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

[Campbell]

PC is talking to npc. Player rolls an insight check without the dm asking for one.

Are you seriously telling me you need clarification? “What does insight look like?” How da hell should I know?

As a GM given this situation without context how should I know how to resolve it without further clarification? If I do not understanding what is actually going on how can I properly set a DC or determine what happens on a success or failure in a hygienic way? How can I know if I am providing something that is salient without knowing what you are trying to find out?

Much of this commentary seems to be based on the conception that a GM should just know what is relevant or meaningful, but in order for that to be the case it would mean that it is the GM who assigns relevance or meaning to the fiction. That is something I am not comfortable doing. It is something I do not want to do. I do not decide what should happen or what is meaningful. We find that out together through play.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

PC is talking to npc. Player rolls an insight check without the dm asking for one.

Are you seriously telling me you need clarification? “What does insight look like?” Howdahell should I know?

Just describe an action that your PC is taking in the fiction. It’s that simple.

 

[Charlaquin]

PC is talking to npc. Player rolls an insight check without the dm asking for one.

Are you seriously telling me you need clarification? “What does insight look like?” Howdahell should I know?

If you don't know what it looks like, how am I supposed to know? If neither of us know what it looks like why are we resolving it with an ability check? The mechanics should arise from the fiction, not the other way around. If the NPC is lying to you, I know what that looks like. I'll make a Charisma (Deception) check against your Wisdom (Insight) DC, and if he fails I'll give you an indication that he's lying. If you want to follow up on that, go ahead and say what your character does to follow up. But if you don't know what your character's action looks like, don't expect me to either, and don't expect me to agree to resolve this abstract "action" with an ability check.

 

[Li Shenron]

because in some player's minds it removes the decision from the arbitrary whims of the GM and frames it into perspective. You roll a 20 or a 1 and it will "force" the GM into an answer that gets confirmed.

its also "forces" the GM during any begging and pleading when the players want to do something and the GM says no "Well let me just roll a d20" really means "let me see if I roll a nat 20 then you have to let me get what I want."

What such players don't realize is that it's a double-edged sword: if the player goes "let me roll" too soon, he suggests me to include not only a chance of success but also a chance of failure, before I have thought about the situation more carefully, which in my case is more likely to end up in automatic success than automatic failure.

And of course "natural 20" is goblinshitting, since it's not a rule in D&D except for attack rolls. There is no way D&D allows someone to jump over a mountain simply by rolling a 20.

 

[Monayuris]

What such players don't realize is that it's a double-edged sword: if the player goes "let me roll" too soon, he suggests me to include not only a chance of success but also a chance of failure, before I have thought about the situation more carefully, which in my case is more likely to end up in automatic success than automatic failure.

And of course "natural 20" is goblinshitting, since it's not a rule in D&D except for attack rolls. There is no way D&D allows someone to jump over a mountain simply by rolling a 20.

Agreed. I'm kind of shocked with the original quote you quoted. I have never met a player who thought that it is appropriate to force a roll to get a 20 and force the DM to submit to what they want. I find that absolutely ridiculous. I've seen a lot of D&D memes about ridiculous things happening on a natural 20. I think these memes kind of encourage that outlook.

Personally, in games I run I am the only person at the table that can ask for a roll. Before I ask for an ability roll, I must first satisfy three conditions...

1. Is there a risk in resources or chance of player death
2. Is there a significant and meaningful result on a success... what exactly is it?
3. Is there a significant and meaningful result on a failure... what exactly is it?

If I can't answer these three questions adequately, the roll should not be made in the first place.

 

[Hussar]

As a GM given this situation without context how should I know how to resolve it without further clarification? If I do not understanding what is actually going on how can I properly set a DC or determine what happens on a success or failure in a hygienic way? How can I know if I am providing something that is salient without knowing what you are trying to find out?

Much of this commentary seems to be based on the conception that a GM should just know what is relevant or meaningful, but in order for that to be the case it would mean that it is the GM who assigns relevance or meaning to the fiction. That is something I am not comfortable doing. It is something I do not want to do. I do not decide what should happen or what is meaningful. We find that out together through play.

Fair enough I suppose. I find it rather bizarre that you couldn't infer what's going on from the situation. The PC is talking to the NPC. The PC rolls an Insight check. What other reason, other than, "I want to see if I can tell if he's lying" is there to roll that check? And, honestly, I'm not sure where hygiene comes into this. (Yes, I know that was a typo, I just thought it was funny)

Just describe an action that your PC is taking in the fiction. It’s that simple.

What "action" denotes or even connotes an insight check? "I look at him funny" ... "I tilt my head to the side and look skeptical" .... "I check my naughty word meter"?

Let's see you describe an action that means I want to make an insight check.

If you don't know what it looks like, how am I supposed to know? If neither of us know what it looks like why are we resolving it with an ability check? The mechanics should arise from the fiction, not the other way around. If the NPC is lying to you, I know what that looks like. I'll make a Charisma (Deception) check against your Wisdom (Insight) DC, and if he fails I'll give you an indication that he's lying. If you want to follow up on that, go ahead and say what your character does to follow up. But if you don't know what your character's action looks like, don't expect me to either, and don't expect me to agree to resolve this abstract "action" with an ability check.

And, thus, we're right back to "magic words" territory. Since I can't think of the right words, and I'm not allowed to simply say, "I want to make an insight check to see if he's lying", I cannot actually take any actions. So, I ignore the skill system and play characters that have magic and thus completely avoid having to deal with this. Poof, easy, peasy.

So, again, what are the magic words that I can take to be able to make an insight check to see if the NPC is being deceitful? What action description will satisfy your need for fiction? Just tell me what they are, and we'll go from there. Because, AFAIC, all I want to do is make an insight check to see if he's being deceitful. So, you let me know how you want me to do that, and we're both happy.

 

[Charlaquin]

Fair enough I suppose. I find it rather bizarre that you couldn't infer what's going on from the situation. The PC is talking to the NPC. The PC rolls an Insight check. What other reason, other than, "I want to see if I can tell if he's lying" is there to roll that check? And, honestly, I'm not sure where hygiene comes into this. (Yes, I know that was a typo, I just thought it was funny)

What "action" denotes or even connotes an insight check? "I look at him funny" ... "I tilt my head to the side and look skeptical" .... "I check my naughty word meter"?

Let's see you describe an action that means I want to make an insight check.

And, thus, we're right back to "magic words" territory. Since I can't think of the right words, and I'm not allowed to simply say, "I want to make an insight check to see if he's lying", I cannot actually take any actions. So, I ignore the skill system and play characters that have magic and thus completely avoid having to deal with this. Poof, easy, peasy.

So, again, what are the magic words that I can take to be able to make an insight check to see if the NPC is being deceitful? What action description will satisfy your need for fiction? Just tell me what they are, and we'll go from there. Because, AFAIC, all I want to do is make an insight check to see if he's being deceitful. So, you let me know how you want me to do that, and we're both happy.

Hey, this is the "Why do you want to make a d20 roll" thread, not the "magic words poll" thread!

In all seriousness though, you're making it seem like "making an Insight check" is a desirable end in and of itself, which you would need to use a specific set of "magic words" to be allowed to do in a game like mine. If want to know what words you need to say to get me to "let you" make a check, I honestly don't have any such words in mind. You're just going to have to try doing something, and I'll determine based on what you do if you have to make a check to see if it works, or if it just works automatically, or if it doesn't.

But clearly "making an Insight check" isn't really your end goal. As you said yourself, what you ultimately want is to see if he's being deceitful, and I'm guessing that you think a successful Insight check will allow you to do that. Well, in my game, that's not the case. The only thing a successful Insight check does is determine whether or not you suffer the consequences of failing to achieve your goal. If your goal is to see if he's being deceitful, what I would recommend is paying attention to his dialogue and my narration of his actions and see if you notice any signs of deceit. Of course, if you come up with an approach that you think would have a decent chance of revealing his deceit (or lack thereof), let me know, and I'll adjudicate the results.

 

[5ekyu]

As a GM given this situation without context how should I know how to resolve it without further clarification? If I do not understanding what is actually going on how can I properly set a DC or determine what happens on a success or failure in a hygienic way? How can I know if I am providing something that is salient without knowing what you are trying to find out?

Much of this commentary seems to be based on the conception that a GM should just know what is relevant or meaningful, but in order for that to be the case it would mean that it is the GM who assigns relevance or meaning to the fiction. That is something I am not comfortable doing. It is something I do not want to do. I do not decide what should happen or what is meaningful. We find that out together through play.

But a GM in that situation is not without context. He has seen and participated in the discussion. He has seen the topics and flow and he has the timing of when the player decided to ask for the check.

Maybe it's not for you, but in countless cases of "insight checks" happening like this at actual table, actual non-forum person-to-person, it's never been for me the slightest problem to set DC and to provide results.

 

[Imaculata]

I've mostly gotten my players used to a style of play where they now don't ask me to make a roll, but they state their action, and I tell them if a roll is required. They still love rolling their dice and I'm not taking that away from them, but now when they roll the outcome really matters. We have gotten rid of a whole lot of pointless rolls where the DM already knows the outcome (such as rolling to check for traps when there are no traps).

Now we play 3rd edition mind you, and this style of play is more of a newer 5th edition concept. Third edition books very much encourage the other style of just making rolls for everything. But this style of play that Iserith advocates simply works better. It is more pleasant for DM's and players alike.

Likewise I've also focused on giving all skills in the game a wider and more common range of use. Some 3rd edition skills often see very little use, which made investment in them a bit of a waste. But by spreading them all out across game sessions more consistently, while also applying these new rules, it makes the game run so much better for my group.

 

[Hussar]

Hey, this is the "Why do you want to make a d20 roll" thread, not the "magic words poll" thread!

In all seriousness though, you're making it seem like "making an Insight check" is a desirable end in and of itself, which you would need to use a specific set of "magic words" to be allowed to do in a game like mine. If want to know what words you need to say to get me to "let you" make a check, I honestly don't have any such words in mind. You're just going to have to try doing something, and I'll determine based on what you do if you have to make a check to see if it works, or if it just works automatically, or if it doesn't.

But clearly "making an Insight check" isn't really your end goal. As you said yourself, what you ultimately want is to see if he's being deceitful, and I'm guessing that you think a successful Insight check will allow you to do that. Well, in my game, that's not the case. The only thing a successful Insight check does is determine whether or not you suffer the consequences of failing to achieve your goal. If your goal is to see if he's being deceitful, what I would recommend is paying attention to his dialogue and my narration of his actions and see if you notice any signs of deceit. Of course, if you come up with an approach that you think would have a decent chance of revealing his deceit (or lack thereof), let me know, and I'll adjudicate the results.

Oh, now that's a bit different isn't it? Insight is supposed to tell me whether someone is being deceitful or not. I mean, it's right there in the description of the skill. "Searching out a lie" isn't something I'm making up.

Now, since folks here have been pretty adamant about following the rules of 5e with this whole approach/goal thing, I'm getting a bit of a mixed message here. @iserith has repeated ad nauseum that he wants his method to hew as close to the rules of 5e as possible and anyone doing anything else is setting up a situation where the game will not deliver it's promised results. That's been established multiple times.

So, you can see where my confusion lies. I'm trying to use the 5e rules but, now I'm being told that the 5e rules only apply sometimes? Otherwise, I'm just gaming the DM - I have to watch you, and your performance, to see if I think that the NPC is lying. The fact that I'm playing Sherlock Holmes with feats and stats to boost my Insight into the stratosphere apparently don't matter, since, it's impossible in your game to leverage the mechanics in this way.

Which, IMO, just leads to players eschewing the skill system altogether in favor of using spells. Why bother with insight when we can just use Zone of Truth or Detect Thoughts? 100% guaranteed to work, and I don't have to play guess the mechanics.