• 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?

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
the part that strikes me the weirdest is you don't let people change there minds ever... and you do this while forcing people to RP in private. Like HOW can it be metagaming if they don't know at all.
There has to be some degree of commitment to following through on an action declaration once it's been made, otherwise the game becomes unplayable in almost every situation, not just when the party is split.
As for the "Why change" I can imagine you and DM walk off to your private game for 40 mins out of game time come back and I say "SInce in real life I sat here for 40 mins getting annoyed I have decided my character most likely will feel the same, so I will check at 30 mins instead of an hour"
First off, it's very rare that a split lasts that long in real time. If the scout has an hour to work with in game time, it's almost unthinkable it would take a real-time hour to play through . Hell, if the scouting goes smoothly I and the scout's player might be back to the table in just a few minutes. Even if it doesn't, odds are high that it'll take well under 15 minutes to sort it out - the scout will either get captured/killed, escape back to the party, or not return in the alloted time at which point I put the scout on hold and go back to the main group.
or maybe I should come text or knock on your door at the 20 min mark and say "Hey, since we still want to RP and our characters are not much more patient then we are, we are coming now... what ever point you are at"
That would lead to an argument on the spot.
now because I am pretty easy going I most likely wont do that, I will just say the game isn't for me. I have no interest in note passing or private play
Where I don't at all mind characters having secrets, and acting on them. They're not robots.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
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.

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.

I, at least, am not disagreeing with you. The difference is that if they do happen to have the information, I don’t generally care if they use it.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
wait you change spells range?
Yes and no.

Burning Hands has always had a range/AoE of 3 feet in 1e. I haven't changed that.

But I have gone through and rewritten just about every spell in the game, so yes, I've changed many things about many spells. BH's range just doesn't happen to be one of them.
 

Let's say we're playing a D20 modern game with hackers. Someone at the game table is actually a coder and can throw a bunch of intelligent sounding techno babble at the DM. Unless the DM is literally a hacker themselves most of it will likely go over their heads but the coder is really, really good at techno babble, something I've seen people use to impress management on several occasions. It's not that different from a player just being eloquent and good at describing disabling an imaginary trap.
Not D&D but many years ago I was dating a computer expert (we were both in college her for that me for business' accounting) and we had a little competition seeing what we could tell the Head Story teller of a Werewolf game we 'knew' and should be able to do... mostly keeping it real but trying to sneak in what we called 'head light fluid' things here and there...
We thought we were so smart... but said ST was a nurse and one day someone said something about finding acetaminophen in a root, and he asked what that was... and we all looked at each other in horror. we were trying to break an NPC fever and he (yes an ER nurse) had to be walked through not only how to naturally get it, but what it would do... so MAYBE we were not as smart and persuasive as much as he just didn't know anything...
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
There was a computer game called Myth: The Fallen Age, way back in the before times. In it, there are huge shambling undead that explode when you shoot them with arrows. I made it my mission to get through that entire game without a single casualty*, and pulled it off, almost entirely due to those exploding undead, by looping around to gather the faster undead around the splody ones. Good times.

* Those of you who played this game (by Bungie before they went all Halo!) may remember you'd actually hear a guy saying "casualty" whenever you lost a soldier, in the most bored-sounding voice possible.
Literally last week I was searching for an iPad version of Myth. Loved that game.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Doesn't that mean, by strict D&D(5e) rules, that you can't even hit an adjacent square?
I don't use squares as a measure of anything, and wouldn't even were I running 5e or something akin.

But, in pure 5e terms it would probably translate to "Range: an adjacent square".
 

First off, it's very rare that a split lasts that long in real time.
1 big fight (aka something goes wrong) could be 30 seconds in game and 20 minutes to play through... especially if you have 1 PC trying to get away.
Where I don't at all mind characters having secrets, and acting on them. They're not robots.
I don't mind character having secrets, i just don't think the player needs to keep it secrete. We have done this for years but we used to play like you do. I can say I do not wish to go back to your way... BTW we are not robots eaither
 

Yes and no.

Burning Hands has always had a range/AoE of 3 feet in 1e. I haven't changed that.

But I have gone through and rewritten just about every spell in the game, so yes, I've changed many things about many spells. BH's range just doesn't happen to be one of them.
yeah I didn't know you were useing 1e I only have easy access to 3e 4e and 5e (I do have 2e in storage) I don't actually have 1e books except my anniversary ones.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
So choosing to not be as effective as possible when you have that knowledge is metagaming.
You have no knowledge of either how many death saves are needed, when they occur, or how many have been made or saved. Metagaming would be acting on that knowledge above that you don't have. Not metagaming would be healing the person ASAP so he doesn't die...............like you described.
But the wizard's not taking comprehend languages because he knows that's this bard's whole thing, and he doesn't want to step on that player's fun.
1) If that's the bard's whole thing, that's a pretty sad bard. :p 2) it doesn't step on the bard's toes, since comprehend languages is not bard specific.
But the game is more fun when they don't rest constantly, so they don't do the cautious safe thing as if they're actually concerned about their lives.
My point is that resting after a fight is usually just as unsafe. I mean, you just had a fight there with a monster and are probably in a dungeon or ruins. And if you leave and let the denizens know you were there by discovering the bodies, they will prepare for you and you have a fairly high chance to TPK when you return. Pushing on is often the safest thing.
No, obviously not. But the player who knows who Zhentarim are explicitly leaning into the fact that they will likely be betrayed because that's fun and interesting is.
Zhentarim are bad as an organization, not at the basic level. It's the leadership you need to worry about. Also, they are a country/city state, so they don't just betray every time they talk to someone. That's dumb and successful evil isn't stupid. You only betray when you can get away with it and it's going to be to your significant advantage. Talking to some adventuring shmoes is not usually going to be such an opportunity, so you won't usually be betrayed.
But choosing to do so because he's who the module is about when we agreed to play this one, is, even if you justify it in fiction after the fact.
No. You are still not bringing in out of character knowledge to act upon it. Let's say we all agree to play an evil campaign, but we agree ahead of time we will not betray one another so that the campaign won't fall apart. Creating evil characters that can have close ties and commitments that they won't break is not metagaming or even wrong. Evil can love. In fact, a lot of evil in the real world has stemmed from love. A father murdering someone to get medicine to heal his daughter, and so on.

The same goes with what you describe above.

Metagaming would be if you knew because you read the module that the patron would pay more than 10 gold, but not more than 50 or he would get upset and send you away, so you bargain hard to get to 50 and then abruptly stop because you the player know what will happen.
If you're portraying someone who is abjectly selfish and amoral, and tried to steal from the party, but retconned your actions the second the another player said they don't want to play that sort of game, it is.
Evil can be committed to the group and out to burn everyone else. It happens all the time in the real world. Evil can be loyal, especially in small groups.

As for what you describe above, that's moving the goal posts and not what you described in your initial post. The player and/or DM should have been up front during session 0 and just said, "No evil" or "No stealing from party members."
 

Xamnam

Loves Your Favorite Game
I don't think you're getting the perspective I'm approaching this from, so I'll just stand by the last line of my previous post.
 

Remove ads

Top