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

[Thomas Shey]

Of course, adventuring parties are not your typical military unit. And “soldier” is just one possible background.

The fact they don't know spreading out is generically a bad idea doesn't change the fact it is. And at least the fighting types in the group should know.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And upthread (I didn't want to spend the time finding it) you somehow turned @iserith's "I occasionally modify monsters to keep players on their toes" into "changing every monster in the monster manual."

I see a pattern.

Yup. I believe I pointed out the tendency toward hyperbole (to be charitable) a couple pages back.

 

[DND_Reborn]

And my opinion is that generally, its out of your purview to do that.

Fine, that is your opinion, obviously mine differs.

At the point you decide to, the least I can do is make you go to the trouble of throwing me out and replacing me.

It would be no trouble at all, really, and I have kicked players out of my game. Replacing them has rarely been a problem as there are more players out there than DMs...

Teaching other people lessons about the price of actions is a two-way street, and I think it'd do for more players to teach GM's that.

I would rather not play than play with players who use player knowledge in lieu of PC knowledge, assume erroneous knowledge for their PC, etc.

Otherwise, we can agree to disagree and I'm happy to leave it at that if you are?

 

[Thomas Shey]

And none of your players have ever learned to tell you what they are doing in 1-minute increments?

"I think I'll spend another minute deciding if I want to follow the rogue."

Honestly, in most cases it would make almost no difference; if it takes five minutes to catch up with them, unless you're doing OD&D ten minute turns, six minutes is forever.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm sorry, man, but unless the time frames are extremely small, that just doesn't pass the sniff test. The way to show it is to ask the following question when the players say they're going to look for the others or go to the specific area they know the others are in "When are you going?" If the group tries to respond "Now," ask "Now as in when?" Unless the events are in precise tactical sync (which most likely means the groups are in communication and make the matter moot) the first group doesn't even know when the second is in trouble; at best they know when they're done doing whatever they're doing, and those can be vastly different times (and if at all possible the GM plays out the group liable to finish their task first, then asks them what they're doing), or they're simply waiting, in which case they have no idea what point they need to go (and if they were waiting, presumably had a reason to do so).

So in practice, there's no way for them to do so without referencing events the other group is involved with, because otherwise they have no idea what point to show up in any concrete way. (This assuming that there wasn't already an arrangement like "If you're not back in an hour, we'll go off to see what's wrong" in which case its again, moot.

There's essentially no meaningful way for the first group to do this without clearly showing its a decision using information they don't really have.

The first group absolutely could coincidentally decide to join the second group at the exact time they happen to get into danger. I don’t understand how you could possibly not see that.

Or you can just firewall it and make the decision you think you'd make anyway.

You could, but your out of character knowledge is still influencing that decision. You can try to make your best guess at what decision you’d make anyway, but you can’t actually know, and having that knowledge is going to bias you towards avoiding any decision that could seem like it was motivated by that knowledge, ESPECIALLY if the group has a rule against “metagaming.” The human brain is just not capable of disregarding relevant information when making a decision.

I don't think that's a decision that can meaningfully be called metagaming unless every decision you make for a character is.

I don’t disagree. Trying to prevent metagaming is fruitless, because every decision a player makes is influenced by their own knowledge. All you can really do is prohibit certain actions on the grounds that you think the character wouldn’t make them, and/or take steps to prevent the players from ever gaining information their characters wouldn’t have. Personally, I find both of those things to have significant negative effects on the overall player experience.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fine, that is your opinion, obviously mine differs.

Yes. if they didn't, I wouldn't have bothered to respond.

It would be no trouble at all, really, and I have kicked players out of my game. Replacing them has rarely been a problem as there are more players out there than DMs...

As a player, its the only tool you have while remaining civil. There are other tools, but the power imbalance in games means you can't use them unless you want to be a dick.

I would rather not play than play with players who use player knowledge in lieu of PC knowledge, assume erroneous knowledge for their PC, etc.

Otherwise, we can agree to disagree and I'm happy to leave it at that if you are?

Are you happy to drop it when I mention I still think its an abuse of GM power to do that hardcore? Because if so, yes. Otherwise, frankly, if you express that you feel you should demand a certain behavior of players, you should expect people who think that's inappropriate to challenge you on it if they don't.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The first group absolutely could coincidentally decide to join the second group at the exact time they happen to get into danger. I don’t understand how you could possibly not see that.

I explained how. If its coincidental, they ought to be able to express it in ways that don't require them to reference what the other group is doing, based on time, right? If not, there's nothing coincidental about it, and arguing it is appears to me to be arguing in bad faith.

You could, but your out of character knowledge is still influencing that decision. You can try to make your best guess at what decision you’d make anyway, but you can’t actually know, and having that knowledge is going to bias you towards avoiding any decision that could seem like it was motivated by that knowledge, ESPECIALLY if the group has a rule against “metagaming.” The human brain is just not capable of disregarding relevant information when making a decision.

Keep in mind I'm not assuming you're under massive pressure to not do anything that even smacks of metagaming, just that you're endeavoring to put that to the side. And no, I don't think that's generically impossible. I've done it on and off for decades.

I don’t disagree. Trying to prevent metagaming is fruitless, because every decision a player makes is influenced by their own knowledge. All you can really do is prohibit certain actions on the grounds that you think the character wouldn’t make them, and/or take steps to prevent the players from ever gaining information their characters wouldn’t have. Personally, I find both of those things to have significant negative effects on the overall player experience.

I think you're using metagaming far more broadly than I am here at this point.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Sorry, I had over 10 pages of posts to catch up on and just skimmed most of it, but now I have time to respond:

That part wasn't meant to be snarky, but to illustrate that knowing the basics about a person doesn't mean you know everything. No, I don't have "proficiency" in survival (I don't hunt, for example), but one day I found tracks in the snow at my house and wondered what kind they are, and ended up learning a little bit about how to differentiate feline tracks from canine tracks. It's a random bit of knowledge that has nothing to do with anything else about me.

Which is why I said upthread that if the player can give me a reasonable explanation as to why they feel they should have such knowledge, I am perfectly happy with it. And then I would have you make a Wisdom check (since you don't have Survival I didn't include it. ).

And no matter how much I told you about myself (that's already WAY more than I usually reveal on the Internet...) there would still be countless surprises. So I find that letting players decide what they think their character knows results in a richer, more 3D character than otherwise. Sure, ask a player how their character knows something: not as some kind of test to pass to see if they are allowed to know it (and thus are allowed to take an action) but as an opportunity for adding some depth to their character. If they don't have something colorful to add, and just say, "I don't know," just move on.

And this is simply a place we disagree. PCs know what they know (or at least know "well") based on the aspects I outlined (backstory, proficiencies, even ability scores, etc.). Give me a good reason if a piece of knowledge isn't covered by one of those aspects, otherwise your PC doesn't know it...

What I found interesting is that you tried to parse the information I gave you in game terms: class, proficiencies, lineage rather than skin color. Even though I wasn't giving an in-game example. Not quite sure of the implications, but I guess I thought you were making some kind of realism argument...that one could know what knowledge somebody else had by knowing their background...and maybe you're instead making some kind of game rule argument? (If so, I think it's different from the kind of arguments @Lanefan makes, albeit with the same conclusion.)

Realism is a big part of it for me, but that is because without a strong base for it in my game, the fantasy falls short of being exceptional. That might not make sense to others, and is hard to convey via online discussion, but my players get it and are happy to play that way--they have actually said they enjoy it more. 0

Yeah the Star Wars thing was meant to be a little bit snarky, a little bit funny.

Fine, a little bit both. But it still wasn't really an accurate assessment.

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? 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.

Actually, it is not impossible, you just have to understand there are more options. Here are a few that I typically do if I feel my player knowledge is too influential:

1. I let others take the lead most often in such situations.
2. I roll randomly when I have simple choices like the left/right treasure room location example.
3. I ask the DM if my PC would have certain knowledge (based on my own backstory, background, ability scores, proficiencies) and make a check if the DM agrees.

Now, maybe that's fine for the anti-metagaming rules you impose on yourself, but don't kid yourself that you are making a decision "as your character".

Most of the time, I am. In the case of monster knowledge. If I see no reason why my PC would know XYZ is a weakness of monster ABC, I will have my PC do what I imagine they would do otherwise. In other words, I have NO REASON for my player to exploit that weakness when they would not know about it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Are you happy to drop it when I mention I still think its an abuse of GM power to do that hardcore? Because if so, yes.

Yep. Since I don't know you or care really, and you certainly aren't in my game, consider it dropped.

 

[Charlaquin]

I explained how. If its coincidental, they ought to be able to express it in ways that don't require them to reference what the other group is doing, based on time, right? If not, there's nothing coincidental about it, and arguing it is appears to me to be arguing in bad faith.

They absolutely can express it in ways that don’t require them to reference what the other group is doing. In this example they don’t even know what the other group is doing. They just decided to go check up on the other group.

Keep in mind I'm not assuming you're under massive pressure to not do anything that even smacks of metagaming, just that you're endeavoring to put that to the side. And no, I don't think that's generically impossible. I've done it on and off for decades.Keep in mind I'm not assuming you're under massive pressure to not do anything that even smacks of metagaming, just that you're endeavoring to put that to the side. And no, I don't think that's generically impossible. I've done it on and off for decades.


I think you're using metagaming far more broadly than I am here at this point.

So, you’re using a definition of metagaming that isn’t actually “making a decision that’s influenced by knowledge your character doesn’t have,” which is indeed impossible not to do if you have any relevant knowledge your character doesn’t, but something akin to “taking an action that I don’t think your character would make based on the knowledge they have.”