D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

5ekyu said:

in my experience tossing around phrase like "At this point, I will allow a player..." does not do a lot to foster that trust.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean here, given that the phrase is being tossed around on a forum, not as part of Charlaquin's game. Furthermore, trust goes both ways; some DMs might see players hijacking a process the DM is suppose to adjudicate as disrespectful, even if the player means nothing by it and it doesn't hurt anything. If the DM asks the player not to and they continue, there should be repercussions until they either fly right or decide that they'd rather not be part of the DM's game and, as far as repercussions go, failing a skill check is a slap on the wrist.

Of course I also feel like it would be rather petty for things to come to such a stage over something so trivial. In any case, I'm happy you don't have such a problem at your table, so have fun.

5ekyu said:

the part that is funny is the assumption that a player calling for a check means somehow implied "he did not describe what he is doing or his goal."

Click to expand...

I didn't assume that, I said it happens that way more often than not (which has been the case in my experience). But players initiating rolls on their own is still disruptive, even if they do describe their actions in terms of goals and approaches, for the reasons I already stated.

5ekyu said:

In my games "i go up to the guy at the bar and try to lift his purse" would likely be followed with "and my slight of hand is a 19."

If in my view it was "no roll needed" (1-20 wins) cuz mark is too drunk and nobody watching - 19 succeeds. i can then narrate the results.
If in my view the task had no chance of succeeding (1-20 fails) for some unknown to player reason, it fails and i narrate the result.
in the middle cases, the roll is cmpared to Dc and... results played out as appropriate.

Click to expand...

But in two of those three situations there was no roll necessary to determine the result. The dice are there to resolve actions with uncertain outcomes. If there is no uncertainty, than rolling the dice only interrupts the narrative flow of the game.

5ekyu said:

if there was something outside the ordinary where the expectation of "dex and sleight for pickpocket" was wrong choice, then likely i would have already covered that descriptively in some fashion - things dont just jump say from DEX based to INT based for no reason... and if it is a surprise that dex-sleight is the wrong tool for this task, thats gonna be a fun moment when that players roll gives him a surprising result.

Click to expand...

It's the player's approach, not the circumstances, which determine the Attribute that governs the task and what Proficiencies are applicable. For example, if the player had said, "I pretend to be drunk and bump into the guy, grabbing his coin purse in the exchange," I'd probably call that Dexterity (Deception). But I wouldn't know that the task required Deception before the player described what they were doing. You can see how that might cause problems if the player told me the result of their Sleight of Hand check in the same breath as they described an action that would be better resolved with Deception.

5ekyu said:

But, i don't get how you can see having players on the same page as to what skills are needed for tasks in play is counter to your GM performance but having players knowing what skills are needed for what tasks is critical in chargen.

Click to expand...

I didn't say having players on the same page is counter to my process as a GM, I said it isn't conducive to my process. For the purposes of resolving a roll, it doesn't really matter to me whether the player is on the same page as me regarding what the Skills and Attributes are for or not.

5ekyu said:

to me building for results in play is what chargen stat assignment is for. i dont mean that as in "optimizing" but in "expectations."

Click to expand...

Sure, I agree with you on that. That's why, for example, I point out to players who haven't played in my games before that I run the Perception/Investigation split a little differently than most DMs do (specifically, I think most GMs tend to use Investigation for active searching and Perception for indirectly noticing things, whereas I use Perception for noticing sensory details and Investigation for interpreting information - for example, Perception will tell you there's a draft coming from the wall, Investigation will tell you that it could be coming from the seam in a secret door.)

5ekyu said:

To each his own but to me your descriptions seem to be very heavily, i would say overly, focused on "your process", on your part of the experience. You go thru the step, you tell the players the stats, you "At this point, I will allow a player to suggest..." and again when you start with the simple bu tell me that i "allow your players to tell you when they want to make checks." then go on to describe all the control over process and results you keep.

To me the GM control is in the "determination of results" much more than in the "enforcement of process" and while the Gm has the final decision at the table, the true fact is the players allow the Gm to do what he does every bit as much as the GM "allows" the players to do whatever they do. i trust them, they trust me and that trust has been earned by long relationship and like in any relationship "language and tone" plays a huge role and in my experience tossing around phrase like "At this point, I will allow a player..." does not do a lot to foster that trust.

Click to expand...

My process has nothing to do with maintaining control or lack of trust of my players and everything to do with insuring the game flows as smoothly as possible. Cutting down on unnecessary dice rolls. Keep the focus on what is occuring in the fiction of the game world, instead of on numbers and "checks."

Phazonfish said:

I'm not sure what you mean here, given that the phrase is being tossed around on a forum, not as part of Charlaquin's game. Furthermore, trust goes both ways; some DMs might see players hijacking a process the DM is suppose to adjudicate as disrespectful, even if the player means nothing by it and it doesn't hurt anything.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And to be clear, in actual play, if a player in my game initiates a check on their own, I'm not a dick about it. Going back to the "I try to steal the guy's coin purse" example, I'll just say "You didn't actually need to roll for that - this guy's super drunk, he doesn't even notice." Or, "Sorry, he's been suspicious of you since you came in. Even with a natural 20, this would fail." Or, "Nice, you easily cut the purse from his belt, add 12 silver and 5 copper to your inventory." In any of those cases, I would follow it up with "Next time though, just tell me what your character does, I'll let you know if you need to make a check."

5ekyu said:

For me, the fact that the roll was made does not change the difficulty or consequences. It just saves times most of the time.

Click to expand...

More often than not, it wastes time because the GM has to say, "Hold on there, we haven't got to dice rolling yet." and then explains (or re-explains) what is going on.

The whole point of waiting for the GM to ask for a roll is that is how the GM signals that they have described the situation fully and everyone at the table knows what is going on and what dice rolls are called for and why. A player rolling dice and adding numbers is not paying attention to what is being said.

As for whether the die roll might noit be the right one - Taking an example from one of the essays above, "I walk into a bar and lift a guys purse." In a somewhat-similar situation game I ran early this year, the very next die roll anyone had to make was a DEX Saving Throw. Not a DEX\Sleight of Hand Ability Check.

I could also imagine where the above declaration could lead to DEX\Stealth, WIS\Perception or CHA\Deception. Or even multiple choices for the same roll. What if the guy at the bar has three purses? Now the GM has to come back and ask which one the player wanted.

Prerolling can lead to metagame issues. What if the three purses had different difficulties to steal. The player already knows they rolled a 23, say, so when the GM asks which purse, they are going to pick the most difficult one. If they had rolled a 13, say, they might pick the easiest one.

Finally, if you roll the dice too early, you can't get help.

Player 1: I disarm the trap. I rolled a 13.
GM: The trap blows up.
Player 2: Wait, I'll help (or bless or apply guidance or whatever).
GM: You can't.
Player 2: Why not?
GM: Because she's already rolled the dice.
Player 2: That's not fair!

ccs said:

If you roll before I tell you what check to make (even if you're correct on the skill, wich you probably will be) you're rolling before I've set the DC in many cases.
I'm not going to set the DC retroactively.
So you'll jump the gun a few times, fail on some really high #s, & learn to wait a second or two. It's not that hard.

But if you want to be a dick about it? Trust me, you're not stuck in the game. There's the door, you can leave anytime.

I also don't accept generic statements such as "I search, I rolled a ___".
Ex: I just invested time describing something to you because we're telling a story. YOUR response should interact with that somehow. Maybe you'll give me something where I'll decide there's no dice roll required. Maybe you'll give me something that suggests a DC. Maybe you'll give me something that influences the DC of one of the other players. But I won't know until you give me something....
Just "I rolled a ___ on search." isn't that something. Especially if you give it to me 1st/unsolicited.

Click to expand...

And, well, so can you, right? If you players say "not our thing, hit the road" you are gone too - who actually hits the door is determined by hosting choice, not GMing choice BWT.

5ekyu said:

And, well, so can you, right? If you players say "not our thing, hit the road" you are gone too - who actually hits the door is determined by hosting choice, not GMing choice BWT.

Click to expand...

While this is true, it’s worth noting that its a lot easier for a GM to find players than it is for players to find GMs. Not saying that’s a good thing or a bad thing, just stating a fact that must be taken into account when making decisions about leaving games.

Greenstone.Walker said:

More often than not, it wastes time because the GM has to say, "Hold on there, we haven't got to dice rolling yet." and then explains (or re-explains) what is going on.

The whole point of waiting for the GM to ask for a roll is that is how the GM signals that they have described the situation fully and everyone at the table knows what is going on and what dice rolls are called for and why. A player rolling dice and adding numbers is not paying attention to what is being said.

As for whether the die roll might noit be the right one - Taking an example from one of the essays above, "I walk into a bar and lift a guys purse." In a somewhat-similar situation game I ran early this year, the very next die roll anyone had to make was a DEX Saving Throw. Not a DEX\Sleight of Hand Ability Check.

I could also imagine where the above declaration could lead to DEX\Stealth, WIS\Perception or CHA\Deception. Or even multiple choices for the same roll. What if the guy at the bar has three purses? Now the GM has to come back and ask which one the player wanted.

Prerolling can lead to metagame issues. What if the three purses had different difficulties to steal. The player already knows they rolled a 23, say, so when the GM asks which purse, they are going to pick the most difficult one. If they had rolled a 13, say, they might pick the easiest one.

Finally, if you roll the dice too early, you can't get help.

Player 1: I disarm the trap. I rolled a 13.
GM: The trap blows up.
Player 2: Wait, I'll help (or bless or apply guidance or whatever).
GM: You can't.
Player 2: Why not?
GM: Because she's already rolled the dice.
Player 2: That's not fair!

Click to expand...

Re the bold, that may be true in your games but honestly not anywhere close in my experience. most particularly... where is it written that the Gm has to say "hold on" and then start re-explaining? Where. is there a burning bush taking somewhere that i cannot hear?

Second, if you look thru the thread you will see the issue being debated is "when a player declares his action" stuff - not "when a player interrupts the GM" stuff. Most of the examples are cases where, after a descirtion has been made the player is given the chance to act and "declares his intent" and the dispute seems to be whether its Ok for that to include a roll check or whether he has to wait for the Gm to tell him to make a roll/check. I don't think the issue of ignoring the ongoing Gm dialog before even getting to player declares action has been a serious dispute.

So, that said, i have no problem in saying a player OR GM should not interrupt another player OR GM for the purpose of declaring a game mechanic element... that is just rude. It does howwver apply not just to "skill checks" but to attack check, saving throws, etc etc etc. or are you fine with interrupting others in those other cases.

As for your metagaming, huh? If the player declares purse snatching without any clear info AND rolls, why are they then being given a choice? The time to choose was before the roll, in their narrative, right? You dont get to make a to-hit roll and then decide which target you are attacking after the roll, or do you in your games allow that since you assume that applies here? Are after the roll decisions allowed routinely in your game and thats why you assume such a case?

Not getting help? Absolutely. If you character goes off an acts without working with teammates, you get no help...unless its a longer than one action where they can get their action and do something ... absolutely but...

But... isn't that true whether it was player rolled first or gm asked and then player rolled?
"i step up and try to lift a purse from the guy at the bar." GM says "roll dex sleight Player says "rolled a 4" other player says "wait i can bless" Gm sorry its already failed.

Again, there is nothing about player rolls first or player waits for GM that breaks up the turn to allow another character to jump in on that action - unless somehow the Gm decides "GM THINKING = passage of in game action sequence.

Right?

Charlaquin said:

While this is true, it’s worth noting that its a lot easier for a GM to find players than it is for players to find GMs. Not saying that’s a good thing or a bad thing, just stating a fact that must be taken into account when making decisions about leaving games.

Click to expand...

No matter how much some Gms may want to believe it, the players are not their hostages. i have never once in over 3 decades og GMing (and playing) been kicked from a game but i have gleefully walked on more than a few - most i will admit after a session not in mid-session - In most of those i left from the game folded in under a month - not because i left per se - but some did tell me that my walking out told them they could too.

of the ones that lasted, it was more a case of "this style is not the type of game i like" and not a "poor GMing" thing.

But thats me.

5ekyu said:

No matter how much some Gms may want to believe it, the players are not their hostages.

Click to expand...

I didn’t say they are. Just that it’s harder to find GMs than players. That doesn’t mean players shouldn’t leave games they don’t want to be in, it just means, be aware, player are easy to come by, GMs are not.

5ekyu said:

As for your metagaming, huh? If the player declares purse snatching without any clear info AND rolls, why are they then being given a choice? The time to choose was before the roll, in their narrative, right? You dont get to make a to-hit roll and then decide which target you are attacking after the roll, or do you in your games allow that since you assume that applies here? Are after the roll decisions allowed routinely in your game and thats why you assume such a case?

Click to expand...

No offense, but I feel like you've made a lot of posts like this that put words in peoples' mouths. Assuming he allows you to retcon your targets based on your rolls is a crazy conclusion to jump to from his post. I don't mean to speak for him, but my interpretation of his meaning is that it is probably something like this...

SITUATION WHERE PLAYER DOESN'T ROLL FIRST
===
Player: I want to lift his purse. Should I roll Slight of Hand?

DM: Actually, make a Perception check.

Player: Okay... 18.

DM: You notice he has multiple, including one on his belt in the open, which could probably be taken without drawing his attention, but also one on an inner pocket in his jacket, which would take some skill to get at. You can make a Slight of Hand check to get at either, but the inner one will be more difficult.

Player: Oh, I'll just try and snatch the one off his belt I guess... 23! Man, I should have gone for the better one!
===

SITUATION WHERE PLAYER DOES ROLL FIRST
===
Player: I want to lift his purse... That's a 23 for Slight of Hand.
===

See? What purse is the player in situation 2 rolling for? They jumped the gun and as such rolled before being able to choose a target, so why should they be rewarded by getting to choose after knowing that they got a great roll?