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

[Clint_L]

in theory you can run D&D with the PHB and Monster Manual... this is why people joke about not reading the DMG

I would go a bit further and say that in practice most people do run D&D with the PHB and the MM, and the DM's Guide is just an expensive list of magic items.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think @iserith ever responded to this. I was going to leave it to them, because I learned my solution from them. Which is to allow pvp, but the outcome of every adversarial reaction is narrated, without a roll, not by the DM but by the target.

So when you stab Bob in the eye, the DM turns to Bob and says, "What happens?" Bob might say, "The dagger glances off my helmet. I cast command and tell him to grovel." So the DM turns to you and says, "What happens?" And you say, "I know Bob's tricks so the spell doesn't work on me; no saving throw needed."

IME that would almost instantly lead to the biggest table argument you've ever seen.

First off, why is combat vs another PC handled differently than combat vs anything else? I should get a to-hit roll (and Bob should get a surprise or whatever roll to see if I catch him off guard); and things proceed form there - if we're using the rules even vaguely close to how they're written. This also touches on the whole "PCs should not be different than NPCs in the fiction" discussion.

Second, and more conducive to table arguments, is the classic "I shot you" "No you didn't" scenario, which there would be no possible way to keep in-character. Remember, this is all happening in-character. I've got no beef with Bob as a player but my character's had her fill of Pallybob; their conflict should also stay in character, with the DM as neutral arbiter and rules enforcer.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

IME that would almost instantly lead to the biggest table argument you've ever seen.

we alleviate that with "No PVP unless mind controlled"

Second, and more conducive to table arguments, is the classic "I shot you" "No you didn't" scenario, which there would be no possible way to keep in-character. Remember, this is all happening in-character. I've got no beef with Bob as a player but my character's had her fill of Pallybob; their conflict should also stay in character, with the DM as neutral arbiter and rules enforcer.

yeah, I didn't even think of the "I hit you" "No you didn't"

 

[Bill Zebub]

First off, why is combat vs another PC handled differently than combat vs anything else?

If you genuinely don't know any possible answers to that question, then there is no point in me trying to answer.

In any event, you thought @iserith banned PvP, and I was explaining that, no, their approach is the "soft veto" you described with your example about jumping to the moon: they are free to try it, but the outcome is narrated, not resolved with a die roll.

EDIT: And to make sure I'm clear, the point here is not to argue that it's the right way to play, but that iserith is not in fact hypocritically banning any action declarations, analogous to not letting them use player knowledge, which you were accusing them of. Anybody who doesn't understand this distinction is missing a really important theme of this whole debate.

 

[Bill Zebub]

we alleviate that with "No PVP unless mind controlled"

If you also are opposed to PvP I would recommend you try @iserith's approach. It's pretty amazing in practice.

yeah, I didn't even think of the "I hit you" "No you didn't"

I don't understand why it would ever result in that, if everybody understands the rules.

I mean, it's exactly like the anti-metagaming thing: both are house rules, and when you sit down to play and the DM describes the house rules, staying at the table means you consent to the rules, right?

And unlike the player knowledge/metagaming thing, there's no room for misinterpretation: I may disagree with the DM about whether or not my character "would know" something, but @iserith's PvP rule is absolutely clear cut: if you take a hostile action toward another PC, they narrate the outcome. There's not really any wiggle room or grey areas there. If you have agreed to this, "I hit you!" is a breach of that social contract.

Tell me how that's different/harder to enforce than an agreement to not use player knowledge?

 

[Lanefan]

In fact, this discussion about @iserith's pvp rules shed light on this whole debate. There seems to be this belief that if players are allowed to actually make choices they will always only choose the one that is best for them,

Yes. That is the assumption, because it's the players' job to advocate for their characters and part of that advocacy involves taking advantage of opportunities to do so wherever they may occur.

The character does what the character would do. The player tries to make that process easier for the character, and the DM as referee pushes back against that.

And thus we must determine outcomes with dice and rulings, and force them to abide by those outcomes.

Yes, in a manner consistent with how the game works all the rest of the time.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Then I would recommend you try @iserith's approach. It's pretty amazing in practice.

no thank you we are very happy with no PvP

I don't understand why it would ever result in that, if everybody understands the rules.

you missed the issues that some of the groups don't even let players narrate there own actions...

I mean, it's exactly like the anti-metagaming thing: both are house rules, and when you sit down to play and the DM describes the house rules, staying at the table means you consent to the rules, right?

right and as long as the table agree good for them.

And unlike the player knowledge/metagaming thing, there's no room for misinterpretation: I may disagree with the DM about whether or not my character "would know" something, but @iserith's PvP rule is absolutely clear cut: if you take a hostile action toward another PC, they narrate the outcome. There's not really any wiggle room or grey areas there. If you have agreed to this, "I hit you!" is a breach of that social contract.

I just don't see the reason to jump through hoops when I can just talk to my players and say what I don't want... aka PvP

Tell me how that's different/harder to enforce than an agreement to not use player knowledge?

it isn't harder, it's just not needed if you just talk

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yes. That is the assumption, because it's the players' job to advocate for their characters and part of that advocacy involves taking advantage of opportunities to do so wherever they may occur.

The character does what the character would do. The player tries to make that process easier for the character, and the DM as referee pushes back against that.

Ok, so that's another way in which the way you (and I presume your friends) approach play is different from what I experience, which is that players frequently make non-optimal choices because it feels more in-character, without any dice compelling them to do so. Which, again, makes it really strange to claim that the anti-metagaming way is better/real/true roleplaying.

Yes, in a manner consistent with how the game works all the rest of the time.

On the contrary sometimes the game works very well for extended stretches without anybody rolling dice. YMMV.

 

[pemerton]

The vehemence that is apparent in some of the posts in this thread surprises me.

In my most recent RPG sessions we've been playing Torchbearer 2e - it's a system that is a homage to classic D&D, but mechanically is a variant on Burning Wheel. It has a reasonably consistent extended contest procedure that can be used to resolve a range of conflicts: kill, capture, drive off, flee/pursue, convince, convince crowed, trick, etc.

The conflict type is established by a combination of fiction and stakes. Generally the players have a big say, but in some circumstances (eg in response to a failed check) the GM gets to set the stakes. If the players win the extended contest they get the core of what they want, but depending on their degree of victory (ie how much did it fall short of total victory) they have to compromise. And vice versa if they lose.

It's crucial to resolving an extended contest that the players see their rolls, act on knowledge of what they roll, be able to use their dice pool and dice result manipulation resources, etc - this is how they can try and shape outcomes in ways that they want to, based on their degree of investment and their judgements about resource management.

It's also the case that everyone is bound by outcomes. So in a kill conflict, a compromise can involve PCs injured or even killed. In a drive off conflict, a compromise may involve the PCs being delayed, or reinforcements turning up, or the fleeing enemies taking their loot with them.

In a social conflict - like convince, convince crowd, or trick - a compromise may mean that the PCs are convinced, or have to keep a promise they made, or are themselves tricked. Players not abiding by the outcome would be tantamount to cheating.

So this system has plenty of metagaming. And also plenty of "roleplaying" in the sense of players being bound by outcomes in the play of their PCs. The two are not at odds.

Another system I really like is Classic Traveller. It has nothing like Torchbearer extended conflicts. Nor does it have any way of generating outcomes that bind players in the play of their PCs in the way a TB convince or trick conflict might - its social mechanics are purely one-way (ie for finding out how NPCs respond to PCs), with the exception of morale rules which can bind PCs to surrender or flee. There's less metagaming in Traveller than Torchbearer in my experience, because of the different mechanics. There is still plenty of roleplaying.

4e D&D plays differently from both these systems. Marvel Heroic RP plays fairly similarly to Torchbearer. Cthulhu Dark plays fairly close to Classic Traveller. Etc, etc.

These vehement assertions about what's "cheating" and what's "roleplaying" seem to be grounded in a very narrow conception - frankly, what sometimes looks like an ignorant conception - of the variety of RPGs and approaches to RPGing that exist.

 

[Lanefan]

If you genuinely don't know any possible answers to that question, then there is no point in me trying to answer.

In any event, you thought @iserith banned PvP, and I was explaining that, no, their approach is the "soft veto" you described with your example about jumping to the moon: they are free to try it, but the outcome is narrated, not resolved with a die roll.

Yes, and on seeing that I remembered how iserith does it.

we alleviate that with "No PVP unless mind controlled"

I go the opposite direction: anything goes. Kill each other if you want to. But it stays in character, or people get punted.