D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Well for starters with a roll of 7 total my description of the result would not be as simple as "you find nothing" - almost none of my "describe results" are that simplistic. i would observe that their search found nothing but add in bits of this and that to show them that they are not clear and confident that it was a full good search. there are numerous things presented already to illustrate this. One of them might well be that some things rattle when picked up.

If players followed up on those to do more specific, more destructive things, then the results would have a chance to chenge - just like how a locked door can be attempted to get past with skill (pick locks), muscle (force the lock) or by simply destroying it. Simpkly destroying it is an option.

The catch of course to your "smash the goblet" is the result of "it contained a fragile macguffin, now destroyed" just like the "kill the door" approach comes with its own "cost for certainty" attached.

The underlying question for balance considerations is "does the narrative fiat strategy" produce such demonstrably better outcomes than the "character skill approach" or not, and in the case of the smashed goblet and the killed the door examples, the answers should clearly be no often enough to not make this such a well advocated strategy for more success as some choose to describe their other auto-success impacts on play.

I'm assuming that the McGuffin isn't breakable, its a large metal key for example. If it was breakable of course you would smash the fragile object hidden inside when you smashed the glass globe. In that case assume the player says he wants to boost the halfling up there so he can take the globe down and they look inside it, where the DM had put the item.

I was just wondering how far do DM's go to limit the potential results of stated actions by the players at the table in favor of the result of the dice and the numbers on the sheet. I like it when my players are clever and out-think me, though far too often they don't even try and reach for the dice. I'll give out bonus XP for that usually. To me engaged players using their creativity to solve problems outweighs sometimes a player being more clever than his +5 bonus would indicate.

 

[iserith]

For me, yes, there are two different “tiers” as you put it, or rather categories of checks. Ones that can be described as an action a character does, and one that passively happens in a character’s brain. I don’t like the awkward word gymnastics that have to happen to phrase wanting to know if you recognize the origin and nature of runes in the goal + approach format, and I don’t like DM-initiated “there’s a thing you might know more about, roll to see if you do” checks. So I handle such checks with the passive score (10 + Ability Mod + relevant Proficiency if trained). So, if I include some strange runes in the dungeon that players might or might not recognize, I’ll not a DC for players to recognize them. Intelligence (Arcana) 12 for easy, 17 for moderate, 22 for hard. I would probably include another DC for knowing it with Intelligence (History), and might also note that a character who can read the language the runes are written in passes automatically. Then when I describe the runes, I will include the information about their nature and origin right in the description if anyone reads the language or has a high enough passive Intelligence (Arcana). I will make sure to point out that the players are receiving this information because of so-and-so’s high passive ability or language. “Thanks to your arcane studies, you recognize these runes as...” or, “with your vast knowledge of history, you recall that these runes...” or, “being familiar with Primordial runes, you recognize these runes easily, and can tell that they say...”

That approach is reminiscent of D&D 3.Xe and 4e if I remember correctly. Often monster entries would have information by DC. Or adventures would list knowledge roll results the PCs could get by hitting certain DCs. To me, this is a little too prep-heavy for my tastes, plus my regular campaign is a player pool - 8 players of which 5 can play any given session. And those players have multiple characters. So I really don't know week to week which character will be active and won't know what skills they have trained because it's just too much for me to commit to memory (and even more prep to notate somewhere).

So, I prefer a player to describe something like "I draw upon a time when I studied at the great library of Lionguard as a sage to recall what I may have read about these arcane runes..." Then I can decide in that moment if the player's description is successful, unsuccessful, or warrants a check. It also tends to establish some additional detail about the character during play which helps flesh him or her out. Over time, each little tidbit adds up to create a more realized character in my experience. Easier on the prep, don't have to remember anything, and adds to the character - all reasons why I do it the way I do.

 

[redrick]

It seems more likely that the player's approach was entirely reasonable to them, but that their expectations (as to what is or isn't reasonable) do not match up with those of the DM. Assuming that the player is acting in good faith, it seems unduly harsh to simply Nope any chance of success based on differing expectations.

If this is the case, and it is definitely something I experienced, particularly when I was new to DM'ing, I think the best thing to do is to look at why the expectations of "what is reasonable" differ between the Player and the DM. Is there something that the DM is not considering? Is there a detail of the fiction that the player is missing? (There is a wall of fire between you and the safe, so you can't try to crack the lock.) Is there a system difference of understanding on what is and isn't possible in your world?

Wherever possible, I'd want to resolve these conflicts. Maybe not in the moment, but definitely before the next session. If the Player feels like the world does not match their expectations of what is possible, the game is a failure for them. If the player is attempting things that seem impossible to the DM, but the DM is allowing them to succeed or fail based on a die roll, that DM is no longer able to accurately adjudicate their game. Ultimately, the DM has to be the final arbiter of their world, but if the Player and the DM can never come to an agreement on what is possible or reasonable, that is a problem. It's like having two characters in a novel who act like they are in two very different novels.

 

[Charlaquin]

That approach is reminiscent of D&D 3.Xe and 4e if I remember correctly. Often monster entries would have information by DC. Or adventures would list knowledge roll results the PCs could get by hitting certain DCs. To me, this is a little too prep-heavy for my tastes, plus my regular campaign is a player pool - 8 players of which 5 can play any given session. And those players have multiple characters. So I really don't know week to week which character will be active and won't know what skills they have trained because it's just too much for me to commit to memory (and even more prep to notate somewhere).

So, I prefer a player to describe something like "I draw upon a time when I studied at the great library of Lionguard as a sage to recall what I may have read about these arcane runes..." Then I can decide in that moment if the player's description is successful, unsuccessful, or warrants a check. It also tends to establish some additional detail about the character during play which helps flesh him or her out. Over time, each little tidbit adds up to create a more realized character in my experience. Easier on the prep, don't have to remember anything, and adds to the character - all reasons why I do it the way I do.

A perfectly valid approach, and well-reasoned for why you prefer it. I don’t mind the extra prep, and I like the division it creates between active and passive actions. That’s just me though.

 

[iserith]

the division it creates between active and passive actions.

I'm triggered!

 

[5ekyu]

"Hi, I'm Bob the Arcanist, and I'd like to look at those runes using my training in arcana and see if I've never seen them before."

"Could you rephrase that in a way that wasn't utterly bewildering, Bob? Thanks."


Um, what?


Which choice of phrase? You asked for examples of what an auto-success arcana check and an auto-success medicine check might look like. I provided. Now you're accusing me of requiring the specific form and fit of my examples as 'push this phrase button to win?' Are you trying to be a jerk about it?


Why would I? Seriously, if Bob the Arcanist, who has studied arcana, cannot decipher arcane runes, what was the purpose of his training?

Or, is this a weird way of asking how a similar situation might be treated as uncertain instead of autosuccess?

If that, and that's me taking an extremely charitable take on your word salad there, if the runes or archaic or of a significantly more powerful effect than what poor Bob could do. However, since Glyph of Warding is a 3rd level spell, and roughly the effect that the altar used in earlier examples would be, I'd give that a free pass to most any group, as at 5th it's in the baliwick.

But let's imagine an archway covered in runes that evoke a gate spell for a specific class of demon if activated using the proper ritual and the party being only in the second tier, so not able to cast similar magics. That might go as follows:

Bob the Arcanist: 'I rely on my training in arcane writing at Mage College to see if I can decipher the markings on that archway."

Me, DM: "Sure thing! You get a vague impression that it might have something to do with teleport magics, but you're uncertain. Bob, make me an Arcana Check, DC 20, to decipher the runes."

Bob (success): A 22!
DM: "Cool! You figure out it's a powerful summoning effect that attracts (specific demon type) from the Abyss. It's powered by a ritual, you figure, but how that works the writings don't say. You'll have to look for that information elsewhere."

Bob (failure): A 17. Shucks.
DM: "Unfortunately, you talents aren't up to fully decrypting the writings."

For the disease, a similar event might take place for a rarer or magically induced disease. As you just asked for an example of an autosuccess, I showed one with the assumption that Swamp Pox was a common and easily treatable disease.


Well, that's not surprising as you likely play with most folks you know of and they share your preferred style. However, when I'm trying to explain my style, which differs from you, perhaps you shouldn't try to evaluate it based on what other people that use your style might say. You might find you learn something, even if you choose to continue on your current pathway.

I don't have a master list of diseases or runes either, but I can, very easily, determine if this disease or those runes are common or rare and adjudicate based on that. It's really that simple -- instead of not caring whether this set of runes or that disease is common or rare and letting dice and an arbitrarily selected DC determine if players know what it is, I figure if that piece of information is something I want to be a challenge to determine or if its something that's better off as knowledge the players should have. If the former, it's rare or special and requires a check. If the latter, proficiency in the skill will usually be enough -- although I'll often allow someone not proficient to make a check on common things, or even no check if they tie it into their backgrounds well enough. "My mom died of Swamp Pox, does this look like the same disease?" will get an automatic 'Yes, it does!" from me. That detail is now set for that character, and the game moves forward for it. If the nature of the disease wasn't critical to the rest of the adventure, I'd rewrite the scene on the spot to accommodate that, even.

So, if i read this right...

in the case of arcana and disease, its a case where the GM determination of the "rarity of the disease" or in more specifity "spell level vs character level", proficiency or not or even specific background elements related to the character etc that determines whether an auto-success occurs vs an unceratinty occurs given a basically not nonsensical description.

For finding the key in the drawer, its going to be keyed (pun intended) on whether they used the words "in the furniture" vs "on the furniture" in their description of method (assuming you go along with the drawer example presented before and are not now going to distance yourself from it)

One set/tier of skills has the auto-or-roll is determined by character-side factors... the other by player-side descriptions...

Thanks!!!

That is a rather clear contrast.

That is an outcome i try to prevent in my games.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think you're missing the argument. "Good roleplay" is synonymous with "an approach which is likely to achieve a stated goal".

...No it’s not?

It's not based on flavor text; as you say, the narrative quality of how the idea is described is irrelevant. The issue is that the player doesn't know which approach is likely to achieve a stated goal, even if their character probably should.

I don’t necessarily agree that the character should know any better than the player does. If I’m doing my job as DM right, the player and the character should have the same information to work with.

As an example, imagine there's a death knight coming to kill the princess, and we want her to come with us so we can protect her. As a player, I may not know what argument would convince her, if I'm not good at reading social cues. If my character is a noble bard with expertise in persuasion, then they probably should know what argument to use. By going straight to the roll without saying what argument they're using, it allows the character to succeed on their own merit rather than those of the player.

Being proficient in persuasion shouldn’t give the character any more information about what argument might convince someone of something. It just makes you better at presenting an argument, so if you make an argument that has both a chance of succeeding and a chance of failing, Persuasion Proficiency will help weight the odds of persuading them in your favor. Reading social cues is a function of Insight, and if the character is proficient in Insight (or simply has a very high Wisdom score), I will give them more information about social cues the princess is giving and what they probably indicate (Insight is another skill I consider largely passive). However, that’s not particularly likely to tell you what argument will convince the princess. It’ll tell you how she’s responding to your attempts, but finding the right argument is largely either a matter of prep work, asking people who know the princess what she responds well to, or trial and error. Just like real conversation.

If my rogue has expertise in investigation, then it's not really fair to expect the player to come up with the brilliant idea of exactly how they want to search the room. The character should know better.

I disagree. Investigation doesn’t make you better at coming up with ideas for how to look for things, it makes you better and finding things when you do look for them (at least, under the most common interpretation of the Perception/Investigation split; as mentioned earlier, I do run those skills a little differently than most DMs.) If the player says “I look under the rug” and the thing they’re looking for is in the drawer, they’re not going to get a roll because there’s no chance of finding the thing that’s in the drawer by looking under the rug. This is supported by the rules of 5th Edition.

At least, that's the basic argument. I'm not actually arguing for or against either side, but the logical extension of the other side would involve getting rid of skills entirely. I'm not sure if anyone remembers, but the inclusion of social skills in 3.0 was hugely controversial for this very reason.

I don’t think the removal of Skills is the logical extension of the DM always calls for the rolls style. In that style, rolls are necessary to resolve uncertain outcomes. With no skills, the only ways to resolve uncertain outcomes would be pure random chance or DM fiat, in which case the player really would be restricted from takimg advantage of things the character should be good at.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I think getting rid of most skills other than things that are locked to one class would be great though in 5e nothing is locked.

Strange though with that attitude I'm prepping a WHFRP 2e campaign which is loaded with skills...I must be getting goofy in my old age.

 

[robus]

Which choice of phrase? You asked for examples of what an auto-success arcana check and an auto-success medicine check might look like. I provided. Now you're accusing me of requiring the specific form and fit of my examples as 'push this phrase button to win?' Are you trying to be a jerk about it?

I think you just fell into the trap [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] warned about just moments earlier.

As for others, without the exact fictional context of the scene, it is difficult to say what a successful approach might be for those tasks. And arguably, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, because if I provide a specific example with exact fictional context, then I open myself up to criticisms that the example was too specific to be broadly applicable at which point I'd have to unwind that whole mess. No thanks.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, if i read this right...

in the case of arcana and disease, its a case where the GM determination of the "rarity of the disease" or in more specifity "spell level vs character level", proficiency or not or even specific background elements related to the character etc that determines whether an auto-success occurs vs an unceratinty occurs given a basically not nonsensical description.

Yes? It's hard to parse that confusing mass of words correctly, but I think we're on the same page. Depending on the difficulty of the task (rarity of the disease, relative power levels between the character's knowledge and the effect, etc) and whether or not the player frames his action to reference appropriate things (proficiency, previous history), the results will be either an autosuccess (low difficulty, appropriate skill/experience) to uncertain (hard difficulty, marginally appropriate skill/experience) to auto-fail (inappropriate action declaration).

For finding the key in the drawer, its going to be keyed (pun intended) on whether they used the words "in the furniture" vs "on the furniture" in their description of method (assuming you go along with the drawer example presented before and are not now going to distance yourself from it)

Not even close. It's going to depend on whether their action declaration has a reasonable chance of discovering the hiding place of the key. If they say 'I'm going to search the drawers', then, yes, autosuccess -- the action directly addresses the hiding place of the key. If, instead, they say 'I'm going to search the walls for a secret door' then, no, they fail to find the key, but I may ask for a check to find a secret door, if one exists. If they say 'I'm going to toss the room for the key' then a check will be asked for to see if they find the key while they toss the room. If they say 'I'm taking my time and going through everything with a find toothed comb' then they find the key, but it takes time (consequence).

Nothing determines that success only occurs if they reference the 'magic words'. I don't have magic words, I have a scene, and the players choose how they interact with the scene. So far, I don't have many issues with my players missing keys in drawers, largely because I'm not a dick and they aren't dithering idiots that search only the walls for hidden keys.

Somehow, we manage.

One set/tier of skills has the auto-or-roll is determined by character-side factors... the other by player-side descriptions...

Nope, they're all by player-side descriptions. If Bob asked if he could decipher the altar runes using his knowledge of the language of the elves, he'd fail, no check -- it's not written in elvish. If Bob asked if he could decipher the runes using religion, he'd get for free the knowledge of which cult and what deity the altar belonged to, and could make a check to see if he was familiar with the common types of protections associated with that cult/deity. Success would mean he'd be aware that their holy artifacts were often protected by negative energy traps, failure wouldn't return any useful knowledge.

If, in looking for the key, Bob said he was going to use his performance skill to mime looking in the drawer, he'd do an excellent job of that and perhaps encourage his allies to rid the world of Bob the Mime, but he'd not find a key. If he leverages his intuition to decipher where the owner of the key might hide it, that would be a check, WIS(insight) with the DC modified by how much he know about the owner of the key (traits, history, etc). A success would indicate that looking in the drawers might be a rewarding choice of action. A failure might mean that Bob recalls something unhelpful to locating the key.

Thanks!!!

That is a rather clear contrast.

It's not, you've fooled yourself by assuming things not said.

That is an outcome i try to prevent in my games.

As do I.