D&D 5E Modeling Uncertainty

[Guest 6801328]

I don't hate your solution. There might be something there.

Honestly I don't love my own solution, but I really hate the problem and this is the best I've come up with so far.

The other (bigger) problem is that you will end up punishing a player for succeeding on a skill roll. You aren't giving them a small chance of success when they fail the roll (and why would you?), so you end up lessening their skill ability by some (considerable) percentage -- about 25% of the time on most "successes," they still fail. That's pretty big.

Maybe. It depends on how I (or anybody using this) would have ruled in the absence of this option: I don't let players use Insight as a Detect Lie spell, so "success with a hefty chance of being wrong" might be better than the alternative I offer them.

 

[iserith]

[MENTION=6774924]secondhander[/MENTION], [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]: Do your players get to declare that they are making an ability check or ask to make one in your games?

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I'll toss another log on this fire. When allowing for most skill rolls I typically allow only one roll to do so. I really dislike it when six players all roll the dice and try to hit the 'make the DC' lottery. The players choose who rolls - usually the PC with the highest bonus. If another PC is proficient in the skill being tested they can Help the PC who's rolling, granting advantage. That's it.

 

[iserith]

Ex.
Char 1 (with 15 strength): "I try to break the door down."
DM: "Ok, roll a strength-athletics check."
Char 1: "Oh, I rolled a 10, with +2 mod, so a 12."
DM: "You give a kick to the door, but it's solid and not going anywhere."
Char 2 (with a 10 strength): "I want to try."
DM: "Ok, you put your shoulder into it, but you're not as strong as Char 1, so you can't get it budged either." (no roll required.)
Char 3 (with 18 strength): "Oh, I'm the strongest of us, let me try. ... I roll a 13 with a +4 mod, so a 17."
DM: "The door is indeed very well built, but you put everything into it, and your whole weight behind it, and you know the door open and nearly off its hinges."

Pointing out this example as it references something we discussed upthread: The DM saying establishing what the character is doing instead of the player doing that his or herself. My hope is that by pointing it out, others won't be able to not see this anymore.

Finally, perception and investigation checks. The problem here, if you let your players roll instead of rolling behind the screen, is that one will ask if they see anything unusual in the room, or know how the secret door works. They roll low and fail. The other players know they failed, and know there might be something in the room that was missed, so they ask to roll (this subtly leads to a power-gaming mentality even in players who normally aren't).

Here again, my only solution is to go with the rule of a group check if more than one person makes the check.

The solution I find best is to give them success at a cost. "You find a secret door, but it takes a while so I'm making a wandering monster check." Or "You notice the clue, but you make a lot of noise." It's context dependent and it's important for the stakes to be known to the players upfront. It definitely takes care of the issue you cite. That, and making sure your players are aware that the DM calls for ability checks, not the players, and that if a particular approach to a goal is shown not to work, subsequent attempts with the same approach are doomed to failure (no roll)

 

[Guest 6801328]

[MENTION=6774924]secondhander[/MENTION], [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]: Do your players get to declare that they are making an ability check or ask to make one in your games?

Varies both by group and by circumstance.

Intellectually I'm with you; I think that players declaring intent/action and DMs interpreting, calling for a roll if needed, is the "better" way to do things, but in practice I don't find it makes all that much difference. It's a useful correctional when things swing too far the other way and players start overstepping, but most of the time having a knowledgeable player say, "Can I make a History check?" doesn't do any harm.

If I had to pick a principle that I try emphasize at my tables it wouldn't be this one (it might be "roll-then-narrate").

It's like grammar. Yes, I know that prepositions don't belong at ends of sentences. But sometimes you just want to know where somebody is coming from.

 

[machineelf]

[MENTION=6774924]secondhander[/MENTION], [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]: Do your players get to declare that they are making an ability check or ask to make one in your games?

They tell me what they want to do, and I tell them if they need to make a check. I try to keep them in the role-play mentality where they focus on actions without trying to meta-game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Honestly I don't think this issue about declaring rolls vs. describing intent is really relevant to the problem I'm trying to address.

Player: "I'm going to study the guard's face and see if I think he's lying."
DM: "Ok, what exactly are you going to look for?"
Player: "Um, I want to see if he makes eye contact or looks nervous."
DM: "He makes eye contact, but never for long. Make an Insight roll..."

Tell me where this goes (or needs to be amended) such that the player concludes that the guard is probably lying, and that the strength of his conviction is a function of the attributes and abilities on his character sheet. (Meaning, the better his character is at Insight...or whatever...the more likely he is to trust the conclusion.)

You may not want that math in your game; you may be totally happy with a binary True/False, but I do want that, and the purpose of this thread was to explore ways to achieve it. I don't think whether the player says he wants to roll Insight or tells me what his character is doing affects it one way or another.

 

[iserith]

Varies both by group and by circumstance.

Intellectually I'm with you; I think that players declaring intent/action and DMs interpreting, calling for a roll if needed, is the "better" way to do things, but in practice I don't find it makes all that much difference. It's a useful correctional when things swing too far the other way and players start overstepping, but most of the time having a knowledgeable player say, "Can I make a History check?" doesn't do any harm.

If I had to pick a principle that I try emphasize at my tables it wouldn't be this one (it might be "roll-then-narrate").

It's like grammar. Yes, I know that prepositions don't belong at ends of sentences. But sometimes you just want to know where somebody is coming from.

Generally when I see someone reporting a problem with the system, it is often because there are some things upstream that are not being handled in accordance with how we're told the game is meant to be played. I can't say that's a root cause of your particular dissatisfaction, but I'm honestly not surprised to see that, at least in some cases, the players are asking to make ability checks.

If you have a DMG handy, I recommend checking out DMG pages 236-237, specifically with regard to the Role of the Dice. I'm curious where you think you fall in that spectrum. Based on your comments, I imagine you lean more toward "Rolling With It" in theory if not in practice because you believe it makes you less subject to bias as DM.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Generally when I see someone reporting a problem with the system

Really more of a problem with roleplaying games in general. I don't know of a system that handles this well.

You know, it's possible that somebody wants a game to model something that just isn't possible in the rules, and that it's not a function of what's going on "upstream".

but I'm honestly not surprised to see that, at least in some cases, the players are asking to make ability checks.

Nor should you be, because most of the world plays that way. Doesn't make it the root cause of all that is wrong in RPG-Land.

EDIT: Sorry if I'm sounding snarky. I wasn't really looking for advice on how to roleplay; this was a thread about math. I feel like I showed up to buy a muffler and the guys behind the counter are questioning my driving habits.

 

[iserith]

Really more of a problem with roleplaying games in general. I don't know of a system that handles this well.

You know, it's possible that somebody wants a game to model something that just isn't possible in the rules, and that it's not a function of what's going on "upstream".

I don't discount that possibility, but I explore it anyway to see if it's a root cause. It does not appear to be, as I stated in my last post.

Nor should you be, because most of the world plays that way. Doesn't make it the root cause of all that is wrong in RPG-Land.

EDIT: Sorry if I'm sounding snarky. I wasn't really looking for advice on how to roleplay; this was a thread about math. I feel like I showed up to buy a muffler and the guys behind the counter are questioning my driving habits.

I think the math question has been addressed already. Now we're just having a chat about related issues.

What do your players think about the prospect of having increased uncertainty in their games?