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

It's not. Though sure an amazing number of gamers will say the game MUST ONLY be played this ONE way.

And I have a special loathe for the Bully Four players. The type that picks the class/race/character THEY want to play...and then Bullies or Forces another player to be one of "The Four" that is left.

It's a quick way to get booted from my game.
yeah, and with the background and other customizations we don't often have the four be the four... maybe our rogue doesn't do stealth or locking picking... our artificer and hexblade might both be better at both... I have said before we play 80-90% casters (1/2 or full or pact) so we have not used the old school 4 in a while... it has been pretty common to have 3 healers 3 stealth characters and 4 characters goodish at melee and 3 goodish at range with 4 characters total.

log in or register to remove this ad

How do you determine what they’re allowed to know from their background and other details though?
in our case we talk to each other like we are adults. We say what WE THINK, and then all come to a consensius... again the theme of the game and the feel the table is going for is more important then anything to us...

A soldier or a sage in a game where we are trying to RP and feel the theme of new kid adventures wont know fire is the answer to trolls. A soldier or sage in a game where we are more interested in playing hard boiled experienced trained adventurers will pull out fire as 1st go through vs regen, if that doesn't work radiant is next.
I mean, sure some things will be obvious. But most people know dome stuff that will surprise people. They also don’t know stuff that people may expect them to know based on their job or upbringing and so on.

So how do you decide that a PC never had any opportunity to learn about something in question?
I will say that anyone can with a moment or two of thought can justify knowing or not knowing almost anything.

Have you never read a story, or heard about a situation in real life, where someone got a bad feeling and then did exactly what you’re denying can happen?
OMG is that a BIG argument about what the word feel and think mean in D&D books... I don't know if you want to open this rabbit hole.
Your world is one where someone can’t get a hunch and go check on someone who’s likely doing something dangerous. It’s bonkers.
again I think this works best if the table just agrees what is and is not going to fit there game.
All to preserve what? Verisimilitude? By denging something that happens all the time in the real world? That doesn’t seem verisimilitudinous at all.
Yup... Verisimilitude most times comes down to 'but I don't want you to'

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
There's a lot more information you didn't supply. What is your WIS score and do you have proficiency in Survival? Are you saying Investor is your background or your class? These are things as DM I would know, and much more.

And FYI, you are HUMAN in race, not "white male". The color of your skin and gender identity are not important to me.

Also, as I said upthread, if the player can supply a reasonable argument why they would have such knowledge (which generally becomes part of their backstory...) then I recant my objections.

However, since your tone is snarky, I don't expect you to actually take any of this seriously, so please don't feel obligated to respond.

That part wasn't meant to be snarky, but to illustrate that knowing the basics about a person doesn't mean you know everything. No, I don't have "proficiency" in survival (I don't hunt, for example), but one day I found tracks in the snow at my house and wondered what kind they are, and ended up learning a little bit about how to differentiate feline tracks from canine tracks. It's a random bit of knowledge that has nothing to do with anything else about me.

And no matter how much I told you about myself (that's already WAY more than I usually reveal on the Internet...) there would still be countless surprises. So I find that letting players decide what they think their character knows results in a richer, more 3D character than otherwise. Sure, ask a player how their character knows something: not as some kind of test to pass to see if they are allowed to know it (and thus are allowed to take an action) but as an opportunity for adding some depth to their character. If they don't have something colorful to add, and just say, "I don't know," just move on.

What I found interesting is that you tried to parse the information I gave you in game terms: class, proficiencies, lineage rather than skin color. Even though I wasn't giving an in-game example. Not quite sure of the implications, but I guess I thought you were making some kind of realism argument...that one could know what knowledge somebody else had by knowing their background...and maybe you're instead making some kind of game rule argument? (If so, I think it's different from the kind of arguments @Lanefan makes, albeit with the same conclusion.)

And more snark...

Yeah the Star Wars thing was meant to be a little bit snarky, a little bit funny.

When I play as a player instead of the DM, I know TONS of information my PC would not (about monsters, magic items, how spells work, and so much more), but I NEVER use that knowledge to represent what my PC does in another DM's game!
If you, as a player, can't separate your own knowledge about what is happening in the story and things you know about the DM game from what your PC would know (or at least be reasonably likely to know), then I will do it for you until you learn how.

I think the point @Charlaquin was making (and I made up-thread) is that just because you can distinguish knowledge you have from knowledge your character has doesn't mean you are able to accurately make a decision for your character as if he/she didn't have that knowledge. The human brain simply can't compartmentalize that way. The simple example I gave earlier is to imagine that you, the player, know the way to the treasure room. To avoid metagaming, you make your character go the other way. But if you didn't have that information, how do you know which way you would have chosen? You would have based the decision off of something else...a hunch, a clue from the DM, a guess, a habit of always choosing the lefthand passage, etc. The question, "What would I, the player, choose to do if I didn't know that information" is impossible to answer accurately.

Now, maybe that's fine for the anti-metagaming rules you impose on yourself, but don't kid yourself that you are making a decision "as your character".

I don’t like the idea of blocking any actions declared by players. They get to decide what their character does, not me.
I agree... again I may throw a "really bro? your character can't know that" out to get them to realize I am not happy, but I wont force them to take it back or redo the action... but if it happens often ESPECIALLY if multi of us at the table say that or words to those effect more then once or twice, that will trigger end of this week or begining of next week out of game talk to focus on getting the whole table back into alignment.
Gating it behind a check seems a bit more reasonable than just blocking it, but it doesn’t really solve the issue. At some point, you have to let them use fire on the troll, or whatever’s in question.
yeah, again we don't often play 'newbie' adventurers and we don't often expect to 'play up finding things out' most becuse we HAVE been there we HAVE done that... we played the game were we chopped the troll up and through it's head in the river for it to come back an hour later.
It seems more like a need to control things by the DM.

A low AC wizard trying the new tactic of running up to within 15 feet of a troll and making it angry? The people I play with are smarter than that.

I wouldn't do anything in game. After the game I'd have a one on one and talk to him about cheating. A second happening and he wouldn't be asked back to the game. I don't tolerate cheating.
we will give more chances, but yeah if someone really can't match the table it doesn't make sense to try to force round pegs into triangle holes...
People talk about dragons more. Even in the real world when I go into shops I see a hell of a lot more dragon art, earrings, etc. than troll stuff.

That can run into another issue, which is one that comes up with social skills and persuasive player sometimes: Do you want those lore skills to actually be worth taking? Then at least with some of them, allowing the player who knows the monsters like the back of his hand act like he had the appropriate lore may be a problem for reasons entirely outside of whether its metagaming or not. Usually that's more of an issue with really specific and off the wall actions, though, far beyond the "Flaming Hands used on the troll" kind of thing.
correct... however we (again) just make sure we are all on the same page. make sure all 4-6 of you at the table can form an understanding of what is expected.

What's the point of RPGing, from the player perspective?

To win, like in the approach to play advocated by Gygax in his PHB? Then if the GM introduces trolls into the situation, and I know that trolls can be hurt by fire, I will use fire! That's why there are so many weird monsters in AD&D with all their various immunities, vulnerabilities, etc: new creatures get introduced to provide new puzzles for the players to solve
this is where I think the divide is... as a player or dm OUTSIDE of the game, we don't play for the same reasons or enjoy the same ideas...
To experience playing my PC, making decisions for them and finding out what happens next? Then what does it matter whether or not I use fire vs a troll - it doesn't defeat my play goal to play a PC who does or doesn't know (or intuit) that fire is a good thing to use against a troll
yup again if we want to play out farm boys and farm girls that don't know then we WANT that troll to be a nightmare fuel reoccurring problem until we luck into killing it.
To be a participant in the telling of a story that meets some pre-scripted requirement - such as that the protagonist is ignorant of trolls' vulnerability to fire? Then the "metagaming" issue will matter. It's an upshot of a particular play goal, not a general problem.


Loves Your Favorite Game
How do you allow for characters having a hunch? Like a gut feeling something’s wrong and they want to go check on the other group. This kind of thing happens in the real world all the time… how can it happen in your game world?
Now I'm trying to think of how I'd want to handle this. On the one hand, getting a bad feeling is an established trope of fiction, but on the other, half the party suddenly abandoning their posts (just after I narrate something bad happening to their friend) doesn't exactly feel good to me, at least sitting here right now hypothetically.

Just a straight fortune roll, maybe?

An Advertisement