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

[Seramus]

Well, see, that’s a different action. Instead of “do 10 flips” being the goal, it’s the approach he is taking to the goal of “impress the gymnastics panel.” He either rolls equal to or above the DC and impresses them with his flips, or he rolls below the DC and fails to.

But then you are stuck with a binary. Only enough to impress them or completely fail to impress them. No opportunity to greatly impress them, or eek by with impressing some but not others, etc.

Is this a one-off rolling boulder trap, or more of an Indiana Jones style situation where escaping from the boulder is the dramatic question of a whole encounter? In the former case, I think a single roll is sufficient. In the latter case, I think there are far better ways to handle the encounter than a series of contingent Ability checks. In either case I’m not sure how doing 10 flips would help.

I was imagining an Indy Boulder, but in truth I wasn’t expecting Mr Flip to come under this much scrutiny. He’s not the best guy to be thrown into a variety of situations.

In this case, the crowd’s reaction is inconsequential. What we are checking for is whether or not the performance pleases the patrons enough to earn her meal. Exactly how impressed or unimpressed the patrons are beyond that is pure narrative, and doesn’t really need to be resolved by an ability check.

Once again, that forces a binary like not allowing a very high roll impress a plot relevant NPC drinking in the corner who might hand over information at 5DC less now that she’s heard a decent tune.

 

[Charlaquin]

But then you are stuck with a binary. Only enough to impress them or completely fail to impress them. No opportunity to greatly impress them, or eek by with impressing some but not others, etc.

There’s nothing preventing those outcomes. They just aren’t unnecessarily systematized and attached to specific DCs.

I was imagining an Indy Boulder, but in truth I wasn’t expecting Mr Flip to come under this much scrutiny. He’s not the best guy to be thrown into a variety of situations.

Once again, that forces a binary like not allowing a very high roll impress a plot relevant NPC drinking in the corner who might hand over information at 5DC less now that she’s heard a decent tune.

Trying to get that information out of the NPC is a separate action, which might succeed, fail, or require a check depending on the approach. If the approach does require a check, I think Advantage would be a better way to reward the PC for having impressed her, and I would have her be impressed by a performance that earned the PC a meal, rather than attaching it to a certain DC on the earlier performance check.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with non-binary checks, if you like them. I just find them to add complexity to action resolution for very little benefit.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Sometimes I also ask: "What does that look like?". I not only ask it to make a ruling on the outcome, but I also ask it to bring the scene to life for the other players. To me it is all about immersion, and about caring about the situation.

I don't have to be able, as a person in real life, to describe an action I don't know how to do in real life in an imaginary game where you set the rules out come and I have no feel in the minutia to care about the out come. If you ask ME to describe how I disarm a trap or ME to persuade someone to give us information... it breaks my immersion because I then stop and have this awkward moment of... I don't know how to do this and I can't see or feel out the characters in your mind. You force me back to reality completely pulling me out of the immersion trying to figure out how to convince YOU to let me role some dice and worried I will auto fail because I am not persuasive and do not know how to disarm traps in real life. It may make it better for you as GM if I add flourish to the story, but as a player it hurts my experience to be forced to be intimidating. Do you ask how every player does every skill? You describe looking around? You describe pushing that heavy door with athletics? Do I need to write up some sheet music for my performance check? Again... I am not saying your wrong for your style of play. I am saying for some of use... being forced to your style of play does the opposite of what it does for your. I want to role, and if you want to add flourish to the effects of how the role effects it (Like Mathew Mercer does) then you can play your way and I can play mine. However, making my character checks about me as a player voids the idea that I play this game to escape the real world to be immersed in fantasy by forcing me to use personal flaws in my character and be judged by them.... instead of the character state block intended to represent the skills of the characters have that I often don't.

Hang on there. When I design a trap for an adventure, that means I know where it is and how it works. If you say you roll a rock across the floor, and the trap is not floor activated, then nothing happens. I'm not sure if that qualifies as a failure, because it also gives you information. Nothing stops you from following up with just a normal search action, or any other combination of actions.

That's right, YOU know where it is and how it works, so why can't I just take "a normal search action" to start? Why do I have to pull out of my character and try to guess what it is you want me to do as a player? If you want an immersive description for YOUR trap and I don't have any idea as a player, why can't I just role for disarm trap then you, knowing your trap, describe how it is disarmed or triggered? You can still have your immersive description but your asking me to describe your world but if I am wrong as a player I could get my character killed. I wouldn't tell another player how to play there creation being there character. As far as I am concerned your trap is just another NPC I don't control. When you say, nothing stops me form following up though, your wrong. If I roll the rock based on thinking the there might be a trap and nothing happens.... I have to assume there is no trap and continue into it. If your having me check, and check, and check for every possible trap... how do I know if a find a trap that is already triggered? Unless of course you just tell me the out come … which you could do with just a skill check role and save a lot of player confusion pain and without drawing out a simple trap for way more longer than ether of us want.

I have seen this in multiple games. GMs who want what your suggesting then get annoyed that now the players can't except that a trap is sprung, that can move 5ft with out describing a 5 minute spill of how they test that 5ft for traps.... because they can't just role and move on. I have seen a hall with 2 traps devolve into 4 hours of describing every thing we do because one of those trapped nearly killed one of our players on an auto fail because he described how he opened a box wrong. I am not say this has happened at your game or how for you to have fun. Only that I have seen the door swing the other way. Forcing player creativity for the sake of immersion is not fun for the player. Encouraging creativity when a player is inspired with inspiration or just mentioning how awesome it is, on the other hand is great.

If however the trap IS floor activated, then yeah, a rock will probably activate it. This is why I'll ask if the players take cover and WHERE they take cover. This does not mean stats don't matter. But you can take other actions apart from just searching for traps. It may be something the player wants to fall back on if they roll badly on their check.

There's cover!?!? lol. I just mean the world is as the GM describes it. If its activated and players don't say they take cover because you never mentioned it but in your mind its there then they are penalized for being players, however if they are given a save based on character skills and on success you describe how they jump behind cover then they don't have to know what the GM knows and its the skill of the character and not the players inability to read your mind that is tested. If player fall back because of a bad check... is it because they performed a check and you described the danger? If so, you are already doing some of what I do, just for me check means roll. I don't ask a player how they do something, I let them add how and perhaps might add a bonus such as advantage for a good description, but I let the dice roll so that the characters skills are always tied to the check. An automatic success will be due to their characters passive skill level and an automatic failure only happens when a player tries something I will not allow them to achieve. For example, if a player says. "I tell a guard to kill himself, I roll persuasion 27" … I reply, "you manage to confuse the guard slightly before he gets angry, you have persuaded him that you the guards next target". So they might cause an opportunity attack on that guard but they failed to convince the guard to just kill themselves. The effect of the role may very, but I will try to apply some effect from a good roll if I can and I can think of something that makes since.

I care about giving my players lots of options and rewarding their cleverness. I like it when my game world operates by a certain logic.

I understand that, but my agreement is that I prefer to keep a divide between the player and the character. I keep game world options in the game world. I will also apply logic in game, but when I GM, they role for disarm traps and I use my knowledge of the trap to describe the failure or success of disarming the trap based on the logic of my knowledge of the trap and how it could be disarmed or triggered by accident. I still reward cleaver player descriptions, but instead of auto fail or success, I only grant advantage or a bonus to the check and/or save if they are cleaver. I do not penalize character skills checks due to bad player description or understanding of the trap that only exists in my head.

I don't see why allowing the players to have other options to success or failure would take away from that. Frankly, I think it immerses the player more in what is going on in the game.

For example:

I had a trap in my campaign where the players had to make their way across pillars above a pit of lava, while occasionally flames would shoot out from some of the pillars. The trap was not hidden, they could clearly see the flames and the holes they were shooting out from. So the players asked if they could simply plug the holes... and I figured, why not? Makes sense to me. Whether that requires another check is a matter of opinion, but above all else I want my world to obey a certain logic. The players should be free to think outside the box when trying to overcome the obstacles I throw at them.

So require a check or not does not remove the logic or creativity of players. If I made the same trap, and my players wanted to try the same solution, I would allow them to try assuming they have a method and something to plug the whole with. However, the difference between your method and mine is that any description is just for an understanding of what they are doing so I can set a DC for a check. A solid plan might effect the DC of the check or of the saves an number of ways... but there will be skill check roll to see if they pull it off most of the time. A good description might reduce the DC, add a bonus or advantage to the roll for the check, or failure might have advantage on the save. The times where they do not get a roll it is because there characters passive skill is higher than the resulting DC so its not based on the player but the characters skill level vs the DC.... did a good description result in that? It can, but I will not auto fail them based on their description. To me that is steeling player agency of character design and gets into the territory of rail roading player characters based off of player descriptions of based off of their understanding of what only exists in my head. I need players to get a roll, so that they know their character choices and not their player descriptions are what determine out comes. At the same time, because descriptions never negatively impact DCs players are encouraged to use them but not required to. But that's just how I view it from my perspective. So if you disagree with that, I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying this is how I feel about this issue.

Again, This is just my style. I have no problem with you doing it differently and if your players are happy at your table … then please enjoy. If you notice annoyed players and want to test my style that's fine to, but I can't know you or your players so that is of course a judgement you have to make and if you try my way it might be that players don't like it. My players are fine with my method, and I have seen problems with your style... but not every time I have seen it used, so I am aware that with some tables it can work fine. Its just the times it has gone bad it was painful so its a method I personally avoid.

 

[Hussar]

No, but if you fail to break open that door the first time, the monsters on the other side will know you’re coming. After that, you can break down the door without a second check, because the second time around there is no further cost or consequence for failure.


No, the consequence of failing a stealth check is that your presence is detected by whatever you’re trying to stay hidden from.

My point is, neither of those are direct consequences to the PC. Nothing bad happens directly to the PC on a failure. Sure, there might be other stuff going on, or, there might not be anyone on the other side of that door to alert. And, again, while you are spotted by those you are trying to hide from, it doesn't mean that you suffer additional consequences. All it meant is that you failed your check.

That's the point I'm arguing against. You don't suffer additional consequences for a failed check other than, "you failed this check". There's no "falling prone" for a failed stealth check. I don't knock myself out for failing to break open the door,. No direct to my character consequences for failure.

Yes, and jumping further than that would require an approach with a reasonable chance of success, reasonable chance of failure, and consequence for failure (most likely falling down whatever you’re trying to jump across). I don’t especially want to get into jumping though, cause several people blocked me last time we talked about this.

LOL. Ok, fair enough. Jumping examples have leapt the selachimorpha.

If there’s no cost to attempting to handle the animal or consequence for failing to, you should just succeed at doing so, in my opinion. So, most attempts to handle an animal are just going to be successful. A check would be called for if, say, the animal was on-edge, in which case it would make sense if the animal attacked on a failed roll.

Well, there is the cost of simply failing. Which means you are going to have to spend more time if you want to succeed. For example, it would be a Handle Animal check to get your horse to jump over something like a pit. A fail would probably mean that the horse balks and you have to go back and try again. But, sure, it's going to depend on the situation, of course. Context always matters. But, even in the case where the animal attacks you, a failed check doesn't result in the animal going into a blind rage, gaining 50 HP and doubling its damage as it rips into your, and only your, character.

IOW, there is no additional penalty for failure.

Interesting. That’s not how it works in my game. So if that’s the only time you see additional consequence for failure, I must not be running or exactly like those other DMs that you have seen. Fancy that.


Yeah, folks are risky. You want to avoid them if possible.

I'm going more by what I've seen at tables, and what I'm seeing in virtually every single example that gets posited on the boards. @Maxperson set a DC of 20 to know 2 facts about a monster, with a chance that neither of those facts would actually be useful in context. To me, that's ridiculously high. And, IIRC, there was a chance on a failed check of learning false information. ((Correct me if I'm misattributing that to you @Maxperson, I know someone said it)) So, I have about a 50:50 chance of success, which means I learn a minimal amount of information, potentially of no value to me in context, and a 50% chance of learning misleading information which I have no means of falsifying beforehand.

And that's presuming a +10 on the skill check, which means I'm looking at about a 10th level character (or thereabouts). Certainly not a fresh off the farm character anyway.

So, yeah, while I cannot comment about your game, I can only go by the truckload of examples from the boards of DM's who really, really don't realize the implications of their math.

 

[Seramus]

There’s certainly nothing wrong with non-binary checks, if you like them. I just find them to add complexity to action resolution for very little benefit.

I think they are pretty much necessary for a functional game, which is why I got derailed by the idea of a game without non-binary results. Like Jack Skellington going to Christmas Town!

I have a sneaking suspicion you use them quite a bit at your own table even if you say otherwise. But I’ll never know, and even if you didn’t it’s not really my business. But it was fun chatting either way.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I'm presenting three different scenarios, not one. The why doesn't matter. There may have been something in the description of the hall that gave the player the idea of rolling a rock across the floor, or it may have just been a hunch. The point is, if the traps follow a logic, then the outcome of some actions can be decided without a check. And this rewards player cleverness.

But it discards, player agncy in character creation because you voided the use of the character for player actions. That's my problem with it. I prefer in world checks to meta testing player cleverness for in game obstacles. What happens if you have a player who is not clever but wants to play a clever character to escape the reality of there personal limitations? … If you roll a check versus the character's stats they could do that. If you let the barbarian roll rocks down the hall because you hinted at something that player got but the unclever player didn't, then then sure the Barbarian's Player is rewarded for being cleaver, but the unclever player who wanted to play the cleaver rogue is robbed of the use of their character and may continually feel left out, removed of the opportunity for that character to ever be what they created it to be. I feel like this provides an opportunity for player favoritism and promotes real world behavior over a balanced immersive environment where the combination of dice with character stats determine outcomes.

But that's just me. The measure of a GM is the satisfaction of everyone at their table including the themselves. You have to do what makes you happy as long as you can do it without ruining your players fun. If you have achieved that... I don't recommend changing for the sake of change. You do you. : )

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think they are pretty much necessary for a functional game, which is why I got derailed by the idea of a game without non-binary results. Like Jack Skellington going to Christmas Town!

I have a sneaking suspicion you use them quite a bit at your own table even if you say otherwise. But I’ll never know, and even if you didn’t it’s not really my business. But it was fun chatting either way.

Can't speak for @Charlaquin, but I used to and now I do not. Range of success makes sense if you're still using the system as a process-sim, ie using the resolution system for discrete actions. To use your example of Mr. Flippy, you see the action that needs to be resolved as the number of flips performed. If Mr. Flippy completes 10 flips, then Mr. Flippy gets a good result. But, we don't know from your example what that good result may be, just that to get it, 10 flips must be done. You imply that some fewer number of flips may result in something that's not as good, but still desirable, but, again, we don't know what that is. This is because you're focused on resolving atomic actions -- in this case the number of flips -- as the focus of the resolution mechanic.

With goal and approach, however, the number of flips accomplished is immaterial. The goal is to do something, the approach is by doing flips to impress judges (I guess), and the result is then "did you get the something or not?" How many flips are done isn't even necessary to consider -- on a success, the number of flips done was of sufficient quantity and quality. On a failure, the number done was not sufficient. How many were done is now just a matter of color in the narration.

In this manner, by not using the resolution mechanics as a judge of discrete acts but instead as a holistic judge of whether the action taken was sufficient for the goal or not, range of effect just falls away as a desirable outcome.

Now, if you aren't using goal and approach, then range of outcomes is a great way to drive the fiction into new areas. It's just not universally applicable, as you seem to insist, and is really only useful if you're doing the process-sim of resolving discrete actions that then provide input to the calculus of goal achievement. It's not necessary if you skip the middle parts.

 

[Charlaquin]

My point is, neither of those are direct consequences to the PC. Nothing bad happens directly to the PC on a failure.Sure, there might be other stuff going on, or, there might not be anyone on the other side of that door to alert.

I wouldn’t call for a roll if there wasn’t anyone to alert. I’d just narrate success.

And, again, while you are spotted by those you are trying to hide from, it doesn't mean that you suffer additional consequences. All it meant is that you failed your check.

Right, but failing your check had a consequence - specifically, being spotted. That’s consequence enough.

That's the point I'm arguing against. You don't suffer additional consequences for a failed check other than, "you failed this check". There's no "falling prone" for a failed stealth check. I don't knock myself out for failing to break open the door,. No direct to my character consequences for failure.

Then I think you might be arguing against boogeymen. Cause I’m pretty sure no one here is making that argument.

Well, there is the cost of simply failing. Which means you are going to have to spend more time if you want to succeed. For example, it would be a Handle Animal check to get your horse to jump over something like a pit. A fail would probably mean that the horse balks and you have to go back and try again.

Right, but that’s only a meaningful cost if time is a limited resource. If you’re in combat, or if the time it takes you to attempt to goad the horse into jumping over the pit brings you a step closer to a check for random encounters, then yeah, that’s consequence enough that a roll would be needed to resolve it. But if what happens on a failure is nothing except that you get a little flavor text about your failure to convince the horse to jump and then you try again, repeat until you succeed, I would much rather save everyone the time and skip to narrating the eventual success.

But, sure, it's going to depend on the situation, of course. Context always matters. But, even in the case where the animal attacks you, a failed check doesn't result in the animal going into a blind rage, gaining 50 HP and doubling its damage as it rips into your, and only your, character.

IOW, there is no additional penalty for failure.

When my players announce an action and I determine that it does require a check to resolve, I tell the players the DC and what will happen as a result of failure. If what will happen as a result of failure is “nothing,” I don’t make up some consequence out of my ass to satisfy the requirement that a check must have a consequence. I just narrate success. That’s why I object to my style being presented as “punishing the player for rolling.”

”I'm going more by what I've seen at tables, and what I'm seeing in virtually every single example that gets posited on the boards. @Maxperson set a DC of 20 to know 2 facts about a monster, with a chance that neither of those facts would actually be useful in context. To me, that's ridiculously high. And, IIRC, there was a chance on a failed check of learning false information. ((Correct me if I'm misattributing that to you @Maxperson, I know someone said it)) So, I have about a 50:50 chance of success, which means I learn a minimal amount of information, potentially of no value to me in context, and a 50% chance of learning misleading information which I have no means of falsifying beforehand.

And that's presuming a +10 on the skill check, which means I'm looking at about a 10th level character (or thereabouts). Certainly not a fresh off the farm character anyway.

So, yeah, while I cannot comment about your game, I can only go by the truckload of examples from the boards of DM's who really, really don't realize the implications of their math.

Most of these examples are off the top of people’s heads, in response to repeated insistence that we “just give me a straight answer!” so I’m not surprised that they are a little under-cooked.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But it discards, player agncy in character creation because you voided the use of the character for player actions. That's my problem with it. I prefer in world checks to meta testing player cleverness for in game obstacles. What happens if you have a player who is not clever but wants to play a clever character to escape the reality of there personal limitations? … If you roll a check versus the character's stats they could do that. If you let the barbarian roll rocks down the hall because you hinted at something that player got but the unclever player didn't, then then sure the Barbarian's Player is rewarded for being cleaver, but the unclever player who wanted to play the cleaver rogue is robbed of the use of their character and may continually feel left out, removed of the opportunity for that character to ever be what they created it to be. I feel like this provides an opportunity for player favoritism and promotes real world behavior over a balanced immersive environment where the combination of dice with character stats determine outcomes.

But that's just me. The measure of a GM is the satisfaction of everyone at their table including the themselves. You have to do what makes you happy as long as you can do it without ruining your players fun. If you have achieved that... I don't recommend changing for the sake of change. You do you. : )

I'm not @Imaculata, but, for how I do it, you've got a common but incorrect assumption. Again, the goal of goal and approach play isn't to get you to tell me, the DM, the magic solution I've cooked up for this puzzle, but instead to look at your character and tell me how you're character would do this thing. If you're a rogue, and you suspect a trap, are you looking for it from what you think is a safe distance? Are you approaching and touching things, feeling carefully for a trigger? Are you using your thieve's tools? This is the level of specificity needed.

Now, in addition to this, the way the game is presented is also different. There are no bare stretches of hallway that you have to guess contain traps. Instead, the game is telegraphed. If there's a trap, there's something there that indicates that this is a dangerous area -- something that you can then directly follow up on because there's a hook to engage. It's not a blind, one-way street from the player to the DM, the DM must adequately describe the scene such that you, as the player, can make reasonable choices about how to proceed. The only time I ever "gotcha" traps is if players are knowingly engaged in extremely risky behavior. Otherwise, there's always something in the scene description that clues into a trap -- deep gouges in the floor from an overhead blade trap, or an odd glistening from the poisoned doorknob, etc., etc. Usually, I flat out point out the traps in an area, because I rarely ever use traps as an independent obstacle and prefer to use them as part of a whole setup, so knowing a trap is over there still adds to the situation. So, in this case, it's pretty easy to tell me what your character is doing in regards to a trap or other situation. I don't require specificity, or amazing plans (these rarely work), just an idea of what your character is doing and what they hope to accomplish by it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Can't speak for @Charlaquin, but I used to and now I do not. Range of success makes sense if you're still using the system as a process-sim, ie using the resolution system for discrete actions. To use your example of Mr. Flippy, you see the action that needs to be resolved as the number of flips performed. If Mr. Flippy completes 10 flips, then Mr. Flippy gets a good result. But, we don't know from your example what that good result may be, just that to get it, 10 flips must be done. You imply that some fewer number of flips may result in something that's not as good, but still desirable, but, again, we don't know what that is. This is because you're focused on resolving atomic actions -- in this case the number of flips -- as the focus of the resolution mechanic.

With goal and approach, however, the number of flips accomplished is immaterial. The goal is to do something, the approach is by doing flips to impress judges (I guess), and the result is then "did you get the something or not?" How many flips are done isn't even necessary to consider -- on a success, the number of flips done was of sufficient quantity and quality. On a failure, the number done was not sufficient. How many were done is now just a matter of color in the narration.

In this manner, by not using the resolution mechanics as a judge of discrete acts but instead as a holistic judge of whether the action taken was sufficient for the goal or not, range of effect just falls away as a desirable outcome.

Now, if you aren't using goal and approach, then range of outcomes is a great way to drive the fiction into new areas. It's just not universally applicable, as you seem to insist, and is really only useful if you're doing the process-sim of resolving discrete actions that then provide input to the calculus of goal achievement. It's not necessary if you skip the middle parts.

I’ve also noticed that DMs who include description of the PC’s action in their narration of the outcome tend to look to the result of the roll to inform that narration. Roll really low and the DM describes you comically failing to achieve your goal. Roll just under the DC and they describe you performing admirably but just not quite managing to accomplish what you set out to do. Roll equal to or only slightly above the DC and they describe you just barely pulling it off. Roll well above the DC and they describe you succeeding with ease and/or with style.

This makes a lot of sense in games where players are free to initiate checks with the specific action they are taking left abstract, because in this style of play, the mechanics determine what happens, and the narrative is created based on the results of those mechanics.