D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[Sunseeker]

Actually the DM should have got them 10'-poling quite a bit sooner, either by way of a much lighter trap or a dangerous-looking door that wasn't or even just some well-placed reminders that any door could be deadly.

Maybe, and that's part of his job. I'd be less inclined to think poorly of a DM who stopped us from doing something stupid by saying "Are you sure that's what you want to do?" than one who stayed silent while giving us no indication we ought to be more careful.

If it gets to this point the DM has left it too late, and thus has to in effect give away the existence of a theoretically-hidden trap.

It's one reason I don't really like traps to begin with. But theoretically there should be some kind of "tell" for the trap, and it's up to the DM to make that tell at least reasonably clear before letting the players walk face-first into stupid.

But I understand you and I run our games differently. It's one of the reasons I think my players don't mind me imparting some action or motive to their characters. I view the game in a highly cooperative sense, sometimes the narrator directs and sometimes the actor acts.

In this particular instance I'd have very little sympathy for those players, based solely on this exchange. They are (one assumes) in a dangerous place (i.e. any adventure) doing dangerous things and they're trying to short-cut instead of simply developing a standard operating procedure that includes reasonable caution.

Hence the important line about "no dangerous doors before". Sure, there's always got to be a "first dangerous door" but again, there should be some kind of tell. Such as people mentioned up thread: if the altar kills whatever touches it, perhaps there's dead bodies (of people, bugs, animals, whatever), similarly the exploding door could have a fried skeleton in front of it, or perhaps the opposite wall has a "blast shadow" on it.

Now if this was the mens' room door in the local pub going up for 55 points damage that'd be different!
There may be tells, there may not; but they're all for naught if the PCs don't bother to look/listen/pay attention.

Again, it's the PC's job to do the looking. It's the DMs job to tell them they ought to be looking. I don't want players frozen by paralysis that every little doorknob may be trapped, that slows the game, I mean...unless they're in the "Hall of Dangerous Knobs". (and then doors may not be the only thing to avoid!)

I mean, look how often this sort of exchange happens:

DM describing the room: "...and in the middle of this dusty library is a chest, made of iron-bound wood and strangely clea..."
PC: "I open the chest!"
DM: > sigh < "Make a saving throw: are you glued to the chest that obviously now isn't a chest? The rest o' ye: roll initiative."

Lanefan

Bolded the important part. That was left out of my initial exchange for a reason. A "Strangely Clean Chest" is a tell. This is also an example of players "self-assigning rolls" IMO, I would probably just hold my hand up to tell them to wait for me to finish speaking, and then​ if they want to jump over and open the chest I'll let them do it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Like what?

like in the case of a haunted house
like in the case of a bad feeling
like in the case of feeling like you are being watched
like in the case of something mystical is effecting the pc

 

[Charlaquin]

So to sum up: D&D as sport rather than D&D as war. OK, got it.

Yeah, that’s a reasonable way to put it. Still competitive, but with very different reasons for engaging in the competition. I like that!

Where I'm not willing to make that assumption. Their one roll determines success or failure.

Even though the DC is the same the actual locks themselves are not, and something about the first one stumped you. (and if they were in fact identical e.g. mass-produced prison cell locks I'd give you a significant bonus were you to try the first one again, and you'd get a new roll as something material - in this case your knowledge of that specific lock - had changed).

How come I opened the last new jar of coffee with my bare hands but for this one - otherwise identical - I need a tool?
Because the assumption is that your initial roll already included that attempt, and any others you may make under that particular set of conditions and circumstances. This is explicitly intended to put a stop to the notion of simply rolling until you succeed*. If you want another roll you have to do something different, or gain a level, or gain in the relevant stat (Dexterity, in this case). Straight from 1e, and IMO still the best.

* - in case it isn't already obvious, while 3e has its good and bad points the one rule it had that made me want to vomit every time I met it is take-20. Take-10 isn't great either, but at least it still allows a chance of failure.

That's my point: there shouldn't be a "try again" unless something is materially (and significantly) different from what was in place for the first roll.

Yeah, I understand the thought process behind that style of resolution, I just don’t like it. If it works well for you that’s great, but like I said, it has always felt unsatisfying to me, both as a DM and as a player. I think 5ekyu might be on to something with their observation that this might work better in a system with a narrower margin of variance between roll results. At any rate, it doesn’t work for me.

In the altar example: the party Rogue tries - and by "tries" this assumes she throws every trick she has at it, possibly taking a few tens of minutes - and fails (as determined by her roll) to find a hidden compartment. What can the party do to give her another shot? Dispel Evil or similar on the altar, if successful, would in my eyes be enough of a change to give her another roll...maybe the evil aura was part of what was concealing the compartment and-or clouding her judgement. A Bard might be able to pull a legend or tale out of his memory that has info on how these evil guys build their altars and where they put the secret bits - boom, another roll (quietly modified by me based on whether the Bard's info is accurate or not).

See, I have the same problem with “your Rogue pulls out all the stops, tries everything she can think of, and these are the results” as I do with “I don’t know specifically what my character does to search the altar, but that’s what I’ve got this Skill on my character sheet for.” It’s too removed from the fiction. Too abstract for me to visualize what is actually going on in-universe. And it means the rogue’s player is succeeding or failing primarily by the grace of RNGsus with maybe a little help from the choices they made at character creation. I want her to succeed or fail primarily by the choices she makes in the moment with RNG and character building choices to settle situations where the immediate choice alone isn’t enough to decisively arrive at an outcome.

Oh, and rolls like this are always made by me as DM. Why? Becuase as the character doesn't know if she failed due to her own bad form or because there is in fact nothing there to find, I don't want the player knowing this either.

As a player, I never like when the DM hides the dice roll for my Action, so as a DM, I never do that to my players. I also make rolls for monsters and NPCs in the open as an act of good faith - if I the players have to roll their dice in the open, so should I. Plus it keeps me honest. No fudging rolls either in favor of the PCs or against them. Everybody saw what I rolled, there’s no pretending that untimely crit didn’t happen.

 

[iserith]

like in the case of a haunted house
like in the case of a bad feeling
like in the case of feeling like you are being watched
like in the case of something mystical is effecting the pc

I think JonnyP71 answered this upthread already. Describe the environment in a way that evokes the desired emotions without establishing how the characters think or feel about something, short of some kind of magical compulsion.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think JonnyP71 answered this upthread already. Describe the environment in a way that evokes the desired emotions without establishing how the characters think or feel about something, short of some kind of magical compulsion.

except that requires a bit of mind reading... lets take me trying to describe the cha 30 avatar of the god of lust and fire, who has an aura of attractiveness.

DM: "You see a beautiful red head with piercing blue eyes. Her come hither look is the perfect mix of mild innocence with a hidden sexual energy"
player: "Meh, I like blonds not red heads"
later when reviealed what and who she is
player: "Hey how was there no hint she was like the god of sex?"
DM: "I described her as beatuful"
player: "Not really you described her as not my type..."


and even worse that doesn't work at all (where it could have worked with clearer understanding between the player and DM in theory above) when it isn't at all a feeling a player can have at all...


lets say I have a cleric of pelor, and my NPC/villain, a disciple of the demon orcus has loaded an area not just with unholy energy, but the very anti life that Pelor hates... how ever it is still a house, and as such disguised

my way: "You get a chill and a bad feeling in the pit of your stomach...like something here is malevolent and actively hostel to you and your god?"
your way there is no hint, unless you change the fact that the house looks normal...

I like to model my stories off of stories I have read and watched, and so too have most of my players. A protagonist getting a bad feeling about something and reacting when no visable stimuli is there is common in such stories.
your way:

 

[Bawylie]

The reason it isn't is because, when I initially describe the altar, I'm going to describe it as faintly anti-glowing -- seeming to suck in all the light and heat nearby -- and marked with runes that look scratched in by a massive claw rather than carved. A cold and greasy feel to the air seems to emanate from the altar. What looks like dried blood covers the top and pools in the runes. You recall that Bob the Questgiver told you that the Cult of Horribly Bad Things and Lots of Negative Energy often builds secret compartments into their altars to protect the things they value. What do you do?

If, at that point, the players declare they're running their hands over the altar that's sucking in nearby light and heat and is covered in blood and scratched in runes, well, I figure I warned them enough already.

And that's that key point that you keep ignoring: those of us that use this technique compliment it by 1) not being dicks looking for gotchas and 2) by providing enough information that any gotchas that happen have been well telegraphed beforehand, so they aren't actually gotchas at all. If you foreshadow well enough, then it's now on the players to actually use that information. Rash actions can have bad consequences, and I'm not going to pull the punch on them.

Now, if I ask 'what do you do?' and the player says 'I run my hands over the altar to look for a secret compartment' and I suddenly realize I screwed up and failed to mention the light and heat sucking, the dried blood, and the scratched in runes then I'll either put in a pause, apologize, and redescribe the scene or, more likely, I'll say, "oops, okay, you find a secret compartment in the altar." I'm not going to use my failure to punish players.

Yep - if you’re playing this way, it is important to maintain good faith and trust. This is why I try to resolve ambiguities in the players’ favor, like how Ovino is suggesting here.


-Brad

 

[iserith]

except that requires a bit of mind reading...

Not really. You do your best and leave the rest to the players. I'm not concerned with telling them how their characters feel about something. As I see it, that's their role, not mine. The DM already has control over two-thirds of the basic conversation of the game. I'd rather not start taking the players' one-third as well.

your way there is no hint, unless you change the fact that the house looks normal...

Hey, how about you don't tell me what my way is when you clearly don't understand it?

 

[robus]

except that requires a bit of mind reading... lets take me trying to describe the cha 30 avatar of the god of lust and fire, who has an aura of attractiveness.

DM: "You see a beautiful red head with piercing blue eyes. Her come hither look is the perfect mix of mild innocence with a hidden sexual energy"
player: "Meh, I like blonds not red heads"
later when reviealed what and who she is
player: "Hey how was there no hint she was like the god of sex?"
DM: "I described her as beatuful"
player: "Not really you described her as not my type..."


and even worse that doesn't work at all (where it could have worked with clearer understanding between the player and DM in theory above) when it isn't at all a feeling a player can have at all...


lets say I have a cleric of pelor, and my NPC/villain, a disciple of the demon orcus has loaded an area not just with unholy energy, but the very anti life that Pelor hates... how ever it is still a house, and as such disguised

my way: "You get a chill and a bad feeling in the pit of your stomach...like something here is malevolent and actively hostel to you and your god?"
your way there is no hint, unless you change the fact that the house looks normal...

I like to model my stories off of stories I have read and watched, and so too have most of my players. A protagonist getting a bad feeling about something and reacting when no visable stimuli is there is common in such stories.
your way:

This is the key challenge of DMing, IMHO. Being descriptive enough to evoke the correct image in the players minds without telling them how their characters feel. It’s show don’t tell D&D style and I’m regularly kicking myself when my players don’t get the correct image from my description (or I forget a key detail in my initial description). I strive to do better of course and I think that is happening but it’s definitely the toughest part of the job (along with running memorable NPCs)

 

[5ekyu]

Yeah, that’s a reasonable way to put it. Still competitive, but with very different reasons for engaging in the competition. I like that!


Yeah, I understand the thought process behind that style of resolution, I just don’t like it. If it works well for you that’s great, but like I said, it has always felt unsatisfying to me, both as a DM and as a player. I think 5ekyu might be on to something with their observation that this might work better in a system with a narrower margin of variance between roll results. At any rate, it doesn’t work for me.


See, I have the same problem with “your Rogue pulls out all the stops, tries everything she can think of, and these are the results” as I do with “I don’t know specifically what my character does to search the altar, but that’s what I’ve got this Skill on my character sheet for.” It’s too removed from the fiction. Too abstract for me to visualize what is actually going on in-universe. And it means the rogue’s player is succeeding or failing primarily by the grace of RNGsus with maybe a little help from the choices they made at character creation. I want her to succeed or fail primarily by the choices she makes in the moment with RNG and character building choices to settle situations where the immediate choice alone isn’t enough to decisively arrive at an outcome.


As a player, I never like when the DM hides the dice roll for my Action, so as a DM, I never do that to my players. I also make rolls for monsters and NPCs in the open as an act of good faith - if I the players have to roll their dice in the open, so should I. Plus it keeps me honest. No fudging rolls either in favor of the PCs or against them. Everybody saw what I rolled, there’s no pretending that untimely crit didn’t happen.

As for open rolls, we are in same boats, although i just make them roll everything.

GM "It tries to bote you with blah blah. Make an evade roll."

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not really. You do your best and leave the rest to the players. I'm not concerned with telling them how their characters feel about something. As I see it, that's their role, not mine. The DM already has control over two-thirds of the basic conversation of the game. I'd rather not start taking the players' one-third as well.

I am not taking anything away I am not taking any control, I am describing the scene the exact same as you, I just allow my players more info than you do... I don't limit myself to sight sound and smell. Every 'feel' that I describe is a input the character gets to help the player process the scene.

Hey, how about you don't tell me what my way is when you clearly don't understand it?

ok, so explain how I am wrong. what am I misrepresenting?