D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[The Crimson Binome]

Sure. Looking for runes was the only approach I could think of for how to use Arcana to try and achieve the goal of "find out if it's magical." It's not a great example because identifying items as magical isn't normally a function of the Arcana skill, but I ran with it because it was what had already been under discussion.

Going with examples from upthread, though, there are other cases where choosing the wrong approach from the many possible would lock you out from success. If you're looking for secret doors, and there are at least two methods by which you could do that, then choosing the wrong one means that you fail; if the DM lets you initiate a roll without specifying the method, then you have a chance to succeed regardless of which method the door is concealed by.

Skipping straight to the roll gives you the benefit of your character's expertise within the world, beyond the mere imagination of the player. If the DM allows you to. Which isn't a given.

As a player, I have no idea how my character would go about using the Arcana skill to detect a magic item. But if that is a thing which they can do, which we are assuming is the case in this example, then the character does know how they would go about it. When the player says that they want to make an Arcana check to determine if this thing is magical, what they're really saying is that they want their character to perform whatever action corresponds to the mechanic of using their knowledge of the arcane to determine the properties of an item, even though the player doesn't know what that entails.

It's essentially giving the character the benefit of the doubt, even though the player doesn't know as much as the DM does about how the world works.

 

[Charlaquin]

Going with examples from upthread, though, there are other cases where choosing the wrong approach from the many possible would lock you out from success. If you're looking for secret doors, and there are at least two methods by which you could do that, then choosing the wrong one means that you fail; if the DM lets you initiate a roll without specifying the method, then you have a chance to succeed regardless of which method the door is concealed by.

Skipping straight to the roll gives you the benefit of your character's expertise within the world, beyond the mere imagination of the player. If the DM allows you to. Which isn't a given.

As a player, I have no idea how my character would go about using the Arcana skill to detect a magic item. But if that is a thing which they can do, which we are assuming is the case in this example, then the character does know how they would go about it. When the player says that they want to make an Arcana check to determine if this thing is magical, what they're really saying is that they want their character to perform whatever action corresponds to the mechanic of using their knowledge of the arcane to determine the properties of an item, even though the player doesn't know what that entails.

It's essentially giving the character the benefit of the doubt, even though the player doesn't know as much as the DM does about how the world works.

Yeah, I guess. The goal and approach method of resolving rolls leads to both more opportunities for automatic success and more opportunities for automatic failure than the goal and skill check approach. I find the former to be far more interesting than the latter though. The game gets way too abstract for my taste when everything is communicated in terms of nebulous "checks" without specific approaches attached to them. I want to know what the characters are actually doing and what is actually happening in response to those actions, not just assume the character does something appropriate to the skill they decided to use, that none of us have the expertise to understand or picture happening.

 

[Maxperson]

n my games, if you decide to check a shiney sword and a sword with runes on it for magic (by whatever means there is that involves a check for success) then for the player and for the character the process will remain the same. narrate, describe, declare , check, adjudicate etc etc.

There was no "we didn't roll so auto..." there was the exact same process regardless of the underlying truth.

I as Gm don't change my mind because a dice got rolled on whether you can succeed or can fail because the roll is a measure of performance, not a testimony to failure chance existence.

Rolls can be failed. If there was a shiny sword that upon closer inspection is clearly glowing and magical, I'd just tell the player that his PC sees that it is magical when his PC investigates the sword. However, if that player instead of telling me that he is investigating the shiny sword instead says, "I investigate the sword and make an arcana check to see if it is magical. (a die gets rolled)". At that point he has now introduced a roll that can be failed as rolls in 5e happen when the outcome is in doubt. Should he roll a 1 and end up with a really low number, he has probably failed. As soon as he rolls I need to assign a DC to that check. It would be an easy one, but even easy checks can fail. On a failed check I would let him know that the sun is reflecting brightly off of the blade, or some other reason why the PC would miss the glow.

As you say, rolls are a measure of performance and performances can go wrong.

 

[Charlaquin]

Some of the recent posts highlight a big part of the issue i have with the "linking" of roll with failure.

it boils down to this: How something is determined within the game and at the table mechanics-wise does not need to be handled differently depending on what the possible outcomes could be. They really dont. It also causes "issues" and "concerns" even for some of those proposing it.

"getting fewer chances at auto-success" has been mentioned several times - pointing to the issue that lets say "playing the GM" so he gives out as many auto-successes as possible is a "good strategy." if you make a roll you "open the door"... etc. Maybe if its one way you wont even know how confident your character is in the result.

But lets take a different look.

In my games, if you decide to check a shiney sword and a sword with runes on it for magic (by whatever means there is that involves a check for success) then for the player and for the character the process will remain the same. narrate, describe, declare , check, adjudicate etc etc.

There was no "we didn't roll so auto..." there was the exact same process regardless of the underlying truth.

I as Gm don't change my mind because a dice got rolled on whether you can succeed or can fail because the roll is a measure of performance, not a testimony to failure chance existence.

When it is done in my system, your character ends up with a result and a degree of confidence in that result based off how they saw their performance, be it high degree or low degree.

The way i have interpreted the "dont have to roll if impossible" and "dont have to roll if too easy" is by comparing it to old days where that kind of thing was unclear. Every had a Gm have your space marine roll to use a phone book? i have.

those "dont need to roll everything" kinds of rules cropped up a while back and in general started to cover the "just stop making them roll for silly crap."

But somewhere over in indie land of gaming theory they started to morph into a more philosophical mandate - "dont make them roll if..." became "cannot roll unless..." in some peoples minds, alongside the "must have consequences and failure stakes" which at least seems to have not crossed into DND yet officially.

So, yeah, no, i am not going to make you roll for phone books or for tieing your shoes or walking acroiss the street or wiping your bum without falling off the stoop.... but i am also not going to let the rules allowing that exclusion to force a second means of resolution for actions and skills that is dependent not on what is being attempted and how that is done but on the underlying final answer.

The lets go to visit grandma at her house route to grandma's house will be the same, whether or not grandma is home when we get there.

You the player don't have to worry about me changing my decision on auto-success or not, or if i will be "influenced" to make it less likely for you to get auto-success because we will be using the same process either way.

The "best strategy" is not keeping quiet and hoping the Gm will give you more auto-successes but will be to have a good idea, a good plan, a good way to get it done "in character", "in the game" using the story, the scenery, the narrative, your character's strengths and the mechanics to get the best possible odds which do include auto-success and aut-failure where appropriate.

If the result of the de jour definition of roll-to-failure relationship is that "dont ask for rolls cuz if you wait the gm may give it to you without you needing to roll" which really smells to me like "playing the GM" then i consider that a serious freaking flaw and drawback to that whole system, because the players should be , IMO, thinking of the marriage between story-narrative-mechanics and not "what gets the best yields out of the gm".

If someone were to say "hey, dont ask about treasure at the table. Wait. cuz if he does it by email later there is always more." would you be highlighting that as good roleplaying game activity? good "strategy". System working great?

Anyway, thats how i see it.

The advice to describe actions and waiting for the DM to ask for a check before rolling as a strategy to fish for auto-successes only works in the context of a game where players are allowed to initiate their own rolls if they want to. So, if the result that some people might try to game the GM for better results is a flaw in the system, the system it's a flaw in is the one where the players choosing to initiate rolls is an option. That's actually a point in favor of the "DM is always the one who calls for rolls" style of action resolution.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yeah, I guess. The goal and approach method of resolving rolls leads to both more opportunities for automatic success and more opportunities for automatic failure than the goal and skill check approach. I find the former to be far more interesting than the latter though. The game gets way too abstract for my taste when everything is communicated in terms of nebulous "checks" without specific approaches attached to them. I want to know what the characters are actually doing and what is actually happening in response to those actions, not just assume the character does something appropriate to the skill they decided to use, that none of us have the expertise to understand or picture happening.

Presumably, after the player succeeds on the skill check, the DM then narrates what actually happens within the world. The alternative is that the player stops the game to ask the DM what the in-game reality associated with that mechanic is, then the DM tells them, and then the player says that they do that. That hardly seems preferable.

When I'm the DM, if the player just rolls without declaring or says that they don't know how to approach it, then I'll prompt them so that they know which options make sense for the situation. I'll list out two or three possible approaches, or I'll keep listing ideas until I run out or they pick one or they suggest something else.

 

[machineelf]

I always respond politely and gently, because I don't want my players to feel bad, and they are doing what they think they are supposed to do. They simply need to be reconditioned to think in terms of what their character would do, and leave the calls for dice rolls to the DM.

This problem does come up, so my solutions are as follows:
1. Before the gaming group gets going, I give my players a document with all house rules I'll be using and an explanation as to how I approach the game and my duties as a DM. I'll also verbally go over this at the start of Session 0 so that we are all on the same page.
2. When they make a dice roll before I've called for it, I say, "rolls don't count until I've called for one," and I say it in the friendliest way possible, because I'm not trying to be a jerk or make anyone feel stupid. I understand that this happens, and a lot of players may not be used to the very character-focused role-play that I like to use in games that I run.
3. If they have a special ability that requires a roll, it's OK for them to ask me if they can make the roll. I am human and I forget these things sometimes. I don't get mad if they ask me if they can make a roll for general things either, but the goal I'm going for is for them to state what they are doing and I decide if a roll is called for, rather than for them to ask to make a roll for some non-specialized action. So, I'd prefer, "Them: I start looking through the bookshelves to see what I find. Me: OK, make an intelligence investigation check," rather than, "Can I make an investigation check on this bookshelf?" The reason why I prefer this is not to be an annoying stickler; it's to encourage more character and story immersion. Again, I explain all of this in Session 0.
4. Sometimes I make it funny. If a character goes up to a door guard and the player says, "Can I roll a persuasion check to see if I can get him to open the door?" I may have the guard say, "A roll? What is this crazy talk? I am on duty, you really should move along."

The key takeaways are: Let them know your style of DM'ing and role-play early on. Don't be a jerk; players forget, and it may take awhile for them to adapt to the kind of immersive role-playing you are encouraging. If they forget, don't be mean. Nothing kills a game faster than a DM who is a jerk and who isn't understanding or gentle.

And remember the phrase: "Die rolls don't count unless I call for them." Explain this on Session 0 and have it written in your house rules. And say it with a smile and be nice about it. EDIT: In fact, probably the nicer and better way to approach this in the middle of a session is to do what other people have already suggested, and say, "Tell me what your character is attempting to accomplish." And then call for a dice roll if you feel it needs it.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I’ve never sat at a table where a player auto-assigned rolls outside of combat in order to make the game smoother (if you’re one of those people and I game with you you’ll show me something new)

A player of mine is playing... well, imagine the body of Conan with the brain of Sterling Archer.

He sometimes makes spontaneous Intelligence or Wisdom saving throws against himself, to decide whether his character recklessly says or does something he shouldn't.

Given the nature of the character, "smoother" would not be an entirely accurate word for the effect of this on the game. It is, however, a positive effect. Most importantly, the player enjoys being able to be surprised by his own character.

 

[CapnZapp]

DM describes a scene, players say what they want to do and how they want to do it, and DM determines success or failure or if a roll is needed because something interesting can happen because of the roll. As much as I reiterate this flow, I still get experienced players who throw down some dice without being asked and announce "Survival 24 for doing blah blah" or whatever. Did I miss something between AD&D (which I played as a kid) and 5E (my return to D&D two years ago) that made this alright?

The Run a Game Blog has a nice piece on this:
www.runagame.net/2017/10/players-self-assigning-rolls.html

I guess I'm looking for ways that other DMs deal with situations where players roll the dice for skills without being asked to do so. What say you?

Announce that any roll made that you haven't asked for counts as a failure.

Problem solved.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Arial Black]

Rolls can be failed. If there was a shiny sword that upon closer inspection is clearly glowing and magical, I'd just tell the player that his PC sees that it is magical when his PC investigates the sword. However, if that player instead of telling me that he is investigating the shiny sword instead says, "I investigate the sword and make an arcana check to see if it is magical. (a die gets rolled)". At that point he has now introduced a roll that can be failed as rolls in 5e happen when the outcome is in doubt. Should he roll a 1 and end up with a really low number, he has probably failed. As soon as he rolls I need to assign a DC to that check. It would be an easy one, but even easy checks can fail. On a failed check I would let him know that the sun is reflecting brightly off of the blade, or some other reason why the PC would miss the glow.

As you say, rolls are a measure of performance and performances can go wrong.

If an action would auto-fail or auto-succeed then no roll is required.

If someone makes a roll anyway, they just wasted their time. Reality doesn't change from certainty to uncertainty just because someone asks about it.

You say that if the outcome would be auto-success/failure but the player rolls anyway, the universe responds by making the outcome in doubt when there was no doubt before the player rolled the d20, even though the PC in-game didn't do anything yet.

So, for you, the act of rolling changes an auto-success into something that might fail.

The very same logic means that the act of rolling also changes an auto-fail into something that might succeed; changing 'no doubt' into 'doubt'.

So I now have a 5% chance (at least!) of achieving impossible things simply by rolling a d20! Cool! A 5% chance of flying by flapping my arms, or having a wish come true without all that labourious getting to 17th level and learning the spell!

 

[Charlaquin]

If an action would auto-fail or auto-succeed then no roll is required.

If someone makes a roll anyway, they just wasted their time. Reality doesn't change from certainty to uncertainty just because someone asks about it.

You say that if the outcome would be auto-success/failure but the player rolls anyway, the universe responds by making the outcome in doubt when there was no doubt before the player rolled the d20, even though the PC in-game didn't do anything yet.

So, for you, the act of rolling changes an auto-success into something that might fail.

The very same logic means that the act of rolling also changes an auto-fail into something that might succeed; changing 'no doubt' into 'doubt'.

So I now have a 5% chance (at least!) of achieving impossible things simply by rolling a d20! Cool! A 5% chance of flying by flapping my arms, or having a wish come true without all that labourious getting to 17th level and learning the spell!

Natural 20 is only auto-success on an Attack roll, but solid argument otherwise.