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

[Xamnam]

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.

Yeah, that's how I've started running it as well, and it feels a lot more natural. Pretty sure I took that inspiration from an Alexandrian article.

 

[Charlaquin]

I couldn't disagree more. It's not possible for the character to know those things so there's no reason for the player to know those things. Unless they're obvious in the fiction. You want to swing across a bottomless pit on a makeshift rope swing, you clearly know what the stakes are. You're prowling around an unknown location, you couldn't possibly know what's lurking there. You can guess it might be guards, sure. But you don't know. There's no certainty. And there shouldn't be any. For me one of the goals is getting the game out from between the player and their character. Not centering the game.

You don’t have to tell the player that it’s guards. From your use of “prowling” I’m guessing you’re imagining a stealth situation? The context leading up to the check should make it clear that the character is in danger of being seen by something (same as how the context leading up to a perception check should make it clear there’s something to perceive, etc). You can just say “make a DC 14 Stealth check. On a failure something will hear you.” Simple.

So it removes the realism and verisimilitude of uncertainty. That's not a benefit. The characters should be uncertain.

If the outcome is certain, there shouldn’t be a roll in the first place. The nature of the dice roll insures that the player will not be certain of the outcome. But they should have some idea of what’s at stake and how likely they are to succeed, just as the character would.

I agree with the not calling for too many rolls, and not bothering with low DC rolls, but as the characters cannot possibly know the stakes with certainty, the players shouldn't either to prevent metagaming and so they're roleplaying more authentically.

Personally I don’t have any interest in judging the “authenticity” of anyone’s roleplaying. But even if I did, I don’t agree that telling the player the stakes gives them any more certainty than their character ought to have.

In some cases that's great and I'd agree. You need to be on the same page for a lot of things. If the player didn't hear you say it's a fancy, obviously magical lock or misheard that there's a thousand-foot drop off...then that's worth pausing and making sure everyone knows what's going on before any rolls or consequences are presented. But doing that all the time utterly obliterates all those moments where there's no way the character could know something. It's not worth giving that up.

I’m not convinced there are any such moments.

The trouble is the character isn't perfect but you're providing the player with perfect information. The player will inevitable act on that perfect information in game, i.e. metagame. That's bad.

Simply knowing the DC and stakes is not perfect information, because you don’t know what the result of the d20 roll will be.

That phrase is doing all the lifting. And again, a reasonable degree of accuracy is not perfect knowledge. "The DC is between 10 and 16" is a reasonable degree of accuracy "The DC is 15" is perfect knowledge.

“The DC is 15” only lets you know your odds of success. This bridges the gap between what the character should know (being aware of their own capabilities and being able to directly perceive the environment) and what the player can know (being limited to abstract game mechanics and the DM’s verbal description of the environment) in order to approximate the character’s ability to guess if they’ll be able to accomplish the task or not. The die roll represents (among other things) the possibility that the character’s assessment was wrong.

Of course. That's why you do the best you can in describing things and everyone gives each other slack and mulligans on things that should be obvious.

Or you cut right to the chase and say what the stakes and odds are. No risk of such misunderstandings, no need to “mulligan”
Anything.

That's not how it works. The incorrect assessment is the DC not being accurate. The character's attempt is the random roll.

Why not? No reason it can’t, and doing it that way has a lot of benefits, as I’ve already innumerated.

Again, no. The character cannot possibly know the result of some of their actions. Finding secret doors, for example. They have no way of knowing if they missed something or if there's nothing there to find. That distinction is obliterated if you do things your way.

Just like with traps, if they’re looking for secret doors in the first place, they should already know there’s a secret door to be found, because they’ve picked up on something in the description of the environment that indicates it. If they mistakenly think they’ve picked up on something, no need to roll due to no chance of success. They just spend the necessary amount of time and fail to find anything. If they’re searching everywhere as part of their standard operating procedure, use a passive check, as the PHB recommends.

Not edge cases, standard things in D&D...like sneaking and searching for secret doors.

See the above paragraph.

 

[Charlaquin]

Where does attempting stealth fall for you on this?

Generally, the context leading up to the roll should make it clear that there’s something to hide from. Either you’re trying to sneak past a snoozing guard or something along those lines, or you’re trying to hide from something that’s searching for you. I’ve noticed a lot of DMs will call for a group stealth check as soon as the players say they’re trying to move stealthily, and “let the result ride” until they come upon something that might perceive them, and then compare the result to its passive perception. I don’t do this, because I only call for rolls when there are immediate stakes. When the party says they’re moving quietly down the dungeon corridor or through the underbrush or whatever, I say “ok,” and make note of that fact. Then, if they come upon something that might perceive them, I telegraph its presence (e.g. “you hear footsteps echoing from beyond the range of your vision in the dark corridor” or the like) and ask the players what they do. At that point if they try to hide, I’ll call for stealth checks, and from that context the stakes should be pretty self-evident. Though I still state them out loud, for good measure. “Ok, make a DC 14 Dexterity check - stealth proficiency applies if you have it. On a failure, you’ll be heard.”

 

[overgeeked]

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.

You must be house ruling things or severely restricting things as 5E is not designed for time to matter.

Food & Water. Outlanders get free food & water enough for the party everyday. Druids get goodberry. Foraging is a low DC with big rewards. Clerics get create food and water. Several races require neither. Unless you restrict or house rule those things, food & water is meaningless by the book.

Light. About 3/4 of the races have darkvision, so unless you make color a big part of your game, light doesn’t matter. There’s also easy access to two cantrips that have unlimited light. So again, doesn’t matter.

Resting. To interrupt a long rest you have make a single, continuous fight last more than 600 rounds, unless you house rule it. There’s also Leomund’s Tiny Hut. And simply barring a door. No matter how loud, sound doesn’t interrupt a long rest.

I get the feeling we’ve argued this before.

Tracking time with these resources (food, water, torches, etc) is meaningless. PCs are all but guaranteed long rests, so that’s a non issue. So the only way to make time matter is to house rule the game, ask your players to not pick these obvious low-hanging fruit options, or to use something else to introduce time pressure. And that all depends on the players. Yours might rush to save the dragon from the nasty princess, but mine will gladly let him die if it means not taking the risk of going into even an easy fight with less than full resources.

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.

The rules get in the way of the things I care about.

 

[Mort]

You must be house ruling things or severely restricting things as 5E is not designed for time to matter.

Food & Water. Outlanders get free food & water enough for the party everyday. Druids get goodberry. Foraging is a low DC with big rewards. Clerics get create food and water. Several races require neither. Unless you restrict or house rule those things, food & water is meaningless by the book.

Light. About 3/4 of the races have darkvision, so unless you make color a big part of your game, light doesn’t matter. There’s also easy access to two cantrips that have unlimited light. So again, doesn’t matter.

Resting. To interrupt a long rest you have make a single, continuous fight last more than 600 rounds, unless you house rule it. There’s also Leomund’s Tiny Hut. And simply barring a door. No matter how loud, sound doesn’t interrupt a long rest.

5e is designed for typical RESOURCES not to matter, that's VERY different from time not mattering!

There are a myriad of ways to ensure time still matters in 5e.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

Yep.

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.

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.

The accuracy of the math substitutes for the absence of full information.

And as I said, having an idea seems more likely than not having an idea, so over time, it’s actually more realistic/accurate/whatever-you-want-to-call-it than not having the info.

 

[iserith]

You must be house ruling things or severely restricting things as 5E is not designed for time to matter.

Food & Water. Outlanders get free food & water enough for the party everyday. Druids get goodberry. Foraging is a low DC with big rewards. Clerics get create food and water. Several races require neither. Unless you restrict or house rule those things, food & water is meaningless by the book.

Light. About 3/4 of the races have darkvision, so unless you make color a big part of your game, light doesn’t matter. There’s also easy access to two cantrips that have unlimited light. So again, doesn’t matter.

Resting. To interrupt a long rest you have make a single, continuous fight last more than 600 rounds, unless you house rule it. There’s also Leomund’s Tiny Hut. And simply barring a door. No matter how loud, sound doesn’t interrupt a long rest.

I get the feeling we’ve argued this before.

I'm not house ruling or severely restricting anything where this discussion is concerned, and yes, we have discussed this before. In that discussion, and all similar discussions in which I have participated, I've shown with specificity all the trade-offs those things bring with them which the rules themselves lay out and from which logical, genre-appropriate repercussions can ensue.

The rules get in the way of the things I care about.

The rule you're quoting actually helps mitigate the thing you seem to care about by resolving tasks in a way where "metagaming" (as you define and present it) doesn't work. Remember, in almost all cases, the DM is the one who sets the stage for "metagaming" to happen. To then demand the players not engage with the "metagaming" opportunity the DM has presented seems rather like creating the PCs sick and commanding them to be well.

 

[Yora]

If the character can't see the result, then I'm not going to tell the player either.

We're not collaboratively writing a thrilling story for an external audience. We are playing character dealing with situations to the best of their ability. And dealing with imperfect information is an integral part of that ability.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Just assume the lower 4 numbers on the d20 account for that same variable difficulty as that +1d4 to the difficulty would.

 

[Charlaquin]

If the character can't see the result, then I'm not going to tell the player either.

We're not collaboratively writing a thrilling story for an external audience. We are playing character dealing with situations to the best of their ability. And dealing with imperfect information is an integral part of that ability.

But it’s also a game. In my experience, knowing the stakes and the odds strikes the best balance between roleplaying (making decisions as you imagine your character would in the fictional situation) and game (in particular, a dice-based game od push-your-luck). It allows you to take precautions to try to minimize the chance of failure and take calculated risks when you can’t eliminate it completely.