D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[JonnyP71]

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.

Some players will hate my approach, but I've done similar in the past. If a player keeps rolling before being asked to, despite already being asked to wait, then yes, I might introduce low DC, even if I would otherwise have given them an auto-success.

The player, by ignoring a simple request, has created the chance of failure.

However the reverse does not apply. If they roll before being asked and get a 20, and I deemed the task to be impossible, then they still fail.

...therefore a net loss for the player.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

This I think is the key reason why it should be discouraged, it opens the door to “creative” dice rolling. Pre-emptively rolled high? Keep that ready for when the DM asks for the result. Rolled low? Just forget it ever happened and award yourself advantage by rolling again when the DM asks.

If this is a serious concern, you've got a bigger problem than a simple question of dice etiquette. Either your players are honest and you should respect them, or they're cheats and you shouldn't play with them at all. A table rule effectively saying "I don't trust you" amounts to the worst of both worlds: it undermines your connection with the honest ones, while it keeps the cheats at the table where they're just going to find other ways to cheat.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Some players will hate my approach, but I've done similar in the past. If a player keeps rolling before being asked to, despite already being asked to wait, then yes, I might introduce low DC, even if I would otherwise have given them an auto-success.

The player, by ignoring a simple request, has created the chance of failure.

However the reverse does not apply. If they roll before being asked and get a 20, and I deemed the task to be impossible, then they still fail.

...therefore a net loss for the player.

I don't really think we should be interacting with our players through passive-aggressive rulings, either.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If this is a serious concern, you've got a bigger problem than a simple question of dice etiquette. Either your players are honest and you should respect them, or they're cheats and you shouldn't play with them at all. A table rule effectively saying "I don't trust you" amounts to the worst of both worlds: it undermines your connection with the honest ones, while it keeps the cheats at the table where they're just going to find other ways to cheat.

I play with someone who has loose ethical constraints about rolling dice. I've been playing with him for quite some time. He's manageable with a bit of oversight and restrictions like "don't roll until asked" and "don't pick up your dice" and "roll in the open." Aside from his problems rolling dice, which I attribute to his deep seated desire to 'win', he's worth keeping. Your dichotomy says I either trust him explicitly or kick him to the curb. There's a middle ground.

Also, if I'm playing an open game, I'm not about to monitor and call out behavior as cheating and kick the player on anything other than egregious evidence. I can, however, take steps in approach and table rules to minimize any incentives to cheat.

Cheating on dice isn't something I'm going to stand up and declare anathema, but neither am I going to ignore it can happen and not put in constructive gameplay rules that both help me adjudicate the game more efficiently AND remove dice shenanigans.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't really think we should be interacting with our players through passive-aggressive rulings, either.

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

 

[Blue]

By "proper DMing", players should be waiting for the DM to make a call.

In the real world, anything that speeds up die rolls should be embraced. We often roll hit and damage at the same time - just ignoring the damage dice if they didn't hit. In this case it sounds like the players are anticipating the DM. If they are correct, they saved time. If they aren't they are exactly where they would be anyway - needing to listen to the DM and perhaps make a roll.

In other words, it's it's no change at worst or pure upside whenever the player correctly anticipates and I would see no reason to discourage it. Just make sure the players know that the roll has no meaning unless the DM wants it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

By "proper DMing", players should be waiting for the DM to make a call.

In the real world, anything that speeds up die rolls should be embraced. We often roll hit and damage at the same time - just ignoring the damage dice if they didn't hit. In this case it sounds like the players are anticipating the DM. If they are correct, they saved time. If they aren't they are exactly where they would be anyway - needing to listen to the DM and perhaps make a roll.

In other words, it's it's no change at worst or pure upside whenever the player correctly anticipates and I would see no reason to discourage it. Just make sure the players know that the roll has no meaning unless the DM wants it.

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.

Also, it annoys me to no end. If you think there's no downside to annoying your DM to no end, well....

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

I do this even for my intelligent characters, in part because it helps me as a player overcome choice lock and stay in character. "High/Low" morale checks to see if my character is scared or not (even if others might think the situation isn't/is scary). "Evens/Odds" on picking up the strange glowing rock. Sometimes smart people do dumb things, sometimes dumb people have good ideas. Sometimes it's hard to decide what action to take. Rolling against myself helps with those things.

 

[iserith]

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.

Also, it annoys me to no end. If you think there's no downside to annoying your DM to no end, well....

Even though I do make the calls for ability checks as DM in my games, I expect players to generally choose tasks their characters might be good at mechanically in case they have to roll. The goal is still to avoid rolling if you can, but if you fall short of automatic success, you've still got a decent chance of success. Knowing that not everything is going to be a check though does in my experience help mitigate "avoiding weaknesses" some, as you say.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

Also, it annoys me to no end. If you think there's no downside to annoying your DM to no end, well....

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.

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.

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.