iserith
Magic Wordsmith
That's describing the environment which precedes the players describing what they want to do. After they do, then the DM can call for ability checks if necessary.
D&D 5E What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
That's describing the environment which precedes the players describing what they want to do. After they do, then the DM can call for ability checks if necessary.
I mostly gm. Have been that way since the 80s. In my experience, players who are GMs wanting to help are often problematic or received not very well at all.
It is a fine line between helping and challenging or diminishing authority.
That line starts with a GM asking you for advice, not you spontaneously granting it - especially at the table.
That line tends to end with any out of session talk between you and the other players especially if that conversation turns to "how I would have..."
When I play, as I do now, I tell the gm privately at the start I have gmed a lot BUT I am thrilled to be just a player in this game. I tell them if there is anything I can do to help, just let me know. Then, i turn off my gm self until they ask - if ever - no matter hard that may be.
In my mind, without that request first, it sets up a very dangerous dynamicc..
Greenstone.Walker
Adventurer
Another way to set expectations is to say "After I describe the environment, you can do stuff and, in the doing, you might find some clues. So, what do you do?"
With reference to this and your other posts in this thread, what are your thoughts on the following scenarios?
Scenario 1
GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe.
Player: I have Religion, do I know who she is?
GM: Roll INT\Religion please, DC 17.
Player: I roll an 18.
GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture.
Scenario 2
GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe.
Player: I have Religion, *rolls* I got an 18. Do I know who she is?
GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture.
Scenario 3
GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. Can I get an INT\Religion roll please?
Player: I roll a 18.
GM: Because of your knowledge of religions of this area, you know it is a It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture.
Scenario 4
GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. *rolls an INT\Religion roll on behalf of the player, gets 18*
GM: Because of your knowledge of religions of this area, you know it is a It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture.
Last edited:
Answering for myself when I gm, I see them as equivalent but some are more suited for newer groips/players than others which are more suited for more experienced groups.
The latter have likely more established agreements on how things work in this game and more accuracy than errors and more trust earned and granted and the quicker pace can proceed fine.
In my game, FWIW, it's normal to see...
GM calls for ability check without player having described action. A common example from 5e RAW is initiative - a Dex ability check. A player or GM who insists initiative rolls cannot be initiated except in response to a PC action is... going to be surprised in my game. Grapple/shove is another...
A request for a check from the GM on encountering a scene with layers of info - some obvious to all, some obvious to those with skills, some more obscure and uncertain that the character knows it even with skill. Key is **the character** knowledge is there or not regardless of the PC declaring an action to ask a specific question. To me, putting players under the "you the player must ask the right question" to access character knowledge is way too video game menu or 20 questions gotcha for my tastes. Similar with many other types of perspective tasks - like survival or perception or others where different bodies of knowledge and perception give you the access to and chance of seeing things other miss.
Edit to clarify
The GM roll secretly would never happen in my gming games but I know some GMs like that do its an ok example imo.
In my ggming game PAR (players always roll) is the rule. I never touch dice. So that one wouldn't occur.
Last edited:
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I don't really want to get into specific examples for what should be in my view a simple point backed up by the game itself, but I would say these are all bad for various reasons.
Second point - somewhere back a few pages somebody mentioned possibly allowing a player to choose for their character to fail at an ability check the Gm called for - i would very much recommend against it. initiative is an ability check and allowing someone to choose in a random initiative sequence to "fail" and go last is a rather big deal. I know i would take it frequently - tho exceptions would occur at times. Rogues would benefit from going last quite a bit, unless they were one of the ambush killer setups.
Not saying "chose your order" is at all bad. In one of my games we dont roll for init at all unless there is dispute among the PCs/players. players choose to have their side go first or last and then it alternates side by side with each side choosing which acts when. After the first turn, it is set.
Not saying "chose your order" is at all bad. In one of my games we dont roll for init at all unless there is dispute among the PCs/players. players choose to have their side go first or last and then it alternates side by side with each side choosing which acts when. After the first turn, it is set.
MNblockhead
A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
Not directed at me, but I'll give my thoughts anyway--and give them knowing that I am not always consistent, breaking rules intentionally and unintentionally sometimes, and am overall a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to gaming. In other words, I'll compromise my gaming beliefs and preferences to better ensure I and the group have fun.
This is my preferred style as DM and player and the flow that seems the most like a "textbook" example of playing D&D.
Fine by me. I know some DMs don't like this, but the way I look at it is, well, if you want to have a chance of failure before knowing if I'd require a roll, go for it!
Hey, I'll roll with it, but I don't like it. Too much of this and I feel like little more than a dice-rolling slave in the DMs solo game.
This had better be Harmon Quest, otherwise g'day sir, enjoy your game without me.
This is my preferred style as DM and player and the flow that seems the most like a "textbook" example of playing D&D.
Fine by me. I know some DMs don't like this, but the way I look at it is, well, if you want to have a chance of failure before knowing if I'd require a roll, go for it!
Hey, I'll roll with it, but I don't like it. Too much of this and I feel like little more than a dice-rolling slave in the DMs solo game.
This had better be Harmon Quest, otherwise g'day sir, enjoy your game without me.
MNblockhead
A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
Wait, I've been following this debate pretty closely, mostly agreeing with you, but what is "bad" about scenario 1?
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Some of the stuff I find sub par is unrelated to this thread. But I try to avoid starting description or narration with "You," as a way to avoid potentially telling the players what their characters are doing. (That's a good trick in my experience.) Further, the player has not stated a complete goal (what he or she wants to accomplish) and approach (how he or she goes about achieving the goal) that I can adjudicate into success, failure, or an ability check. In fact, the player asks a question which is not describing what he or she wants to do. I would ask the player to try a little harder here.
It is otherwise okay. Certainly better than the rest, but still not great in my view.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
If there are 50 foot tall letters across a mountain saying Hollywood, describing what they say is part of describing the environment, even without a player actively saying "I read them".
Or not - asking the player if the character speaks Orcish (what they are written in) is not assuming player agency, it's using mechanical details about the characters to know what to describe.
Sometimes, instead of a boolean "speak orcish", it's something which is less sure and requires a check. For example, with the player description of "I go back to our inn", at some point they cross paths with a pickpocket. If this is noticed requires an ability check, even though the player's stated task for their character did not specifically call for it. The "tell me if I notice I'm getting pickpocketted, stabbed, or any other noticeable agency is working upon me" is inherent in the character being conscious in the world in the world.
