D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

Charlaquin said:

Another pattern I've noticed in this discussion. The player-assigned-rolls camp tends to frame actions in terms of what checks are being made, for which auto success and auto failure might be ways of resolving the checks, depending on the circumstances. The action-and-approach-determines-results camp tends to frame actions in terms of the player's input and the logical outcomes of those input, and checks as a means of resolving uncertainty in the outcome.

This is one of the places we're talking past each other. I think some of us are thinking in terms of "there is a hidden object, therefore a check is required to find it, and here are the ways a player can earn automatic success or failure on that check." Under that assumption, it is understandable that one might view another DM using the player's declared action as the primary means of determining the action's success or failure as being overly focused on precise wording. But this is not how those of us who use a player's declared action as the primary means of determining success and failure are approaching the situation where there is an object hidden in the room. A check is not assumed, and auto success and auto failure are not things you earn on that check based on how you phrase your action. There is an object hidden in the room, and there are many ways it might be found. A player can describe how they are going about trying to find the hidden object, and the result will be what ever is the most logical outcome of that action. If the most logical outcome of that action is not obvious to the DM, then and only then is a check made.

This is one of the main reasons I prefer the goal-and-approach method. I prefer description, rather than Skills, to be the players' primary means of interfacing with the game world, and for dice to be a tool for resolving actions that do not have otherwise obvious outcomes, rather than the primary determining factor of success and failure, which can be bypassed under the right conditions.

Click to expand...

I have to generally agree that we are in large part, arguing past each other.

In short, aside from waiting for the DM to call for a roll, I am largely unconcerned with how a player goes about engaging with the game. Some people engage better via a more first-person actor roll-play approach, some people engage better from a more mechanical approach. As long as people are respectful, I really don't care how they play as long as they're having fun and not causing a disturbance.

iserith said:

I think I pointed out way in the beginning of this discussion that these are all distinctions already pointed out by the DMG (pages 236-237). There are three main methods. Two of them have potential drawbacks. I advocate for the one that doesn't.

Click to expand...

Well i can surely see how you want to view it but to my point of view ALL of those approach characatures have drawbacks whether or not they were listed there or acknowledged by their proponents.

It takes a certain state of hubris to describe "the way i do things" as without any drawbacks as far as things of this level of variety and complexity.

Even the DMG describes those drawbacks not in terms of certainty for those two cases but as might or can etc. Much like here at various times the various sides have defended with claims of "yes that can haooen but does not have to."

More to the point, in fact, "both" (i think more correctly "all" or "most") the sides of this discussion are describing middle ground approach in the DMG where sonetimes the dice are used and sometimes auto success fail are used. That is not the core or even a major part of the dispute. All describe mixed aporoaches to those three characatures in the DNG.

The difference is the apparent degree to which the players skill and the characters skill is used as far as that balancing act.

One side appears to be using (often enough) the players skill at picking the right action (for some skills of certain types) as a gatekeeper that keeps the character capability out of play often enough to make it a good strategic ploy (which seens to establish the auto fail descriptive result is being decided on less or by different standards than the auto success is, which seems to not be living up to the implied balancing act of the DMG Middle Ground approach... Certainly not "ByTheSame Token" - which some might describe as a drawback.)

The other side(s) appear to want both the player sjill at description and character skill to play a role in most of the resolution process, neither held "hostage" to the other (waiting for the other to let them even get a turn to influence results) so to speak but both working in tandem.

So not at all a case of midfle ground dmg vs the others, not at all a case of has drawbacks vs not has drawbacks as some may want to view it.

As far as i can tell, at least.





Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

5ekyu said:

One side appears to be using (often enough) the players skill at picking the right action (for some skills of certain types) as a gatekeeper that keeps the character capability out of play often enough to make it a good strategic ploy (which seens to establish the auto fail descriptive result is being decided on less or by different standards than the auto success is, which seems to not be living up to the implied balancing act of the DMG Middle Ground approach... Certainly not "ByTheSame Token" - which some might describe as a drawback.)

The other side(s) appear to want both the player sjill at description and character skill to play a role in most of the resolution process, neither held "hostage" to the other (waiting for the other to let them even get a turn to influence results) so to speak but both working in tandem.

Click to expand...

This is a gross misrepresentation of the sides here, and it's getting harder to make the charitable assumption that you are simply misunderstanding the former position, rather than actively trying to make it look bad.

5ekyu said:

Well i can surely see how you want to view it but to my point of view ALL of those approach characatures have drawbacks whether or not they were listed there or acknowledged by their proponents.

It takes a certain state of hubris to describe "the way i do things" as without any drawbacks as far as things of this level of variety and complexity.

Even the DMG describes those drawbacks not in terms of certainty for those two cases but as might or can etc. Much like here at various times the various sides have defended with claims of "yes that can haooen but does not have to."

Click to expand...

You will note that in the post you quoted, I said "potential" drawbacks.

5ekyu said:

More to the point, in fact, "both" (i think more correctly "all" or "most") the sides of this discussion are describing middle ground approach in the DMG where sonetimes the dice are used and sometimes auto success fail are used. That is not the core or even a major part of the dispute. All describe mixed aporoaches to those three characatures in the DNG.

The difference is the apparent degree to which the players skill and the characters skill is used as far as that balancing act.

One side appears to be using (often enough) the players skill at picking the right action (for some skills of certain types) as a gatekeeper that keeps the character capability out of play often enough to make it a good strategic ploy (which seens to establish the auto fail descriptive result is being decided on less or by different standards than the auto success is, which seems to not be living up to the implied balancing act of the DMG Middle Ground approach... Certainly not "ByTheSame Token" - which some might describe as a drawback.)

The other side(s) appear to want both the player sjill at description and character skill to play a role in most of the resolution process, neither held "hostage" to the other (waiting for the other to let them even get a turn to influence results) so to speak but both working in tandem.

So not at all a case of midfle ground dmg vs the others, not at all a case of has drawbacks vs not has drawbacks as some may want to view it.

As far as i can tell, at least.

Click to expand...

What [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] said.

Maxperson said:

There is no roll. Why? Because it's a bloody waste of time. Everyone knows that it's an auto fail, so making the player roll to see whether he gets 2 feet or 3 feet into the air is useless. That's why the DMG says that you roll when the outcome is in doubt. Rolling for every little thing drags the game down like not pulling the anchor up on a boat before sailing off.


Sure, because unlike jumping to the moon, searching a dress might yield a success and the outcome is in doubt. Unless of course they get more specific and remove that doubt.

Let's say there is a hollow panel in the bottom of one of those drawers. Are you seriously going to require a player to roll an investigation check to find it if the player specifies that his PC is taking the drawer out and cutting gently though the bottom in case the panel is hollow?

Click to expand...

Again this seems to me to be a potential drawback to the "goal" approach for some. The fact of a stated goal *can* be useful for helping to clear up an ambiguous description of a task but when it is used in this way, as a block if you will, it becomes more obstacle than aid.

Everyone may know the character cannot make it to the moon, but how far the player gets can be a very critical factor.

Take a less outlandish case, jumping across a misding span of bridge. While the GM could see no chance of success at the stated goal is possible and thus forbid a roll and head into some auto fail description, others would simply resolve the effort ( separate from goal) and use how far the character got to determine a number of different resolutions such as catching onto supports way below, falling into the river or onto rocky shore etc.

Finally, maybe in your games, your players choose to define goals you deem impossible so often that rolls for them would eat up so much time that it could be as much of a problem to make you see it as so important a problem.

In my games, maybe because my players and i being on the same page as far as character capabilities and mechanics, its rare that we get into such cases of players describing impossible goals with their action or describing impossible actions (as i rarely need to ask for goal per se.)

When it does happen, rolls are not time consuming, esp since they often occur along with the description, not following a "wait for GM permission to roll" delay.

Of course, thats a different animal than more general narrative thru scenes like say searching thru an abandoned graveyard where there arent any "hidden" or "trapped" or "time sensitive" elements. Those where we would narrative thru it and let the mechanics influence (possibly with roll, possibly with passives) which characters found which stuff or how much of it (or maybe even what was found.)

As happened Tuesday night when they searched three ghost ships full of dead bodies.







Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

So, maybe, for the record, here is the most complete write-up of my position (which by by no means representative of people on any particular side).

I ask players to wait for me to ask for a roll. This is mostly a matter of respect. It lets me finish setting the scene, describing the area, or finishing whatever dialog an NPC is saying.
Players are free to respond to the scene in the method of their choosing. "I search the altar for traps." "I cast Detect Magic on the altar." "I use my trap-finding skill." "I would like to use my knowledge of ABX to XYZ." etc... If their action requires a roll, I may call for one. Keep in mind that on my side of the DM screen, I have little cards with all the players base stats and skills on them, so I know what they are good at and what they are not good at. This gives me an idea of how hard any given DC will be for them, which means that since I do not count nat 20's on skill checks as auto-successes (nor nat 1's as auto-fails), there is a chance that someone could fail simply because they lack the ability to get a high enough check. (this is incredibly rare, as I almost never have a check higher than 25)

I sometimes call for rolls when success or failure is automatic. This serves a simple purpose of aiding in my narration and giving the players a measure of how difficult a task is. If a person rolls well on a check to find an object and success is automatic, they located the object via skills and quick thinking and a little luck. If the rolled poorly, they searched every nook and cranny and it was in the "last place" they looked, or perhaps they stumbled upon it out of sheer coincidence. In the case of failure, it's simply to show that a certain approach is not workable. Perhaps the bard wants to seduce the princess. The princess is of nobility, the bard is not, the princess is simply uninterested. The bard rolls well (19) most women would be swooing, but the princess remains uninterested, but perhaps she knows a serving maid the bard would like to meet.

These rolls are just "narration rolls", they help guide the language I use in resolution and help guide the players towards a more likely path of success.

The exact method or phrasing of their response is unimportant to the check itsself. Poorly worded responses are not punished nor are highly vocabulous responses rewarded. If for example I described a closet full of coats, and a player said "I search the closet." I always assume in favor the players. "The closet" includes the physical object of the closet and the coats within and any other element of the closet (the rod, the doors, the space between the closet and the wall, etc...) If a player were to be more specific, such as "I search just the coats." I take them at their word, but if there is something relevant about the closet, I will generally have them notice it anyway because I have no desire to grind the game down with "I search the top drawer." *roll* "I search the 2nd drawer." *roll* etc...

I generally try to combine as many rolls as possible.

If I need clarification on what a player is doing, I will ask for it. Sometimes it matters. Sometimes I'm confused. We're all human.

I utterly demand that players know what they are good at, what they are not good at, and what their characters can and cannot do.

I'm pretty laid back. Aside from asking players to be respectful of when it is or isn't their turn, waiting for other players to finish before starting off on their own thing and generally minding their manners, I really don't care how people play.

5ekyu said:

Again this seems to me to be a potential drawback to the "goal" approach for some. The fact of a stated goal *can* be useful for helping to clear up an ambiguous description of a task but when it is used in this way, as a block if you will, it becomes more obstacle than aid.

Everyone may know the character cannot make it to the moon, but how far the player gets can be a very critical factor.

Take a less outlandish case, jumping across a misding span of bridge. While the GM could see no chance of success at the stated goal is possible and thus forbid a roll and head into some auto fail description, others would simply resolve the effort ( separate from goal) and use how far the character got to determine a number of different resolutions such as catching onto supports way below, falling into the river or onto rocky shore etc.

Click to expand...

You do realize that your example just backed up what we are saying, right? You gave an example of where the outcome was in doubt. Does he land in the water or on land? That's doubt. Now take away the water and there is no doubt. He falls onto rocks and takes his lumps without a roll. Rolling when there is no point is a waste of time and energy, and disrupts the game.

5ekyu said:

Again this seems to me to be a potential drawback to the "goal" approach for some. The fact of a stated goal *can* be useful for helping to clear up an ambiguous description of a task but when it is used in this way, as a block if you will, it becomes more obstacle than aid.

Click to expand...

The use of the goal as a "block" is either an unfounded assumption you are making or an attempt to actively misrepresent the goal-and-approach style.

5ekyu said:

Everyone may know the character cannot make it to the moon, but how far the player gets can be a very critical factor.

Click to expand...

By all means, give me an example of a scenario where how close the player gets to the moon with a jump is a critical factor. If you can, I imagine you will likely have found a scenario where a roll would be necessary to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of the action.

5ekyu said:

Take a less outlandish case, jumping across a misding span of bridge. While the GM could see no chance of success at the stated goal is possible and thus forbid a roll and head into some auto fail description, others would simply resolve the effort ( separate from goal) and use how far the character got to determine a number of different resolutions such as catching onto supports way below, falling into the river or onto rocky shore etc.

Click to expand...

Ok, ignoring the fact that long jump distance isn't determined by a roll in 5th Edition, If a player says, "I try to jump across the gap," I can easily ascertain their goal (get to the other side of the gap), and their approach (by jumping). Since this approach has no chance of accomplishing the goal (again, assuming I'm using some house rule to determine long jump distance by way of a check), I would inform the character of such. "There's no way you'll be able to jump that gap. Do you want to try to see if you can make it to the far side of the river below, or try something else?" If the player says they want to roll anyway, that's a different goal. They know they can't reach the other side, so their goal can be ascertained to be to reach the shore on the far side of the river below. Again, assuming that we're using a house rule where jump distance is determined by a dice roll, there is now uncertainty on if the action will achieve the goal, so it is appropriate to make that roll.

5ekyu said:

Finally, maybe in your games, your players choose to define goals you deem impossible so often that rolls for them would eat up so much time that it could be as much of a problem to make you see it as so important a problem.

In my games, maybe because my players and i being on the same page as far as character capabilities and mechanics, its rare that we get into such cases of players describing impossible goals with their action or describing impossible actions (as i rarely need to ask for goal per se.)

When it does happen, rolls are not time consuming, esp since they often occur along with the description, not following a "wait for GM permission to roll" delay.

Click to expand...

This really, really comes off like you are trying to undermine the position of those who prefer the goal-and-approach style by making that style look foolish. No one but you has put forward that players choosing approaches that have no chance of accomplishing their goals (not the same thing as choosing goals that are impossible) is frequently a problem in games where the DM employs the goal-and-approach style of task resolution. And the apparent frequency of such situations in the examples under discussion are a direct result of your prompting for examples of such.

5ekyu said:

Of course, thats a different animal than more general narrative thru scenes like say searching thru an abandoned graveyard where there arent any "hidden" or "trapped" or "time sensitive" elements. Those where we would narrative thru it and let the mechanics influence (possibly with roll, possibly with passives) which characters found which stuff or how much of it (or maybe even what was found.)

Click to expand...

I'm confused. You're saying you're rolling to see what the characters find in a graveyard where nothing is hidden? What are they rolling to find if there's nothing hidden? Things that are already in plain sight?

5ekyu said:

As happened Tuesday night when they searched three ghost ships full of dead bodies.

Click to expand...

Ok. What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

Saelorn said:

Going back to the previous point, how would the player know to look in the drawer rather than under the rug?

Click to expand...

They wouldn't know, and they shouldn't know.

Assuming the room has been reasonably well described and the presence of a bed, a desk with drawers, a rug, a vanity and a wardrobe all noted (preferably with approximately equal emphasis and level of detail) then it's up to the player-in-character to state what happens next. Does the bed get searched? Or the walls, for hidden exits? Does the rug get rolled up and taken because it might be worth a few g.p. back in town? Does the party ignore the room completely and move on? Etc.

And even more importantly, if they look under the rug and tear the bed apart but don't bother with the desk drawers then they don't find the key. Simple. There's nothing saying they have to, and if their lack of thoroughness denies them a key they're going to need two levels down then so be it. Tough.

If I want to play some super-clever detective character who has amazing analytical powers, then even if I do everything possible to maximize the relevant mechanical aspects of the character, I still can't play that character unless I, personally am clever enough to figure out where to search. If I want to play an incredibly persuasive social character, and I do everything within my power to make them as persuasive as possible, then I still can't play that character unless I, personally am clever enough to pick the right approach to each conversation.

Even worse, if I am clever enough to pick the right approach, then the numbers on the sheet may well be irrelevant! If Batman is playing the half-orc barbarian with -1 to Investigation, and I'm playing the half-elf rogue with a minimum check result of 25, then Batman's character will automatically find the thing and my character will automatically fail. That is the significant limitation of requiring players to declare their approach, instead of just letting them roll the dice.

In the case where the approach completely obviates the die roll, because the approach is the entire difference between automatic success and automatic failure, skills are irrelevant. In the extreme case, every scenario comes down to the approach, and there's no point in even having skills in the system - the ability of the player completely overwhelms the ability of the character, to the extent that there's no point in even including the latter in the model.

Click to expand...

You're making a good argument for ditching most of the skill system entirely; an argument I've been in favour of since 3e.

The problem is one of if the skills are int he game, players are going to come to rely on them as skip-the-details shortcuts and DMs are going to allow them to succeed more often than characters in a non-skill system often would. Bleah.

Lanefan

Charlaquin said:

By all means, give me an example of a scenario where how close the player gets to the moon with a jump is a critical factor.

Click to expand...

The only time this will be critical for a player is if your gaming room happens to have a particularly low ceiling.

But for a character...

If you can, I imagine you will likely have found a scenario where a roll would be necessary to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of the action.

Click to expand...

...well, if the character is jumping from a space station the question of how close they get to the moon might become extremely relevant.

I'm confused. You're saying you're rolling to see what the characters find in a graveyard where nothing is hidden? What are they rolling to find if there's nothing hidden? Things that are already in plain sight?

Click to expand...

Of course there should be a roll made, or more than one. There's two levels of uncertainty from the player side, which is probably why they're searching at all:

1. Is there anything here to find?
2. If yes to question 1, do we succeed in finding it?

And here's where the DM should be doing the rolling, hidden, as a failure could be due to either of these uncertainties and the characters (and thus players) are very unlikely to know which one.

Lanefan