep harping on not giving players knowledge their characters don't have.

That’s certainly the only recourse that would actually work to prevent metagaming. There are a lot of problems with this though, not the least of which is how you do you decide if a character knows something or not. In some cases it might be obvious, but in many cases it isn’t. And your mileage may vary, but my experience has been that seriously attempting to prevent it made the gameplay experience miserable for everyone involved.