Open or Hidden Rolls?

[Killer Cyborg]

As far as I know, Palladium never addresses the question of who rolls the dice, and how.
I've played with groups where the GM made ALL dice rolls, hidden behind a screen.
I've played with groups where everybody made all rolls out out in the open.
I've played with any variation within that spectrum.

But recently it occurred to me that if one is to play Rifts by Palladium's combat rules, it becomes pretty important exactly how the rolls are made, because technically a Dodge can only be declared in response to a successful attack roll.
Right there, that puts the defender at an advantage, because they don't have to waste a dodge on an attack that's going to be a miss anyway.

From there...
If all rolls are made in the open, then that means that all defenders will have an opportunity to not only know whether or not the strike was successful before they decide whether or not to dodge, but also to know exactly how good of a strike they're up against.
For example:
If the strike roll was a 10, and the defender has a +10 to dodge, then they know for a fact that they're going to succeed in their dodge.
If the strike roll was a 19, and the defender has a +2 to dodge, then they know that their odds of a successful dodge are slim, and they might well be better off saving their attack for something else.

If the GM rolls behind a screen, and the PCs roll openly, that would give NPC defenders and advantage, because the GM can see the attack rolls before deciding whether or not to dodge.

If everybody rolls hidden, revealing the roll only after dodge is declared, then nobody can properly gauge their odds of successfully dodging.


How do your groups handle this sort of thing?

[eliakon]

I tend to make people make a dodge declaration when the strike is announced. If the attack doesn't hit, then they do not use up the dodge, however if it does they are on the hook for it.

[Killer Cyborg]

I tend to make people make a dodge declaration when the strike is announced. If the attack doesn't hit, then they do not use up the dodge, however if it does they are on the hook for it.

Okay... let's see if I have this right...
So the GM says, "Joe, you're being attacked," and Joe decides whether he wants to dodge.
They both roll strike and dodge simultaneously (or close to it).
If the attack is a successful strike, then Joe's roll counts as his dodge, for good or for ill.
If the attack misses (is less than 8, or 5 for melee), then Joe's roll doesn't matter, and he doesn't lose the attack for dodging.

Is that it?

[eliakon]

I tend to make people make a dodge declaration when the strike is announced. If the attack doesn't hit, then they do not use up the dodge, however if it does they are on the hook for it.

Okay... let's see if I have this right...
So the GM says, "Joe, you're being attacked," and Joe decides whether he wants to dodge.
They both roll strike and dodge simultaneously (or close to it).
If the attack is a successful strike, then Joe's roll counts as his dodge, for good or for ill.
If the attack misses (is less than 8, or 5 for melee), then Joe's roll doesn't matter, and he doesn't lose the attack for dodging.

Is that it?

More or less.
<GM> "Joe the ninja swings his sword at you"
<joe> "okay I will _____"
then we roll. If he chose to dodge, and its a miss then he didn't have to dodge far enough to burn an action.. This has the added benefit of cutting down on the "well I am going to be hit anyway so I will Simo"....now they don't know....

[Dog_O_War]

I roll for things that players will not immediately know if they are successful or not; I started doing this because of D&D, where someone would fail a check and it would cascade into a string of altered actions based on knowing what said roll was.

That is, I would roll search if the rogue was looking for traps, because previously if they had rolled a one (and thus everyone knew they could not have possibly found anything), people would modify their actions.

So now I roll for stuff: specific to Rifts, I roll lore checks, prowl, perception, etc.

But on checks which have immediate results, like attack rolls and dodge attempts, people roll their own.

BUT, as GM, my rolls are always hidden. If I hit a PC, they make the choice on whether they will dodge/parry, etc. The only thing I tell them is if it's a critical. So whether I hit with an 8 or a 19, I only ever say "hit", meanwhile I see it as my prerogative to know as the GM what the player has rolled. That last part is the privilege afforded to the GM.

[flatline]

We very rarely rolled, but instead relied on GM fiat to determine the outcomes of most actions.

If we decided a roll was appropriate, then it was made for all to see.

If the GM rolled secretly out of view, how would I know?

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

my players are pretty solid when it comes to roleplaying in character and out of character. if they fail a check, they play as if they'd succeeded unless I make it obvious they failed. when it comes to dodging, I tend to not sweat it, though I might try asking them for a declaration...but I never tell them the result of the roll one way or another, so even if its a hit that is under their dodge, I still make them roll anyway.

[Killer Cyborg]

I tend to make people make a dodge declaration when the strike is announced. If the attack doesn't hit, then they do not use up the dodge, however if it does they are on the hook for it.

Okay... let's see if I have this right...
So the GM says, "Joe, you're being attacked," and Joe decides whether he wants to dodge.
They both roll strike and dodge simultaneously (or close to it).
If the attack is a successful strike, then Joe's roll counts as his dodge, for good or for ill.
If the attack misses (is less than 8, or 5 for melee), then Joe's roll doesn't matter, and he doesn't lose the attack for dodging.

Is that it?

More or less.
<GM> "Joe the ninja swings his sword at you"
<joe> "okay I will _____"
then we roll. If he chose to dodge, and its a miss then he didn't have to dodge far enough to burn an action.. This has the added benefit of cutting down on the "well I am going to be hit anyway so I will Simo"....now they don't know....

Cool.

[Whiskeyjack]

My combat rolls are generally in the open, as are most skills where they will know if they fail. "You fail your climb skill and lose your grip".
I will roll in secret for them for things they wouldn't know if they succeed or not. I usually have a list of skills for each character, so I can just ask them to roll percentile without them knowing what it's about.

[eliakon]

One thing I have used before in my table top gaming is a trick I picked up from Call of Cthulhu. it is to have the players roll a series of dice rolls at the start of the session ("give me 10 d20, 10 d100 please") I then note these down. When a secret roll is needed I don't roll dice....I just look at the number and move on. This has great advantage with things like perception, detect traps and the like. You don't know if your about to step in a trap, and if I ask for rolls it can cause issues....so I had you roll that perception roll hours ago....

[Kagashi]

I play mostly on Play by Post anymore, but the concept of open or hidden dice rolls still exist. You can use sites like Invisible Castle and some pbp sites have imbedded dice rollers, but I honestly prefer for the player to roll on his/her own and report what those rolls were with the honor system. Id prefer to create an environment where the player is more involved with the outcome of the story, otherwise, you end up just reading a story...and you dont need PbP to do that. Still, you can quickly tell who is fudging rolls and who isnt when every time they fire Armor Piercing missiles they happen to roll a natural 17-20.

As for dodging, when I do combat in PbP, the player has to provide his/her intentions, to include what he/she wants to do with each of his/her attacks for the entire melee round, then process the 15 seconds in one post. Normal Dodges have to be included with a "reserved for dodge" (failure to do so means I assume the character is engaging in simultaneous attack the entire melee round). I also treat moving from point A to point B as a dodge roll since it burns an attack anyway.

Any attacks levied against the character for the time period when he would be dodging as to beat his roll for that attack (I process combat with the time based method where each character kicks off an attack divided through the 15 seconds...ie...15/X where X = number of attacks, so a character with 8 attacks will react every 1.875 seconds and is committed to that attack until he/she can react again..."Method Two" in some of the other active threads on the board).

Players are also expected to provide a number of automatic rolls equal to their number of attacks for automatic defensive moves (auto parry, auto dodge). I also treat Roll with Impact as an automatic movement regardless of hand to hand ability since there is no way the player could have anticipated when he/she would need to use it in a PbP format.

[torjones]

How do your groups handle this sort of thing?

For me, Combat is slow enough that any way to speed it up is at least considered, and I trust the players not to cheat (If you have to cheat at a friendly game, then you are only really cheating yourself... IMO). (I do prohibit dice masturbation at the table, though...)

So, GM rolls dice behind a screen ALWAYS. The roll itself is irrelevant 99% of the time, as I'm negotiating with the players on how the story that we're telling plays out, strict adherence to the dice results are not always conducive to a fun time being had by all. (I have yet to have a player tell me that they think I'm doing that)

Players are told (Once I know that they know what they are doing, I do run into a lot of people who are new to pen and paper gaming) to roll strike and damage simultaneously, once they determine what they are going to do, and they should be ready to tell me the results of their intended actions by the time I get back around to them. ie: I'm going to shoot the 'borg with my NG-p7, I scored a 17 to strike (14 die roll + 3 from bonuses) and got 30 damage. (knowing that there's a -2 range penalty and no movement penalty, he hits, and I subtract the damage)

[michael silverbane]

We typically do all dice rolls "out in the open". That is, no special effort is made to hide any dice rolls, but neither is anyone standing over anyone else's shoulder to make a record of what the dice said.

[Athos]

People with nothing to hide, hide nothing, to quote Dr. Phil or whoever he stole it from. I hate it when GMs try to roll secret dice because you just know they are fudging, kind of takes the fun out of the game and makes it feel like railroading. I would prefer to die if the dice go crazy and do something statistically out of the normal, that is just like life, sometimes, luck is just against you.

[Killer Cyborg]

People with nothing to hide, hide nothing, to quote Dr. Phil or whoever he stole it from. I hate it when GMs try to roll secret dice because you just know they are fudging, kind of takes the fun out of the game and makes it feel like railroading. I would prefer to die if the dice go crazy and do something statistically out of the normal, that is just like life, sometimes, luck is just against you.

Huh.

I actually never fudge do hidden rolls.
Except for sometimes, for the sake of the party, in cases where if it was an open roll, we'd all look at the dice, then I'd say, "Screw it. That didn't happen. You're still alive." Which is pretty darned rare.

For me, the secrecy is about preventing players from metagaming by figuring out opponent combat bonuses.
I mean, if a PC dodges with a 27, and the enemy still hits them, and the players saw that I rolled a 12 on the die, they have a good idea about how much trouble they're in for.
That kind of thing.

[Vincent Takeda]

I definitely dont fudge rolls. Life by the dice, die by the dice I always say.
I do adamantly prefer the 'declare actions before rolling' thing.
If your declared action is to attack, you're doing a simu.
Thats the benefit of the folks who get simultaneous parry/attacks.
Or a guy with powerblock/parry. If he's announcing that as his declared action, it only goes off if theres something for him to powerblock.
Its actually a pretty cool mechanic.
Quickly gets people out of the 'I shoot I shoot I shoot or I swing I swing I swing' mindset.

[Nightmask]

People with nothing to hide, hide nothing, to quote Dr. Phil or whoever he stole it from. I hate it when GMs try to roll secret dice because you just know they are fudging, kind of takes the fun out of the game and makes it feel like railroading. I would prefer to die if the dice go crazy and do something statistically out of the normal, that is just like life, sometimes, luck is just against you.

That quote sounds like the argument by the 'what do you need privacy for?' sorts who argue that if you want to hide stuff you must be guilty of something instead of just not wanting everyone knowing your business.

As far as RP goes most rolls should be open, but sometimes to ensure the player doesn't act on information his character doesn't have the occasional roll should be hidden.

[42dragon]

[quote="Killer Cyborg]For me, the secrecy is about preventing players from metagaming by figuring out opponent combat bonuses.
I mean, if a PC dodges with a 27, and the enemy still hits them, and the players saw that I rolled a 12 on the die, they have a good idea about how much trouble they're in for.
That kind of thing.[/quote]

I always do rolls out in the open. And your example perfectly illustrates why. Any trained combatant is going to be able to figure out when they are out matched quickly. So letting my players see that they lost a dodge roll of 18 +9 bonus = 27 vs. my roll of 12 helps to highlight that they should be scared of that opponent and perhaps other tactics are in order.

If they can't see my roll their opponent could be roughly equal to them and rolled say a 17-19 or even lucky and rolled a natural 20. It helps to set the scene by letting the players figure out on their own how tough an opponent is.

[Pepsi Jedi]

We very rarely rolled, but instead relied on GM fiat to determine the outcomes of most actions.

If we decided a roll was appropriate, then it was made for all to see.

If the GM rolled secretly out of view, how would I know?

--flatline

The clatter of dice is usually a giveaway. *Grins*

[Pepsi Jedi]

It boils down to trust more or less.

We do our rolls in the open.(tabletop) There's always going to be 'out of character information'. Your group either will play right, and try their best not to use out of character information. Be it stats or skills of their foes, or playing their char's as if they don't know stuff when they fail a roll. There's a bit of trust in that. Just like you trust your players not to have loaded dice or trust them in general not to cheat.

Rolling in secret, is done for the soul purpose of fudging rolls. As a GM and the GM's I've played with usually saw no need for that sort of thing. If something needs to be moved along for sake of story or game, it's simply done, openly and with out the guile. "Ok guys the bad guy is effecting his escape via ____." "ok well I run after him should I roll my speed" "Not this time. He's got enough of a lead and gets away due to X Y and Z" "ok. I'll get that guy next time!!" Type thing.

Does rolling in secret have it's place? yes. With groups that don't know each other enough to trust in that fashion. The GM might 'need' to roll in secret to effect the game the way it's designed.

That said groups that don't know each other benefit from rolling openly (The players) As well. I've been in games where people try and cheat from the very start. It sucks but it happens. People try and twink out and cheat. It just happens. happens on PBP Games too. I'm in one where a guy cheats constantly. It's pretty well known in the game. There's no real way to 'stop' it. (with out the GM making ALL the rolls, and he doesn't wanna do that. Lots of work for him, and we 'like' rolling for our own chars. Makes us feel like we're driving. Not just giving directions) We use online rollers for our rolls, but the guy gets natural 20s at an ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLARMING Rate. One ... two... three times out of 5 in some instances. If he's not rolling nat 20s, he'll roll his 5 actions and 4 of them will be 15 or better, before bonus (So 20 to 25+ after) and one, out of each group was a throw away. a 1-8. Now, some people would go "Well sometimes dice do that' and sure. Sometimes they do. But as the weeks and months passed the guy's rolls were consistent. 4 of his 5 were 15 or better with one or two of them being natural 20s on a staggering frequency, with one 'throw away' low roll. Over and over and over and over again. Trends happen. Sometimes you flip a coin and it comes up heads 10 times in a row. Thing is with a large sample pool things even out. For every natural 20 that guy rolled, he should have ended up with a 1 just as many times, or a 2 or a 3, etc. He NEVER Got the 1s or 2s or 3s. He was rolling on the online dice roller till he got what he wanted and cutting and pasting. Or simply rolling and then doctoring the numbers to what he wanted. Still does it. The GM knows. We can't "PROVE" it. We're not sitting there as he rolls but it's very clear. He's been called out on it. Insisting that it's all legit. So the GM combats it by simply adjusting the NPC's numbers to reflect the fact and even with the guy cheating he takes as many hits as the rest of us. (more or less).

In that case, the guy is cheating, so the GM (effectively) Rolls in secret to combat the cheat. It allows the game to go on. Noone's kicked out, and there's no drama. We don't lose a player midstream... but the cheating is combated by those 'secret' rolls.

[Dog_O_War]

It boils down to trust more or less.

We do our rolls in the open.(tabletop) There's always going to be 'out of character information'. Your group either will play right, and try their best not to use out of character information. Be it stats or skills of their foes, or playing their char's as if they don't know stuff when they fail a roll. There's a bit of trust in that. Just like you trust your players not to have loaded dice or trust them in general not to cheat.

"play right"

It's a game; in games you use the information presented to further your progress. That is, it's a fallacy to say that all meta-knowledge use for all games is otherwise 'playing wrong'. In reality, there are only natural and mechanical reactions. Some groups for instance, play almost entirely in the meta-game - it's not for us to say that they are "playing the game wrong".

[Killer Cyborg]

For me, the secrecy is about preventing players from metagaming by figuring out opponent combat bonuses.
I mean, if a PC dodges with a 27, and the enemy still hits them, and the players saw that I rolled a 12 on the die, they have a good idea about how much trouble they're in for.
That kind of thing.

I always do rolls out in the open. And your example perfectly illustrates why. Any trained combatant is going to be able to figure out when they are out matched quickly. So letting my players see that they lost a dodge roll of 18 +9 bonus = 27 vs. my roll of 12 helps to highlight that they should be scared of that opponent and perhaps other tactics are in order.

I can certainly see that logic, although I ultimately disagree with it.

[flatline]

For me, the secrecy is about preventing players from metagaming by figuring out opponent combat bonuses.
I mean, if a PC dodges with a 27, and the enemy still hits them, and the players saw that I rolled a 12 on the die, they have a good idea about how much trouble they're in for.
That kind of thing.

I always do rolls out in the open. And your example perfectly illustrates why. Any trained combatant is going to be able to figure out when they are out matched quickly. So letting my players see that they lost a dodge roll of 18 +9 bonus = 27 vs. my roll of 12 helps to highlight that they should be scared of that opponent and perhaps other tactics are in order.

I can certainly see that logic, although I ultimately disagree with it.

There's a certain truth to it for melee combat. If you have trained, then it's usually possible to recognize others who have good training. However, if someone is *really* good, they can make it look like they're just lucky. Drunken style, for example, trains specifically to not look like they're any good, but still get results. Similarly, someone who has trained differently from you (soft style vs hard style, for example) can appear as untrained at first.

However, it doesn't seem like this reasoning would apply to ranged combat.

--flatline

[Pepsi Jedi]

It boils down to trust more or less.

We do our rolls in the open.(tabletop) There's always going to be 'out of character information'. Your group either will play right, and try their best not to use out of character information. Be it stats or skills of their foes, or playing their char's as if they don't know stuff when they fail a roll. There's a bit of trust in that. Just like you trust your players not to have loaded dice or trust them in general not to cheat.

"play right"

It's a game; in games you use the information presented to further your progress. That is, it's a fallacy to say that all meta-knowledge use for all games is otherwise 'playing wrong'. In reality, there are only natural and mechanical reactions. Some groups for instance, play almost entirely in the meta-game - it's not for us to say that they are "playing the game wrong".

Using information your characters would have no access too, is cheating. Thus playing wrong. *shrugs* Some people can try and justify it if they want. Doesn't change it. If someone is told to make a roll, and they fail the roll but play knowing the information that the roll would have given them anyway. Then it's cheating. Yes. "Metagaming" is cheating. Do some people cheat? Yeah. Doesn't make it right.

[SpiritInterface]

The group I have been gaming with for the last several decades has tried all of the above. we finally settled on the players making their own rolls in the open and the GM can make their rolls in the open or hidden as is their wish.

[wyrmraker]

We have all rolls in the open. "Let the dice fall as they may" is one of our rules. All members of our group has dealt with cheaters far too often not to do so. Not that we don't trust each other; it's pretty much just ancient habit for us.

Granted, as GM I don't always tell my players what I'm rolling for, especially if it's something like a Perception check for an NPC.

[Dog_O_War]

It boils down to trust more or less.

We do our rolls in the open.(tabletop) There's always going to be 'out of character information'. Your group either will play right, and try their best not to use out of character information. Be it stats or skills of their foes, or playing their char's as if they don't know stuff when they fail a roll. There's a bit of trust in that. Just like you trust your players not to have loaded dice or trust them in general not to cheat.

"play right"

It's a game; in games you use the information presented to further your progress. That is, it's a fallacy to say that all meta-knowledge use for all games is otherwise 'playing wrong'. In reality, there are only natural and mechanical reactions. Some groups for instance, play almost entirely in the meta-game - it's not for us to say that they are "playing the game wrong".

Using information your characters would have no access too, is cheating. Thus playing wrong. *shrugs* Some people can try and justify it if they want. Doesn't change it. If someone is told to make a roll, and they fail the roll but play knowing the information that the roll would have given them anyway. Then it's cheating. Yes. "Metagaming" is cheating. Do some people cheat? Yeah. Doesn't make it right.

Please go on and tell us more about the "soul purpose" of things like hidden rolls are for, and what is considered cheating that we may not otherwise be aware of

[flatline]

Come on, guys, you know what he means.

It's poor form to use out of character knowledge to make in-character decisions. "Cheating" is a stronger word than I would have chosen, but it's certainly not good role playing.

--flatline

[Dog_O_War]

Come on, guys, you know what he means.

It's poor form to use out of character knowledge to make in-character decisions. "Cheating" is a stronger word than I would have chosen, but it's certainly not good role playing.

--flatline

Of course we know, but, that doesn't mean we need to hear a high-and-mighty speech meant so us bottom-feeding simpletons can understand and know the superiority of the one perfect poster

That is, in my view, I seek natural reactions, so I use hidden rolls.

In Pepsi Padawan's view (as he's espoused to us mortals), it's a much better game to see everything in the open, but act like you're reacting naturally (even though you can never be sure such a reaction is natural, because it leaves out so many more possibilities that a hidden roll provides), and that hidden rolls are for fudging dice rolls only.

[Shadow Wyrm]

As the GM in my group I make my rolls hidden. It allows me to spare a pc if I feel like it.

[Tor]

As far as I know, Palladium never addresses the question of who rolls the dice, and how.
I've played with groups where the GM made ALL dice rolls, hidden behind a screen.
I've played with groups where everybody made all rolls out out in the open.
I've played with any variation within that spectrum.

I always figured it was left up to GM/player negotiation, like a lot of stuff. No matter how the mantra of 'GM is god' or 'GM always decides', a GM who wants to keep their players happy (or playing at all) will usually have to cede some level of control to them.

technically a Dodge can only be declared in response to a successful attack roll. Right there, that puts the defender at an advantage, because they don't have to waste a dodge on an attack that's going to be a miss anyway.

Is that a new thing in RUE or something? I don't recall if RMB was ever explicit about it. It doesn't make any sense to me in regards to things like dodging laser fire unless you could see that the gun was pointed at you before it fired. What of cases like being attacked by an invisible opponent where you wouldn't know if they were going to hit you so it'd be like wild dodging? I guess undodgeable surprise attack?

From there...
If all rolls are made in the open, then that means that all defenders will have an opportunity to not only know whether or not the strike was successful before they decide whether or not to dodge, but also to know exactly how good of a strike they're up against.
For example:
If the strike roll was a 10, and the defender has a +10 to dodge, then they know for a fact that they're going to succeed in their dodge.
If the strike roll was a 19, and the defender has a +2 to dodge, then they know that their odds of a successful dodge are slim, and they might well be better off saving their attack for something else.

I think the issue here is whether or not this is metagaming or not.

One way around it is a player could say in advance "if it is a successful strike roll, I will dodge it" before the roll is made. That way what the roll is will not affect the choice.

That still only works in a 1-roll system though. Seeing the roll will inform them of NPC bonuses and still affect future decisions on whether or not to dodge later rolls, if the player is trying to meta-game.

I guess the issue is: can the CHARACTER discern what NPC bonuses are and thus attribute the decision to dodge based on NPC bonuses to roleplaying rather than meta-gaming?

If the GM rolls behind a screen, and the PCs roll openly, that would give NPC defenders and advantage, because the GM can see the attack rolls before deciding whether or not to dodge.

It's only an advantage if the GM is unfairly metagaming and letting NPCs make choices based upon perceived bonuses of PCs.

If NPCs can make choices based on perceiving player bonuses then PCs should also be given that opportunity.

I hold a middle ground, I don't think characters could perfectly assess bonuses, but I am open to the idea of possibly assessing them to some degree.

One possibility would be to invent a skill where, after seeing someone do a maneuver, you have a % chance of getting a closer idea of what their bonus is, with bonuses to the skill roll the more times you see the maneuver.

[Killer Cyborg]

technically a Dodge can only be declared in response to a successful attack roll. Right there, that puts the defender at an advantage, because they don't have to waste a dodge on an attack that's going to be a miss anyway.

Is that a new thing in RUE or something? I don't recall if RMB was ever explicit about it.

RMB 35

What of cases like being attacked by an invisible opponent where you wouldn't know if they were going to hit you so it'd be like wild dodging? I guess undodgeable surprise attack?

I actually don't remember the answer to that one.

From there...
If all rolls are made in the open, then that means that all defenders will have an opportunity to not only know whether or not the strike was successful before they decide whether or not to dodge, but also to know exactly how good of a strike they're up against.
For example:
If the strike roll was a 10, and the defender has a +10 to dodge, then they know for a fact that they're going to succeed in their dodge.
If the strike roll was a 19, and the defender has a +2 to dodge, then they know that their odds of a successful dodge are slim, and they might well be better off saving their attack for something else.

I think the issue here is whether or not this is metagaming or not.

One way around it is a player could say in advance "if it is a successful strike roll, I will dodge it" before the roll is made. That way what the roll is will not affect the choice.

Not a bad idea!

That still only works in a 1-roll system though. Seeing the roll will inform them of NPC bonuses and still affect future decisions on whether or not to dodge later rolls, if the player is trying to meta-game.

I don't think it's even a matter of TRYING to metagame.
Sometimes the math's just there when you look at the dice.

I guess the issue is: can the CHARACTER discern what NPC bonuses are and thus attribute the decision to dodge based on NPC bonuses to roleplaying rather than meta-gaming?

I can see arguments either way.
I mean, the character IS right there in combat, presumably able to take note of in-game stuff that the GM doesn't describe and the player can't see.
So I could see it being chalked up to role-playing in at least some cases.
Sometimes you get in a fight, and you realize that the other guy isn't even breaking a sweat even though you're trying your hardest.

[Tor]

RMB 35

Thanks, ugh, I looked right past it, for some reason the modern weapon firing overview and 'combat terms' glossary blinded me to it. Possibly because it's two partial columns split in the middle...

I don't think it's even a matter of TRYING to metagame. Sometimes the math's just there when you look at the dice.

More broadly I should say that the unconscious mind can drive us to meta-game even when we do not intend to. Players almost have to consciously think "my CHAR does not know how high a strike roll this is, only that it was successful and I need to get out of the way" when debating on whether or not to dodge.

If character choices to dodge are based on the accuracy of the shooter in any way, it perhaps should be based on the dodge success ratio over time, either in respect to themself or to others they have seen attacked by this opponent or those like them.

The -10 dodge rule for example will lead to overwhelming dodge failure by most characters against most shooters, so logically I think most would recognize dodging is mostly a futile thing ("save it for the Juicers and SAMAS") and just try to get behind cover or simultaneous attack instead.

Parrying on the other hand, moreso against HtH, would be more successful and people would realize that and attempt it more often. They might notice that Speedy the PP 30 Juicer does not tend to be parried very often though, and tends to be very good at parrying people who attack him, so it might be better to go kamikaze and simultaneous-attack him, damage being inevitable, to at least get a shot in return.

I can see arguments either way.
I mean, the character IS right there in combat, presumably able to take note of in-game stuff that the GM doesn't describe and the player can't see.
So I could see it being chalked up to role-playing in at least some cases.
Sometimes you get in a fight, and you realize that the other guy isn't even breaking a sweat even though you're trying your hardest.

Agreed, but basically I think a player will have a more exact idea of the odds (they can literally calculate them mathematically) and a character would not have the same degree of accuracy in assessing their opponent. Partially because the emotion of combat would distract from exact stat-taking, and because the amount of attacks you would need to observe to average out the bonus of attacker/defender would probably end combat.

Military tacticians might have a better idea by assessing swaths of Gurgoyles fighting Dead Boys though.

[Killer Cyborg]

I don't think it's even a matter of TRYING to metagame. Sometimes the math's just there when you look at the dice.

More broadly I should say that the unconscious mind can drive us to meta-game even when we do not intend to.

Players almost have to consciously think "my CHAR does not know how high a strike roll this is, only that it was successful and I need to get out of the way" when debating on whether or not to dodge.

I can see arguments either way.
I mean, the character IS right there in combat, presumably able to take note of in-game stuff that the GM doesn't describe and the player can't see.
So I could see it being chalked up to role-playing in at least some cases.
Sometimes you get in a fight, and you realize that the other guy isn't even breaking a sweat even though you're trying your hardest.

Agreed, but basically I think a player will have a more exact idea of the odds (they can literally calculate them mathematically) and a character would not have the same degree of accuracy in assessing their opponent. Partially because the emotion of combat would distract from exact stat-taking, and because the amount of attacks you would need to observe to average out the bonus of attacker/defender would probably end combat.[/quote]

Yup.
Most gamers I know, though, are really bad at understanding the odds.