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

[Lanefan]

But what if... immersed in my indecisive character... I also change my mind? What then?

Am I allowed to emerge from metagaming quarantine?

And break the commitment you made when declaring your action previously? No.

I mean, I've played lots of indecisive airhead characters with non-existent attention spans, and if the DM asks me how long I'm going to wait for the scout before getting bored my answer would likely be "Just a few minutes, probably.". The unfortunate result of this is to force the DM to jump back and forth between groups far more often, which can slow things down, but it's what the character would do so I-as-player have to honour that.

What it boils down to is don't say your character will wait an hour when you know it isn't going to.

No, "disperse, don't group up" is a pretty basic tactic for a number of reasons. "That thing could catch a bunch of us with a single claw!" or "It could crush us with its belly!" or "Its tail could swat us all like flies!"

Prime example of how the GM thought something was metagaming, but which actually wasn't.

As we'd been talking specifically about breath weapons I (wrongly) assumed the "Don't disperse..." was related only to that. My bad.

What would have changed? Like, specifically in your example.

Any previous player-side info about Aarakocra would have to be either compartmentalized (which, as we've seen, some people either can't or won't do very well) or brought out and acted upon. Either way, it detracts from the immersion involved in meeting a brand-new creature for the first time.

Also, purity tests... I mean, that about sums it up, I suppose.

Give me another term for it, then.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Elminster says that Volo even gets a little right in that book. Your PC can rely upon it, but if he does he's getting a lot of misinformation. The book in the game is not the book the DM bought at the store.

Nope. That's what game play, backgrounds, and most importantly SKILLS determine. If you want to know about skeletons, specifically the vulnerability to bludgeoning, you might need to make a roll. Or part of your background might have been fighting undead as part of the temple's irregulars and I would just give it to you.

I might be blessed with good players who don't try to leverage out of game elements too much. "He's a priest from Sarlonia" is usually answered by "What do we know as regular person living in this world about him?" because the answer might change, in the same game universe, from one GM to another (hey, we all happen to love a different flavour of Eberron) and from one campaign to another, so nothing is taken for granted outside of very basic information (it's a continent east of Khorvaire).

However, while I agree that gaming history, background and skills can inform about rare monsters, I'd also allow general knowledge of common monsters. I mean, everyone knows about vampire (drink blood, stake in the heart, turn into mist and bats...) and werewolves (silver) and yet they don't exist. We've been the ultimate apex predator since millenia so in our sheltered lives, there is zero usefulness to know what can threaten us... but as commoners in a world where some common monsters abound, we'd better listen to the stories told by the elder of the village around the fire when they recount the history of old Henry who fought cockatrices and bullettes, not only a handful of iconic monsters. I am generally lenient on common monsters even if there is no skill trained to put to bear on the topic.

 

[GrahamWills]

What beggars belief is the idea that an 18-year-old fresh off the farm with their grandfather's dented sword would have years of formal training.

Honestly, it's not realistic to assume they could be a fighter. A 5E fighter, for example, has the following class ability: "You adopt a particular style of fighting as your specialty". So how do you realistically reconcile a "18-year-old fresh off the farm with their grandfather's dented sword" with "has a particular style of fighting as their specialty" -- not only have they studied, the rules state they have specialized WITHIN their study. Of course, we'd all hand-wave the way the rules require characters to have training, because it's fun! But it's not realistic by any means -- the only reason a fighter is a fighter is because of training!

And that's for the easiest class to hand wave. Untrained wizards? Paladins? Bards? It makes no sense at all. "I found this dented harp and now I know songs, bardic lore and all this without needing any training!". Nah -- not something I'm buying as being realistic. In my campaigns I'd allow fun to triumph over realism for fighters (as you suggest), barbarians, thieves maybe. But it is unrealistic. If you are fresh off the farm, then realistically, you are a farmer.

Two things. One, how many people in the real world are incredibly well-versed in serial killers? I mean to the level you're talking about. Very, very few.

First, we are not talking about "people" in general. I am 100% happy for commoners or other non-adventurers to know very little about monsters. We are talking about adventurers -- people whose job it is to deal with monsters on a regular basis. So your basis for comparison is way, way off. Your actual question should be "how many people in the real world whose job it is to combat serial killers are incredibly well-versed in serial killers?" The answer to that would be ... Most of them, of course!

Second, I see you are slipping in the modifier "incredibly" into my position. If you want to misrepresent me, why not go all the way to "omnisciently" or the like? So let's crop out your attempt to extremize my position, leaving us with this:

How many people in the real world whose job it is to combat serial killers are well-versed in serial killers?
Answer: Pretty much all of them

We can play this game all day:

How many people in the real world whose job it is to fix cars are well-versed in cars?
Answer: Pretty much all of them

How many people in the real world whose job it is to fly airplanes are well-versed in airplanes?
Answer: Pretty much all of them

Or:

How many people in a fantasy world whose job it is to fight monsters are well-versed in monsters
Answer: Pretty much all of them

 

[Lanefan]

In standard D&D worlds libraries are common, you can buy guides to monsters for 50gp, every large town has clerics, wizards and other specialists who can tell you about monsters and there are guilds and organizations specifically to help you do your job well.

There's a lot of assumptions in there about what a standard D&D world has going for it. But, let's for now accept them, and continue...

It beggars belief that intelligent professional adventures can only remember 2-4 things about the things they deal with as part of their job.

It feels like you think this is the way the world should work:

"Oh look -- a skeleton"
"Wow. What is that, I've never seen it before."
"Actually we fought them a year ago"
"I must have forgotten. I never bother remembering things"

This is the player roleplaying the character - if the player says the character's forgotten then that's the case, end of story. Absent this declaration, however, I'd default to the character remembering things that it itself had previously encountered during its played career.

"Also, everyone tells stories about them. They are in so many stories!"
"I never listen to other people"
"They are in VOLO'S GUIDE TO MONSTERS"
"Never read it"
"We're part of a guild that regular hires out to fight them. We've met dozens of people who've fought them"
"I never talk to other professionals or share info with them"
"Clerics know how to summon them"
"I never talk to clerics"
"Most large towns have libraries you can visit"
"I never do so"
"Do you know anything about ANY MONSTERS?"
"Of course! Over the last five years of training to be a paladin, I have learned a little about Orcs AND Goblins."

Thing is, while the Paladin might be reasonably expected to have heard of skeletons during her time as an acolyte, when during her first adventure she then meets a big hairy beast covered with long brown fur, humanoid-shaped and about 8 feet tall*, the likes of which haven't been seen in this region in living memory, is she supposed to immediately know what that is as well and how best to defeat/avoid it?

* - a.k.a. a Sasquatch...or a Wookiee, in a different setting.

Unless your world's people are significantly stupider than people in our world are,

I assume people in the game world, other than arcane casters for whom education is a job requirement, are generally much less educated than in the real world; and that such education as they do get may or may not be completely accurate e.g. based on myth rather than hard fact as the hard facts have long since been forgotten.

the extreme lack of knowledge about monsters that most D&D games expect is really unrealistic and is purely a gamist way to have fun. I play the rules as written, but I don't try to pretend then are anything other than rules and are nothing like realistic!

 

[Lanefan]

Honestly, it's not realistic to assume they could be a fighter. A 5E fighter, for example, has the following class ability: "You adopt a particular style of fighting as your specialty". So how do you realistically reconcile a "18-year-old fresh off the farm with their grandfather's dented sword" with "has a particular style of fighting as their specialty" -- not only have they studied, the rules state they have specialized WITHIN their study. Of course, we'd all hand-wave the way the rules require characters to have training, because it's fun! But it's not realistic by any means -- the only reason a fighter is a fighter is because of training!

Exactly, and this points to another glaring hole in 5e's rules - there's simply too big of a mechanical gap between commoner and 1st-level character.

Now in fairness it's an improvement over 4e, which took this problem to eleven, but it's still a problem.

And that's for the easiest class to hand wave. Untrained wizards? Paladins? Bards? It makes no sense at all. "I found this dented harp and now I know songs, bardic lore and all this without needing any training!". Nah -- not something I'm buying as being realistic. In my campaigns I'd allow fun to triumph over realism for fighters (as you suggest), barbarians, thieves maybe. But it is unrealistic.

I've always had training requirements and always will, regardless of edition.

If you are fresh off the farm, then realistically, you are a farmer.

Luke Skywalker, Farmer Extraordinaire.

First, we are not talking about "people" in general. I am 100% happy for commoners or other non-adventurers to know very little about monsters. We are talking about adventurers -- people whose job it is to deal with monsters on a regular basis. So your basis for comparison is way, way off. Your actual question should be "how many people in the real world whose job it is to combat serial killers are incredibly well-versed in serial killers?" The answer to that would be ... Most of them, of course!

I think the disconnect here might be that you're talking about experienced adventurers who have had time to learn this stuff instead of brand-new 1st-level types who have yet to get out in the field.

Put another way, part of the point of lower-level play is to play out that learning curve, as the PCs slowly discover what's out there and just how bad it can really get.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, everyone knows about vampire (drink blood, stake in the heart, turn into mist and bats...)

You can thank Hollywood for that "common knowledge." If you dig deeper than Hollywood and go into real world vampire myths, there are many from around the world and with different reputed abilities. That knowledge is not so common as you might think.

and werewolves (silver)

Same with werewolves. There are a variety of myths and abilities/weaknesses. Hollywood's version is just one of them, maybe.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I offered several examples of why, upon seeing a dragon, someone might say to disperse aside from the breath weapon.

Their farts alone are a good reason.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

You can thank Hollywood for that "common knowledge." If you dig deeper than Hollywood and go into real world vampire myths, there are many from around the world and with different reputed abilities. That knowledge is not so common as you might think.

Same with werewolves. There are a variety of myths and abilities/weaknesses. Hollywood's version is just one of them, maybe.

Yeah, I know, vampires are dating in high-school

My point was if we were living in a world where those things existed, there would be no different versions because there would be a exact knowledge of them (much like there is no hesitation about the abilities of a hyena vs a panther in the real life) AND there would be an incentive to learn them for someone who lives in the world and studies for the rather dangerous adventuring duties, if only through oral transmissions.

The discrepencies in myth IRL is because they don't exist and can't be documented well, which they would (for "rather common" monsters) in a fantasy setting. Especially with the rather common things in fantasy setting to have empire that have existed for tens of millenia, they had time to gather useful piece of informations like "skeletons fears bludgeoning".

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, I know, vampires are dating in high-school

Or glitter in the sunlight.

My point was if we were living in a world where those things existed, there would be no different versions because there would be a exact knowledge of them (much like there is no hesitation about the abilities of a hyena vs a panther) AND there would be an incentive to learn them for someone who lives in the world and studies for the rather dangerous adventuring duties, if only through oral transmissions.

Maybe. In D&D there are Jackleweres, wolfweres, and werewolves. All with different abilities. Who's to say that even though we only have one kind of vampire shown in the MM that there aren't a dozen varieties in the world? That's why DM's get to make up entirely new monsters and change abilities like @iserith does.

Even in the D&D world "common knowledge" is not necessarily common or correct.

 

[Bill Zebub]

What beggars belief is the idea that an 18-year-old fresh off the farm with their grandfather's dented sword would have years of formal training.

"They're an adventurer so they should have perfect knowledge of everything associated with adventuring" is nonsensical.

And upthread (I didn't want to spend the time finding it) you somehow turned @iserith's "I occasionally modify monsters to keep players on their toes" into "changing every monster in the monster manual."

I see a pattern.