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

[Mort]

Hey @CreamCloud0, see what you started!?! (j/k)

Are you still following any of this? I feel my head spinning people seem to be talking in circles so much. Oh well...

Actually, considering the topic is one of profound and fundamental disagreement,

I think people are keeping things civil and talking to each other pretty well. I certainly have a clearer understanding of many people's perspectives and positions.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hey @CreamCloud0, see what you started!?! (j/k)

Are you still following any of this? I feel my head spinning people seem to be talking in circles so much. Oh well...

The question touches on the interplay between player knowledge and character knowledge, which is a subject that people tend to have very strong opinions about.

 

[Redneckomancer]

Trouble is, for a lot of people, the act of metagaming means they’re not playing in good faith. Good faith RPGing means to act in character and make decisions based on in-character knowledge. To do otherwise is playing in bad faith.

By good faith I mean "not intentionally ruining the game for everyone else". If any metagaming at all ruins the game for you, and they know that, then yeah they're playing in bad faith.
I also just think never metagaming is kind of an impossible standard and as a DM I just let it go if you decide you don't want to sneak anymore because you saw you rolled a 2. But as a DM I try to do a lot of things to mitigate the opportunity for metagaming like that anyway (for example, only asking for a stealth check when its immediately apparent you could be caught instead of rolling as soon as the action is declared). So mostly I only care if the actions the player takes are in themselves disruptive, regardless of if its metagame or in game or whatever.
Does a player smoking a monster in one round because they know it's weakness from Out Of Character Knowledge disrupt the game? For me, no, not any more than if they got a lucky crit and did the same thing. Good show lads, here's your XP and loot lets move on.
Does blurting out a plot twist spoiler they only know because of OOC knowledge disrupt the game? Maybe. Knowing the Vizier is Evil and proving to the consulate that the Vizier is Evil are two different things entirely. If another player has a special little twist they wanted to reveal and you OOC spoil their twist becuase you peeked their character sheet or something, well yes that's disruptive because you're being a jerk to that player. Being a jerk to another player, reguardless of if its metagame or 'perfectly verismilitudinous true scotsman role-not-roll-playing' is still beinga jerk and is disruptive.
That's what I'm trying to get at, it doesn't matter if you metagame or not as long as you aren't a disruptive jerk harshing the vibes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think it is terribly fruitful to try to ruleslawyer hypothetical metagaming scenarios. What in reality is expected is for players to try in good faith act like fictional people that are different person than the player and do not know everything the player knows. And in my experience players will do just that, no problem. And if one is unsure whether their character knows something, they can always ask the GM. Also, knowledge skills exist for a reason.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not a super corner case. It's every instance of metagaming.

It's not even close to every instance of metagaming.

We can never say what a character "would" have done if the player didn't know something they do know. It can't happen.

I do it all the time. I just look at what he does know and act only on that. I've been in enough different D&D situations to know how I would act under similar circumstances where I don't know something.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think it is terribly fruitful to try to ruleslawyer hypothetical metagaming scenarios. What in reality is expected is for players to try in good faith act like fictional people that are different person than the player and do not know everything the player knows. And in my experience players will do just that, no problem. And if one is unsure whether their character knows something, they can always ask the GM. Also, knowledge skills exist for a reason.

The point of litigating those scenarios is to illustrate that players use OOC information all the time in their decision-making, especially when trying to avoid playing their characters in a way that might be perceived as metagaming. So, clearly the issue is not utilizing OOC information, but rather taking actions that might be perceived as unrealistic for your character to take based on available IC information. And I think it’s understandable some of us wouldn’t be super comfortable with that, as it requires playing around other people’s perceptions of what your character knows and what would be realistic for them to do as a result.

 

[overgeeked]

By good faith I mean "not intentionally ruining the game for everyone else". If any metagaming at all ruins the game for you, and they know that, then yeah they're playing in bad faith.

Exactly.

I also just think never metagaming is kind of an impossible standard and as a DM I just let it go if you decide you don't want to sneak anymore because you saw you rolled a 2. But as a DM I try to do a lot of things to mitigate the opportunity for metagaming like that anyway (for example, only asking for a stealth check when its immediately apparent you could be caught instead of rolling as soon as the action is declared). So mostly I only care if the actions the player takes are in themselves disruptive, regardless of if its metagame or in game or whatever.

To me it’s indicative of an adversarial mindset on the part of the player. A need to win at any cost. You’re playing an RPG, so roleplay your character. We’re playing a game with dice, so accept that you won’t always succeed. We’re playing a game that centers combat and death, so accept that sometimes it will come around to you. If you need so badly to win that you read the module beforehand? Come on. The recent versions of the game aren’t so wildly lopsided in your favor as a player enough already as it is that you need to metagame, too? Come on. You’re all but guaranteed to win anyway, graciously take a lump or two on your way there.

That's what I'm trying to get at, it doesn't matter if you metagame or not as long as you aren't a disruptive jerk harshing the vibes.

Again, for a lot of people, metagaming is harshing the vibes and being a jerk.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's not even close to every instance of metagaming.

I do it all the time. I just look at what he does know and act only on that. I've been in enough different D&D situations to know how I would act under similar circumstances where I don't know something.

There's no way to make that decision without the knowledge you have as a player, though. That's my point. You can't "unknow" something. So any decision you make is made with that knowledge.

This may or may not be a problem. I'm not saying that you can't reasonably surmise how a fictional character would act in a given situation. Certainly we can come up with any number of ways that a fictional person can act in a given situation.

The problem is, I think, when a GM says to a player "no, you can't do that because I've imagined a different situation". Especially since, in times where this happens, the impact is usually not of the "game ruining" level that it's often cited.

To me, it's far worse for a GM to tell a player that they can't do something that their character could conceivably do than for a player to blast a troll with a scorching ray even though he's never encountered a troll before.

One of these things seems far more disruptive to play than the other.

 

[iserith]

There's no way to make that decision without the knowledge you have as a player, though. That's my point. You can't "unknow" something. So any decision you make is made with that knowledge.

This may or may not be a problem. I'm not saying that you can't reasonably surmise how a fictional character would act in a given situation. Certainly we can come up with any number of ways that a fictional person can act in a given situation.

The problem is, I think, when a GM says to a player "no, you can't do that because I've imagined a different situation". Especially since, in times where this happens, the impact is usually not of the "game ruining" level that it's often cited.

To me, it's far worse for a GM to tell a player that they can't do something that their character could conceivably do than for a player to blast a troll with a scorching ray even though he's never encountered a troll before.

One of these things seems far more disruptive to play than the other.

For me, I'm perfectly fine with the DM adjudicating and narrating the result of my character's actions that I have described. Where we run into a problem is if the DM declares they effectively have veto power over the action declaration I am making in the first place. That is a non-starter. What's more, even if I was okay with it, it's a minefield trying to figure out any level of consistency in what the DM considers to be "metagaming" in any given instance.

In my games, the DM's role is never to gainsay what you want to do. Do whatever you want, go nuts, but remember that the goal is for everyone to have fun and to create an exciting, memorable story by playing. So go do exciting, memorable things, share the spotlight, and be a fun person to play with. If you don't want to "metagame" while you play your character, great, go ahead and do that. The way I approach the game actually makes that pretty easy. But don't demand other players do the same, and I'd caution against pinning your fun to how someone else makes decisions for their character. You don't have control over them, and it's none of your business anyway.

 

[Clint_L]

The thing I really work on with new players is getting them onboard with the idea that an RPG is cooperative storytelling and not a zero sum game where only one person or one side wins. I go out of my way to make failures super entertaining so that players get as excited for a natural 1 as a natural 20, because they know something fun is about to happen. Yeah, it'll probably be the opposite of what they were hoping for, but that just provides an opportunity to come up with a new plan on the fly.

A little meta-gaming is inevitable and even desirable - you want players talking and cooperating even if its a little more than could reasonably happen in a 6 second round. Extreme meta-gaming, like using out of game knowledge of a creatures vulnerabilities, annoys me because it misses the point of cooperative storytelling, which is that failure and learning are key to the fun. It is way more fun if your characters have to deduce the solution rather than one person googling it and shouting out the answer.

My absolute pet peeve, though, is one player telling another what they should do on their turn. I absolutely shut that crap down immediately and I'm super blunt about it.