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

[Guest 6801328]

Goal: And I take no damage.
Me, as DM: that's sounds really hard. Gimmie a DC 25 Dex check to time it right. If you fail, you faceplant and will take double normal falling damage.

Goal: to try to reduce the damage I take.
DM: Sounds tough, but doable. Gimmie a DC 15 Dex check to time it right. If you fail, you'll land badly and be incapacitated a round.

Goal: to roll up on my feet. I know it's gonna hurt, but I want to see if I come up standing.
DM: cool. DC 10 Dex check. If you fail, you're not only be prone, but you'll land badly and be incapacitated for a round.

Goal very much matters. If you're shooting for the moon, big stakes call for big risks. If you're trying something more reasonable, less severe risks are warranted. I need to know what you're going for, and I'm just not going to guess when you could tell me.

Despite the risk of using examples in a room full of people who just want to find a way to prove you are wrong, these are great illustrative examples.

 

[FrogReaver]

Despite the risk of using examples in a room full of people who just want to find a way to prove you are wrong, these are great illustrative examples.

Pot meet kettle?

 

[Guest 6801328]

So, by talking to adventurers from my hometown. Seems generic and plausible enough right?

You claim to be posting in good faith, so let me ask you this:

If you found yourself at a table with somebody like @iserith, and he was perfectly happy to let you use this same "approach" every time you wanted information for your character, would you be down with that and just use "By talking to adventurers from my hometown..." over and over and over again, not really caring if it was repetitive and just trying to play by the DMs rules, or would you actually put some thought and creativity into each individual situation?

 

[FrogReaver]

You claim to be posting in good faith, so let me ask you this:

If you found yourself at a table with somebody like @iserith, and he was perfectly happy to let you use this same "approach" every time you wanted information for your character, would you be down with that and just use "By talking to adventurers from my hometown..." over and over and over again, not really caring if it was repetitive and just trying to play by the DMs rules, or would you actually put some thought and creativity into each individual situation?

I put thought and creativity into every situation. If I was playing with Iserith or someone like him I most certainly wouldn't let my overall preferences get in the way of that (other than for some really egregious issues).

So if I'm playing with him and that's how he was going to DM the game then I would try to play up to that.

But for general discussion I still disagree that it's the best approach to handling many situations, especially lore type situations.

That said, that approach does handle a lot of situations excellently. I would be very happy seeing it work when it does. I think more of it in general could improve my games. Just not to the full on extent that I see advocated for here.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I put thought and creativity into every situation. If I was playing with Iserith or someone like him I most certainly wouldn't let my overall preferences get in the way of that (other than for some really egregious issues).

So if I'm playing with him and that's how he was going to DM the game then I would try to play up to that.

But for general discussion I still disagree that it's the best approach to handling many situations, especially lore type situations.

That said, that approach does handle a lot of situations excellently. I would be very happy seeing it work when it does. I think more of it in general could improve my games. Just not to the full on extent that I see advocated for here.

So if you wouldn't play that way (using the same kinda lame "approach" every time), why are you asking about it?

 

[Maxperson]

So, by talking to adventurers from my hometown. Seems generic and plausible enough right?

For some minor things, including trolls, sure. The vast majority of adventurers aren't high level and haven't met rare or powerful creatures. Even if you had a monster sage as a friend you wouldn't get a whole lot more than that. Why you might ask? For the same reason that being friends with a professor of astrophysics doesn't make you a professor of astrophysics, or hell, even give you the equivalent of an AA in astrophysics. You will likely hear about the easy stuff, and some cool tidbits that most people don't hear, but you aren't going to know much more.

It's far better to be specific in your background. Let's say your party encounters an Alhoon. The guy who asks for a roll and the guy who talked to hometown adventurers aren't even going to get rolls. It's just going to be a no. This creature is far too rare and remote for that yield information. Player number 3 at the table, though, who when he was younger was taken captive by some orcs and brought back to their stronghold, only to be lost to a mindflayer raid and taken as a slave, would get a roll. His time as a slave in the Underdark with mindflayers around, talking to other slaves, etc., might give him that information. He would also automatically know about mindflayers themselves, something that the other two still wouldn't get a roll for. Plus he'd get rolls for names of underdark cities, races, etc. He'd have rolls for lots of things connected to that time. Specificity matters.

 

[FrogReaver]

So if you wouldn't play that way (using the same kinda lame "approach" every time), why are you asking about it?

To get an idea of what approaches are allowable and what aren't. One approach I thought was perfectly legitimate was shot down for being too vague afterall. So I'm just being a little more careful, making sure I don't take anything forgranted.

 

[FrogReaver]

For some minor things, including trolls, sure. The vast majority of adventurers aren't high level and haven't met rare or powerful creatures. Even if you had a monster sage as a friend you wouldn't get a whole lot more than that. Why you might ask? For the same reason that being friends with a professor of astrophysics doesn't make you a professor of astrophysics, or hell, even give you the equivalent of an AA in astrophysics. You will likely hear about the easy stuff, and some cool tidbits that most people don't hear, but you aren't going to know much more.

It's far better to be specific in your background. Let's say your party encounters an Alhoon. The guy who asks for a roll and the guy who talked to hometown adventurers aren't even going to get rolls. It's just going to be a no. This creature is far too rare and remote for that yield information. Player number 3 at the table, though, who when he was younger was taken captive by some orcs and brought back to their stronghold, only to be lost to a mindflayer raid and taken as a slave, would get a roll. His time as a slave in the Underdark with mindflayers around, talking to other slaves, etc., might give him that information. He would also automatically know about mindflayers themselves, something that the other two still wouldn't get a roll for. Plus he'd get rolls for names of underdark cities, races, etc. He'd have rolls for lots of things connected to that time. Specificity matters.

Right, I wouldn't expect them to encounter info about rare and powerful creatures. Personally I would still allow the general lore check to see if it's possible they encountered it somewhere. I wouldn't begrudge you for ruling that an automatic failure, but it's not what I would do.

 

[iserith]

You claim to be posting in good faith, so let me ask you this:

If you found yourself at a table with somebody like @iserith, and he was perfectly happy to let you use this same "approach" every time you wanted information for your character, would you be down with that and just use "By talking to adventurers from my hometown..." over and over and over again, not really caring if it was repetitive and just trying to play by the DMs rules, or would you actually put some thought and creativity into each individual situation?

The game gives us the overarching goal of play right in the introduction: Have fun together and create an exciting, memorable story by playing. If you do that, you "win." I think it's reasonable to assume that nobody's trying to "lose," if they are rational, good faith actors.

To that end, everything a player chooses to do in the game is necessarily aimed toward that goal. If you take action, it better be fun for everyone and help create an exciting, memorable story on some level. Otherwise you are working against everyone else and it will show.

So when people propose doing all these un-fun things that don't contribute to an exciting, memorable story, I know they're just not being serious and just trying to win an argument on the internet. They're talking about things that, in the context of a table, obviously wouldn't fly.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The game gives us the overarching goal of play right in the introduction: Have fun together and create an exciting, memorable story by playing. If you do that, you "win." I think it's reasonable to assume that nobody's trying to "lose," if they are rational, good faith actors.

To that end, everything a player chooses to do in the game is necessarily aimed toward that goal. If you take action, it better be fun for everyone and help create an exciting, memorable story on some level. Otherwise you are working against everyone else and it will show.

So when people propose doing all these un-fun things that don't contribute to an exciting, memorable story, I know they're just not being serious and just trying to win an argument on the internet. They're talking about things that, in the context of a table, obviously wouldn't fly.

Right.

And if they genuinely are puzzled by how something works at the table, they should ask genuine questions.