D&D 5E Mitigating players spamming Help, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, and oh I’ll roll too?

Guest 6801328 · Sep 18, 2018

Quickleaf said:
My group seems to lean too much on Help, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, and “a roll? oh, well I’ll just roll too!” Its exasperating, and I’m searching for how I can nip it in the bud.

Examples from our game:

The Bard/Sorcerer player says “oh I’ll help my friend engaging in persuading the Flaming Fist commander that we’ve held up our bargain.” So I ask “ok, what are you saying to support his argument?” Player responds “Um...I play a song? Hah, well...I can’t actually think of anything...but it was my understanding I could still take the Help Action?”

Both the pure Bard and the Bard/Sorcerer player routinely tossing out Bardic Inspiration without offering any role playing or explanation of what *their* Bardic Inspiration looks like.

The Rogue player with “Guidance” (magic initiate) giving Guidance on an Arcana check and other checks in which he is untrained without roleplaying what that looks like or how it makes sense.

And I’ve had to police the whole group regarding pile-on skill checks, especially the Bard player. I’ve repeatedly mentioned that if a bunch of people want to make a check then it’s probably a group check - otherwise everyone rolling one after another is just an exercise in throwing dice at a challenge waiting to see who succeeds. I’ve noticed this come up most often with lore/knowledge checks & Perception/Insight checks. Last time I had to shut it down and put my authoritative DM voice on and reiterate the problem.

Thankfully, it’s not just me who has noticed this. Another player in the group said “Guys, we have a serious problem with metagaming. It’s coming up almost every session.”

So I wanted to ask the great minds of ENWorld: What are the most effective ways to deal with a group that has this particular challenge?

I agree that I don't like the effect at the table, but I think trying to control mechanics with roleplaying requirements is not the right solution. Some players won't use the mechanics unless they have the storytelling to support it, which is great. Other players just want to use the mechanics, and if you force them to justify it with RP they're going to start using bad/repetitive RP, which in my book is worse than no RP at all.

I think it needs to be a mechanical solution, but I admit I say that without knowing what the mechanical solution is. In general there should be a cost to making attempts at things (e.g. precious time, consequences of failure, etc. Or using up a resource...which Bardic Inspiration is, of course.) But sometimes there simply is no cost, in which case you might want to ask, "Why are we rolling dice?"

For example, let's say the party is looking for a book in the library, and there is no time pressure on them. Instead of everybody rolling Investigation, or somebody using Help to support somebody else, just let them find the damned book!

But let's say it's an ancient library with rickety shelves, and searching for books runs the risk of causing a catastrophic collapse. Now you can sit back and say, "Ok! Who wants to do some searching?"

And/or there's [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s solution.

iserith · Sep 18, 2018

Quickleaf said:
@iserith @robus @ad_hoc A lot of advice about “Players don’t decide when to roll, the DM does.” Yep! My issue is not that I don’t practice that; it is that I am getting worn down constantly policing the players on this issue & constantly finding new ways to explain this specific to a scenario as one or more players eagerly reach for their dice. It’s tiring for me because I love to say “yes” to my players & the policing part is my least favorite part of DMing.

“No, you can’t Help/Work Together because you haven’t said anything that would be helpful in this negotiation. Is there something you’d like to speak up and add to support the Bard’s arguement?”

“No, Bard player, you can’t roll to beat the druid’s Nature check because you haven’t proposed doing anything substantially different. Besides the Druid is the *best* in your party at Nature lore. You might try a new approach?”

“No, Sorcerer player, you can’t make a History check here. Because nothing in your background as a native of the forests near Waterdeep, a hermit, or a draconic sorcerer would account for you knowing anything about Chultan tribal history. Maybe you’d know something pertaining to dragons...”

“Hold on, Rogue player, why did you just roll a d20? Oh, Stealth? So you’re also trying to sneak up and scout out the enemy encampment? Weren’t you holding the party’s light source? And didn’t you say you wanted to cast guidance which has a verbal component on another PC?”

“Guys, please, why don’t you discuss your approach as a group before breaking off and doing a bunch of things individually? There’s a group skill check I would have called for, had I know your intentions/plan first.”

Every session since I started DMing this group about 11 sessions ago (January), I’ve found myself doing this kind of policing. Some players are more egregious than others, but it’s definitely a group issue. They came from a Pathfinder background. Not sure if this is a system difference thing, but it really feels like I have to keep reminding everyone. Heck, I’m even making the creative effort of weighing how their PC background/race/class/story influence what they know in regards to lore checks. I’d love to find a DM trick that helps them to police themselves better so I can free up more energy/brain space for creative DMing coolness.

I was talking about this with someone else in Discord and one thing I noticed is that since his games don't usually include Bad Stuff happening on a failed check, the players are more than happy to want to roll.

In my game, when I ask for a roll, the players sort of go "Oh. Crap." And then they start spending resources to mitigate the chance of failure, typically Inspiration. That isn't always the case because the stakes can vary greatly depending on the scene, but perhaps focusing on the meaningful consequence of failure - the existence of which is required to even ask for an ability check in the first place - might be a way to curb this behavior. If failure on a roll is going to sting, the impetus to roll may be reduced.

The other thing I've found is I explain to my players that rolling a d20 should be the LAST thing they want to do. Given half a chance, the fickle d20 will kill them and everyone they've ever loved. It should be avoided as much as possible. Once they internalize that, I find that players never ask to make rolls again and dread the moments when they need to. If Pathfinder is anything like D&D 3e, then the expectation is that players will ask to make or declare that they are making "skill checks." That is not the paradigm in D&D 5e and that's just something they're going to need to adapt to. D&D 5e is not a software upgrade on previous editions. It is a different game altogether with different assumptions that demand approaches that may not apply in other games. Only open communication on this issue will do anything in my experience.

iserith · Sep 18, 2018

Quickleaf said:
Interesting. In every 5e table I’ve sat at where Bardic Inspiration or Guidance was used, I saw it used at the time of the check. But you’re saying the correct way is to use them before any check is called for? So the players approach the Duke’s estate, descend to the entrance to the Tomb, or are about to study a book of arcane lore...and Bardic Inspiration or Guidance would be used in advance?

Yes, that is correct. Often times, a player might say "Yes, and before Ragnar does the thing, I will inspire him with a didactic rhyme on the topic of..." or whatever. It helps not to be too much of a stickler on this point and to allow for some space for the bard or cleric to say they want to inspire or guide before asking for the ability check. It seems intended that the players should discuss a plan, then enact the plan, which would include the bard or cleric doing their things before the other PC does his or her thing. But that's not always what happens in practice.

Mort · Sep 18, 2018

Lots of good suggestions already.

I further suggest taking a carrot approach - in the form of giving inspiration for being more RP oriented.

Quickleaf said:
The Bard/Sorcerer player says “oh I’ll help my friend engaging in persuading the Flaming Fist commander that we’ve held up our bargain.” So I ask “ok, what are you saying to support his argument?” Player responds “Um...I play a song? Hah, well...I can’t actually think of anything...but it was my understanding I could still take the Help Action?”

As long as he's right (away from book so don't want to comment on that part), I'd certainly let him help. BUT, if he actually described how he's helping (or acted it out) i'd also award inspiration. Advantage on a future roll is usually a big motivator.

Quickleaf said:
Both the pure Bard and the Bard/Sorcerer player routinely tossing out Bardic Inspiration without offering any role playing or explanation of what *their* Bardic Inspiration looks like.

As stated, it's a limited resource, they should be able to spend it. That said, I would pointedly ask them how the inspiration looks like so that I would know how to react to it. And again, if they do give a great explanation - non-bardic inspiration really is a thing!

Quickleaf said:
The Rogue player with “Guidance” (magic initiate) giving Guidance on an Arcana check and other checks in which he is untrained without roleplaying what that looks like or how it makes sense.

As long as the rogue is abiding by the rules of the guidance cantrip (it's concentration, only lasts a minute etc.) then he can do it. That said, you can make him explain what exactly he's doing, drawing the mark of his god on the recipient, splashing holy water on the recipient - etc. In some situations, it may be a bit awkward - Party face is negotiating with a cleric of another god. That cleric is not going to be particularly thrilled if the rogue makes the sign of a rival god before or during negotiations!

Quickleaf said:
And I’ve had to police the whole group regarding pile-on skill checks, especially the Bard player. I’ve repeatedly mentioned that if a bunch of people want to make a check then it’s probably a group check - otherwise everyone rolling one after another is just an exercise in throwing dice at a challenge waiting to see who succeeds. I’ve noticed this come up most often with lore/knowledge checks & Perception/Insight checks. Last time I had to shut it down and put my authoritative DM voice on and reiterate the problem.

Lots of good advice on this one too.

Too add, I think this one may require a bit of out of character discussion. Tell them to not just throw dice for these checks, but to actively ask and only roll a check IF you tell them to.

Sadras · Sep 18, 2018

Quickleaf said:
Interesting. In every 5e table I’ve sat at where Bardic Inspiration or Guidance was used, I saw it used at the time of the check. But you’re saying the correct way is to use them before any check is called for? So the players approach the Duke’s estate, descend to the entrance to the Tomb, or are about to study a book of arcane lore...and Bardic Inspiration or Guidance would be used in advance?

I'm not @Shiroiken, but that is exactly what I meant by Immediate vs Prepared. The correct way is to cast the Guidance or provide Bardic Inspiration before the check is required - it rightly should to happen before the active skill use.

With group lore checks, do you have the whole party (or whomever is involved/interested) roll, irrespective of proficiency in the pertinent skill?

If there is more than one person proficient in the lore, just provide Advantage. If only one person is proficient only they should be allowed to roll - others would not be able to assist.

Do you mean you individually don’t allow re-checks, so the Rogue couldn’t attempt to pick the lock but the Warlock with thieves tools proficiency could try? Or do you mean you don’t allow re-checks systemically, so once the Rogue fails to pick a lock that lock is unpickable to the entire party until something major changes?

In that instance, if the rogue or the warlock attempted, I would add a complication whether it was a success or failure - break their lock picks or jam the lock (making it unpickable)...etc

Zardnaar · Sep 18, 2018

Its a side effect of low DCs and Guidance being way to good (more or less like being proficient in everything at low levels).

Swarmkeeper · Sep 18, 2018

Quickleaf said:
@iserith @robus @ad_hoc A lot of advice about “Players don’t decide when to roll, the DM does.” Yep! My issue is not that I don’t practice that; it is that I am getting worn down constantly policing the players on this issue & constantly finding new ways to explain this specific to a scenario as one or more players eagerly reach for their dice. It’s tiring for me because I love to say “yes” to my players & the policing part is my least favorite part of DMing.

Whether you love or hate his shtick, The Angry GM has some good advice on this (and many other) topics:
https://theangrygm.com/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/

Quickleaf said:
Every session since I started DMing this group about 11 sessions ago (January), I’ve found myself doing this kind of policing. Some players are more egregious than others, but it’s definitely a group issue. They came from a Pathfinder background. Not sure if this is a system difference thing, but it really feels like I have to keep reminding everyone. Heck, I’m even making the creative effort of weighing how their PC background/race/class/story influence what they know in regards to lore checks. I’d love to find a DM trick that helps them to police themselves better so I can free up more energy/brain space for creative DMing coolness.

iserith said:
If Pathfinder is anything like D&D 3e, then the expectation is that players will ask to make or declare that they are making "skill checks." That is not the paradigm in D&D 5e and that's just something they're going to need to adapt to. D&D 5e is not a software upgrade on previous editions. It is a different game altogether with different assumptions that demand approaches that may not apply in other games. Only open communication on this issue will do anything in my experience.

The first (or one of the first) threads I posted here was about players self-assigning rolls. To be honest, some of the responses almost made me want to leave enworld completely (and taught me that sometimes the Blocked List is not such a bad thing to quiet the "noise"). Glad I didn't as there were many positive responses and many of the members here continue to make solid, albeit anonymous, contributions to improving the fun at my table through their thoughtful responses to posts.

As @iserith points out, players rolling for checks without being asked "is not the paradigm in D&D 5e." I had to explain this for several sessions to my players, but they eventually caught on. We now have a new player (to our table and to 5e) and I find I'm needing to repeat this process, but I'm confident he'll break the old habits soon.

Quickleaf said:
Interesting. In every 5e table I’ve sat at where Bardic Inspiration or Guidance was used, I saw it used at the time of the check. But you’re saying the correct way is to use them before any check is called for? So the players approach the Duke’s estate, descend to the entrance to the Tomb, or are about to study a book of arcane lore...and Bardic Inspiration or Guidance would be used in advance?

At the time the player declares their Intention and Approach to a task, but before the DM declares a roll is necessary, is the right time for the other party member to cast Guidance or the bard to grant Bardic Inspiration - at least that's what I try to enforce at our table, too. Well, I suppose the bard could have granted the bardic inspiration well before the action and it would still be good as it lasts 10 minutes.

ad_hoc · Sep 18, 2018

Quickleaf said:
@iserith @robus @ad_hoc A lot of advice about “Players don’t decide when to roll, the DM does.” Yep! My issue is not that I don’t practice that; it is that I am getting worn down constantly policing the players on this issue & constantly finding new ways to explain this specific to a scenario as one or more players eagerly reach for their dice. It’s tiring for me because I love to say “yes” to my players & the policing part is my least favorite part of DMing.

The last game our table played before 5e was 3e so we definitely had that mentality.

Once I reminded the players that they will probably just succeed if they don't roll dice and described what they are doing they stopped. If you roll you can fail afterall.

It is a different mindset. Describe what you're doing, don't push the skill button.

Quickleaf · Sep 18, 2018

iserith said:
I was talking about this with someone else in Discord and one thing I noticed is that since his games don't usually include Bad Stuff happening on a failed check, the players are more than happy to want to roll.

In my game, when I ask for a roll, the players sort of go "Oh. Crap." And then they start spending resources to mitigate the chance of failure, typically Inspiration. That isn't always the case because the stakes can vary greatly depending on the scene, but perhaps focusing on the meaningful consequence of failure - the existence of which is required to even ask for an ability check in the first place - might be a way to curb this behavior. If failure on a roll is going to sting, the impetus to roll may be reduced.

The other thing I've found is I explain to my players that rolling a d20 should be the LAST thing they want to do. Given half a chance, the fickle d20 will kill them and everyone they've ever loved. It should be avoided as much as possible. Once they internalize that, I find that players never ask to make rolls again and dread the moments when they need to. If Pathfinder is anything like D&D 3e, then the expectation is that players will ask to make or declare that they are making "skill checks." That is not the paradigm in D&D 5e and that's just something they're going to need to adapt to. D&D 5e is not a software upgrade on previous editions. It is a different game altogether with different assumptions that demand approaches that may not apply in other games. Only open communication on this issue will do anything in my experience.

Right, so that’s where these issues connect. The sheer strength of numbers when Bardic Inspiration, Guidance, and Help are available makes the risks of failure on some checks — especially ones which I do have scary consequences for failing — extremely low.

And yes, I totally get what you’re saying about the paradigm of “auto succeed through description wherever you can, roll as a last resort.” Thats the style I played/ran during AD&D. I barely played 3e/Pathfinder, so perhaps that’s where some of the disconnect is. Different game expectations.

Blue · Sep 18, 2018

Apostol Apostolov said:
Skill Check Retries

When another player attempts a Skill check roll to gain new information (Perception, History, Arcana, etc.) from the DM and fails, you may attempt the same check only if you have a higher Skill modifier than theirs.

Hmmm, so if we have two skilled PCs and one opens their mouth first (the lower one) both can roll checks, but if the other opens their mouth first (the higher one), they can lock out the other?

I'm not sure I'd like one player being able to lock another player out of doing something they invested in. Especially when it's one way.

D&D 5E Mitigating players spamming Help, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, and oh I’ll roll too?

Guest 6801328

Guest

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Mort

Legend

Sadras

Legend

Zardnaar

Legend

Swarmkeeper

Hero

ad_hoc

(they/them)

Quickleaf

Legend

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal

Similar Threads