D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[Maxperson]

i see a clear distinction between "the player rolls at the wrong time" (behavior of the player) and "the player describes his character doing some reckless activity" (player choices for his character) in very strict terms... the former cannot impact in-game activity and results and the latter must.

Some don't agree of course.

Sure, there's a difference in that well, they are different behaviors. Both impact the game Both in AND out of the game world, though. Loss of a PC usually impacts the player and often other players outside of the game. The rolls impact the in-game activity to an incredible degree. Rolling governs in-game successes and failure and a single roll can alter the course of a campaign world.

 

[5ekyu]

One thing I've noticed in connection with games where the players ask to roll or make rolls unprompted is that players often don't make a clear statement of goal and approach. The DM steps in after the roll and fills in the blanks, saying what the character does.

Player: I make a Perception check on the door. *rolls* 20.
DM: Okay, you spend a few minutes examining the door, giving the hinges a look-see while jiggling the door knob. You find nothing out of the ordinary, but it is locked.
Player: I make a Thieves' tools check. *rolls* 15.
DM: Alright, you take out your thieves' tools and find your lockpicks. After some careful work, you manage to unlock the door.

And so on. So not only do we have a situation where the player is stepping into the role of the DM by making rolls unprompted, the DM is now stepping into the player's role and saying what their characters are doing instead of just narrating the results. Even some of the "famous" DMs sometimes do this. It seems that failing to put forth a clear statement of goal and approach creates a vacuum that the DM feels the need to fill. If the player makes a clear statement of goal and approach instead of (or at least in addition to) making an unprompted role, this reduces the chance the DM will start overstepping his or her role in my view.

In my experience, however, the unprompted rolling and the lack of a clear description of what the player wants the character to do go hand in hand. What really cracks me up is when the DM oversteps his or her role and then the player's like "I totally didn't jiggle the door knob..." or whatever. Which leads to some stumbling around and revision all of which could have been avoided on the front end with some succinct description.

this certainly can happen and does. But it is not by any means tied to when the roll is made.

nor is it anything like a consistent standard... some Gms for instance seem to have one standard of description for secret doors (where the act described must match a given good or bad case) and others where thats not the case (arcane skill not something we have experience with.)

For example, take the above situation.

PLAYER: Hmmm... a door. Doors call for blue runes. i toss the blue runes and what does it tell me about the door?
GM: Roll perception? Says the door is locked.
PLAYER: great that calls for columbine flowers. i pull two blossooms out and throw then at the door lock to unlock it.
GM: Roll lockpicking dex and thieves too... blossoms applies and...

Now, my bet is many GMs would not be wanting to have flowers and teas be the go to description for lockpicking and searching, unless it was part of the setting, but consider that these kinds of descriptions may be just the thing and given a passing grade for various "arcane" or "divine" skill checks which we have no real basis to know much about, barring a whole lot of house ruling pre-setting setup.

There is no dichotomy, no one or the other between die rolls and narrative or between specifically players rolling dice and players not using description.

 

[iserith]

this certainly can happen and does.

Yep.

But it is not by any means tied to when the roll is made.

I didn't claim it was, only that there is often correlation.

nor is it anything like a consistent standard... some Gms for instance seem to have one standard of description for secret doors (where the act described must match a given good or bad case) and others where thats not the case (arcane skill not something we have experience with.)

For example, take the above situation.

PLAYER: Hmmm... a door. Doors call for blue runes. i toss the blue runes and what does it tell me about the door?
GM: Roll perception? Says the door is locked.
PLAYER: great that calls for columbine flowers. i pull two blossooms out and throw then at the door lock to unlock it.
GM: Roll lockpicking dex and thieves too... blossoms applies and...

Now, my bet is many GMs would not be wanting to have flowers and teas be the go to description for lockpicking and searching, unless it was part of the setting, but consider that these kinds of descriptions may be just the thing and given a passing grade for various "arcane" or "divine" skill checks which we have no real basis to know much about, barring a whole lot of house ruling pre-setting setup.

I have read this part three times and still don't know what you're saying.

There is no dichotomy, no one or the other between die rolls and narrative or between specifically players rolling dice and players not using description.

Again, they often go hand in hand in my experience but I'm careful to avoid saying that one must necessarily be tied to the other.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think you're missing my point. The players are still pushing buttons, they're just doing it with a little pizzazz first. I'm not suggesting they ought to roll first or anything like that, even I ask for players to wait for me to call for a roll if for no other reason than simple decorum. What I'm saying is that the players probably know what they're good it. If the players aren't dummies they're going to usually play to their strengths. The "face guy" is still going to make most of the charisma-based checks, (and I want to add for a moment, the fact that Intimidate is a CHA skill is one of my biggest beefs with the skill system, since it's a skill that beefy-types should be good at without having to invest in a score largely irrelevant to their existence), the dex guys are going to make the sneaky checks, and so on and so forth. That's just how the game is set up to function.

Your only caveat is that they but a bow on the button before they push it.

I'm not saying that's wrong I'm saying that's what it is. Button-pushing by any other name is still button-pushing. A smart player can reasonably tailor their in-fiction approach to produce an requested die-roll that allows him to push the button of his desiring.

No, they aren't. They're engaging the fiction. The example of the fighter playing against her strength in social settings rather than to it is a great illustration of this. Do I expect players will generally play to their strengths? Yes, of course I do. But, my experience is that my players engage the fiction without looking to make sure it's the best choice for them mechanically rather than the best choice for their character given the situation.

To further this, my players engage the fiction as their characters, and, when a roll comes up, it's because a character has stated an approach and goal that has an uncertain outcome and a penalty for failure. At that point, they don't stop and say, oh, wait, this is a DEX check, I'm going to go get the rogue to do this. This doesn't happen because once the check is set, it's set for the player that declared, and isn't transferrable. Also, I set reasonable DCs, and don't try to screw my players over, so the fighter in plate mail trying to sneak knows this will be hard to do, but there's a chance of success. This means my players are willing to try things they wouldn't before.

And that last sentence is important, because I used to allow player declared rolls for skill checks just as you advocate. I changed, for reasons I'll list in a separate post.

 

[5ekyu]

Yep.



I didn't claim it was, only that there is often correlation.



I have read this part three times and still don't know what you're saying.



Again, they often go hand in hand in my experience but I'm careful to avoid saying that one must necessarily be tied to the other.

Right, well, in my experience interruptive behavior goes with interruptive behavior. thats the only relaible and significant correlation.

players inclined to interrupt others, do so. Whether it is with dice rolls or jumping om lines or out of character comments about a scene from the peanut gallery or even "stage yawns" when someone else's scene is to them taking too long.

if that behavior is tolerated, it spreads, as players try to "compete " for their time. Again, correlation between the behavior spreading the behavior not whether or not dice were rolled.

its just always easy to throw "if you do this then you get this other bad habit" out here and there and cloud a subject with a bunch of things that are not related to it but which sour the pot, so to speak.

Correlation and causation are not the same thing and deciding whether or not something is good based on correlation is a clasically bad logic flaw, and way too common.

We don't ban carrots because most murderers have eaten carrots.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm going to take a beat here and shift gears and talk about why I changed from allowing player declared rolls to only allowing DM requested rolls.

The short form is that it's made me better at my craft as a DM.

Now, before anyone gets up in arms about me saying they're not a good DM for allowing player declared rolls, that's not it at all. It was a choice I made about what path I wanted to follow as a DM -- how I wanted my style to work -- and that switch has done a good bit to improving how I present my game.

To elaborate: I noticed in my games that I was gating information -- I was expecting players to declare rolls for things, so I gated information expecting those rolls. If/When the player asked for the roll, and succeeded, the information would be provided. This caused a number of problems that took me a long time to notice. Frustration on the players part on failed rolls. Frustration on my part on failed rolls. Time wasted "pixel-bitching". And, as a big one, unclear goals -- my players weren't clearly stating what their goal (or were stating intermediate goals) and were just trying to throw whatever they could think of to accomplish them, leaving me adjudicating approaches without being able to help achieve the goals.

When I finally put my finger on it, I resolved to change things. I also saw this exact same thing occurring in other games, where I wasn't running. But I also saw some games where it didn't happen. I resolved to improve my delivery. I stopped gating information -- instead providing more and more outright as I worked on changing. But, my players still kept asking for rolls -- they still had the mindset that there was hidden details that could be teased out with the right successful roll. So, after a little bit of this, I started changing how rolls happened at my table. Now, there's still a bit of adjustment for new players, and some of my older players still have some ingrained reflexes, but it's improved -- my players are stating goals and approaches.

And this has helped me achieve what I wanted from my games but was failing to realize: clearly stated, engaging scenarios where the players are focused on solving a problem and not applying mechanics. Still, my biggest issue is getting players to clearly state end-goals for approaches and not just an intermediate step along their grand plan that's still hidden in their heads. I think some of them feel (and it's only some, they others are fully embracing and find it liberating) that I'll foil whatever plan they have. To be fair, this comes up sometimes because I failed to provide a key piece of information that their plan hinges on because it wasn't something I had thought of before that point, and sometimes that piece of information can't be easily changed to support the eventual unveiling of a plan due to other, as yet unrevealed, pieces of the story. But, I'm pointing out that letting me know what the actual goal is means I work with you to see it happen, and adopting a fail-forward approach to these issues is helping a great deal. Getting there with the understanding that we will never be there, as this a process and not a destination.

So, yeah, that's why I don't allow player declared rolls anymore. They were causing me problems by having players think in terms of mechanical steps and not approaches and end goals. To be fair, player declared rolls are not incompatible with clearly stated approaches and goals, but I find that, at my table (and a number of tables I've seen), they tend to reward a playstyle that doesn't engage in clearly stated goals and approaches. YMMV, and that's awesome.

 

[robus]

In my experience, however, the unprompted rolling and the lack of a clear description of what the player wants the character to do go hand in hand. What really cracks me up is when the DM oversteps his or her role and then the player's like "I totally didn't jiggle the door knob..." or whatever. Which leads to some stumbling around and revision all of which could have been avoided on the front end with some succinct description.

This is exactly the problem - well put!

 

[iserith]

Right, well, in my experience interruptive behavior goes with interruptive behavior. thats the only relaible and significant correlation.

players inclined to interrupt others, do so. Whether it is with dice rolls or jumping om lines or out of character comments about a scene from the peanut gallery or even "stage yawns" when someone else's scene is to them taking too long.

Are you saying that dice rolling is "interruptive behavior?"

Correlation and causation are not the same thing and deciding whether or not something is good based on correlation is a clasically bad logic flaw, and way too common.

Again, and hopefully for the last time, I did not assert any causation. I pointed out something I see commonly in groups where players also make unprompted rolls and how players and DMs stepping out of their intended roles can be a detriment to the play experience. The lack of a statement of a goal and approach is what creates the vacuum in my view where the DM steps in to fill the player's role, not the unprompted rolling by players. But frequently, I'll see both.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right, well, in my experience interruptive behavior goes with interruptive behavior. thats the only relaible and significant correlation.

players inclined to interrupt others, do so. Whether it is with dice rolls or jumping om lines or out of character comments about a scene from the peanut gallery or even "stage yawns" when someone else's scene is to them taking too long.

if that behavior is tolerated, it spreads, as players try to "compete " for their time. Again, correlation between the behavior spreading the behavior not whether or not dice were rolled.

its just always easy to throw "if you do this then you get this other bad habit" out here and there and cloud a subject with a bunch of things that are not related to it but which sour the pot, so to speak.

Correlation and causation are not the same thing and deciding whether or not something is good based on correlation is a clasically bad logic flaw, and way too common.

We don't ban carrots because most murderers have eaten carrots.

My experience is exactly opposite: allowing player declared rolls meant that there was a reward mechanism for interrupting with a roll to gain more knowledge or effect a solution to a problem more quickly. Not allowing them has meant, for me, fewer interruption when I'm setting the scene or describing a new development -- my players have learned that more information is being provided if they listen, and even more on a clearly stated approach.

Further, and this is a point, if my players have to declare an approach and goal instead of just a die roll, there's less interpretation on my part as DM. For example, let's say there's an altar to an evil god that will explode with necrotic energy if touched by a non-worshiper. There's a big point of different to a player declaring they're closely inspecting the alter, but not touching it, to see if there's anything special about it vs a "21 Investigate!" The former nets information without danger, the latter is up to me as DM if I think a "21 Investigate!" means you touched the altar or not. And, if there's a secret compartment that can be found via physical interaction but not via looking, the "21 Investigate!" player might be upset if I decide they don't touch the altar but also don't find the secret compartment, provided, of course, it's found through other actions later.

Telling me die rolls means I, as DM, have to determine the details of your approach. Having the player state and approach and goal and then the DM asking for a roll if the outcome is uncertain and fraught means there's never any 'but my character wouldn't have touched the alter when he investigated it' going on.

ETA: and @iserth said this earlier and more succinctly, and I missed it.

 

[iserith]

ETA: and @iserth said this earlier and more succinctly, and I missed it.

Still great to know others are reaching the same conclusions I am by about the same thought process.

It could mean I'm not crazy (about this one thing if nothing else).