D&D 5E (2014) An Odd Mechanic: DM & Player BOTH Roll

[wedgeski]

Is the point that it provides a range of outcomes?

 

[Caliburn101]

Better by far to have each player make 20 rolls before a game, the GM records them and uses them for 'unknown outcome' rolls when they come up by having the player roll a d20 to refer to the list of rolls

The players have made the roll which will be used, but the player does not know the outcome unless they have a photographic memory...

 

[Nagol]

Dang. Maybe I am just slow. Could you elaborate on what benefit this is providing, please?

One of the main issues of using a d20 as the fortune mechanic is it overshadows the talent, training, and preparation available to a character in a bounded system. While the large range is very useful in some aspects of play, it tends to reduce the effectiveness of some types of characters and strategies such as long cons, stealthy recon deep in enemy territory, or anything else that would either require multiple checks or offer large penalties for failure of a single check.

This system allows the player to get a sense of general effectiveness much smaller than the normal d20 range while still providing some uncertainty. 5e provides a similar range reduction with the Rogue's Reliable Talent where the range becomes 10-20 with heavy weighting on the 10. The smaller range lets the player make better bets at the table with respect to appropriate risks and expected outcomes without the certainty of simply rolling ahead of the action.

Additionally, it offers the advantage of keeping all rolls in plain view which can be a benefit to some styles of play.

 

[Nagol]

Is the point that it provides a range of outcomes?

That's the only advantage I see. The table knows the character has at least X and can proceed through the situation until more-than-X is required. Then there is check to see if the character actually has X or Y.

 

[akr71]

The only time I would ask a player to roll when I am also rolling is for a contested roll. Grappling, persuasion and intimidation checks - that kind of thing. However in that case, I am not adding the players ability modifier, so it is not really the same thing at all.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Isn't the entire point of passive perception and similar things the fact that we now don't have to have this situation? Only one person is doing the rolling, rolling against their opponent's static target. All having both players roll does is alter the variance of the contested situation. If we wanted to do that, we could make all rolls 2d20 rolls (or 3d6, or any number of things that are equally arbitrary).

 

[mpwylie]

So, I would not use that and don't generally like the DM picking what roll to use. It's too open for DMs to cheat and players to get upset. in a sneak situation the success is not really 100% known anyway as it really comes down to how perceptive the monsters are. But thinking about it, if you really wanted to do something like this to keep success an unknown for all skill checks, maybe try it a little different. Instead of the player and DM rolling and the DM picking which is used or rolling something to determine which roll is used. Why not just alter the DC system? Instead of a trap being say a DC 15, make it a +5. The player rolls and adds modifiers to get their final number. DM rolls the d20 hidden and adds the +5. Then the DM compares the contested rolls to see who was higher. The players will have no way of knowing what the DM rolled. At least this puts the outcome in the hands of the dice and not the DM.

 

[Mercule]

One way I could see it working (albeit with a fair bit extra complexity for limited value) is if both rolls are in the open and neither the DM nor the player know which roll is the controlling one until a third die is rolled at the crucial moment.

Initially, I liked this idea, but a bit of thought makes me very much dislike it. Kudos, still, for out-of-box thinking.

Here's what turns me off. You have three basic scenarios: 1) win-win, 2) win-lose or lose-win, 3) lose-lose.

In cases #1 and #3, it doesn't matter what the control die is. Everyone knows the outcome. There's no suspense other than, maybe, trying to delay the lose-lose to the point it doesn't get you killed. May as well go with a passive check.

For case #2, assuming the DM and player dice have equal odds of being "right", you've reduced another probability to a coin flip. Unless the DC was already 10 (11, actually), in which case you've gained nothing. If the odds aren't even, then you're still just replacing one probability with another, which could swing in either direction.

The odds of #2 being relevant depend on the original DC, anyway. If the DC is 20, then you've only got a 9.5% chance of it mattering (either die comes up 20, while the other doesn't) and converting a 5% unknown to a 50% unknown. FWIW, a 15 (or 5) DC has a 37.5% chance of mattering.

Sorry. I like statistics.

 

[Mercule]

For the original rule offered, I don't like it. If it's open, it's open. If it's secret, then the player should know it's secret and I'll just handle it. No sense in busywork.

 

[Nagol]

Initially, I liked this idea, but a bit of thought makes me very much dislike it. Kudos, still, for out-of-box thinking.

Here's what turns me off. You have three basic scenarios: 1) win-win, 2) win-lose or lose-win, 3) lose-lose.

In cases #1 and #3, it doesn't matter what the control die is. Everyone knows the outcome. There's no suspense other than, maybe, trying to delay the lose-lose to the point it doesn't get you killed. May as well go with a passive check.

For case #2, assuming the DM and player dice have equal odds of being "right", you've reduced another probability to a coin flip. Unless the DC was already 10 (11, actually), in which case you've gained nothing. If the odds aren't even, then you're still just replacing one probability with another, which could swing in either direction.

The odds of #2 being relevant depend on the original DC, anyway. If the DC is 20, then you've only got a 9.5% chance of it mattering (either die comes up 20, while the other doesn't) and converting a 5% unknown to a 50% unknown. FWIW, a 15 (or 5) DC has a 37.5% chance of mattering.

Sorry. I like statistics.

Disclaimer, I don't like the mechanic either. My complaint is it is yet more fiddly numbers for the poor overloaded DM to keep track of.

If you use it as fortune-at-end, it works as you describe. I see it more as a fortune-in-the-mddle.

You're going to sneak through the library? We roll dice. That lets you as the player know more concretely the limits of your fortune for this endeavour -- those limits can be tied to circumstantial/environmental conditions, the level of alertness among opposition, and so on.

Now the player can decide to take risks -- or not -- based on the player's assessment of risk vs. reward. It also means the DM can move the scene through to the point where it matters if the roll were high or low.

You have two basic scenarios:

• The highest roll is low enough that the basic tasks fail. The DM narrates up to the failure and play continues normally.
• The lowest row is high enough that basic tasks will succeed. The DM narrates through the scene unless the player attempts something more difficult. If the DC rises to the point where the lowest roll won't succeed (and the highest will still succeed), the control die is thrown to determine outcome