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

[Redneckomancer]

Exactly.

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.

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

I guess I just disagree that metagaming is the problem there. Again, the problem is "adversarial mindset", the vector is metagaming. You can ban metagaming but that does nothing to disabuse the adversarial mindset. Also, just, my life experience has been mostly that metagaming just happens and isn't done to be adversarial. Its generally easy to pick up on the intentions of my players, and even when they metagame it's mostly been by accident? Or more, obtaining the OOC knowledge was by accident? "Oh is this Horror on the Hill? I remember Horror on the Hill." "Oh... I just saw your notes about Lady Kerila " Just, oops! They know things! They aren't doing it to 'get one over' on me, or 'win at any cost'. And, well, I don't want my players to turn off their brain during the game, an if that factors into their decisions, so be it. Describe the action and we play the scene, its fine. This is over 20 years of dozens of gamers, btw. And I know that people in this thread already disagree with this stance, but yeah I'm of the mind that trying really hard to pretend you don't know something you 'shouldn't' to make your actions is functionally equivalent to making actions based on knowing something you 'shouldn't' in terms of metagaming.*
As I said, I'm too tired to care. If more time is wasted trying to find either an in-character reason to have some piece of knowledge or to figure how to act around the forbidden knowledge, than actually just playing the game and moving on, I just tell them to metagame. It's fine. Ok, you know that Kerila is a vampire, what do you do now? Ok, you know that you aren't good enough to sneak past these guys, what do you do now?

*To actually pull a from-a-table-real-example of this, Episode 15 of the Critical Bits podcast has this happen. One of the players knows that the NPC they're talking to is an evil clone, but they 'don't want to metagame'. So they spend around 10 (edited) minutes floundering around trying to act in a 'proper' roleplaying way, that their character doesn't know its an evil clone. So even though they are trying to act 'in character', in good faith, they are still making character decisions based on knowing something they 'shouldn't'. As a podcast this was very funny, because the player and DM are professional comedians, but as a DM in my home game I would've just let them have it and played out the scene from there. This is mostly a philosophical difference that I don't really intend to resolve, merely explain.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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...

I really should’ve predicted this when my original post lightly touched on the metagaming angle shouldn’t i? Haha, I’ve been trying to keep up with it all but I don’t have any contributions that might break the cycle so I’ve kept quiet for the most part.

Edit: i can only say i wish the original question of the thread was given more attention rather than the metagaming angle taking over.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I certainly agree that deducing a solution is much more fun than looking up the answer. The problem especially with monster weaknesses is, most of us have been playing this game for a very long time. If the DM is using straight-out-of-the-book monsters, chances are we don’t even have to look the answer up - we already know because we’ve fought them plenty of times before. And while actually deducing the answer is more fun than looking it up, pretending to deduce it when you actually knew all a long is not fun at all, in my opinion. Now, if there’s a newer player at the table who actually doesn’t know the answer, I don’t want to ruin it for them. But that’s not a metagaming issue, it’s just a courtesy issue.

 

[overgeeked]

I guess I just disagree that metagaming is the problem there.

It's always a problem. We'll just agree to disagree, then.

Again, the problem is "adversarial mindset", the vector is metagaming. You can ban metagaming but that does nothing to disabuse the adversarial mindset.

It is a major means by which adversarial players ply their trade. Cutting it off tamps down on adversarial players a lot. Other things like fudging die rolls are easy to spot when everyone rolls in the open. Fudging equipment is another problem.

Also, just, my life experience has been mostly that metagaming just happens and isn't done to be adversarial.

Mine's the opposite. Players new to the idea of RPGs don't understand so might accidentally stumble into it, but once it's been explained, persisting is entirely adversarial.

Its generally easy to pick up on the intentions of my players...

Exactly. I know that if Tony metagames it likely because he's exhausted from work and he literally cannot focus, so a gentle reminder is in order. But, if Ken metagames, he's being adversarial. He's hyper-competitive and the type to throw video game controllers if he loses.

Or more, obtaining the OOC knowledge was by accident?

It's basically impossible to prevent players from having more info than their characters would. That's not the problem. The problem is the players making in-character decisions based on that info.

"Oh is this Horror on the Hill? I remember Horror on the Hill."

Okay, so you don't get to make decisions for the group. You play a support character this time and let someone else take the lead. Problem solved.

"Oh... I just saw your notes about Lady Kerila "

Digital notes in a locked device. Hasn't been a problem in years.

Just, oops! They know things! They aren't doing it to 'get one over' on me, or 'win at any cost'.

No, you're conflating the having or gaining information with acting on it. It's the acting on it that's a problem.

And, well, I don't want my players to turn off their brain during the game, an if that factors into their decisions, so be it.

That's where we hard disagree. It's not about turning off their brain. It's about roleplaying their character. The character doesn't know X, so X shouldn't be part of their decision making.

This is over 20 years of dozens of gamers, btw.

Okay. I've been running D&D for almost 40 years. I've run and played with a few hundred people just in 5E.

And I know that people in this thread already disagree with this stance, but yeah I'm of the mind that trying really hard to pretend you don't know something you 'shouldn't' to make your actions is functionally equivalent to making actions based on knowing something you 'shouldn't' in terms of metagaming.*

Except that it's not. It simply isn't. As pointed out more than a few times already. Pick whichever analogy works for you.

As I said, I'm too tired to care.

Sure.

*To actually pull a from-a-table-real-example of this, Episode 15 of the Critical Bits podcast has this happen. One of the players knows that the NPC they're talking to is an evil clone, but they 'don't want to metagame'. So they spend around 10 (edited) minutes floundering around trying to act in a 'proper' roleplaying way, that their character doesn't know its an evil clone. So even though they are trying to act 'in character', in good faith, they are still making character decisions based on knowing something they 'shouldn't'. As a podcast this was very funny, because the player and DM are professional comedians, but as a DM in my home game I would've just let them have it and played out the scene from there. This is mostly a philosophical difference that I don't really intend to resolve, merely explain.

Okay. I've read your post. I've heard your explanation. I still fundamentally disagree with you on this.

 

[Redneckomancer]

I really should’ve predicted this when my original post lightly touched on the metagaming angle shouldn’t i? Haha, I’ve been trying to keep up with it all but I don’t have any contributions that might break the cycle so I’ve kept quiet for the most part.

Edit: i can only say i wish the original question of the thread was given more attention rather than the metagaming angle taking over.

Rereading your Op I see you're more asking as a player than a DM, so when I do play, which isn't often, I roll (heh) with it. I rolled a nat one on this diplomacy? Let me play that out. It's an opportunity for some good comedy, honestly. I rolled low on the stealth check? Well, I wait for the Dm to tell me what that looks like and prepare for the next action.

The investigation and perception checks are a bit trickier. If I know I rolled low on an investigation, I accept that my character couldn't find anything worth finding. If I have other reasons to suspect that there IS something worth finding, then I try to find another thing to search or a different angle to approach from. No evidence in the office files? Grill the receptionist. Butter up the intern etc etc.
A lot of this depends on how the DM is running. Too many 5e DMs I've had just have me roll a skill with no real regard for what I specifically say my action is.
"I search the locked side table" "Roll investigation." "Uh, an 8?" "You don't find anything relevant." Hmmm.
Or even weirder, "20." "You don't find anything relevant in the side table but you find a secret compartment under the desk in the next room." I.. Uh... (actual table story)

 

[Lanefan]

That’s a very metagame view from the GM perspective. I mean, you’ve beaten the “PCs are not special” drum loudly… so having the world be out to get them seems totally meta.

I was speaking there from the PCs' perspective - when they're out in the field, if they feel like it's them against the world I've done it right.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Sorry if this has been brought up already (38 pages in 3 days tells me there's probably a lot of nonsense like this current video game tangent so) but can you, CreamCloud, personally explain in your own words why Metagaming is inherently bad? If you can't I'd probably stop worrying about it and just roll stuff based on what keeps the game moving and playable.

I view metagaming as unwanted because i value character integrity, if you recall my original post it was about gaining more genuine reactions from the players-as-character for more interesting roleplaying experiences, and in other situations such as fire-against-ogre or which-way-is-the-treasure-room-in-this-module-I’ve-already-played it’s really not that difficult to just roll a nature check first or flip a coin/keep quiet while the rest of the party decides, I just don’t think it’s necessary to metagame in most if any situations but it wasn’t the metagame angle I wanted to focus on.

 

[Mort]

I was speaking there from the PCs' perspective - when they're out in the field, if they feel like it's them against the world I've done it right.

Sure, but I've always found PC need potential for allies and strings they can pull to get out of situations. If EVERYONE is against them, even in a hostile environment - it tends to stain believability.

 

[Lanefan]

The DM is using a Dungeon that I've either played through or DMd before....

Stop right there.

It should never have got to this point. Before running any not-homebrew module the DM should have asked if any of you had been through or run it before, and on getting a "Yes" from anyone should abandon that module and choose a different one.

That way, it's equally new to all of you as players, and the issue you raise cannot occur.

 

[Mort]

Stop right there.

It should never have got to this point. Before running any not-homebrew module the DM should have asked if any of you had been through or run it before, and on getting a "Yes" from anyone should abandon that module and choose a different one.

That way, it's equally new to all of you as players, and the issue you raise cannot occur.

1 it's a hypothetical (in reality I would have immediately said something). But I actually have seen it happen quite a few times, DM had nothing else prepared and didn't want to ad lib, so ran it despite some players having seen it before.

or

2 some groups actually LIKE replaying played through modules to see about different results. Like for the nostalgia, Ran the 5e Tomb of Horrors for my group despite most of them having been through it decades ago - just to see how it would go, the whole point was to see how well they ACTUALLY remembered the module and if 5e could get the feel down at all.