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

[Swarmkeeper]

DM stating "Your character wouldn't know/do that" = "veto power over certain of their action declarations"

Rolling a 3 and having the DM describe the attempt as "clumsy" = DM "describe[ing] what they do when they fail, often in a Keystone Cops-esque fashion"

I'm not sure how much clearer that could be.

I guess you could quibble about the word "often" or whether these are issues for your table or not, but to say these phrases are not the same thing? Or to say they don't happen when the quotes are right here in the thread?

 

[Redneckomancer]

DM stating "Your character wouldn't know/do that" = "veto power over certain of their action declarations"

Rolling a 3 and having the DM describe the attempt as "clumsy" = DM "describe[ing] what they do when they fail, often in a Keystone Cops-esque fashion"

I'm not sure how much clearer that could be.

I guess you could quibble about the word "often" or whether these are issues for your table or not, but to say these phrases are not the same thing? Or to say they don't happen when the quotes are right here in the thread?

Yeah I mean, if I'm playing at this table and we fight the Quantum Metagame Troll and I declare that I want to huck a fireball at it, and this fireball hucking is declared by the DM as Metagame Cheating, what.... happens? Assume it's my first strike in Metagame Cheating. Does the fireball still get hucked or...?

 

[iserith]

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.

What @Swarmkeeper said.

 

[Maxperson]

DM stating "Your character wouldn't know/do that" = "veto power over certain of their action declarations"

Okay. The problem is nobody here is saying that. We're saying that the event would happen. Happen =/= your character wouldn't know/do that. Happen = happen.

We're saying that metagaming = cheating and cheating = a talk after the game about it to let the player know that metagaming isn't cool. Then they either stop, or they continue cheating and get kicked out of the game.

At no point is the DM ever vetoing what the player says he does. At no point is anything "keystone cops."

Rolling a 3 and having the DM describe the attempt as "clumsy" = DM "describe[ing] what they do when they fail, often in a Keystone Cops-esque fashion"

No. Slipping a bit during lockpicking(clumsy attempt) and failing =/= slapstick keystone cops. A bit of a slip is normal for a failure.

I'm not sure how much clearer that could be.

The strawman is very clear. Now if you two could actually describe and respond to what we are saying that would be great.

 

[iserith]

Okay. The problem is nobody here is saying that. We're saying that the event would happen. Happen =/= your character wouldn't know/do that. Happen = happen.

If the DM can demand you explain why you choose to take an action for your own character and, if the DM disagrees with that reasoning, you can't do it or should change it, then they have veto power over your action declarations. The penalty for non-compliance is banishment. I agree that people should be held to their agreements, but the agreement is effectively "I agree the DM has final say over my action declarations." In my game, I don't have that power. Do whatever you want. It's none of my business why.

 

[Maxperson]

If the DM can demand you explain why you choose to take an action for your own character and, if the DM disagrees with that reasoning, you can't do it or should change it, then they have veto power over your action declarations.

So I once again reject your strawman. Nobody is saying that.

The penalty for non-compliance is banishment.

Cheating. Not "non-compliance." Let's get that straight. It's cheating as bringing in OOC knowledge through the character that doesn't have that knowledge is against the rules.

I agree that people should be held to their agreements, but the agreement is effectively "I agree the DM has final say over my action declarations." In my game, I don't have that power. Do whatever you want. It's none of my business why.

And for like the 5th time I reject the strawman you guys are setting up.

 

[iserith]

So I once again reject your strawman. Nobody is saying that.

The receipts are in this thread. And that's fine. To each their own. If someone wants to clarify what they meant, they certainly can.

Cheating. Not "non-compliance." Let's get that straight. It's cheating as bringing in OOC knowledge through the character that doesn't have that knowledge is against the rules.

It's not a rule, it's a table rule. Not complying with a table rule has consequences up to and including expulsion from the group. I mean, that's what people have said a few times in this thread. And I don't disagree. As I said, people should be held to their agreement in my view. This just happens to be a table rule that I wouldn't agree to for the reasons stated.

 

[Maxperson]

The receipts are in this thread. And that's fine. To each their own. If someone wants to clarify what they meant, they certainly can.

I did so at least twice in the last three posts of mine.

It's not a rule, it's a table rule.

Semantics. No matter where the rule comes from, it's a rule at my table.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

This is such a gross misrepresentation of what I've said--which is just to frame the failure differently--that I'm going to start to assume either bad faith or a serious case of not paying attention.

And if your attitude is you can't even do that, well, its your choice if you want to make people's experience worse just so you can (not mind you, change the result) frame it the way you want. I flat out will say I find that kind of awful.

 

[iserith]

I did so at least twice in the last three posts of mine.

I honestly don't understand what you were saying in some of those posts. It seems clear to me that the agreement is still "I agree the DM has final say over my action declarations." Somebody has to determine if they broke the table rule or not to enforce the punishment, after all. Or maybe everyone at the table gets a say? I could see that, too. The agreement just changes to "I agree everyone at the table has final say over my action declarations."

Semantics. No matter where the rule comes from, it's a rule at my table.

Earlier you were making what I considered some erroneous assertions about the rules supporting your position. This was putting some sunlight on what could be viewed as an attempt to sneak that back into the discussion. If that's not what you were doing, then great.