I am working on a homebrew campaign, and I am thinking of ways to cut down meta-gaming.
To that end, I am considering the possibility that I should handle ALL rolls outside of combat behind the screen. Have any of you tried this? The ultimate goal is to have the player *not* thinking in terms of "can I roll to do x" but just let them narrate their actions and I will handle the number crunching out of sight. So if my fighter wants to intimidate a guard, I would ask her to tell me what she does, and rather than have her roll and then me ret-con or edit the action to accommodate a flub, I would ask for her intimidation bonus, do the roll myself and just narrate the results.
I think this could work with a smaller group where I don't have to worried about players getting bored between turns, has anyone tried that method?
Another option I've considered is replacing straight DC rolls with contested rolls where it is PvE (player vs environment) style. So for example, if a player is searching for a secret door, rather than simply assigning a DC and letting the player try to meet it I might give the door a bonus depending on how skillfully it is hidden. Then I can have the player roll Inspection, and I will roll simultaneously and apply my bonus for the door. I think this method provides for more possibilities beyond just "Oh I rolled crappy and didn't find anything, but I still *think* there's something there, so maybe someone else should try..."
What do you folks think, and/or what methods do you use to cut down on meta-gaming?
I've played in a campaign that had all dice rolls, outside of combat, hidden from the player. It can work. My experience is it did take away from the suspense of the die roll and therefore created a missing "element" at the table. For those who like to RP failures, as well as successes, it also removes the knowledge of how close they came and limits their RP options.
People usually like to roll,and I know I would miss it if it was taken away from me.
As for meta-gaming, I don't really see the information you get from seeing your roll. In your examples with intimidation, wouldn't the player guess if he succeeded or failed from the consequences anyway ?
I can appreciate trying to reduce meta-gaming. I'm not sure eliminating dice rolling would be the way I'd like to do it. A lot of the fun for D&D at my table is throwing dice and spinning the story together. What specific situations can you think of that have happened to you, that you are trying to avoid happening again?
Rolling the dice is a big part of the game, and players might not like you rolling for them. If you want to eliminate the situation where a player just says "I want to intimidate the guard...I rolled a 14", just tell your players that what they say and do affects the DC. If they just say it and roll, it's against a DC of 15. (Just an example number) If they give a cool detail of how they do it, reduce the DC a bit to 13. If they narrate a rich, detailed way of how they do the intimidation, pulling in equipment in creative ways or adding a spell (like thaumatergy or something similar), drop the DC to 10. Once my players knew that their table "presence" was rewarded with a lower DC, I started to get a lot more descriptive skill checks.
Rather than drop the DC based on effort, I tend to give advantage, or even disadvantage. But letting players roll is half the fun, and gives them a sense of control which is important. Can you get metagaming by knowing the result of a roll.... sure. Someone rolls a 1 on investigation, and they might decide to stick around and search some more. But is that really metagaming? If I was down in a dungeon and asked the rogue to search the room and he kinda kicked a bit of carpet and shuffled some books, you can bet I'd give him a whack upside the head and have a real look myself. So narrate it. Make it clear that they've made a week attempt. And then have implications. If they re-search and area, or re-intimidate, maybe the guards DC goes up because it failed the first time and he's being defensive now. If they try a third time, maybe he becomes aggressive. If they keep searching for traps or treasure in a dangerous area, surprise round time as a critter hears them rummaging and sneaks in for a feast. Rolls are a buffet of opportunity for RP or Combat.
All of that said, what your proposing would work in theory. I just wouldn't do it because of what it would take from the game, in my humble opinion.
If you want to eliminate the situation where a player just says "I want to intimidate the guard...I rolled a 14", just tell your players that what they say and do affects the DC. If they just say it and roll, it's against a DC of 15. (Just an example number) If they give a cool detail of how they do it, reduce the DC a bit to 13. If they narrate a rich, detailed way of how they do the intimidation, pulling in equipment in creative ways or adding a spell (like thaumatergy or something similar), drop the DC to 10. Once my players knew that their table "presence" was rewarded with a lower DC, I started to get a lot more descriptive skill checks.
I think this is really important. D&D works best when the players describe what they do then there's a roll if it's needed to determine whether the players achieve what they want with the action they're taking. The roll is a consequence of the action, if it's needed to determine the action's effects.
E.g. in the best case scenario, the player doesn't say "I intimidate the guard with a (rolls) 14." They would say "I remind the guard that I'm a 7-foot tall dragonborn and they're a 3-foot-tall gnome, and they better get out of the way or else they'll get squashed". And then if needed they roll. Maybe they get advantage of the guard's mother was killed by a dragonborn, or maybe the DC is high because the 3-foot-tall guard has taken out lots of Big Guys before and isn't too scared, or maybe the DC is low because the guard doesn't really have much loyalty and just needs a bit of a nudge to give way. Whatever's appropriate.
This was definitely a mistake we players made in the first campaign I played - there was a lot of "I Intimidate the guard" or "I Investigate the device" or "I Animal Handle the rat".
I love the idea of explicitly rewarding description with a lower DC to incentivise playing better RP.
E.g. in the best case scenario, the player doesn't say "I intimidate the guard with a (rolls) 14." They would say "I remind the guard that I'm a 7-foot tall dragonborn and they're a 3-foot-tall gnome, and they better get out of the way or else they'll get squashed". And then if needed they roll. Maybe they get advantage of the guard's mother was killed by a dragonborn, or maybe the DC is high because the 3-foot-tall guard has taken out lots of Big Guys before and isn't too scared, or maybe the DC is low because the guard doesn't really have much loyalty and just needs a bit of a nudge to give way. Whatever's appropriate.
This was definitely a mistake we players made in the first campaign I played - there was a lot of "I Intimidate the guard" or "I Investigate the device" or "I Animal Handle the rat".
I love the idea of explicitly rewarding description with a lower DC to incentivise playing better RP.
Then there's my personal favorite, the guard is ordered to accept bribes/give in to remotely credible intimidation and let people into path A, which is not friendly. If someone comes with actual business, (or pretending to have actual business) they'll be shown to a private (locked) room. If they actually have business, the person they're meeting will meet them in the room, if they don't have business, they'll discover the room is rather well fortified with no keyhole on the inside.
Taking away their dice rolls I think will not work, it's what makes the storytelling collaborative. Your second option sounds a bit complicated to what I do anyway: adjust the DC of things based upon the difficulty of the challenge and sometimes I include an offset if people are really creative or specific in what they do. So someone searching a room where there's a hiddens message stuck to the bottom of a table might be nearly impossible to find (20-25) but if they describe "I search the table for any hidden clues, papers of some sort" I would probably lower that DC 5 - 10 to reflect that. But still, I don't see how that would cut down meta-gaming.
Sometimes people notice that something is there but the throw was just poor, to be honest, I am not bothered with it to much and let the other player have a try as well. But mainly I involve RP to limit the way they (ab)use it. If they want to search again "tell me what you do" if it isn't new to what the other player has done, probably they won't find anything. If they come up with new elements they have a fair chaince to find it. The same thing I use for persusasion, they need to come up with new arguments to allow them to make another role. If you adhere to it, people will learn that's the way you DM and will be less inclined to do this over and over again. Also I use the 'help' action, so if another player want to make the check as well, I will say "Ok, you find nothing, X notices this and aids you in your search" the original player can make another roll as he gets advantage - after that it's done.
What you are calling meta-gaming, the "can I roll (skill) to do (action)" type of thought process, is not a problem. It's built into the character sheet, it's described by the PHB, it's a core function of the game. It isn't meta-gaming, it's using the tools at your disposal.
The problem you are addressing is that the players aren't narrating their actions, they're rolling dice before you, as DM, decide if they need to. The key is to change that behavior and, fortunately, it's a very simple process. Before your next game starts explain that you won't take rolls you don't ask for, reinforce it by using the exchange I examples below, and stick to it. It will be frustrating at first, every single time I do this with a group there is grumbling for a bit. However, you are teaching the players to explain their intent and let you do your job of adjudication.
DM: The door doesn't open, you see no lock, you see no lever, there isn't an apparent mechanism with which to open the door. What do you do? Player: I roll Strength to kick the door open *rolls* I got a 19. DM: So you want to kick down the door, alright, roll me an Athletics please. Player: I did, I got a 19... DM: (OOC) I hadn't asked for a roll yet, just what you wanted to do. Please don't roll before I ask, sometimes you may not need to, sometimes you'll need to roll something other than what you think it will be. Please roll me an Athletics.
Player: I want to use Persuasion to make the urchin deliver the letter to the constable. DM: Ok, how are you persuading them? What do you say or do? Player: I offer a couple silver and tell the urchin it's really important and we'll be happy to hire him again if we need help? DM: Alright, roll your Persuasion.
---
As to your idea of rolling for the players, there's a time and place for that. Players need to roll the dice, it's affirmation that their decisions are affecting the outcome of a situation. In some situations it may be more thematic to roll for the player, almost every occasion is when the player has no direct influence on the situation.
--
Your idea about contested rolls, the hidden door vs perception/investigation, it's already done using the mechanics of the game. A door that is crafted to blend in with the tiles on the wall is going to have a higher DC than a door hidden behind a tapestry. It is then up to you to figure out how to describe the success/failure based on the roll vs the DC. In all of my games I use a sliding scale vs the DC, the closer/further away from the DC the player's roll gets, the more/less information they acquire. There is a steep decline in information in the case of something like a hidden door. If the DC is 15 and they roll a 14, I might give them a hint that something is there, if they roll a 12, they've missed it. It seems an over complication of a simple mechanic to add a roll on the DM's part.
I get what you mean with some rolls OP. I find in particular with Perception, Investigations and Insight - as soon as one person tries to do one of those things and finds nothing with a mediocre roll, the other players start doing the same. Roleplay or not suddenly the whole team of five have individually canvassed the room :P.
I get what you mean with some rolls OP. I find in particular with Perception, Investigations and Insight - as soon as one person tries to do one of those things and finds nothing with a mediocre roll, the other players start doing the same. Roleplay or not suddenly the whole team of five have individually canvassed the room :P.
That's a simple rule fix though.
For perception/investigation, either you only allow the person who asked first to make the roll, or if others want to join in, you can rule that them searching simply results in the Help action, and give advantage to the first person, letting them roll a second dice, even after the fact.
For insight, I ruled that the one who asked made the roll, period. And whatever the result, I will give them some information. Some of it might be true, some of it might be false. The ratio changes as the roll goes up, but you should describe the result of the roll IMO, not just say "yup, he's a liar liar pants on fire". Even a poor roll can result in some valid information. And after a while, I find that players tend to remember more what you said than the roll.
Also, these kinds of rolls should be prompted by the players more than by the DM, IMO. If the DM asks for a perception/investigation/insight roll, it means that there's something to be seen/found/learn. If players ask, they know that maybe there was simply nothing to be found. And if they roll well, your description should reflect the thoroughness of their characters' action.
I get what you mean with some rolls OP. I find in particular with Perception, Investigations and Insight - as soon as one person tries to do one of those things and finds nothing with a mediocre roll, the other players start doing the same. Roleplay or not suddenly the whole team of five have individually canvassed the room :P.
This can be handled with a few different approaches.
Paul: I search the footlocker to see if there's a hidden panel. Sam: I search the bookshelf for anything interesting. Suzie: I'm going to look under the rugs and bed. Tina: I've got the armoire. DM: Ok, Paul and Suzie roll Investigation, Adam you find a book that doesn't seem to belong, it's a spell book. Tina, you don't find anything. **If there is nothing to find skip the roll and simply say they find nothing, if their passive is high enough, just give them the find rather than rolling.** Paul: I got a 12. DM: You dig around for a bit but don't find anything like a hidden panel. Sam: I search the footlocker for a hidden panel! DM: Ok, you push your friend out of the way and start digging around the footlocker, roll an Investigation. Sam: No, I don't push him out of the way, I'm just trying to help. DM: Ah, alright, Paul roll again, you have advantage from Sam's help. Sam: I have a higher investigation, so I wanted to roll. DM: That would require Paul moving out of the way so you can do your own investigation.
Here you are showing that the interaction causes interference, and naturally it would in real life.
---
You can assign a time frame to the situation, say each person takes up 10 minutes doing their respective check. This allows you to have random monsters show up, guards, or other hazards. However if there is no threat to the players and there is no reason they can't roll until success, just give it to them.
---
And what ClementIP has said, wrapping a group effort up into one check with advantage can also minimize the actions. I also agree with the varied information from something like Insight, each person will get a different "read", so adjust your responses to fit.
Of course I don't go "ah he's a liar!" its more the crux of multiple people asking for results leads to meta-knowing what is probably true and whats not by the roll. If someone rolls a 6 and learns xyz but someone else rolls 18 then its clear which of xyz are important.
I like the idea of melting multiple perception/investigation responses down into just a help though for one overall roll. I'll make sure to make use of it. I think I might just flatout deny insight checks and if someone asks what their character makes of something I'll just use their passives/roll for them secretly.
If you want to avoid Insight rolls being used by the whole of the table use a different way to convey the information.
I use text messages, post-it notes, and even walking over to the player and whispering to them. If you let them know, and help them understand, that the information is personal rather than a table wide bit of info, the players usually buy in.
I am working on a homebrew campaign, and I am thinking of ways to cut down meta-gaming.
To that end, I am considering the possibility that I should handle ALL rolls outside of combat behind the screen. Have any of you tried this? The ultimate goal is to have the player *not* thinking in terms of "can I roll to do x" but just let them narrate their actions and I will handle the number crunching out of sight. So if my fighter wants to intimidate a guard, I would ask her to tell me what she does, and rather than have her roll and then me ret-con or edit the action to accommodate a flub, I would ask for her intimidation bonus, do the roll myself and just narrate the results.
I think this could work with a smaller group where I don't have to worried about players getting bored between turns, has anyone tried that method?
Another option I've considered is replacing straight DC rolls with contested rolls where it is PvE (player vs environment) style. So for example, if a player is searching for a secret door, rather than simply assigning a DC and letting the player try to meet it I might give the door a bonus depending on how skillfully it is hidden. Then I can have the player roll Inspection, and I will roll simultaneously and apply my bonus for the door. I think this method provides for more possibilities beyond just "Oh I rolled crappy and didn't find anything, but I still *think* there's something there, so maybe someone else should try..."
What do you folks think, and/or what methods do you use to cut down on meta-gaming?
Thanks!
How are you planning to handle abilities that have meta-game components such as bardic inspiration and the luck feat?
Good question.
Both allow players to know the result of a roll.
In such cases, I could simply tell them the result of the roll but not how it affects their success/failure and ask them how they want to proceed.
I've played in a campaign that had all dice rolls, outside of combat, hidden from the player. It can work. My experience is it did take away from the suspense of the die roll and therefore created a missing "element" at the table. For those who like to RP failures, as well as successes, it also removes the knowledge of how close they came and limits their RP options.
People usually like to roll,and I know I would miss it if it was taken away from me.
As for meta-gaming, I don't really see the information you get from seeing your roll. In your examples with intimidation, wouldn't the player guess if he succeeded or failed from the consequences anyway ?
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
I can appreciate trying to reduce meta-gaming. I'm not sure eliminating dice rolling would be the way I'd like to do it. A lot of the fun for D&D at my table is throwing dice and spinning the story together. What specific situations can you think of that have happened to you, that you are trying to avoid happening again?
Rolling the dice is a big part of the game, and players might not like you rolling for them. If you want to eliminate the situation where a player just says "I want to intimidate the guard...I rolled a 14", just tell your players that what they say and do affects the DC. If they just say it and roll, it's against a DC of 15. (Just an example number) If they give a cool detail of how they do it, reduce the DC a bit to 13. If they narrate a rich, detailed way of how they do the intimidation, pulling in equipment in creative ways or adding a spell (like thaumatergy or something similar), drop the DC to 10. Once my players knew that their table "presence" was rewarded with a lower DC, I started to get a lot more descriptive skill checks.
Rather than drop the DC based on effort, I tend to give advantage, or even disadvantage. But letting players roll is half the fun, and gives them a sense of control which is important. Can you get metagaming by knowing the result of a roll.... sure. Someone rolls a 1 on investigation, and they might decide to stick around and search some more. But is that really metagaming? If I was down in a dungeon and asked the rogue to search the room and he kinda kicked a bit of carpet and shuffled some books, you can bet I'd give him a whack upside the head and have a real look myself. So narrate it. Make it clear that they've made a week attempt. And then have implications. If they re-search and area, or re-intimidate, maybe the guards DC goes up because it failed the first time and he's being defensive now. If they try a third time, maybe he becomes aggressive. If they keep searching for traps or treasure in a dangerous area, surprise round time as a critter hears them rummaging and sneaks in for a feast. Rolls are a buffet of opportunity for RP or Combat.
All of that said, what your proposing would work in theory. I just wouldn't do it because of what it would take from the game, in my humble opinion.
Good ideas, folks.
Thanks for the input!
I think this is really important. D&D works best when the players describe what they do then there's a roll if it's needed to determine whether the players achieve what they want with the action they're taking. The roll is a consequence of the action, if it's needed to determine the action's effects.
E.g. in the best case scenario, the player doesn't say "I intimidate the guard with a (rolls) 14." They would say "I remind the guard that I'm a 7-foot tall dragonborn and they're a 3-foot-tall gnome, and they better get out of the way or else they'll get squashed". And then if needed they roll. Maybe they get advantage of the guard's mother was killed by a dragonborn, or maybe the DC is high because the 3-foot-tall guard has taken out lots of Big Guys before and isn't too scared, or maybe the DC is low because the guard doesn't really have much loyalty and just needs a bit of a nudge to give way. Whatever's appropriate.
This was definitely a mistake we players made in the first campaign I played - there was a lot of "I Intimidate the guard" or "I Investigate the device" or "I Animal Handle the rat".
I love the idea of explicitly rewarding description with a lower DC to incentivise playing better RP.
Then there's my personal favorite, the guard is ordered to accept bribes/give in to remotely credible intimidation and let people into path A, which is not friendly. If someone comes with actual business, (or pretending to have actual business) they'll be shown to a private (locked) room. If they actually have business, the person they're meeting will meet them in the room, if they don't have business, they'll discover the room is rather well fortified with no keyhole on the inside.
Taking away their dice rolls I think will not work, it's what makes the storytelling collaborative. Your second option sounds a bit complicated to what I do anyway: adjust the DC of things based upon the difficulty of the challenge and sometimes I include an offset if people are really creative or specific in what they do. So someone searching a room where there's a hiddens message stuck to the bottom of a table might be nearly impossible to find (20-25) but if they describe "I search the table for any hidden clues, papers of some sort" I would probably lower that DC 5 - 10 to reflect that. But still, I don't see how that would cut down meta-gaming.
Sometimes people notice that something is there but the throw was just poor, to be honest, I am not bothered with it to much and let the other player have a try as well. But mainly I involve RP to limit the way they (ab)use it. If they want to search again "tell me what you do" if it isn't new to what the other player has done, probably they won't find anything. If they come up with new elements they have a fair chaince to find it. The same thing I use for persusasion, they need to come up with new arguments to allow them to make another role. If you adhere to it, people will learn that's the way you DM and will be less inclined to do this over and over again. Also I use the 'help' action, so if another player want to make the check as well, I will say "Ok, you find nothing, X notices this and aids you in your search" the original player can make another roll as he gets advantage - after that it's done.
What you are calling meta-gaming, the "can I roll (skill) to do (action)" type of thought process, is not a problem. It's built into the character sheet, it's described by the PHB, it's a core function of the game. It isn't meta-gaming, it's using the tools at your disposal.
The problem you are addressing is that the players aren't narrating their actions, they're rolling dice before you, as DM, decide if they need to. The key is to change that behavior and, fortunately, it's a very simple process. Before your next game starts explain that you won't take rolls you don't ask for, reinforce it by using the exchange I examples below, and stick to it. It will be frustrating at first, every single time I do this with a group there is grumbling for a bit. However, you are teaching the players to explain their intent and let you do your job of adjudication.
DM: The door doesn't open, you see no lock, you see no lever, there isn't an apparent mechanism with which to open the door. What do you do?
Player: I roll Strength to kick the door open *rolls* I got a 19.
DM: So you want to kick down the door, alright, roll me an Athletics please.
Player: I did, I got a 19...
DM: (OOC) I hadn't asked for a roll yet, just what you wanted to do. Please don't roll before I ask, sometimes you may not need to, sometimes you'll need to roll something other than what you think it will be.
Please roll me an Athletics.
Player: I want to use Persuasion to make the urchin deliver the letter to the constable.
DM: Ok, how are you persuading them? What do you say or do?
Player: I offer a couple silver and tell the urchin it's really important and we'll be happy to hire him again if we need help?
DM: Alright, roll your Persuasion.
---
As to your idea of rolling for the players, there's a time and place for that. Players need to roll the dice, it's affirmation that their decisions are affecting the outcome of a situation. In some situations it may be more thematic to roll for the player, almost every occasion is when the player has no direct influence on the situation.
--
Your idea about contested rolls, the hidden door vs perception/investigation, it's already done using the mechanics of the game. A door that is crafted to blend in with the tiles on the wall is going to have a higher DC than a door hidden behind a tapestry. It is then up to you to figure out how to describe the success/failure based on the roll vs the DC. In all of my games I use a sliding scale vs the DC, the closer/further away from the DC the player's roll gets, the more/less information they acquire. There is a steep decline in information in the case of something like a hidden door. If the DC is 15 and they roll a 14, I might give them a hint that something is there, if they roll a 12, they've missed it. It seems an over complication of a simple mechanic to add a roll on the DM's part.
I get what you mean with some rolls OP. I find in particular with Perception, Investigations and Insight - as soon as one person tries to do one of those things and finds nothing with a mediocre roll, the other players start doing the same. Roleplay or not suddenly the whole team of five have individually canvassed the room :P.
That's a simple rule fix though.
For perception/investigation, either you only allow the person who asked first to make the roll, or if others want to join in, you can rule that them searching simply results in the Help action, and give advantage to the first person, letting them roll a second dice, even after the fact.
For insight, I ruled that the one who asked made the roll, period. And whatever the result, I will give them some information. Some of it might be true, some of it might be false. The ratio changes as the roll goes up, but you should describe the result of the roll IMO, not just say "yup, he's a liar liar pants on fire". Even a poor roll can result in some valid information. And after a while, I find that players tend to remember more what you said than the roll.
Also, these kinds of rolls should be prompted by the players more than by the DM, IMO. If the DM asks for a perception/investigation/insight roll, it means that there's something to be seen/found/learn. If players ask, they know that maybe there was simply nothing to be found. And if they roll well, your description should reflect the thoroughness of their characters' action.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
This can be handled with a few different approaches.
Paul: I search the footlocker to see if there's a hidden panel.
Sam: I search the bookshelf for anything interesting.
Suzie: I'm going to look under the rugs and bed.
Tina: I've got the armoire.
DM: Ok, Paul and Suzie roll Investigation, Adam you find a book that doesn't seem to belong, it's a spell book. Tina, you don't find anything.
**If there is nothing to find skip the roll and simply say they find nothing, if their passive is high enough, just give them the find rather than rolling.**
Paul: I got a 12.
DM: You dig around for a bit but don't find anything like a hidden panel.
Sam: I search the footlocker for a hidden panel!
DM: Ok, you push your friend out of the way and start digging around the footlocker, roll an Investigation.
Sam: No, I don't push him out of the way, I'm just trying to help.
DM: Ah, alright, Paul roll again, you have advantage from Sam's help.
Sam: I have a higher investigation, so I wanted to roll.
DM: That would require Paul moving out of the way so you can do your own investigation.
Here you are showing that the interaction causes interference, and naturally it would in real life.
---
You can assign a time frame to the situation, say each person takes up 10 minutes doing their respective check. This allows you to have random monsters show up, guards, or other hazards. However if there is no threat to the players and there is no reason they can't roll until success, just give it to them.
---
And what ClementIP has said, wrapping a group effort up into one check with advantage can also minimize the actions. I also agree with the varied information from something like Insight, each person will get a different "read", so adjust your responses to fit.
Of course I don't go "ah he's a liar!" its more the crux of multiple people asking for results leads to meta-knowing what is probably true and whats not by the roll. If someone rolls a 6 and learns xyz but someone else rolls 18 then its clear which of xyz are important.
I like the idea of melting multiple perception/investigation responses down into just a help though for one overall roll. I'll make sure to make use of it. I think I might just flatout deny insight checks and if someone asks what their character makes of something I'll just use their passives/roll for them secretly.
If you want to avoid Insight rolls being used by the whole of the table use a different way to convey the information.
I use text messages, post-it notes, and even walking over to the player and whispering to them. If you let them know, and help them understand, that the information is personal rather than a table wide bit of info, the players usually buy in.