D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[Charlaquin]

Re: descriptions involving extrasensory information: I think there’s a fine line to be walked. In a world of magic, characters should be able to sense things outside sight, smell, taste, touch, and balance. But, the DM also shouldn’t tell players how their characters feel. So, for me, “this place has an unsettling aura” let’s the players know that they can tell this place is unsettling through some kind of supernumerary sense, without directly telling them “you are unsettled by this place.” “The hairs on the back of your neck stand up” is a good way to communicate the presence of the supernatural using the traditional senses. “It feels like you’re being watched” would be acceptable in my book but “you start feeling paranoid” would be a step too far. YMMV.

 

[Satyrn]

It depends on the expectation at the table. There are a few ways I can see this scenario playing out. For example,

Player: Is the door locked?
DM: Nope.
Player: I open it.

Or,

Player: Is the door locked?
DM: Can you rephrase that as an action with a goal and approach?
Player: Oh, right. I try to open the door with my... Oh, actually with Thaumaturgy just to be safe.

Basically, the thought that I might want to open the door with magic mighrbnor have occurred to me before the DM prompted me to be more specific about how I go about trying to find out if it’s locked. If the expectation at the table is that questions are normal and not necessary equivalent to a declaration of action, then “is the door locked?” might just be something I as a player am wondering, not yet having resolved to try to open the door by one means or another. Sure, I wouldn’t know without trying to open it (unless it had an obvious padlock or something), but I might not have thought through the implications of that line of questioning. I’d be a little miffed if the DM just assumed that by asking that question I was declaring intent to open the door with my hand, rather than asking for clarification on how I was going to try to find out whether or not it was locked.

Thank you. That was exactly my thought when I raised thaumaturgy as a means of answering "is the door locked?" The players have more ways to check than just jiggling the handle.

 

[Sunseeker]

Re: descriptions involving extrasensory information: I think there’s a fine line to be walked. In a world of magic, characters should be able to sense things outside sight, smell, taste, touch, and balance. But, the DM also shouldn’t tell players how their characters feel. So, for me, “this place has an unsettling aura” let’s the players know that they can tell this place is unsettling through some kind of supernumerary sense, without directly telling them “you are unsettled by this place.” “The hairs on the back of your neck stand up” is a good way to communicate the presence of the supernatural using the traditional senses. “It feels like you’re being watched” would be acceptable in my book but “you start feeling paranoid” would be a step too far. YMMV.

I think there's some good meat here, and some important distinctions in the language you're using. While I don't subscribe to word-policing players (not implying you do) word-policing yourself when you are a DM can be very important to properly convey information. I think there is a particularly good example in your language here.

"This place has an unsettling aura." - implies nothing about how the characters feel. You're talking about the aura the "place" is giving off. Characters may be unsettled, they may not. If there is no check required, this is a good place to simply allow players to state their feelings.

“The hairs on the back of your neck stand up.” - I think this is a great "walk the line". We, as humans understand that our bodies can react to stimuli without our conscious involvement or control. The hairs on the back of the neck, an uneasy feeling in the stomach and so on. Relying on these elements of biology can be a great way to walk the line between player control of their characters, and the necessity of the DM to "set the mood" for any given scene.

I believe you will come across my more in depth reasons, for which there are a few, for handling it this way, as you continue to read this ginormous thread, as I know that was an early response at the beginning, but:

One, it helps keep me from getting derailed, as I am susceptible to such; two, it allows me to determine what they are actually doing, and telling me, I get across the gorge, so rolled a 15 on athletics, doesn't help in the least, especially, if, when I ask how they are doing so, they said a grappling hook, and using it as a tightrope ; three, I remain consistent in my adjudication, if I am going to ignore it today because I don't know what you are actually attempting, I will ignore it tomorrow, even if you can be reasonably cettain I will call for one, and may even be right on which check it will be, and with what governing statistic.

These are all excellent points and pretty much surmise my response to the question as well. Asking players to wait is, at its very least, a matter of decorum.

 

[Satyrn]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but since I keep calling it 'word games' my problem isn't "Hey in my games I like people to try to explain in game what they do" that's cool, even if it isn't my way to run, I wouldn't mind playing in that game...

my problem is when someone says "The person sitting across from me told me what he wants, but I want him to rephrase it before we go on"

example:
player "Is the door locked"
DM "How would your character know that"
or
DM "You have to describe an action to find out"

I refuse to run a game and would not like to stick in a game were a DM wants you to rephrase something that they understood the request of.

I think they're saying they don't understand what a player is truly requesting when they ask "is the door locked?"

I know you said earlier that your table has established that as a shorthand for trying the lock, so you find it sufficient. Would you assume that shorthand is effect when a new player asks that question? They might come from a table where jiggling the handle with mage hand is the go-to action for answering the question, after all.

So it seems to me they're less willing than us to interpret the shorthand we use at our tables. For iserith that would be more necessary, since he's not DMing just his long-term group like we do (at least, I think you only DM for your one group), and he regularly forms new groups online.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think they're saying they undrstand what a player is truly requesting when they ask "is the door locked?"

I know you said earlier that your table has established that as a shorthand for trying the lock, so you find it sufficient. Would you assume that shorthand is effect when a new player asks that question? They might come from a table where jiggling the handle with mage hand is the go-to action for answering the question, after all.

So it seems to me they're less willing than us to interpret the shorthand we use at our tables. For iserith that would be more necessary, since he's not DMing just his long-term group like we do (at least, I think you only DM for your one group), and he regularly forms new groups online.

well first, I have 3 groups, but there is at least 1 overlap in each in real life...right now I am not running online but I had 2 groups 1 in 4e and 1 in 3e online. I agree sometimes you have to ask for clarification. I even agree that I do that when I need it. My problem is what someone up thread called "Anti-Jeopardy" where you do understand. Iserith is the most militant about it but I have seen quite a few posters who at least claim they will only except things phrased as actions... even the act of remembering "Do I know anything about this arcane symbol" got me told earlier this year to instead say "I try to recall lore about this arcane symbol"

 

[redrick]

well first, I have 3 groups, but there is at least 1 overlap in each in real life...right now I am not running online but I had 2 groups 1 in 4e and 1 in 3e online. I agree sometimes you have to ask for clarification. I even agree that I do that when I need it. My problem is what someone up thread called "Anti-Jeopardy" where you do understand. Iserith is the most militant about it but I have seen quite a few posters who at least claim they will only except things phrased as actions... even the act of remembering "Do I know anything about this arcane symbol" got me told earlier this year to instead say "I try to recall lore about this arcane symbol"

The reason for "only accepting" things in a certain format is that it is the fastest way to get everybody on the same page. It's a table rule, and once everybody gets it, there are no more questions about it. The same as dice that fall on the floor, or expecting players to keep track of what has happened in the adventure already, instead of constantly asking the DM to summarize things for them. Many, though not all, people, like to play in the format where players describe the actions of their character before the DM calls for a check. If it makes for a better game, why not encourage it?

"Anti-jeopardy" sounds silly, but does anybody on Jeopardy have a hard time with the format? If I know the DM expects me to form everything in the form of character actions, I'll just do it. If the DM reminds us once or twice a game, but never really does anything about it, some of us will keep using our old habits, and the DM will keep being frustrated.

If, after a couple of sessions doing it the DM's way, I say, "You know what, Dimmy, I love rolling 20 with you, but this whole thing of 'I try to remember if I've seen that religious symbol before,' just doesn't work for me. I gotta announce a religion check on it or I gotta find a different game," then you and your DM can decide what is more important to you — the format of action resolution, or playing in the same group together.

 

[Satyrn]

even the act of remembering "Do I know anything about this arcane symbol" got me told earlier this year to instead say "I try to recall lore about this arcane symbol"

That one does look far more militant than clarifying how a player checks if a door is locked. A question I'd consider to be reasonable action declaration.

But I'm wondering, if a table plays anti-jeopardy (an amusing phrase! ) as a matter of course, would the players actually ask the question rather than use the "I try to recall . . ." declaration?


I'll take Monster Mash for 800, Alex.

 

[iserith]

For iserith that would be more necessary, since he's not DMing just his long-term group like we do (at least, I think you only DM for your one group), and he regularly forms new groups online.

And with each successful one-shot with pick-up players, I expand the ranks of my describe-your-goal-and-approach-and-wait militants, readying for the inevitable coup. Soon, no table will be safe from clear, evocative descriptions from players free to act in the game world without the DM telling them what they do or how they feel about it.

 

[Satyrn]

And with each successful one-shot with pick-up players, I expand the ranks of my describe-your-goal-and-approach-and-wait militants, readying for the inevitable coup. Soon, no table will be safe from clear, evocative descriptions from players free to act in the game world without the DM telling them what they do or how they feel about it.

In before someone fails to notice the joke.

 

[Charlaquin]

I am a firm believer that you are ultimately in charge of your character. While I ask for folks to wait for me to call for checks, you run it, you roll it, it's one thing that appeals to me about 4E making saves into defenses. It puts control of the effect in the hands of the wielder (usually the player). DM's rolling for how well I do something or how I feel about something is...odd. I've seen the practice, and I don't like it.

As for "secret dice rolls" I think it can be useful, but ultimately, without knowing the DC or the reason for the roll, the actual number is meaningless to the viewer.

Non-AC Defenses instead of saves is one of those great innovations 4e made that sadly got thrown out with the bath water in 5e. You actually could still do them in 5e if you wanted, just give each Ability a Defense score of 14 + Ability Mod + (Proficiency Bonus if you would be proficient in saves with the abiliy) and replace forced saves with spellcasting attacks that target the appropriate and apply the effects of a failed save on a hit, a successful save on a miss. Honestly, I think the unpopularity of damage and other effects on a miss is a huge part of why they went back to saves for 5e.