D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

iserith · Dec 8, 2017

Michael Silverbane said:
So, in my symbol of Zuggtmoy example, assuming that the response to, "Is that symbol something [my character] might recognize?" (ignoring the dice roll for the time being) was something along the lines of, "what part of [your character's] background might have given him previous exposure to that symbol?" How closely does the player's response (given that the player may or may not have any idea what the symbol might be representative of) need to match the context of the symbol? Also, how much sense does it need to make?

Would, "[my character] spent four years studying symbols and their meanings." do it? What if the character was a barbarian? How about, "[my character] took two semesters of symbology in community college" Would it matter that the possible presence of community colleges, while not typically part of the genre, had not been explicitly ruled out? How about, "As a sailor, [my character] spends a lot of time in tattoo parlors?" What if that same sentence started with, "As an accountant"?

If the character had previously been described as being knowledgeable about religious symbols, but due to lack of context said instead, "[my character] has spent some time tracing the activities of the local slavers." Would you still give them the information on Zuggtmoy? Would you deny them any information at all? Would you tell them that the symbol had a religious significance, but that they couldn't bring it to mind?

What if the player used the same (seemingly reasonable) rationalization every time, "[my character] spent twelve years apprenticed to a wizard that made him recite lines from obscure tomes on demand."

These are (to me) practical, rather than rhetorical questions, as I may want to try something like this. So, while some of the questions seem somewhat nonsensical, take that as an indication of the type of play I expect from my group.

It's a case-by-case thing and hard to judge without the full context of the knowledge of the characters who are adventuring and the established obscurity of the knowledge itself. As long as the player is making a declaration in good faith, I tend to err on the side of the player and at least ask for a check. If the player's declaration is particularly relevant, then I'll just grant automatic success. It's fairly rare that I'll just say no, but I will when it makes sense. And players in general self-select on this sort of thing in my experience, judging for themselves whether their character might know about such things or not. I wouldn't see five players all trying to justify knowing that symbol in practice, for example.

In the example of Quiet Riot's tattoo that I mentioned upthread to [MENTION=6777696]redrick[/MENTION], two of the five players chimed in to try to identify it. Carl Lagerbelly, the paladin, drew upon his religious training. I didn't think that was appropriate, so I said that it was beyond the scope of what the church taught him - fail, no roll. Robert Bob Roberts' declaration seemed more reasonable, if a bit of a stretch given the context, so I called for a DC 20 roll which he exceeded.

There's also the issue of the meaningful consequence of failure. In a simple binary transaction, you recall it or you don't, so it would have to be a situation where not recalling it has some kind of consequence associated with it. If it doesn't, then the DM can just say they do or do not recall the relevant info. In the case of Quiet Riot's tattoo, that cost might have been being fairly blindsided (potentially) when it is revealed she's a bit shadier than they might otherwise expect. Fair enough for a roll, I think, in this situation.

Satyrn · Dec 8, 2017

5ekyu said:
Maybe you don't feel this kind of pitfall applies to you or your games, but we have those examples and more in this thread which either directly say or strongly imply the wording of the player, the phrasing of the player for such details is of KEY IMPORTANCE to consequences - seeming to view them as "enabling" the bad stuff to happen.

Despite how it seems to you, what if you try looking at it a little differently: How does it look if you assume it's about enabling the good stuff to happen?

Or if it's simply about enabling stuff to happen, good and bad, judged fairly by the DM?

iserith · Dec 8, 2017

5ekyu said:
Maybe you feel, this was entirely "off the mark" but if you look thru this thread, you will see an altar where "touching it with living flesh" is a key detail that puts "did you touch it with your hand" as a key [PLAYER SAID] element in the treatement plus the references to contact poison and jiggling the lock for repercussions from "is it locked."

Maybe you don't feel this kind of pitfall applies to you or your games, but we have those examples and more in this thread which either directly say or strongly imply the wording of the player, the phrasing of the player for such details is of KEY IMPORTANCE to consequences - seeming to view them as "enabling" the bad stuff to happen.

i see this as a "catch the player" rather than "character success/fail" approach. You may not, thats fine. But your specific defense of this not being what you think is a bit off since it was not a response of mine which quoted you per se and i dont seem to recall you pushing back to distance yourself from the "player's description makes clear if they" "touched the altar", "otuched the lock" etc etc type of claims.

Yeah, what the player describes his or her character as doing IS important. But characterizing it as some form of "gotcha" where the player has to get "defensive" about his or her wording is a bit of a leap. We could choose to assume we're all playing in good faith here, even those we don't agree with, and are not out to frustrate our players with silly word games right?

redrick · Dec 8, 2017

5ekyu said:
Maybe you feel, this was entirely "off the mark" but if you look thru this thread, you will see an altar where "touching it with living flesh" is a key detail that puts "did you touch it with your hand" as a key [PLAYER SAID] element in the treatement plus the references to contact poison and jiggling the lock for repercussions from "is it locked."

Maybe you don't feel this kind of pitfall applies to you or your games, but we have those examples and more in this thread which either directly say or strongly imply the wording of the player, the phrasing of the player for such details is of KEY IMPORTANCE to consequences - seeming to view them as "enabling" the bad stuff to happen.

i see this as a "catch the player" rather than "character success/fail" approach. You may not, thats fine. But your specific defense of this not being what you think is a bit off since it was not a response of mine which quoted you per se and i dont seem to recall you pushing back to distance yourself from the "player's description makes clear if they" "touched the altar", "otuched the lock" etc etc type of claims.

I don't see how any of the examples, at least as summarized above, describe a "catch the player" or "magic word" situation. In fact, I think the approach described by [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] is the opposite to a "magic word" gotcha, because he is trying to clarify character actions in the description of what the character does.

If a player says, "I roll [ability] on it," the player is not really describing the actions of his player. If the DM simply takes that 'action' and adjudicates it, without clarification, they're deciding what the character actually did. So, assume we have a cursed altar that reacts on contact with human flesh.

PLAYER: I roll investigation on that altar. Umm ... 11.
DM: As run your hand across the strange grooves of the altar, you suddenly feel an ancient, terrible evil moving up into your hands —
PLAYER: Wait, what? I didn't say I touched it.
DM: You rolled investigation. I described the oddly textured symbols. 11 didn't hit the DC.
PLAYER: ...
DM: Roll a wisdom save. You're being possessed by an ancient evil.

Compare to.

PLAYER: I want to investigate that altar.
DM: How are you investigating it?
PLAYER: Well, I'm going to look at those strange grooves and see what they mean.
DM: They're have a rough, uneven texture, and cut deep into the stone of the altar. You think you can see something brown and rusty in there.
PLAYER: I'm going to see if I can scrape it out with my fingernail.
PLAYER 2: Wait, what?
PLAYER: Yeah, I want to scrape those flakes out with my finger and see what they are.
DM: Ok, when you touch the stone of the altar with your bare finger ...

5ekyu · Dec 8, 2017

Satyrn said:
Despite how it seems to you, what if you try looking at it a little differently: How does it look if you assume it's about enabling the good stuff to happen?

Or if it's simply about enabling stuff to happen, good and bad, judged fairly by the DM?

hopefully, whatever system is being used, it will be used equally for good results and ill results. Hopefully, it will be judged fairly by the GM. Neither of those issues applies to one thing or another.

neither of those change the perspective for me, as far as adjudications.

iserith said:
Yeah, what the player describes his or her character as doing IS important. But characterizing it as some form of "gotcha" where the player has to get "defensive" about his or her wording is a bit of a leap. We could choose to assume we're all playing in good faith here, even those we don't agree with, and are not out to frustrate our players with silly word games right?

Hang on... now let me ask have you been one of those on this thread who posted (maybe more than once) about how letting players "call for checks" has "correlation" with various other bad results like say interrupting or not describing? I think it was a "not saying causation but correlation" and now its a leap to say that focusing key pitfalls like those that have been described in this thread (even in recent posts) on the PLAYER STATEMENTS can lead to players getting pushed into using defensive wording when they describe their actions?

In my experience, in RPGs and everywhere else in life, the tendency is that the more one thinks any particular word or turn of phrase can have critical impact (including negative results) the more those involve tend to use very carefully crafted and defensive language instead of more common normal narrative or conversational tones.

I know if my PLAYERS thought whether or not their character set off a trap (i go into the room) or revealed their position (i check the lock) or released some magical effect (i touch the alter with my hand. is it cold?) etc etc etc than it relied on their character's making or failing their skills, the more my players would (and IMO rightfully so) start extremely carefully considering their statements.

if you think thats some grand leap to assume it would apply outside of my group, then hey, thats fine. We will just have to disagree on that.

iserith · Dec 8, 2017

5ekyu said:
Hang on... now let me ask have you been one of those on this thread who posted (maybe more than once) about how letting players "call for checks" has "correlation" with various other bad results like say interrupting or not describing? I think it was a "not saying causation but correlation" and now its a leap to say that focusing key pitfalls like those that have been described in this thread (even in recent posts) on the PLAYER STATEMENTS can lead to players getting pushed into using defensive wording when they describe their actions?

I imagine a reasonable interpretation of my posts compared to yours would indicate a stark difference in the tone and level of judgment and charity given to other methods.

5ekyu said:
In my experience, in RPGs and everywhere else in life, the tendency is that the more one thinks any particular word or turn of phrase can have critical impact (including negative results) the more those involve tend to use very carefully crafted and defensive language instead of more common normal narrative or conversational tones.

I know if my PLAYERS thought whether or not their character set off a trap (i go into the room) or revealed their position (i check the lock) or released some magical effect (i touch the alter with my hand. is it cold?) etc etc etc than it relied on their character's making or failing their skills, the more my players would (and IMO rightfully so) start extremely carefully considering their statements.

if you think thats some grand leap to assume it would apply outside of my group, then hey, thats fine. We will just have to disagree on that.

All that is asked for a clear statement of goal and approach. I believe I addressed the word choice in my response to another poster, perhaps even you, who was concerned that the thespian at the table could come up with a better speech than the introvert and how both could say different things but have the essential elements of their goal and approach boil down to the same thing which the DM could then judge.

Ovinomancer · Dec 8, 2017

5ekyu said:
hopefully, whatever system is being used, it will be used equally for good results and ill results. Hopefully, it will be judged fairly by the GM. Neither of those issues applies to one thing or another.

neither of those change the perspective for me, as far as adjudications.

Hang on... now let me ask have you been one of those on this thread who posted (maybe more than once) about how letting players "call for checks" has "correlation" with various other bad results like say interrupting or not describing? I think it was a "not saying causation but correlation" and now its a leap to say that focusing key pitfalls like those that have been described in this thread (even in recent posts) on the PLAYER STATEMENTS can lead to players getting pushed into using defensive wording when they describe their actions?

In my experience, in RPGs and everywhere else in life, the tendency is that the more one thinks any particular word or turn of phrase can have critical impact (including negative results) the more those involve tend to use very carefully crafted and defensive language instead of more common normal narrative or conversational tones.

I know if my PLAYERS thought whether or not their character set off a trap (i go into the room) or revealed their position (i check the lock) or released some magical effect (i touch the alter with my hand. is it cold?) etc etc etc than it relied on their character's making or failing their skills, the more my players would (and IMO rightfully so) start extremely carefully considering their statements.

if you think thats some grand leap to assume it would apply outside of my group, then hey, thats fine. We will just have to disagree on that.

The reason it isn't is because, when I initially describe the altar, I'm going to describe it as faintly anti-glowing -- seeming to suck in all the light and heat nearby -- and marked with runes that look scratched in by a massive claw rather than carved. A cold and greasy feel to the air seems to emanate from the altar. What looks like dried blood covers the top and pools in the runes. You recall that Bob the Questgiver told you that the Cult of Horribly Bad Things and Lots of Negative Energy often builds secret compartments into their altars to protect the things they value. What do you do?

If, at that point, the players declare they're running their hands over the altar that's sucking in nearby light and heat and is covered in blood and scratched in runes, well, I figure I warned them enough already.

And that's that key point that you keep ignoring: those of us that use this technique compliment it by 1) not being dicks looking for gotchas and 2) by providing enough information that any gotchas that happen have been well telegraphed beforehand, so they aren't actually gotchas at all. If you foreshadow well enough, then it's now on the players to actually use that information. Rash actions can have bad consequences, and I'm not going to pull the punch on them.

Now, if I ask 'what do you do?' and the player says 'I run my hands over the altar to look for a secret compartment' and I suddenly realize I screwed up and failed to mention the light and heat sucking, the dried blood, and the scratched in runes then I'll either put in a pause, apologize, and redescribe the scene or, more likely, I'll say, "oops, okay, you find a secret compartment in the altar." I'm not going to use my failure to punish players.

Lanefan · Dec 8, 2017

Satyrn said:
Yes, there seriously are games like that. Here's one of them

It's great fun to play.

I can see how this sort of thing might be fun - for a while - as a player, but as a DM I'd find it absolutely hideous.

And, impossible to run any sort of overarching story or plotline with hidden elements to be revealed later, when everything's made up on the fly.

redrick said:
Agreed. If there is information that players need, it shouldn't be gated behind a knowledge check. Litter clues per Bawylie, or just give it to them through an NPC or a journal or whatever. If there is information to be gained by a knowledge check, that should be a way to showcase particular background or proficiency of that character. A roll is not always required.

Or, just go with whatever happens. If they miss the essential info, they miss it; and life goes on. Maybe another chance will come up to acquire it later, or maybe in-game history takes a different turn because the PCs did X where they probably should have been doing Y, or whatever.

When you roll around a table on a knowledge check, particularly at low levels, odds are somebody at the table will roll better than the person who actually has proficiency in that skill.

This is why I almost never "roll around the table". If someone has reason to know something e.g. a Cleric on religious matters or a Bard on just about anything, that PC gets its own roll. After that, there's one roll for the rest of the party as a group.

5eyku said:
one could almost describe the approach as "how far does it go if they always roll 1s?"

It goes nowhere, and the PCs either go off and do something else (if they know they haven't enough info) or blindly carry on unaware that they really have no idea what they're doing (if they think they have enough info but it's all been false or misleading).

Satyrn · Dec 8, 2017

5ekyu said:
if you think thats some grand leap to assume it would apply outside of my group, then hey, thats fine. We will just have to disagree on that.

But they're telling you it's not happening at their tables.

They'll telling you they their players aren't using that defensive wording. Don't you want to understand why it's working for them even though you predict it won't?

Satyrn · Dec 8, 2017

Lanefan said:
I can see how this sort of thing might be fun - for a while - as a player, but as a DM I'd find it absolutely hideous.

And, impossible to run any sort of overarching story or plotline with hidden elements to be revealed later, when everything's made up on the fly.

Well, yeah. That game's meant to be played as a one shot, or a series of one shots.

It would be weird as an epic campaign engine.

D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Satyrn

First Post

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

redrick

First Post

5ekyu

Hero

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Satyrn

First Post

Satyrn

First Post

Similar Threads