D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[5ekyu]

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.

to me phrasing the determination of "what is in my character's knowledge set" as "I try to recall..." vs "Do i know..." is not at all related to "player vs GM" or "character vs world". Both involve, invoke and are resolved by means of an interaction with the GM, not a difference such as "do i see the monster as an NPC or as the GM"?

IMO, understanding "I am not my monsters and my monsters are not me" is a very different thing than whether or not we use anti-jeopardy restrictions for PLAYER-To-GM communication in the game or just talk like we normally do.

ASIDE on the "Character vs world phrasing.

Now, there is a lot more vague case for "i am not my world" since in actuality, the totality of the creation of the world is in the GMs lap. i take responsibility personally for "my world" and the impacts it causes.

For example, if i decide "my world" and "the campaign" hinges around a massive undead rising event and that means i populate many encounters and most if not all the key encounters with undead - that may well significantly shift or skew the balance between say a Cleric PC and a Druid PC so much that the Druid players feel definitely like second class PCs due to the campaign encounters being so far off the "expected diversity of encounters" used when balancing the published materials. i would see that as MY failing as GM, not something i would generically be able to pass aside as "its you vs the world, not you vs me".

Not that I think that was what was meant but the wording hit close to a key element with me, albeit unintentionally i think.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

I think it depends a lot on the group’s familiarity with either approach. Constant having to remind players to state their questions in the form of actions isn’t exactly smooth. A game where players are used to interacting through actions instead of questions is. A game where the players go into 20 questions every time The DM stops talking is definitely clunky, but a game where the players and the DM are on the same page isn’t really disrupted by the occasional clarifying question. Both styles have other advantages and disadvantages, but the flow of conversation is ultimately a matter of taste and familiarity.

 

[iserith]

I think it depends a lot on the group’s familiarity with either approach. Constant having to remind players to state their questions in the form of actions isn’t exactly smooth.

Yes, and in addition to not being smooth, I think it's easy to forget that it isn't a continuous state if it exists at all. One might reasonably expect that a group used to one way will take some time to transition to another, but at no point should anyone be thinking that it's likely someone plays the game on a continual basis like this. That's purely a caricature at best.

A game where players are used to interacting through actions instead of questions is. A game where the players go into 20 questions every time The DM stops talking is definitely clunky, but a game where the players and the DM are on the same page isn’t really disrupted by the occasional clarifying question.

Here also I'll point out that I said long upthread, maybe even in one of the first posts I made, that a question that clarifies what the DM said is just fine to me. Maybe my sixth Jameson caused me to mispronounce ixitxachitl or a player doesn't know what a lintel is. (It's a type of soup, I think.) But if your question can be answered by describing what you want to do, I'd rather you do that.

 

[iserith]

"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"

Or, you know:

Player: I want to jiggle the doorknob to see if it's locked and, if it isn't, I open the door.
DM: The door swings open to reveal...

Or any other reasonable example that isn't completely ridiculous. You might try less caricature in future.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it depends a lot on the group’s familiarity with either approach. Constant having to remind players to state their questions in the form of actions isn’t exactly smooth. A game where players are used to interacting through actions instead of questions is. A game where the players go into 20 questions every time The DM stops talking is definitely clunky, but a game where the players and the DM are on the same page isn’t really disrupted by the occasional clarifying question. Both styles have other advantages and disadvantages, but the flow of conversation is ultimately a matter of taste and familiarity.

It's hardly a situation where there are constants reminders. It only takes a few sessions to get used to it.

 

[Sunseeker]

Or, you know:

Player: I want to jiggle the doorknob to see if it's locked and, if it isn't, I open the door.
DM: The door swings open to reveal...

Or any other reasonable example that isn't completely ridiculous. You might try less caricature in future.

It's not totally ridiculous, I've seen it happen. Player asks question, DM answers question with a question, player asks new question, rinse and repeat several times until I make a "stupid check" just to get the game moving again.

 

[robus]

It's not totally ridiculous, I've seen it happen. Player asks question, DM answers question with a question, player asks new question, rinse and repeat several times until I make a "stupid check" just to get the game moving again.

And here we see the problem with asking questions instead a taking actions....?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And here we see the problem with asking questions instead a taking actions....?

except this problem isn't with asking the DM a question, it's in the DM not answering the quastion

 

[iserith]

It's not totally ridiculous, I've seen it happen. Player asks question, DM answers question with a question, player asks new question, rinse and repeat several times until I make a "stupid check" just to get the game moving again.

Anything's possible. In the context of this thread, however, reaching for that example over, say, mine or one that is similarly succinct, seems noteworthy.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Or, you know:

Player: I want to jiggle the doorknob to see if it's locked and, if it isn't, I open the door.
DM: The door swings open to reveal...

Or any other reasonable example that isn't completely ridiculous. You might try less caricature in future.

it's not a caricature (unless it is one you created to take your idea to the exteme) you have told us over and over you will tell a player that asks a question to rephrase it as an action...
as for yours, I have had a lot of experience not just with my group (althouth mostly) but at cons, and store and online games... I have VERY rarely seen someone declair multi if then statements...


almost no normal conversation goes "I want to juggle the doorknob to see if it's locked, and if it isn't I open the door"... even typing it is a mouth full