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

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
TBH the whole "I ran/played this adventure before" stories more often come with "This is how I tried to help the DM" in my circles... I have 2 raven loft examples were we TOTALLY used out of game info to make sure someone did something that we knew the adventure needed to be fun and kept going... no 3 I forgot I am almost playing in curse of strahd once a month (we meet 4 times in the last 7 months so it's easy for me not to count it).

While I'm 100% with @iserith and @Charlaquin about metagaming, I'm also anti-jerk. (The solution to jerks is to avoid playing with them, not impose layers of rules.). While I will happily burn trolls with a 1st level character without a second thought, if there's a new player at the table I might instead have my character freak out and shout "run away!" Not because of any kind of anti-metagaming philosophy, but to try to give that new player the experience I remember.

Likewise if I'm in a published adventure that I know, but the other players don't know I know (I always tell the DM), I will sometimes help keep the adventure exciting by intentionally making bad choices.

But if everybody at the table has some information? I truly don't understand the point of all of us pretending we don't.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Anyone who didn't know much about D&D, but read one of these threads, would think that the most interesting thing that happens in D&D play is deciding whether or not to attack trolls with fire.

That would be making an erroneous assumption that the topics of discussion are correlated with what is "most interesting" in play.

The messageboard media supports extended interchange on some types of topics better than others.
 

Oofta

Legend
Didn't have a chance to get back to this yesterday. Lot's and lots of posts since then veering into metagame territory instead of the topic but here goes ...

I did bypass some of the double checking what others were doing for brevity, I assume whoever is running the rogue is either on their own for some reason or discussed options with the group after the open lock failed.

Sure! I agree, a lock is probably a better example to use, as it has fewer moving parts, so it cuts to the real issue more directly.

I actually think the specific verbiage of how skills are used is very relevant. I think a lot of our misunderstandings are coming from assuming that these sorts of specifics don’t make much difference, when in reality they make all the difference. But, I will try to engage in the example as you present it.

This looks a lot like the way I’ve seen other DMs run such situations, and if you enjoy that, awesome. I’ll try to follow along with the same scenario, but more how it would look if I were DMing. An important thing to keep in mind is that I use periodic checks for complications (which can include wandering monsters, but also other things that make the PCs’ lives more complicated) to apply time pressure. A lot of player decisions come down to managing time. I use different time scales for different contexts, but basically a time-consuming action eats up about a sixth of the interval between checks for complications, and a dangerous action can trigger a check for complications early. Some actions are both time-consuming and dangerous, some are one or the other, some are neither. With that out of the way, here’s how that scene might go at my table:

DM: The door has a padlock on it.
Joe: I take a closer look. Is it trapped?
DM: I am hearing your goal is to find out if it’s trapped, could you be a bit more specific about how you try to find that out?
Joe: I don’t want to touch it or anything, I’m just giving it a thorough visual inspection.
DM: You don’t see anything out of the ordinary for a padlock of this make.

So it's just the description of inspecting? No check? This is something that I dislike, using player skill which tends to end up being "knowing what the DM wants to hear" over PC skill. Someone who is more naturally eloquent or simply knows the DM better will be more likely to succeed. More below.

Joe: Ok. I want to try to pick it.
DM: Alright, it’s going to require DC 20 Dexterity check to open, and I’ll add a die to the time pool.

No clue what a time pool is. Some house rule borrowed from another game? [edit: house rule explained pages ago]

Joe: Hmm… Alright, but I want to spend inspiration to get advantage on the check.
DM: Sounds good. Alice, what are you doing during that time?
[I’d go around the table getting everyone’s action declarations before proceeding to resolution, then…]
DM: Ok, how’d you do on that lock, Joe,
Joe: Only a 17, so I haven’t got it open yet.

I’d then proceed with resolving the other players’ actions, re-establish the scene accounting for what changed as a result of those actions, and ask what the players what they want to do. If Joe wants to keep trying for a half hour, that would be two repetitions of this cycle, but one of the advantages of this method is that he doesn’t have to commit to the full half-hour. After each attempt he can re-assess the situation and decide to keep going or try something else instead. As time advances towards the next complication roll, this may affect the players’ priorities and strategies, just as it would the characters’.


Awesome, I hope it goes well!

We will shortcut stuff because the players trust me to not "gotcha". If inspecting something is potentially dangerous we'll go into details. Vast majority of time it's unnecessary filler to add extra detail that doesn't add anything for us so "I investigate" is good enough. I assume the PC knows how to do their job, the player does not need to know.

The discussion over assuming the PC is the competent one vs player descriptive skill is a divide as old as the game. I remember back in ye olden days having this discussion, that my PC knows how to search the door for traps and what to look for without triggering the trap. I, as a player, do not. So been there, done that, long ago. I just ask for an investigation check and I, or the player, may embellish at times depending on if it's interesting. There could be times when it's more complex than a simple roll. That's fairly rare because traps and whatnot are not generally a focus of my game.

Next is the issue I have with telling the player "it's a DC 20". As I said, that takes me out of the descriptive narrative. It also gives out too much info. Let's say the lock is designed to look like a standard commoner's lock. The equivalent of the basic masterlock you get at the hardware store so it should be easy (DC 15). But the shed is really owned by the local crime lord so it's a higher quality lock disguised to look like a cheap one and it's hard (DC 20). Maybe the investigation check could have detected this, maybe not since the mechanism will not be open to visual inspection.

Point is that sometimes until you try something you don't know. I have no idea how many times I've started something that I thought would be an easy task that was much more difficult once I started. I want the game to reflect that and sometimes it does, hence "it looks easy" becomes "when you attempt ___ it's much more difficult than it looks". That cliff that looks like it has plenty of handholds? Turns out the rock 10 feet up is extremely fragile making the climb more difficult. Or the light was such that you couldn't see the handholds.

People would be frustrated if I told them it looked like a DC 15 but instead it was a 20. In some cases, there's simply not enough information to make an educated guess and I will tell them that they simply can't tell. How do you know how hard it is to dig a hole for a post until you try? I mean if your nephew gave you a couple of "easy set" posts that you just screw into the ground and they put them in easily in 5 minutes and you try but then there's rocks every 2-4 inches you have to dig out by hand? Something that should have been simple ends up taking close to an hour and then it doesn't really work and you have to go back next year with the quickcrete and ... wait I'm digressing again. :confused:

Point is that sometimes you can tell how difficult something is, sometimes you can't, sometimes you make a guess and it's wrong. Absolute certainty before attempting a task is not a given unless it's a simple repetitive task.

In addition, setting the scene is not generally something I would "reset" unless something changes. As I said in my description, I would just let the player tell me what they thought a reasonable time to try was and go with that unless something external changes. My DMing just isn't that formal.




Last, but not least, everything you describe is things I've experience, just not all at the same time. Can you please stop talking about how I might like it if I tried it and accept that after playing for decades I've experienced most options?
 

Oofta

Legend
Do these metagaming things actually regularly crop up in people's games? Like sure, I can imagine hypothetical situations where I would object and say "Your character doesn't know that," but I don't remember such actually happening. I'm sure it has sometimes occurred over the years, but it definitely is not a an issue I would spent a lot of time worrying about as it simply doesn't come up.

I was in a game where a player would literally bring the MM with him. He'd then look up the monster and rattle off pertinent info. The DM shut that down after all the others complained about it.

I DM a lot, and I know quite a few details about monsters. On a pretty regular basis I have to ask the DM "Would my PC know ____", which is my preference for when I DM as well.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Certainly the act of pretending to be a person other than you always entails some amount of that?

Sure, but the question is which bits genuinely contribute to the story. And, in general, if something is expected to be shared by everybody then it doesn't really define anybody. If part of my character concept is that I'm ignorant about the world, then pretending to not know that trolls burn is part of that character. But if everybody is expected by default to pretend....then why? It's just not interesting. It's playing a different game, one of seeing who can abide most diligently to arbitrary rules, like playing Simon Says.

There are exceptions, of course. I can see how there are some moments, deeply related to the story, where everybody pretending together has value. Such as playing in a Middle-earth campaign and pretending to not know about Bilbo's ring.

But as a rule? No, thanks.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
I was in a game where a player would literally bring the MM with him. He'd then look up the monster and rattle off pertinent info. The DM shut that down after all the others complained about it.

Ah, the "jerk" argument.

Don't play with people like that (or explain it's not really considerate, if it's done out of ignorance.) No need for a blanket rule about player knowledge.
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
Ah, the "jerk" argument.

Don't play with people like that (or explain it's not really considerate, if it's done out of ignorance.) No need for a blanket rule about player knowledge.

I think that's the crux of it.

I'm perfectly happy to play with people who use their own knowledge during the adventure (Just as I'm also perfectly happy to subvert any gameplay elements to ensure that's not always a good idea).

I'm not happy when someone is a jerk at the table about it - such as when a player insists on telling other players how they should be playing their characters (without being asked) - that's one of the few things that will cause me to pause a game and take that player aside for a chat.
 

Oofta

Legend
Ah, the "jerk" argument.

Don't play with people like that (or explain it's not really considerate, if it's done out of ignorance.) No need for a blanket rule about player knowledge.
It was an extreme example, but I've seen similar many times.

My point is that I, and many players, will recognize monsters and know their capabilities. If it matters when I'm playing, I ask the DM what I know. I ask that my players do the same and occasionally call them out on it with a simple "Why would your character know that" and likely ask for an appropriate check.

On the other hand, everyone knows you need fire to kill trolls.
 

While I'm 100% with @iserith and @Charlaquin about metagaming, I'm also anti-jerk. (The solution to jerks is to avoid playing with them, not impose layers of rules.). While I will happily burn trolls with a 1st level character without a second thought, if there's a new player at the table I might instead have my character freak out and shout "run away!" Not because of any kind of anti-metagaming philosophy, but to try to give that new player the experience I remember.

Likewise if I'm in a published adventure that I know, but the other players don't know I know (I always tell the DM), I will sometimes help keep the adventure exciting by intentionally making bad choices.

But if everybody at the table has some information? I truly don't understand the point of all of us pretending we don't.
yeah 100% agree
 

Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Top