D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[Charlaquin]

Thanks for that, I have been very hesitant to post in the discussions I have seen Some people get ripped apart in different threads it gets crazy. I got some really good advice from posters in my first post/question and some not so great information as well. Almost caused a fist-fight with my normal Friday night game.

For what it’s worth, I apologize if any of my posts have contributed to your hesitation. What ever your preferred methods of playing and DMing, more power to you! I enjoy debating about preferred methods, but I’ll never be one to say someone’s preferred way of playing is wrong. What matters is that you and your group have a good time together.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ah, consistency. Consistency is it's own reward, it helps to maintain fairness, and more than a few players have been saved from low rolls, that simply did not count, though, because I am consistent, it has also more rarely resulted in a high roll being "wasted". There is also the benefit to keeping people who are prone to cheating from doing so, though I feely admit that is not really of much concern to me at this point in my life.

Hmm, as an example, let's assume you know without question, that you will be using the aforementioned investigation, will you be using intelligence, dexterity, or perhaps wisdom? All might be appropriate depending on what you are trying to determine, and what method you are using to do so.

I suppose I can turn this around. What is gained by making a point of pre rolling a die that you don't know that you will need, you don't know what modifier may be added to it if yp u do, and that you know makes me stop for a few extra seconds, while I get myself back on track, to tell you that you didn't need to roll, that you automatically succeed, but, due to examining the alien device, I DO need you to roll a d6, to see if you activated something on the alien device on accident while you did so?

The trick to all this, it is not about my rule or the highway, so much as this is the process that I use to bring the best game that I am able to run by using my process, why would you not respect that this is how our particular table works, any more than if your die falls to the floor, it gets picked up and rerolled?

So, I disagree that consistency (or much of anything) is its own reward, so that’s part of it. I also don’t think most tables use variable abilities for skills.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So you would refuse the table rules to intentionally derail the dm, who has put a lot of effort into bringing you a game that, presumably, you are enjoying, as, we apparently have history, and have been playing together for a while?

I think there’s a very fundamental lack of mutual understanding here.

What in Odin’s many names do you think they are saying? I genuinely can’t figure it out.

 

[Lanefan]

Y... yes? I’ve lost the thread of this part of our conversation...

You'd said something like that on a failure where there was no time pressure they'd just succeed; to which my point in reply was that succeeding isn't a failure.

Yes, but I don’t want to decide for a player at what point their character gets confounded and gives up. I also know that if unlimited retries are possible, very few players will give up, given that there is at least a 5% chance of succeeding. So I just skip over that process. Fine by me, success is a much more interesting outcome than getting too frustrated and bored to keep trying anyway.

There's a big disconnect somewhere here. I think it's because you're stuck on allowing unlimited retries, which to me are an absolute non-starter.

I'm not deciding when a character (or player) gives up, I'm merely narrating the results of their best attempt (as set by the roll) to do whatever they're doing. Up to the player/character whether she gives up or not, but simply trying again will accomplish nothing as your roll has already determined the best you'll do without some significant change.

And yes, it's frustrating sometimes. It's supposed to be.

Correct. Although that alone doesn’t necessarily tell the players there’s nothing to be found, only that if there is anything, their method doesn’t have a reasonable chance of leading to them finding it.

Which again gives them more information than they should be getting. Why not go through the motions of rolling, to keep them guessing?

That sounds really boring to me. If you and your players have fun with spending ages looking for something that isn’t there, more power to you, but that’s definitely not my style.

So in effect you don't allow your players to invent and then pursue their own red herrings?

Sorry, I just can't get behind that.

Lanefan

 

[JonnyP71]

watch how much easier this flows

Player: is the door locked?
DM: Nope, the next room is covered in old mildew stains, but the air feels dry in here. the walls have some carvings on them, and an old well sits in the center of the room.

This shows a who different attitude to dungeon delving, essentially reducing the 'exploration' pillar of gaming to little more than an afterthought.

What would have if the door handle was trapped? Or there was a spider above the door? Or a crossbow lined up to trigger when a tripwire is touched? Which way does the door open?

It's quite a modern phenomenon, the idea of charging from room to room gung ho, with little care for the environment of the dungeon. The group I DM for were initially of that leaning, and it has taken a many many hours of play (and character deaths) to get them to slow down and approach everything in a more circumspect manner.

Now when faced by a door, the passage of event is more akin to:

(note I make any applicable rolls, so the players never know for sure whether they heard nothing because there was nothing to hear, or simply due to a bad roll)
- "I listen at the door, can I hear anything?"
- "I check the handle for traps"
- "I try the handle and give the door a little push or pull to see if it is locked"
- "I open the door a few inches, and using my infra/dark vision I carefully peer inside, what do I see"

And only then, after they believe it is safe to enter, do they move onwards.

This whole process actually helps them though - they have a better chance of surprising any occupants, they have very little chance of being surprised themselves, they get catch out by fewer traps, they are often able to observe any occupants and decide upon fight or flight before committing to fight. Once again - it gives the party more control of the course of their adventuring.

This is the game I much prefer to both run and play.

 

[5ekyu]

This shows a who different attitude to dungeon delving, essentially reducing the 'exploration' pillar of gaming to little more than an afterthought.

What would have if the door handle was trapped? Or there was a spider above the door? Or a crossbow lined up to trigger when a tripwire is touched? Which way does the door open?

It's quite a modern phenomenon, the idea of charging from room to room gung ho, with little care for the environment of the dungeon. The group I DM for were initially of that leaning, and it has taken a many many hours of play (and character deaths) to get them to slow down and approach everything in a more circumspect manner.

Now when faced by a door, the passage of event is more akin to:

(note I make any applicable rolls, so the players never know for sure whether they heard nothing because there was nothing to hear, or simply due to a bad roll)
- "I listen at the door, can I hear anything?"
- "I check the handle for traps"
- "I try the handle and give the door a little push or pull to see if it is locked"
- "I open the door a few inches, and using my infra/dark vision I carefully peer inside, what do I see"

And only then, after they believe it is safe to enter, do they move onwards.

This whole process actually helps them though - they have a better chance of surprising any occupants, they have very little chance of being surprised themselves, they get catch out by fewer traps, they are often able to observe any occupants and decide upon fight or flight before committing to fight. Once again - it gives the party more control of the course of their adventuring.

This is the game I much prefer to both run and play.

Ok sure thats great and how many times in a session of dungeons and doors does that sequence get repeated and does it add as much the tenth time as the sixth in a night?

The position expoused by that post **as i read it** about going on to the description of the next room was not a position of "reckless wanderer without a clue PLAYERS" but of "competent and capable adventurers" where the GM did not insist they go thru the same lather-rinse- repeat at the table with every door in the dungeon every time out of fear that a not stated action phrase by the PLAYER would be read as lack of caution by their supposedly seasoned character.

that is to say the fact that the players and Gm did not explicitly state they went thru reasonable precautions does not translate into their characters not taking reasonable precautions any more than them not describing their characters going to the bathroom five times a day means their characters are straining at the seams.

I myself remember the days of long multi- page door protocols written up in like word star and printed out on dot matrix printers so the players could either pull it out as checklist to follow or use it as their "we do protocol seven" to save time... All because they had been taught by their GM the knowledge of surviving door traps had to be PLAYER knowledge not CHARACTER knowledge and that the actual TRAP was there to catch the PLAYERS in a mistake, not their CHARACTERS.

i sometimes describe to new roleplayers in my games the difference between PLAYER and CHARACTER with a scene from that great classic somg Over the River.

DAD Hey guys we are going to grandmas house. We leave in 5m. Grab your stuff. Moms driving? I will navigate.

Now as i describe it DAD is the player and MOM is the character. Its mom's skill at driving that will be called into question whenever problems arise while Dad will always chart the direction and can at anytime step in and TAKE THE WHEEL (thru minute detail about the how normally left to mom.)

But I wont be asking Dad about turning on her turn signal or slowing for a caution light or slowing for a school zone, thats assumed to be MOM's responsibility and her competence is show on her character sheet.







Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[JonnyP71]

Sorry, but no, I'm not going to assume they listen at each door, check the door handle for traps, etc unless they actually tell me they are doing it. Keep a checklist, do things methodically, whatever. I want my players to immerse themselves in their environment and try to think like their characters. It's gritty, deadly, dungeon delving that I enjoy, not Hollywood-esque heroic fantasy.

There's nothing wrong with a game that tests player skill above character skill.

Different tables, different people, different games.

 

[Severite]

I have no idea how you jumped from a post about which ability was used to deliberate attempts to derail gms?

So perhsps my best response would be to deny eating tacos with jimmy hoffa, elvis and dracula in the conservatory with a lead pipe.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

Your post literally gave an example of how you are able to ignore my table rules because you are able to figure out which modifier and skill should be applied, ignoring my other two reasons for doing so, and then add a snide "question" at the end, inferring that my table rule is somehow some slight, which I am not even sure quite what you are getting at, that I commit against my players

 

[5ekyu]

Sorry, but no, I'm not going to assume they listen at each door, check the door handle for traps, etc unless they actually tell me they are doing it. Keep a checklist, do things methodically, whatever. I want my players to immerse themselves in their environment and try to think like their characters. It's gritty, deadly, dungeon delving that I enjoy, not Hollywood-esque heroic fantasy.

There's nothing wrong with a game that tests player skill above character skill.

Different tables, different people, different games.

Absolutely you are right, different tables, different people different choices.

but what i have seen in games where this kind of thing was being done is... it is done unevenly in most cases.

IE in combat, the player skill at hitting with an axe is not tested... the character's is. So player's are taught that spending their chargen points into combat gets benefits they cannot PLAYER SKILL while some other out of combat options are things they can test against PLAYER SKILL and so you tend to get more and more similar type builds - focusing the points on the stuff where CHARACTER SKILL is the test and relying on PLAYER SKILL for the others.

Contrast to games where it is CHARACTER SKILL that is more consistent test being made where you get folks who are taught to spend at whatever aptitudes they want their character to be good at, regardless of their own abilities.

this was most telling in some games i have seen with social skills, where the Gm allowed mostly the "dialog" between player and Gm to rule the day. Started to see lower and lower CHA scores with those points shifted to combat stats by not only the smooth talking players but everyone, since they saw no gain in having a high CHA character if they were not a high CHA player.

Obviously that is not an issue at your table. But IMX an intentional design to TEST VS PLAYER SKILL has a tendency to throw a lot of balance monkeys into the wrenches - so thats part of why i do not use that approach myself. Another part is the time "lost" with repetitions of checks without consequence. our play time is limited so doing a number of "same door roll-calls" out loud with null results costs us more time for more fun stuff. Much quicker to have a character skill check or just a presumption of "you did that and found nothing and now on to..." than to go thru checklist out loud each time it wont produce any play gains.

 

[5ekyu]

Your post literally gave an example of how you are able to ignore my table rules because you are able to figure out which modifier and skill should be applied, ignoring my other two reasons for doing so, and then add a snide "question" at the end, inferring that my table rule is somehow some slight, which I am not even sure quite what you are getting at, that I commit against my players

in yeasr past i would have said something about you literally needing to look up the word literally, but since they have now changed it to also mean "figuratively" that option is gone.

So now, i literally try not to use the word "literally" since it has two contradictory meanings and instead have to rely on less satisfying replacements, like IN FACT.

IN FACT, i said not one word about your house rules or bypassing them.
IN FACT i addressed the issue of the questioning of what ability is used, not your longer (somewhat "cartmanesque" IMO) riff about RESPECTING YOUR AUTHORITYE!

EDIT
As an unsolicited piece of advice, if you want folks to not talk about ABC (ability assignment to task) in response to a post you see as about DEF (RESPECT MY AUTHORITYE!) do not bring up ABC in your post about DEF. it just raises the possibility that someone will choose to comment on the former and not the latter.