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

[Coroc]

...
<snip>
The d20 is fickle. It has a very big swing that can mean, depending on the DC the DM has established, even highly capable characters fail. This is, in part, what makes Inspiration, guidance, and resources like the diviner's portent so valuable - you get to mitigate or in some cases eliminate the swing of the d20, to hopefully prevent it from killing you and everyone you've ever loved. Because it will, given half a chance.

In the context of the rules I paraphrased above and given the reality of the d20's swing, there's nothing in there that suggests to me that players should be asking to roll or declaring that they are rolling. .....

<snip>

I had a big discussion with one of my players who wanted to do 2d10 instead for more continuity.

But why do I want to roll a d20? Because I roll it on a skill I am good at! With a high bonus due to proficiency or attribute I got good chances to win the roll, as a rogue to be stealthy e.g.

If you use some rolling method to soften this up you make the rolls and skill building meaningless.

Especially 5e imho is totally NOT suitable for 2d10 or 3d6 instead of 1d20. You take all the fun out of the game.

Let it be fickle, even if you do autofail on a 1, then that's your bad day. I want the player who invested in a skill be rewarded for it not being mediochre.

In another game I where I play in I hate do do some checks:

e.g. climb a long rope ladder like it should be: DM make an acrobatics check Dex or Str DC 5-10 and lets see if you handle the task. Roll additionally a Con check DC10 if you are exhausted.

My DM: roll a dex check for the first 50ft roll another and another and a Con check each 100 ft and another. So your chances despite being a dex monkey with 14 con to master the rope ladder are really slim.

But still I want the game to be swingy that's part of the fun. Ain't no fun if something spectacular only happens every 100ths die roll

 

[Oofta]

I give. A DM can't possibly understand what a player wants to do when it's always been blatantly obvious to every DM I've ever played with. I can ask to see if an NPC is being deceitful but if they're just scared or phrasing things oddly as if hypnotized I won't pick up on it. If I look in the basement for rats I'm not going to see stabby the clown. I'm supposed to describe what a purely mental activity looks like. We don't use code or magic words or phrases but "Can I make an insight check" is not acceptable while "I study them closely, paying attention to body language and how they're speaking to see if I can pick up signs of deceit" probably would be.

Everything I just typed will be dismissed as "you just don't understand us".

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

No, you and I just have different interpretations of the rules. As I understand them, the rules indicate that an ability check is used to determine whether an action with an uncertain outcome succeeds or fails, and the DM can say that a skill proficiency can be added to an ability check, or the player can ask the DM if a skill proficiency can be added to an ability check. A successful Wisdom (Insight) check doesn’t allow you to determine if a character is being deceitful. Your character’s action does, and if that action has a chance of succeeding, a chance of failing, and consequences for failing, then a Wisdom (Insight) check is used to determine if it fails and you suffer the consequences.

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.

Having a high Wisdom modifier and proficiency or expertise in the Insight skill will make it less likely for NPCs that try to deceive you to succeed, which in turn will mean I will more frequently telegraph unsuccessful attempts at deceiving you. Additionally, proficiency or expertise in the Insight skill will make you more likely to succeed at actions that involve gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms to determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. This will in turn will mean fewer consequences suffered as results of failed Wisdom (Insight) checks.

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.

I mean, magic is useful. If you want to use magic to insure you can detect when NPCs lie, that’s a valid decision. I establish with my players before we begin play the way I handle action resolution so they know what to expect, and if that expectation pushes you more towards playing a spellcaster, that’s your choice to make.

 

[Charlaquin]

I give. A DM can't possibly understand what a player wants to do when it's always been blatantly obvious to every DM I've ever played with.

Plenty of DMs are quite confident in their ability to determine a player’s intentions based on what skill they say they want to use and the context leading up to them saying they want to use it. But many of us are not, and are more comfortable making calls when the player explicitly states an action rather than leaving it up to us to interpret. Both are valid.

I can ask to see if an NPC is being deceitful but if they're just scared or phrasing things oddly as if hypnotized I won't pick up on it.

I don’t know if you will or not, I leave that up to you.

If I look in the basement for rats I'm not going to see stabby the clown.

Well that’s just silly, I don’t think anyone who isn’t made of straw holds that position.

I'm supposed to describe what a purely mental activity looks like.

You don’t have to. You can just pay close attention to the DM’s narration and draw your own conclusions based on it. But, yeah, if you want to take a pro-active action, you’re going to have to state a goal and an approach.

We don't use code or magic words or phrases but "Can I make an insight check" is not acceptable while "I study them closely, paying attention to body language and how they're speaking to see if I can pick up signs of deceit" probably would be.

Different DMs will adjudicate that statement of goal and approach differently. Though, I’m curious what about the latter statement you think makes it a code for the former question. To me, they appear to convey completely different information.

 

[Maxperson]

I give. A DM can't possibly understand what a player wants to do when it's always been blatantly obvious to every DM I've ever played with. I can ask to see if an NPC is being deceitful but if they're just scared or phrasing things oddly as if hypnotized I won't pick up on it. If I look in the basement for rats I'm not going to see stabby the clown. I'm supposed to describe what a purely mental activity looks like. We don't use code or magic words or phrases but "Can I make an insight check" is not acceptable while "I study them closely, paying attention to body language and how they're speaking to see if I can pick up signs of deceit" probably would be.

Everything I just typed will be dismissed as "you just don't understand us".

Truth is not a dismissal. What you typed clearly shows that you fail to understand. Either that or it was a deliberately misstatement of our position. It's fairly hard to be so wrong about what we are saying if it isn't one of those two things.

 

[iserith]

No, you and I just have different interpretations of the rules. As I understand them, the rules indicate that an ability check is used to determine whether an action with an uncertain outcome succeeds or fails, and the DM can say that a skill proficiency can be added to an ability check, or the player can ask the DM if a skill proficiency can be added to an ability check. A successful Wisdom (Insight) check doesn’t allow you to determine if a character is being deceitful. Your character’s action does, and if that action has a chance of succeeding, a chance of failing, and consequences for failing, then a Wisdom (Insight) check is used to determine if it fails and you suffer the consequences.

Right. Some people conflate a task (or action) with an ability check. They are not the same thing. It is the TASK that allows you to achieve things in the game. The ABILITY CHECK is just something that the DM uses to determine the outcome when there's a meaningful consequence for failure.

Not having to make an ability check is a good thing, assuming the DM is narrating your task as being successful. It means there is no uncertainty as to the outcome and/or no meaningful consequence for failure. Having the related ability score and skill proficiency is good so that, if you do have to roll, you have a better chance for success of achieving what you set out to do and don't have to suffer the meaningful consequences for failure. It's also a good idea to undertake tasks where you do have the related ability score and skill proficiency just in case you have to roll. That's smart play. Doing otherwise exposes your character to more risk. Sometimes that's unavoidable and sometimes it's avoidable but fun and dramatic. These are all decisions to weigh as a player.

Those who do not understand this fundamental game concept will not grasp what we're talking about or any conclusions, techniques, or strategies that stem from this understanding.

 

[Hussar]

And, since you folks insist on being just as dismissive, I'd point out that not having the ability to make ability checks on demand means that I am 100% at the mercy of the DM who is juggling the needs of five other people at the table, distractions, possible crankiness, and a million other things. But, apparently, the DM is so in tune with everything in the game world that his or her descriptions will always be 100% transparent to the players, never, ever missing details. Oh, and a DM who is almost guaranteed to be wrong about the math since very, very few of us are actually good at calculating risk/reward on the fly with any degree of accuracy.

Oh, and apparently that same DM is completely obtuse and cannot possibly discern the motivations of a player's actions unless the player describes in pretty clear detail, exactly what he or she is doing (since we're not actually allowed to reference any skills when describing actions). I'm still waiting to see how I'm supposed to narrate a purely mental action like remembering details about a monster or an NPC reference (I got a 17 on a history check, do I know anything about this NPC?).

Hey, you folks can play however you like. It's not that we don't understand what you're doing. We do understand. We just don't want to do it that way. I mean, @iserith, you've gone on at considerable length about how you are just following the rules. But, when @Charlaquin is obviously deviating from the rules, you don't seem to have any problems with that. Why is that? You keep telling all and sundry that we should be following the rules in order to get the results from the game that the game expects. Yet, when someone on your side of the fence ventures off into homebrew territory, it's perfectly fine.

 

[iserith]

I had a big discussion with one of my players who wanted to do 2d10 instead for more continuity.

But why do I want to roll a d20? Because I roll it on a skill I am good at! With a high bonus due to proficiency or attribute I got good chances to win the roll, as a rogue to be stealthy e.g.

If you use some rolling method to soften this up you make the rolls and skill building meaningless.

Especially 5e imho is totally NOT suitable for 2d10 or 3d6 instead of 1d20. You take all the fun out of the game.

Let it be fickle, even if you do autofail on a 1, then that's your bad day. I want the player who invested in a skill be rewarded for it not being mediochre.

So I'm not advocating for changing the die around. What I am saying is that in the context of the rules of the game, wherein the DM is judging the efficacy of your action and deciding whether you succeed, fail, or if there's an ability check, it's always better to try to succeed without rolling, assuming that success is your goal instead of, say, comedic or tragic failure. Which might sometimes be the goal if it contributes to everyone's fun and the creation of an exciting, memorable story. But usually we're shooting for success, right?

If certain of your ability scores are high and you have particular skill proficiencies, what that tells you is NOT that you should try to be rolling related ability checks, but rather you should be performing tasks that may - when the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure - call for said related ability checks. Your investment in these areas is insurance against failure. If you never have to roll those ability checks, GOOD, assuming the DM is narrating success for your task.

 

[jayoungr]

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.

But if that doesn't upset me, then there's no reason to try to avoid the situation.

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.

In my experience, asking to roll often happens when players/PCs are poking at a situation to figure something out. It's not that they have a clear goal in mind that they will be upset about not making; it's that they want to interact with parts of the situation and see what happens.

Yes, that [getting a fun story through failure] can be true - but that can happen whether the player asks to roll or not.

Sure, but the surprise--the random element--is part of what makes it fun.

Also, you're approaching this from the point of view of asking "Give me a strong reason in favor of rolling dice." On the other hand, I (and, I think, quite a few others on the thread) approach it more with the attitude of "There's no strong reason not to roll the dice."

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.

Apologies if this sounds harsh, because I truly don't mean it that way, but I somewhat get the feeling you are frustrated because others on this thread are not having that "light bulb"--that you think if you just explain it clearly enough, we'll see it your way.

 

[iserith]

But if that doesn't upset me, then there's no reason to try to avoid the situation.

Again, I wouldn't say it's about being "upset." If you want to succeed more than fail, then describing what you want to do in a way that either removes uncertainty as to the outcome or eliminates the meaningful consequence for failure or both is the best strategy to achieving that goal. Emotion isn't really coming into it here.

If you don't care if you succeed more than you fail or even prefer to fail more than you succeed, then this is not a good strategy. The better strategy for that goal is to ask an agreeable DM to roll for as many tasks as possible or describe what you want to do in a way that creates uncertainty as to the outcome and ensures a meaningful consequence for failure.

The latter goal and corresponding strategy wouldn't be my preference, but everyone's entitled to their own preferences.

In my experience, asking to roll often happens when players/PCs are poking at a situation to figure something out. It's not that they have a clear goal in mind that they will be upset about not making; it's that they want to interact with parts of the situation and see what happens.

You don't have to ask to roll or necessarily declare actions where there is likely to be a roll in order to "interact with parts of the situation and see what happens."

Sure, but the surprise--the random element--is part of what makes it fun.

Also, you're approaching this from the point of view of asking "Give me a strong reason in favor of rolling dice." On the other hand, I (and, I think, quite a few others on the thread) approach it more with the attitude of "There's no strong reason not to roll the dice."

The "strong" reason to avoid rolling the dice where possible is to improve your chances of success and odds of survival. It does not guarantee those outcomes, but it makes it by some measure more likely.

Apologies if this sounds harsh, because I truly don't mean it that way, but I somewhat get the feeling you are frustrated because others on this thread are not having that "light bulb"--that you think if you just explain it clearly enough, we'll see it your way.

I'm not frustrated. The strategy I outline in the initial post is based upon the context of running the game as the rules lay out. Plenty of people don't run the game that way and, in the context of those games, this strategy may not be advisable.