D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[iserith]

As a rule, when debating various games or systems (on either the full game or part of game level) etc i often ask first of others or even describe first in others the flaws in a system or RPG. i find it works well to do so... avoids a lot of nonproductive blah blah.

Pity you didn't do that here. Instead you appear to have just started making spurious claims and assumptions about what you see as drawbacks based on the most malicious interpretations of other people's posts as possible.

 

[redrick]

I am sorry but i was quite careful in my points there...

The bit about gatekeeper - see the search example with the drawer and the key or many others - where whether or not the description by the player includes looking in the furniture vs on the furniture determines whether or not there is an auto-fail or auto-success. See the other post which emphasizes specifically that a difference is that the one side is seeing it from the perspective of description of action vs setting to see if a roll is needed as opposed to seeing it starting with what shill is needed and then judging for an auto-s/f chance. It seems definitely that some are using the description as the "cut" that may eliminate the mechanics stage. They seem quite sure of that.

The bit about the apparent imbalance between the auto-success and auto-fail, see numerous examples of where it is extolled as a good strategy to let the auto-s/f and work for the auto-s/f with your descriptions because it will improve your success rates over relying on mechanics. That seems to not be an issue in doubt. If the auto-fail was as frequent as the auto-succeed "by the same token" it would not be the case that its a better strategy to work for the auto-s/f instead of relying on the mechanics and the skills your character is good at.

For the third (the example of the mechanics side) I don't see where that is an inaccurate statement - they do not describe holding either piece back from the determination waiting for a tag in from the other.

Do i need to pull multiple quotes from numerous posts to add as a cross-reference for these?

Obviously when discussing side(s) one does not mean everyone on every post is saying the point the exact same way... if so none of our posts about "the difference in sides" would be worth a dang thing.

You seem to be conflating the statements of multiple posters to pull together a Frankenstein's monster of a D&D game.

For instance, the secret compartment behind the dresser drawer than [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] described. This sounds to me like a very fine-grain encounter. The DM has not only identified something hidden in the dresser. They have identified a detailed mechanism for where and how it is hidden, and are prepared for this sort of thing to play out as a prolonged encounter. The players, hopefully, understand the kind of game they are playing, and know that searching a room can require being thorough. I do not imagine that Lanefan is expecting the players to say, "Ok, I've just entered the room with a rug, a bed, a dresser and a mirror. I search the room, looking under the rug, moving the bed, lifting up the mirror, pulling out each dresser drawer and cutting open the back." I imagine that this is meant to be a sequence of actions and investigations. This could just as easily be handled with a sequence of Investigation, Perception and Thieve's Tools skill checks. Any one of those failed checks could mean "no finding the key." This isn't about the action resolution mechanism. It's about the way the DM has set up the adventure and the level of detail with which they'd like to engage that adventure.

I used to create scenarios like the one described above, where searching a random room for random treasure could take 20 minutes or more of game time. Sometimes, I ran them as skill-check heavy encounters, and other times I ran them narratively. These days, I tend not to do that as much — rooms will either have one obviously interesting feature, or character actions will inevitably lead them closer to the target with only a few reasonably well placed actions.

I can't speak to anybody else's game but my own, of course, but the "strategy" that you are referring to is basically one of engaging the fiction. That will be a successful strategy in a game I DM. Paying attention to what the DM says and following up on those things. If, as a DM, I describe a room with 3 features, and, as a player, you ignore those 3 features and just say, "I search the room," you are less likely to achieve your goals than the player who pays attention and says, "Ok, I'm going to check out one of those features." If the player is paying attention, and if the DM is doing a good job at communicating the world to the players, the player will be more likely to attempt successful actions than obviously impossible actions, because the player is not stupid and won't do things that are obviously impossible.

If the players are all having fun detailing exactly how they are disabling or neutralizing a trap using easy to perform actions that do not, individually, have any chance of failure, I'm not going to stop them from doing that. On the other hand, if the players have found a trap, identified its basic mechanism and would like to, "Follow the wires to see how they could be disarmed," I would call for an Investigation check. Which would have a chance of failure. And that's ok. Either way, the game goes on, and hopefully we are all spending time doing what we want to be doing.

 

[Charlaquin]

I am sorry but i was quite careful in my points there...

Careful to present the perspective you don’t agree with in the worst possible light? Yes, I do believe you were.

The bit about gatekeeper - see the search example with the drawer and the key or many others - where whether or not the description by the player includes looking in the furniture vs on the furniture determines whether or not there is an auto-fail or auto-success. See the other post which emphasizes specifically that a difference is that the one side is seeing it from the perspective of description of action vs setting to see if a roll is needed as opposed to seeing it starting with what shill is needed and then judging for an auto-s/f chance. It seems definitely that some are using the description as the "cut" that may eliminate the mechanics stage. They seem quite sure of that.

Both posts of mine, and if what you took away from them was “the goal is a gatekeeper for the roll” then you either completely missed the point or are specifically trying to discredit the point by putting a negative spin on it by using language like “gatekeeping” that implies a draconian DM rule.

First of all, a goal alone is not enough to determine if an action has a chance of success and a chance of failure. Both a goal and an approach are necessary. If the goal is to get to the Moon then the approach of jumping there does not have a chance of success, but the approach of taking a teleportation circle does. Second, the goal and approach are not gatekeepers, barring the players from using the mechanics until they give the right password. The process of evaluating an action’s likelihood of bringing about its goal is part of the mechanics. The dice roll is not something the player is entitled to that the DM is gating them from, it’s a top for determining outcomes of actions; one of many that are available for the DM to use at their discretion.

The bit about the apparent imbalance between the auto-success and auto-fail, see numerous examples of where it is extolled as a good strategy to let the auto-s/f and work for the auto-s/f with your descriptions because it will improve your success rates over relying on mechanics. That seems to not be an issue in doubt. If the auto-fail was as frequent as the auto-succeed "by the same token" it would not be the case that its a better strategy to work for the auto-s/f instead of relying on the mechanics and the skills your character is good at.

You’re leaving out a key part of isireth’s argument for describing actions and waiting for the DM’s call as an effective strategy. They recommend utilizing one’s understanding of the game world and the mechanics and describing an approach that seems like it will be likely to achieve the desired goal, and utilizes a Skill you have a good bonus in, so that auto-failure is lsss likely (since the action is reasonable), and if auto-success is not possible your Skills give you a good chance at succeeding the roll. Leaving this key part out is either missing isireth’s point or actively trying to make it look foolish.

For the third (the example of the mechanics side) I don't see where that is an inaccurate statement - they do not describe holding either piece back from the determination waiting for a tag in from the other.

It’s not inaccurate, but it is misleading, by implying that “player skill and character skill working in tandem with neither held hostage to the other” is a goal that only one side holds, when the reality is that this is what we both aim for, we just go about it in different ways. Likely in part because we have different ideas about what “player skill and character skill working in tandem” looks like.

Do i need to pull multiple quotes from numerous posts to add as a cross-reference for these?

No, you just need to stop putting a negative spin on the arguments of the perspective you don’t hold and a positive spin on the one you do. This spin is distorting either how you are reading and interpreting those arguments, or in how you are writing about them and hoping they will be interpreted. And the more this gets pointed out to you, the harder it gets to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s the former.

 

[5ekyu]

By all means, give me an example of a scenario where how close the player gets to the moon with a jump is a critical factor. If you can, I imagine you will likely have found a scenario where a roll would be necessary to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of the action.


Ok, ignoring the fact that long jump distance isn't determined by a roll in 5th Edition, If a player says, "I try to jump across the gap," I can easily ascertain their goal (get to the other side of the gap), and their approach (by jumping). Since this approach has no chance of accomplishing the goal (again, assuming I'm using some house rule to determine long jump distance by way of a check),

This really, really comes off like you are trying to undermine the position of those who prefer the goal-and-approach style by making that style look foolish. No one but you has put forward that players choosing approaches that have no chance of accomplishing their goals (not the same thing as choosing goals that are impossible) is frequently a problem in games where the DM employs the goal-and-approach style of task resolution. And the apparent frequency of such situations in the examples under discussion are a direct result of your prompting for examples of such.


I'm confused. You're saying you're rolling to see what the characters find in a graveyard where nothing is hidden? What are they rolling to find if there's nothing hidden? Things that are already in plain sight?


Ok. What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

First partial graph - see above - in a post i made a few moments ago - impossible goal stated 9moon) yet roll can determine important facts even with the goal not being achievable.

Second partial graph - Also covered recently - the PHB itself lists a check for jumping unusually long distances.

Third graph - first you seem confused here on this part since we are in the (portion you quoted) specifically discussing the case of not only where it was defining impossible goals" but also a case where the moon jump was not brought into play by me, where the responder to my post specifically cited the time it takes up as why to not make the roll for the moon jump. So, while your nice graph about cases that are not impossible defined goals is all good as it stands it seems to not be related in the least to the post and response you attached it too.

Fourth graph - I honestly cannot imagine how you missed this but i answered your question about why a roll might be made (or passive checks used) in the section you quoted - there right there. the results of the passive search or active roll would be made to use as a gauge for how much or what each character found during their search thru the graveyard... which maybe be as simple as "the character with the better search covers more ground more thoroughly than the others with lesser skills *or* knows the more likely places to turn up stuff and focuses on those first.

Final graph - it was just an in game analog to the graveyard search issue which happened to happen the night before. Ships filled with bodies, no threats, no hidden elements but a lot of ground to go through looking for info and stuff about what happened and where the PCs gathered lots on this and thats as a part of that search. Their character's search-relevant skills will play a serious role in the final decisions on what they found (on the individual character level) even though the scene was mostly back and forth narrative without checks.

Now maybe you are seeing this as a case of "but the PCs are moving in a cluster" and so that is part of the confusion? maybe, maybe not, but in my experience it is not uncommon at all for characters to go thru an area in "tactical group mode" until they know its "clear" and then do the more thorough gathering of stuff once the "area is secured." Obviously different from the group search thru lots of stuff during the still undecided action/danger/at-risk phase of the encounter. In still unfolding "danger situations" it is actually quite rare for my guys to thoroughly search bodies and dressers and rooms and yards before the neighboring threats are resolved. those exceptions would include specific needs such as getting a key from a guard or if they know they do not intend to "clear the area" *and* the search is in furtherance to the objective.



So, in my campaign, examples like the ghost ships are cases where the group is dividing up and searching thru known cleared areas for stuff worth taking - even if nothing is "hidden" they still need to sort or stuff "worth taking" and stuff "not worth taking" in most cases.

 

[redrick]

Do you realize that post was in direct response to a claim which said there would be no roll because the goal of the jump to the moon was not in doubt?

In my post while the goal of jumping to the other side of the bridge span was not in doubt, i could still use a skill check to determine relevant aspects about the scenario and the effort.

Right?

Again as i have said likely more times than i can count (and which that exchange highlights) the goal might have a place to the action if it clarifies some aspects of the effort but the goal *should* not IMo be a form of gatekeeper for whether or not a roll is made.

That was the point.

If the players are stating a goal and approach for which the outcome is certain failure, I will not call for a check. Instead, I will look to clarify with the player why they think their goal is possible. This could mean giving more information to the player about the scene, or it could mean asking the player what they think their character can do that I think they cannot. It could mean learning about a new spell or class feature that I did not fully understand and revising my own understanding of what is possible.

DM: You enter a small room. A worn stone table stands in the center of the room.
PLAYER: I pick up the table.
DM: It looks like it weighs a ton.
PLAYER: Oh, never mind.
PLAYER: Oh, ok. Guys, maybe we can all push this table together and get it to move across the room?
PLAYERS: Sounds like a great plan.
DM: Ok, only three of you can get around the table.
PLAYERS: Ok, Bob, Rob and Job will try to push the table towards the door.
DM: Great. You three, give me a group Athletics check.

 

[5ekyu]

Add me to the list of people interested in what case this works in where I wouldn't also judge that there's uncertainty and call for a roll. If it's important how high you get, then it's important. The goal then is to get high, not jump to the moon.

Well, no, because I have reasonable players and I'm not trying to be a dick. If your argument hinges on the assumption that my players engage in poor goal setting and that I then enforce a zero-tolerance policy on resolution, you're barking up not only the wrong tree, but doing it maliciously. Why would you assume that my players and I are on such different pages and that our only resolution of such an expectation mismatch is for me to screw over their outlandish demands in game?

First graph... So you are describing a case where the player did not state a goal of jump to the moon... thats fine but has nothing to do with the stated and responded to case, right?


Second graph... can you clarify where i said any of that about you or your players? Come on, sure you can because otherwise you would be inventing something "my argument hinges upon" which was just not there. So lets be clear, the post i responded too was about a case defined by others of a stated "jump to the moon" goal and then later where it was stated clearly "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". In that specific case i responded to it was clear the poster was referencing players defining impossible goals, the time it takes to resolve the rolls and the frequency of those rolls and the problems they cause.

So it does not seem that out of line to wonder about how often those things do indeed happen in their game that they need a process to cut down that time.

And, again, since you were not that poster, its baffling how you take that response to someone else's post as being something focused on or aimed at your or your players.

Are you and the other poster the same person under different IDs? if so that might explain your transference.

Are you?

 

[5ekyu]

Are you suggesting the DM is balancing out granting automatic success against establishing automatic failure?

No, i think i was pretty clearly making the case they were not. it would not be a sensible strategy to work in general if the GM did balance them and the player's *strategic choice of how to approach the game* (much different than the player's choice of how to approach an in game situation) took their character's mechanical advantages and traded them off for a 50/50 balance of GM aut0-s/f. (yes i admit that this assumes that a player using a character's strengths thru the actual mechanical process is better than 50/50. but IMX that is usually the case when an auto-success is even being considered.)

 

[5ekyu]

Pity you didn't do that here. Instead you appear to have just started making spurious claims and assumptions about what you see as drawbacks based on the most malicious interpretations of other people's posts as possible.

I am pretty sure i am not the one of us who claimed their resolution choice has no potential drawbacks.

 

[5ekyu]

You seem to be conflating the statements of multiple posters to pull together a Frankenstein's monster of a D&D game.

For instance, the secret compartment behind the dresser drawer than [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] described. This sounds to me like a very fine-grain encounter. The DM has not only identified something hidden in the dresser. They have identified a detailed mechanism for where and how it is hidden, and are prepared for this sort of thing to play out as a prolonged encounter. The players, hopefully, understand the kind of game they are playing, and know that searching a room can require being thorough. I do not imagine that Lanefan is expecting the players to say, "Ok, I've just entered the room with a rug, a bed, a dresser and a mirror. I search the room, looking under the rug, moving the bed, lifting up the mirror, pulling out each dresser drawer and cutting open the back." I imagine that this is meant to be a sequence of actions and investigations. This could just as easily be handled with a sequence of Investigation, Perception and Thieve's Tools skill checks. Any one of those failed checks could mean "no finding the key." This isn't about the action resolution mechanism. It's about the way the DM has set up the adventure and the level of detail with which they'd like to engage that adventure.

I used to create scenarios like the one described above, where searching a random room for random treasure could take 20 minutes or more of game time. Sometimes, I ran them as skill-check heavy encounters, and other times I ran them narratively. These days, I tend not to do that as much — rooms will either have one obviously interesting feature, or character actions will inevitably lead them closer to the target with only a few reasonably well placed actions.

I can't speak to anybody else's game but my own, of course, but the "strategy" that you are referring to is basically one of engaging the fiction. That will be a successful strategy in a game I DM. Paying attention to what the DM says and following up on those things. If, as a DM, I describe a room with 3 features, and, as a player, you ignore those 3 features and just say, "I search the room," you are less likely to achieve your goals than the player who pays attention and says, "Ok, I'm going to check out one of those features." If the player is paying attention, and if the DM is doing a good job at communicating the world to the players, the player will be more likely to attempt successful actions than obviously impossible actions, because the player is not stupid and won't do things that are obviously impossible.

If the players are all having fun detailing exactly how they are disabling or neutralizing a trap using easy to perform actions that do not, individually, have any chance of failure, I'm not going to stop them from doing that. On the other hand, if the players have found a trap, identified its basic mechanism and would like to, "Follow the wires to see how they could be disarmed," I would call for an Investigation check. Which would have a chance of failure. And that's ok. Either way, the game goes on, and hopefully we are all spending time doing what we want to be doing.

Again, as with any discussion of sides or such it is not normally seen as a statement that everyone is exactly the same.

if your interpretation when i said "side" or "side(s)" that i meant it as universal, applying to everybody of some group, you are mistaken and i would wonder did you make similar posts about all the other posters who referenced in one way or the other what the others on other sides in broad terms seem to be saying?

 

[iserith]

I am pretty sure i am not the one of us who claimed their resolution choice has no potential drawbacks.

I was paraphrasing the DMG. But what does that have to do with the rest of your uncharitable posts that totally mischaracterize the approaches of others?