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

[iserith]

Yes, having things work closer to how they do in the real world is a good thing.

When it helps everyone have fun and contribute to an exciting, memorable story, it's good. When it doesn't do that, it's bad.

Right. And if the player knows the DC and can do simple math, they know for a fact if it succeeded or failed. There’s no assumptions to make.

And in my game, once the die is cast, the situation changes to push toward the next decision point, perhaps via "progress combined with a setback" as I showed in my first post in this thread. Thus, there is no need to assume in the first place. This removes the incentive to "metagame" because it's pointless to do so.

Then we fundamentally disagree. Roleplaying is making those decisions based on what the character would know. Making those decisions based on metagame info is, well, metagaming.

The rules of the latest edition would disagree with you too, then. It does caution against "metagame thinking" for exactly the reasons I've also stated i.e. assumptions are risky. I remember thinking the way you do about this. It was a great relief when I stopped bothering about how other people make decisions for their own characters.

You keep saying similar things and trying to lay the blame at my feet, but you don’t ever seem to actually explain yourself. Care to actually explain this?

The DM controls so much of the game that often the "blame," such as it is, can be theirs. I already mentioned what the issue likely is a couple posts above - a failed ability check resulting in no obvious change in the situation. That's when you see the dogpiling you say you don't like. Instead, when those situations are likely to arise, just rule "progress combined with a setback" on a failed check.

But really, the underlying issue is one of your priors is that "metagaming is bad" which comes from older editions of the game up to and including D&D 3e, if memory serves. If you're not willing to consider that it actually doesn't matter at all, then it seems to me it's going to be very difficult for you to see any other point of view.

 

[Charlaquin]

Reading this I’d just like to point out my original point is not ‘the players shouldn’t know the odds or the stakes of what they might be attempting’ but ‘there are situations where the players wouldn’t inherently know if their attempt succeeded but knowing their own dice roll would essentially give away that information anyway’

I can accept that this could theoretically occur, but I have not encountered a case of it actually occurring, except in games where the DM calls for rolls that don’t have immediate stakes. Which I find a bit ironic, as my experience has also been that DMs who call for rolls that don’t have immediate stakes usually do so precisely in order to create such situations. It’s a problem that stops existing as soon as you stop worrying about it.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, no, the point of a trap is to protect something, usually something valuable. A good trap needs to be identifiable and avoidable by the people who made it, so they can access whatever it’s protecting. This is enough reason to make telegraphs plausible. The positive gameplay outcomes telegraphs lead to are enough reason to use them.

And not giving any indication of their presence defeats their gameplay purpose.

Their "gameplay purpose" is one thing, their in-fiction purpose is another; and for me the in-fiction purpose is paramount. There's pit traps along one side of the hallway but not the other, in order to slow and disrupt invaders and force them into lightning-bolt formation. Fine, and probably easy enough to notice all the traffic goes down one side if someone pays attention. But if there hasn't been any traffic for years and everything's covered in the same amount of dust, then what?

And a trap need not be there simply to protect something. A net snare or leg-hold trap in the woods, for example, isn't protecting anything; it's a means of catching food. A chute trap in a dungeon leading to a jail cell might fulfill the same function, and be at the end of an otherwise dead-end hallway. Etc.

And while you're right that a trap needs to be identifyable and avoidable by those who made it, oftentimes a party is arriving on the scene long after the trap-makers have departed or died, as noted above.

When I say “interact with” I mean the same thing you’re here using “take steps to avoid” to mean.

Ah. I take "interaction" to mean actual physical stuff such as disarming it or setting it off.

 

[overgeeked]

Right, so there should be nothing to lose by stating it non-digetcally, except the risk that a player may misunderstand the diegetic messaging.

Immersion.

Telling players the stakes and odds does not preclude roleplaying.

Metagaming precludes roleplaying. Giving them metagame info their character could not possibly have pushes them squarely into mefagaming.

Very, very little in D&D is in any way realistic. It’s all abstract representation.

Verisimilitude, then.

Knowing the precise odds is a pretty decent abstract representation of the character’s understanding of their own capabilities and direct perception of the environment.

No, it isn’t. Precise knowledge of the odds is not possible. Rough knowledge of one’s abilities, sure. A rough idea of the environment, sure. Knowing you have a 65% chance to do something, nope.

And the way I run things has many benefits, which I have innumerated.

Which all go against what I want out of RPGs.

On the other hand, the impression I get from your posts is that running things the way you do has lead to a great deal of frustration.

When running for people new to the hobby without experience of old-school gaming, sure.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I can accept that this could theoretically occur, but I have not encountered a case of it actually occurring, except in games where the DM calls for rolls that don’t have immediate stakes. Which I find a bit ironic, as my experience has also been that DMs who call for rolls that don’t have immediate stakes usually do so precisely in order to create such situations. It’s a problem that stops existing as soon as you stop worrying about it.

How ‘immediate’ do you consider immediate consequences? If you fail a roll should the results metaphorically drop out the sky on you that second? How long could they be delayed (in universe) and still be considered immediate?

 

[jgsugden]

Didn't have time to read the whole thread, but in case nobody has mentioned it: You can often manage this through what I call 'Pivot Point' descriptions of results.

Let's say that your PC is trying to determine if an NPC is lying to them (which it is) and is about to roll an insight check. The DM has (through whatever means) determined the DC is 17. The PCs do not know the DC. When you roll the insight check the following things happen at the following ranges:

11 or below: You're unsure whether they're lying or not - they're hard for you to read in the moment.
12 to 15: You're not sure, but you think they're telling the truth.
16: You're pretty sure they're telling the truth.
17 to 19: You're not sure, but you think they're lying.
20+: You're pretty sure they're lying.

I've also seen DMs do a 'd20 shift' on the results. Players roll their d20. Then a DM rolls a (secret) d20. The DM then adds their d20 to the d20 result of the player. If the result is above 20, they subtract 20 from the result. This ends up 'shifting' the result the player rolled by a random number from 1 to 20. At first blush you may think this creates problems in the randomness of the result but it does not - it just hides from the player whether their roll was good or bad. Modifiers are applied after the modified roll is determined. I find this method to be cumbersome and not as much fun for the players, especially when their result was a naturally high result.

You can also use a dice tower that the player rolls into, but where only the DM can see the result.

 

[overgeeked]

When it helps everyone have fun and contribute to an exciting, memorable story, it's good. When it doesn't do that, it's bad.

Just like everything else.

And in my game, once the die is cast, the situation changes to push toward the next decision point, perhaps via "progress combined with a setback" as I showed in my first post in this thread. Thus, there is no need to assume in the first place. This removes the incentive to "metagame" because it's pointless to do so.

That’s very gamey. I much prefer sticking to diegetics as much as possible. So when someone in your game picks a lock and fails, what’s an example of the situation changing so they can’t just keep rolling? At a guess something basic like picking the lock but the pick breaking.

The rules of the latest edition would disagree with you too, then. It does caution against "metagame thinking" for exactly the reasons I've also stated i.e. assumptions are risky. I remember thinking the way you do about this. It was a great relief when I stopped bothering about how other people make decisions for their own characters.

I want RPGs to be more than boadgames in our shared imagined space, so I’ll keep on keeping on.

The DM controls so much of the game that often the "blame," such as it is, can be theirs. I already mentioned what the issue likely is a couple posts above - a failed ability check resulting in no obvious change in the situation. That's when you see the dogpiling you say you don't like. Instead, when those situations are likely to arise, just rule "progress combined with a setback" on a failed check.

But really, the underlying issue is one of your priors is that "metagaming is bad" which comes from older editions of the game up to and including D&D 3e, if memory serves. If you're not willing to consider that it actually doesn't matter at all, then it seems to me it's going to be very difficult for you to see any other point of view.

So that’s one example but you still haven’t explained why it’s the DM’s fault when the players metagame. Your argument seems to be “stop caring and it’s not a problem.”

It’s also no longer a problem that the players cheat on their rolls if I don’t care, but it doesn’t mean they’re suddenly not cheating.

(No, my players don’t lie about their rolls.)

 

[Charlaquin]

Their "gameplay purpose" is one thing, their in-fiction purpose is another; and for me the in-fiction purpose is paramount. There's pit traps along one side of the hallway but not the other, in order to slow and disrupt invaders and force them into lightning-bolt formation. Fine, and probably easy enough to notice all the traffic goes down one side if someone pays attention. But if there hasn't been any traffic for years and everything's covered in the same amount of dust, then what?

Then telegraph it in some other way. Its not hard to come up with plausible reasons to hint at a trap’s presence if you want to do so.

And a trap need not be there simply to protect something. A net snare or leg-hold trap in the woods, for example, isn't protecting anything; it's a means of catching food. A chute trap in a dungeon leading to a jail cell might fulfill the same function, and be at the end of an otherwise dead-end hallway. Etc.

Sure, but regardless, a trap’s creators need to be able to find and circumvent their own traps.

And while you're right that a trap needs to be identifyable and avoidable by those who made it, oftentimes a party is arriving on the scene long after the trap-makers have departed or died, as noted above.

Sure, but the age can also be a source of plausible telegraphs.

Ah. I take "interaction" to mean actual physical stuff such as disarming it or setting it off.

I mean, that’s also a form of interaction. I’m just using it as a catch-all for gameplay activity relating to overcoming the obstacle.

 

[Charlaquin]

How ‘immediate’ do you consider immediate consequences? If you fail a roll should the results metaphorically drop out the sky on you that second? How long could they be delayed (in universe) and still be considered immediate?

Personally, if I don’t have something I can tell the player will happen on a failure at the time they roll, I don’t ask for a roll. Though, if the attempt itself has a cost, such as time spent performing the action when there’s a source of time pressure, then having to pay that cost without making any progress suffices as “something that happens on a failure” in my book.

 

[overgeeked]

Then telegraph it in some other way. Its not hard to come up with plausible reasons to hint at a trap’s presence if you want to do so.

Not if you care about verisimilitude. The point of a trap is to kill people or trap them so you can kill them later. There’s no benefit to making a trap obvious in the fiction. It’s 100% a gameplay thing to signpost traps.

Sure, but regardless, a trap’s creators need to be able to find and circumvent their own traps.

Yes. Generally that would be something like a map, not something on site that would give away the presence of the trap.