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

[Blue]

You can't tell when you go to lie and do a horrible job of it? I can.

I don't know if the other person is so unaware it may get past them anyhow, bt I know how well I did.

Same like when you take a test and you know if you've done well or poorly.

There is nothing that I should roll for that I can't tell how well I have done it. Rolling is active. You know how well you've done.

If a DM started to take that away I would find it antagonistic and have a talk with them that either involved them stopping it or me stopping playing with them - I play to have fun, I don't have time for your power trips.

Heck, as a DM in person I roll in front of everyone if they know the foe is making a check. The characters should perceive if the ogre only did a lazy off-balance swing (look, a 7) and managed to connect with you anyway.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This thread was more about considering an approach to players rolling blind of their own dice results in certain situations to avoid learning metagame knowledge from their dice in the first place, as you can’t act off what you don’t know, with players declaring actions in ignorance of what’s going to happen/how well they did

I realize the topic has spiraled away from your original intention, but I don’t quite follow how players are acting on assumptions of how a roll goes. You seem to be implying that they see a low number on the die and assume failure and then just start declaring actions as if they failed. But why let them do that?

That’s precisely why you should explain that it was actually a success. That’s also an argument about why you should share the DC in the first place.

If you just say “whoa there, cowboy… I know you only rolled a 4, but the DC was only 10 so your +6 actually gives you a success. Now what do you want to do?”

I think the dice do offer players opportunities to roleplay if they’re aware of what the dice are saying.

I keep the player vs character split for this. Of course the character wants to win by any means necessary. That’s a given. And to me, not adversarial. But, when the player wants to win by any means necessary, that’s where it becomes adversarial. Metagaming, cheating the dice, etc.

I realize I’m not your favorite poster here, and this may seem like an attack, but I want you to know that’s truly not how it’s meant… but have you ever considered that you actually are antagonistic to your players? That maybe they’re that way in response? Or at least partially?

Your posts and the way you describe players make me think your game is very adversarial. If that’s not what you want, I would consider moderating your stances a bit.

I could be wrong, of course, but going only off what I read if your posts, that’s how it seems.

It only makes sense in a "players against the world" or "puzzle solving is a big part of the game" context.

If so, I’d recommend using puzzles the players don’t already know how to solve. Seems incredibly obvious.

 

[Maxperson]

I realize the topic has spiraled away from your original intention, but I don’t quite follow how players are acting on assumptions of how a roll goes. You seem to be implying that they see a low number on the die and assume failure and then just start declaring actions as if they failed. But why let them do that?

That’s precisely why you should explain that it was actually a success. That’s also an argument about why you should share the DC in the first place.

If you just say “whoa there, cowboy… I know you only rolled a 4, but the DC was only 10 so your +6 actually gives you a success. Now what do you want to do?”

I think the dice do offer players opportunities to roleplay if they’re aware of what the dice are saying.

Yeah. That bugs me and so does when they reach to roll or just roll before I ask for one, especially when it's going to be an automatic success.

I realize I’m not your favorite poster here, and this may seem like an attack, but I want you to know that’s truly not how it’s meant… but have you ever considered that you actually are antagonistic to your players? That maybe they’re that way in response? Or at least partially?

I get the feeling that he's like me and his players don't act that way at all. He's talking about the occasional player you meet over the years who acts that way.

 

[iserith]

Yeah. That bugs me and so does when they reach to roll or just roll before I ask for one, especially when it's going to be an automatic success.

I get the feeling that he's like me and his players don't act that way at all. He's talking about the occasional player you meet over the years who acts that way.

The poster reported in this and other threads having an issue with hundreds of players (D&D 5e in particular) if I recall correctly.

 

[Maxperson]

The poster reported in this and other threads having an issue with hundreds of players (D&D 5e in particular) if I recall correctly.

Okay. Personally I don't think I've had a real issue with even 10 over the decades.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If so, I’d recommend using puzzles the players don’t already know how to solve. Seems incredibly obvious.

That may be, but it still answers the question of "why would someone care".

 

[overgeeked]

I realize I’m not your favorite poster here, and this may seem like an attack, but I want you to know that’s truly not how it’s meant… but have you ever considered that you actually are antagonistic to your players? That maybe they’re that way in response? Or at least partially?

I have considered it, yes. But I don’t think that’s what’s going on. That’s not ego. I have thought about it. I have players from my last 5E game still asking me to start it up again months after the campaign stopped. I’ve been complimented by my players about the very things many in this thread find so contentious.

Your posts and the way you describe players make me think your game is very adversarial. If that’s not what you want, I would consider moderating your stances a bit.

There’s a lot of adversarial stuff but it’s not coming from me, it’s coming from the players. We have rules to follow and I expect the players to follow them. They’re not pie-in-the-sky dreamy impossible rules. It’s basic stuff like don’t cheat. To me metagaming is cheating. And I make that clear upfront.

I’m not out to get the players or their characters. I’m here to have fun like everyone else. Cheating and metagaming aren’t fun, they’re fun killers. If you need to cheat to have a good time or you want to play D&D like it’s WoW or a boardgame, that’s cool. You do you. Just do it at someone else’s table because I’m not interested. Knowing what you like isn’t adversarial, nor is expecting players to follow the social contract.

I could be wrong, of course, but going only off what I read if your posts, that’s how it seems.

I think it comes down to being an old-school referee with modern players playing 5E. Some of my players really dig the way I run things, others bounce off my style never to be heard from again. I don’t think I’m unique in that. What is unique is that this is entirely limited to my experiences with 5E players. I don’t have troubles like this or on this level with gamers experienced with older games or while playing literally any other game.

Every time I post about this people shout about how my experience isn’t representative. That’s great. But that’s also completely unhelpful. It’s still my experience.

 

[Clint_L]

I certainly agree that deducing a solution is much more fun than looking up the answer. The problem especially with monster weaknesses is, most of us have been playing this game for a very long time. If the DM is using straight-out-of-the-book monsters, chances are we don’t even have to look the answer up - we already know because we’ve fought them plenty of times before. And while actually deducing the answer is more fun than looking it up, pretending to deduce it when you actually knew all a long is not fun at all, in my opinion. Now, if there’s a newer player at the table who actually doesn’t know the answer, I don’t want to ruin it for them. But that’s not a metagaming issue, it’s just a courtesy issue.

I have a different perspective. If my character doesn't know about a creatures vulnerabilities, then I roleplay them like that. To me, that's the whole point of what roleplaying is - trying to put yourself in the shoes of someone else and imagine how they would act. Otherwise, I'm just going to wreck every encounter because I've been playing the game for more than 40 years and I own almost every book.

To me it makes no sense that my character who has never heard of a troll would instantly shout, "We need fire or acid!" So yeah, this can take a little more effort to roleplay as a character trying to figure out something that you, the player, already know, but it's not really hard. And for me it's plenty fun imagining how this character would approach the problem.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have a different perspective. If my character doesn't know about a creatures vulnerabilities, then I roleplay them like that. To me, that's the whole point of what roleplaying is - trying to put yourself in the shoes of someone else and imagine how they would act. Otherwise, I'm just going to wreck every encounter because I've been playing the game for more than 40 years and I own almost every book.

To me it makes no sense that my character who has never heard of a troll would instantly shout, "We need fire or acid!" So yeah, this can take a little more effort to roleplay as a character trying to figure out something that you, the player, already know, but it's not really hard. And for me it's plenty fun imagining how this character would approach the problem.

That’s valid. I certainly agree that roleplaying is about “trying to put yourself in the shoes of someone else and imagine how they would act,” and that is my favorite part of the game. But when that means pretending to try and solve a puzzle that I actually know the answer to (and I would argue the whole “encounter with a creature that has a specific weakness you need to figure out to beat it” thing is a kind of puzzle-encounter) is just not entertaining. I want to put myself in the character’s shoes, yes, but if I’ve gone on the same hike a million times before, the shoes alone aren’t going to make it interesting.

Also, personally I think if knowing the monster’s stats makes an encounter a cakewalk, it’s not a very well-designed encounter anyway. When playing with experienced players, I think it’s better to challenge them strategically and tactically, or if you want to do a puzzle-encounter, use custom monsters.

 

[pemerton]

That's not how games work. Games have rules. That's how games work. You don't get to use everything you read just because you feel like it. If the PC doesn't have the knowledge, it is not appropriate to use what you read to gain advantage that the PC would not have. It's like playing clue and then guessing the three aspects correctly because you opened the packet and read the cards.

How is it like that? Where is the rule stated that players are not to build up skill over time, and play better as a result?

And what does advantage mean here? What "advantage" is the player getting? Over whom?

Gygax is not God. His outdated views of the game don't have any inherent impact now. You can opt to view things as he did, or you can opt to view things differently.

The idea happened when a lot of people moved past D&D being purely gamist and started inhabiting their characters and acting from that viewpoint instead of their own.

Gygax isn't God. Neither are you. Why should I take your pronouncements about D&D's rules and principles more seriously than his?

But suppose that someone decides to try and make decisions from their PC's point of view, who gets to decide what the PC does and doesn't know? As a player gains expertise, why can't they play their PCs as more and more expert and capable, should they wish to do so?

Players don't get to decide what happens in the game world, so they have no ability to decide that their PC overheard a tavern story.

I think this is a little contentious. It's not how I generally play D&D. I generally allow players to author their own PC backstories, within common-sense limits. (And what I've suggested doesn't in my view exceed those limits.)

Why do you think part of playing D&D isn't challenging the players? Why bother having combat at all if we're not going to be challenging the players/PCs?

I don't understand what you mean by "players/PCs". Those are pretty different things - players are real people who are playing a game; PCs are imaginary people, elements in a shared fiction.

But in any event, not all RPG play is about challenging the players, at least in the sense of testing their guts, their strategic acumen, etc. As you seem to acknowledge in one of the quotes above, play can be about pretending to be someone else. In which case the challenge to players is to faithfully portray that character. A player can meet that challenge by playing a PC who doesn't know about trolls, or by playing one who does. It doesn't seem to make much difference either way.