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

[Redneckomancer]

Exactly.

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.

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

I guess I just disagree that metagaming is the problem there. Again, the problem is "adversarial mindset", the vector is metagaming. You can ban metagaming but that does nothing to disabuse the adversarial mindset. Also, just, my life experience has been mostly that metagaming just happens and isn't done to be adversarial. Its generally easy to pick up on the intentions of my players, and even when they metagame it's mostly been by accident? Or more, obtaining the OOC knowledge was by accident? "Oh is this Horror on the Hill? I remember Horror on the Hill." "Oh... I just saw your notes about Lady Kerila " Just, oops! They know things! They aren't doing it to 'get one over' on me, or 'win at any cost'. And, well, I don't want my players to turn off their brain during the game, an if that factors into their decisions, so be it. Describe the action and we play the scene, its fine. This is over 20 years of dozens of gamers, btw. And I know that people in this thread already disagree with this stance, but yeah I'm of the mind that trying really hard to pretend you don't know something you 'shouldn't' to make your actions is functionally equivalent to making actions based on knowing something you 'shouldn't' in terms of metagaming.*
As I said, I'm too tired to care. If more time is wasted trying to find either an in-character reason to have some piece of knowledge or to figure how to act around the forbidden knowledge, than actually just playing the game and moving on, I just tell them to metagame. It's fine. Ok, you know that Kerila is a vampire, what do you do now? Ok, you know that you aren't good enough to sneak past these guys, what do you do now?

*To actually pull a from-a-table-real-example of this, Episode 15 of the Critical Bits podcast has this happen. One of the players knows that the NPC they're talking to is an evil clone, but they 'don't want to metagame'. So they spend around 10 (edited) minutes floundering around trying to act in a 'proper' roleplaying way, that their character doesn't know its an evil clone. So even though they are trying to act 'in character', in good faith, they are still making character decisions based on knowing something they 'shouldn't'. As a podcast this was very funny, because the player and DM are professional comedians, but as a DM in my home game I would've just let them have it and played out the scene from there. This is mostly a philosophical difference that I don't really intend to resolve, merely explain.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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...

I really should’ve predicted this when my original post lightly touched on the metagaming angle shouldn’t i? Haha, I’ve been trying to keep up with it all but I don’t have any contributions that might break the cycle so I’ve kept quiet for the most part.

Edit: i can only say i wish the original question of the thread was given more attention rather than the metagaming angle taking over.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I certainly agree that deducing a solution is much more fun than looking up the answer. The problem especially with monster weaknesses is, most of us have been playing this game for a very long time. If the DM is using straight-out-of-the-book monsters, chances are we don’t even have to look the answer up - we already know because we’ve fought them plenty of times before. And while actually deducing the answer is more fun than looking it up, pretending to deduce it when you actually knew all a long is not fun at all, in my opinion. Now, if there’s a newer player at the table who actually doesn’t know the answer, I don’t want to ruin it for them. But that’s not a metagaming issue, it’s just a courtesy issue.

 

[overgeeked]

I guess I just disagree that metagaming is the problem there.

It's always a problem. We'll just agree to disagree, then.

Again, the problem is "adversarial mindset", the vector is metagaming. You can ban metagaming but that does nothing to disabuse the adversarial mindset.

It is a major means by which adversarial players ply their trade. Cutting it off tamps down on adversarial players a lot. Other things like fudging die rolls are easy to spot when everyone rolls in the open. Fudging equipment is another problem.

Also, just, my life experience has been mostly that metagaming just happens and isn't done to be adversarial.

Mine's the opposite. Players new to the idea of RPGs don't understand so might accidentally stumble into it, but once it's been explained, persisting is entirely adversarial.

Its generally easy to pick up on the intentions of my players...

Exactly. I know that if Tony metagames it likely because he's exhausted from work and he literally cannot focus, so a gentle reminder is in order. But, if Ken metagames, he's being adversarial. He's hyper-competitive and the type to throw video game controllers if he loses.

Or more, obtaining the OOC knowledge was by accident?

It's basically impossible to prevent players from having more info than their characters would. That's not the problem. The problem is the players making in-character decisions based on that info.

"Oh is this Horror on the Hill? I remember Horror on the Hill."

Okay, so you don't get to make decisions for the group. You play a support character this time and let someone else take the lead. Problem solved.

"Oh... I just saw your notes about Lady Kerila "

Digital notes in a locked device. Hasn't been a problem in years.

Just, oops! They know things! They aren't doing it to 'get one over' on me, or 'win at any cost'.

No, you're conflating the having or gaining information with acting on it. It's the acting on it that's a problem.

And, well, I don't want my players to turn off their brain during the game, an if that factors into their decisions, so be it.

That's where we hard disagree. It's not about turning off their brain. It's about roleplaying their character. The character doesn't know X, so X shouldn't be part of their decision making.

This is over 20 years of dozens of gamers, btw.

Okay. I've been running D&D for almost 40 years. I've run and played with a few hundred people just in 5E.

And I know that people in this thread already disagree with this stance, but yeah I'm of the mind that trying really hard to pretend you don't know something you 'shouldn't' to make your actions is functionally equivalent to making actions based on knowing something you 'shouldn't' in terms of metagaming.*

Except that it's not. It simply isn't. As pointed out more than a few times already. Pick whichever analogy works for you.

As I said, I'm too tired to care.

Sure.

*To actually pull a from-a-table-real-example of this, Episode 15 of the Critical Bits podcast has this happen. One of the players knows that the NPC they're talking to is an evil clone, but they 'don't want to metagame'. So they spend around 10 (edited) minutes floundering around trying to act in a 'proper' roleplaying way, that their character doesn't know its an evil clone. So even though they are trying to act 'in character', in good faith, they are still making character decisions based on knowing something they 'shouldn't'. As a podcast this was very funny, because the player and DM are professional comedians, but as a DM in my home game I would've just let them have it and played out the scene from there. This is mostly a philosophical difference that I don't really intend to resolve, merely explain.

Okay. I've read your post. I've heard your explanation. I still fundamentally disagree with you on this.

 

[Redneckomancer]

I really should’ve predicted this when my original post lightly touched on the metagaming angle shouldn’t i? Haha, I’ve been trying to keep up with it all but I don’t have any contributions that might break the cycle so I’ve kept quiet for the most part.

Edit: i can only say i wish the original question of the thread was given more attention rather than the metagaming angle taking over.

Rereading your Op I see you're more asking as a player than a DM, so when I do play, which isn't often, I roll (heh) with it. I rolled a nat one on this diplomacy? Let me play that out. It's an opportunity for some good comedy, honestly. I rolled low on the stealth check? Well, I wait for the Dm to tell me what that looks like and prepare for the next action.

The investigation and perception checks are a bit trickier. If I know I rolled low on an investigation, I accept that my character couldn't find anything worth finding. If I have other reasons to suspect that there IS something worth finding, then I try to find another thing to search or a different angle to approach from. No evidence in the office files? Grill the receptionist. Butter up the intern etc etc.
A lot of this depends on how the DM is running. Too many 5e DMs I've had just have me roll a skill with no real regard for what I specifically say my action is.
"I search the locked side table" "Roll investigation." "Uh, an 8?" "You don't find anything relevant." Hmmm.
Or even weirder, "20." "You don't find anything relevant in the side table but you find a secret compartment under the desk in the next room." I.. Uh... (actual table story)

 

[Lanefan]

That’s a very metagame view from the GM perspective. I mean, you’ve beaten the “PCs are not special” drum loudly… so having the world be out to get them seems totally meta.

I was speaking there from the PCs' perspective - when they're out in the field, if they feel like it's them against the world I've done it right.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Sorry if this has been brought up already (38 pages in 3 days tells me there's probably a lot of nonsense like this current video game tangent so) but can you, CreamCloud, personally explain in your own words why Metagaming is inherently bad? If you can't I'd probably stop worrying about it and just roll stuff based on what keeps the game moving and playable.

I view metagaming as unwanted because i value character integrity, if you recall my original post it was about gaining more genuine reactions from the players-as-character for more interesting roleplaying experiences, and in other situations such as fire-against-ogre or which-way-is-the-treasure-room-in-this-module-I’ve-already-played it’s really not that difficult to just roll a nature check first or flip a coin/keep quiet while the rest of the party decides, I just don’t think it’s necessary to metagame in most if any situations but it wasn’t the metagame angle I wanted to focus on.

 

[Mort]

I was speaking there from the PCs' perspective - when they're out in the field, if they feel like it's them against the world I've done it right.

Sure, but I've always found PC need potential for allies and strings they can pull to get out of situations. If EVERYONE is against them, even in a hostile environment - it tends to stain believability.

 

[Lanefan]

The DM is using a Dungeon that I've either played through or DMd before....

Stop right there.

It should never have got to this point. Before running any not-homebrew module the DM should have asked if any of you had been through or run it before, and on getting a "Yes" from anyone should abandon that module and choose a different one.

That way, it's equally new to all of you as players, and the issue you raise cannot occur.

 

[Mort]

Stop right there.

It should never have got to this point. Before running any not-homebrew module the DM should have asked if any of you had been through or run it before, and on getting a "Yes" from anyone should abandon that module and choose a different one.

That way, it's equally new to all of you as players, and the issue you raise cannot occur.

1 it's a hypothetical (in reality I would have immediately said something). But I actually have seen it happen quite a few times, DM had nothing else prepared and didn't want to ad lib, so ran it despite some players having seen it before.

or

2 some groups actually LIKE replaying played through modules to see about different results. Like for the nostalgia, Ran the 5e Tomb of Horrors for my group despite most of them having been through it decades ago - just to see how it would go, the whole point was to see how well they ACTUALLY remembered the module and if 5e could get the feel down at all.

 

[Lanefan]

It's a bit of a rabbit hole. Which is why, a while back, I completely stopped caring about whether the players metagame and really only care if they're being jerks at the table.

In many cases metagaming is being a jerk at the table, even more so at a table where metagaming is frowned on.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

That sounds to me like a fine sum-up of the sport-vs-war divide from the other thread. Co-operative storytelling makes it sport; zero-sum they-win-or-we-win makes it war.

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.

Hear hear!

Even more so if the player/PC giving the suggestion has no way of knowing what the PC receiving the suggestion is actually doing and-or the two PCs are well out of earshot of each other.

 

[Mort]

In many cases metagaming is being a jerk at the table, even more so at a table where metagaming is frowned on.

Yes, table rules are important - and need to be communicated.

 

[Campbell]

That sounds to me like a fine sum-up of the sport-vs-war divide from the other thread. Co-operative storytelling makes it sport; zero-sum they-win-or-we-win makes it war.

Hear hear!

Even more so if the player/PC giving the suggestion has no way of knowing what the PC receiving the suggestion is actually doing and-or the two PCs are well out of earshot of each other.

Combat as sport is about the challenge laying in how well you execute and react during the encounter - hence the sport part. Cooperative storytelling is cooperative storytelling - not Combat as Sport (as evidenced by more encounter centric combat design).

 

[Lanefan]

To me it’s indicative of an adversarial mindset on the part of the player. A need to win at any cost.

Well, as a player I play in a "war" style: in-character I'm fighting against what the setting throws at me with whatever means and resources I have. And yes, it's adversarial. I want to win.

But I don't want to win via out-of-character knowledge; so my ask to the DM is not to tell me-as-player things my character wouldn't know (until-unless those things don't matter any more, then tell away - it's always fun hearing the stories!). And I'm not going to memorize the MM or read the module; and if I start recognizing I'm in an adventure I've seen before* I'll either sit out until it's done or play passive.

* - with one remarkable exception: way back when, my very first character joined the party in a memorable homebrew adventure. Shortly after that some murderous party infighting saw him killed; he was revived much later and retired. Fifteen-ish years later I found myself in need of a new PC in a different campaign run by the same DM, and I asked if I could dust off this guy, update him as to what he'd done since retiring, and bring him in. Sure, said the DM - not realizing that the adventure he was running at the time was the very same one that my PC had first started in! So in this one case I felt I could use any player knowledge I could remember, as - in a different place and time - my character had been there before.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, but I've always found PC need potential for allies and strings they can pull to get out of situations. If EVERYONE is against them, even in a hostile environment - it tends to stain believability.

Fair - they sometimes find allies in the field...and sometimes find "allies" as well. If wise, they don't get too trusting.

In town is usually a different story - there, opposition is usually the exception unless the adventure happens to be set in the town.

 

[Lanefan]

1 it's a hypothetical (in reality I would have immediately said something). But I actually have seen it happen quite a few times, DM had nothing else prepared and didn't want to ad lib, so ran it despite some players having seen it before.

I've learned to ask well ahead of time - e.g. if I'm thinking I might use a module in six months, ask about it now - to avoid getting caught short at the last minute. This has also saved myself and another DM once or twice from accidentally running the same adventure at the same time; highly relevant as we share some players and play in each other's games.

2 some groups actually LIKE replaying played through modules to see about different results. Like for the nostalgia, Ran the 5e Tomb of Horrors for my group despite most of them having been through it decades ago - just to see how it would go, the whole point was to see how well they ACTUALLY remembered the module and if 5e could get the feel down at all.

This is different, as (in theory!) everyone knows going in that it's a rerun and - more importantly - everyone's on the same footing.

 

[Lanefan]

Combat as sport is about the challenge laying in how well you execute and react during the encounter - hence the sport part. Cooperative storytelling is cooperative storytelling - not Combat as Sport (as evidenced by more encounter centric combat design).

I was expanding from just combat and thinking more of "the game as sport" vs "the game as war". Combat's just a part of that.

 

[Redneckomancer]

I view metagaming as unwanted because i value character integrity, if you recall my original post it was about gaining more genuine reactions from the players-as-character for more interesting roleplaying experiences, and in other situations such as fire-against-ogre or which-way-is-the-treasure-room-in-this-module-I’ve-already-played it’s really not that difficult to just roll a nature check first or flip a coin/keep quiet while the rest of the party decides, I just don’t think it’s necessary to metagame in most if any situations but it wasn’t the metagame angle I wanted to focus on.

Ok cool. Correct me if I'm wrong, you want player advice on how you, as a player, can avoid the temptation of Forbidden Knowledge. Yes I'm being a bit cheeky, hopefully it lightens the mood.
Well, again, assuming you want to avoid being a jerk and aren't acquiring Forbidden Knowledge for malicious ends, the two main camps I can see here are "It is fundamentally impossible to avoid having Forbidden Knowledge affect your decision making, so don't sweat it and just play your character as you will" vs "As long as you don't act on the Forbidden Knowledge, and play your character as true as you can, it's no sweat."

You seem to have the basics down, just... don't act on it as best you can. Go with the flow of the low roll. What does a 5 Diplomacy check look like from Gundar The Gallant? He's your character, thats up to you. Now the other ones, like investigation get a bit tricky so here's some things you can ask your DM to do, see if they go with it.

• Decide if you want things like Bluff/Insight/Diplomacy to be rolled before or after the play-acting happens, and be consistent on that. If it happens before, you can simply play out what a 3 diplomacy looks like from Gundahar the Gallant, he's your character after all. If your group decides on after (that old 'you get a bonus for good rp' style), ask the DM to make it a secret roll and have the NPC react on that, and well it's up to you then to decide if Gundahar thinks he did well or not, based on what the NPC is doing.
• Ask for things like Stealth to only be rolled when it would be immediately consequential. You start sneaking down a hallway, ok. You are sneaking. Oh, you round the corner and there's a patrol NOW you roll stealth. That way, well, it's not Forbidden Knowledge as Gundahar can immediately tell if he's been spotted or not, due to alarms and and gunshots coming at him.
• Ask the DM to use Passive Perception and Investigation and Insight. If the behind the screen NPC roll doesn't beat the Passive, then yeah Gundahar clocks the lie, the secret door, whatever. If the secret roll beats it, Gundahar and you have no idea anyway, Forbidden Knowledge avoided.
• Additionally, when actively searching for something, try to be specific in your characters actions so the DM can adjust DC's and whatnot as needed. I know this used to(?) be called "mother may I" style DMing but as long as they also have a fallback DC for general searching as well, it'll be fine. Also these can be secret checks too, for individuals. Or just a big group check anyway, so that whoever succeeds can just tell the other characters.
• This also helps on Insight checks. Don't just "roll insight" at people. Try to ask about specific things if you think the person is lying. Do you have any evidence they're lying? Ask about body language, are they nervous, sweating in a cold room etc.
• Ask your DM to tell you if they are running any specific modules upfront, so you can avoid Spoilers while reading threads like this one and let them know if you've already played through one ahead of time so they can either change the module, or find a new one.

If you're looking for DM advice, do that stuff. That stuff I just wrote? Do that. That's my advice on mitigating having Forbidden Knowledge affect your character choices. Oh, and bring back Take 20 from 3e. If you haven't heard of it before, it's basically "You can take a really almost absurdly long time to do something to make your roll count as a 20+your adds". If they want to comb every inch of the place in search of a trap or secret door or evidence of embezzlement let em. And then probably a random encounter or something, I don't know.

 

[Bill Zebub]

To me it’s indicative of an adversarial mindset on the part of the player. A need to win at any cost.

Again, maybe don't play with those people? Rules aren't going to prevent people from being jerks; they are just going to find other ways to be jerks.

Or is it that you are imagining an adversarial mindset because they are using player knowledge? Kind of like how I imagine that the guy in the Subaru in front of me is going 5mph below the speed limit specifically because he has been sent to Earth to torment me. When, really, it's probably a little old lady who is nervous on a two lane highway.

I'm guessing those players you loathe are more benign than you imagine.