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

[FrogReaver]

Right.

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

Whatever dude, you're not in the place to judge what a legitimate question is and isn't

 

[Charlaquin]

So how do you handle them? Is it even in the goal and approach framework?

Sort of? For pertinent bits of lore that PCs might or might not know off the top of their heads (e.g. trolls and fire,) I include that info in my narration if a PC has a relevant proficiency. I mention the proficiency in the narration as well so that these knowledges aren’t invisible. Something like, “Thanks to your training in Nature, you’re familiar with trolls and know that they have regenerative abilities, though they can’t regenerate wounds that are cauterized with fire or acid.” For more obscure information (e.g. Intellect Devourers and Protection from Evil,) I don’t offer that information up front, but I will telegraph that there is information they’re missing, and I don’t prevent players from acting on out of game knowledge. So, with the Intellect Devourer example, I would point out that the hobgoblins are behaving very much unlike hobgoblins usually do. If a player asks directly, “would my character know about Intellect Devourers, and that they can be driven out with Protection from Good and Evil?” I would tell them that’s up to them - I have no problem with their character knowing that, but you’re also welcome to play your character as not knowing it if you want to.

That’s... basically it. If you want to learn something about a creature or a feature of the environment that your character doesn’t know off the top of their head, try some stuff. Interact. Experiment. I’ll resolve it like I do any action.

 

[iserith]

I would also add, on the topic of recalling lore, it's a good idea in my view to check oneself on the method of adjudication that is used to make sure it's not a holdover from a previous edition of the game. "Knowledge checks" aren't a thing in D&D 5e. They are a thing in D&D 4e. (Don't recall D&D 3.Xe's method, but I recall D&D 4e was largely like that, so maybe it's the same or substantially similar.) While in some ways they may serve the same purpose, their method of adjudication isn't the same.

So if one is going to argue for a particular method, it might be a good idea to know and cite where that's coming from and whether it's covered by D&D 5e's rules or is effectively a house rule. Perfectly okay to house rule, mind you, and I do it myself depending on the specifics of the campaign, but it doesn't hurt to know that you're doing that in these discussions.

 

[Charlaquin]

Actually 15 is moderate, 20 is hard, and 25 is very hard.

Right you are

 

[FrogReaver]

Sort of? For pertinent bits of lore that PCs might or might not know off the top of their heads (e.g. trolls and fire,) I include that info in my narration if a PC has a relevant proficiency. I mention the proficiency in the narration as well so that these knowledges aren’t invisible. Something like, “Thanks to your training in Nature, you’re familiar with trolls and know that they have regenerative abilities, though they can’t regenerate wounds that are cauterized with fire or acid.” For more obscure information (e.g. Intellect Devourers and Protection from Evil,) I don’t offer that information up front, but I will telegraph that there is information they’re missing, and I don’t prevent players from acting on out of game knowledge. So, with the Intellect Devourer example, I would point out that the hobgoblins are behaving very much unlike hobgoblins usually do. If a player asks directly, “would my character know about Intellect Devourers, and that they can be driven out with Protection from Good and Evil?” I would tell them that’s up to them - I have no problem with their character knowing that, but you’re also welcome to play your character as not knowing it if you want to.

That’s... basically it. If you want to learn something about a creature or a feature of the environment that your character doesn’t know off the top of their head, try some stuff. Interact. Experiment. I’ll resolve it like I do any action.

Interesting, so a very intelligent wizard with nature proficiency will only ever get as much up front info out of you as a dumb fighter with nature proficiency?

Is that correct?

 

[Charlaquin]

Interesting, so a very intelligent wizard with nature proficiency will only ever get as much up front info out of you as a dumb fighter with nature proficiency?

Is that correct?

Yeah. I used to set minimum passive Intelligence (Proficiency) scores for these extra bits of narration, but I found doing so was only serving to bar information from players for no real benefit. Having high Intelligence still helps on checks to study, analyze, or identify things, and this way the group is rewarded for diversifying their skillsets, instead of having one designated party member for all of the knowledge skills. Nobody likes being the team HM slave.

 

[iserith]

Sort of? For pertinent bits of lore that PCs might or might not know off the top of their heads (e.g. trolls and fire,) I include that info in my narration if a PC has a relevant proficiency. I mention the proficiency in the narration as well so that these knowledges aren’t invisible. Something like, “Thanks to your training in Nature, you’re familiar with trolls and know that they have regenerative abilities, though they can’t regenerate wounds that are cauterized with fire or acid.”

Side note on this: Hussar mentioned earlier all the things the DM has to "juggle" as a reason for not doing something I suggested as it would add to the burden. (Please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing that, but it's certainly something I've heard a lot of DMs say if it wasn't him specifically.)

He added that, in particular, he keeps a list of everyone's skill proficiencies or the like. Certainly I've played with and heard plenty of DMs say they inform their description of the environment with who is trained in what and keeping such lists follows with that. Basically there's a baseline description of the environment for everyone, but Tordek also knows X and Mialee knows Y and so on, because they are trained in this or that.

This is something I don't do. For one, I have more players than seats at my table and often multiple characters per player. I wouldn't be able to manage that in a way that I would think has a sufficient payoff. So naturally, as I've been saying, it's on the player to declare actions if they want more information about the environment than the basic scope of options I've presented. That might include recalling lore or the like.

Anyway, I'm flipping through the DMG right now and so far I'm not seeing anything in there that suggests DMs should keep lists of skill proficiencies and such then use those to inform their descriptions of the environment. I'm curious if anything like that is in there. Does anyone know? It talks about knowing player types, but that's about it so far as I can tell. I'm not trying to undermine this list-keeping and description-tailoring as a practice, but it seems to me that if a DM on the one hand has a complaint that DMing is somehow hard and a lot to juggle but is also creating extra work for himself or herself, then maybe this approach needs further examining. Maybe my way is just plain easier because it reduces the self-induced burden on the DM and puts it back into the hands of the players where it perhaps rightfully belongs.

Really interested if anyone finds anything in the DMG that talks about this.

 

[Umbran]

Three people have just been banned from this thread, for various rude behavior.

Treat each other with respect, please.

 

[Charlaquin]

Side note on this: Hussar mentioned earlier all the things the DM has to "juggle" as a reason for not doing something I suggested as it would add to the burden. (Please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing that, but it's certainly something I've heard a lot of DMs say if it wasn't him specifically.)

He added that, in particular, he keeps a list of everyone's skill proficiencies or the like. Certainly I've played with and heard plenty of DMs say they inform their description of the environment with who is trained in what and keeping such lists follows with that. Basically there's a baseline description of the environment for everyone, but Tordek also knows X and Mialee knows Y and so on, because they are trained in this or that.

This is something I don't do. For one, I have more players than seats at my table and often multiple characters per player. I wouldn't be able to manage that in a way that I would think has a sufficient payoff. So naturally, as I've been saying, it's on the player to declare actions if they want more information about the environment than the basic scope of options I've presented. That might include recalling lore or the like.

Anyway, I'm flipping through the DMG right now and so far I'm not seeing anything in there that suggests DMs should keep lists of skill proficiencies and such then use those to inform their descriptions of the environment. I'm curious if anything like that is in there. Does anyone know? It talks about knowing player types, but that's about it so far as I can tell. I'm not trying to undermine this list-keeping and description-tailoring as a practice, but it seems to me that if a DM on the one hand has a complaint that DMing is somehow hard and a lot to juggle but is also creating extra work for himself or herself, then maybe this approach needs further examining. Maybe my way is just plain easier because it reduces the self-induced burden on the DM and puts it back into the hands of the players where it perhaps rightfully belongs.

Really interested if anyone finds anything in the DMG that talks about this.

Not in the DMG, no. The PHB section on passive checks mentions that the DM might use a passive check when they want to make a check for a player in secret though, which I suspect is where a lot of people get the idea. Basically still making “knowledge checks,” but doing so in secret, with a static value instead of asking the player to roll or the player asking to roll. The Angry GM also recommends doing it in his “Tweaking the Core of 5e” article, and references the passive checks rule as precedent for it in the rule book, which I’m sure is where a lot of other folks got the idea. Personally, I carried the habit of keeping a list of players’ passive Perceptions over from 4e, and extended it to other passives in 5e. But like I said, I don’t really do that any more.

I definitely feel you on this being more to keep track of, though. If I was running a game with more players than seats, I don’t think I’d want to give myself the extra work of tracking everyone’s Proficiencies either. Though, I might instead just call out, “anyone trained in X?” when relevant in that case.

 

[Maxperson]

Interesting, so a very intelligent wizard with nature proficiency will only ever get as much up front info out of you as a dumb fighter with nature proficiency?

Is that correct?

If the get the same end number, yes. The advantage in my game is that the intelligent wizard will have a significant bonus, and the dumb fighter will have a penalty. The wizard will hit the higher DCs for more info far more often. I do give more to a wizard who make an arcana roll than say a fighter or rogue, though. Just like I'd give more to a druid or ranger who makes a nature roll than either the smart wizard or dumb fighter.