D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[redrick]

of course a BAD assumption adds unnecessary time, just like policeing phraseing does... so we all try to make GOOD assumptions and at the same time work with each other when we do or don't

The difference is, if you know it's preferred to present actions as, well, actions, that never changes. It's a constant. If you try, you will succeed. If you are making assumptions, even if you are trying to make good ones, you will end up making bad ones, because you don't know what the players intentions are if they aren't telling you.

I mean, I'm not saying everybody should do it Iserith's way. His approach seems very .. committed. But it is consistent.

I used to work at a residential language school (students lived on campus in dorms). We had students ranging from college age to professional (lots of law enforcement and state department types) to retired. The program's schtick was that, for 10 weeks, the students spoke nothing but the language they were learning. Even if they had arrived at the beginning of the program without a word of the language they were studying, once we started classes, all conversations, in or out of class, had to be conducted in language. Students speaking English could be expelled from the program. This was extreme, and often absurd, but the benefit was that, after several weeks, students achieved a kind of immersion they wouldn't have achieved just speaking Russian in front of their teachers during class. And yes, a good portion of them went a little bit crazy by the end. (Imagine thinking only in Russian, except the only things you know how to think are, "I have two brothers. I like soccer. I want to eat.") But it wouldn't have worked without that enforcement that you have to do this.

That said, most people do not choose to go through this experience.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It’s seems like some of the people in this thread are just trying to troll each other. The conversation has taken an enormous leap away from the original topic. If your players are always in control of their actions. Then a player rolling a skill before, after , or during a description is a statement of their action. If you as the DM decide to penalize them because they didn’t declare their actions in a multiple option scenarios then I deem that as petty. I have been playing for years and honestly this never came up in our games. I just recently started DMing again for my current group. My players always describe what they are doing. But we also use some common sense.

If my player asks if a door is unlocked I tell them yes or no. They almost always state, okay I’m opening the door. This seems like such a trivial thing to argue about. A number of posters seem to just try to bait the others or belittle others methods. I mean the original question was in regards to how to handle players who self assign a roll. I have two players in my group who are skill monkeys. One of them is playing a rogue with just about every skill in the book. As such when I describe a room and they just roll a skill and say I’m using this skill, I’ll ask them what the roll was, check my notes and see if that gets them something. I mean it’s a game, the point is to have fun.

I don't know if we are 'trolling' but we have most for sure talking past each other.

I agree your version sounds like a pretty average table.

 

[Sunseeker]

It seems like quite a leap to say that describing what you want to do is somehow "begging the DM to allow you to play."

It's a question about personal capability that the rules have already laid within the players domain.

I've also haven't said that it necessarily must be formulated as a statement. But at my table, the preference is to do so. My quoting of the rules is to show where I get such crazy ideas.

But the rules don't say that. The rules only say that character control is in the hands of the players. The fun part about the English language is that a statement like "The players say what they want to do." Doesn't mean they phrase it like a Jeopardy question. It just means the players are in charge of stating their own goals and actions, as opposed to say, having the DM state a player's goals and actions for them.

The description of the environment reasonably frames the character's ability to take the action the player describes as wanting to do. The DM then narrates the result of the adventurer's action. Whether or not mechanics come into play to arrive at a result is up to the DM.

The mechanics are always in play, even when the game shifts into storyteller mode. The players are informed about what they are capable of doing via their character sheet (and associated rules). EX: a player could not for example say "The orc walks over to a cliff and jumps off." because the control of the Orc is not part of the player's capabilities. A player who has Dominated an Orc could say "I will the orc to walk over the cliff and jump off!" which would give the Orc a save, which is in the hands of the DM.

Ultimately, there is a line between what a player can do, and what a DM can do, what each has control over. That's all the rule "The player states what they want to do." is saying. The player, states what, they want. The rest of the rules go on to support what I just wrote above. If what the player wants to happen is within that characters capability to do, as others would say: there is no uncertainty about it; then it happens. In the same way that the DM says "The Orc raises its axe and charges you!" because that is within the DM's domain to have happen.

Yes, "I walk over to the door and jiggle the handle to see if it's locked..." is a description of a goal and approach - what the player wants to do. The rest is the DM narrating the result of the adventurer's action.

Which is again, why I think a lot of this conversation has revolved around word games, because now you're using "what the player wants to do" in the same context I am, when only a few posts before you weren't​.

 

[iserith]

It’s seems like some of the people in this thread are just trying to troll each other. The conversation has taken an enormous leap away from the original topic. If your players are always in control of their actions. Then a player rolling a skill before, after , or during a description is a statement of their action. If you as the DM decide to penalize them because they didn’t declare their actions in a multiple option scenarios then I deem that as petty. I have been playing for years and honestly this never came up in our games. I just recently started DMing again for my current group. My players always describe what they are doing. But we also use some common sense.

If my player asks if a door is unlocked I tell them yes or no. They almost always state, okay I’m opening the door. This seems like such a trivial thing to argue about. A number of posters seem to just try to bait the others or belittle others methods. I mean the original question was in regards to how to handle players who self assign a roll. I have two players in my group who are skill monkeys. One of them is playing a rogue with just about every skill in the book. As such when I describe a room and they just roll a skill and say I’m using this skill, I’ll ask them what the roll was, check my notes and see if that gets them something. I mean it’s a game, the point is to have fun.

I think that while the topic is about player self-assigning rolls, it can be extrapolated outward to be about assumptions in the game in general, both the assumption of a player as to the uncertainty of a task's outcome (which is the DM's role to determine), signified by asking for or making an unprompted roll, and the assumption of the DM as to what a character is doing (which is the player's role to determine) when the player's description of what he or she wants to do isn't necessarily spelled out clearly. So these things are related in my view. (The side track about the DM describing the feels of characters was just that.)

My preference is for the DM and the players to stay in their lanes and perform their individual roles to the best of their ability. But of course others are free to do their own thing.

 

[Lanefan]

It seems like quite a leap to say that describing what you want to do is somehow "begging the DM to allow you to play."

However, saying "I want to ..." is sometimes an attempt to fish for information or to make the DM give something away. As in:

Player: "I want to open the door"
DM: "Door's trapped. Saving throw."
Player: "I never said I was doing anything, I only said I wanted to!"

Which means if someone says "I want to [do something]" the DM's only response can be "Well? Do you [do that]?"

Yes, "I walk over to the door and jiggle the handle to see if it's locked..." is a description of a goal and approach - what the player wants to do. The rest is the DM narrating the result of the adventurer's action.

Quite right, this is an action-result sequence.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The difference is, if you know it's preferred to present actions as, well, actions, that never changes. It's a constant. If you try, you will succeed. If you are making assumptions, even if you are trying to make good ones, you will end up making bad ones, because you don't know what the players intentions are if they aren't telling you.

mistakes happen. I totally know that it seems odd but the way to not to take up too much time is to just acknowledge the mistake and keep going. not having to correct phraseing makes that worth it.

That said, most people do not choose to go through this experience.

That's the thing. you can totally say some people go into these things, and some don't...

 

[5ekyu]

Well, if it's your own closet you already have (in theory!) half a clue as to what's in there.

But if it's someone else's closet that you've never looked into before, did you not find a secret compartment in its back wall because there isn't one or because there is and you missed it?

I think it serves the game just fine, in that it's realistic. A character looking at a blank wall trying to find a secret door doesn't even know if one is present, never mind exactly where it is.

What you're doing is taking three possible outcomes...

* Success (good quality of execution)
* Failure due to not finding anything even though there is in fact something hidden there (poor quality of execution)
* Failure because there is nothing there to find (quality of execution is irrelevant)

...and intentionally eliminating the middle option from play, leaving only a binary succeed-fail. How does this serve the game at all?

Lanefan

Wait, what? Nowhere did i eliminate failing to find the door that is present.

Knowing the ROLL and your TOTAL does not give you the result.

What it gives you at best is "i went over it with fine tooth comb and every test i can and found no secret doors, nothing even suspicious. Looks clean." which likely leads to moving on.

Contrast that with "well, i did not find anything, but it looks fishy and the circumstances keep me from checking for abc plus def test was mixed... So nothing i can fund but not gonna bet the farm on it."

Those are both examples of not finding secret door, one from a high roll, one from a low roll and neither of which tells you whether one was there or not...

DIE ROLL != RESULT just part of the process to get to the result.



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

It's a question about personal capability that the rules have already laid within the players domain.

Except it's not a question at all. "Can I open the door?" is a question. "I want to open the door..." is a statement.

But the rules don't say that. The rules only say that character control is in the hands of the players. The fun part about the English language is that a statement like "The players say what they want to do." Doesn't mean they phrase it like a Jeopardy question. It just means the players are in charge of stating their own goals and actions, as opposed to say, having the DM state a player's goals and actions for them.

That you derive some other approach you prefer from the rules doesn't mean I'm right or wrong. But you might be able to see why someone may read that rule, in the How to Play section, to mean that the player makes a description of goal and approach rather than ask a question. And that after trying that interpretation and finding it to lead to a positive play experience, forming a preference for it.

The mechanics are always in play, even when the game shifts into storyteller mode. The players are informed about what they are capable of doing via their character sheet (and associated rules). EX: a player could not for example say "The orc walks over to a cliff and jumps off." because the control of the Orc is not part of the player's capabilities. A player who has Dominated an Orc could say "I will the orc to walk over the cliff and jump off!" which would give the Orc a save, which is in the hands of the DM.

Ultimately, there is a line between what a player can do, and what a DM can do, what each has control over. That's all the rule "The player states what they want to do." is saying. The player, states what, they want. The rest of the rules go on to support what I just wrote above. If what the player wants to happen is within that characters capability to do, as others would say: there is no uncertainty about it; then it happens. In the same way that the DM says "The Orc raises its axe and charges you!" because that is within the DM's domain to have happen.

The DM determines whether or not there is uncertainty in any action described by the player and determines which mechanic, if any, apply. That is what I mean when I say that the mechanics come into play when the DM says so.

Which is again, why I think a lot of this conversation has revolved around word games, because now you're using "what the player wants to do" in the same context I am, when only a few posts before you weren't​.

I think you jumped to some conclusions is what happened. It looks like framing a description in terms of "I want to do X..." triggered you into thinking you were begging the DM to play, as you say, which seemed like an odd conclusion for someone to reach at the time.

 

[DragonKnight88]

I've had players get it stuck in their heads that dammit, there's a secret door in that wall and we're gonna find it whatever it takes. Never was any door, but they'd convinced themselves there was and spent ages looking for it. Your methods would never allow this to happen...again, unrealistic from the characters' point of view.

This just happened in my game. My players broke into the main protagonists stronghold to confront him. Something I warned them would be a bad idea. The encounter became progressingly difficult. In this situation, one of my players declared they were securing the door and rolled a Thievery skill check to do so, without asking me. My response was that they were able to scavenge a few items to jam the door and set the lock.

However when they got to the warlords chamber, they found it empty. They swore that he couldn’t have teleported away and that he must have had a secret door he escaped through. I had to flat out stop game to explain to them that it wasn’t the case. Their was no magic used, their was no magic door. They still wouldn’t believe me and went on to declare they would search until they found something to which they were warned, reinforcements will make it through the door. At this point they waited until guards burst into the room and they decided to try and assassins creed their way out by leaping out the window and scaling the fortress walls. It was funny as hell as when the door was broken down and they realized that the warlord was the one who was leading the reinforcements.

 

[iserith]

However, saying "I want to ..." is sometimes an attempt to fish for information or to make the DM give something away. As in:

Player: "I want to open the door"
DM: "Door's trapped. Saving throw."
Player: "I never said I was doing anything, I only said I wanted to!"

And I'm the one who's playing word games?