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

pemerton

Legend
I find the easiest way to handle PvP is to just tell players that it's not allowed. If a PC attacks another PC, the attacking player immediately becomes an NPC (after reminding the player of the rule of course).

<snip>

But I don't see how this has any connection to metagaming
Here's the connection that I see: the only way a player can follow the no PvP rule is by metagaming. Because if they rely only on in-character knowledge, they can't know the real-world fact about which game participant has ownership of which element of the fiction.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Also a bit like someone who really likes grapefruit juice deciding, more-or-less arbitrarily, that nothing else counts as juice, or even as a beverage. That all the people out there drinking orange juice, or creaming soda, or whatever, aren't really drinking at all.

It's pretty bizarre.
yeah I get pretty annoyed at the "that isn't real RP" argument that either directly or inderectly gets made here all the time
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
that is correct... by ban I mean we all just don't... if for some reason someone forgot we would all talk about it (as equals)

And, if that occurs, maybe one of them also reads this forum and will say, "Hey, instead of just saying 'never' I heard about this idea..."

I hope so. It's a really fun solution.
 

Here's the connection that I see: the only way a player can follow the no PvP rule is by metagaming. Because if they rely only on in-character knowledge, they can't know the real-world fact about which game participant has ownership of which element of the fiction.
this comes down to the idea I found back in 3e when a player says "That is what my character would do" answer with "You made the character, so either make another one or find a way to have this one DO something else."

To be clear, I ask the metagaming be minimized... but I don't think that there is never a reason to metagame.
 

Oofta

Legend
The commonality is that both are versions of telling players "You may not declare that action." Which some of us believe are not part of 5e.

Well there are some actions they can't declare, or at least that are meaningless. They can't jump over the moon. Go ahead and try, nothing happens. Whether it's "part of 5E" is where I disagree ... it is and always has been part of the social contract at the table.
 


Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Well there are some actions they can't declare, or at least that are meaningless. They can't jump over the moon. Go ahead and try, nothing happens. Whether it's "part of 5E" is where I disagree ... it is and always has been part of the social contract at the table.

That's exactly the example @Lanefan was using. If the player declares "I jump over the moon", instead of saying, "You can't do that" you just narrate "You get a good 23 inches off the ground before gravity pulls you back down." See? Nobody said, "Your character wouldn't do that" or "That action is not allowed."

@iserith's approach to pvp is similar.

P.S. There is a difference between "actions they can't declare" and "actions that are meaningless." The latter just means it doesn't change the game state in a meaningful way. The former means there is somebody at the table who gets to tell you what actions you are allowed to declare. Huge distinction.
 

Oofta

Legend
Here's the connection that I see: the only way a player can follow the no PvP rule is by metagaming. Because if they rely only on in-character knowledge, they can't know the real-world fact about which game participant has ownership of which element of the fiction.

I would assume that most tables have certain metagame rules about PC behavior. At my table one is no evil PCs. Others might include something like don't be a complete misogynistic jerk just because "that's what your character would do" and similar.
 

Oofta

Legend
That's exactly the example @Lanefan was using. If the player declares "I jump over the moon", instead of saying, "You can't do that" you just narrate "You get a good 23 inches off the ground before gravity pulls you back down." See? Nobody said, "Your character wouldn't do that" or "That action is not allowed."

@iserith's approach to pvp is similar.

P.S. There is a difference between "actions they can't declare" and "actions that are meaningless." The latter just means it doesn't change the game state in a meaningful way. The former means there is somebody at the table who gets to tell you what actions you are allowed to declare. Huge distinction.

I guess I wouldn't bother narrating something the character and player know is impossible. I don't see the point and if a player insists we'll have a chat about why they're attempting something impossible and how I run a relatively serious game.

This is different from trying to lift MCU Thor's hammer* which, while impossible, is something the character and player do not know is impossible.

*We all know no murder-hobo PC is going to be "worthy"
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
I guess I wouldn't bother narrating something the character and player know is impossible. I don't see the point and if a player insists we'll have a chat about why they're attempting something impossible and how I run a relatively serious game.

Ok, but you are being squirrely here. You just used that example, and when I tried to distinguish between the two approaches, you shifted to "having a talk with them about their behavior." You've changed it from a discussion about meaningless actions and disallowed actions into a discussion about problem players.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I find the easiest way to handle PvP is to just tell players that it's not allowed. If a PC attacks another PC, the attacking player immediately becomes an NPC (after reminding the player of the rule of course). Same way with evil. I'll never tell a player that their PC can't go bad, but if they do they become and NPC since I don't want evil PCs in my game.

But I don't see how this has any connection to metagaming, they're separate topics other than that it should be discussed as a group how you want to handle it.
The connection is that you're still limiting how players can play their characters, only in a different direction and, IMO, more arbitrarily.

Also, your stance has a corollary to it that's a huge red flag for me: that you can arbitrarily take a character away from a player and make it an NPC just because you don't like something it did in-character. Characters belong to their players for life.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
yeah we decided after a couple of times doing that we didn't like it.

We still work against each other sometimes... I may back NPC A for the throne and you back NPC B but it will never come down to dice rolls between us... just RP and be happy.
What if it's two PCs who are competing for the throne?
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
What if it's two PCs who are competing for the throne?
got-game-of-thrones.gif
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Here's the connection that I see: the only way a player can follow the no PvP rule is by metagaming. Because if they rely only on in-character knowledge, they can't know the real-world fact about which game participant has ownership of which element of the fiction.
Yep - stickers on foreheads again. :)
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
That's exactly the example @Lanefan was using. If the player declares "I jump over the moon", instead of saying, "You can't do that" you just narrate "You get a good 23 inches off the ground before gravity pulls you back down." See? Nobody said, "Your character wouldn't do that" or "That action is not allowed."

@iserith's approach to pvp is similar.
No it isn't, for two very important reason: 1) iserith's pvp idea bypasses the otherwise-established rules of the game (e.g. the attacker doesn't get a roll to hit) and 2) it's not the DM neutrally narrating the results but the target player, who has a vested interest.
P.S. There is a difference between "actions they can't declare" and "actions that are meaningless." The latter just means it doesn't change the game state in a meaningful way. The former means there is somebody at the table who gets to tell you what actions you are allowed to declare. Huge distinction.
Very true.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I guess I wouldn't bother narrating something the character and player know is impossible. I don't see the point
I do. If the character wants to look like a goof, jumping up and down in the town plaza while calling out "I'm going to the moon!", why on earth wouldn't you let him?
and if a player insists we'll have a chat about why they're attempting something impossible and how I run a relatively serious game.
Ah, there's the rub: that word "serious" rearing its ugly head. :)
 

Oofta

Legend
Ok, but you are being squirrely here. You just used that example, and when I tried to distinguish between the two approaches, you shifted to "having a talk with them about their behavior." You've changed it from a discussion about meaningless actions and disallowed actions into a discussion about problem players.

If someone says they do something that is obviously impossible, I'll just tell them they can't. If they insist on attempting anyway, there's something else going on and I'd rather just discuss it directly.

It doesn't automatically make them a problem player, perhaps there's just a misunderstanding. I'd rather just have a quick conversation to clarify.
 

Oofta

Legend
The connection is that you're still limiting how players can play their characters, only in a different direction and, IMO, more arbitrarily.

Also, your stance has a corollary to it that's a huge red flag for me: that you can arbitrarily take a character away from a player and make it an NPC just because you don't like something it did in-character. Characters belong to their players for life.

I tell the people up front when they join my game how I handle it. If you still join my game you've granted permission. If it's a red flag for you that I don't allow certain behavior, perhaps I'm not the right DM for you. That's fine, we all have our preferences.

I assume that every DM and group has some lines that can't be crossed. It's just a question of where that line is and how it's handled.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
No it isn't, for two very important reason: 1) iserith's pvp idea bypasses the otherwise-established rules of the game (e.g. the attacker doesn't get a roll to hit) and 2) it's not the DM neutrally narrating the results but the target player, who has a vested interest.

So for those reasons the two aren’t even similar? Especially in the context of a debate about the differences between action prohibitions and narrated outcomes? Sheesh.
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top