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

Determining the result and narrating it is within the DM's role. Determining what the player can attempt to do in the first place is not.


Sometimes they do. But as I mention upthread, the DM has all the power here if they are the one who determines if the player is acting in bad faith and must be uninvited from future games. That's a strong incentive to defer to the DM, even if you disagree.
I am i will only respond by saying we must agree to disagree because you and I will just fill 10 pages then get the thread locked... We disagree, you think it is different, I think it is just more complex way of doing the same.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

If you think it's nonsense, then you must think the rules are nonsense. That's okay, of course.
I am i will only respond by saying we must agree to disagree because you and I will just fill 10 pages then get the thread locked... We disagree, you think it is different, I think it is just more complex way of doing the same.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
In fact, this discussion about @iserith's pvp rules shed light on this whole debate. There seems to be this belief that if players are allowed to actually make choices they will always only choose the one that is best for them, and never roleplay suboptimal outcomes. And thus we must determine outcomes with dice and rulings, and force them to abide by those outcomes.

Which is a strange position to take for people who claim to be the superior roleplayers.
 

In fact, this discussion about @iserith's pvp rules shed light on this whole debate. There seems to be this belief that if players are allowed to actually make choices they will always only choose the one that is best for them, and never roleplay suboptimal outcomes. And thus we must determine outcomes with dice and rulings, and force them to abide by those outcomes.

Which is a strange position to take for people who claim to be the superior roleplayers.
that is not my position at all and if you looked at any of my examples you would know that my players just do things even when they are not optimal... all the time
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Sometimes they do. But as I mention upthread, the DM has all the power here if they are the one who determines if the player is acting in bad faith and must be uninvited from future games. That's a strong incentive to defer to the DM, even if you disagree.
People keep gaslighting me that I'm not seeing this stuff on here.

Quoting for posterity.
 


Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
that is not my position at all and if you looked at any of my examples you would know that my players just do things even when they are not optimal... all the time

I don’t remember exactly which posters said what, but the sentiment is common.

But even you just assumed, a few posts ago, that if you let the target of pvp decide the outcome it is the same thing as not attacking at all.
 


I don’t remember exactly which posters said what, but the sentiment is common.

But even you just assumed, a few posts ago, that if you let the target of pvp decide the outcome it is the same thing as not attacking at all.
nope... I said if you are taking the chance of success away and letting target (be it NPC orc or PC fighter) decide you make it against the grain and not worth doing... are there corner cases where it will still come up, sure. Most time players will just take it as an autofail and say not worth trying...

it is disincentivizing doing it so the player wont do it instead of just saying "I don't want this can we not do it"
same end result but with more steps.
 


Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
nope... I said if you are taking the chance of success away and letting target (be it NPC orc or PC fighter) decide you make it against the grain and not worth doing... are there corner cases where it will still come up, sure. Most time players will just take it as an autofail and say not worth trying...

it is disincentivizing doing it so the player wont do it instead of just saying "I don't want this can we not do it"
same end result but with more steps.

Except in the case I described WE HAD PVP. Characters took damage and everything. And they knew the rules beforehand.

How can you possibly claim this is equivalent to banning PvP?
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
I know you said "leave it" but can I engage you on this 'asymmetrical' thing?

Must we? Its going to go down a pretty large rabbit-hole not directly related to this thread, and turns heavily on whether one thinks mechanics should apply to some of these areas at all. Its not something I'm sure I have the energy for at the moment anyway (because I've been down this road before and know at least some of how it goes, and I can pretty much guarantee it won't just be you and I involved by the time its done) but its one I have pretty strong feelings about and thus will probably turn into an exercise in repetition pretty quickly.

If the person who controls a character declares an attempt to manipulate another character, and the person who controls the target character adjudicates the outcome, first by deciding whether or not it succeeds, and then if they aren't sure by setting a DC and asking for a roll, then we do have symmetry. In the case of PC acting on NPC, it's the DM who adjudicates using those steps. In the case of an NPC acting on a PC it's the player who adjudicates. It's perfectly symmetrical.

When it becomes asymmetrical is when it's the DM who adjudicates regardless of whether they are initiating the attempt or on the receiving end of it.

Thoughts?

EDIT: That doesn't mean that somebody's personal preference about how to handle these things couldn't require asymmetrical rules. That's valid. I'm just debating which version is truly symmetrical.

I was using "asymmetry" to specifically talk about it being mechanically engaged in one direction (PC to NPC) and not in the other. Since I consider it inadequate to handle on purely narrative grounds for other reasons, any symmetry there I, frankly, don't much care about (though I've already expressed my opinion in general about GMs deciding what the "appropriate" way for PCs to react is--its hazardous even when used occasionally and unacceptable if done regularly).
 


iserith

Magic Wordsmith
he means (and I get this alot myself) people will say pages from now no one said that...
Question is why that quote. I'd be willing to bet that poster doesn't really care for the DM having all the power in the situation under discussion. Neither do I. But in effect that's what happens when the DM has a veto on a player's action declaration and the ability to say they are acting in bad faith and uninvite them from future games if there is disagreement. This sets up a strong incentive to defer to the DM's views on what is "metagaming" and what isn't.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
nope... I said if you are taking the chance of success away and letting target (be it NPC orc or PC fighter) decide you make it against the grain and not worth doing... are there corner cases where it will still come up, sure. Most time players will just take it as an autofail and say not worth trying...

it is disincentivizing doing it so the player wont do it instead of just saying "I don't want this can we not do it"
same end result but with more steps.
It disincentivizes non-consensual PVP, sure, which is the goal of the table rule.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
In fact, this discussion about @iserith's pvp rules shed light on this whole debate. There seems to be this belief that if players are allowed to actually make choices they will always only choose the one that is best for them, and never roleplay suboptimal outcomes. And thus we must determine outcomes with dice and rulings, and force them to abide by those outcomes.

Which is a strange position to take for people who claim to be the superior roleplayers.

Note that at least one poster in this thread is on record as stating he expects every player to use any knowledge he has of a situation to his advantage, no matter what, so he presumably would think in this situation that in a purely narrative attempt it would always be narrated to their benefit.

(I have a number of thoughts here after a long time playing in an almost purely narrative environment some years ago, but they're complicated, and again, probably veering at least somewhat off-topic).
 




Note that at least one poster in this thread is on record as stating he expects every player to use any knowledge he has of a situation to his advantage, no matter what, so he presumably would think in this situation that in a purely narrative attempt it would always be narrated to their benefit.

(I have a number of thoughts here after a long time playing in an almost purely narrative environment some years ago, but they're complicated, and again, probably veering at least somewhat off-topic).
correct, but it isn't me (maybe leofan or something?) that person went so far as to not being able to imagine narrating a failure without trying to cheat it into a success
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top