D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[5ekyu]

I didn't assume that, I said it happens that way more often than not (which has been the case in my experience). But players initiating rolls on their own is still disruptive, even if they do describe their actions in terms of goals and approaches, for the reasons I already stated.


But in two of those three situations there was no roll necessary to determine the result. The dice are there to resolve actions with uncertain outcomes. If there is no uncertainty, than rolling the dice only interrupts the narrative flow of the game.


It's the player's approach, not the circumstances, which determine the Attribute that governs the task and what Proficiencies are applicable. For example, if the player had said, "I pretend to be drunk and bump into the guy, grabbing his coin purse in the exchange," I'd probably call that Dexterity (Deception). But I wouldn't know that the task required Deception before the player described what they were doing. You can see how that might cause problems if the player told me the result of their Sleight of Hand check in the same breath as they described an action that would be better resolved with Deception.


I didn't say having players on the same page is counter to my process as a GM, I said it isn't conducive to my process. For the purposes of resolving a roll, it doesn't really matter to me whether the player is on the same page as me regarding what the Skills and Attributes are for or not.


Sure, I agree with you on that. That's why, for example, I point out to players who haven't played in my games before that I run the Perception/Investigation split a little differently than most DMs do (specifically, I think most GMs tend to use Investigation for active searching and Perception for indirectly noticing things, whereas I use Perception for noticing sensory details and Investigation for interpreting information - for example, Perception will tell you there's a draft coming from the wall, Investigation will tell you that it could be coming from the seam in a secret door.)


My process has nothing to do with maintaining control or lack of trust of my players and everything to do with insuring the game flows as smoothly as possible. Cutting down on unnecessary dice rolls. Keep the focus on what is occuring in the fiction of the game world, instead of on numbers and "checks."

First bold - that is at best a feeling not an axiom. to me a player rolling a dice and telling a result as he describes his action is not disruptive at all. its efficient. "i rolled a 17" is not less "gamey" or more "gamey" than " i go over to the bar and try and lift his purse."

Second bold - Sorry but, yes, and this is something i have said several times - if a player if experienced with the system and your game enough to have a good reason to know what the check requires - thats what i am referring to.

In my experience a player who does not know what should be rolled tends to ask more often than not or just describes and waits. The more experienced played will *if* they believe they know the check required for their description - go ahead and make the rolls (in my games and some others i have seen.)

Is it possible that the player can err? Sure. But so can the Gm.

Ok sure, not going to quibble over conducive counter and 50 shades of thesauri but for me and my games - me and the player being on the same page as to what skill and check applies IN PLAY in actual session is vital. that should be fed by the chargen and past experience but if in actual play the player and i have differing views on it, thats to me a major issue - assuming not some mystery surprise element cooking the books by turning it into a special case.

Like say, if a Gm tells me in play when it matters my insight check determines whether or not i hide my feeling as opposed to my deception skill. That "not on same page" would nother me greatly - likely only for a short time tho. of course, i would deal with it after session where possible.

 

[5ekyu]

No offense, but I feel like you've made a lot of posts like this that put words in peoples' mouths. Assuming he allows you to retcon your targets based on your rolls is a crazy conclusion to jump to from his post. I don't mean to speak for him, but my interpretation of his meaning is that it is probably something like this...

SITUATION WHERE PLAYER DOESN'T ROLL FIRST
===
Player: I want to lift his purse. Should I roll Slight of Hand?

DM: Actually, make a Perception check.

Player: Okay... 18.

DM: You notice he has multiple, including one on his belt in the open, which could probably be taken without drawing his attention, but also one on an inner pocket in his jacket, which would take some skill to get at. You can make a Slight of Hand check to get at either, but the inner one will be more difficult.

Player: Oh, I'll just try and snatch the one off his belt I guess... 23! Man, I should have gone for the better one!
===

SITUATION WHERE PLAYER DOES ROLL FIRST
===
Player: I want to lift his purse... That's a 23 for Slight of Hand.
===

See? What purse is the player in situation 2 rolling for? They jumped the gun and as such rolled before being able to choose a target, so why should they be rewarded by getting to choose after knowing that they got a great roll?

Acutally, i am pretty sure you are now in this post putting words into his mouth... those words are involving a perception roll.

What he described was exactly this
[Player says] "I walk into a bar and lift a guys purse."
"Prerolling can lead to metagame issues. What if the three purses had different difficulties to steal. The player already knows they rolled a 23, say, so when the GM asks which purse, they are going to pick the most difficult one. If they had rolled a 13, say, they might pick the easiest one."

Now, replace pickpocket action terms with to-hit attack action terms.
[Player says] "I walk into the room and stab a goblin."
**Prerolling can lead to metagame issues. What if the three goblins had different ACs. The player already knows they rolled a 23, say, so when the GM asks which goblin, they are going to pick the most heavily armored one. If they had rolled a 13, say, they might pick the lightest armored one.."

See thats the same thing. i just changed the context to spotlight the assumption that some meta-game question suddenly emerged because we are talking skill checks and pre-rolls.


but, as i tried to allude to, the issue really with that post was its describing a broadly general activity and not a specific "action."

its more like describing a downtime activity " go out to bar and lift a purse" as opposed to "i go over there and lift the purse off that guy with the hat."

its also assuming a definite "not playing fair" intent to the player.

if you cannot trust your players to play fair... yes any sort of pre-roll is bad but...honestly - pre-roll vs post-roll is likely not in your top ten problems.

 

[Phazonfish]

Acutally, i am pretty sure you are now in this post putting words into his mouth... those words are involving a perception roll.

What he described was exactly this
[Player says] "I walk into a bar and lift a guys purse."
"Prerolling can lead to metagame issues. What if the three purses had different difficulties to steal. The player already knows they rolled a 23, say, so when the GM asks which purse, they are going to pick the most difficult one. If they had rolled a 13, say, they might pick the easiest one."

Now, replace pickpocket action terms with to-hit attack action terms.
[Player says] "I walk into the room and stab a goblin."
**Prerolling can lead to metagame issues. What if the three goblins had different ACs. The player already knows they rolled a 23, say, so when the GM asks which goblin, they are going to pick the most heavily armored one. If they had rolled a 13, say, they might pick the lightest armored one.."

See thats the same thing. i just changed the context to spotlight the assumption that some meta-game question suddenly emerged because we are talking skill checks and pre-rolls.


but, as i tried to allude to, the issue really with that post was its describing a broadly general activity and not a specific "action."

its more like describing a downtime activity " go out to bar and lift a purse" as opposed to "i go over there and lift the purse off that guy with the hat."

its also assuming a definite "not playing fair" intent to the player.

if you cannot trust your players to play fair... yes any sort of pre-roll is bad but...honestly - pre-roll vs post-roll is likely not in your top ten problems.

Do keep in mind, as I stated, I was providing that I claimed to be something along the lines of what he meant, not claiming to be clarifying what he said. Unless I'm not understanding you correctly, in which case please clarify, but it definitely looks as though you are splitting hairs. Anyways...

Your change of context doesn't help matters. Pre-rolling IS bad in both situations. As for trusting the players when given that information, it's possible to not trust someone even if said person is trustworthy. Once that information is out and you have "poisoned the well", any choice made is dubious; I wouldn't even trust myself not to act on it, because how could you not? Sure, you could choose to take the worse option to "prove" you weren't exploiting information you wouldn't have, but would you really have not? Sometimes.

 

[Charlaquin]

First bold - that is at best a feeling not an axiom.

Of course it’s a feeling. And how a game feels is important. Personally, the feeling I want to cultivate in my games is one of narrative-first. Where describing what your character does narratively is the player’s primary means of interfacing with the world. I want the mechanics to fade into the background as much as possible. If that’s not an important part of the way you want your games to feel, that’s cool. More power to you and your players.

to me a player rolling a dice and telling a result as he describes his action is not disruptive at all. its efficient. "i rolled a 17" is not less "gamey" or more "gamey" than " i go over to the bar and try and lift his purse."

Ugh, I hate GSN theory. I don’t really care if it’s “gamey” or not, what I care about is how my game expects players to approach it. When you want to achive a goal, like grabbing someone’s coin purse, are you thinking in terms of how Locke the halfling rogue is going to walk up silently behind the man at the bar who has clearly had one too many and deftly cut the strings of his belt pouch with his dagger? Or are you thinking about it in terms of rolling a check with the Sleight of Hand Skill, which you have a +12 Bonus to and will succeed on a Hard difficulty check with any roll better than a 2? More importantly (because I can’t police your thoughts, nor would I want to if I could), which way do you say it? Because those two approaches are going to have very different effects on the overall tone of the game for the other players who are hearing you declare your action.

Second bold - Sorry but, yes, and this is something i have said several times - if a player if experienced with the system and your game enough to have a good reason to know what the check requires - thats what i am referring to.

In my experience a player who does not know what should be rolled tends to ask more often than not or just describes and waits. The more experienced played will *if* they believe they know the check required for their description - go ahead and make the rolls (in my games and some others i have seen.)

Yep, that’s my experience too. That’s why I often prefer to run for less experienced players, as they tend to have fewer bad habits to unlearn.

Is it possible that the player can err? Sure. But so can the Gm.

In what check they say a task calls for? Uhh, if I say a task needs a Dexterity (Deception) check, then a Dexterity (Deception) check is what it needs in my game. Sure, GMs can make mistakes, but I don’t see how that’s relevant to this particular discussion.

Ok sure, not going to quibble over conducive counter and 50 shades of thesauri

Please don’t be passive aggressive about my word choice. You misinterpreted my meaning and I clarified, let’s not turn this into a big deal.

but for me and my games - me and the player being on the same page as to what skill and check applies IN PLAY in actual session is vital. that should be fed by the chargen and past experience but if in actual play the player and i have differing views on it, thats to me a major issue - assuming not some mystery surprise element cooking the books by turning it into a special case.

Ok.

Like say, if a Gm tells me in play when it matters my insight check determines whether or not i hide my feeling as opposed to my deception skill. That "not on same page" would nother me greatly - likely only for a short time tho. of course, i would deal with it after session where possible.

To be clear, I didn’t agree with the way that example from the article in the OP was ruled either. You’re countering an argument I didn’t make.

 

[ad_hoc]

I have asked my players not to do this for 3 reasons.

1) As mentioned ability checks are not like the 3.x skill checks. They only occur if the following 3 things are true:

- The outcome is in doubt
- There is a consequence for failure
- It is interesting

The last one is important. Sometimes players want to declare things then roll and say look at how great my roll is ~ when my reaction is to hand wave it and get back to the game that everyone is playing because what they are doing isn't interesting.

2) It gets players out of the habit from declaring: "I am using X skill" to saying what they are actually doing. Players who like to declare their skill and then immediately roll tend do it in tandem. Getting rid of one is needed to get rid of the other.

Here is an example: "I intimidate him" to which I will respond "well, what generally are you saying?" (I don't actually require the players to talk for their characters verbatim as the players probably don't have the level of charisma skills that the characters do).

How well matched the intimidation is to the opponent's fears will determine auto-success, DC, or auto-failure.

3)It's just nice for the flow of the game for everyone to be on the same page. This is how 5e does it and if half the table does it this way and the other half don't, it causes issues and confusion.

 

[the_redbeard]

I find this behavior rude as hell, and it is disrespectful to the role of the DM. I'm not there to adjudicate a dice roll. You can go play Neverwinter Nights if all you want to do is roll an ability check of off your character sheet.

I DM because I want to present an interesting interactive environment with difficult challenges and then be surprised at how you propose solving those challenges. It's pretty boring if all you use is your character sheet.

The rules only exist to help the DM adjudicate the player actions, and to give the player a reasonable expectation of their abilities. They're tools, not straightjackets.

Others have given reasons I agree with. I often don't know if a check is necessary, let alone what ability/skill/tool or finally the DC of a task until I've heard how the player narrates their character's approach. It short circuits any other players being involved, learning other details with clarifying questions, etc. Even in combat, if you're not using the imagined environment you're missing out on an advantage you could have.

Narrating your actions instead of just calling out a skill check helps everyone at the table build the imaginary world. It gives me as a DM detail to help me build the scene and like an actor at an improv, say "yes, AND ". You're short changing yourself and killing the experience for everyone.

 

[5ekyu]

Do keep in mind, as I stated, I was providing that I claimed to be something along the lines of what he meant, not claiming to be clarifying what he said. Unless I'm not understanding you correctly, in which case please clarify, but it definitely looks as though you are splitting hairs. Anyways...

Your change of context doesn't help matters. Pre-rolling IS bad in both situations. As for trusting the players when given that information, it's possible to not trust someone even if said person is trustworthy. Once that information is out and you have "poisoned the well", any choice made is dubious; I wouldn't even trust myself not to act on it, because how could you not? Sure, you could choose to take the worse option to "prove" you weren't exploiting information you wouldn't have, but would you really have not? Sometimes.

uhhh we definitely have an issue of what "trustworthy" means.

in answer tyo your question, if i had already decided which one to pick, i would keep to that regardless of roll.
if i had not decided which to pick, i would roll randomly. because **obviously** i was not being "picky" about it before i rolled, so no need to be suddenly "picky" about it after the roll. But, honestly, most of the time my response would be "i dont care, you pick one" and wait for the fun.

IF i had a Gm who had shown that it was a bad idea to be this "devil may care" and who had shown a penchant for "not default to competence" then of course they would have taught me that *for that game* this kind of "loose specification" was a bad idea and i would handle it differently. Just like "you did not say you looked up" taught certain behaviors back in the day.

But as stated, i can DEFINITELY see not wanting players to be ****ALLOWED**** (insert booming echo chamber effects and likely use Morgan Freeman's voice for that word) to pre-roll checks for GMs who have concerns about trust or trust issues with their players.

 

[iserith]

Ok sure, not going to quibble over conducive counter and 50 shades of thesauri but for me and my games - me and the player being on the same page as to what skill and check applies IN PLAY in actual session is vital. that should be fed by the chargen and past experience but if in actual play the player and i have differing views on it, thats to me a major issue - assuming not some mystery surprise element cooking the books by turning it into a special case.

I mitigate this by only asking for ability checks and leaving it to the players to apply a proficiency they think fits their described goal and approach, if applicable.

 

[Charlaquin]

But as stated, i can DEFINITELY see not wanting players to be ****ALLOWED**** (insert booming echo chamber effects and likely use Morgan Freeman's voice for that word)

Could you not do this, please? It makes it really difficult to have a civil discussion when you are dismissive and mocking towards other people’s arguments.

to pre-roll checks for GMs who have concerns about trust or trust issues with their players.

I think for most GMs who don’t allow players to initiate their own checks, it isn’t about trust, it’s about emphasis. When players initiate their own rolls, the order of operations is “I want to make this check. Here’s what it looks like for my character to do that,” or “Here’s what my character does so I can make this check.” The emphasis is on the mechanics, and the narrative exists as a justification for the use of that system. When the DM calls for the roll based on the player’s description, the order of operations is “here’s what my character does.” “Ok, make this check to see how that turns out.” The emphasis is on the narrative, and the mechanics exist to resolve uncertain narrative outcomes. That may seem like a subtle distinction, but it has a significant impact on game feel. Which approach you prefer, if any, is a matter of preference. I just prefer the narrative-first focus.

 

[5ekyu]

Of course it’s a feeling. And how a game feels is important. Personally, the feeling I want to cultivate in my games is one of narrative-first. Where describing what your character does narratively is the player’s primary means of interfacing with the world. I want the mechanics to fade into the background as much as possible. If that’s not an important part of the way you want your games to feel, that’s cool. More power to you and your players.


Ugh, I hate GSN theory. I don’t really care if it’s “gamey” or not, what I care about is how my game expects players to approach it. When you want to achive a goal, like grabbing someone’s coin purse, are you thinking in terms of how Locke the halfling rogue is going to walk up silently behind the man at the bar who has clearly had one too many and deftly cut the strings of his belt pouch with his dagger? Or are you thinking about it in terms of rolling a check with the Sleight of Hand Skill, which you have a +12 Bonus to and will succeed on a Hard difficulty check with any roll better than a 2? More importantly (because I can’t police your thoughts, nor would I want to if I could), which way do you say it? Because those two approaches are going to have very different effects on the overall tone of the game for the other players who are hearing you declare your action.


Yep, that’s my experience too. That’s why I often prefer to run for less experienced players, as they tend to have fewer bad habits to unlearn.


In what check they say a task calls for? Uhh, if I say a task needs a Dexterity (Deception) check, then a Dexterity (Deception) check is what it needs in my game. Sure, GMs can make mistakes, but I don’t see how that’s relevant to this particular discussion.


Please don’t be passive aggressive about my word choice. You misinterpreted my meaning and I clarified, let’s not turn this into a big deal.


Ok.


To be clear, I didn’t agree with the way that example from the article in the OP was ruled either. You’re countering an argument I didn’t make.

First bold as it relates to the second - i wasn't meaning to reference GSN theory at all but as you bring it up its odd to me that as highlighted in the first bold, the degrees of how much narrative vs mechanics plays a role in even the thoughts of your characters and their descriptions matters but you essentially dismiss the very subject of how narrative vs game is valued in a game GSN as to your games?

But the biggest disconnect i think we have, beyond "my player's thoughts" stuff is the apparent false dichotomy you put up, not completely explicitly - but partially implied at least. My players can think about "how the character is doing it" as well as "the mechanics" and put them all together.

As a matter of fact - i encourage them to do both.

I absolutely do not want them to divorce decisions of "how my character does this" and "what my character's mechanics are" one bit. if i could get them to fuse those two together at every single description, i would be extremely happy.

Why... To misquote a certain college basketball announcer ***Its about THE **R**, baaayyybe!***

Roleplaying.

I don't want a player describing a scene in which his character walks up coyly, slides arm around flirting, etc (basically makes all the right choices as one would do) if their character's **skill level** is not supportive of that description.

I don't want a player narrating his character's emphatic, well reasoned and compeelling speech... if that character's related skills are like net -1 to the D20.

The scene you describe to the others as a player, the details and sophistication etc, IMO should be driven by your character's actual aptitude, **at least* as much as the player's actual aptitude, if not more.

So, if i got a player who manages to divorce his choices for the "narrative" from the mechanics in the way you suggest, i would likely as not have to from time to time discuss this issue with them out of character, if they did not catch on to the ideas more firmly illustrated by the events in game with not just them but also the other players.

As for the third bold about players making wrong choices about skills needed and so on... and my point that Gms can make mistakes too...

If you decide it is a dex-dec it is just so and... OK, sorry for assuming you could make a mistake in that assessment, but some Gms have commented that they actually **ALLOW** players to (after they tell them the check to make) suggest other checks or proficiencies that apply etc... and that whole "i said this check but now it can be that check" kind of thing seems an awful lot the same as when the player rolls an ABC check it wasn't the one needed either. But, not in your games, got it.

Either way we both agree, some Gms can make mistakes with this, as can players. The "roll was made" vs "roll not yet made" does not change that.

Last bold... actually it was. I mean, the issue being put forth there was the issue of players and Gm not being on the same page when it come to in-play skill uses and application - the fact that you do not have the same interpretation of that skill in that scene as they did is not a big deal.

The big deal is the difference between a GM who wants his players and he to be on the same page as far as skill checks and skills and what they do when it comes to at the table play (and all the way back to chargen) or whether that not something the GM cares about (much) except at chargen.

That example was just a for instance... insight vs deception just one case...

And BTW i am a big fan of flopping around ability-skill pairs when its appropriate and needed - but i feel those cases should be as clear and as expected and as much "on the same page" for the players at playtime and at chargen as any of the regular ones are. They should have as clear a sense of confidence that "INT will apply here not DEX" from experience and explanations gained in your game as they do from reading "use Dex checks for stealth" in the PHB. (Exception of course for incomplete knowledge.)

Anyway, to me, i dont care about the GNS etc... what i care about is that the expectations gained by choices match up with the results gained from choices... and to me its best when everybody is "on the same page" and the mechanics and choices and narrative are all **deliberately** operating hand-in-hand-in-glove and no one element of that gets shoved into (or fades into) the background in the actual at-the-table experience.


i can pull a lot of other games off the shelf or rather up from PDF that are great for "fade away" mechanics that don't play a role in the player's in-play thought process, decisions and choices of descriptions. they would not involve anywhere near as much number crunching during chargen, but maybe a dash more writing. I already get a lot of narrative writing for new chars even with the crunchy.