D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[5ekyu]

Huh?



I don't know what you mean by "fiats" here. In many forum discussions, that's a word that carries a derogatory meaning by those who have a problem with the DM making decisions appropriate to his or her role as described by the rules of the game. But I'll be charitable and simply ask what you mean by it. Because despite all the little digs you've been making this entire conversation (from which you frequently retreat when called out on it), maybe this time you don't actually mean it to be derogatory.

In any case, what a player describes comes first. The character can't do anything unless the player puts him or her in the fictional position to do so via reasonable specificity. The context of the fictional situation plus the stated approach to the goal informs the DM as to whether the task succeeds, fails, or is uncertain. It's smart play in my view to undertake tasks your character is good at, in case you have to roll, but to aim for automatic success as much as possible to avoid rolling.

fiat as in a unilateral decisions made by the GM - say contrasted with one determined by some mechanical check of character vs difficulty.

Would you be happier with "executive order"? If so, fine call it an executive order.

And thanska agin for reiterating what we agree on - the player must declare then the process begins (well except for say passive checks and except for when things happen to the character and those other cases but other than those and maybe others...) and then at some point there is a GM decision between "do we use mechanics to resolve" and "do i just tell them a result" (oft portrayed as the decision of uncertainty) and that is true for both sides it seems on this difference in style of resolution.

Where the difference lies is in what goes into the pot to make that decision of uncertainty and how much it should play a role (or be played/playable to get ahead) and the key difference seems to be the roles and impact of the character stats (possibly for some skills over others) in this soup vs the way the player chooses to describe their "character's actions" (which may well vary greatly from player to player.

heck, in one case, its even the behavior of the player at the table - they seem to take notes - being used for the "executive order - yay or nay"

 

[Charlaquin]

Another pattern I've noticed in this discussion. The player-assigned-rolls camp tends to frame actions in terms of what checks are being made, for which auto success and auto failure might be ways of resolving the checks, depending on the circumstances. The action-and-approach-determines-results camp tends to frame actions in terms of the player's input and the logical outcomes of those input, and checks as a means of resolving uncertainty in the outcome.

This is one of the places we're talking past each other. I think some of us are thinking in terms of "there is a hidden object, therefore a check is required to find it, and here are the ways a player can earn automatic success or failure on that check." Under that assumption, it is understandable that one might view another DM using the player's declared action as the primary means of determining the action's success or failure as being overly focused on precise wording. But this is not how those of us who use a player's declared action as the primary means of determining success and failure are approaching the situation where there is an object hidden in the room. A check is not assumed, and auto success and auto failure are not things you earn on that check based on how you phrase your action. There is an object hidden in the room, and there are many ways it might be found. A player can describe how they are going about trying to find the hidden object, and the result will be what ever is the most logical outcome of that action. If the most logical outcome of that action is not obvious to the DM, then and only then is a check made.

This is one of the main reasons I prefer the goal-and-approach method. I prefer description, rather than Skills, to be the players' primary means of interfacing with the game world, and for dice to be a tool for resolving actions that do not have otherwise obvious outcomes, rather than the primary determining factor of success and failure, which can be bypassed under the right conditions.

 

[iserith]

Where the difference lies is in what goes into the pot to make that decision of uncertainty and how much it should play a role (or be played/playable to get ahead) and the key difference seems to be the roles and impact of the character stats (possibly for some skills over others) in this soup vs the way the player chooses to describe their "character's actions" (which may well vary greatly from player to player.

I think I pointed out way in the beginning of this discussion that these are all distinctions already pointed out by the DMG (pages 236-237). There are three main methods. Two of them have potential drawbacks. I advocate for the one that doesn't.

 

[redrick]

Another pattern I've noticed in this discussion. The player-assigned-rolls camp tends to frame actions in terms of what checks are being made, for which auto success and auto failure might be ways of resolving the checks, depending on the circumstances. The action-and-approach-determines-results camp tends to frame actions in terms of the player's input and the logical outcomes of those input, and checks as a means of resolving uncertainty in the outcome.

This is one of the places we're talking past each other. I think some of us are thinking in terms of "there is a hidden object, therefore a check is required to find it, and here are the ways a player can earn automatic success or failure on that check." Under that assumption, it is understandable that one might view another DM using the player's declared action as the primary means of determining the action's success or failure as being overly focused on precise wording. But this is not how those of us who use a player's declared action as the primary means of determining success and failure are approaching the situation where there is an object hidden in the room. A check is not assumed, and auto success and auto failure are not things you earn on that check based on how you phrase your action. There is an object hidden in the room, and there are many ways it might be found. A player can describe how they are going about trying to find the hidden object, and the result will be what ever is the most logical outcome of that action. If the most logical outcome of that action is not obvious to the DM, then and only then is a check made.

This is one of the main reasons I prefer the goal-and-approach method. I prefer description, rather than Skills, to be the players' primary means of interfacing with the game world, and for dice to be a tool for resolving actions that do not have otherwise obvious outcomes, rather than the primary determining factor of success and failure, which can be bypassed under the right conditions.

Well put.
[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], when you describe the actual approach used in your game, it sounds like a consistent and legit game. You might go to the dice more than I would like to, and I'm sure there are stylistic differences between all of us, but it doesn't sound like you're playing it wrong. What I keep tripping up on is the way you describe the "goal-and-approach method," as termed by [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION], because it just doesn't sound like you are describing the game I'm playing, and certainly not the game I aspire to play. That's all.

 

[iserith]

This is one of the places we're talking past each other. I think some of us are thinking in terms of "there is a hidden object, therefore a check is required to find it, and here are the ways a player can earn automatic success or failure on that check." Under that assumption, it is understandable that one might view another DM using the player's declared action as the primary means of determining the action's success or failure as being overly focused on precise wording. But this is not how those of us who use a player's declared action as the primary means of determining success and failure are approaching the situation where there is an object hidden in the room. A check is not assumed, and auto success and auto failure are not things you earn on that check based on how you phrase your action. There is an object hidden in the room, and there are many ways it might be found. A player can describe how they are going about trying to find the hidden object, and the result will be what ever is the most logical outcome of that action. If the most logical outcome of that action is not obvious to the DM, then and only then is a check made.

I think there's also a pretty transparent attempt to suggest that judging a goal and approach is somehow less fair than going straight to the dice for resolution. That it's unfair to certain kinds of players or devalues certain builds, etc. It's a tactic to win an argument so far as I can tell, which is odd because there's no argument to win here. We're discussing our preferences.

In general, I've noticed there's also this conflation of actions and checks as if they are the same thing. (To be fair, I've seen that in other discussions more than in this one.) "You lied, therefore you make a Deception check." Like any action that sounds like it might fit a proficiency gets a check. Things that don't cleanly line up with a proficiency doesn't get a check. I blame previous editions of the game for that. If someone is inclined to conflate actions and checks, then an action without a check seems weird, I imagine.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, there's a goal and approach there. So sure, your leg's caught in the bear trap now. You hear a bear approaching from the West.

Wait, a bear set the trap?!? We're all doomed.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

There is no roll. Why? Because it's a bloody waste of time. Everyone knows that it's an auto fail, so making the player roll to see whether he gets 2 feet or 3 feet into the air is useless. That's why the DMG says that you roll when the outcome is in doubt. Rolling for every little thing drags the game down like not pulling the anchor up on a boat before sailing off.

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.

Sure, because unlike jumping to the moon, searching a dress might yield a success and the outcome is in doubt. Unless of course they get more specific and remove that doubt.

Let's say there is a hollow panel in the bottom of one of those drawers. Are you seriously going to require a player to roll an investigation check to find it if the player specifies that his PC is taking the drawer out and cutting gently though the bottom in case the panel is hollow?

 

[Charlaquin]

I think there's also a pretty transparent attempt to suggest that judging a goal and approach is somehow less fair than going straight to the dice for resolution. That it's unfair to certain kinds of players or devalues certain builds, etc. It's a tactic to win an argument so far as I can tell, which is odd because there's no argument to win here. We're discussing our preferences.

I agree, but I wasn't going to be the one to point it out (imagine a sweat bead smiley, since we don't seem to have one)

In general, I've noticed there's also this conflation of actions and checks as if they are the same thing. (To be fair, I've seen that in other discussions more than in this one.) "You lied, therefore you make a Deception check." Like any action that sounds like it might fit a proficiency gets a check. Things that don't cleanly line up with a proficiency doesn't get a check. I blame previous editions of the game for that. If someone is inclined to conflate actions and checks, then an action without a check seems weird, I imagine.

Agreed. For me, a check is one possible means of resolving an action. Specifically, the means used when the outcome of the action is uncertain. That's why we don't make Dexterity checks to tie our shoes or Strength checks to lift our own weapons. And this actions=checks way of thinking does seem to me to come from a very 3e mindset, though it was present to an extent in 4e as well.

 

[Maxperson]

"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?"

The wizard has a 20 int and learned the info 1 minute before, but the player forgot.

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."

The healer has spent a lifetime with this particular disease and knows it intimately.

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

The victim you are pickpocketing is unconscious. The tightrope is made for titans and is 6 feet across.

Got more? Not every situation is going to have an auto success or failure, but situations where there is an auto failure or success do exist.

 

[robus]

I think I pointed out way in the beginning of this discussion that these are all distinctions already pointed out by the DMG (pages 236-237). There are three main methods. Two of them have potential drawbacks. I advocate for the one that doesn't.

I don’t know if your patience is admirable or foolhardy, but it’s certainly impressive!