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

[Swarmkeeper]

DM stating "Your character wouldn't know/do that" = "veto power over certain of their action declarations"

Rolling a 3 and having the DM describe the attempt as "clumsy" = DM "describe[ing] what they do when they fail, often in a Keystone Cops-esque fashion"

I'm not sure how much clearer that could be.

I guess you could quibble about the word "often" or whether these are issues for your table or not, but to say these phrases are not the same thing? Or to say they don't happen when the quotes are right here in the thread?

 

[Redneckomancer]

DM stating "Your character wouldn't know/do that" = "veto power over certain of their action declarations"

Rolling a 3 and having the DM describe the attempt as "clumsy" = DM "describe[ing] what they do when they fail, often in a Keystone Cops-esque fashion"

I'm not sure how much clearer that could be.

I guess you could quibble about the word "often" or whether these are issues for your table or not, but to say these phrases are not the same thing? Or to say they don't happen when the quotes are right here in the thread?

Yeah I mean, if I'm playing at this table and we fight the Quantum Metagame Troll and I declare that I want to huck a fireball at it, and this fireball hucking is declared by the DM as Metagame Cheating, what.... happens? Assume it's my first strike in Metagame Cheating. Does the fireball still get hucked or...?

 

[iserith]

That's very, very different from overruling a player's decision in game or keystone cops, which are the incorrect depictions I objected to. Booting someone from the game for cheating(and refusing to stop) is not at all the same.

What @Swarmkeeper said.

 

[Maxperson]

DM stating "Your character wouldn't know/do that" = "veto power over certain of their action declarations"

Okay. The problem is nobody here is saying that. We're saying that the event would happen. Happen =/= your character wouldn't know/do that. Happen = happen.

We're saying that metagaming = cheating and cheating = a talk after the game about it to let the player know that metagaming isn't cool. Then they either stop, or they continue cheating and get kicked out of the game.

At no point is the DM ever vetoing what the player says he does. At no point is anything "keystone cops."

Rolling a 3 and having the DM describe the attempt as "clumsy" = DM "describe[ing] what they do when they fail, often in a Keystone Cops-esque fashion"

No. Slipping a bit during lockpicking(clumsy attempt) and failing =/= slapstick keystone cops. A bit of a slip is normal for a failure.

I'm not sure how much clearer that could be.

The strawman is very clear. Now if you two could actually describe and respond to what we are saying that would be great.

 

[iserith]

Okay. The problem is nobody here is saying that. We're saying that the event would happen. Happen =/= your character wouldn't know/do that. Happen = happen.

If the DM can demand you explain why you choose to take an action for your own character and, if the DM disagrees with that reasoning, you can't do it or should change it, then they have veto power over your action declarations. The penalty for non-compliance is banishment. I agree that people should be held to their agreements, but the agreement is effectively "I agree the DM has final say over my action declarations." In my game, I don't have that power. Do whatever you want. It's none of my business why.

 

[Maxperson]

If the DM can demand you explain why you choose to take an action for your own character and, if the DM disagrees with that reasoning, you can't do it or should change it, then they have veto power over your action declarations.

So I once again reject your strawman. Nobody is saying that.

The penalty for non-compliance is banishment.

Cheating. Not "non-compliance." Let's get that straight. It's cheating as bringing in OOC knowledge through the character that doesn't have that knowledge is against the rules.

I agree that people should be held to their agreements, but the agreement is effectively "I agree the DM has final say over my action declarations." In my game, I don't have that power. Do whatever you want. It's none of my business why.

And for like the 5th time I reject the strawman you guys are setting up.

 

[iserith]

So I once again reject your strawman. Nobody is saying that.

The receipts are in this thread. And that's fine. To each their own. If someone wants to clarify what they meant, they certainly can.

Cheating. Not "non-compliance." Let's get that straight. It's cheating as bringing in OOC knowledge through the character that doesn't have that knowledge is against the rules.

It's not a rule, it's a table rule. Not complying with a table rule has consequences up to and including expulsion from the group. I mean, that's what people have said a few times in this thread. And I don't disagree. As I said, people should be held to their agreement in my view. This just happens to be a table rule that I wouldn't agree to for the reasons stated.

 

[Maxperson]

The receipts are in this thread. And that's fine. To each their own. If someone wants to clarify what they meant, they certainly can.

I did so at least twice in the last three posts of mine.

It's not a rule, it's a table rule.

Semantics. No matter where the rule comes from, it's a rule at my table.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I can’t help it if people choose to skew reality that badly. If the only way they can perceive themselves as in any way competent is to always win and never lose, then that’s not an issue I can deal with at the table. That’s a personality thing. I’m a pessimist, but even I’m not that pessimistic. Maybe games like D&D where occasional failure is 100% guaranteed are not good games for them to play.

This is such a gross misrepresentation of what I've said--which is just to frame the failure differently--that I'm going to start to assume either bad faith or a serious case of not paying attention.

And if your attitude is you can't even do that, well, its your choice if you want to make people's experience worse just so you can (not mind you, change the result) frame it the way you want. I flat out will say I find that kind of awful.

 

[iserith]

I did so at least twice in the last three posts of mine.

I honestly don't understand what you were saying in some of those posts. It seems clear to me that the agreement is still "I agree the DM has final say over my action declarations." Somebody has to determine if they broke the table rule or not to enforce the punishment, after all. Or maybe everyone at the table gets a say? I could see that, too. The agreement just changes to "I agree everyone at the table has final say over my action declarations."

Semantics. No matter where the rule comes from, it's a rule at my table.

Earlier you were making what I considered some erroneous assertions about the rules supporting your position. This was putting some sunlight on what could be viewed as an attempt to sneak that back into the discussion. If that's not what you were doing, then great.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Captain Hyperbole strikes again!

its not even hyperbole. Its ignoring what I suggested to do which does not alter the success/failure result at all, just how its described.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think there is a valid school of thought that (usually) interprets the number on a d20 roll as a scale that describes how well your character did something. For example, rolling an 18 on a Charisma (Persuasion) check is always viewed as better than, say, rolling a 12. Commonly, those who subscribe to this school don't tell players the DC for ability checks ahead of the roll and may not even have one in mind. The DM might be using feel and experience to determine success/failure in the moment based on the roll, with high being a success, low being a failure, and middling numbers going either way depending on how they feel the scene should go. This school gives the DM more narrative control. It also sets the expectation with players that a high roll is (almost) always a success and a low roll is (almost) always a failure.

Then there is another valid school of thought that (usually) interprets the number on a d20 relative to a static DC/AC or an opposed roll to simply determine success or failure. For example, rolling an 18 on a Cha(Persuasion) check is no better than rolling a 12 versus a DC 10. Both were good enough to succeed. This lends consistency to all d20 rolls (or "tests" as they might come to be called in 1D&D) - for example, a PC who rolled a 5 on a grapple check against an enemy who rolled a 3 did not grapple any worse that the PC who rolled a 17 vs the enemy's 3. Similarly, a PC who rolled a 15 on an attack roll did not hit any better than a PC who rolled a 10 against an AC 9 zombie. This school gives the players the knowledge of the outcome as soon as the dice settle.

Exception: For both schools of thought, a 20 on an attack roll is a crit and is a superior outcome to any other number. Well, as long as snake eyes aren't rolled for damage, I suppose.

I'm glad you posted this so I didn't have to when I got home from work!

FWIW, I am in the second school. The d20 roll means nothing other than success/failure. We don't even have critical hits on a 20 anymore, we use critical damage instead and like it more.

Unlike other d20 systems, 5E does not use a sliding scale for checks. The closest it comes is some of the "if you fail by 5 or more" clauses that pop up occasionally. I think this creates confusion since in no other way are checks sliding in results that I know of.

 

[Lanefan]

DM stating "Your character wouldn't know/do that" = "veto power over certain of their action declarations"

Which can be otherwise put as the DM enforcing the table contract.

Rolling a 3 and having the DM describe the attempt as "clumsy" = DM "describe[ing] what they do when they fail, often in a Keystone Cops-esque fashion"

I disagree. Narration of what happens on either success or failure is the DM's job; and if you blow a sneak attempt I'm within my rights to narrate it as noisy or clumsy or whatever, not in a Keystone Kops sense (that's something you brought into this, I think) but in relation to what you were trying for. You know you could have done better because in the past you have done better.

Better than my narrating you didn't get anywhere and are still at your starting point.

 

[Flamestrike]

Consider the classic scenario: I’m trying to bluff a guard at the gates, “we’re just a group of humble travelers seeking refuge for the night” you roll your dice and...it’s a 3, but now you know it’s a 3 you know you flubbed, The guard is turning back inside to call someone else probably, crap! Quick get the wizard to cast charm person on them!

Which is metagaming.

Be a better player than that.

 

[Lanefan]

If the DM can demand you explain why you choose to take an action for your own character and, if the DM disagrees with that reasoning, you can't do it or should change it, then they have veto power over your action declarations.

The DM always has veto power over your action declarations. The question is, when to use it.

The moon is visible, or would be if the sky was clear:
Player: "I jump to the moon." It's impossible, sure, but the DM shouldn't veto it; instead, just narrate the obvious results:
DM: "OK, you jump a few feet off the ground, and come back down. The moon neither notices nor reacts to your attempt."

The moon is not visible because the Earth is in the way; or the setting world doesn't have a moon at all:
Player: "I jump to the moon."
DM: "No you don't, there's no moon there to jump to." Veto.

See the difference?

This right-of-veto would be even more relevant at (other people's) tables where certain actions are meta-banned e.g. evil acts, stealing from or attacking other PCs, etc.

Do whatever you want.

Oddly enough, and from the opposite direction, I long ago arrived at this same conclusion. If it's what the character would do, then go ahead and do it. Within some wide limits of offensiveness, anything goes.

It's none of my business why.

Problem is, often the "why" doesn't square with what the character would otherwise do or have done, and to me the latter takes precedence. If the character would wait an hour if the scout didn't find trouble (as per what you already said he would do) but then well under the hour comes running the moment she does, that doesn't square; and something has to give. For me, that "something" is the change in declared action.

 

[Maxperson]

I honestly don't understand what you were saying in some of those posts. It seems clear to me that the agreement is still "I agree the DM has final say over my action declarations." Somebody has to determine if they broke the table rule or not to enforce the punishment, after all. Or maybe everyone at the table gets a say? I could see that, too. The agreement just changes to "I agree everyone at the table has final say over my action declarations."

Are you incapable of keeping OOC knowledge out of game? I mean, it's a really simple thing to do, and really simple to see when it happens. If I'm talking to you about it after the game, it's because you refused to stop cheating.

This was putting some sunlight on what could be viewed as an attempt to sneak that back into the discussion. If that's not what you were doing, then great.

I don't "sneak" anything. I'm very straightforward with my posts. You aren't going to find subtle tricks and hidden meanings. At least not from me.

 

[iserith]

Which can be otherwise put as the DM enforcing the table contract.

I disagree. Narration of what happens on either success or failure is the DM's job; and if you blow a sneak attempt I'm within my rights to narrate it as noisy or clumsy or whatever, not in a Keystone Kops sense (that's something you brought into this, I think) but in relation to what you were trying for. You know you could have done better because in the past you have done better.

Better than my narrating you didn't get anywhere and are still at your starting point.

It was me who brought in the Keystone Cops reference and have seen it plenty in many games. I actually find the idea of my character failing in slapstick ways awesome - what I object to is the DM describing what I do at all.

As DM, I just stick to what changes in the environment. Drawing upon the original example, the guard at the gates leans in close and says, "No humble traveler I've ever seen has a sword that nice - for 50 gp, I'll look the other way." That says nothing in particular about what the character did except that the character didn't get what they wanted, and a new, more expensive option is on the table. Pay to get in, or try something else. What I didn't do is say something like "Your voice cracks when you lie and and the guard turns around to go back inside the guardhouse..." The player can establish for themselves if they imagined their character's voice cracking.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm glad you posted this so I didn't have to when I got home from work!

FWIW, I am in the second school. The d20 roll means nothing other than success/failure. We don't even have critical hits on a 20 anymore, we use critical damage instead and like it more.

Unlike other d20 systems, 5E does not use a sliding scale for checks.

Though there's a very good - IMO almost overwhelming - case to be made that in many instances where the results aren't necessarily binary (e.g. nearly all social interactions, some sneak or climb attempts, etc.) it should, even if informally.

 

[Maxperson]

Unlike other d20 systems, 5E does not use a sliding scale for checks. The closest it comes is some of the "if you fail by 5 or more" clauses that pop up occasionally. I think this creates confusion since in no other way are checks sliding in results that I know of.

There's the success with a cost optional rule in the DMG. That's a kind of sliding result.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Though there's a very good - IMO almost overwhelming - case to be made that in many instances where the results aren't necessarily binary (e.g. nearly all social interactions, some sneak or climb attempts, etc.) it should, even if informally.

I treat them ALL as binary. No one has ever given me a sufficient argument to convince me otherwise.

Now, one roll might be compared against multiple DCs..., such as stealth vs. different passive perceptions. However, stealth is backwards IMO, so that is a whole other issue!

There's the success with a cost optional rule in the DMG. That's a kind of sliding result.

Sort of, but not really in some other ways.

Either way, I don't use it. Failure is failure. Now, failure can be "no progress" and further attempts might be possible--it just depends on the roll/scenario.