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

[Guest 6801328]

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)...

This is an aspect of the OP's question that hasn't been given enough due in this thread.

I feel the exact same way about d20. The distribution just feels more "swingy", as you say.

My favorite dice system is from The One Ring: you roll 1d12 + Nd6, where N is your relevant skill, for pretty much everything. (Just to be precise: the d12 is really a d10 with 0 and "autosuccess"). So you get a gaussian result. Or "bell curvy", as you say. Personally I just think it feels more fun to have extremely high or extremely low results be less likely, which in turn makes rolling more fun. Even if you have a ~40% chance of success in either system (e.g., TN 14 with skill 2 in TOR, or DC 18 with a +5 in 5e), d20 just feels more random.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I can't say for certain what I'd do, because of course this isn't an actual character in an actual campaign that I'm DMing, but let me give some example answers:

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."​

​

​

Assuming this makes sense for your character (Sage background, History or Nature proficiency) this might be an autosuccess.​

​

But this doesn't make it "magic words" because I didn't have this answer in mind when I created the challenge. Rather, I'm responding to what the player proposes.​

What about

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

​

​

​

Ranger with favored terrain, or your character is from this area? Sure, autosuccess.​

Or

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

Roll History. Or maybe roll Nature.

Or

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

​

​

"Can you phrase this as an action instead of a question?" (Unless we've already had this conversation several times and you just refuse to try something new, in which case I just shrug and either ask for a roll or maybe say, "Nothing.")​

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.

See the difference? By phrasing it as an action:
1) It encourages you to engage with the fiction, instead of engaging with the mechanics.
2) Why would you NOT want to give the DM some reason for granting you an auto-success?

Also bear in mind that maybe (for whatever reason) I think this information is more obscure, in which case I increase the difficulty of everything. So the first two action declarations might become ability checks, and the more vague ones become auto-failures. Or maybe the second one is also an autofailure because the character wouldn't have any knowledge of this area.

Like I said, made-up examples, made-up answers. But hopefully that's illustrative.

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?

Yeah, I'd increase the probability of success (that is, more likely to grant an auto-success) if you were more specific like this.

Partly because it just makes it easier to DM, because more details make it easier to improvise: "Oh, yeah, you once read an account of a battle, in a diary of a solider attached to a patrol who was tasked with 'taming' this place, where the commanding officer assumed they didn't have ranged attacks and positioned his men accordingly, until the officer was killed by a rock. The irony of his last words made the story stick: 'We are totally safe at this dis....'"

I don't really expect an answer, just more deflection and "you don't understand".

If you are 100% convinced you understand, why do you ask the questions? I would assume that asking clarifying questions implies a recognition of complete understanding.

But, I suppose the other possibility is that you are 100% convinced we are wrong and your "questions" are really intended as traps designed to prove that.

But hope springs eternal.

Yes, it does! It's why I keep trying.

 

[5ekyu]

This is an aspect of the OP's question that hasn't been given enough due in this thread.

I feel the exact same way about d20. The distribution just feels more "swingy", as you say.

My favorite dice system is from The One Ring: you roll 1d12 + Nd6, where N is your relevant skill, for pretty much everything. (Just to be precise: the d12 is really a d10 with 0 and "autosuccess"). So you get a gaussian result. Or "bell curvy", as you say. Personally I just think it feels more fun to have extremely high or extremely low results be less likely, which in turn makes rolling more fun. Even if you have a ~40% chance of success in either system (e.g., TN 14 with skill 2 in TOR, or DC 18 with a +5 in 5e), d20 just feels more random.

I think your post illustrates a difference of opinion I have eith dome regarding diced resolutions.

Whrn I list reasons why I like d20 as a resolution mechanic, it's kind of alluded to but not explicitly stated.

I like it because there ARE NOT "extremely high or extremely low results" at all.

A 20 and a 1 or a 13 and a 9 are the same 5% chance and for the most part get handled the same. Yes, in 5e, there is crit on 20 for attacks and in dome cases that can be a noticable ocvurance but its just one bit.

I typically Express this as " odds less than 5% i just dont care about because i never want to try or need to be that precise in my description, depiction or setups" as to say "yep, with this description, 2% is right and 5% is too much."

5%-95% in 5% jumps is close enough (IMO just this side of "too much") and events outside those I am happy to let stay automatic.

To me, there isn't value in adding in extra complications and hindrances to fast resolution in order to add allowances for odds of less than 5% to be there.

With DCs easily expressed that can give us the 5-95% range of success fail and easy off the cuff odds - d20 seems a good enough resolution for use.

I just don't need the "extremely high or extremely low results" one can get from the various bell curvey dice complicating my basic resolution mechanic.

Now, if a die roll mechanic has some other aesthetic value, that can be worth it. But just adding in more extreme results than one finds in 5% jumps in 5-95% ranges- nah - not a gain for me worth adding in the baggage of multi-dice for basic resolutions.

Honestly, could be fine with 1d10 scaled system too.

 

[Oofta]

I can't say for certain what I'd do, because of course this isn't an actual character in an actual campaign that I'm DMing, but let me give some example answers:

​

​

Assuming this makes sense for your character (Sage background, History or Nature proficiency) this might be an autosuccess.​

​

But this doesn't make it "magic words" because I didn't have this answer in mind when I created the challenge. Rather, I'm responding to what the player proposes.​

​

​

Ranger with favored terrain, or your character is from this area? Sure, autosuccess.​

Roll History. Or maybe roll Nature.

​

​

"Can you phrase this as an action instead of a question?"​

See the difference? By phrasing it as an action:
1) It encourages you to engage with the fiction, instead of engaging with the mechanics.
2) Why would you NOT want to give the DM some reason for granting you an auto-success?

Also bear in mind that maybe (for whatever reason) I think this information is more obscure, in which case I increase the difficulty of everything. So the first two action declarations might become ability checks, and the more vague ones become auto-failures. Or maybe the second one is also an autofailure because the character wouldn't have any knowledge of this area.

Like I said, made-up examples, made-up answers. But hopefully that's illustrative.



Yeah, I'd increase the probability of success (that is, more likely to grant an auto-success) if you were more specific like this.

Partly because it just makes it easier to DM, because more details make it easier to improvise: "Oh, yeah, you once read an account of a battle, in a diary of a solider attached to a patrol who was tasked with 'taming' this place, where the commanding officer assumed they didn't have ranged attacks and positioned his men accordingly, until the officer was killed by a rock. The irony of his last words made the story stick: 'We are totally safe at this dis....'"



If you are 100% convinced you understand, why do you ask the questions? I would assume that asking clarifying questions implies a recognized lack of understanding.




Yes, it does! It's why I keep trying.

Thanks for the response.

I disagree of course - I don't see that it adds anything to the game, but if you do that's fine.

I don't like having to ask for specifics because I've had DMs do that. We had to play 20 questions to get the answers we needed. It was annoying.

In my campaign trolls are well known so nobody needs to roll for the info. But with other, more obscure monsters people may know general info about them for free or may not. That's where the D20 roll comes in, did this particular creature happen to pique their interest at some point in the past? Sometimes I'll give people extra info because of their back story, but it has to be more than "I studied history at university X", it has to be an important part of the PC's history.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Thanks for the response.

I disagree of course - I don't see that it adds anything to the game, but if you do that's fine.

And that's a totally fine answer. Some people don't want to play this way, and that's cool. What I object to is a mischaracterization of the approach. That it's "magic words" or whatever.

I don't like having to ask for specifics because I've had DMs do that. We had to play 20 questions to get the answers we needed. It was annoying.

Sure. I've had DMs who have implemented all kinds of things in annoying ways. Is there any part of you that believes a DM like iserith can implement this in an engaging, fun way? Or have you just concluded it can't work?

And, for my part, I just find it kind of boring..."boardgame-like" in my opinion...to just roll a skill check every time a potential obstacle arises. Especially in the trap/lie/secret door detection scenarios that keep arising in these threads.

But "One man's meat..." and all that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Quod Jerkus Demonstrandum

I don't think you used the correct conjugation. I believe '"jerkus" is 'we jerk', the first-person pleural form... whereas you probably wanted third-person singular's "jerkat", "he/she/it jerks" (if trying to follow the standard sentence structure of quod erat demonstrandum - Q.E.D. ("what was to be demonstrated").

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't think you used the correct conjugation. I believe '"jerkus" is 'we jerk', the first-person pleural form... whereas you probably wanted third-person singluar's "jerkat", "he/she/it jerks" (if trying to follow the standard sentence structure of quod erat demonstrandum - Q.E.D. ("what was to be demonstrated").

I've been pwnd.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't think you used the correct conjugation. I believe '"jerkus" is 'we jerk', the first-person pleural form... whereas you probably wanted third-person singluar's "jerkat", "he/she/it jerks" (if trying to follow the standard sentence structure of quod erat demonstrandum - Q.E.D. ("what was to be demonstrated").

Based on what little I can recollect from high school Latin, "erat" is derived from "sum", which has its own special rules for conjugation (or as my Latin teacher used to say, "because of those drunken Romans"). I no longer remember what the correct conjugation is, but I don't think it's "-at".

 

[5ekyu]

Because its international day of the folly of tilting at windmills, let's give this a ho.

It seems that some folk want to push back on "magic words" based on the idea that "if I do not have a list of magic words before then it's not "magic words".

Now maybe before is when the challenge is presented at the table to the players. Maybe before is when they design the encounter. Lotsa room for different options for when before kicks in.

But, really, for me I did not get the idea that the claims about this or that being a "magic words" resolution or not had one iota of concern for when the GM picked the "keys".

It's really about whether or not the "character specifically matters" or is it solvable at the " player describes" stage regardless of character?

To me, I think we all really do a mix. I hope so.

 

[Oofta]

And that's a totally fine answer. Some people don't want to play this way, and that's cool. What I object to is a mischaracterization of the approach. That it's "magic words" or whatever.



Sure. I've had DMs who have implemented all kinds of things in annoying ways. Is there any part of you that believes a DM like iserith can implement this in an engaging, fun way? Or have you just concluded it can't work?

And, for my part, I just find it kind of boring..."boardgame-like" in my opinion...to just roll a skill check every time a potential obstacle arises. Especially in the trap/lie/secret door detection scenarios that keep arising in these threads.

But "One man's meat..." and all that.

I think the internet has a distorting effect on how people actually play, so I don't really know what your game or anyone else's would actually be like.

The one thing I can comment on is the "overcoming obstacles with a D20". I probably just focus on different obstacles. As an example a lock to a thief is a minor obstacle, it's just a mundane thing they do as part of their day-to-day job. If it's critical to the story to get past the door, the D20 will be used to determine time, or that a different (riskier) alternative needs to be used. I do sometimes throw in complex traps or trap-like environments that require a great deal of interaction similar but more flexible than 4E's skill challenges.

A more significant obstacle might be infiltrating a party. Some approaches will probably include a D20 roll. How good is your disguise? If trying to sweet-talk your way past a guard what do you say? What you say may be informed by other checks such as history or insight and will impact the target DC or grant you advantage. It might even be automatic if you took some time to do some research or come up with something clever.

Decisions players make usually have more impact than the die rolls when overcoming obstacles unless the group is trying something truly risky. If there is a significant risk, I'll let them know and let the die fall where it may. In most cases, a bad roll just leads to a setback, not complete failure.

Some of my most memorable and fun moments in D&D have come from both extremes of the die roll. Some of the biggest laughs comes from the pronouncement "I just rolled a 1". Some of the biggest cheers come from the exclamation "20!"