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

[Clint_L]

As a Dm, one way to avoid metagaming is to make sure that the key story beats are clear to the players, so they don't have to break character and story to figure out a problem.

For example, let's go back to our troll friend. When I am running that encounter as DM, I make sure to emphasize how its wounds seem to be constantly closing and healing, and how hard it will be to keep this thing down. So players can't miss the point that they need to be doing something more than just slash away at it. If they are really stuck, I might offer them a clue based on an ability or skill check. Maybe the ranger has heard of trolls before; let's do a survival check, that kind of thing. To be rewarded with a "you seem to recall that while that while trolls are incredibly durable, there are certain types damage that they can't regenerate."

And if the players are being really obtuse, failing miserably in their rolls, or both...well, maybe this encounter is going to go really badly for them. That's part of the fun, too!

 

[Lanefan]

Hah! Try this for a bit of levity. Back during 3e I was playing a rogue and was scouting ahead in a dungeon. I came to a large room with pillars in it. As I was going through I heard something moving up ahead so I said to the DM, "I duck behind a pillar and hide." completely forgetting that I was carrying the lantern.

Needless to say he didn't ask me to roll to see if I could hide.

Sounds like a good one ofr the "I Forgot I Had It" thread...

 

[Lanefan]

Depending on the people involved (but this requires knowing your players) it may actually be best to frame it as caused by exterior causes, because some people will assume failure means their character screwed up as a default. Its probably a good idea to actively not feed that.

Why not? Characters aren't perfect, regardless what their players might think, and can mess things up under stress just like anyone else.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Why not? Characters aren't perfect, regardless what their players might think, and can mess things up under stress just like anyone else.

If you haven't seen or don't care about people who get demoralized by their perception (however faulty) of constant failure, I don't know what to tell you here, but its not rare. They don't see it as "occasional failure"; they see it as signs of incompetence, and that does nothing for their enjoyment (or, honestly, the enjoyment of other people playing with them) of the game.

 

[iserith]

If you haven't seen or don't care about people who get demoralized by their perception (however faulty) of constant failure, I don't know what to tell you here, but its not rare. They don't see it as "occasional failure"; they see it as signs of incompetence, and that does nothing for their enjoyment (or, honestly, the enjoyment of other people playing with them) of the game.

Or, it's like the DM already controls so much of the game. All a player gets to do is describe what they want to do. But some DMs then also claim veto power over certain of their action declarations due to "metagaming" and describe what they do when they fail, often in a Keystone Cops-esque fashion? Like, wow, how about the DM just play this character for me?

 

[Maxperson]

Or, it's like the DM already controls so much of the game. All a player gets to do is describe what they want to do. But some DMs then also claim veto power over certain of their action declarations due to "metagaming" and describe what they do when they fail, often in a Keystone Cops-esque fashion? Like, wow, how about the DM just play this character for me?

The bolded just plain doesn't happen. It's a caricature of the playstyle.

 

[iserith]

The bolded just plain doesn't happen. It's a caricature of the playstyle.

People in this very thread have stated they question people's action declarations and, if they don't alter them, then they're out.

 

[overgeeked]

If you haven't seen or don't care about people who get demoralized by their perception (however faulty) of constant failure, I don't know what to tell you here, but its not rare. They don't see it as "occasional failure"; they see it as signs of incompetence, and that does nothing for their enjoyment (or, honestly, the enjoyment of other people playing with them) of the game.

I can’t help it if people choose to skew reality that badly. If the only way they can perceive themselves as in any way competent is to always win and never lose, then that’s not an issue I can deal with at the table. That’s a personality thing. I’m a pessimist, but even I’m not that pessimistic. Maybe games like D&D where occasional failure is 100% guaranteed are not good games for them to play.

 

[Maxperson]

People in this very thread have stated they question people's action declarations and, if they don't alter them, then they're out.

That's very, very different from overruling a player's decision in game or keystone cops, which are the incorrect depictions I objected to. Booting someone from the game for cheating(and refusing to stop) is not at all the same.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If the only way they can perceive themselves as in any way competent is to always win and never lose,

Captain Hyperbole strikes again!