|
Mendedwall12,
I believe that what Rhidian was getting at was dice being rolled by players in ALL situations (such as non-active perception checks) instead of the DM rolling for them. Also this leads to the more pertinent matter of Meta-gaming. I think he is giving suggestions to DM's on how to lower the potential for players Meta-gaming by narrowing the rules of open table dice rolling while still allowing the players to roll even in situations that they normally would not.
More importantly I think that the discussion on Meta-gaming should be more directed at the player. There may be times in which a player will know the stats of an enemy and attempt to act based on "their" knowledge as a player and not the knowledge of the "character". It is very important that a player always keep in mind the knowledge of the "character" being played as well as that "characters" common response to the given circumstances. For example:
Bob plays a Sorcerer named John. Bob has also been a DM several times and knows the basic stats and abilities of a Young Adult Green Dragon because it is his favorite enemy to pit his players against. Bob knows that since he is not DMing that it is likely that his friend who is DMing will pit him against a YA Green Dragon in game. With his players knowledge he could easily prepare each game to meet a YA Green Dragon and due to his intimate out of game knowledge help the party take advantage of the foe. However, his CHARACTER John the sorcerer knows very little about Green Dragons because he was raised in the frozen north and would therefore probably rarely if ever prepare to meet one in battle. To take advantage of his personal out of game knowledge in game would be wrong and unfair; in this instance his character would not prepare to fight a Green Dragon nor would he have intimate knowledge of dragons unless specified.
In other words... When in doubt one should ALWAYS defer to what their "character" knows within the game and not what the "player" knows about the game.