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

[Oofta]

Yes, which is why I prefer the much easier and less troublesome - don't be a jerk at the table.

Sadly, some people don't realize they're being a jerk. That guy who would open up the MM and read of pertinent stats for monsters we encountered? He was surprised when we told them it was annoying.

But it goes back to my default advice for dealing with issues. If you have a problem, just talk about it like reasonable adults and try to figure out a solution.

 

[hawkeyefan]

B doesn't exist. You act or don't act based on what your PC knows or typically does, not what the player knows.

There is no way to determine what the character would have done if the player had not known about the fire vulnerability. We cannot know.

In 38 years of playing D&D, I've never seen a new player(or an experienced player with a new and unknown monster) randomly switch from their regular attack to some other attack that just happens to be the one the creature is vulnerable to. I'm okay with the super, duper, extremely looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong odds of this circumstance happening.

I was talking about the character. Would you agree that it is possible that the character may, through luck or a guess, use fire immediately upon facing a troll? Is that something that could happen? I would think that we can agree, yes, this is conceivable.

Not allowing the character to do that is limiting the possibilities. And what is the source of this limitation?

The fact that the player knows.

So the actions that are allowed are limited based on player knowledge.

Okay. So the once in a gazillion times that the above happens, it's my fault.

The rest of the time it works out nicely and there's no fault or metagaming to be had.

If you build an encounter that relies on the players pretending to not know something they know, then yes, that's the GM's fault.

This is the point about the desire to prevent metagaming instead works to highlight it. If that's the crux of the challenge... here are some trolls, but you better pretend not to know about them or else... that's a poorly designed encounter.

 

[Maxperson]

In a game where the DM was REALLY concerned about metagaming, I'd NEVER play a swiss army knife type mage. I'd be too concerned that my own knowledge would get into my decisions all of the time - or that my decision to NOT act on my knowledge was overcompensating and hurting the group somehow. And I certainly wouldn't want to have to justify decisions to the DM all the time, yuck.

You don't have to play in a vacuum, though. If you aren't sure if your PC would know something, go to your skills and background. Maybe the DM will be like, yes you know or maybe you'll have to roll because the outcome is in doubt.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not saying your standard is a bad one, and sometimes depending on the trap and circumstances I do similar things. I'm saying that I don't feel that it's always necessary to telegraph traps. Sometimes the king wears down the stones that are not stepped on to keep them looking the same, or cleans the shiny stone, making it blend in again. People are smart enough to keep traps hidden. It's when the traps are not maintained, or maintained sloppily that telegraphing is warranted.

Yeah, different people have different preferences here, and I’m also not saying people who have a different standard for traps than I do are wrong, by any means. It’s just that for me, if I think the narrative that this king wore down the stones to keep them looking the same could lead to a player walking into a trap that they perceive as being unfair, I’d rather choose a different narrative.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sadly, some people don't realize they're being a jerk. That guy who would open up the MM and read of pertinent stats for monsters we encountered? He was surprised when we told them it was annoying.

In fact, I would posit that people almost never realize they’re being jerks.

But it goes back to my default advice for dealing with issues. If you have a problem, just talk about it like reasonable adults and try to figure out a solution.

Hear, hear!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Saying that every D&D player who faces a troll a second time is metagaming makes the word meaningless IMHO.

Pretty much, yes!

 

[Maxperson]

I was talking about the character. Would you agree that it is possible that the character may, through luck or a guess, use fire immediately upon facing a troll? Is that something that could happen? I would think that we can agree, yes, this is conceivable.

Sure, and it's conceivable that I can win the lottery tonight.

I've just never seen the situation you are describing happen in 38 years of consistent D&D play, so I'm good with the long odds on it not happening. Just like I drive my car without worrying about a fatal accident, or walk outside my door without worrying about being hit by lightning.

Not allowing the character to do that is limiting the possibilities. And what is the source of this limitation?

Rationality. It's not rational for me to believe that I'm going to be hit by lightning walking out of my door, get into a fatal crash whenever I get into my car or win the lottery.

So the actions that are allowed are limited based on player knowledge.

Not really. Super corner case scenarios like the one you are painting don't change anything.

 

[Mort]

Sadly, some people don't realize they're being a jerk. That guy who would open up the MM and read of pertinent stats for monsters we encountered? He was surprised when we told them it was annoying.

I wonder how that player would react to encountering a monster that looked like one from the MM but didn't quite conform.

I had a player once who actually got mad at me when the group encountered a monster they THOUGHT they knew the stats of - but they didn't. The player was absolutely livid and actually screamed that I was presenting the monster wrong.

But it goes back to my default advice for dealing with issues. If you have a problem, just talk about it like reasonable adults and try to figure out a solution.

Yes, speaking to each other and figuring out a solution is generally the way to go. Even if, sometimes, the solution is you're not a fit for each other's table (hopefully a rare outcome).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Hey @CreamCloud0, see what you started!?! (j/k)

Are you still following any of this? I feel my head spinning people seem to be talking in circles so much. Oh well...

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure, and it's conceivable that I can win the lottery tonight.

I've just never seen the situation you are describing happen in 38 years of consistent D&D play, so I'm good with the long odds on it not happening. Just like I drive my car without worrying about a fatal accident, or walk outside my door without worrying about being hit by lightning.

Rationality. It's not rational for me to believe that I'm going to be hit by lightning walking out of my door, get into a fatal crash whenever I get into my car or win the lottery.

Not really. Super corner case scenarios like the one you are painting don't change anything.

It's not a super corner case. It's every instance of metagaming. We can never say what a character "would" have done if the player didn't know something they do know. It can't happen.

 

[Mort]

Hey @CreamCloud0, see what you started!?! (j/k)

Are you still following any of this? I feel my head spinning people seem to be talking in circles so much. Oh well...

Actually, considering the topic is one of profound and fundamental disagreement,

I think people are keeping things civil and talking to each other pretty well. I certainly have a clearer understanding of many people's perspectives and positions.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hey @CreamCloud0, see what you started!?! (j/k)

Are you still following any of this? I feel my head spinning people seem to be talking in circles so much. Oh well...

The question touches on the interplay between player knowledge and character knowledge, which is a subject that people tend to have very strong opinions about.

 

[Redneckomancer]

Trouble is, for a lot of people, the act of metagaming means they’re not playing in good faith. Good faith RPGing means to act in character and make decisions based on in-character knowledge. To do otherwise is playing in bad faith.

By good faith I mean "not intentionally ruining the game for everyone else". If any metagaming at all ruins the game for you, and they know that, then yeah they're playing in bad faith.
I also just think never metagaming is kind of an impossible standard and as a DM I just let it go if you decide you don't want to sneak anymore because you saw you rolled a 2. But as a DM I try to do a lot of things to mitigate the opportunity for metagaming like that anyway (for example, only asking for a stealth check when its immediately apparent you could be caught instead of rolling as soon as the action is declared). So mostly I only care if the actions the player takes are in themselves disruptive, regardless of if its metagame or in game or whatever.
Does a player smoking a monster in one round because they know it's weakness from Out Of Character Knowledge disrupt the game? For me, no, not any more than if they got a lucky crit and did the same thing. Good show lads, here's your XP and loot lets move on.
Does blurting out a plot twist spoiler they only know because of OOC knowledge disrupt the game? Maybe. Knowing the Vizier is Evil and proving to the consulate that the Vizier is Evil are two different things entirely. If another player has a special little twist they wanted to reveal and you OOC spoil their twist becuase you peeked their character sheet or something, well yes that's disruptive because you're being a jerk to that player. Being a jerk to another player, reguardless of if its metagame or 'perfectly verismilitudinous true scotsman role-not-roll-playing' is still beinga jerk and is disruptive.
That's what I'm trying to get at, it doesn't matter if you metagame or not as long as you aren't a disruptive jerk harshing the vibes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think it is terribly fruitful to try to ruleslawyer hypothetical metagaming scenarios. What in reality is expected is for players to try in good faith act like fictional people that are different person than the player and do not know everything the player knows. And in my experience players will do just that, no problem. And if one is unsure whether their character knows something, they can always ask the GM. Also, knowledge skills exist for a reason.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not a super corner case. It's every instance of metagaming.

It's not even close to every instance of metagaming.

We can never say what a character "would" have done if the player didn't know something they do know. It can't happen.

I do it all the time. I just look at what he does know and act only on that. I've been in enough different D&D situations to know how I would act under similar circumstances where I don't know something.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think it is terribly fruitful to try to ruleslawyer hypothetical metagaming scenarios. What in reality is expected is for players to try in good faith act like fictional people that are different person than the player and do not know everything the player knows. And in my experience players will do just that, no problem. And if one is unsure whether their character knows something, they can always ask the GM. Also, knowledge skills exist for a reason.

The point of litigating those scenarios is to illustrate that players use OOC information all the time in their decision-making, especially when trying to avoid playing their characters in a way that might be perceived as metagaming. So, clearly the issue is not utilizing OOC information, but rather taking actions that might be perceived as unrealistic for your character to take based on available IC information. And I think it’s understandable some of us wouldn’t be super comfortable with that, as it requires playing around other people’s perceptions of what your character knows and what would be realistic for them to do as a result.

 

[overgeeked]

By good faith I mean "not intentionally ruining the game for everyone else". If any metagaming at all ruins the game for you, and they know that, then yeah they're playing in bad faith.

Exactly.

I also just think never metagaming is kind of an impossible standard and as a DM I just let it go if you decide you don't want to sneak anymore because you saw you rolled a 2. But as a DM I try to do a lot of things to mitigate the opportunity for metagaming like that anyway (for example, only asking for a stealth check when its immediately apparent you could be caught instead of rolling as soon as the action is declared). So mostly I only care if the actions the player takes are in themselves disruptive, regardless of if its metagame or in game or whatever.

To me it’s indicative of an adversarial mindset on the part of the player. A need to win at any cost. You’re playing an RPG, so roleplay your character. We’re playing a game with dice, so accept that you won’t always succeed. We’re playing a game that centers combat and death, so accept that sometimes it will come around to you. If you need so badly to win that you read the module beforehand? Come on. The recent versions of the game aren’t so wildly lopsided in your favor as a player enough already as it is that you need to metagame, too? Come on. You’re all but guaranteed to win anyway, graciously take a lump or two on your way there.

That's what I'm trying to get at, it doesn't matter if you metagame or not as long as you aren't a disruptive jerk harshing the vibes.

Again, for a lot of people, metagaming is harshing the vibes and being a jerk.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's not even close to every instance of metagaming.

I do it all the time. I just look at what he does know and act only on that. I've been in enough different D&D situations to know how I would act under similar circumstances where I don't know something.

There's no way to make that decision without the knowledge you have as a player, though. That's my point. You can't "unknow" something. So any decision you make is made with that knowledge.

This may or may not be a problem. I'm not saying that you can't reasonably surmise how a fictional character would act in a given situation. Certainly we can come up with any number of ways that a fictional person can act in a given situation.

The problem is, I think, when a GM says to a player "no, you can't do that because I've imagined a different situation". Especially since, in times where this happens, the impact is usually not of the "game ruining" level that it's often cited.

To me, it's far worse for a GM to tell a player that they can't do something that their character could conceivably do than for a player to blast a troll with a scorching ray even though he's never encountered a troll before.

One of these things seems far more disruptive to play than the other.

 

[iserith]

There's no way to make that decision without the knowledge you have as a player, though. That's my point. You can't "unknow" something. So any decision you make is made with that knowledge.

This may or may not be a problem. I'm not saying that you can't reasonably surmise how a fictional character would act in a given situation. Certainly we can come up with any number of ways that a fictional person can act in a given situation.

The problem is, I think, when a GM says to a player "no, you can't do that because I've imagined a different situation". Especially since, in times where this happens, the impact is usually not of the "game ruining" level that it's often cited.

To me, it's far worse for a GM to tell a player that they can't do something that their character could conceivably do than for a player to blast a troll with a scorching ray even though he's never encountered a troll before.

One of these things seems far more disruptive to play than the other.

For me, I'm perfectly fine with the DM adjudicating and narrating the result of my character's actions that I have described. Where we run into a problem is if the DM declares they effectively have veto power over the action declaration I am making in the first place. That is a non-starter. What's more, even if I was okay with it, it's a minefield trying to figure out any level of consistency in what the DM considers to be "metagaming" in any given instance.

In my games, the DM's role is never to gainsay what you want to do. Do whatever you want, go nuts, but remember that the goal is for everyone to have fun and to create an exciting, memorable story by playing. So go do exciting, memorable things, share the spotlight, and be a fun person to play with. If you don't want to "metagame" while you play your character, great, go ahead and do that. The way I approach the game actually makes that pretty easy. But don't demand other players do the same, and I'd caution against pinning your fun to how someone else makes decisions for their character. You don't have control over them, and it's none of your business anyway.

 

[Clint_L]

The thing I really work on with new players is getting them onboard with the idea that an RPG is cooperative storytelling and not a zero sum game where only one person or one side wins. I go out of my way to make failures super entertaining so that players get as excited for a natural 1 as a natural 20, because they know something fun is about to happen. Yeah, it'll probably be the opposite of what they were hoping for, but that just provides an opportunity to come up with a new plan on the fly.

A little meta-gaming is inevitable and even desirable - you want players talking and cooperating even if its a little more than could reasonably happen in a 6 second round. Extreme meta-gaming, like using out of game knowledge of a creatures vulnerabilities, annoys me because it misses the point of cooperative storytelling, which is that failure and learning are key to the fun. It is way more fun if your characters have to deduce the solution rather than one person googling it and shouting out the answer.

My absolute pet peeve, though, is one player telling another what they should do on their turn. I absolutely shut that crap down immediately and I'm super blunt about it.