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

[iserith]

Sounds like a player whose primary goal is to game the system rather than aim for the table having a good time and creating a fun, memorable story. I mean, sure there are probably people like that but, IMO, they are confused about D&D's "win" state and probably wouldn't enjoy the vast majority of tables run by thread contributors here, be they "anti-metagaming" or not.

It really just sounds to me like a player who is not playing optimally. But that's their risk to take! "Metagaming" is only as reliable as the DM makes it.

 

[Maxperson]

Because it's the 1-in-8 in your blind spot that could kill you, and the cost to figuring it out is often very low.

It's the same cost to figure it out if I pull out the book 8 times. At least the other 7 times I'm guaranteed an advantage. The 8th time I'm going to be guessing and playing with new tactics just the same.

As an example, I put a special troll in one of my games that was not only immune to fire, but would cause flames cast at them to blow up in a radius around them. The players saw the troll, ignored my telegraphing, didn't take the necessary steps to do verify their assumptions, and the wizard (who even had those skills!) blasted it with a burning hands spell. The resulting inferno (which happened the next round too due to a burning web spell) jacked up the party and dropped an important NPC who they now had to scramble to save. Suffice it to say, they check now, years later.

That's a telegraphing mistake on the part of the party, not something caused by pulling out the book.

 

[overgeeked]

Because the one makes it clear that sort of thing matters to the DM.

Right. But as one poster is fond of saying, metagaming is the DM's fault. So either the DM homebrews every monster in the game, or it's on the DM for "letting" the players cheat.

 

[Maxperson]

Sounds like a player whose primary goal is to game the system rather than aim for the table having a good time and creating a fun, memorable story.

That's what metagaming is. It's an attempt to game the system with player knowledge.

 

[overgeeked]

That's what metagaming is. It's an attempt to game the system with player knowledge.

I agree. Metagaming is cheating.

 

[Maxperson]

I've seen it too often. DM's buddy knows how the DM thinks and knows how to say it so it happens. I remember a DM that just didn't like me from the first time I sat at the table (public games), before I even uttered a word for no apparent reason. No matter what I did, it either failed or I had to make a high roll as he scowled at me. An extreme example of course, but I've seen people who know what buttons to push for a DM get a pass when others did not.

That's just a bad DM. The flip side of it is the Rule of Cool where you can game the DM by making something look or sound cool, so it gets approved.

A DM looking for reasonable description is just a playstyle choice, though. It's not gaming the DM.

I will adjust DCs base on approach or what's said in social situations but there still has to be a roll in my games most of the time. Obviously not possible to be totally objective, but if a person just lists the points they're making in their conversation or a player gives an eloquent speech it doesn't matter what's said. What is said is important, not how.

That would drive me crazy. If I described my PC doing something such that it should succeed without a roll due to how easy it has become and I had to roll anyway, I'd probably go find a different game.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree. Metagaming is cheating.

Unless it's allowed by the DM, then it's not.

 

[iserith]

It's the same cost to figure it out if I pull out the book 8 times. At least the other 7 times I'm guaranteed an advantage. The 8th time I'm going to be guessing and playing with new tactics just the same.

That's a telegraphing mistake on the part of the party, not something caused by pulling out the book.

I don't really know what your goal is here with talking about referencing a book during play. The fact is, if the DM changes even one monster, you can't be sure if any other monsters have been changed, which disincentivizes the very thing you say you don't like. In that environment, it becomes more optimal to verify your assumptions before acting on them. That doesn't mean players won't "metagame," but in effect it makes it an unreliable tactic and, in my experience, players prefer tactics with more reliability than not.

Right. But as one poster is fond of saying, metagaming is the DM's fault. So either the DM homebrews every monster in the game, or it's on the DM for "letting" the players cheat.

Just one will do. And it's only "cheating" if your social contract says so, and that can be changed.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Right. But as one poster is fond of saying, metagaming is the DM's fault. So either the DM homebrews every monster in the game, or it's on the DM for "letting" the players cheat.

I have to admit I’m somewhat in awe of that poster’s perseverance in the face of so much willful distortion.

 

[Maxperson]

Because the one makes it clear that sort of thing matters to the DM.

Does it? @iserith said it doesn't matter to him if they metagame. His changes are just for the sake of doing something differently. How would I as the player be able to tell the difference between his position and one where the DM is changing monsters as some sort of adversarial metagame arms race?