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

[Lanefan]

I find the easiest way to handle PvP is to just tell players that it's not allowed. If a PC attacks another PC, the attacking player immediately becomes an NPC (after reminding the player of the rule of course). Same way with evil. I'll never tell a player that their PC can't go bad, but if they do they become and NPC since I don't want evil PCs in my game.

But I don't see how this has any connection to metagaming, they're separate topics other than that it should be discussed as a group how you want to handle it.

The connection is that you're still limiting how players can play their characters, only in a different direction and, IMO, more arbitrarily.

Also, your stance has a corollary to it that's a huge red flag for me: that you can arbitrarily take a character away from a player and make it an NPC just because you don't like something it did in-character. Characters belong to their players for life.

 

[Lanefan]

yeah we decided after a couple of times doing that we didn't like it.

We still work against each other sometimes... I may back NPC A for the throne and you back NPC B but it will never come down to dice rolls between us... just RP and be happy.

What if it's two PCs who are competing for the throne?

 

[iserith]

What if it's two PCs who are competing for the throne?

 

[Lanefan]

Here's the connection that I see: the only way a player can follow the no PvP rule is by metagaming. Because if they rely only on in-character knowledge, they can't know the real-world fact about which game participant has ownership of which element of the fiction.

Yep - stickers on foreheads again.

 

[Lanefan]

That's exactly the example @Lanefan was using. If the player declares "I jump over the moon", instead of saying, "You can't do that" you just narrate "You get a good 23 inches off the ground before gravity pulls you back down." See? Nobody said, "Your character wouldn't do that" or "That action is not allowed."

@iserith's approach to pvp is similar.

No it isn't, for two very important reason: 1) iserith's pvp idea bypasses the otherwise-established rules of the game (e.g. the attacker doesn't get a roll to hit) and 2) it's not the DM neutrally narrating the results but the target player, who has a vested interest.

P.S. There is a difference between "actions they can't declare" and "actions that are meaningless." The latter just means it doesn't change the game state in a meaningful way. The former means there is somebody at the table who gets to tell you what actions you are allowed to declare. Huge distinction.

Very true.

 

[Lanefan]

I guess I wouldn't bother narrating something the character and player know is impossible. I don't see the point

I do. If the character wants to look like a goof, jumping up and down in the town plaza while calling out "I'm going to the moon!", why on earth wouldn't you let him?

and if a player insists we'll have a chat about why they're attempting something impossible and how I run a relatively serious game.

Ah, there's the rub: that word "serious" rearing its ugly head.

 

[Oofta]

Ok, but you are being squirrely here. You just used that example, and when I tried to distinguish between the two approaches, you shifted to "having a talk with them about their behavior." You've changed it from a discussion about meaningless actions and disallowed actions into a discussion about problem players.

If someone says they do something that is obviously impossible, I'll just tell them they can't. If they insist on attempting anyway, there's something else going on and I'd rather just discuss it directly.

It doesn't automatically make them a problem player, perhaps there's just a misunderstanding. I'd rather just have a quick conversation to clarify.

 

[Oofta]

The connection is that you're still limiting how players can play their characters, only in a different direction and, IMO, more arbitrarily.

Also, your stance has a corollary to it that's a huge red flag for me: that you can arbitrarily take a character away from a player and make it an NPC just because you don't like something it did in-character. Characters belong to their players for life.

I tell the people up front when they join my game how I handle it. If you still join my game you've granted permission. If it's a red flag for you that I don't allow certain behavior, perhaps I'm not the right DM for you. That's fine, we all have our preferences.

I assume that every DM and group has some lines that can't be crossed. It's just a question of where that line is and how it's handled.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No it isn't, for two very important reason: 1) iserith's pvp idea bypasses the otherwise-established rules of the game (e.g. the attacker doesn't get a roll to hit) and 2) it's not the DM neutrally narrating the results but the target player, who has a vested interest.

So for those reasons the two aren’t even similar? Especially in the context of a debate about the differences between action prohibitions and narrated outcomes? Sheesh.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What if it's two PCs who are competing for the throne?

same rule but it has never happened, no players every WANT that