D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[iserith]

I am not taking anything away I am not taking any control, I am describing the scene the exact same as you, I just allow my players more info than you do... I don't limit myself to sight sound and smell. Every 'feel' that I describe is a input the character gets to help the player process the scene.

When you tell someone how their character feels about something that goes beyond simply describing the environment, I would call that an intrusion upon the role of the player. You are free to disagree of course.

ok, so explain how I am wrong.

Nah. That doesn't seem like a productive conversation to me. Thanks though.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is the key challenge of DMing, IMHO. Being descriptive enough to evoke the correct image in the players minds without telling them how their characters feel. It’s show don’t tell D&D style and I’m regularly kicking myself when my players don’t get the correct image from my description (or I forget a key detail in my initial description). I strive to do better of course and I think that is happening but it’s definitely the toughest part of the job (along with running memorable NPCs)

I think it's much harder if instead of letting the character be 100% real, and as such process information that comes from past experiences, feelings, and senses that normal real people get.

in the real world there is a sense of dread that often sets in, because of a shift in atmosphere and simple setting.
in the real world you can feel when you are being watched
in the real world something in the pit of your stomach can tell you not to reach for the door
in the real world you can process so much info so quickly that you can make a snap judgement faster than you know why you did.

all of that is before supernatural magical stuff comes into play.

all of those senses can be condensed by a dungeon master. "You have a bad feeling" "Something is wrong" "You feel uneasy" "You feel attracted to X" "For somereason you don't like X" (in both cases X can be a person place or thing).

the player is always in control of how they react...


turning these things off reminds me of star trek... one of the movies Data is feeling anxiety and turns off his emotion chip, and the captain makes a quip about envying him... I don't want all of my players to be androids...they get feelings from things.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

When you tell someone how their character feels about something that goes beyond simply describing the environment, I would call that an intrusion upon the role of the player. You are free to disagree of course.



Nah. That doesn't seem like a productive conversation to me. Thanks though.

and there we go again...


I do disagree with you strongly. I am incharge of giving the players the info there characters (there avatars in the game) have...I don't see anything I am taking away as long as I am only describing what there characters can feel any more then what they can see

 

[5ekyu]

I am not taking anything away I am not taking any control, I am describing the scene the exact same as you, I just allow my players more info than you do... I don't limit myself to sight sound and smell. Every 'feel' that I describe is a input the character gets to help the player process the scene.


ok, so explain how I am wrong. what am I misrepresenting?

BTW imo in a fantasy setting with charm, enchant, compell etc as existing forces, it should be appropriate to sometimes have effects that evoke emotions themselves directly, with need for intermediate descriptors. That should be a valud tool in the toolbox for setting.

I might use words like unfathomable or inexplicable to spotlight this is a result without specific identifiable cause and that would be markedly different than many other cases.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

and there we go again...


I do disagree with you strongly. I am incharge of giving the players the info there characters (there avatars in the game) have...I don't see anything I am taking away as long as I am only describing what there characters can feel any more then what they can see

You seem to really be bothered that someone else you don't even know views such descriptions as intrusion upon the player's role. I'm not at your table. I don't care what you do and I don't think there's anything valuable you can teach me by discussing it further. It starts to look weird when you keep pressing the matter.

If telling players how their characters feel about things works for your table, keep on doing it regardless of whether others see it as taking something away from the players.

 

[Sunseeker]

except that requires a bit of mind reading... lets take me trying to describe the cha 30 avatar of the god of lust and fire, who has an aura of attractiveness.

DM: "You see a beautiful red head with piercing blue eyes. Her come hither look is the perfect mix of mild innocence with a hidden sexual energy"
player: "Meh, I like blonds not red heads"
later when reviealed what and who she is
player: "Hey how was there no hint she was like the god of sex?"
DM: "I described her as beatuful"
player: "Not really you described her as not my type..."


and even worse that doesn't work at all (where it could have worked with clearer understanding between the player and DM in theory above) when it isn't at all a feeling a player can have at all...

If she has an aura of lust, beauty and attractiveness, then wouldn't that be a compulsion effect?

Otherwise I agree the players are in the right here. There's no reason for them to find the goddess attractive if they wouldn't normally. But if the goddess has a mind-affecting aura that makes those around her find her attractive, then there's a need to call for a check. You don't necessarily have to declare the effect before the check is made, and I often like to interrupt myself to call for rolls.

DM: You suddenly feel a great presence before you and make a Will save.
*players roll, passes, fails, whatever*
DM: Johnny, Bill and Susan immediately turn their eyes to see the most beautiful woman they have ever laid eyes on. You find her impossibly attractive. Frank on the other hand does not seem to be so enthralled.

If I simply said the god appeared, and did not call for a save it might sound more like:
DM: Before you stands a giant of a woman, nearly 20 feet tall, embodying the ideal of bodily perfection.
-in this case, I am not saying she's not Bills perfect woman or Susan's perfect woman, but that the goddess embodies a more existential or social construct of what a beautiful woman should appear to be. Likewise, I am not calling for a check for any of this.

Even if we were to take the position of others before and say the aura of the goddess is so powerful, everyone fails automatically and thus there is no uncertainty here, we can of course still call for the roll, or allow those who want to argue they're not affected to make a check. What harm does it do? Besides, the idea that when a powerful being appears in the presence of mortals no matter how great their power some still try and fight their godly influence is a staple of fantasy.

As a player, I never like when the DM hides the dice roll for my Action, so as a DM, I never do that to my players. I also make rolls for monsters and NPCs in the open as an act of good faith - if I the players have to roll their dice in the open, so should I. Plus it keeps me honest. No fudging rolls either in favor of the PCs or against them. Everybody saw what I rolled, there’s no pretending that untimely crit didn’t happen.

I am a firm believer that you are ultimately in charge of your character. While I ask for folks to wait for me to call for checks, you run it, you roll it, it's one thing that appeals to me about 4E making saves into defenses. It puts control of the effect in the hands of the wielder (usually the player). DM's rolling for how well I do something or how I feel about something is...odd. I've seen the practice, and I don't like it.

As for "secret dice rolls" I think it can be useful, but ultimately, without knowing the DC or the reason for the roll, the actual number is meaningless to the viewer.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I normally ignore the result, ask what they are trying to accomplish and how, and then call for a die roll, ignoring what they rolled the first time. Usually it only takes one or two times to get the message across, the most stubborn was my children, actually, and usually that is just because they are excited to be able to play.

What do you add to the game by doing this?

What is detracted from the game by the player doing the thing you’ve decided is bad?

 

[Sunseeker]

You seem to really be bothered that someone else you don't even know views such descriptions as intrusion upon the player's role. I'm not at your table. I don't care what you do and I don't think there's anything valuable you can teach me by discussing it further. It starts to look weird when you keep pressing the matter.

If telling players how their characters feel about things works for your table, keep on doing it regardless of whether others see it as taking something away from the players.

You're kinda on a public message board bro. If you don't want open discussion of ideas, yours and others, why are you here?

Beyond that, there has been plenty of posts throughout this entire thread of people getting their knickers in a twist over hypothetical players taking hypothetical actions and the way other people have run their tables. It's also kinda a common theme on these boards.

So statements like yours here confuse me. You're not new to this forum or the internet, so why are you acting like you're suddenly surprised by completely predictable and normative behavior?

 

[iserith]

You're kinda on a public message board bro. If you don't want open discussion of ideas, yours and others, why are you here?

Beyond that, there has been plenty of posts throughout this entire thread of people getting their knickers in a twist over hypothetical players taking hypothetical actions and the way other people have run their tables. It's also kinda a common theme on these boards.

So statements like yours here confuse me. You're not new to this forum or the internet, so why are you acting like you're suddenly surprised by completely predictable and normative behavior?

I'm free to choose what topics I will discuss and with whom subject to community rules. Like how I will now choose to no longer discuss the nature of message boards with you.

 

[Severite]

What do you add to the game by doing this?

What is detracted from the game by the player doing the thing you’ve decided is bad?

I believe you will come across my more in depth reasons, for which there are a few, for handling it this way, as you continue to read this ginormous thread, as I know that was an early response at the beginning, but:

One, it helps keep me from getting derailed, as I am susceptible to such; two, it allows me to determine what they are actually doing, and telling me, I get across the gorge, so rolled a 15 on athletics, doesn't help in the least, especially, if, when I ask how they are doing so, they said a grappling hook, and using it as a tightrope ; three, I remain consistent in my adjudication, if I am going to ignore it today because I don't know what you are actually attempting, I will ignore it tomorrow, even if you can be reasonably cettain I will call for one, and may even be right on which check it will be, and with what governing statistic.