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

[Charlaquin]

If I may, you have to remember that @ClatonCross isn't interested in foreshadowing and signposting every trap. One corridor or another corridor look pretty much identical to each other. So, if you want to roll a rock to test for pressure plates, you would need to do that in every single corridor that you want to check. You would then have to do fifteen other tests in EVERY SINGLE CORRIDOR, because each approach only applies to a subset of possible traps.

...Sounds like a strong argument in favor of foreshadowing traps to me.

Sure, if I tell the players with big neon signs "Hey, there is a TRAP in THIS corridor", then sure, it speeds up play. To me, it makes play very predictable and boring.

I agree, that does sound predictable and boring. Fortunately there is a middle ground between that and giving no indication whatsoever of the presence of traps.

I don't want to signpost anything. That's up to the players to figure out.

Don’t you mean it’s up to the characters to figure it out?

So, in my games, if you want to know where traps are, you better start taking prisoners and questioning them. Because I'm certainly never going to signpost the location of a trap.

It seems to me that, rather than taking and interrogating prisoners, your style would encourage announcing a perception check in every single room. Which is the same problem you illustrated in the first paragraph, without any narration.

 

[5ekyu]

...But that is not what I ask of my players. All I ask is an approach to their goal. If they want to disable a trap, I want to know more than just that goal. Where do they stand in relation to the trap? This matters.

Imagine, if you will, a trapped treasure chest that fires a crossbow bolt when opened. I want to know what the player does when disabling the trap. Because if he is standing behind the chest and fails his check, the trap may trigger, but it wouldn't hit him. Additionally, having to be a bit more specific about your action adds tension. Your approach may affect the DC of disabling the trap, or make the outcome of a failed check less severe. I don't want traps to be this abstract videogamey thing. I want the players to imagine the situation, and imagine how their character might act. No player is required to be an expert on traps, and at any time a player is free to ask the DM "What do I know about this sort of trap?".



For clarity, my style of DM'ing is quite contrary to the way Matt Mercer runs his games. Matt narrates the actions of the players based on the outcome of a roll. I don't presume those actions, I ask my players what they do exactly. This then affects the outcome. The outcome of the dice still matters, but the actions of the players matter more.



I don't want you to do anything as a player. Whether you fail or succeed at disarming the trap is all the same to me. You can take a search action if you like, but I may ask you for more information.



That would take away all the suspense and make disarming traps boring. I might as well not include them then. When you state an approach to any action in my games, this affects how things play out.

-If you use your thief's tools, the DC may be lower, but if you fail your tools could break or get stuck.
-If you require a second person to provide more light, so you can see the trap, this would lower the DC. But that person may be in the path of the trap if it triggers.
-If the trap can only fire once, then setting it off on purpose may be more simple than trying to disarm it. No roll needed.
-Plus, there's lots of other things that none-rogues are allowed to do to try and disable a trap without needing the skills of a rogue. You don't need to be a rogue to try and take out a trap. Rogues are just better at it.



The point of my style (and that of others) of adjudicating actions, is that we properly foreshadow traps, so that this game of searching every 5ft. is no longer required. And an added benefit, is that we give out more information about what the trap does, and how it operates, so players are better able to choose their actions.



I tend to be very detailed in my descriptions, and often illustrate dungeons with maps and/or dungeon tiles. If I believe the players may have forgotten or missed an important detail about the situation, I will point that out to them and allow them to reconsider (such as when they might want to take cover). If my players position themselves out of range of the trap, then they don't need to make saves, because it can't hit them. It's an automatic success for them. This is how you also avoid cases where the players feel screwed over by their DM.



You don't need to roll for everything. It speeds up the game a lot if you allow automatic successes and failures based on player actions.



Isn't this exactly the same as what I do? You just spent several paragraphs railing against the idea of adjusting the check based on the described actions of the players... and here you say you do the exact same thing? The only difference I see, is that I resolve some situations without a check.

For example, if the players want to sneak past a guard, and the guard is completely drunk and/or unconscious, then that's an automatic success. You don't need to roll for everything.



So you also do automatic successes and failures? Passive skill level or not, that's not all that different from simply declaring a success for something the DM believes cannot fail. I don't see much of a difference here.



So are you saying that if the players decide to blow up a trapped chest with a barrel of gunpowder from a safe distance, they still need to make a check? I'd say that's an automatic success... it probably destroys the chest and everything inside of it, but that trap is gone. Why bother to make a check for that?



Why? Doesn't this drag things on longer than needed? Why can't the players just roll a rock across the pressure plates to set off the trap? Why would they need to make a check for that? It is something any person could do.

There are a lot of things in the exchange above worth noting.

Both sides using auto-success.
Both sides using an explanation of how adjusting odds of success.
Your approach needing or requiring what seems to be heavier or more foreshadowing due to player-stated-how focus.

You mention standing behind the trapped crossbow chest and avoiding the bolt entirely. But it would seem if that trap sprung a bolt backwards that choice would put you in the line of fire - be the wrong guess.

Is that a guess or would foreshadowing automatically provide them with info showing where to stand?
But finally we get to this...

" It is something any person could do."

This to me gets to the key.

In my games the cases where we want to spend in-game time, player to GM exchanges, careful observation of who said what, looking for clues, details on how and where we are standing, etc, etc etc on tasks or challenges that turn out to be resolved as " It is something any person could do." are rare.

There are plenty of things we do in character in game that are " something any person could do" but they are mostly quick and done dialog no skills checked type stuff. They are not important. If they do require a check, it is often if not always passive with auto-success.

See, side bar, I might indeed have "clues" that a trap is there but they would usually not be part of the general description anyone will see on entering a room but require a passive score of ABC or a proficiency to get as a description. Maybe it will require those and a proximity. That way, you the player dont ein up spending screen time on checks everywhere and traps seem like traps - things to catch folks less skilled than you - not essentially an invite from SAW to play a gsme.

A trap which has the heavier foreshadowing so that spotting it and defeating it "is something any person could do." in my gsme is seen as scenery or terrain, not challenge. If it plays a big role it's because of what else is happening around it. Often it's a case of an abandoned trap left to its own mechanisms.


The tasks and challenges that matter, that we spend play time on, that we go into detail on are gonna be ones that wont fall into " It is something any person could do."

So , maybe we are not all that different but we just put the spotlight of screen time and detailed "tell me exactly" on different (or fewer) cases.

 

[Xetheral]

When I'm a player and I suspect that the DM will call for an ability check, I will often propose a specific check in addition to stating my goal and approach. This gives the DM the option of simply going with my suggestion, without infringing on the DM's ability to decline and call for a different check (or go with auto-success/auto-failure). I find this helps reduce the number of situations where (due to the broad nature of 5e skills) the DM calls for a totally unexpected check.

When I'm DMing I appreciate when my players suggest a check (when they think there is a meaningful chance of failure) along with their goal and approach for two reasons. First, it's slightly faster to evaluate their proposal than to start the analysis from scratch. Second, knowing what check they want to use gives me valuable insight into how difficult they are expecting the task to be for their character. If I want to instead call for an ability check for which they have a wildly different bonus, I know I'll need to explain why I think the less-advantageous check is more appropriate and/or better describe the current conditions that make their suggestion problematic. Basically, it helps me manage player expectations by giving me more information.

As an example from recent play, my character wanted to take a large painting the party found as loot, but the frame was impractically large to transport. I described my goal/approach of painstakingly disassembling the frame using the small, precise tools included with my Thieves' Tools, and asked if I could make a DEX (Thieves' Tools) check. The DM considered my proposal, and decided that knowledge was more important than precision to this task, and called for an INT (Painter's Supplies) check. This reduced my bonus on the check from +12 to +0, and so the check was failed, damaging the painting. The outcome was identical to what would have happened if I hadn't proposed a check, but I was happier knowing that the DM had considered my opinion, and the DM had the foreknowledge that the check's likelihood of success was going to be very different than I had anticipated when I declared my action.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Interesting hybrid technique. I do think a DM would clearly understand what you are proposing, though, if you stopped right here:

I described my goal/approach of painstakingly disassembling the frame using the small, precise tools included with my Thieves' Tools

Asking for a check then seems a bit superfluous. You've made it clear in your description of your approach that IF there is a check called for by the DM, you are hoping it is for DEX (Thieves' Tools), which is your PC's strong suit. The DM may have even granted autosuccess here if not specifically "pushed" for a roll (pushed is probably too strong a word, but maybe not). Then again, maybe I'm just nitpicking this particular example and what you propose has utility in other situations.

 

[Bawylie]

Interesting hybrid technique. I do think a DM would clearly understand what you are proposing, though, if you stopped right here:



Asking for a check then seems a bit superfluous. You've made it clear in your description of your approach that IF there is a check called for by the DM, you are hoping it is for DEX (Thieves' Tools), which is your PC's strong suit. The DM may have even granted autosuccess here if not specifically "pushed" for a roll (pushed is probably too strong a word, but maybe not). Then again, maybe I'm just nitpicking this particular example and what you propose has utility in other situations.

I don’t think it’s superfluous. Reads to me like making an opening offer. I’d appreciate the clarity, myself.

Thinking on that scenario, I would have asked for INT (thieves’ tools or painters’ tools - player’s choice).

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I don’t think it’s superfluous. Reads to me like making an opening offer. I’d appreciate the clarity, myself.

Thinking on that scenario, I would have asked for INT (thieves’ tools or painters’ tools - player’s choice).

Opening offer... or leading the witness... I could argue either I suppose.

I do like your ruling, though, with the variant ability and then a choice on top of it. Good stuff.

 

[Oofta]

For the painting story, I think this is a decent representation of style and focus.

If I have a large painting and someone wants to take the frame apart*, it might take a whopping 30 seconds. Probably less because somebody will say "Can I take the frame off?" to which I'll respond "sure".

But I digress. Minutiae like this doesn't come up in my game. It's just not worth the time and effort to play out for me. Describing details of what you're doing for mundane tasks is kind of boring. There are exceptions to the rule of course.

I'd rather focus on moving the story forward. Talking to NPCs, exploring, combat encounters. I don't get enough time to play anyway so something like this that doesn't move the story forward just gets narrated.

Which doesn't mean it was a bad play experience, just that I value expediency and moving the narrative forward more than getting into the weeds of what people are doing to accomplish goals.

*Although honestly I can't imagine it coming up. If I roll for random treasure and it's "art" it's going to be portable.

 

[Bawylie]

Opening offer... or leading the witness... I could argue either I suppose.

I do like your ruling, though, with the variant ability and then a choice on top of it. Good stuff.

Fair enough but I don’t assume bad actor by default.

 

[Xetheral]

Interesting hybrid technique. I do think a DM would clearly understand what you are proposing, though, if you stopped right here:



Asking for a check then seems a bit superfluous. You've made it clear in your description of your approach that IF there is a check called for by the DM, you are hoping it is for DEX (Thieves' Tools), which is your PC's strong suit. The DM may have even granted autosuccess here if not specifically "pushed" for a roll (pushed is probably too strong a word, but maybe not). Then again, maybe I'm just nitpicking this particular example and what you propose has utility in other situations.

The example I chose emphasized the diversity of possible checks, but you're right that in this example the check I wanted was likely evident from the description, since the approach involved a specific set of tools. In a different example that didn't revolve around tools, I think that would less of an issue.

Opening offer... or leading the witness... I could argue either I suppose.

I do like your ruling, though, with the variant ability and then a choice on top of it. Good stuff.

You're totally right that there are elements of leading the witness when suggesting the check type to the DM. But in the context of a game like D&D, I see that as a positive from both sides of the DM screen, because it increases the likelihood that everyone ends up satisfied. For example, if the DM is ambivalent about what type of check to call for (I know I often am!), knowing the player's preference in advance is useful data. (Admittedly, the DM does need to be careful to ensure that the final decision is made based on what's best for the table, rather than as a result of social pressure from a particular player, but that's just a routine facet of DMing.)

There are side benefits too: if a player keeps proposing a specific check their character is good at, even in situations where it's only borderline-appropriate (and so you instead call for other checks), it might be wise to deliberately include content that caters to the underused check.

Similarly, if a player (especially a new player) regularly proposes checks that aren't ideal (particularly if the ideal check would have an even higher bonus), that's a signal to the DM to start providing more detail regarding their decisions on which situations call for which checks. In extreme situations it might be worth talking with the player about a character rebuild to make sure the character's proficiencies actually line up with what the player wanted the character to be good at.

In stricter goal-and-approach styles, the DM may not get as much on-the-fly player feedback regarding their mechanical decisions.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Fair enough but I don’t assume bad actor by default.

Good point. I didn't mean to suggest "bad actor". More like the player is overstepping their role. Not in a malicious way, but in a trying to be helpful but not actually really helpful for the playstyle of our table.

Kinda like if a DM, unsolicited, suggests a course of action for a PC (guilty as charged when I first started DMing 5e for my son...). Only the player gets to decide what their PC does. Only the DM calls for rolls.