D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[JonnyP71]

A KEY difference between us RE the bold is who is "they" referenced in that sentence and how much screentime does that get?

the scene as described by GMfor... said nothing at all about were the CHARACTERS being cautious at every door, it simply showed a different way pf dividing ON_SCREEN vs OFF_CAMERA activities.

Ever watch MST3K? i loved a send up they did for some old 60s movie about yeti which it seemed showed "characters walking in a spiral uphill by a fern" at least 50 times or more to represent climbing the mountain to get to the "yeti eats you" phase. it ate up actually quite a bit of the run time of the film. Whether it is for movies, books, video games or other forms of storytelling, every single media shows and uses ON_SCREEN vs OFF_CAMERA editing of content as a thing. Sometimes it is integral to the story and drama.

just because something like "door protocol 7" is not shown in play at the table by the PLAYERS at every door does not mean the CHARACTERS necessarily did not act just as cautiously at those doors.

So its nothing about "should the characters be cautious at..." in any way. it is about "how we edit our on-screen time".

As we tend to talk mostly in character in our games, there's very little differentiation in terms of 'they'... we never say for example, "I ask the bartender for an ale", we would say, "Could I get an ale please bartender?"

Regarding dungeoneering, in terms of specifying actions relating to the dungeon environment, if the player does not specify it then the character does not do it. It needs to be specified if/when a lantern is lit, who is carrying it, if a cabinet is being examined, who is examining it? Are they simply browsing its contents, or are they looking for anything that might be hidden? Breaking that down to simple Passive Perception cheapens this process in my opinion, even a specified Perception check will never give specific details - I use the various intelligence skills for those.

I play in 3 groups at present, each group being somewhat different from the other, but neither myself or any of the other people who DM will handwave away those fine details when dealing with specific adventuring locales.. (bear in mind that about 50% of the players in the groups also take turns at DMing various games). One thing the groups do have in common though is that they are all perfectly happy with sessions that are very light on 'action', we might have one session with no combat, followed by another with just a 10 minute skirmish. The rest of the time is exploration and roleplay. Most of our games are low level, gritty and lethal. Taking precautions matters.

And no, I've never heard of MST3K - I guess it's a TV show that never made it over to this side of the Atlantic.

 

[iserith]

Regarding dungeoneering, in terms of specifying actions relating to the dungeon environment, if the player does not specify it then the character does not do it. It needs to be specified if/when a lantern is lit, who is carrying it, if a cabinet is being examined, who is examining it? Are they simply browsing its contents, or are they looking for anything that might be hidden? Breaking that down to simple Passive Perception cheapens this process in my opinion, even a specified Perception check will never give specific details - I use the various intelligence skills for those.

Notably, the rules go into this:

"In most cases, you need to describe where you are looking for the DM to determine your chance of success. For example, a key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in the top drawer of a bureau. If you tell the DM that you pace around the room, looking at the walls and furniture for clues, you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your Wisdom (Perception) check result. You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success." (Basic Rules, page 61)

So it seems to me that some reasonable level of specificity is the expectation here. Not that anyone's required to do that, of course. I just find that games tend to work better when played as intended (to the extent the game isn't a total mess).

 

[jasper]

Ok this thread has broken into multiple issues.
Is okay for a player out of combat to roll a check before the dm calls for it.
I say no, others say yea. So up to the table.
Should the player add flavor text to describe their roll? And should the dm give a bonus if they do? Also what happens if Jasper sucks at flavor text? I have no problems if the players add flavor text, it helps with the table enjoyment of the table. No the dm should not give a bonus just because Morris is great at describing stuff because he is his thirtieth year of a 4 year theatre arts degree. No, the dm should not change the dc just because Jasper squeaker voice makes the dog howl.
Should the DM give flavor text after a roll and can the player object to the text? Yes flavor text is up to DM. If the DM knows the roll did not make the dc so badly, he can say things like “running your hands over the tabletop knocks over the mountain dew causing the mom trap to spring”. No the player can’t object if he failed the dc.
How much does a pc know from a skill check? And how much does he knows once just because of the skill? This will vary with the DM and skill. I have gone from a full data dump on a successful check, to a partial data dump on a missed. The pc’s top of head common knowledge will vary with the adventure. So yes Satyrn with +8 Star Trek nerd can name the main cast of characters and actors on a take 20 but needs to hit a dc of 10 on “You bet your life” hosted by demi gorgon.

 

[iserith]

Ok this thread has broken into multiple issues.
Is okay for a player out of combat to roll a check before the dm calls for it.
I say no, others say yea. So up to the table.
Should the player add flavor text to describe their roll? And should the dm give a bonus if they do? Also what happens if Jasper sucks at flavor text? I have no problems if the players add flavor text, it helps with the table enjoyment of the table. No the dm should not give a bonus just because Morris is great at describing stuff because he is his thirtieth year of a 4 year theatre arts degree. No, the dm should not change the dc just because Jasper squeaker voice makes the dog howl.
Should the DM give flavor text after a roll and can the player object to the text? Yes flavor text is up to DM. If the DM knows the roll did not make the dc so badly, he can say things like “running your hands over the tabletop knocks over the mountain dew causing the mom trap to spring”. No the player can’t object if he failed the dc.
How much does a pc know from a skill check? And how much does he knows once just because of the skill? This will vary with the DM and skill. I have gone from a full data dump on a successful check, to a partial data dump on a missed. The pc’s top of head common knowledge will vary with the adventure. So yes Satyrn with +8 Star Trek nerd can name the main cast of characters and actors on a take 20 but needs to hit a dc of 10 on “You bet your life” hosted by demi gorgon.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "flavor text," but it seems like you're using that to indicate the DM establishing some things about what the character does during Step 3 when the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

One thing I've noticed is that in many games, the player is very light on description when describing what he or she wants to do. "I want to make a Perception check on the door..." for example or "I search for traps." Rather than encourage the player to be a little more specific, the DM goes straight to the adjudication and narration. What this tends to do as far as I can tell is prompt the DM to fill in the blanks the player left, assuming and establishing what the character does. This can sometimes lead to the player saying, "Uh, no, that's not what I did." Now the DM and player have to fix it.

What I prefer instead is to get that description settled on the front end with the player, then adjudicate and narrate. I try to make it clear that as a player, you have both a right and a responsibility. Your right is that you control your character, not the DM. Your responsibility is reasonable specificity as to what you're doing so the DM doesn't have to question you or make assumptions. That is the player's obligation in this game as I see it, just like it's the DM's obligation to describe the environment faithfully, adjudicate fairly, and narrate consistently. Everyone needs to perform their role to the utmost of their ability in pursuit of the goals of play, that is, everyone having a good time and creating an exciting, memorable story in the doing.

My narration of the result of that description by the player will tend to focus not on what the character does but the result that happens in the environment. One way I do this is to try to avoid starting off my narration of the result with "You..." I think that starting with "You..." can easily lead to establishing what the character does which isn't the DM's role. So instead of "I search for traps..." followed by "You run your hands along the altar and find..." it's instead (assuming the player was reasonably specific) "The altar is indeed trapped." I don't want to establish what the character is doing. That's not my role.

Sometimes I find it's minor things that can have a big impact on the play experience. This is one of them in my view.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I, as a GM, would feel very much that i was failing in my goal of running a game that makes sense to my players if it was in any way shape or form common (heck even uncommon maybe rare) that my player's did not feel they knew that a given described action would use a given ability when mechanics were called for (with exception of course for some cases for brand new players or a brand new and unique setting, though even then not so much. After all, they did chargen and had to have some basis of understanding to make those choices.)

I agree with this. My players should know that going long distance on an athletics challenge will require Con (I don't do that, but if I did I'd explain that as a general thing at some point), just like they know that if they are designing or examining something relevant to a tool proficiency it will be an Int check, while crafting will be Dex or Str, depending on what seems more natural for the task. I'm not looking to suprise players with how the game functions. I save surprise for things in game.

 

[jasper]

Flavor Text
Good
iserith " I slowly look over the altar with my magnifying glass, knock three times on each blue gem, and spray silly string around the base looking for traps"
Rolls 3 adds 8 missing the DC
Bad
Iserith, " I lick my eyebrows. Wink at the Princess and say do you want to BEEP!"
Rolls 19 subtracts 1 passing the DC.
DM response
Good, " Your hand press down on a ivory rose causing the trap to trigger. Take 11 pts"
Bad, "groan. groan. Ok The Princess declines your off to BEEP but she is amused. You and one other of the group get a war horse upgrade for the quest.".
Some people are good at flavor text some you just groan when they open their mouths. While it is in the DM power to change the dc in favor of the good flavor text person, he should not. Why? Because Jasper can't flavor text to save his life.

 

[5ekyu]

Flavor Text
Good
iserith " I slowly look over the altar with my magnifying glass, knock three times on each blue gem, and spray silly string around the base looking for traps"
Rolls 3 adds 8 missing the DC
Bad
Iserith, " I lick my eyebrows. Wink at the Princess and say do you want to BEEP!"
Rolls 19 subtracts 1 passing the DC.
DM response
Good, " Your hand press down on a ivory rose causing the trap to trigger. Take 11 pts"
Bad, "groan. groan. Ok The Princess declines your off to BEEP but she is amused. You and one other of the group get a war horse upgrade for the quest.".
Some people are good at flavor text some you just groan when they open their mouths. While it is in the DM power to change the dc in favor of the good flavor text person, he should not. Why? Because Jasper can't flavor text to save his life.

I *might* add "accidentally" to the hand press example, indicating some sort of stumble or other unintended failure of execution.

 

[redrick]

I, as a GM, would feel very much that i was failing in my goal of running a game that makes sense to my players if it was in any way shape or form common (heck even uncommon maybe rare) that my player's did not feel they knew that a given described action would use a given ability when mechanics were called for (with exception of course for some cases for brand new players or a brand new and unique setting, though even then not so much. After all, they did chargen and had to have some basis of understanding to make those choices.)

I agree with this. My goal is not to be in a situation where the checks being used are surprising and counterintuitive to the players. I think that's part of letting the rules fade into the background.

It also sounds like you and your group have been playing together long enough to have a pretty good sense of how skills are applied and when they are applied, at least in the context of your own group. So, if you are describing your action and rolling the die that you know the DM was going to call for anyway, and the DM is cool with that, I'd say that's all up to the etiquette of your group. No foul.

For myself, and thinking about what I want at my table, I think of a few things.

1. I often play with people who are new to RPGs, or new to D&D, or at least new to playing with me. The longest consistent gaming relationship I have now is about two years, but most of the people I game with I have known less than a year.
2. When a player rolls a die, that has an implicit meaning that is understood around the table, especially if it is a significantly high or low roll. That number is something that has happened. Taking that die roll back feels like a bit of a retcon.

So, even assuming that the players are, in good faith, describing their actions in a way that I can understand, sometimes they might call a check on themselves that would not match what I would call. This might happen because:

* There is a miscommunication about the environment that makes the described action by the player impossible or different than understood. What if, after clarifying, we establish that, to pick the lock, the player has to stand directly under the giant guillotine blade. When the player decides to go ahead with that action, will we use the existing roll? Or will we use a new one? What if the player rolled low? Will they choose to behave differently under clarification?
* The player misunderstands the skill applied and describes an inappropriate check. (I once had a player announce that he was going to acrobatics over the pit.)
* The task might not have required a check, but now a particularly low roll or a particularly high roll needs to be factored into the fiction.
* Just because one player always nails which actions will require a check and which skill is required, another player might not. It kind of sucks to say, "Bob, you can go ahead and roll your dice with your actions, but Jim, you can't, because you're not good enough at D&D, yet, so all of your checks have to be approved my me." By just putting the calling of the check on the DM, we can avoid that. It's not about asking for permission. It's just a division of labor thing.

So I would get annoyed with a player at a table where I was the DM who insisted on always calling and rolling their own checks, even if I asked them to wait, because it would feel rude and disrespectful to the table as a whole.

 

[5ekyu]

So I would get annoyed with a player at a table where I was the DM who insisted on always calling and rolling their own checks, even if I asked them to wait, because it would feel rude and disrespectful to the table as a whole.

So I would get annoyed with a player at a table where I was the DM who insisted on [insert any given behavior], even if I asked them to wait, because it would feel rude and disrespectful to the table as a whole.

As described previously, i also keep the roll and describe what they got out of the check they described - which may or may not be pertinent but often can be as interesting. If they make an arcana roll instead of a history roll and "get something" i will describe the arcane symbols they see on the robes and staves and what they may mean or somesuch (drawn from that horrible blog's example IIRC)



We agree on the above with no reservations, i am pretty sure.

And yes, from the get go (literally my first post on players calling for rolls in this thread) started with the stated premise of a well established history of the check involved and numerous times i have stated that there will be exceptions in a great many things for new players unfamiliar with the rules or customs - after all allowing players to call for checks does not mean GMs cannot.

 

[seebs]

Another component: Context. If we're doing online through roll20, I am much more inclined to be tolerant of people clicking roll buttons prematurely because after all, the round trip time for "I want to X -> roll Y -> here's my roll" is a lot longer.