D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Yeah, I read as much as I could of this behemoth of a thread, and then gave up.

What I don’t understand is, what is gained by the consistency you describe?

Different situations call for different things, surely?

Why ignore it when it is obvious to all what skill is involved? “I’m going to examine the device”, in a game where that type of examination is always Investigation, doesn’t need to go through the whole formal process. If the DM tends to use different skills depending on what is being examined, then the process is more understandable. Those are different circumstances that call for different approaches.

All too often, the insistence on the process, as the OP described, comes across very much as a DM attitude of needing to remind the players “who’s boss” at the table, rather than having any actual benefit to the game.

As for 2, seems like you could just then adjudicate using their roll, or tell them, “no roll needed using that method”, or “actually that will be a thrown weapon attack to secure the hook, so add your attack mod instead of athletics, and then roll athletics to use the rope to get across. Advantage if you have proficiency with climber’s kit and use it to secure yourself to the rope.” Or whatever.

I just don’t see how here is any benefit to ignoring the check, in that regard, rather than asking what exactly they’re doing, and going from there.

I get 1, though, I suppose. I haven’t been derailed by it, but I know that different people who are prone to distraction have wildly different things that easily distract us.

 

[Satyrn]

Yeah, I read as much as I could of this behemoth of a thread, and then gave up.

I'm impressed.When I give up on a thread, I can't be bothered to post to it.

 

[Maxperson]

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"

Some of us prefer smoother interaction to clunky Q&A sessions.

 

[robus]

Some of us prefer smoother interaction to clunky Q&A sessions.

My problem with questioning the DM directly is that it takes everyone out of the imagined world and makes plain that the DM is the one with the answers rather than presenting a world to be explored. It's player vs. DM rather than character vs. world IMHO.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Some of us prefer smoother interaction to clunky Q&A sessions.

lucky for those of us that allow normal conversation it isn't clunky when we do it.

My problem with questioning the DM directly is that it takes everyone out of the imagined world and makes plain that the DM is the one with the answers rather than presenting a world to be explored. It's player vs. DM rather than character vs. world IMHO.

if you can imagine one way you can the other...

 

[Sunseeker]

My problem with questioning the DM directly is that it takes everyone out of the imagined world and makes plain that the DM is the one with the answers rather than presenting a world to be explored. It's player vs. DM rather than character vs. world IMHO.

But the DM does have all the answers.

 

[Maxperson]

we both prefer the use of character knowlade and thought over player

I've been in this debate with [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] before. I'm pretty sure he told me that he doesn't care if a player buys the module he's running and uses that knowledge in game. That's pretty much the opposite of what you just said.

 

[Maxperson]

lucky for those of us that allow normal conversation it isn't clunky when we do it.

Both follow normal conversation. One is smoother than the other, and it's not the Q&A session.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Both follow normal conversation. One is smoother than the other, and it's not the Q&A session.

"is the door locked"
and
"I check to see if the door is locked"

take about as much time... you know what takes more then both (and pulls you out of the moment more)

"Is the door locked"
"How would your character know"
"I guess he looks at it first"
"It looks like a door you can't tell"
"I try the handle"
"It moves"
"Whats in the next room?"
"How would you know before you open the door, you only declaired trying the handle"

 

[Satyrn]

I've been in this debate with [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] before. I'm pretty sure he told me that he doesn't care if a player buys the module he's running and uses that knowledge in game. That's pretty much the opposite of what you just said.

I know I've said that.