D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[robus]

It’s an odd feeling to be in pretty much full agreement with [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]! I think I like it... It must be a Christmas miracle!

 

[iserith]

As a GM. I don't have a problem with players calling rolls for skills it encourages them to be active in the world and not wait for the GM to lay everything out for them as the game is a partnership, not GM story telling time.

What about any of my posts would lead you to believe that I'm saying that the game is anything other than a partnership between the players and DM? Or anyone else's posts for that matter?

Also using your own example of " in their best interests", what if you judge the approach as an automatic failure?

Then the player didn't come up with a reasonable approach to the goal. They still don't get to decide that whatever they stated is uncertain and throw some dice in hopes of making their unreasonable approach work. That's not the player's role in the game.

As to the specter of automatic failure, I will already have raised that in my description of the environment. If, for example, an attempt at intimidating the NPC will be fruitless or even dangerous, I'm going to telegraph that in some way that clues players in to that approach being inappropriate to achieving their goal.

As I player I see why this happens, My GM does not call for roles ALOT. He simple listens to players descriptions and auto fails/passes them. This is annoying if you have invested a lot into skills as part of your character. It trivializes or nullifies those player choices. Also, I am not charismatic but I am playing a charismatic player to attempt to improve my roleplaying by pushing a personal weakness as a result of not rolling the GM has made my character socially awkward even and unconvincing because my argument is not well said. Rolling gives my character a chance. Now my GM hates that too but if I don't ask for a role or role I will not get one for checks almost ever. The roleplay part of the game is a separation from reality. This means when a player tries to look for something its not the players ability to describe where they look but the characters. Having your player shutdown can be really demeaning of player choices.

You will note that I am an advocate for the "Middle Path" laid out in the DMG which balances out granting successful/failure with rolling as appropriate to the fictional situation. That your DM does not appear to follow that approach is not an actual criticism of the approach I'm talking about.

I will add that if you can state a clear goal and approach e.g. "I try to convince the king to lend his aid by reminding him of his storied noble ancestors," then being actually charismatic as a player doesn't matter. The smooth talker at the table who uses more words than that to describe the same goal and approach gets the same chance at success.

Ultimately, all the issues with players rolling can be fixed by the GMs approach.

Yep, just ignore the dice if they make unprompted rolls. And then explain to them why they shouldn't want to roll in the first place. That's my fix anyway.

 

[5ekyu]

There's a pattern I'm beginning to notice throughout this conversation. Folks who prefer to allow players to initiate their own rolls tend to frame the DM who hands out auto successes and failures as doing so based on the quality of the player's description. "I'm not very charismatic, so rolling in social interactions gives me a better chance to succeed." "I don't want to unfairly punish players for not being good at descriptions." "DMs shouldn't give bonuses for good flavor text or penalties for bad flavor text" etc. are all sentiments I've seen from the pro player-initiated rolls side.

However, folks on the anti player-initiated rolls side don't frame it this way. For me, auto-successes and failures are not passed out based on "good roleplay" (*hurk*). I base them entirely on how likely the announced approaches are to achieve their stated goals. So, let's take a simple example: there is a McGuffin the players are searching for. It is hidden under a cardboard box in the middle of an empty room. If the players describe looking under the box, there is no chance they will not find the McGuffin. If they do not look under the box, there is no chance they will find the McGuffin. If a player describes in exquisite detail the plethora of methods they employ to search the room, they will not succeed if those methods don't include looking under or moving the box. On the other hand, a player who says simply, "I look for the McGuffin under the box" will succeed. No roll will be required in either case. The determining factor is not "good roleplaying" (*hurk*), it's their methods and those methods' likelihood of accomplishing their goals.

This goes as much for complex social interactions as it does for searches for poorly-hidden McGuffins. The player of the dashing male rogue can compose and perform a shakespearean-quality sonnet to try to seduce the princess, it's still not going to work if the princess is gay, because the approach (reciting a romantic sonnet) doesn't have a reasonable chance of succeeding at its goal (seduce the princess). On the other hand, if the player of the butch female half-orc awkwardly stammers "I umm... Flex my muscles, and... Wink at her?" will at least get a chance to roll because her approach (play on the princess's preference for buff women) does have a reasonable chance of success and a reasonable chance of failure. Maybe the princess has a secret fetish that the players could have discovered by digging up rumors within the city, and if the half-orc player's approach involves taking advantage of that fetish, it might auto-succeed, even if the action has no actual description. "I try to seduce the princess by subtly hinting that I'm into bondage too" is a perfectly valid action, with a goal and an approach. And if that approach has no reasonable chance of failing to achieve that goal (hey, she's really into bondage), it won't require a roll, regardless of the "quality" of the description.

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

 

[5ekyu]

I think you're missing the argument. "Good roleplay" is synonymous with "an approach which is likely to achieve a stated goal". It's not based on flavor text; as you say, the narrative quality of how the idea is described is irrelevant. The issue is that the player doesn't know which approach is likely to achieve a stated goal, even if their character probably should.

As an example, imagine there's a death knight coming to kill the princess, and we want her to come with us so we can protect her. As a player, I may not know what argument would convince her, if I'm not good at reading social cues. If my character is a noble bard with expertise in persuasion, then they probably should know what argument to use. By going straight to the roll without saying what argument they're using, it allows the character to succeed on their own merit rather than those of the player.

If my rogue has expertise in investigation, then it's not really fair to expect the player to come up with the brilliant idea of exactly how they want to search the room. The character should know better.

At least, that's the basic argument. I'm not actually arguing for or against either side, but the logical extension of the other side would involve getting rid of skills entirely. I'm not sure if anyone remembers, but the inclusion of social skills in 3.0 was hugely controversial for this very reason.

I have said i believe earlier in this thread that to me if one was to make player narrative a stronger determinant - a strategy to be used - i would see the no skills ability proficiencies as a consistent approach mechanically.

And yes, its not as mischarscterized about the flavor text as it is differences between player skilk and character skill.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[5ekyu]

"If the players describe looking under the box, there is no chance they will not find the McGuffin. If they do not look under the box, there is no chance they will find the McGuffin." So the player builds a high intellect character with investigation skills and because the player does not know how to investigate you make them fail "based on the quality of the player's description." Your example proves the point of people in your first paragraph. Player rolls to investigate a room with a single box in it on the floor, player has a passive investigate of 15 for a box that should easily be a 5 role to see so their is no reason his character would ever not look under the box but be cause of the 1 maybe he checked behind the door first and finds a cracked wall, while investigation he pulls a rock causing one to from above to fall and hit him on the head, he takes one point of damage and is distracted long enough that he forgets about the box in the middle of the room and ends his search per-maturely.

If the princess is gay and the role a natural 20, the player would not seduce her but he might still win her affection and admiration as a friend where she may clarify she is gay and possible provide him with favor or direction to her strait friend, or maybe she is gay bi-curious this once but and gives him a try, then says no, I am gay but it was fun to try once. The pretense that the goal is impossible exactly the limitation of play I suggested about GMs telling their own story and railroading the players. Letting the players try the impossible allows the GM to be surprised. Omitting things as impossible and removing even the attempt punishes players for trying to be part of the world. If you do that you train your players no sit and listen to your story and not actually play. Then when you ask them "what to you want to do?" the only thing they look to do is follow your instructions as GM because nothing else ever works. I have seen these awkward games happen. Railroading through player discipline for even attempting feats. I want to try and convince the princes.. no she hates you, you fail... ... Might as well say shut up player did I say you could speech! No I didn't you can roll when its my command not before.

It is never good to teach players they can't role play in a role playing game and that is what auto fail is. Just because they role doesn't mean they get what they want even with a 20 or that they fail with 1 but it lets the player dictate some story and be part of the game instead of just and observer.

Also agree and would add... At one point the discussion led to denials about how the auto- strstegy did not play out as in a gotcha type "did the PLAYER say the magic word" test/trap but if you look back just a few posts you will find an example where saying you looked on the shelves and furniture fails no roll no character skill because the word used was "on" not " in".

At the point that this kind of thing rises to the point of prominence that the GM themselves advocate it as a strategic choice, IMO it has gone farther than i would be happy with in my game.



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Then the player didn't come up with a reasonable approach to the goal.

It seems more likely that the player's approach was entirely reasonable to them, but that their expectations (as to what is or isn't reasonable) do not match up with those of the DM. Assuming that the player is acting in good faith, it seems unduly harsh to simply Nope any chance of success based on differing expectations.

 

[Hriston]

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

There seems to be some putting the cart before the horse with this line of reasoning. Proficiency with Arcana or any other skill has no bearing on the outcome of the declared action until the DM determines it's uncertain.

 

[5ekyu]

Except that it doesn't work like that. Read page 178 of the PHB in the Finding a Hidden Object section. You don't get to search the whole room and then get a roll. You specify where in the room you search(and often how) and then get a roll, an auto success, or an auto failure.



So if a player announced that his 1st level PC with no magic items or special ability to do so was jumping to the moon, you'd give him a roll that allows him a chance of success?

That's just a big load of hooey. An auto fail doesn't inhibit roleplay in the slightest. It just means that the roleplay doesn't succeed at what it was trying to do and then proceeds to more roleplay. For example, if there is a princess who is known to be prim and proper at all times and loves her family dearly, a player can can roleplay his PC going up to her and saying, "Hey baby! Let's go back to my room and get it on, then afterwards we'll go murder your family. Hubba hubba!". That action may have no chance of success, but the roleplay happens regardless of the chance of success.

You allowing there to be at least a 5% chance of success doesn't allow for any more roleplaying than the auto failure does. It only creates a chance for different roleplaying. For those of us who rule it an auto failure(most of us I imagine), the roleplay that follows will involve a lot of tension and possible jail time for the PCs as the princess becomes outraged. For you it ncludes the princess suddenly and unbelievably going out of character and doing what the PC suggested OR perhaps the tension and outrage. In both cases though, there was the roleplay by the player and roleplay that followed afterwards.

Re the jump to the moon... Nope tge player does not get to determine the result of the task. No more than he gets to define explicitly what they will find on a search.

The player describes the attempt to jump and yes to where but how far they get is determined by character and roll and the character you describes would fall short.

Just like if they searched the dresser "for the eye of Vecna" they would not find it on any roll (unless it was there) but might well find secret panels with other stuff.

This is perhaps a problem some have with the idea of player defined goals tied to player defined actions.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

It seems more likely that the player's approach was entirely reasonable to them, but that their expectations (as to what is or isn't reasonable) do not match up with those of the DM. Assuming that the player is acting in good faith, it seems unduly harsh to simply Nope any chance of success based on differing expectations.

In the post you quoted, I go on to say: "As to the specter of automatic failure, I will already have raised that in my description of the environment. If, for example, an attempt at intimidating the NPC will be fruitless or even dangerous, I'm going to telegraph that in some way that clues players in to that approach being inappropriate to achieving their goal."

Which means that I will have already said what's not going to work in so many words so, as long as you're not choosing to do what I established won't work, you're likely to auto-succeed or roll depending on what you describe. So I don't find your objection particularly warranted in practice. The game just isn't complicated enough in my view for people to regularly have different expectations about the situation, provided the DM is doing an adequate job of describing the environment and the players are paying attention. And if anyone at the table isn't doing that and it leads to a mismatch of expectations, then it can be easily corrected.

As an aside, this approach does force the DM into getting better at description. I don't see any downside to that.

 

[5ekyu]

There seems to be some putting the cart before the horse with this line of reasoning. Proficiency with Arcana or any other skill has no bearing on the outcome of the declared action until the DM determines it's uncertain.

Whatever cart before horse ideas you have did not stop numerous examples to advocate for the approach at all... Usually easy cases for search for instance.

All i am asking about is to post other significant cases where the skills less obvioys to normal folks where that same strategy is just as applicable.

It seems to draw not "here is an arcana case" or "here is a disease treat case" but evasions or dodges.

Also, as shown in iirc even some published products proficiency itself can be a determinant of failure not an after thought made only once the GM decides a roll is needed.



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app