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

[iserith]

Why assume an otherwise polite guest is going to completely ignore the social contracts and expectations of your personal table and do whatever they want?

Thank you.

Besides, I already know everything about flumphs.

 

[DEFCON 1]

What makes you think that I would look them up in the Monster Manual? Why wouldn't you assume I'd do exactly as I said and just describe what I want to do?

If you were okay with other players looking up info in the Monster Manual, then I assumed you had the expectation that in your style of play that was okay. Perhaps I assumed wrong and just because you let other players do it, you actually wouldn't. If that's so, then that would make it easier for us to play together.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why assume an otherwise polite guest is going to completely ignore the social contracts and expectations of your personal table and do whatever they want?

True enough!

 

[iserith]

If you were okay with other players looking up info in the Monster Manual, then I assumed you had the expectation that in your style of play that was okay. Perhaps I assumed wrong and just because you let other players do it, you actually wouldn't. If that's so, then that would make it easier for us to play together.

Yeah, I'd just say what I wanted to do: Hit it with my vicious mockery since it's vulnerable to psychic damage.

Unless we didn't want to kill it at which point I'd shove it prone to incapacitate it.

 

[Seramus]

True enough!

Speaking very generally, whatever personal preferences I may have for running games at my own table... when I am invited someone else's table I shut up and do things their way. Sometimes things work out fine, and sometimes I won't be back for a second game, but I always try to be a good guest.

I've seen too many long-term DMs suffer serious control issues when they join someone else's game. And behaving yourself is just good manners.

 

[Imaculata]

Whenever I present my players with a situation, they state a goal and approach, and I rule accordingly. But that's not the whole story. Sometimes the players may state a faulty approach that tells me they may not have understood the situation correctly. While my players are allowed to make dumb decisions, I will always provide them with additional information if I believe they need it to make a good decision. My players are allowed to change their minds based on the additional information, because I don't do gotchas. And sometimes I'll just ask them if they're sure about their approach, just to mess with them a little. Muhahaha.

The situations I present to my players are not a game of "guess the magic word". I don't have any preference how a particular situation plays out. My goal is neither to have any particular player succeed or fail. My goal is to present them with excitement and fun, and try to rule as fairly as possible. But sometimes a player may surprise me by stating an approach that I feel cannot fail (or cannot succeed). In such cases, it is an automatic success or failure. Obviously an automatic success is the best possible outcome for the players, and they will try to think of an approach that has the best chance for success.

For example, if I present my players with a pit that they are expected to jump across, and they then bring a ladder and just walk across, that's an automatic success.

If they need to sneak past a sleeping dragon, and I have decided that the dragon relies on hearing the players, then obviously floating across the ground with a spell, would produce no sound and could be an automatic success (provided that they also cast the spell silently).

Simularly, lying to a guard while that guard has no reason to doubt the truth of their words, is an automatic success.

This style is especially relevant in the current developments of my ongoing pirate campaign. Let me set the scene:

A dangerous and intelligent monster is sleeping at the bottom of a lake, guarding an ancient temple. Over the course of several days, the players are preparing for a battle with this creature. Their goal is to make those preparations without tipping off this intelligent foe. They know the creature watches the shore and makes plots of its own to twart theirs. So the players have begun holding their meetings in secret, using counter measures against scrying spells/abilities, and being very careful what they say in public. Often they'll deliberately spout false information in public, in the hope of misdirecting their foe.

As a DM:

I try to to think like the creature and have it act in a way most effective to reach its goals (and benefitting the fun and excitement of the story), while also taking into account things it may not know, or any misconceptions it may have about the plans of the players. I resolve some of its decisions with intelligence checks versus bluff attempts by the players. I also try to surprise and shock the players with unexpected attacks and strategies by the creature.

As a player:

For the players this means they need to strategize. They are not trying to guess what will net them an auto-success, but they are trying to think how they can outsmart this creature, and how they can withhold certain information from it, buying them extra time to prepare for the battle.

 

[Lucas Yew]

Figuratively:
Because I'm a "simulationist+gamist" type of player (whatever that means), opposed to a "narrativist" one (I don't play to make a story; the records of my character and their pals' actions is the story in question, not the other way around). To make a video game metaphor, rolling the dice is like inputting my command with the controller/keyboard for my player character in the game world.

Literally:
Nope, not a fan of 1d20, as it's too swingy. In fact, I'd rather like the 3d6's simple yet elegant bell curve. And to take it further, I want to see more games which use d6's exclusively (like WOIN or GURPS, for examples)...

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well, at least until you tried to grab the Monster Manual to look up relevant information on Flumphs because you thought your PC should know about them... and I told you to put the book away and instead make an INT (Arcana) check to recall the information. And then I'd give you the answers you sought depending on your check.

Quod Jerkus Demonstrandum

 

[Oofta]

So when remembering something about trolls, the following is okay.

"I draw upon my historical knowledge of the Troll Moors, learned in the greatest libraries in the world, to try to recall the weaknesses of trolls."​

What about

"I draw upon my historical knowledge of the Troll Moors, to try to recall the weaknesses of trolls."​

Or

"I draw upon my historical knowledge to try to recall the weaknesses of trolls."​

Or

"Based on my knowledge of history what do I know about trolls?"​

I guess I'm asking because it's two-fold. One, it seems like it's just flowery "I make a history check on trolls". Maybe not magical words, but certainly required grammatical structure.

Second, and more important, if there were any other pertinent information about trolls, would you also provide it? If this were a more complicated monster such as a dragon, if you asked about weaknesses would you get resistances? Would you know about their breath weapon or flight?

Because this is where the "you perceive the rats but not stabby the clown" comes from. If you have to specify exactly what you're thinking about (which is not how memory works) then either it doesn't matter and it's just more "stuff" you have to add on or it does and you only remember exactly what you asked about.

If I ask "I draw upon my historical knowledge of the Troll Moors, learned in the greatest libraries in the world, to try to recall if trolls have an effective ranged attack." would I get the fact that they regen?

 

[5ekyu]

Whenever I present my players with a situation, they state a goal and approach, and I rule accordingly. But that's not the whole story. Sometimes the players may state a faulty approach that tells me they may not have understood the situation correctly. While my players are allowed to make dumb decisions, I will always provide them with additional information if I believe they need it to make a good decision. My players are allowed to change their minds based on the additional information, because I don't do gotchas. And sometimes I'll just ask them if they're sure about their approach, just to mess with them a little. Muhahaha.

The situations I present to my players are not a game of "guess the magic word". I don't have any preference how a particular situation plays out. My goal is neither to have any particular player succeed or fail. My goal is to present them with excitement and fun, and try to rule as fairly as possible. But sometimes a player may surprise me by stating an approach that I feel cannot fail (or cannot succeed). In such cases, it is an automatic success or failure. Obviously an automatic success is the best possible outcome for the players, and they will try to think of an approach that has the best chance for success.

For example, if I present my players with a pit that they are expected to jump across, and they then bring a ladder and just walk across, that's an automatic success.

If they need to sneak past a sleeping dragon, and I have decided that the dragon relies on hearing the players, then obviously floating across the ground with a spell, would produce no sound and could be an automatic success (provided that they also cast the spell silently).

Simularly, lying to a guard while that guard has no reason to doubt the truth of their words, is an automatic success.

This style is especially relevant in the current developments of my ongoing pirate campaign. Let me set the scene:

A dangerous and intelligent monster is sleeping at the bottom of a lake, guarding an ancient temple. Over the course of several days, the players are preparing for a battle with this creature. Their goal is to make those preparations without tipping off this intelligent foe. They know the creature watches the shore and makes plots of its own to twart theirs. So the players have begun holding their meetings in secret, using counter measures against scrying spells/abilities, and being very careful what they say in public. Often they'll deliberately spout false information in public, in the hope of misdirecting their foe.

As a DM:

I try to to think like the creature and have it act in a way most effective to reach its goals (and benefitting the fun and excitement of the story), while also taking into account things it may not know, or any misconceptions it may have about the plans of the players. I resolve some of its decisions with intelligence checks versus bluff attempts by the players. I also try to surprise and shock the players with unexpected attacks and strategies by the creature.

As a player:

For the players this means they need to strategize. They are not trying to guess what will net them an auto-success, but they are trying to think how they can outsmart this creature, and how they can withhold certain information from it, buying them extra time to prepare for the battle.

"For example, if I present my players with a pit that they are expected to jump across, and they then bring a ladder and just walk across, that's an automatic success.
If they need to sneak past a sleeping dragon, and I have decided that the dragon relies on hearing the players, then obviously floating across the ground with a spell, would produce no sound and could be an automatic success (provided that they also cast the spell silently).
Simularly, lying to a guard while that guard has no reason to doubt the truth of their words, is an automatic success."

Observations of similarities and differences.

Ladder - yes barring circumstances thst complicate things no charscter in my game has to roll a check to walk across or climb a ladder. That falls under "stuff so easy anyone can do it." Put another wsy, its DC is at most 1.

Dragon sleeping noise - I would resolve this as advantaged, not automatic as long as they stay out of range of its special senses. I say this becausevof three things - 1 dragon lairs in my games are typically active things with that elemental nature of theirs creating changes and shifts which can cause reactions and interactions unplanned. 2 Drsgons have very high senses scores relatively - its their thing. 3 Barring a silence spell just eliminating the act of walking does not guarantee total silence - you still need to breathe and the typical PC has stuff carried. Now if they try a silence spell, maybe that gets them to auto but again see 1.

Lying to guard - depends on success and its definition. If by that you mean "the guard believes it's true?" Nope. There's "yup, I believe that", " nah, I think thsts BS" and "sure, he said that but I gots no idea whether its true or not" as at least three states. It would depend on a person's nature, history between you, their insight and your own deception or persuasion plus the nature of what you are saying to determine the starting place and whether or not you change the status. (Thatsxwhat we are talking about here, right? Not literally dui you tell this to the guard but did they believe it, believe you believe it at least?) So, most of the time, against a guard, the baseline would be indifferent and " may be true, may be not" and you do have to change that to get them to believe that. But then, it may not be necessary to convince the guard to believe you to still get thru the challenge. "Indifferent" and " maybe" might be good enough.

I think part of the perceived differences in how folks resolve things stems from what folks tend to "resolve" at all.

If there is a 15' pit and a 20' ladder (or board) or a river with a bridge etc - at my table we dont typically "resolve" the "challenge" at all. Unless there is some other complicating circumstance "ladder/board seems flimsy" or "bridge maybe be trapped" or "gotta be watched" or "need to be quiet" etc then it gets little more than just being scenery- something to keep in mind because you might can use it. But if there was not some aspect in context to make it be questioned both pit-ladder and river-bridge would result in either "no questions asked it was just scenery" or someone saying "we cross" and sn assumption that they checked out the ladder and bridge and used them without being stupid.

So, when examples of "strategy to avoid rolling" used to show how they resolve is just this kind stuff, it loses a lot of meaning for me.