D&D 5E Mitigating players spamming Help, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, and oh I’ll roll too?

[robus]

A lot of advice about “Players don’t decide when to roll, the DM does.” Yep! My issue is not that I don’t practice that; it is that I am getting worn down constantly policing the players on this issue & constantly finding new ways to explain this specific to a scenario as one or more players eagerly reach for their dice. It’s tiring for me because I love to say “yes” to my players & the policing part is my least favorite part of DMing.

I guess that should have been obvious so sorry that I was part of the chorus stating the bleeding obvious! That is frustrating if they're not picking up the hints and constantly policing it is exhausting.

All I can suggest is perhaps there needs to be a retraining day? Perhaps a "one-off" with some pre-gens and you describe how you want to the game to flow and ask them to help police themselves. When something goes haywire you stop and talk about why it's backwards.

Perhaps you also need to be open with them about how frustrating it's becoming for you to constantly have to manage their premature/over rolling?

Basically this group needs go to a re-education camp!

 

[ad_hoc]

The first (or one of the first) threads I posted here was about players self-assigning rolls. To be honest, some of the responses almost made me want to leave enworld completely (and taught me that sometimes the Blocked List is not such a bad thing to quiet the "noise"). Glad I didn't as there were many positive responses and many of the members here continue to make solid, albeit anonymous, contributions to improving the fun at my table through their thoughtful responses to posts.

I do this too. My blocklist is huge. Mostly so that I can read posts that align with how I want to play the game (though of course I will also block bigots and the like). Threads just get too long otherwise.

If someone has entirely different tastes than I do, then their post doesn't help me and my post doesn't help them.

Right, so that’s where these issues connect. The sheer strength of numbers when Bardic Inspiration, Guidance, and Help are available makes the risks of failure on some checks — especially ones which I do have scary consequences for failing — extremely low.

And yes, I totally get what you’re saying about the paradigm of “auto succeed through description wherever you can, roll as a last resort.” Thats the style I played/ran during AD&D. I barely played 3e/Pathfinder, so perhaps that’s where some of the disconnect is. Different game expectations.

Yeah, 5e is a return to the 2e and earlier approach to the game.

A roll should only ever be called for if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. It also has to be uncertain and the entire endeavour must be interesting (or else why are you bothering with it).

Something people from 3e have a hard time grasping as that system was designed to be a simulation of a world. People will lament 5e where high level characters aren't much better than commoners because the d20 creates a big swing. Or a wizard vs fighter when trying to bash a door down. The thing is, rolling only happens when the heat is on. If the party comes up to a door and the fighter says 'I bash the door in' I say okay it makes a loud noise and comes apart at the hinges. And we move on (unless of course it is impossible to bash the door in). Now, if they are being chased and it needs to happen right now, the fighter can use their action to try to bash the door in. Sure the wizard could try instead, but this is really important so the wizard will probably be casting a protection spell to slow the coming threat. Ultimately specialties sort themselves out.

It also makes the game mechanics fade into the background. Characters are doing things, not pressing buttons. The story is the important bit. Resolution of uncertain things takes a backseat.

Advantage and Disadvantage is another mechanic that works well in describing what the character is doing rather than saying I use X skill. If you talk about something of interest to an NPC as part of your persuasion you may get advantage rather than just saying 'I persuade them to do X'.

 

[Quickleaf]

Whether you love or hate his shtick, The Angry GM has some good advice on this (and many other) topics:
https://theangrygm.com/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/

Yes, I often ask for clarification on player intentions (making sure I don’t assume incorrectly), and also frequently have to coax out additional details in their approach.

The first (or one of the first) threads I posted here was about players self-assigning rolls. To be honest, some of the responses almost made me want to leave enworld completely (and taught me that sometimes the Blocked List is not such a bad thing to quiet the "noise"). Glad I didn't as there were many positive responses and many of the members here continue to make solid, albeit anonymous, contributions to improving the fun at my table through their thoughtful responses to posts.

As @iserith points out, players rolling for checks without being asked "is not the paradigm in D&D 5e." I had to explain this for several sessions to my players, but they eventually caught on. We now have a new player (to our table and to 5e) and I find I'm needing to repeat this process, but I'm confident he'll break the old habits soon.

Yeah, unfortunately reacting seems easier than thoughtful and attentive discourse...especially on the Internet. Glad you hung in there!

At the time the player declares their Intention and Approach to a task, but before the DM declares a roll is necessary, is the right time for the other party member to cast Guidance or the bard to grant Bardic Inspiration - at least that's what I try to enforce at our table, too. Well, I suppose the bard could have granted the bardic inspiration well before the action and it would still be good as it lasts 10 minutes.

Theory-wise, you’re right, of course. In actual play, I’ve never seen a group that so flawlessly was in synch that they were always adhering to this order of Intent > Approach > Execution. Some players jump the gun out of excitement or sometimes when roleplaying their PC. Sometimes they miscommunicate. Sometimes the plan gets shot to hell. Sometimes a player radically changes his or her mind. The actual play experience in my current group often has “oh wait, what? you’re doing that? ok well retroactively can I...?”

 

[5ekyu]

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] [MENTION=6801558]robus[/MENTION] [MENTION=6748898]ad_hoc[/MENTION] A lot of advice about “Players don’t decide when to roll, the DM does.” Yep! My issue is not that I don’t practice that; it is that I am getting worn down constantly policing the players on this issue & constantly finding new ways to explain this specific to a scenario as one or more players eagerly reach for their dice. It’s tiring for me because I love to say “yes” to my players & the policing part is my least favorite part of DMing.

“No, you can’t Help/Work Together because you haven’t said anything that would be helpful in this negotiation. Is there something you’d like to speak up and add to support the Bard’s arguement?”

“No, Bard player, you can’t roll to beat the druid’s Nature check because you haven’t proposed doing anything substantially different. Besides the Druid is the *best* in your party at Nature lore. You might try a new approach?”

“No, Sorcerer player, you can’t make a History check here. Because nothing in your background as a native of the forests near Waterdeep, a hermit, or a draconic sorcerer would account for you knowing anything about Chultan tribal history. Maybe you’d know something pertaining to dragons...”

“Hold on, Rogue player, why did you just roll a d20? Oh, Stealth? So you’re also trying to sneak up and scout out the enemy encampment? Weren’t you holding the party’s light source? And didn’t you say you wanted to cast guidance which has a verbal component on another PC?”

“Guys, please, why don’t you discuss your approach as a group before breaking off and doing a bunch of things individually? There’s a group skill check I would have called for, had I know your intentions/plan first.”

Every session since I started DMing this group about 11 sessions ago (January), I’ve found myself doing this kind of policing. Some players are more egregious than others, but it’s definitely a group issue. They came from a Pathfinder background. Not sure if this is a system difference thing, but it really feels like I have to keep reminding everyone. Heck, I’m even making the creative effort of weighing how their PC background/race/class/story influence what they know in regards to lore checks. I’d love to find a DM trick that helps them to police themselves better so I can free up more energy/brain space for creative DMing coolness.

"Is there something you’d like to speak up and add to support the Bard’s arguement?”"

This seems to be requiring the player to be skilled at the negotiation, to know the better ways to support the discussion.

Do you do the same with joint medical checks? Does the player actually have to know a better way to treat "troll blight" than the firstvone used?

 

[iserith]

Right, so that’s where these issues connect. The sheer strength of numbers when Bardic Inspiration, Guidance, and Help are available makes the risks of failure on some checks — especially ones which I do have scary consequences for failing — extremely low.

Bardic Inspiration, at least, is a resource you can run out of. Working Togther may come with trade-offs, depending on the scene. Guidance may come with risks, as I mentioned upthread. In an exploration challenge in my games, if you want to Work Together with someone on a task, you're not Keeping Watch or doing anything else. Which means if I roll a wandering monster check and get that sweet, sweet 18+ on d20, you're going to be automatically surprised if the monster is making any attempt at sneaking up on the party. It really makes people think twice about Working Together unless they don't think they can succeed without it. And for Guidance in those situations, the exploration "turn" is 10 minutes for a certain area or activity which means it's useless given its duration.

So time and wandering monster checks (which is just a time pressure) are your friends here.

And yes, I totally get what you’re saying about the paradigm of “auto succeed through description wherever you can, roll as a last resort.” Thats the style I played/ran during AD&D. I barely played 3e/Pathfinder, so perhaps that’s where some of the disconnect is. Different game expectations.

Most definitely. I see it all the time, both in other people's games, pickup players in my one-shots, and in actual play vodcasts and podcasts. The hobby's rife with people playing this game like it's some other game. Which is fine if that's what they like. But I've seen enough forum posts to see that it leads to problems quite often.

 

[Quickleaf]

I guess that should have been obvious so sorry that I was part of the chorus stating the bleeding obvious! That is frustrating if they're not picking up the hints and constantly policing it is exhausting.

All I can suggest is perhaps there needs to be a retraining day? Perhaps a "one-off" with some pre-gens and you describe how you want to the game to flow and ask them to help police themselves. When something goes haywire you stop and talk about why it's backwards.

Perhaps you also need to be open with them about how frustrating it's becoming for you to constantly have to manage their premature/over rolling?

Basically this group needs go to a re-education camp!

Well, it’s a good reminder to me as well! There’s six of them and one of me, and I noticed last session I was starting to get sucked into their style of “roll first” gaming (for lack of a better word for it). It was definitely the opposite of what I want from D&D!

Yeah I can bring it up that I don’t like that style of play. Fortunately I played alongside these guys (as a player) briefly in a Pathfinder game before jumping in to DM Tomb of Annihilation...and, based on my observations, there was lots of “metagaming” in that game as well...very much into finding rules exploits. I know some players are more comfortable there, and I want to respect that. I would, however, like to find a way to gently encourage them toward a more “description first” mindset without a “re-education camp” as you say! Haha

 

[5ekyu]

I'm not @Shiroiken, but that is exactly what I meant by Immediate vs Prepared. The correct way is to cast the Guidance or provide Bardic Inspiration before the check is required - it rightly should to happen before the active skill use.



If there is more than one person proficient in the lore, just provide Advantage. If only one person is proficient only they should be allowed to roll - others would not be able to assist.



In that instance, if the rogue or the warlock attempted, I would add a complication whether it was a success or failure - break their lock picks or jam the lock (making it unpickable)...etc

"If there is more than one person proficient in the lore, just provide Advantage. If only one person is proficient only they should be allowed to roll - others would not be able to assist."

For me, there are way way way to many,movie, book, fiction scenes where the guy who knows what to do is helped by the guy who doesnt for me to rule non-proficient cannot help.

Also, personal experience on many types of projects or tasks, one skilled guy with less skilled or non-skilked guys gets a lot done a lot of times.

Additionally, way way way too many fish out of water scenes where one guy tries to use skills they dont have in same references for me to rule you cannot make skill rolls without proficiencies.

Surely, non-religious students can have a chance at a religion check.

Surely non-survival experts can hunt and forage and try to track.

To me these seem baby with bathwater where to solve a minor "complaint" with work together you cut out a lot of possible character play.

I for one like the idea that in 5e its less about one character at each task solo and teamwork is encouraged.

What i would suggest if you really want less "working together" is to use a variation of the "progress with setback" from the PHB section on ability checks.

**When working together, if one or both are non-proficient, you still get to roll with advantage but even if you succeed on one die a failure on the other gets you SUCCESS WITH SETBACK.** Only if both die succeed do you get a clean success.

You could go farther and rule that when non-proficient and solo, a check **can be made** but a success is also SUCCESS WITH SETBACK.

 

[Quickleaf]

"Is there something you’d like to speak up and add to support the Bard’s arguement?”"

This seems to be requiring the player to be skilled at the negotiation, to know the better ways to support the discussion.

Do you do the same with joint medical checks? Does the player actually have to know a better way to treat "troll blight" than the firstvone used?

It’s a tough question to answer. Both yes and no.

It really comes down to the narrative “weight” placed by the story / the players on the scene. The less important the scene, the more likely its to be resolved with a more abstracted check, while the more important the scene the more detail goes into our descriptions.

So, yes, the negotiation and treating trollblight would be handled the same. I do ask for players engaged in an “important” negotiation scene to — even if not acting in character — to describe their overall intent and approach. What do you want from the NPC? What are you offering to the NPC? And do you have a particular strategy (e.g. drawing on a shared background with NPC, using something the NPC just said to trap them into agreeing, playing a tune to pull on their heartstrings, intimidating them with threat of an approaching monster, etc). In the example I cited, the player said I “Help” without further explanation so I ruled that he could not.

With the treating trollblight...assuming it carries heavy narrative weight...maybe there’s steps involved — identifying that its trollblight, finding patient zero / infected troll, acquiring sample, researching an antidote, brewing antidote, and applying it to the victim. So I’d possibly — depending on specifics, this is all theoretical — expect a PC wanting to Help another with treating trollblight to declare where in that process they are helping, and generally how they’re assisting (soothing patients while samples are collected? managing the distillation & titration process? wrestling an infected troll?).

And no, they’re a bit different by necessity because D&D involves actual dialogue as one of the ways players have fun. Interaction, along with combat & exploration, are pillars of the game. Always have been. No special knowledge is required to do a bit of roleplaying or state your character’s intent & approach. Very possibly I wouldn’t require a roll at all if the player’s position in negotiation was strong enough. In that case there’s no a Persuasion skill, it’s just roleplaying. DM decides whether check is necessary, as per 5e rules. Whereas getting into descriptions of specific skill uses — horseback riding, or wilderness survival, or medieval / Renaissance-era medicine — is not at the heart of the game, it’s not one of the 3 pillars. Certainly, it can add a lot of flavor, and a savvy player might coax a DM into granting advantage for a vivid description, but there’s no expectation built into the game that players are going to, for example, know how to treat a wound, build a shelter, or take a wild horse.

 

[Reynard]

I'd like to present a counter argument to the majority of the advice in this thread so far: don't sweat it. it's not your job to play the PCs, or tell the players how to play the PCs. You have plenty to do without doing their work, too.

Now, if a player breaks the game rules, that's different. If a player makes a skill check and fails by 1 and another player says, "I want to cast guidance on her!" then tell them next time they need to do that before the skill check is made. But if the rogue is looking at a lock and the bard wants to inspire the rogue, what's the problem? That's the bard's job.

It does sound like you might have a communication problem if the players can't distinguish between something that is a group check, a solo check that can benefit from assistance or a check that must be made alone. But that is on your end as a DM, not theirs.

As to the idea that players don't declare using skill checks -- that's true as far as it goes, but it does not preclude a player asking. If a player says, "I use my thieves tools proficiency on the lock," there is no reason to say, "No, use slight of hands instead." The same goes for the different interaction skills, acrobatics versus athletics and so on. Players spend character creation and development resources intentionally and you should not do your best to make them regret their choices. Demanding players describe every action they take in hopes that you'll get the hint that they want to Persuade rather than Deceive is a waste of everyone's time and more damaging to player enjoyment and immersion than just letting them tell you what they want to do. Relatedly, if they do describe rather than declare, and it is in anyway ambiguous, try to tease out more information or even directly ask: "It sounds like your are trying to intimidate the guard, not deceive him, is that right?"

 

[Sadras]

For me, there are way way way to many,movie, book, fiction scenes where the guy who knows what to do is helped by the guy who doesnt for me to rule non-proficient cannot help.

Unless you're doing research in a library the answer for me on this is negative. If you're trying to recall some lore about a certain historical text and the bumpkin next to you tries to help you, you're not going to get advantage at my table.

Also, personal experience on many types of projects or tasks, one skilled guy with less skilled or non-skilked guys gets a lot done a lot of times.

Please if you're going to reply to my post, at least attempt to remain on topic. I referred to lore not tasks or all the movies you have seen.

Surely, non-religious students can have a chance at a religion check.

Again nope. If the information one attempted to obtain is that basic, why make one roll for it, why not just provide the characters with the answer? I only call for a roll when there is a probability of failure/uncertainty.

Surely non-survival experts can hunt and forage and try to track.

Again your definition of lore appears to be different to mine.

I for one like the idea that in 5e its less about one character at each task solo and teamwork is encouraged.

What i would suggest if you really want less "working together" is to use a variation of the "progress with setback" from the PHB section on ability checks.

**When working together, if one or both are non-proficient, you still get to roll with advantage but even if you succeed on one die a failure on the other gets you SUCCESS WITH SETBACK.** Only if both die succeed do you get a clean success.

You could go farther and rule that when non-proficient and solo, a check **can be made** but a success is also SUCCESS WITH SETBACK.

Not applicable.