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

[iserith]

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.

Though I should note for the purposes of avoiding some posters running with a misstatement of my motivations, my goal is not to "keep players on their toes." If I change something, it's typically because it works better with the challenge or stupid pun I have in mind when prepping. (In the case of the troll example, it had to do with being a parody of internet forum interactions. The way to beat the troll was to avoid it so that it destroys itself, not engage in flame wars.) That it also keeps the players on their toes and encourages them to verify their assumptions before acting upon them is incidental.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Which is fine if - and only if - the first group makes that decision without any meta-knowledge of the second group's situation.

The first group might have told me up-front they'll wait an hour then come check up on the second group, meanwhile when running the second group it turns out by sheer luck that just after the hour mark is when they get into a sticky situation; and the party's arrival saves the day. But that's all it is - sheer luck. IThe trouble could just as easily have come at 45 minutes, or not have happened yet when the rest of the group find them; all based on what the scout group did and-or where they went, and how long it took them.

(IME the really challenging bits to run are when both groups are on the move and neither knows where the other is, e.g. in this case where the waiting group has gone in search of the overdue scout group)

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Again, when? The other group is off doing something that takes 47 minutes before they get in trouble. At what point do they leave? (Again, remembering they don't know precisely when this happens). They ought to be able to give a time frame for that, right? If they do, the only way they'll pick the right time is dumb luck, otherwise they'll almost surely be either early (which is why you should find out when they're going to follow-up before you resolve the other group before you do, since it otherwise requires you to roll it back) or late (in which case it probably doesn't matter, and again, simply declaring they'd follow up after X time would have served the same purpose).

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.”

I'm disagreeing that its impossible to ignore information you have that the character doesn't in making a decision. If you insist it isn't, then, in practice we're using different definition because your definition of "influence" is so broad. Now its possible you're doing that because you're taking it as a given that is impossible, but it adds up to the same thing--we're working from different definitions.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Though I should note for the purposes of avoiding some posters running with a misstatement of my motivations, my goal is not to "keep players on their toes." If I change something, it's typically because it works better with the challenge or stupid pun I have in mind when prepping. (In the case of the troll example, it had to do with being a parody of internet forum interactions. The way to beat the troll was to avoid it so that it destroys itself, not engage in flame wars.) That it also keeps the players on their toes and encourages them to verify their assumptions before acting upon them is incidental.

Sorry, man, but the other side of this is if its indistinguishable from a gotcha outside your own head, its going to likely be taken as a gotcha unless you have what seems a really high order of trust from the players involved.

 

[Thomas Shey]

(IME the really challenging bits to run are when both groups are on the move and neither knows where the other is, e.g. in this case where the waiting group has gone in search of the overdue scout group)

You say "really challenging" I say "Massive pain in the behind to keep track of." I think I'd still want to run all of it in chunks if doing that (and fortunately its rarely come up).

 

[iserith]

Sorry, man, but the other side of this is if its indistinguishable from a gotcha outside your own head, its going to likely be taken as a gotcha unless you have what seems a really high order of trust from the players involved.

It's a "gotcha" if there was no way to figure it out or avoid it beforehand. Telegraphing mitigates the perception of a "gotcha" even if the telegraphing was dismissed as unimportant by the players or forgotten. If a player can reexamine the setup and realize they missed that clue, then they don't tend to declare it a "gotcha." In that specific situation, several of the players picked up on the telegraphing I laid down and understood the troll was different than normal, but the wizard's player did not and the result was the situation became more difficult and an NPC was killed.

 

[Charlaquin]

Again, when? The other group is off doing something that takes 47 minutes before they get in trouble. At what point do they leave? (Again, remembering they don't know precisely when this happens). They ought to be able to give a time frame for that, right? If they do, the only way they'll pick the right time is dumb luck,

And dumb luck is absolutely a possible thing that can happen.

I'm disagreeing that its impossible to ignore information you have that the character doesn't in making a decision. If you insist it isn't, then, in practice we're using different definition because your definition of "influence" is so broad. Now its possible you're doing that because you're taking it as a given that is impossible, but it adds up to the same thing--we're working from different definitions.

You’re entitled to your own opinion but you’re not entitled to your own facts. It is a fact that the human brain is not capable of disregarding relevant information when making a decision. You can either choose to act on the information you have, or you can consciously choose to act in a way that is contrary to the way that information would otherwise lead you to act. Either way, that information is the primary motivating factor in your decision-making.

Now, certainly you can make a rule that if you have information your character wouldn’t, you are only allowed to act in ways that are contrary to how that information would lead you to act. However, this rule would first of all not lead to the same outcomes that would occur if the player simply never had any knowledge that the character didn’t have (as it precludes those dumb luck moments). Second, there are a lot of issues with actually enforcing this rule, the most significant being what happens when there’s disagreement over what the character would or wouldn’t know, and what do you do when there’s disagreement over what is or isn’t contrary to how the information would otherwise make the player want to act?

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Those are good ways to avoid metagaming, but they still aren’t “making the decision as your character.” It’s avoiding or outsourcing the decision.

 

[Lanefan]

You say "really challenging" I say "Massive pain in the behind to keep track of."

Yeah, those things can often be pretty much the same.

I think I'd still want to run all of it in chunks if doing that (and fortunately its rarely come up).

Worst I've ever had was a ten-member party got split ten ways by a wild magic effect teleporting each of them to a random place within the rather big dungeon they'd been exploring.

I stopped the session at that point and sorted it all via copious amounts of email during the week, during which I had little chits on the map telling me where each one was. By the start of the following session I think something like eight of them had reunited, we then roleplayed them looking for the other two (one was asleep thus easy to figure, the other was trapped and had to be rescued).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Those are good ways to avoid metagaming, but they still aren’t “making the decision as your character.” It’s avoiding or outsourcing the decision.

Those are just my fallbacks if I can't "make the decision as my character", which is pretty rare.

I am analytical and rational enough to be able to compartmentalize my knowledge from my PCs in most instances. Also, with my experience in acting and as a near life-time DM, I can put myself in roles and make decisions as the role I am playing.

For example, I often play PCs whose INT score would be less than my own. So, I cannot play them as if they were as intelligent as I am, and I have to downplay it in order to be in that role.