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

[Lanefan]

It was me who brought in the Keystone Cops reference and have seen it plenty in many games. I actually find the idea of my character failing in slapstick ways awesome

Me too. (and sorry about attributing the Keystone Kops reference to the wrong person)

- what I object to is the DM describing what I do at all.

As DM, I just stick to what changes in the environment. Drawing upon the original example, the guard at the gates leans in close and says, "No humble traveler I've ever seen has a sword that nice - for 50 gp, I'll look the other way." That says nothing in particular about what the character did except that the character didn't get what they wanted, and a new, more expensive option is on the table. Pay to get in, or try something else. What I didn't do is say something like "Your voice cracks when you lie and and the guard turns around to go back inside the guardhouse..." The player can establish for themselves if they imagined their character's voice cracking.

In a social interaction, that works, because you have the guard (in this example) to use as a mirror or foil. But for, say, a blown attempt to sneak across the empty manor grounds; I think I-as-DM have the right to narrate how/where/why it went wrong (or how/where/why you might think it went wrong, even if it didn't), and I don't always have external options to fall back on.

"You get to the wall of the house, but that crossing was certainly a bit noisier than you might have wanted. Damn those fallen leaves! What next?"

 

[iserith]

Are you incapable of keeping OOC knowledge out of game? I mean, it's a really simple thing to do, and really simple to see when it happens. If I'm talking to you about it after the game, it's because you refused to stop cheating.

Where this gets complicated, it would seem, is when the player believes that the character has knowledge and the DM does not. Or the player believes the knowledge is not required to take the act and the DM disagrees. Either way, we're back to the DM having veto power over the player's action declarations.

It looks like @Lanefan agrees that's a feature of this approach, in their game at least based on Post 955.

 

[iserith]

Me too. (and sorry about attributing the Keystone Kops reference to the wrong person)

In a social interaction, that works, because you have the guard (in this example) to use as a mirror or foil. But for, say, a blown attempt to sneak across the empty manor grounds; I think I-as-DM have the right to narrate how/where/why it went wrong (or how/where/why you might think it went wrong, even if it didn't), and I don't always have external options to fall back on.

"You get to the wall of the house, but that crossing was certainly a bit noisier than you might have wanted. Damn those fallen leaves! What next?"

I would say that there's always an "external option." But your example above doesn't really strike me as establishing what the character does, only that no path was available without any crunchy fallen leaves. Another example frequently comes up in battles in my experience. The player offers a cursory description of an attack, perhaps punctuated liberally with mechanics. The DM then narrates what the character does - dodging left and right to get inside the monster's reach, stabbing with a dagger in a downward motion to pierce the orc's heart, etc. In this case, I would simply describe the effect on the orc - stabbed, with greenish blood welling from the wound, letting out a war cry before they die.

I'm desperately trying to think of how this relates to the original post, so I think I'm going to leave it here on this tangent.

 

[Lanefan]

I treat them ALL as binary. No one has ever given me a sufficient argument to convince me otherwise.

Opposite here: I treat rolls as sliding unless I've no choice but to treat one as binary.

A 19 is always going to be better/faster/smoother than a 12, even if the DC is 10.

DM: "OK, you're both climbing the wall?"
Players: "Yes".
[regardless whether players or DM does the rolling, Jelessa rolls 12, Rajella rolls 19]
DM: "Right. You both make it up no problem, but Rajella gets there first. Rajella, are you doing anything while Jelessa finishes climbing?"

Flip side: a 2 is always going to be a worse outcome than a 9, even if the DC is 15.

Either way, I don't use it. Failure is failure. Now, failure can be "no progress" and further attempts might be possible--it just depends on the roll/scenario.

Oh, I agree failure is failure; but there's failures and then there's failures. Failing to climb a 50' wall can be quiet and painless (you can't even get off the ground), or it can mean you noisily faceplant from 45 feet up. The die roll will guide me as to just how bad the failure is.

 

[Mort]

Which is metagaming.

Be a better player than that.

How is it metagaming to react when you suspect you failed? You tried to bluff the guard, you think the guard saw through it, so you try to stop him in some way. Basically, plan A failed, go to plan B.

I will say reacting before the DM has a chance to narrate the actual result is a mistake. The player doesn't actually KNOW a 3 failed, and you need to see what happens before you can declare again. But I wouldn't call it metagaming, more - jumping the gun.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Which is metagaming.

Be a better player than that.

Or be a better DM and let them play the bloody game.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Oh, I agree failure is failure; but there's failures and then there's failures. Failing to climb a 50' wall can be quiet and painless (you can't even get off the ground), or it can mean you noisily faceplant from 45 feet up. The die roll will guide me as to just how bad the failure is.

In such a case for me it would be multiple checks, more like a "skill challenge" of sorts. Failure is no progress, but fail too much and you might fall. How dangerous that is depends on how high up you are when you fall.

Opposite here: I treat rolls as sliding unless I've no choice but to treat one as binary.

A 19 is always going to be better/faster/smoother than a 12, even if the DC is 10.

DM: "OK, you're both climbing the wall?"
Players: "Yes".
[regardless whether players or DM does the rolling, Jelessa rolls 12, Rajella rolls 19]
DM: "Right. You both make it up no problem, but Rajella gets there first. Rajella, are you doing anything while Jelessa finishes climbing?"

Flip side: a 2 is always going to be a worse outcome than a 9, even if the DC is 15.

That's cool. I understand completely why some people prefer to run it that way.

For me, once success/failure is determined, I use the bonus to the roll to indicate if one PC's success is better than another. However, other than theatrical/ cool-factors, it is rarely actually important at all.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The DM always has veto power over your action declarations. The question is, when to use it.

The moon is visible, or would be if the sky was clear:
Player: "I jump to the moon." It's impossible, sure, but the DM shouldn't veto it; instead, just narrate the obvious results:
DM: "OK, you jump a few feet off the ground, and come back down. The moon neither notices nor reacts to your attempt."

The moon is not visible because the Earth is in the way; or the setting world doesn't have a moon at all:
Player: "I jump to the moon."
DM: "No you don't, there's no moon there to jump to." Veto.

See the difference?

Yes, the difference is obvious, but we aren’t talking about physically impossible action declarations, we are talking about action declarations the DM wouldn’t take if it were their character. So how do you “soft veto” the green adventurer burning trolls? “You hit the troll with the torch and…nothing happens. You must have not done it right. Try again at level 2, maybe.”

This right-of-veto would be even more relevant at (other people's) tables where certain actions are meta-banned e.g. evil acts, stealing from or attacking other PCs, etc.

Actually, @iserith has a great “soft veto” approach to pvp (under which I would include stealing.)

If it's what the character would do, then go ahead and do it.

I think what drives me most crazy about anti-metagamers is this belief that somehow there’s this stark line between what a character “would do” and what they (presumably) “wouldn’t do.”

And it’s nonsense. People do totally unexpected, irrational things all the time.

If I’m at your table, and I announce that my previously emotionally stable wizard is going to charge the dragon with my dagger, and my only explanation is, “I have reasons of my own,” are you going to let me? Because it almost definitely is not something my character “would do.” Ever.

And yet much higher probability action declarations, such as using fire on a troll, is forbidden because it’s not something my character “would do” in your estimation.

Really this whole “would do” nonsense sounds like it is shorthand for “what I would do if your character were my character, which actually it is because I’m the DM and you’re not.”

EDIT: Added text in bold.

 

[Lanefan]

Where this gets complicated, it would seem, is when the player believes that the character has knowledge and the DM does not. Or the player believes the knowledge is not required to take the act and the DM disagrees. Either way, we're back to the DM having veto power over the player's action declarations.

It looks like @Lanefan agrees that's a feature of this approach, in their game at least based on Post 955.

If memory serves, as part of your table rules you don't allow PvP in your game - correct? (if I'm wrong, please take this as a hypothetical instead)

So if I-as-player say in-character that I've had enough of Bob's self-righteous Paladin and declare my next action is to stab Pallybob in the eye, you'd probably veto that declaration as violating the table rules.

I and others are using this exact same rationale to veto declarations based on (blatant) metagame info. Seems the same to me.

And you're right, sometimes it can be unclear whether a character would have the knowledge or not; and I think most of us would happily resort to dice to sort those out. By and large those instances aren't the problem.

It's the blatant examples that cause grief: the player whose PC comes to rescue the scout only because the player heard the scout had found trouble (and says so out loud, out of character - I've seen this before!), or the player who has been through the adventure before and knows the tricks, and takes blatant advantage of that knowledge even though it's all new to the PC. That sort of thing - yeah, shut it down fast.

 

[Bill Zebub]

"You get to the wall of the house, but that crossing was certainly a bit noisier than you might have wanted. Damn those fallen leaves! What next?"

I let the player narrate it. DMs already get to narrate almost everything. And sometimes what they say gives me new ideas to incorporate.