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

[Oofta]

Asking the players to stop metagaming is 'Bad DMing' now?

Lol.

Yeah, apparently choosing to enforce any kind of social contract or agreement is "uptight" now.

If the DM establishes that they don't want obvious metagaming at the table and a player goes out to rescue someone for no reason at all, it's not the DM's problem if they say no.

Having and acting on information you could not have, knowing that someone needs rescue in this example, is as impossible as jumping over the moon.

If the DM and group don't care, fine. If it's not, perhaps the player needs to change or find a different group.

 

[Lanefan]

But…WHY?!?! Why shut it down fast? Isn’t an ally swooping in unexpectedly such a trope that it’s practically a cliche? If that’s how the players want the story to evolve, why are you so opposed to that? Is it because it takes a challenge intended for the scout and makes it a non-challenge for the team?

For one thing, it violates the integrity of play; particularly from the scout's side of things when the scout's player would rather be left to figure this situation out on her own (and I've sat through the resulting at-table arguments enough times to know this is a thing). For another, it violates the integrity of playing one's own character from the rescuers' side of things, as you're basing your decisions on information the characters don't and couldn't have.

Then change the story again! You have infinite dragons!

That's just it - I don't. Not if I'm DMing in any sort of good faith, at least.

The setting elements don't change just because more (or less) PCs show up than expected, or because they do things in a different or unpredicted way. If the scout's somehow run herself into something that was intended as a challenge for the whole party, so be it - she's on her own and probably up against it. She chose to go there and, either due to bad luck or bad management, ran aground; and now she has to find her own way out of the mess if she can.

Edit: Or, $&@%, just have the other players run into trouble of their own while rushing to save their friend. There are so many options other than “no your character wouldn’t do that.”

If the trouble was already there to be run into, sure. But I'm not going to invent it on the spot just to deal with this; as if I do I'm no better than the metagaming players. I'd rather just cut the metagaming off at the pass and have done with it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There is no door to be found. No re-rolls.

What’s this about “re-rolls”? You allow that?

 

[Bill Zebub]

For one thing, it violates the integrity of play; particularly from the scout's side of things when the scout's player would rather be left to figure this situation out on her own (and I've sat through the resulting at-table arguments enough times to know this is a thing). For another, it violates the integrity of playing one's own character from the rescuers' side of things, as you're basing your decisions on information the characters don't and couldn't have.

That's just it - I don't. Not if I'm DMing in any sort of good faith, at least.

The setting elements don't change just because more (or less) PCs show up than expected, or because they do things in a different or unpredicted way. If the scout's somehow run herself into something that was intended as a challenge for the whole party, so be it - she's on her own and probably up against it. She chose to go there and, either due to bad luck or bad management, ran aground; and now she has to find her own way out of the mess if she can.

If the trouble was already there to be run into, sure. But I'm not going to invent it on the spot just to deal with this; as if I do I'm no better than the metagaming players. I'd rather just cut the metagaming off at the pass and have done with it.

Your way of play is completely alien to me.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Yeah, I get this, but it's quicker just to let the one roll do all the work where it can.

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.

In the Jelessa-Rajella wall-climbing example it could be vital. If Rajella uses her extra time to have a look at what's on the other side of the wall and, say, sees a bunch of guards, she can whisper to Jelessa to stay where she is while herself moving back down just a bit. Or, if one of the guards sees Rajella's head poking ovr the wall and yells, Jelessa can decide on her own to climb no further. The fact that by random chance they didn't reach the top together could in this case be a big benefit, at least for one of them if not both.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Your way of play is completely alien to me.

Lanefan does not play 5e. They play a modded version of 1e, if I’m not mistaken. Might be part of the disconnect with their comments here.

 

[Lanefan]

What’s this about “re-rolls”? You allow that?

I've been told on numerous occasions that 5e does allow re-rolls. Someone else can verify this.

 

[iserith]

I've been told on numerous occasions that 5e does allow re-rolls. Someone else can verify this.

It's up to the DM. Conceptually, the character is attempting the same task again. A retry may or may not be appropriate given the context.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I've been told on numerous occasions that 5e does allow re-rolls. Someone else can verify this.

5e gives the DM authority to decide when rolls are needed. So, yes, it does allow re-rolls in the sense that the DM is empowered to call for one.

My question was one of DMing style.

 

[Maxperson]

"Bad faith" as determined by the DM because the player and DM may disagree on what the character knows or that the character's action doesn't require that knowledge as a prerequisite. That's a veto on the action declaration. You can't do it - or else.

Bad faith is the DM setting a rule that the player has agreed to and then the player deliberately circumventing it. That's not a veto action. That's a player that shouldn't be in that game(or any other).

You keep claiming this mythical "disagreement." It doesn't exist, because every method that I can see of figuring it out involves both being on the same page.

What is this method that would involve the player somehow coming up with knowledge that the DM does not agree to and is not a bad faith effort to circumvent the rule?