D&D 5E Players: Why Do You Want to Roll a d20?

[DEFCON 1]

I still submit, as I did upthread, that this specific example is perfectly achievable with the player not asking to make a roll. The player describes what he or she wants to do. The DM considers it and asks for a roll, using a contest for some reason to come up with a DC. The player succeeds. The outcome in this case was the same. But from the player's perspective, why would I want to roll in that situation? I'd rather my action just succeed. The meaningful consequence that followed my failure on that roll might not have been good.

Speaking personally... it's because I as the DM have probably not yet determined whether the action was or wasn't succeedable in the first place. It wouldn't be until after the rolls were made and I saw what happened with the dice that I'd go with it and made it "true". So whether I ask them to make a roll or they offer to make a roll doesn't really matter, as the roll usually will occur regardless in order to figure out what the truth of the scene actually is.

This is most definitely a style of DMing that I know many other people DO NOT go along with... the idea that things just "become real" in the moment an idea is made and a die roll confirms it. I've read enough posts here on the boards to know that that is an anathema to many DMs. It's part and parcel to the "Players help shape the narrative" concept that many DMs disagree with, and the whole "it's never okay to fudge die rolls" question always reaffirms that.

So I understand why you and others wouldn't go along with the idea. But at least you can see why other people might. Because every single one of us DMs differently and there's no "right way" to do it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I mean, the prerequisite for there being a roll at all is that there is a meaningful consequence if you fail. Certainly that is something the character may wish to avoid even if the player might think failure in a specific instance could be fun and contribute to an exciting, memorable story. In general, it seems like a reasonable player behavior to want to succeed more often than fail and that's all this is really about: Asking to roll more dice is asking for a higher chance of meaningful consequences for failure. That does not strike me as a good strategy for long-term success.

If the DM is asking for rolls when there is no meaningful consequence for failure, well, that's not really what we're supposed to be doing according to the rules. And that's fine - people can play how they want. But as my original post lays out, I am taking this position based on a rules-based approach. If there really aren't any meaningful consequences to bear, then it makes sense players are asking to roll. There's hardly any downside.

And that all works out for your particular style of DMing. So your original post makes the utmost sense-- "If you run the game by the rules in the book as I am reading and interpreting them, here is how I think player action works the best to accomplish it."

And that's absolutely correct. The only brushback you are receiving are the people who either aren't interpreting the rules in the same manner you are (and thus would come to different conclusions), or aren't using the set rules in the book at all and are just using them as guidelines for their own manner of playstyle. Which of course would also lead to different conclusions.

No way is better or worse than the other, so there's no real need for any of us to feel like we need to defend our methodology. Especially considering our methodology comes directly out of how we interpret and run our personal games in the first place.

 

[iserith]

Speaking personally... it's because I as the DM have probably not yet determined whether the action was or wasn't succeedable in the first place. It wouldn't be until after the rolls were made and I saw what happened with the dice that I'd go with it and made it "true". So whether I ask them to make a roll or they offer to make a roll doesn't really matter, as the roll usually will occur regardless in order to figure out what the truth of the scene actually is.

I don't see how this is different from what I'm saying though. If the DM determines the task has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure, there's a roll. While you have not really stated any consequence here, there's definitely uncertainty and so you'd call for a roll.

This would be no different than how I would handle it, if I was uncertain as to the outcome. The only daylight between us, so far as I can tell, is that you might not have considered what failure is going to look like before the roll, whereas I would have.

Is there some difference I'm not seeing?

 

[5ekyu]

Speaking personally... it's because I as the DM have probably not yet determined whether the action was or wasn't succeedable in the first place. It wouldn't be until after the rolls were made and I saw what happened with the dice that I'd go with it and made it "true". So whether I ask them to make a roll or they offer to make a roll doesn't really matter, as the roll usually will occur regardless in order to figure out what the truth of the scene actually is.

This is most definitely not a style of DMing that I know many other people DO NOT go along with... the idea that things just "become real" in the moment an idea is made and a die roll confirms it. I've read enough posts here on the boards to know that that is an anathema to many DMs. It's part and parcel to the "Players help shape the narrative" concept that many DMs disagree with, and the whole "it's never okay to fudge die rolls" question always reaffirms that.

So I understand why you and others wouldn't go along with the idea. But at least you can see why other people might. Because every single one of us DMs differently and there's no "right way" to do it.

Well, context will matter.

I mean, if the "challenge" is to get across the chasm and it's a little farther than one can safely jump - but there is a seemingly sturdy unguarded bridge or a ring of flying available - I think few players would just decide to "let's roll for the jump" instead of taking one of the "obvious sure fire" options.

Right?

Surely this whole question about rolling is not hinging on that kind of example, right?

I mean, sure, context can matter a lot - do they suspect the bridge is trapped or watched or that magic use may draw attention?

But in general, if there is a known auto-success without reason it should not be used, my players do that instead of rolling. It's just, usually, you know, we dont consider them challenges or tasks or give them much screen time.

 

[iserith]

No way is better or worse than the other, so there's no real need for any of us to feel like we need to defend our methodology. Especially considering our methodology comes directly out of how we interpret and run our personal games in the first place.

Nobody's attacking, so there's no need for defense.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't see how this is different from what I'm saying though. If the DM determines the task has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure, there's a roll. While you have not really stated any consequence here, there's definitely uncertainty and so you'd call for a roll.

This would be no different than how I would handle it, if I was uncertain as to the outcome. The only daylight between us, so far as I can tell, is that you might not have considered what failure is going to look like before the roll, whereas I would have.

Is there some difference I'm not seeing?

I suspect the difference might be that for me it's not that I'm uncertain of an outcome... its that oftentimes there isn't an outcome to be uncertain of until the players actually roll. The roll is what creates the possibility of there being an outcome in the first place. Which is why I don't care if they initiate it, their request of a roll is basically their offering of something possibly truthful to which an outcome can result. Could they make an offer without asking for a roll? Sure. But as I'd be asking for a roll anyway (because that's oftentimes the only way I'll determine whether something has an outcome, and what the outcome is is based on the result)... if they speed things up by offering the roll themselves, I'm good with it.

I think for me, it basically comes down to this... the players offer up an idea to the situation that could be true. I myself have no idea if it is or isn't because I hadn't even thought of it to begin with. So making a roll both confirms what the truth is, and if they succeed in what they wanted ot do with that truth. Which means that even if they roll poorly, they often aren't "failing" to do something... its that the poor roll made the truth of the situation such that there was nothing to "fail" in the first place. You can't fail at something that doesn't exist.

 

[jayoungr]

I mean, the prerequisite for there being a roll at all is that there is a meaningful consequence if you fail.

"Meaningful" doesn't have to mean "punitive," at least in my experience and in my group. It just means something changes.

Certainly that is something the character may wish to avoid even if the player might think failure in a specific instance could be fun and contribute to an exciting, memorable story.

Sure, but the character isn't asking to roll the dice; the player is.

In general, it seems like a reasonable player behavior to want to succeed more often than fail

I want a fun story. Sometimes a fun story comes about through laughing at my PC's repeated failures.

and that's all this is really about: Asking to roll more dice is asking for a higher chance of meaningful consequences for failure.

As I said in my first post, in my head, it's more like "Let fate decide!"

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well, context will matter.

I mean, if the "challenge" is to get across the chasm and it's a little farther than one can safely jump - but there is a seemingly sturdy unguarded bridge or a ring of flying available - I think few players would just decide to "let's roll for the jump" instead of taking one of the "obvious sure fire" options.

Right?

Surely this whole question about rolling is not hinging on that kind of example, right?

I mean, sure, context can matter a lot - do they suspect the bridge is trapped or watched or that magic use may draw attention?

But in general, if there is a known auto-success without reason it should not be used, my players do that instead of rolling. It's just, usually, you know, we dont consider them challenges or tasks or give them much screen time.

Of course. But known auto-success isn't really what I was talking about. To use your example, if the party is travelling underground, I might not have any idea what is actually there except for maybe a set encounter or two that were the point of them travelling underground in the first place. Everything else I'm just improvising-- no map, nothing set, just whatever comes to my mind.

So I improvise that the tunnel they were in opens up to a chamber and that there's a crevasse to get across. Now at this point I have not thought of any way for them to get across it. Maybe they have ways already ready to go that allow them auto-success (like your Ring of Flying example). If so, then great, they use it. But if not... they will probably start asking about different things that could get them across-- things I've not even thought of yet. They might start with obvious things that don't require a roll-- "Do we see a bridge?" I'll then either say yes or no based on what I think would be most entertaining or interesting for the group (if I can already tell if this "encounter" has intrigued them or not.) If the answer was "no, there is no bridge".. someone might then ask "Can make an Investigation check to see if there was perhaps a bridge here at one point?"

And then it is at this point that the result of the check will determine the truth. If they roll high, I might very well say "Yes, there are stone pitons hammered into the ground, which makes you think there had been a bridge here at one point." Or if they roll low... "Nope, there is no indication whatsoever that there has ever been a bridge here." And both of these results will probably change how the players react to this "encounter", and what they invariable decide to do with it. If there had been pitons, then that tells them something truthful about the chamber, as does the lack of them. And then they'll choose what do to and I'll improvise what happens next then as well.

So them rolling was going to happen regardless, because that was the method I was going to use to decide what to improvise as the truth. Could I improvise something on my own without them rolling a die? Sure. But I have found we usually end up with much more interesting encounters when all of us are offering up the truths of the situation, rather than just me alone, because my players are oftentimes much more clever than I am. LOL.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Of course. But known auto-success isn't really what I was talking about. To use your example, if the party is travelling underground, I might not have any idea what is actually there except for maybe a set encounter or two that were the point of them travelling underground in the first place. Everything else I'm just improvising-- no map, nothing set, just whatever comes to my mind.

So I improvise that the tunnel they were in opens up to a chamber and that there's a crevasse to get across. Now at this point I have not thought of any way for them to get across it. Maybe they have ways already ready to go that allow them auto-success (like your Ring of Flying example). If so, then great, they use it. But if not... they will probably start asking about different things that could get them across-- things I've not even thought of yet. They might start with obvious things that don't require a roll-- "Do we see a bridge?" I'll then either say yes or no based on what I think would be most entertaining or interesting for the group (if I can already tell if this "encounter" has intrigued them or not.) If the answer was "no, there is no bridge".. someone might then ask "Can make an Investigation check to see if there was perhaps a bridge here at one point?"

And then it is at this point that the result of the check will determine the truth. If they roll high, I might very well say "Yes, there are stone pitons hammered into the ground, which makes you think there had been a bridge here at one point." Or if they roll low... "Nope, there is no indication whatsoever that there has ever been a bridge here." And both of these results will probably change how the players react to this "encounter", and what they invariable decide to do with it. If there had been pitons, then that tells them something truthful about the chamber, as does the lack of them. And then they'll choose what do to and I'll improvise what happens next then as well.

So them rolling was going to happen regardless, because that was the method I was going to use to decide what to improvise as the truth. Could I improvise something on my own without them rolling a die? Sure. But I have found we usually end up with much more interesting encounters when all of us are offering up the truths of the situation, rather than just me alone, because my players are oftentimes much more clever than I am. LOL.

Cool, but how do you set DCs? And do you communicate the DC to the players? Do you communicate what a success will look like and what a failure will look like?

 

[iserith]

"Meaningful" doesn't have to mean "punitive," at least in my experience and in my group. It just means something changes.

Sure, but the character isn't asking to roll the dice; the player is.

Yes, but at least to some degree it means "you didn't accomplish what you set out to accomplish." Or, if the DM sometimes uses progress combined with a setback after the die indicates failure, you get what you want at a cost. I'm definitely not suggesting all consequences need be punitive. From a player's perspective though, I think it a reasonable conclusion to say that, in general, players will tend to want to accomplish what they set out to accomplish more often than not. Asking to roll is not the best way to go about that in my view.

I want a fun story. Sometimes a fun story comes about through laughing at my PC's repeated failures.

Yes, that can be true - but that can happen whether the player asks to roll or not. It's just that the player asking to roll (and the DM usually or always saying "Yes") will mean by some non-zero measure that outcome will be more common. Every time I have explained this to players, the light bulb over their heads switch on as they realize the odds of success are largely in their control.