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

[hawkeyefan]

No, he believes he fails because of the action the guard take next, and chooses to act on that belief. He could have waited to see what the guard did before prompting the wizard to cast charm person, and if he had waited, he would have learned he did succeed.
Allowing the 3 of the die roll to indicate he failed creates the metagaming the OP describes. This removes that. It makes it so middle-ground rolls with good bonuses leads to the PC learning the most regardless of my roll.

Do you think a roll of a 3 that fails is any different than a roll of 12 that fails? Do you think one is not even close, and the other is almost but not quite a success?

That’s how I’d treat it. People generally have an idea if they’ve botched something or if they almost pulled it off and so on.

That's just it, though: secret "gotchas" should always be a fear, even if they end up being rare in practice.

But the GM is always aware of the meta. A “gotcha”, to me, implies not a surprise the characters failed to notice, but rather the GM using the fact that it’s a game to “trap” the players in some way.

Essentially, the GM can always “metagame” challenges and other game elements.

LOL. The players metagaming is my fault. Right.

Who creates the scenario in which they metagame?

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.

I tend to look at Indiana Jones movies on this. Most of the traps were obviously there, but that didn’t mean the specifics were known or that they were any less dangerous.

Don’t see why that’s not a pretty good yardstick to measure a game against.

 

[DND_Reborn]

People generally have an idea if they’ve botched something or if they almost pulled it off and so on.

And THAT is the problem...

The player should not know the following:

Do you think a roll of a 3 that fails is any different than a roll of 12 that fails? Do you think one is not even close, and the other is almost but not quite a success?

Because that is metagaming.

 

[Charlaquin]

I tend to look at Indiana Jones movies on this. Most of the traps were obviously there, but that didn’t mean the specifics were known or that they were any less dangerous.

Don’t see why that’s not a pretty good yardstick to measure a game against.

Yeah, that’s a great way to think about it. I don’t know if it would be “more realistic” for all those traps to have been so well hidden that Indie would have just blundered into them. But it definitely would have been a worse movie. Likewise with D&D. The fun part of traps is in the finding and the disabling or avoiding.

 

[J.Quondam]

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.

I don't really buy this, at least not as a general truth about traps. I mean, sure it's true sometimes, like if you're snaring game, mining a bottle neck against enemy soldiers, or creating a death trap for the sake of a death trap.

But in general? Not really. In fact, a lot of realistic traps are to dissuade rather than maim or kill, and fictitious traps, of course, are there just for "fun" that doesn't have to result in surprise death.

Consider real security systems: big red lights, security cameras, signs that says "beware". Those things are blatant telegraphs, not to point out the traps specifically but to imply their presence. Or look at a castle's gatehouse, with its portcullises and murderholes. Those weren't hidden; they were there to say to invaders, "I double dog dare you." The purpose of that sort of telegraphing is to dissuade intruders from even trying, not necessarily to catch them after they've already got inside (though certainly can also be a function).

And in fictional contexts, where "fun" is a consideration, look at tons of adventure movies featuring traps: the things are telegraphed all over the place. Often (certainly not always) it's dealing with the obvious traps that make them interesting in the fiction. The portcullis, idol, buzz saws, invisible bridge, etc in Indy Jones movies; the balance full of gold and weird bone organ in the Goonies; the water-filled elevator in Big Trouble in Little China.* Those things were all obvious setups to the characters. What we see in the movie is effectively the results of the characters making or failing their rolls to spot, bypass, disarm the traps the characters knew or suspected were laid out to get them.

tl;dr - Yes, there are plenty of good reasons both realistic and meta to telegraph traps.

edit: Twice ninja'd on the Indy Jones thing!

* I just re-watched this today, which is why i thought about it, heh!

 

[Charlaquin]

And THAT is the problem...

The player should not know the following:

Because that is metagaming.

Is it though? Do you not recognize when you’ve done a poor job at something you’ve attempted or when you’ve done an excellent job? Why shouldn’t the PCs be able to do the same?

 

[overgeeked]

I don't really buy this, at least not as a general truth about traps. I mean, sure it's true sometimes, like if you're snaring game, mining a bottle neck against enemy soldiers, or creating a death trap for the sake of a death trap.

But in general? Not really. In fact, a lot of realistic traps are to dissuade rather than maim or kill, and fictitious traps, of course, are there just for "fun" that doesn't have to result in surprise death.

Vietnam. Traps had two purposes. 1) Maim the enemy to draw their friends close enough for an ambush, and; 2) Kill the enemy. Traps are asymmetrical warfare.

Consider real security systems: big red lights, security cameras, signs that says "beware". Those things are blatant telegraphs, not to point out the traps specifically but to imply their presence.

Because, importantly, they’re not traps. It’s the mean looking bouncer at the door. We’re talking about traps. Modern day security systems aren’t traps.

Or look at a castle's gatehouse, with its portcullises and murderholes. Those weren't hidden; they were there to say to invaders, "I double dog dare you." The purpose of that sort of telegraphing is to dissuade intruders from even trying, not necessarily to catch them after they've already got inside (though certainly can also be a function).

Again, confusing dissuasive security measures with traps. They are not the same thing. A portcullis is a fancy gate. Visible murderholes are there to dissuade and murder. A punji pit is a trap.

And in fictional contexts, where "fun" is a consideration, look at tons of adventure movies featuring traps: the things are telegraphed all over the place. Often (certainly not always) it's dealing with the obvious traps that make them interesting in the fiction. The portcullis, idol, buzz saws, invisible bridge, etc in Indy Jones movies; the balance full of gold and weird bone organ in the Goonies; the water-filled elevator in Big Trouble in Little China. Those things were all obvious setups to the characters. What we see in the movie is effectively the results of the characters making or failing their rolls to spot, bypass, disarm the traps the characters knew or suspected were laid out to get them.

Right. Unrealistic toys that are neat and fun and exciting and obvious. Nothing wrong with those. But if you’re a referee who cares about verisimilitude, they’re junk. Flashy, showy, and gaudy. Use those to distract someone while the bad guys sneak up behind the PCs. Or the obvious trap is a proper trap, like it’s obvious you shouldn’t stand here because of the blood, but that’s the safe spot. The “safe” spot is the real trap.

The baddies are trying to kill intruders. Not make an engaging action-adventure film. Watch some Vietnam War movies. Those are typically filled with traps.

Yes, there are plenty of good reasons both realistic and meta to telegraph traps.

Again, no, not if you care about verisimilitude, which I do.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Is it though? Do you not recognize when you’ve done a poor job at something you’ve attempted or when you’ve done an excellent job? Why shouldn’t the PCs be able to do the same?

It depends on what you are doing. Sometimes yes, but the point is (normally) you are always trying to do your best, right?

In the guard example, the PC would try to be as convincing as possibly when lying to the guard. Will the guard buy it or not?

This is the problem with d20 rolls. The result is BINARY. Succeed or fail, that is it. Beyond that, the number shouldn't matter.

The roll was a 3, with the +5 bonus an 8 total. Maybe the guard is gullible and that was the DC, or maybe it was higher.

After the roll is made, the DM describes the immediate outcome. The player then reacts or not before the scene moves on.

Now, I suppose in the guard scenario, a roll of 3 and the DM describe your attempt at bumbling and the guard obviously doesn't believe you. But then the DM is giving away additional information. Do you need an Wisdom (Insight) check to read the guard's reaction to know if you succeeded or not? Maybe. Or perhaps you use Passive Insight for that? It is up to each DM to decide how they want to run it, really.

Certainly sometimes success or failure is obvious. Trying to pick a lock, for example. Either it opens (you succeed) or doesn't (you failed). Arm wrestling someone--you win or lose--success or failure is obvious. But many things like searching for traps are not obvious. At best, you believe there aren't any traps, but until you proceed you won't know for certain.

Consider this example: a PC searches for traps and rolls a total of 21. The "belief" the PC has is pretty confident, right? Why...? Because the player knows the roll and thinks the DC was 20 or less.

Now, returning to the guard example, the player rolls a 3 (8 total), and probably thinks they failed. So, they react and ask for the charm person before the DM indicates the guard IS actually fooled because the DC was actually 8! If they had waited for more information, their reaction might have been, "Boy, I can't believe that actually worked!!!"

True story in AD&D: I had a player try to convince a patrol that he was also a guard, just out of uniform. The player bumbled his role-playing and said (and I quote!), "If I'm not a guard, then where's my sword?" I rolled the guards reactions and the result was abysmal! So, it actually worked! We still laugh about it.

Which brings me to my final thought about all this: the player shouldn't roll, period. This is where passive scores should be used. Assume the player has 10 (or 11, maybe 15 with advantage, etc.) and the DM rolls to see if the guard is fooled. The PC always tries their best, right? So, maybe that would be a better way.

 

[J.Quondam]

Vietnam. Traps had two purposes. 1) Maim the enemy to draw their friends close enough for an ambush, and; 2) Kill the enemy. Traps are asymmetrical warfare.

Because, importantly, they’re not traps. It’s the mean looking bouncer at the door. We’re talking about traps. Modern day security systems aren’t traps.

Again, confusing dissuasive security measures with traps. They are not the same thing. A portcullis is a fancy gate. Visible murderholes are there to dissuade and murder. A punji pit is a trap.

Right. Unrealistic toys that are neat and fun and exciting and obvious. Nothing wrong with those. But if you’re a referee who cares about verisimilitude, they’re junk. Flashy, showy, and gaudy. Use those to distract someone while the bad guys sneak up behind the PCs. Or the obvious trap is a proper trap, like it’s obvious you shouldn’t stand here because of the blood, but that’s the safe spot. The “safe” spot is the real trap.

The baddies are trying to kill intruders. Not make an engaging action-adventure film. Watch some Vietnam War movies. Those are typically filled with traps.

Again, no, not if you care about verisimilitude, which I do.

Oh, I see!
The point of your diatribe is to badwrongfun things. My bad!
Ciao ciao.

 

[Vaalingrade]

When I think 'fun weekend activity', I think Vietnam.

The War, I mean.

The country could be lovely and possibly a nice place to visit for the weekend for all I know.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

The country could be lovely and possibly a nice place to visit for the weekend for all I know.

It is. Lovely place. Lovely people. Highly recommend it as a place to visit if you get the chance.