D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[The Human Target]

The game is much more of an actual game now with clear rules that players can learn and anticipate the outcome of their actions.

It's great!

 

[the_redbeard]

The game is much more of an actual game now with clear rules that players can learn and anticipate the outcome of their actions.

It's great!

Opinions differ Skipping a complex interaction that uses the imagined environment and simply rolling a skill check is pretty boring and could be done with Neverwinter Nights on your computer. I DM, and play in games with DMs, because I want a more imaginative game experience than rolling d20s and adding numbers from my character sheet.

 

[The Human Target]

Opinions differ Skipping a complex interaction that uses the imagined environment and simply rolling a skill check is pretty boring and could be done with Neverwinter Nights on your computer. I DM, and play in games with DMs, because I want a more imaginative game experience than rolling d20s and adding numbers from my character sheet.

You shouldn't roll for attacks either, I bet it would be awesome!

 

[Arial Black]

The player narrates the action, the DM decides the relevant skill and the difficulty.

I go as far as saying if the skill is knowledge or stealth related, the DM can also make the roll behind a screen - I subscribe to the 1E default that a character attempting to be stealthy will always believe they are successful, and similarly that a PC attempting a perception or investigation check will believe they have all the relevant information. There's no need for the player to be aware of the roll, and therefore have any idea as to whether or not their action was a success.

I remember this line of reasoning from 1E; it was bogus then and it is bogus now.

I try to sneak, but I step on a twig. The sound of it snapping reverberates around the forest, startling the wildlife and alerting the orcs in the next glade...

...but, somehow, I'm the only guy who simply cannot hear it??? Why can't I hear it? I'm a lot closer to it than anyone else!

Sure, you cannot be certain whether it was heard by your enemies, but you might have a good idea. This is elegantly paralleled by being able to see what you rolled and what the total was, and having a good idea what normal ranges of Perception modifiers are, but you do not know what the DC is or what their Perception score is or if they are distracted or whatever.

 

[Lanefan]

I remember this line of reasoning from 1E; it was bogus then and it is bogus now.

I try to sneak, but I step on a twig. The sound of it snapping reverberates around the forest, startling the wildlife and alerting the orcs in the next glade...

...but, somehow, I'm the only guy who simply cannot hear it??? Why can't I hear it? I'm a lot closer to it than anyone else!

And here the failure is obvious and should thusly be narrated to all - including you.

However, if your failure in the same situation is due to your concealment simply not being as good as you think it is, or your shadow giving your position away, or some other similar thing, then you've every reason to believe you've succeeded until the Orcs' actions inform you otherwise.

Sure, you cannot be certain whether it was heard by your enemies, but you might have a good idea. This is elegantly paralleled by being able to see what you rolled and what the total was, and having a good idea what normal ranges of Perception modifiers are, but you do not know what the DC is or what their Perception score is or if they are distracted or whatever.

Perhaps...but this is an example where the results of your attempt (and thus, the roll) are going to be rather quickly obvious to all.

But what about situations where the results - or the reasons for such - are not obvious? Consider the difference between how a player (and, let's face it, most players) would react to:

Player: "I carefully search the south wall for secret doors. <DM nods, and player rolls a d20> I roll a 20."
DM: "Your search turns up nothing."

vs.

Player: "I carefully search the south wall for secret doors. <DM nods, and player rolls a d20> I roll a 3."
DM: "Your search turns up nothing."

Yet from the character's point of view (and by extension, the player's)there is not and should not be any difference whatsoever. The character has no idea why she failed, only that she did her best searching and found nothing; and as player knowledge should equal character knowledge where possible, this is one where the DM ought to be secretly rolling instead of the player.

Lanefan

 

[Tinker]

I find myself agreeing with both of you. Often the character should be aware of failure; sometimes not. Question is, how to decide when - you've demonstrated that for stealth skills either is plausible. 3e has a nice mechanic for some skills - if you fail by more than a certain margin, you think (to your detriment) that you have succeeded. Use Rope check for throwing a grappling hook, for a top-of-my-head example. That requires the roll to be out of sight of the players and the DM to reveal the failure stright away in some cases. (Or the players to roll and see it, but have the integrity to pretend they don't know they've failed.)

 

[5ekyu]

"I rolled a 17" is a game-mechanical statement said out of character and is thus as 'gamey' as it gets. "I go over to the bar and try and lift his purse" is an in-character statement of action; far preferable in almost every imaginable situation.

Pre-rolling sounds to me like nothing more than a way of players trying to short-cut the system.

Preach it!

Lanefan

and... "I go over to the bar and try and lift his purse... i rolled a 17" is a PLAYER statement of an action done by his character along with a very efficient handling of the game-side info. (Unless they are actually making an in-character statement as you suggest - maybe like they kind of did a lot over comms in the show Leverage but i rarely myself see my players having their character speak aloud their crime attempts as they do them)

I do not make broad assertions about "players who do..." and generally i tend to start with the premise of trusting my players.

That really tho is a aftertaste that follows this subject around... by some it seems this issue is about "must be something fishy going on with that player" kind of thing. Seems for some even if pre-rolling in combat is fine, an air of suspicion falls on it happening outside of combat.

 

[5ekyu]

And here the failure is obvious and should thusly be narrated to all - including you.

However, if your failure in the same situation is due to your concealment simply not being as good as you think it is, or your shadow giving your position away, or some other similar thing, then you've every reason to believe you've succeeded until the Orcs' actions inform you otherwise.

Perhaps...but this is an example where the results of your attempt (and thus, the roll) are going to be rather quickly obvious to all.

But what about situations where the results - or the reasons for such - are not obvious? Consider the difference between how a player (and, let's face it, most players) would react to:

Player: "I carefully search the south wall for secret doors. <DM nods, and player rolls a d20> I roll a 20."
DM: "Your search turns up nothing."

vs.

Player: "I carefully search the south wall for secret doors. <DM nods, and player rolls a d20> I roll a 3."
DM: "Your search turns up nothing."

Yet from the character's point of view (and by extension, the player's)there is not and should not be any difference whatsoever. The character has no idea why she failed, only that she did her best searching and found nothing; and as player knowledge should equal character knowledge where possible, this is one where the DM ought to be secretly rolling instead of the player.

Lanefan

Let me tackle your example of the search - nah i think you are wrong.

When any most any skilled individual does some work they generally get an idea of whether or not it went like they wanted. How many times do you see a kicker in the NFL cringe as soon as they kick a ball, well before it goes offline or even if it hangs in and makes it? how many times do your hear folks writing code or cooking a meal fretting over... its not going right but...

So, as i see it, the ROLL is not some "mystery unknown element" but that character's impression of how well they did - (EDIT - and possibly other's assessment if seeing the effort), how well their effort turned out, was it a good kick or a bad kick... were the ingredients as fresh... did the routines fit elegantly or was I kludging it all day... was my dialog scene flowing and fresh or....

Now, none of these are "failure/success" determining on their own, just like "stepped on a twig" is not either... but they do represent the character's sense of how well they performed right then and there at that task.

Why do you presume to decide the thoughts of your PCs as a default part of your job as GM... "However, if your failure in the same situation is due to your concealment simply not being as good as you think it is"

Sure, if there is an NPC compulsion thing at work... that could be the case... that their thoughts are not their own.

But beyond that, where did they sign in on "and i determine what your character thinks"... huh?

They key is this... you do not need to strip away from the player and their character the ability to make an assessment of how well they did.

A roll which i rolled a 20 and still failed... "Man, i was dead spot on, had him dead to rights, saw all his tells and he still bluffed me." that is a case where that player rolled high, and the character thought they were good but comes away with a sense of competence for the other guy. On the other hand, roll low and fail leads to "i really shouldn't have been flirting with the waitress with the three..." and leads to the character not making assumptions about the other guy.

Meanwhile, if its all a mystery roll behind the screen all that concept goes away (or is taken by the GM) cuz for some reason nobody knows why they ever fail.

So lets take your example:
Rolled a 20 on search
Character thinks "Easy to see cracks, solid density, water washing by so none of this or that... easy call " I didn't find anything. There's nothing there. lets go on!"...said with high degree of confidence.

Rolls a 3 on search: "Hard to tell. No good way to sound because of the material. Water drip test inconclusive. Cant see one but wouldn't want to stake my life on it. Lets lay down some caltrops or squeakers behind us as we go forward."

Since there are not guaranteed 1 and 20 succeed fail in skill checks, there is no way the roll alone tells you sucess or failure and so there is no reason for the Gm to seize that "how good do i think i did" mental control from the player.

But let me ask... do you do the same in combat?

Players rolls a 19 on a bow shot and fails? They get an idea the difficulty on hitting is quite high or that something else is amiss and so they decide to not keep doing that.

Player rolls a 3 on a bow shot and fails? They get an idea that their shot just sucked. They may or may not keep trying but they did not gain any significant insight from that attempt. they likely do not change efforts on account of it.

or do you conclude "you dont know why you failed. But you failed" and make those rolls behind the screen too?

KEY thing is this... since the roll is only part of the succeed/fail and since the character has in almost every case the ability to perceive "how well did that go" the roll and "what you think about that effort" does not need to be handed over to or taken over by the GM in order for success/fail to be as robust as that GM seems to want them to be. a LOT more can be gained, IMO, from leaving that in the hands of the player to assess, letting the roll remain what it actually is - "game-side expression" of the character's effort/skill/performance at that moment at that task - and let BOTH the player and the character take that and use it as part of their narrative process.

GMs who want dice behind the screen and fall back on putting thoughts in their players PC characters heads make me seek the door.

BTW, as a GM, I flop the rolling around - i roll no dice. Not one. When a monster attacks, the player rolls a "evasion save" which is "roll D20 plus Ac" to see if that attack hurts them. When a player throws a spell that requires a save by an NPC, they roll a "power check" which is "roll D20 and add your save DC" to see if the target saved or not. When opposed checks are needed, i either use a static value for the NPC or have a second player roll the opposing die (in cases where the other person's performance is a detectable thing - like say grappling.)

it has not weakened my GMing or hurt my game or caused any harm to the "mystery factors". It has added a lot in play... not the least of which is even more a sense of trust showing through the play.

 

[5ekyu]

I find myself agreeing with both of you. Often the character should be aware of failure; sometimes not. Question is, how to decide when - you've demonstrated that for stealth skills either is plausible. 3e has a nice mechanic for some skills - if you fail by more than a certain margin, you think (to your detriment) that you have succeeded. Use Rope check for throwing a grappling hook, for a top-of-my-head example. That requires the roll to be out of sight of the players and the DM to reveal the failure stright away in some cases. (Or the players to roll and see it, but have the integrity to pretend they don't know they've failed.)

Or the Gm lets the roll show what it shows...

GM determines pre-scene - the Dc is 15 to get the hook to land and catch, but 20 for it to get firmly locked in solid spot because the ledge is crumbly and old.

Player rolls with net result 18

"Hook lands and catches but there is crumbling bits and it shifts but it seems marginal at best.".

Player may decide to yank it down a re-try or maybe send the gnome up first since they are light to secure it for the rest or maybe just says "Good to go! Reinhart the Larger Than Most, you go first. Oh, and, no hard feelings over your last joke. It was funny i guess in its own way even if i didn't feel so then."

Player rolls with net 13 "Hook caught and lodged for a moment but as soon as you tugged a few times it came loose"

Player rolls net 23 "landed, solid, catch...a little shifting at first but its giving no shift now even when you tug hard. Good to go."

Again... because the difficulty is "out of sight" there is no need for the roll to be out of sight to create an unknown situation.

if you look at our two expressed mechanics - you are using a "margin of failure" approach that requires behind the screen rolls... while i am using a "margin of success" which allows open rolling and the player to be able to use his "roll" as his "how good did that feel" just like people do all the time, day in and day out...

I am pretty confident about my prediction for the Browns game later, but was much less sure about my Cowboys pick a few days ago... and once i see how they play "the roll" i will have an even better assessment... but that outcome of success/fail may be still in doubt.

 

[5ekyu]

BTW... this is an aside... but i do feel it has some relation to the disagreements on the subject here and an element at the core of these different approaches.

It seems like part of the pushback on "I move to the bar and lift a purse. i rolled a 17" is drawn from a sense of "GM must fill out the details - not the player" kind of logic.

No not saying that is the whole of it but...

As i said in the requested response to the "arcana check vs portrait of macguffins which might have been history check" example - the players is in this case asking for info and giving you his tool - so to speak - etc and i said i describe it as "Ok so from the images you see sigils on their robes... etc etc etc.." and give them whatever they could gain from an arcana check of that level for the circumstances.

Did i have "notes: if arcana is used they can see..." - no. i used their arcana request and result to let some additional flavor be added into the scene. I let them, in effect, create part of the game, indirectly.

They asked for brown sugar on their toast and i gave them some even though i had not put it out on the table.

Other case example was someone using "nature" skill when maybe another check was...

i think some described the "narrate the wrong skill check" approach as silly at one point but...

Again, i take those chances as opportunities - cases where the player's choice helps add depth to the scene.

They get what they should by their description and their aptitudes and their "fortune" etc... and frankly every called for "action" or "choice" is an opportunity for me to let them be more engaged in the scenes and the creative process.

So, YES, a GM can just ignore their arcana request because they rolled at the wrong time, as some have suggested, tell them that will be a history-int check or whatever... and that may serve their game well.

For me, it really feels a lot more like "you did not say you looked up" to do that and just move on.

"Looking at the painting, you see the sigils and the effects and that suggests they used lots of evocation magic, possibly tied to infernal sources but hard to tell much about their history beyond that, although you think you may have read..." and then aloow them to make the suggested history check.

Not only does this let the player's effort be of use but it helps to show the player(s) again "what arcana can do" vs "what history can do" a lot more than ignoring the roll for arcana and telling them its a history check. likely as not, they come away not feeling rebuked for acting out of turn or asking the wrong skill but with a sense of engagement and then follow-up with history check/questions.

My general broad, quite broad simplest phrase to sum up my take on GMing is "Say yes unless you have a compelling reason to say no..." and to me "you rolled without my permission, before i told you to..." is not a very compelling reason at all to push back at a player's attempt to engage his character and his character's aptitudes in the scene.

heck, it helps when they do "play to their strengths" cuz it gives me more opportunities to help make that talent show itself without me having to work it in ahead of time.

Does not mean their arcana check gives them history or their perception spots traps that can't be seen from where they are... just means they get to try and help keep their strengths relevant.