D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

5ekyu said:

Great now please can you provide examples for knowledge aracane auto success descriptions for say recignizing the origin and natures of runes? Or are their two tiers of skills as you see them - one which cannot be practicalky speaking talked to auto success and those who can often enough to be strategicalky beneficial to try for it?

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

Click to expand...

Here are some examples I'd see in my game.

The characters are exploring a ruin. Over the course of exploration, they've seen a few different symbols, but no more than a half dozen, carved or painted onto various things. A few rooms back, they saw a particular symbol painted onto a throne. In the current room, they see a tomb, with a symbol carved on it.

PLAYER: I look at the symbol to see if I recognize it.
DM: It's the same symbol you saw painted onto the throne.

I give the characters the benefit of the doubt that they could remember one out of 3 symbols from 20 minutes ago without an Int check. Now, if the player decides to try and recall any background information about this esoteric symbol, that might be a roll.

Another example that uses more player skill. Over the course of the campaign, the players have come across dozens of different symbols. One player has taken note of every single one. Moving through an ancient observatory, the characters come across a mural featuring an eye with 3 stars around it. The player recognizes this from their notes.

PLAYER: I look to see if this is the same symbol as the one we encountered in the castle two months ago.
DM: You recognize the symbol of the eye, though this time, the eyeball is blood-red.

A player who wasn't taking notes might not have connected these two and might have needed a check to learn more. Since the player (and by extension, the character) was clearly paying attention to and taking note of all these different symbols, I might give them an extra piece of information. Taking notes is ALWAYS a good thing.

Any time that a player is looking to connect two pieces of information that they have obtained over the course of play, they could possibly use a character skill check to help them out. But the player who is paying attention and connecting the dots is not going to need to roll a skill check for their character to do this. Hopefully, if I'm doing my job right, there will be greater challenges that do require them to use those skills they have.

Player Skill vs Character Skill.

My wife is very smart. Better educated than I am. Lightning fast learner. Experienced researcher. I'd say that her Investigation skill is at least as high if not higher than mine. She cannot, for the life of her, find her cellphone before going to bed. Why? I don't know. She searches the whole house, room by room, book by book.

I use a simple algorithm. I try to remember if I saw my wife on her phone after dinner. If so, I try to remember if she went to the study to use her computer before going to bed. No? The phone is in the couch cushions. Yes? The phone is on her desk next to her computer.

If I didn't see her use her phone after dinner, it is in her jacket pocket.

Same skills. Different player approach to searching.

Flexor the Mighty! said:

So is the goal to remove the player from the outcome of the game they are playing as much as possible? As an example, random player Cletus is smart as a whip and sees patterns in things as soon as he looks at them. But though he knows what the solution the puzzle is he has to not share it or solve it unless he makes a check? As soon as you describe a situation to him he starts to figure it out, its what he's good at. Does he just not use that in the game he's playing?

Click to expand...

No the goal is not to remove the player from the outcome, not at all.


The goal is to have the player make many many many key choices that govern the actions of the character and in doing so direct the game in terms of direction, objectives, timing.

But to have the mechanics of any given execution be governed by or filtered thru the character stats.

A broad general example is a road trip where dad decides where we are going, when we are going, what car we drive in, who is also along, where we stop along the way, what we pick up during those stops BUT where mom drives the car.

If DAD is the player and MOM is the character you would not say dad had been removed from the trip just because when it came to a driving challenge MOM and her stats determined the outcome more than whatever Dad was yelling at that moment.



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

redrick said:

Here are some examples I'd see in my game.

The characters are exploring a ruin. Over the course of exploration, they've seen a few different symbols, but no more than a half dozen, carved or painted onto various things. A few rooms back, they saw a particular symbol painted onto a throne. In the current room, they see a tomb, with a symbol carved on it.

PLAYER: I look at the symbol to see if I recognize it.
DM: It's the same symbol you saw painted onto the throne.

I give the characters the benefit of the doubt that they could remember one out of 3 symbols from 20 minutes ago without an Int check. Now, if the player decides to try and recall any background information about this esoteric symbol, that might be a roll.

Another example that uses more player skill. Over the course of the campaign, the players have come across dozens of different symbols. One player has taken note of every single one. Moving through an ancient observatory, the characters come across a mural featuring an eye with 3 stars around it. The player recognizes this from their notes.

PLAYER: I look to see if this is the same symbol as the one we encountered in the castle two months ago.
DM: You recognize the symbol of the eye, though this time, the eyeball is blood-red.

A player who wasn't taking notes might not have connected these two and might have needed a check to learn more. Since the player (and by extension, the character) was clearly paying attention to and taking note of all these different symbols, I might give them an extra piece of information. Taking notes is ALWAYS a good thing.

Any time that a player is looking to connect two pieces of information that they have obtained over the course of play, they could possibly use a character skill check to help them out. But the player who is paying attention and connecting the dots is not going to need to roll a skill check for their character to do this. Hopefully, if I'm doing my job right, there will be greater challenges that do require them to use those skills they have.

Click to expand...

Now to be clear, you seem to be tieing the auto-success in the first case to the length of time between sesrches and the second to player bookkeeping at the table assumed to equate to in character attentiveness ... But you dont actually mention the arcana skill itself or INT.

So this would seem to not be a case of auto-success check involving those, just more cases where the GM fiats away the character traits from the picture?

Or is there some check to be used for the note taker?

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

5ekyu said:

No the goal is not to remove the player from the outcome, not at all.


The goal is to have the player make many many many key choices that govern the actions of the character and in doing so direct the game in terms of direction, objectives, timing.

But to have the mechanics of any given execution be governed by or filtered thru the character stats.

Click to expand...

Yeah, same here except replace the bolded part with "resolve any actions deemed by the DM to have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure."

Per Basic Rules pages 3 and 58, plus DMG pages 236-237.

5ekyu said:

Now to be clear, you seem to be tieing the auto-success in the first case to the length of time between sesrches and the second to player bookkeeping at the table assumed to equate to in character attentiveness ... But you dont actually mention the arcana skill itself or INT.

So this would seem to not be a case of auto-success check involving those, just more cases where the GM fiats away the character traits from the picture?

Or is there some check to be used for the note taker?

Click to expand...

Skills only enter into it when we call for a check.

Now, theoretically, I could see a situation where, knowing a character had a certain proficiency, I ruled an action to be trivial, whereas I would not make the same ruling if the character didn't have that proficiency. I guess the character could have reminded me that they were proficient in Arcana when telling me they were looking at the symbol. It wouldn't have mattered in either of the above cases.

When the player tells me what they are doing, I ask myself, "Would this action have a reasonable chance of failure?" And if so, I call for an ability check and allow players to add proficiency where appropriate. If the answer is "No," then I just narrate the result as successful. Another question that I sometimes ask myself, and that I sometimes wish I asked myself more is, "Would failing this moderate action be stupid, boring or a waste of time, and does it seem reasonable that a character would succeed?" In which case I will also skip the check.

These are not under any circumstances "GM fiats." They are rulings as to the appropriate DC and skill check for any given task under a given set of circumstances. Tasks with a DC less than 10 generally don't require a roll, per 5e rules.

As for player book keeping being equated with character attentiveness, that's right. No, the character doesn't need a "note taking" skill check to recall information that the player has dutifully recorded. The Player might choose to play a character as absent-minded and, as a point of role-play, choose to have that character not remember that information or not act on it. That is entirely up to the Player. It is not my job, as a DM, to enforce that. Eventually, with any skill, the PC should run up against tasks that are difficult and require a skill check. At this point, the illiterate, uneducated Barbarian with a photographic memory will run aground.

I'll add that, unless we are playing an explicitly investigation focused campaign (say Cthulhu), I'll never have an adventure that completely hinges on detailed note-taking from the players. When we run an investigation adventure, I do have a notebook on hand and I ask one of the players to take notes and then give the book back to me at the end of the session. This way, I can keep track of what information the players are retaining and plan accordingly. Otherwise, I'll encourage players to try and keep track of names and plot points, but I won't require them to recite a combination that was found scribbled on a piece of paper 5 sessions ago. That's not our idea of fun.

iserith said:

Yeah, same here except replace the bolded part with "resolve any actions deemed by the DM to have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure."

Per Basic Rules pages 3 and 58, plus DMG pages 236-237.

Click to expand...

You keep going back to that as if anything described precludes or challenges the GM from declaring actions as auto-success or auto-fail or uncertain.

Where we are differing is whether and to what degree the player's word choice outweighs the character's aptitude at the given tasks by dint of triggering fiats or not.



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

5ekyu said:

A broad general example is a road trip where dad decides where we are going, when we are going, what car we drive in, who is also along, where we stop along the way, what we pick up during those stops BUT where mom drives the car.

If DAD is the player and MOM is the character you would not say dad had been removed from the trip just because when it came to a driving challenge MOM and her stats determined the outcome more than whatever Dad was yelling at that moment.

Click to expand...

I prefer this analogy:

Bob is controlling a robot through a radio uplink. Bob can't see what the robot is doing, but he gets basic descriptions over the radio. Fortunately, the robot has a bank of skills and knowledge, and is able to do most things on its own. Unfortunately, the robot has decision paralysis, and can't do anything unless Bob gives it instructions.

Realistically, Bob is going to have a hard time telling the robot how to do anything it doesn't know how to do, because Bob is thousands of miles away and can't see what the robot is doing. But, hell, if Bob can pull it off, giving the robot instructions using the simple skills that it possesses, good for Bob.

Bob likes to think of the robot as having a personality, in part based on what the robot is good at. Sometimes, Bob will decide not to have the robot do things that it could probably accomplish, because it just doesn't seem like what Bob's robot would do. (I mean, really, a +3 to History and a +1 to history is not that big of a difference. Bob's robot actually has a pretty good chance at explaining the War of the Meatsacks to that other robot. But it just doesn't feel like something Bob's Robot would do.) Sometimes, Bob gets drunk and his robot just stands around shouting things in an ever-changing but decidedly thick accent. Then he randomly hits things.

5ekyu said:

You keep going back to that as if anything described precludes or challenges the GM from declaring actions as auto-success or auto-fail or uncertain.

Click to expand...

Huh?

5ekyu said:

Where we are differing is whether and to what degree the player's word choice outweighs the character's aptitude at the given tasks by dint of triggering fiats or not.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by "fiats" here. In many forum discussions, that's a word that carries a derogatory meaning by those who have a problem with the DM making decisions appropriate to his or her role as described by the rules of the game. But I'll be charitable and simply ask what you mean by it. Because despite all the little digs you've been making this entire conversation (from which you frequently retreat when called out on it), maybe this time you don't actually mean it to be derogatory.

In any case, what a player describes comes first. The character can't do anything unless the player puts him or her in the fictional position to do so via reasonable specificity. The context of the fictional situation plus the stated approach to the goal informs the DM as to whether the task succeeds, fails, or is uncertain. It's smart play in my view to undertake tasks your character is good at, in case you have to roll, but to aim for automatic success as much as possible to avoid rolling.

5ekyu said:

You keep going back to that as if anything described precludes or challenges the GM from declaring actions as auto-success or auto-fail or uncertain.

Where we are differing is whether and to what degree the player's word choice outweighs the character's aptitude at the given tasks by dint of triggering fiats or not.

Click to expand...

It's not word choice.

It's action choice.

There are far more ways to say, "I look under the bed," than there are to say, "I roll for Investigate."

I'm sure there are DM's who, through lack of experience or a misunderstanding of the goal of D&D, play word games. They are looking for you to describe a very, very specific thing to them. If you fail to describe it in the way they want, you will either trigger some awful trap, or just be stuck in the empty room, banging your head against the wall. "God dammit, do I really have to touch every single inch of the pressure plate? Yes! I push the pressure plate, about 3 inches from the left side, with 27 pounds of pressure, but not more, because that would make too much noise. Can I go now!?"

Again, that's just being a jerk. Or being new and still trying to figure out how to play the game.

You could do the same thing with a skills-only game.

PLAYER 1: I look under the bed and run my hands under it to see if I feel anything.
DM: Search. Got it. Roll a perception check.
PLAYER 1: Umm, 10+4. 14.
DM: You don't see anything.
PLAYER 2: I look under the bed.
DM: Yep, search. Roll a perception check.
PLAYER 2: 14+1. 15
DM: You see a box.
PLAYER 1: What? Really?
DM: The box had DC 15 camouflage.
PLAYER 1: ...