D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

5ekyu · Dec 4, 2017

jasper said:
I have agree with [MENTION=6775477]Shiroiken[/MENTION] “The primary reason is to prevent the "dice determine everything" mentality that some players adopt” over @5eku “how does "the player rolled ahead" have any effect on the GM”.
Rolling ahead interrupts the dm while he is giving out information. The player nor the pc knows if a roll is needed. I even a player roll a knowledge check to determine the correct hallway to take. This is after I told the group to listen, take notes, and repeated the data dump three times. So he wanted a die roll to supersede what was a player choice.
Or being Snaky…
5ekyu “ The tall dark handsome strange tells of the tell tale heart in which ….
Jasper rolls, die hits the table. “That is 12 so 16 on insight so I know he is lying, 14 I going to use deception to shake him down for more money, 15 on sleight of hand to pick his pocket for the needed map, 12 on initiative and I ready my ray of frost if he has a higher initiative!”.
Or Jasper, “ the party enters the room, is 40 by 40 has statue of a dragon that appears, …..”
5ekyu dice hitting the table, “ I rolled a 15 so that is 20 on perception are there any secret doors?”
Jasper, “ to be really life like. In fact when 5ekyu starts to check the dragon statue for secret doors, the dragon drops the illusion. 5ekyu is surprise everyone else is not. Roll init. “
Bluntly wait until I the Dm have called for a roll. If you throw dice beforehand I will be calling for rerolling even if you guess correctly what roll I was going to ask for.

Are you saying that "player rolls dice as he describes his action" means the GM was interrupted as a default?

Are you saying no interruption happen except in the case of die rolling by players?

Are you establishing any actual tie between these two actions that make them happen together or just writing about how they could be done at the table together?

If the latter, what about gm calling for rolls leading to soda spills? That can be very disruptive and bring the whole game to a screeching halt.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

Ovinomancer · Dec 4, 2017

shidaku said:
But you do call for them to make a check with a specific skill right?

Even if they engage in the fiction, wait for you to ask for a roll, at the end of the day, they're still going to be trying to figure out which button to push on their character sheet.

Specific example from my last game. The party was engaged in a discussion with a disagreeable NPC that was stonewalling the party. The fighter, playing to her flaw, got frustrated and threatened the NPC. She has a slightly above average CHA score but wasn't trained in intimidate (she was actually trained in persuasion, and knew this). I called for an intimidate check based on the approach, and, given she's a beefy and well armed and armored character while the NPC was a blowhard (trait previously assigned and part of the reason they were stonewalling) I set the DC low because it was a likely to pass action. The fighter made the check and the NPC backed down.

Accordingly, if I allowed guess and roll, as soon as I described the NPC stonewalling the party would have asked around for the best 'face' character to make a check using their best skill to bypass the encounter.

I prefer the former example.

I mean, it's not like you can call for an Athletics check to persuade a sad woman not to run off into the forest when the player is clearly trying to talk her out of it with words. If you were DMing and I was playing, trying to console the woman and you told me the only way to dissuade her was to start doing cartwheels I'd call shenanigans.

Ridiculous postulations don't make your case, though. Clearly we aren't talking about using athletics to console sad women, so let's not insult everyone's intelligence by pretending this makes a useful point.

My point is: the players aren't blind. They can make reasonable guesses that engaging in the fiction in certain ways will produce calls for certain checks, and if they know what they're good at, they're going to play to their strengths.

I'm counting on this. What I don't count on is that they'll pick up their dice and roll their guesses and expect me to engage with those guesses without asking first. Sometimes, you get an interesting reversal of expectations, like my example above, and the game is better for it. It also has the benefit of the players engaging the narrative rather than pushing buttons. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't play that way, I'm saying that, for me (and others, apparently), there are significant downsides to letting players declare rolls. You can't stipulate that away because you don't play that way.

TheCosmicKid · Dec 4, 2017

Ovinomancer said:
This I strongly agree with. I'd remove the 'our players' qualifier, though.

Well, we don't interact with anyone else through rulings, so...

robus · Dec 5, 2017

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - that’s a good point. If all the players pre-roll then there’s going to be pressure to go with the player will the highest roll regardless of the narrative, and the DM might be called out as being against the players if they don’t go with the highest roll. It just seems like there’s too much opportunity for things to go poorly.

And jeez it’s not like these checks are being called for all the time. It’s only when there’s a chance of failure that has consequences! Otherwise they just spend time until they succeed.

TheCosmicKid · Dec 5, 2017

Ovinomancer said:
Accordingly, if I allowed guess and roll, as soon as I described the NPC stonewalling the party would have asked around for the best 'face' character to make a check using their best skill to bypass the encounter.

I prefer the former example.

The latter can have fun results too, though, especially if the NPCs are trying to engage the less skilled members of the party and those members are trying to avoid being engaged. One d20 Modern campaign, I was playing the faceman, and the evil corporations really didn't want to deal with my character, leading ultimately to a ridiculous game of phone-tag as they tried to contact my oafish partner and not me, and both he and I tried to keep them talking to me.

Blue · Dec 5, 2017

Ovinomancer said:
Disagree. The players rushing to find which button on their character sheet to push rather than engaging the fiction is a big downside. It teaches players to resolve things only in the little boxes that encompass what's written on their character sheets. It encourages playing only to your strengths and avoiding weaknesses rather than developing a connection to the narrative. It encourages pixel-bitching the DM.

I really think your argument seem less focused on "making a roll when it seems appropriate" and instead "only interacting by making rolls" which are very different things. Definitely there are times when it's not rolls, or not simply rolling, that's the next step. Cleverness, roleplay, inspiration (not Inspiration), logic, tactics, knowledge of the world and it's inhabitants - there are many times these are the right deciders. But the argument presupposes that players are trying to avoid that and ONLY roll, vs. rolling when they think it's appropriate and an aid to the game run smoothly.

The most common case of making a roll while describing your action in the narrative is likely an attack roll. And for good reason - it's an expected and common roll needed after declaring an attack. Many actions in combat don't need it - and people don't roll them at that time. "I Dash across the drawbridge before the close the gates - I hit AC 17." is not commonly heard. But if after every narrative of "I feint high and then bring my blade in a low backswing at it's leg" there need not be a delay as the DM then asked "please make an attack roll". It would slow down combat.

The same things happen elsewhere. A player might be selling found gemstones, be told the price the merchant offers, and make no roll, just like they didn't make a roll Dashing across the drawbridge. On the other hand, if they think the merchant is attempting to take advantage of them, they might say "I'm trying to get a feel for if he's being honest" and roll a Wisdom (Insight) check because it's likely what the DM needs that matches up with what they described. Maybe it isn't, because what really would be needed was a Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the thieves' guild fence mark on the doorframe, in which case the DM can ask for a different roll. Or however they want to work it out. Even if they are telling the truth, a roll might be useful to tell the PC "you are pretty sure he's telling the truth" on a good roll.

Rolling when appropriate based on the player's knowledge to help speed up the game is already enshrined in combat. It's not a problem unless players try to substitute the majority of interactions with die rolls.

Sunseeker · Dec 5, 2017

Ovinomancer said:
Specific example from my last game. The party was engaged in a discussion with a disagreeable NPC that was stonewalling the party. The fighter, playing to her flaw, got frustrated and threatened the NPC. She has a slightly above average CHA score but wasn't trained in intimidate (she was actually trained in persuasion, and knew this). I called for an intimidate check based on the approach, and, given she's a beefy and well armed and armored character while the NPC was a blowhard (trait previously assigned and part of the reason they were stonewalling) I set the DC low because it was a likely to pass action. The fighter made the check and the NPC backed down.

Accordingly, if I allowed guess and roll, as soon as I described the NPC stonewalling the party would have asked around for the best 'face' character to make a check using their best skill to bypass the encounter.

I prefer the former example.

Ridiculous postulations don't make your case, though. Clearly we aren't talking about using athletics to console sad women, so let's not insult everyone's intelligence by pretending this makes a useful point.

I'm counting on this. What I don't count on is that they'll pick up their dice and roll their guesses and expect me to engage with those guesses without asking first. Sometimes, you get an interesting reversal of expectations, like my example above, and the game is better for it. It also has the benefit of the players engaging the narrative rather than pushing buttons. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't play that way, I'm saying that, for me (and others, apparently), there are significant downsides to letting players declare rolls. You can't stipulate that away because you don't play that way.

I think you're missing my point. The players are still pushing buttons, they're just doing it with a little pizzazz first. I'm not suggesting they ought to roll first or anything like that, even I ask for players to wait for me to call for a roll if for no other reason than simple decorum. What I'm saying is that the players probably know what they're good it. If the players aren't dummies they're going to usually play to their strengths. The "face guy" is still going to make most of the charisma-based checks, (and I want to add for a moment, the fact that Intimidate is a CHA skill is one of my biggest beefs with the skill system, since it's a skill that beefy-types should be good at without having to invest in a score largely irrelevant to their existence), the dex guys are going to make the sneaky checks, and so on and so forth. That's just how the game is set up to function.

Your only caveat is that they but a bow on the button before they push it.

I'm not saying that's wrong I'm saying that's what it is. Button-pushing by any other name is still button-pushing. A smart player can reasonably tailor their in-fiction approach to produce an requested die-roll that allows him to push the button of his desiring.

Ristamar · Dec 5, 2017

Blue said:
Rolling when appropriate based on the player's knowledge to help speed up the game is already enshrined in combat. It's not a problem unless players try to substitute the majority of interactions with die rolls.

I'm totally with the sheep wizard on this one. Even if the player is merely trying to help speed up the game during social interactions and exploration, it often backfires because the player doesn't have complete information or a properly adjudicated approach. And then when you have to negate their good roll, time is wasted explaining why it isn't applicable. Pacing is disrupted. Immersion is shattered. All to potentially save the DM a few seconds because (s)he might ask for a roll?

No thanks.

Charlaquin · Dec 5, 2017

shidaku said:
I think you're missing my point. The players are still pushing buttons, they're just doing it with a little pizzazz first. I'm not suggesting they ought to roll first or anything like that, even I ask for players to wait for me to call for a roll if for no other reason than simple decorum. What I'm saying is that the players probably know what they're good it. If the players aren't dummies they're going to usually play to their strengths. The "face guy" is still going to make most of the charisma-based checks, (and I want to add for a moment, the fact that Intimidate is a CHA skill is one of my biggest beefs with the skill system, since it's a skill that beefy-types should be good at without having to invest in a score largely irrelevant to their existence), the dex guys are going to make the sneaky checks, and so on and so forth. That's just how the game is set up to function.

All of this is why I greatly prefer the “skills with different abilities” optional rule. Even if we concede that it’s still just a matter of pushing buttons, at least there are six times as many buttons to push. And, it resolves the issue you have with Charisma and Intimidation, along with all manner of similar issues.

shidaku said:
Your only caveat is that they but a bow on the button before they push it.

I'm not saying that's wrong I'm saying that's what it is. Button-pushing by any other name is still button-pushing. A smart player can reasonably tailor their in-fiction approach to produce an requested die-roll that allows him to push the button of his desiring.

I disagree. Sure, the player can tailor their description to try to influence the DM to call for a check involving an Attribute and/or Skill they have a high bonus in. As well they should be able to. However, it is then the approach that determines the button that gets pushed, instead of the button determining the description. Even if the player is still thinking in terms of “I’m good at Strength and Athletics, so I’ll describe my Action in a way that will be likely to let me use it,” the description can’t be an afterthought. The player has to consider what is happening in the fiction and think about how to describe their action in a way that connects that fiction to the attribute and skill they want to use.

5ekyu · Dec 5, 2017

Ristamar said:
I'm totally with the sheep wizard on this one. Even if the player is merely trying to help speed up the game during social interactions and exploration, it often backfires because the player doesn't have complete information or a properly adjudicated approach. And then when you have to negate their good roll, time is wasted explaining why it isn't applicable. Pacing is disrupted. Immersion is shattered. All to potentially save the DM a few seconds because (s)he might ask for a roll?

No thanks.

"Often"???

Often???

If in my game it was "often" that the pcs got just plain wrong what abilities and proficiencies applied to tasks they are attempting, i would consider that a failure of me as a GM to run a reasobaly consistent game where mechanics and narrative go hand in hand. DnD 5e is not some mega-crunch rollmaster or such with tons of minute detail and uses proficiencies and abilities for most tasks.

The things a player can "get wrong" that can hurt their roll are does their proficiency apply, which abilitu is in play and is there disadvantage and if any of those are "often" not something they have a clue about then i as a player would not be feeling invested in the scene at all.

Thats part of the disconnect between the narrative approach investment and the GM control being so dead set on having both.

If you run such a marvelously wonderful immersive game, with such marvelous clues and hints and narrative engagements... Why then is it so often that your players are so clueless as to what all that narrative descriptive and immersive means for using that? How is it that all that narrative immersive descriptive engagement so often fails to give them enough understanding that they cant determine ability score or proficiencies that apply?

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app