Should I stop the Metagaming? How?

[gnomersy]

Saint Caleth wrote:

I agree with Kirth that you know IC when you have rolled badly and can react appropriately without it being meta gaming. I have always played that way and I am frankly surprised at the number of people in the "you can never react to a poor check" camp.

Reminds me of the DMs who cry meta when a character applies knowledge based on experiance but does not necessarily have the knowledge skill. Also I think it correlates to the kind of DM who strives for "realism" which winds up often not working like reality.

Meta gaming is sometimes necessary, otherwise how can you realistically play an intelligence which is smarter than you are. It is a tool in the roleplaying toolbox, you just need to know the correct time to use it.

I'm really not sure I agree with this at all. While some rolls have active feedback in them for example I'd accept knowing your stealth roll is crap because you can tell when the floorboards creak or you stumble etc. But for listening and looking? Hell no you don't know how well you did.

[RumpinRufus]

Comment about listening at doors:

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

RumpinRufus wrote:

LovesTha wrote:

So the rouge is spending 6 seconds actively listening, what is everyone else doing in that 6 second? Wouldn't they also try to listen?

Only one (or max, two) people can listen with an ear to the door.

You underestimate my power.

first 2 people kneel by the door with their heads to the door. Strongest 2 stand over them with heads to the door. Last 2 get on their shoulders and put their heads to the door. Dimensions should fit correctly for even tall humans.

Guess what? Once you have people hunched over and stacked on top of each other against a door, all you hear is breathing and the slight scrunching of cartilage against wood. To get an idea of what I'm talking about, run your finger around the outside of your ear.

[Thomas Long 175]

RumpinRufus wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Well then your listen attempt was a success. You did hear something and it was real. It was the sound of all of your teammates rubbing up against the door.

EPIC PLAN IS SUCCESS

[Chemlak]

Saint Caleth wrote:

I agree with Kirth that you know IC when you have rolled badly and can react appropriately without it being meta gaming. I have always played that way and I am frankly surprised at the number of people in the "you can never react to a poor check" camp.

That's not the problem as presented. I have no issue if the Rogue says "ears are still ringing from getting clocked by that troll. I can't hear anything, anyone else want to try?"

The problem, though, is not that the Rogue knows he rolled badly, but somehow that the Monk knows it, without being told.

Rich (who plays a Rogue): I'm listening at the door.
GM: Roll perception.
Rich: 19.
GM: You hear nothing.
Rogue: Nothing there, guys.
Mark (who plays a monk): Open the door, then, let's get on with it.

Versus (a bit later...)

Rich: I'm listening at the door.
GM: Roll perception.
Rich: Ugh. 7.
GM: You hear nothing.
Rogue: Nothing there, guys.
Mark: Whoah, there. That roll sucked balls. I'm going to try.

On the other hand

Rich: I'm listening at the door.
GM: Roll perception.
Rich: 19.
GM: You hear nothing.
Rogue: Well, I heard a mouse on the flagstones, but that's it.
Mark: Okay, Frank opens the door, I go through it, while Will gets ready to chuck a fireball, just in case Ears there is wrong.

Or later...

Rich: I'm listening at the door.
GM: Roll perception.
Rich: Ugh. 7.
GM: You hear nothing.
Rogue: Can't hear a blasted thing. This door is too thick and the crackling of the torches is driving me crazy.
Monk: Get out of the way, Ears. Let me have a try.

We've been presented with the first pair, which is seriously metagamey. The second pair, while still being just as metagamey involves the characters responding to their environment, as well as the players roleplaying their interactions. I would shoot the first pair of interactions down, but the second I would merrily let slide: the difference being that the monk was told that the rogue heard nothing in the first, but in the second the rogue indicated his perception and the monk used that to make his choice, rather than the result of another character's roll.

[Sissyl]

"Uh-oh! GUYS! WAKE UP! I just had to make a Perception check and then didn't find or hear anything! We must be under attack!"

Handling Perception is a problem. Generally, one good idea I saw was that whoever first tells the GM he wants to make an attempt is the one who gets to try. Sure, it is not a realistic simulationist idea, but it works beautifully in play. You also don't need to spend ages at every door.

[The Saltmarsh 6]

The big problem with perception is when ever you ask a player to make a roll and they do badly they assume that something is going to happen which they don't expect why else would they need to make a roll
I tend to have characters make rolls when there is nothing for them to see or hear this works best when if they make a good roll take them to one side and tell them that they have seen nothing of any importance to the game but seems out of place and could lead them to make the wrong conclusions

[Charender]

Saint Caleth wrote:

I agree with Kirth that you know IC when you have rolled badly and can react appropriately without it being meta gaming. I have always played that way and I am frankly surprised at the number of people in the "you can never react to a poor check" camp.

Reminds me of the DMs who cry meta when a character applies knowledge based on experiance but does not necessarily have the knowledge skill. Also I think it correlates to the kind of DM who strives for "realism" which winds up often not working like reality.

Meta gaming is sometimes necessary, otherwise how can you realistically play an intelligence which is smarter than you are. It is a tool in the roleplaying toolbox, you just need to know the correct time to use it.

Perception

"Your senses allow you to notice fine details and alert you to danger. Perception covers all five senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell."

So, if I make the check, I notice something or get alerted to danger. If I fail the check, then I know I failed, and I know there is something around that I failed to notice. If you play it that way, you can never actually fail to notice anything because the failure to notice will be an indication that there was something there you failed to notice.

Roll a 3 in combat and miss an attack. Yes, you know you missed.
Roll a 3 on a craft check and fail to make a decent sword. Yes, you know you failed.
Roll a 3 on a perception check, and fail to notice the trap tripwire across the hallway. "Hey guy I got a feeling I missed something, could you double check me" WTF?

[Sissyl]

Just a heads up here: this discussion is really about priorities and language at this point.

[Kirth Gersen]

Charender wrote:

So, if I make the check, I notice something or get alerted to danger. If I fail the check, then I know I failed, and I know there is something around that I failed to notice.

This is why I make a distinction between actively calling for a skill check, and getting one because of something you're not aware of (a "passive check," if you will).

Passive Check: Use pre-rolled checks, or roll behind a screen for them, or assume they're always "taking 10," or -- if you really trust them -- ask for them to roll and ask them not to metagame it. Whatever works for your group. The PC is unaware that the check is taking place, and is therefore unaware of how well it goes.

Active Check: When a player specfically announces "I'm attempting skill check X, right now, because of Y, and I'm doing it in Z manner," that's pretty freakin' specific. To not even let the player roll the check at that point seems kind of petty to me (YMMV). Likewise, insisting that there's no way the PC could possibly have even a vague inking of whether he was doing a good job seems to me to be overly-anal and pointlessly authoritarian at that point. Again, YMMV.

[DiscountDM]

Not hearing a noise during a perception check is just as valid an outcome as hearing a noise. Therefore a player who hears nothing would have no idea if he succeeded, only that he heard nothing. For another player to see his dice roll and respond by attempting to roll his own check is by definition metagaming. You could have everybody roll perception checks and give the rogue a bonus for being up against the door, or if the rogue continually fails his own perhaps the monk would push him out of the way and say, "This is how you listen to a door okay fail-rogue?" Both logical in-game reasons for the extra checks.

[Cyrad]

What about considering every additional person as using Aid Another?

[chavamana]

Cyrad wrote:

What about considering every additional person as using Aid Another?

Assuming that the other PCs have at least a +9 so could never fail the aid-another DC 10 (since you specifically cannot take-10 on a aid another), as a GM I would totally have my players just do this.

[kmal2t]

You aren't aiding in a task per se. You're doing an individual task.

If you were reading a book and someone was there helping you figure it out that's one thing, but listening isn't really aiding other than maybe if someone said, "hey you hear that?" "hear what?" "that ringing noise" "oh I hear it now it sounds like a metal bell"

or "Do you see that on the ledge?" "ya I think its a bird" I suppose that's aiding but most of the time I'd think it'd be indiv.

[chavamana]

Of course, there is nothing to keep the door listener or trap checker from just taking-20 and not needing to roll. Assuming they have the time to spend 2 minutes at the door. Which is an even easier way to not have to deal with the 'people only double check when the listener rolls low'.

Granted this doesn't work when it is an opposed roll when someone is on guard.

[Grimgamer]

You're problem about Meta-Gaming hits everyone eventually. The best secret is to find a DM who either fully encourages your min/maxing and builds adventures to suit.
Or play a game where Min/Maxing just doesn't matter. ie.. a good DM who rolls all opposed checks secretly and seems to hand out information fairly. The only rolls a player should make are to hits, damage and of course saves directed from outside the party.
All of this requires a DM who runs a good story and is at least somewhat trusted. If you think your DM is out to kill you no matter what you do, just fail all your saves on purpose and watch them scramble. either to replace your spot at the table or if enough players die your DM should get the idea.

If your DM seems too over-powered all the time and you don't feel like you're even somewhat "heroic" in your game than you need to take a hard look at your playstyle before blaming it solely on the DM. But if enough players are feeling similar, i'd suggest you find a new DM.

[Grimgamer]

Sorry I got off the listening at doors topic.

who cares who rolls what when listening at a door. Either you plan on opening it or not.
If you hear something behind a door, what do you do... ready actions and either open the door or not.
If you don't hear something behind a door what do you do? you either ready actions and open it or you don't.

Everyone in a group - specially- in a dungeon advent should have a position and role they use each and everytime 'they' initiate door contact or are even moving down a passage.

Once the action starts all the planning in the world usually goes out the window and it turns into a semper fi moment anyway.

The only real thing a successful "listen" check at a door allows is prep time. And most of your casters don't want to waste alot of spells prepping at a door without truely needing it. wasting a handful of spells once at a door will almost certainly come into question the next time you hear something behind any future doors.

In that case maybe you should always just considier going through doors in a particualr order left right and strait, and never use prep spells until you "Know" what you are dealing with. Then just roll in and clear the room asap.

[n00bxqb]

I'd just take it as an Aid Another action and the successful roll simply added a +2 to the Rogue's perception check.

How else would you aid another in perception?

[Kullen]

Grimgamer wrote:

The only rolls a player should make are to hits, damage and of course saves directed from outside the party.

Yeah, and not using the purple, red, or blue dice! Only the green ones. And don't let them make decisions, either, or else they get uppity. If players don't get to make decisions, they can't metagame! In fact, they shouldn't even be talking. A good DM will just type up the entire adventure in advance and hand out the transcripts; then the players can sit there quitely and read them, and you'll have no problems with them that way.