• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

log in or register to remove this ad


Morkus from Orkus
But those are all metagaming actions. They're considerations borne out of acknowledging the game is the game and choosing actions based on external knowledge.
No they weren't all metagame actions.

"They don't wait for death saves to tick up before healing"

This is the opposite of metagaming. Metagaming is bringing in player knowledge that 1) you have to fail 3 death saves to die, and 2) bringing in player knowledge of how many death saves had been failed.

"they discuss what spells they're going to take so they don't double up"

This could be metagaming, but isn't necessarily the smart thing. Doubling up is often better, because good spells are good to have in multiple hands. Fireball is good. Two fireballs is better. Healing is good. Healing in two hands is better so you can heal the healer. And so on.

"they push on in to danger instead of resting after every battle"

This is not metagaming. Resting after every fight is, because the PCs don't know about the adventuring day. That and resting can also bring encounters, so...

"they plead earnestly with the agent of the Zhentarim they just met"

Negotiation is not metagaming.

"they stay committed to their course of rescuing their employer rather than abandoning him because it's only 10 gold"

Neither staying the course or abandoning him are metagaming. This is roleplay and depends on the personalities of the PCs

"they don't steal from each other even though they steal from everyone else"

Same as above. Not metagaming and based on PC personality.

Only one thing you mentioned could possibly be considered to be metagaming.


Morkus from Orkus
I think that goes back to what was said earlier. It's almost impossible to separate player from character knowledge. The player knows all these things so they can't help but assume their common knowledge as a D&D player is common knowledge to the inhabitants of the in-game world. That's where the roleplaying comes in. And not giving the player more knowledge about the game world than their character would have.
Or just telling the players, "Look. Monsters are rare. Don't assume your PC knows about them or what they can do."


At our table my players decided spontanously to provide to me only the bonus on a certain dice roll and I make the roll behind the screen. OK, if it is an Athletic roll they roll the dice, but for a buff, a pick pocket or so on I make the throw and this add a lot of mistery to the game (I provide some hints. E.g., "you try to fool the guard but you noticed that he seems nervous.")


The players I've had in 5E seem to think it's fun to win. They can't abide any failure of any kind. Fail a check, dogpile to get a success. Run an official monster, they look up the stats. Run an official module, they look up the text. Anything less than hyper-optimal choices all the time every time and you suck. It's exhausting. Relax. The game is so drastically weighted in your favor that you're all but guaranteed to win with even the most suboptimal build imaginable. There's no achievements to be had. If you miss a single gold piece you haven't failed. You don't need to try so hard. Relax. It's a game.

"Plunder everything that isn't nailed down. Then take everything that IS nailed down. THEN take the nails from the walls. Finally, take the walls."

That's Greyhawking a dungeon. And it's been around a HECK of a lot longer than 5e.

Frankly there are A LOT more players (IME) that play for the narrative experience and the fun of exploration rather than to "win the game..." than there have ever been before. Getting every advantage available has been "standard" (or at least typical) play for a LONG time and I find it less now than I did before.


Morkus from Orkus
To me that's covered by "no metagaming," but it pays to be specific.
Yes and no. Yes it's technically covered by no metagaming, but if they don't know that their PC wouldn't know the stuff, they attempting to use it would not really be metagaming. It would simply be a mistake. Telling them straight out that monsters are rare and the knowledge isn't common lets them be aware that it's metagaming.


Victoria Rules
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?
Thus far in this paragraph, we're actually in agreement. It's just human nature that people are going to tend to use the information they have, regardless of its source.
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.
And if one wants to keep that decision-making as purely in-character as possible (and why wouldn't one?) the obvious answer is - where possible - not to give the player access to extra information that the character wouldn't have. This can be as basic as not running a module that one or more players have already been through or DMed, dealing with separated groups separately such that one group's players remain unaware of what the other group is doing, making monster stats (particularly for your homebrew monsters!) off-limits to players, and so forth.

I just don't understand the resistance to this approach.

That's not really different from I've been saying. That's very close to the 50% number I said would be needed to maybe stop metagaming, and which you say MAY work.

We're saying the exact say thing. :p
yeah, my example was going froward you may be able to maintain it with 1 in 8 but like you said pretty close to 50/50 to start.

Remove ads