D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[5ekyu]

I agree. The DM's already got two-thirds of the game to describe and narrate. I don't want to intrude upon the player's one-third. I talk so much during games, I have to constantly drink Jameson just to stay hydrated. Imagine my weekly burden.

In my games it much more like 40-60, 40% of the words are from me the Gm and my NPCs and the other 60% is from players. most dialogs are much higher "PC" over "NPC" and while the non-dialog scenes catch it up a bit, there is often quite a bit of time where its just players discussing what they found in character and what it means. I get plenty of time for bathroom breaks while they plot and sift there way through what they have learned.

Tonight;s session ended with them plotting how to work two sides against each other while keeping themselves from getting grabbed and overwhelmed by either while still helping both and finishing the actual mission they are getting paid for.

 

[Maxperson]

you yourself describe using the narration to get more auto-success an fewewr random chances as a "strategy" as a better strategic choice which to me seems to make it a fair statement to describe it as "playing the GM" by giving him more of the bells and whisteles the Gm requires for auto-successes (and fewer failure chances) instead of "playing the game" and relying on your character to have the skill to overcome the challenges.

No it's not a fair statement, unless you think the following is "playing the DM".

DM: You are thirsty.
Player: I get a glass of water and drink it.
DM: Auto success!

All an auto success is, is doing something that makes so much sense that there is no doubt about success. You don't need to know or "play the DM" to do that.

You can take that as derogatory but i do not see it as any different from how you have described it - yourself multiple times - as you describing it as a winning strategy to get more successes.

It is derogatory and dismissive of a playstyle.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I explain to the players that I only need them to state their goal and approach and to hold off on rolling because it is in their best interests.

See, I have to judge whether or not the approach is sufficient to achieve the goal. You might get an auto-success. So, the smart play in this situation in my view is to come up with a fun and reasonable approach to a goal for which you have a related proficiency (just in case you have to roll), then wait for the DM to make a ruling. Asking to roll or forcing a roll is asking for a chance for that d20 to screw you over and/or make you look stupid. It's sometimes funny, but it's not a great survival strategy. (And you don't need extra bad rolls to make the game funny.)

Always aim for auto-success, I say, and treat your skills as insurance against failure on the occasions when the DM calls for a check. In my experience, you will almost always be more successful than players who ask to make or force rolls.

Then I just ignore any rolls they make that I don't ask for. They catch on quick in my experience.

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. Also using your own example of " in their best interests", what if you judge the approach as an automatic failure? At that point it is in the players interest to role or if I agree with the skill and they have it and they role bad, I may ignore the role and let them auto succeed anyway. If you as a GM don't like the skill they used make it an automatic failure even on a 20 and have them re-roll the skill you want. This means there rolls are only suggestions and a buy in to the check. I would only let the players who rolled do the check and if I changed it from the skill they were "leading" me to it might not be good for them. Just because they have a skill and use it doesn't mean it applies or has an effect. If they do have the skills, it applies, and I was going to use it they are just speeding up the game. No problem there.

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.

Because the GM control is still there it does no harm and is really more of hit "I want to try this in character". This topic is basically the result of the GM taking dice roles as law and/or GMs wanting all story and roleplay to be their idea which is a form of railroading players. All GROUP roleplaying games work better if players feel free to role play THEIR CHARACTERS. The cited article points to bais which the GM can choose to ignore, Framing "Players don't frame the die roll stakes -- you do." which GMs still do even if players roll, "The Inevitable Success Shuffle" which is easily fixed by denying additional rolls unless they called it to begin with, Too many rolls is not an issue if they as long as they are quick and relevant (meaning if your scout/rouge in the front is rolling perception to look out for traps, I would ignore your wizards rolls in the back since they would trigger before he sees them, eventually the player will stop calling them after being told the rogue sets them off just before he sees it since the wizard it in the back), Perverse Incentive is solved buy expecting players to say what they are doing but the GM tracking passive skills, if a players roll use the role, if they don't use the passive. A lot of GMs don't us passives and required rolls for everything in which case they need to call it. Ultimately, all the issues with players rolling can be fixed by the GMs approach.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

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.

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 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.

 

[ClaytonCross]

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.

"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.

 

[Maxperson]

"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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[seebs]

I think you're missing the argument. "Good roleplay" is synonymous with "an approach which is likely to achieve a stated goal".

Not in my lexicon.

Good roleplay is interesting and character-appropriate. If the character is a paranoid nutjob, very carefully not searching under the cardboard box because "it's obviously a trap" is good roleplaying but unlikely to achieve the stated goal...

 

[iserith]

you yourself describe using the narration to get more auto-success an fewewr random chances as a "strategy" as a better strategic choice which to me seems to make it a fair statement to describe it as "playing the GM" by giving him more of the bells and whisteles the Gm requires for auto-successes (and fewer failure chances) instead of "playing the game" and relying on your character to have the skill to overcome the challenges.

You can take that as derogatory but i do not see it as any different from how you have described it - yourself multiple times - as you describing it as a winning strategy to get more successes.

From a player's perspective, they have one role in the basic conversation of the game as outlined in the rules: Describe what they want to do. That is, therefore, playing the game regardless of whether the player then follows up with an ability check the DM asks for (or doesn't ask for, as the case may be for some). You don't get to say that one is playing the DM and the other is playing the game. That is dismissive of another's approach on top of being factually wrong.

Describing what you want to do is communicating a goal and approach. "I do X to accomplish Y." The DM then judges whether the approach is suitable to the goal, unsuitable, or whether the outcome is uncertain. In the latter case, he or she calls for a roll of some kind.

A simple statement of goal and approach is not "bells and whistles." Nor do I advocate the DM giving any sort of advantage to the player for acting or writing ability or scientific knowledge or anything of that sort. But if a player removes uncertainty in the situation by describing an approach to a goal that is appropriate to the circumstances as established, then I will say the character automatically succeeds. It is therefore a good strategy in my view for the player to pay attention, describe a reasonably good approach to the goal, and use whatever resources he or she or the party has to avoid rolling. Rolling is the last resort.

What would be the auto-success description for using arcana or religion or others to RECALL info? "i think really hard and check each drawer in my mind without fail?"

What would be the auto-success description for diagnosing a disease in a world of pre-modern medicine and magical afflictions? "I use hot onyx stones applied to the stomach to drive the toad that is growing in his stomach out, placing them precisely."

What would be the auto-success description for pick pocket, tightrope walking, etc?

It depends on the situation, which the DM is tasked with judging while being reasonably fair and consistent.

basically, it seems this approach **could** create two classes of skills or abilities:
those where auto-success narratives are rare if not at all ever encountered (skill score is VERY important)
those where auto-success narratives are somewhat frequent or even just uncommon but **exist enough that it would be described by those familiar with it as a clearly better strategy to work at getting** (where skill score is much less critical.)

if, you, a significant proponent of the approach repeatedly refer to it as such a strong strategic choice over just relying on the character's skill and the mechanics, then it seems that unless you have such a degree of auto-success setup for all skills then you have created these two tiers of skills and scores *or* you must have narrative analogs for all skills.

May not be a worry in your games but i have certainly seen games where players have espoused just such a "good strategy" type reference for shortcutting the character stats on elements where they though their own PLAYER skills at talking and describing would cover that weakness just fine.

Not a worry everybody would have but since i make all players go through a whole bunch of point decisions at chargen and level by level i want to be able to show them in play they all play out equally.

You're describing a DM who isn't being reasonably fair and consistent as far as I can tell. Which says nothing of the actual approach. What does say something of the approach is the DMG: "By balancing the use of dice against deciding on success, you can encourage players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in the world. Remember that dice don't run your game - you do. Dice are like rules. At any time, you can decide that a players action is automatically successful... By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility..." Of the three approaches that are discussed, this is the one that is not called out as having a potential drawback as well.

Those who criticize this approach appear to always be imagining some kind of awful DM in their past. I'm sorry you had to endure that, if that's the case. I've had some bad DMs, too. On the upside, that gives me insight into what not to do.

 

[iserith]

In my games it much more like 40-60, 40% of the words are from me the Gm and my NPCs and the other 60% is from players. most dialogs are much higher "PC" over "NPC" and while the non-dialog scenes catch it up a bit, there is often quite a bit of time where its just players discussing what they found in character and what it means. I get plenty of time for bathroom breaks while they plot and sift there way through what they have learned.

Tonight;s session ended with them plotting how to work two sides against each other while keeping themselves from getting grabbed and overwhelmed by either while still helping both and finishing the actual mission they are getting paid for.

So what I mean by two-thirds versus one-thirds, in case it's not clear, is that there are three steps to the basic conversation of the game (Basic Rules, page 3). The DM controls two of those steps. The players only one.