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

[iserith]

Are we really down to “but the book says…”

Okay.

The book says, “You might choose to make a roll for a player because you don't want the player to know how good the check total is. For example, if a player suspects a baroness might be charmed and wants to make a Wisdom (Insight) check, you could make the roll in secret for the player. If the player rolled and got a high number but didn't sense anything amiss, the player would be confident that the baroness wasn't charmed. With a low roll, a negative answer wouldn't mean much. A hidden roll allows uncertainty.” (DMG, p235).

Yep, that's a table rule, but not one I find any value in. Others might. As well, passive checks are designed for determining success or failure secretly (see PHB). Notice the lack of the word "metagaming" here in the section you quote and that it says "might" not "must."

 

[iserith]

Yeah. The book completely supports what I'm saying, but because it's a recommended optional rule for some DMs, it also supports how they play as well. It always seems to be the other side that for some inexplicable reason doesn't want any support for the way I do things, but wants support for the way they do things, so they hem and haw and try to argue that the support isn't really support.

I don't get it. Why can't it be okay for the book to support multiple playstyles?

The support for your position on "metagaming" went away after D&D 3e.

Nobody needs the book to endorse their preferences though.

 

[overgeeked]

Yeah. The book completely supports what I'm saying, but because it's a recommended optional rule for some DMs, it also supports how they play as well. It always seems to be the other side that for some inexplicable reason doesn't want any support for the way I do things, but wants support for the way they do things, so they hem and haw and try to argue that the support isn't really support.

I don't get it. Why can't it be okay for the book to support multiple playstyles?

To go full galaxy-brain: why does it matter what the book says? It’s not holy writ. It’s a game. These are guidelines at best, we won’t go to hell for ignoring the book. Funnily enough, that exact sentiment is actually in the book, too.

 

[Maxperson]

The support for your position on "metagaming" went away after D&D 3e.

Nobody needs the book to endorse their preferences though.

The book does endorse it as I showed above. Metagame thinking is the thinking that results in metagaming. Discourage one and you automatically discourage the other. Bringing OOC knowledge into the game IS thinking of the game as a game first, and then bringing the game info in.

 

[iserith]

To go full galaxy-brain: why does it matter what the book says? It’s not holy writ. It’s a game. These are guidelines at best, we won’t go to hell for ignoring the book. Funnily enough, that exact sentiment is actually in the book, too.

The argument is over what these section mean in context, not that they necessarily mandate what anyone must do. The poster you're quoting made erroneous assertions in my view in response to someone else.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

If what your character thinks is always right even though he doesn't know about it, that's metagame cheating in my game. You need to actually, have, you know, a reason for why your character thinks that. People don't just spontaneously think, "Hey, this thing is vulnerable to fire." when they don't know about it.

What a character thinks (regardless of the reason) and what is true in the game world are not always the same thing, though. The DM controls what is true in their game world. What a character thinks, therefore, is not always right so you have nothing to fear from your example of "metagame cheating".

 

[iserith]

The book does endorse it as I showed above. Metagame thinking is the thinking that results in metagaming. Discourage one and you automatically discourage the other. Bringing OOC knowledge into the game IS thinking of the game as a game first, and then bringing the game info in.

We can go back and forth on this all day long, and I would but for more pressing concerns. I don't think your position is supported based on the rules text you referenced, but I also think that's neither here nor there except when you suggest in my view the rules say something other than they say.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yeah. The book completely supports what I'm saying, but because it's a recommended optional rule for some DMs, it also supports how they play as well. It always seems to be the other side that for some inexplicable reason doesn't want any support for the way I do things, but wants support for the way they do things, so they hem and haw and try to argue that the support isn't really support.

I don't get it. Why can't it be okay for the book to support multiple playstyles?

yeah me and you and me and several posters go round and round about these things, but it's nuts. We all read the books but came to diffrent answers and we are all trying to be as close to right as we can.

 

[Bill Zebub]

We can go back and forth on this all day long, and I would but for more pressing concerns. I don't think your position is supported based on the rules text you referenced, but I also think that's neither here nor there except when you suggest in my view the rules say something other than they say.

Honestly I don’t understand the insistence some people have that any way other than their own is against the rules.

I think their obsession with metagaming sounds boring, and sucks some fun out of the game, but it’s not against the rules (nor is it in the rules) so it’s totally valid as long as they all buy into it.

If they want to reciprocate and say our way of playing is not fun for them, fine. But, man, this crazy obsession with calling it “cheating” is just f%#€ing weird.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Honestly I don’t understand the insistence some people have that any way other than their own is against the rules.

I think their obsession with metagaming sounds boring, and sucks some fun out of the game, but it’s not against the rules (nor is it in the rules) so it’s totally valid as long as they all buy into it.

If they want to reciprocate and say our way of playing is not fun for them, fine. But, man, this crazy obsession with calling it “cheating” is just f%#€ing weird.

yeah but just as weird is when someone spells out "I read this, and here is what I took from it" and somehow people still argue that it is or isn't a fair reading... instead of admitting that BOTH are valid ways to read it