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

[Mort]

Unless there's an actual ticking clock and the players care about that ticking clock, yes they can. There's effectively infinite food, water, light, and other resources for PCs so those will almost never be an issue. Depending on how you read the resting rules and combat, getting attacked while trying to rest effectively doesn't matter. Then there's things like Leomund's Tiny Hut, the genie lock's vessel, etc so getting a long rest is guaranteed. So none of those things matter. Leomund's Tiny Hut is a ritual so even if you're not taking a long rest, if the referee is enforcing the one long rest per 24 hours thing, the PCs can simply sit in their indestructible bunker and wait. So time is irrelevant unless the referee pushes time as a limited resource, and then only if the players actually care. In my experience, they'd rather let the entire world die in fire than go into a single easy fight with less than full power.

All of these are only true if time pressure isn't a thing. And if THAT'S true, why wouldn't, for ex., a PC convinced there is a secret door somewhere (they just can't find it) call over a friend if they can't find it. they're already looking for he secret door, a failed roll doesn't mean it is or not there, it means they see no sign of it? Who am I, as the DM, to stop them banging their head against the wall?

More importantly, if time pressure isn't a thing then dungeon crawling is a VERY different experience - the group is basically doing it for the fun of narrative exploration. And that's great, if that's what they (and the DM) want to do, but it has to be recognized that's what is going on.

Otherwise, for there to be a decent sense of tension, there has to be time pressure. That's all food, light sources, the inability to safely rest etc. really are - imposition of time pressure. If those are not a thing - the pressure has to be introduced in some other way (time clocks, random encounters etc.) otherwise you're right back to just exploring for the narrative fun of it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

When the player rolls something like bluffing the guard, I also roll a d6. If I roll even, the roll stands. If I roll odd, I reverse the roll. I don't do this until after I describe what is happening and the players have to choose.

So you change the results of rolls such that the player rolls a 3, believes he failed, you roll and turn it into a success, but don’t signal this in any way, so rhey charm the guard anyway?

What’s accomplished by the switch to a success? If I was a player in such a game I’d be really annoyed by that. It seems like it doesn’t even matter what I do.

There's no certainty. And there shouldn't be any.

The dice roll is the uncertainty. Knowing a character’s bonus on the roll is having a sense of how capable they are. Knowing the DC is having a sense of how difficult the task will be. Knowing both does not grant certainty. It grants a sense of the odds.

Which is what people will generally have. Not always and not in such a codified manner, you’re correct about that, but I’d say it’s a more accurate reflection than not letting a player know the odds.

 

[Xamnam]

An argument can be made that there are some edge cases where a character shouldn’t be able to make an accurate assessment of their performance. I think such cases should be few and far between, so it may be acceptable to roll secretly in such cases, but I still think the benefits of keeping that information in the open significantly outweigh the drawbacks.

Where does attempting stealth fall for you on this?

 

[DND_Reborn]

So you change the results of rolls such that the player rolls a 3, believes he failed, you roll and turn it into a success, but don’t signal this in any way, so they charm the guard anyway? What’s accomplished by the switch to a success?

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.

The DC was 10 in the example. Suppose the PC rolled an 10, with a +5 bonus would be 15. Now, if I reverse the 8 due to my roll to a 11, with +5 still beats the DC. So, the PC can be pretty certain he fooled the guard, since either way he would beat a DC 15 even!

If I was a player in such a game I’d be really annoyed by that. It seems like it doesn’t even matter what I do.

Good thing you aren't, then.

 

[overgeeked]

Who am I, as the DM, to stop them banging their head against the wall?

That’s exactly why you roll it behind the screen.

If the player rolls low, they know they flubbed the roll so everyone dogpiles until there’s a high roll. Metagaming the outcome.

If the player rolls high, they know for a fact that if there’s a door to find they’d have found it. So they leave it alone and move on. Metagaming the outcome.

If the player is convinced there’s a secret door to be found, who am I to stop them from wasting time looking for one?

The only way to do that is not let them know the outcome of the roll. They have to decide for themselves. Knowing the result of the roll removes the ambiguity and gives them certainty.

 

[Oofta]

I try to minimize what I communicate to the player things that the PC would not know. If they roll poorly on an insight check the best they're going to get is a "you can't tell" or "they seem to be honest". Occasionally I'll even allow an insight roll even if the NPC is being truthful [yeah, I know, heresy] because the PC doesn't know beyond a shadow of a doubt what the emotional state of the NPC is.

On the other hand, I still allow the players to roll most of the time because my players find it more enjoyable. I've considered rolling for them but it's more of a hassle than I want to deal with most of the time.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Where does attempting stealth fall for you on this?

I'm not @Charlaquin but, for our table, we only roll when there is a meaningful consequence for failure. In other words, if the party is trying to be stealthy and there's no one around to notice them, they automatically succeed for the time-being. Once there is an NPC/monster around who could potentially spot them, there may then be an opposed roll or a roll vs. that creature's passive perception. Succeed and they pull it off and get past/whatever. Fail, they are spotted and we move on to what happens next.

 

[overgeeked]

The dice roll is the uncertainty.

Uncertainty of outcome, yes. But that’s not the only place uncertainty should exist.

Knowing a character’s bonus on the roll is having a sense of how capable they are.

Yep.

Knowing the DC is having a sense of how difficult the task will be. Knowing both does not grant certainty. It grants a sense of the odds.

Not quite. Having a sense is fine. Knowing with mathematical certainty is not. The character cannot possibly know down to 5% increments their chances of accomplishing a task. That’s not a “sense of the odds,” that’s certainty they couldn’t possibly have.

Which is what people will generally have. Not always and not in such a codified manner, you’re correct about that, but I’d say it’s a more accurate reflection than not letting a player know the odds.

Giving a range of the DC would be more accurate. Or the DC actually having a range would be more accurate. Say 10+1dX. More difficult tasks get bigger dice. A d4 through a d12 would work. The referee rolls when the player rolls.

 

[iserith]

Unless there's an actual ticking clock and the players care about that ticking clock, yes they can. There's effectively infinite food, water, light, and other resources for PCs so those will almost never be an issue. Depending on how you read the resting rules and combat, getting attacked while trying to rest effectively doesn't matter. Then there's things like Leomund's Tiny Hut, the genie lock's vessel, etc so getting a long rest is guaranteed. So none of those things matter. Leomund's Tiny Hut is a ritual so even if you're not taking a long rest, if the referee is enforcing the one long rest per 24 hours thing, the PCs can simply sit in their indestructible bunker and wait. So time is irrelevant unless the referee pushes time as a limited resource, and then only if the players actually care. In my experience, they'd rather let the entire world die in fire than go into a single easy fight with less than full power.

In my experience, time as a resource makes the whole game work better and in a way where I don't have to protect players from themselves when it comes to "metagaming." All the risk is on their end and their choice. I also don't experience any of the issues you seem to do with food, water, light, or resting.

And as I stated above, if the DM isn't using time as a resource, then "progress combined with a setback" on a failed check works just fine to avoid the issues you seem to care about. That's already in the rules, too.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Not quite. Having a sense is fine. Knowing with mathematical certainty is not. The character cannot possibly know down to 5% increments their chances of accomplishing a task. That’s not a “sense of the odds,” that’s certainty they couldn’t possibly have.

At our table, the heroic adventurers do have a sense of their capabilities with that certainty. So, yes, possible.

Giving a range of the DC would be more accurate. Or the DC actually having a range would be more accurate. Say 10+1dX. More difficult tasks get bigger dice. A d4 through a d12 would work. The referee rolls when the player rolls.

Extra rolling and time spent for no real payoff for our table, IMO.